Converting from friction bearing to roller bearing

I'm also looking for information concerning this conversion, both on locomotives and freight cars. What is required in terms of tools/labor, and what are the bearing costs? I've always assumed it was relatively straightforward but have never gotten a clear answer as to why it's not often done.

Thanks for any information.

Kuyahoora Valley wrote:I'm also looking for information concerning this conversion, both on locomotives and freight cars. What is required in terms of tools/labor, and what are the bearing costs? I've always assumed it was relatively straightforward but have never gotten a clear answer as to why it's not often done.

Do you mean in North America, or world wide?
I believe that Freight cars for interchange service were required to be roller bearing starting in the mid-1960s (along with no roofwalks, and so). The question is therefore moot nowadays.

In the past, roller bearings cost much more than friction bearings, and so the gain in maintainence and speed and labor reduction (no more topping up the journel lube well, and no more adding waste to wick the lube oil to the axle/journel interface).
Here's (part of) an interesting article from Oct 1941, discussing an ad by Timkin Roller Bearings exhorting railroads (of the time) to convert to roller bearings

Time Magazine Oct 1941 wrote:Roller bearings, said Timken's intrepid ad, would permit "one-speed" railroading (identical speeds for freight and passenger trains), would accelerate the whole defense program, save building many new cars. Other roller-bearing claims: 1) starting resistance reduced by 88%; 2) elimination of hotbox delay; 3) reduced maintenance costs.
...
During all that time Sanders has had one passionate reverie: all U.S. railroad equipment on roller bearings—preferably Timken. His first break came in 1926 when the Milwaukee put roller bearings under its passenger trains. Now scores of U.S. streamliners, hundreds of crack passenger trains roll on rollers. But the whole U.S. coach and Pullman market is only 39,000 cars.
...
So Sanders went after the U.S. railroads' 1,750,000 freight cars. Results: practically zero. Railroad men thought roller bearings' proved success on passenger cars and locomotives was no sign they were the best thing for freight cars.
...
To roller-bearing a single car (excluding new trucks) costs $750 v. $40 for friction bearings. To convert the whole car supply, as Sanders' ad urged, would cost well over $1,000,000,000 and take two-thirds of the whole U.S. 1940 output of alloy steel, which has plenty of other defense uses.

Time: Very Bad Taste

Even now, I think you can still find some active MOW equipment using friction bearings (and I don't mean historical/preserved equipment) - not worth the effort to change.

Yes, in North America. I'm wondering why preferred method of moving friction-bearing-equipped historic equipment is by truck instead of converting to roller bearings. It must be cheaper to truck than convert and pay to ship by rail, since no one ever mentions the conversion. However, trucking costs can also be close to scrap value, so for many existing friction bearing equipped locomotives, it is cheaper to scrap than move. Many switch engines never got roller bearings since they were never operated at high speeds on the road. Now several I know of are isolated and will remain where they are until scrapped, unless the bearing conversion can be done relatively cheaply.

Kuyahoora Valley wrote:Yes, in North America. I'm wondering why preferred method of moving friction-bearing-equipped historic equipment is by truck instead of converting to roller bearings.

Hmm, there is a lot more than just the bearings - the type of truck (no arch bar), the type of wheels (I think no more cast wheels - the ones with the ribs on the back side), the underframe condition, the couplers, buff strength, and so on - much historic stock would not meet current FRA interchange requirements. That's why, for example, Amtrak does NOT run wooden stock private varnish (private passenger cars) - doesn't meet spec.
Besides, a lot of 'restorable' rolling stock is in such poor mechanical condition that it couldn't travel by rail if they wanted it - it must go by flatbed truck or flatcar.

Here's one company I found that does convert Switcher bearings from friction to roller bearing: Texas Tank Car Works

Kuyahoora Valley wrote:Yes, in North America. I'm wondering why preferred method of moving friction-bearing-equipped historic equipment is by truck instead of converting to roller bearings. It must be cheaper to truck than convert and pay to ship by rail, since no one ever mentions the conversion. However, trucking costs can also be close to scrap value, so for many existing friction bearing equipped locomotives, it is cheaper to scrap than move. Many switch engines never got roller bearings since they were never operated at high speeds on the road. Now several I know of are isolated and will remain where they are until scrapped, unless the bearing conversion can be done relatively cheaply.

So-called friction bearing equipment cannot be interchanged due to AAR (Association of American Railroads) standards.

It may easier and cheaper to "borrow" a set of RB trucks for locomotives, but you still have the costs related to switching of the trucks.

We have a set of spare trucks we swap in for movements.

The problem arises from Cost. By the time you buy the unit, send in a crew to swap the trucks you paid a large amount for to ship to site, and then ship the old trucks out and also move the unit by rail, most old switchers are not worth that much expense.

We have 4 units we are working with now to move to repair shops. A lot of these old switchers have been sitting a long time and need a ton of work.

If the deal is right we would be interested in exploring the option to R/B units to move out for re-sale.

I will also rent ours out to others to do the same.