From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Modifying the 40/50 HP springing for Australian and Colonial conditions.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 67a\1\ scan0299 | |
| Date | 10th May 1927 | |
| X8410 Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} RECEIVED MAY 20 1927 W/S. GWD. C.W/S. Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} c.Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} C.Hm.{Capt. W. Hallam - Head Repairs} C.Pt. C.EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} c.BY/Hse. BY2/H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} 10.5.27. 40/50 HP. SPRINGING. Referring to CWB5/GN.9.5.27. and further to BY2/H.6.5.27. which is hereby extended to cover Australian and Colonial conditions, we met Mr.Peat yesterday, and spent the whole morning discussing the spring question from an Australian point of view. The conference consisted of Pt, EP{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer}, Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}, and BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} Pt. maintained the demands which he has consistently and regularly put forward, that he must have stronger springs, that is, he could not consider for a moment coming back to anything like British or Continental conditions. Pt's attitude, as dictated by the Australian conditions, was that he would prefer 20% stronger springs rather than the 20% stiffer which are at present being fitted. It was agreed that the 20% stiffer spring, whilst it has very material advantages from two or three other aspects, is not a solution in itself of crashing on the buffers under Australian conditions. The original scheme for Australia, as put forward from Derby, was for 25% stronger springs. This proposal was turned down by R.{Sir Henry Royce} who considered that the 20% stiffer springing should meet the requirements. From at least three aspects the 20% stiffer spring is undoubtedly better, but from the fourth aspect, which happens to be the crucial one for Australia, it does not represent any actual improvement over the original type of springing. It was definitely agreed that the only spring which was likely to meet Australian conditions satisfactorily, from every point of view, was one which combined the characteristics of a 20% stronger spring with a 20% increase of stiffness. Translated into more easily understood terms, this means that we should use a spring which would be 20% stronger than standard, but that its initial deflection unloaded should be less than the present standard, and in fact in accordance with the 20% stiffer scheme from this point of view, but the axle clearance when this spring is fully loaded would be the present standard clearance for English conditions, i.e. the clearance between the buffer and the axle would not be reduced from the English standard. Contd. | ||