This is useful and valuable material; thank you very much for providing it!

I hope to be able to return the favor with respect to Timken-style lightweight alloy rods soon.

I loved this, too, but reading it was bittersweet, recalling how we had this skill and craftsmanship on an apparently routine basis; try to find a place that does things like this today.

I also can't help but think of how railroads were much more self-sufficient than they are now. Then, it was not unusual for a railroad to completely overhaul locomotives, rebuild them beyond recognition in some cases, and of course for a number of roads, build new engines from scratch. Today, we worry if the newer diesels running now will be operational because we won't have computer code and circuit cards available for them when they are retired; you wonder if some railroad managers don't worry about the same thing as their units age.

What would be the nearest modern alloy to the AAR nickle steel rod metalurgy.

VERY interesting article Matt; thanks for posting.

As happens, there is at least one with the interest: Lenape, in Pennsylvania.



I hope Matt will comment on this.

The article has the composition of the steel in question:

0.32 C
2,85 Ni
0.80 Mn
0.26 Si
0.036 P (probably a test spec; alloy should have as little as possible)
0.034 S (ditto)

Note that these are specifically for the lightweight rods as used in the 1938 rebuilding of T&P 610 -- see the Trains Magazine article about her dynamometer testing to get a flavor of the improvements.


Rick Rowlands gave the following composition for casting nickel steel (GSC casting spec from an Inco brochure)

0.25% C (max)
0.90% Mn (min)
2.00% Ni (min.

On the other hand, in 'Steel' magazine (v100n21 (May 24 1937), p.55, we find the following formula for the Timken High Dynamic steel used in lightweight connecting rods:

0.37% C
0.70% Mn
0.27% Si
0.70% Cr
1.60% Ni
0.25% Mo

That article is an interesting companion to the one Mr. Austin has posted, and I think he might want to post it in this thread.

It's funny the things people think. That just sounds like some sort of maudlin emotion that people "make up in their heads" because you can't turn around in a Wal-mart without seeing "made in China". Or, vainly declaring your children incapable of besting you, which history has not borne out in the history of America at least. I mean props on that generation for taking down that moustachio'ed S.O.B., but hello. Dreamliner.

Last time I tried to get some stencils made out of 5-mil Mylar. I called every shop in metro Detroit that does laser cutting. They asked what alloy and how thick, they could cut up to 6". In steel.


That too is vain. The fact is, electronics suites go obsolete all the time and get replaced, in anything from Aegis missile cruisers to streetcars. What is true (or at least untested) is that no museum has ever succeeded in accomplishing such.

A acquaintance had a laser cutting company cut some .010 acrylic HO car sides, the next job that was being set up on the other side of the table was 6 inch steel.

If I was doing something like these alloy rods, I would think about having them water jetted instead of laser cut. Having them water jetted would remove the heat affected zone (HAZ) from the difficulties.

-Hudson

Equals SAE 4335


.

Sure the forging process is fascinating, but if you wanted to make new rods today all that heating, beating, and machining afterward is unnecessary. Check out the Bluebell Railway's project to recreate a 4-4-2 from a boiler and some other bits. They were having all the motion parts made by water jet cutting. This uses a slurry of abrasive particles and 50,000 psi water to slice through steel as thick as needed for rods, leaving the surface as clean as any machining could produce. Best part is, no heat involved.

The lesson is that technology is constantly improving. You're in today's world, so take all the advantages of the era that you can. It's the end result that really counts. Preservation of old skills is not a bad thing, it's just expensive and may not produce the most desirable end product. When possible, do preserve the knowledge and skills, but keep the bottom line in mind too.

Danger,, Will Robinson!

There's much more involved in forging rods than cutting them to shape, as I'm sure you realize upon reflection. I can see plasma/laserwaterjet cutting for shaping the raw blank, and waterjet cutting for the final finishing steps (undercutting is also something significant for such a step). But in between, you either need dies and hammering, or some sort of near-net-shape initial fabrication and perhaps hot isostatic pressing, to give the proper characteristics.

Just cutting a rod out of a chunk of metal and putting it on a locomotive works nicely... in O scale. Perhaps even for some live steam. Doing it in 1:1 for a locomotive of any appreciable power or (shudder!) high speed is utterly irresponsible.

Now, having said that, some of the new cerium-containing alloys may have different implications. Who has opinions on the best ways to form those for rods?

While I am sure there are definite applications for which there is no subsitute for forging, didn't Strasburg machine new main rods for that Western Maryland (tourist railway) 2-8-0 from billet a few years back? I believe photos of the process were posted here.

[Edit] Here's a link to the post. Looks like the pictures are missing, but the story's here.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5587

Key points: 1045 steel, pre-heat-treated, ultrasonic flaw inspection.

(But I'm still old-fashioned enough to want some grain shaping in the 'corners and edges', etc. and perhaps a little initial stress relieving in the edges of the 'cut' flutes...)

What is the conclusion to this? Is the Bluebell Ry. following a flawed procedure in water jet machining the rods out of a bar? Or is there some additional explanation for what they are doing?