Railroad cars and engines utilize railway wheels having a standardized design. In general, each railway wheel is made of solid steel and is formed to a very precise pattern. Over time, due to the immense stress placed on a railway wheel (e.g., an individual car may weigh over 300,000 pounds), the railway wheel wears. This wear can lead to an unsafe operating condition, particularly in light of the use of solid axles on railroad cars/engines, which cannot readily accommodate uneven wear. Eventually, a railway wheel will become unsafe to operate by posing a high potential for derailment or breakage.
FIGS. 1A-B show a portion of an illustrative railway wheel 2 before and after experiencing wear, respectively. During operation, a tread surface 4 supports railway wheel 2 (and the corresponding rail car/engine) as it moves along the rail, while a flange 6 prevents railway wheel 2 from leaving the rail due to outward forces exerted on railway wheel 2. As wear progresses on railway wheel 2, a thickness of flange 6, T′, decreases from an original thickness T. Similarly, due to wear on tread surface 4, an effective height of flange 6, H′, increases from an original height H.
After sufficient wear, a railway wheel 2 can be recut/retrued so that it can be safely used. In particular, tread surface 4 and flange 6 are ground to form a safe profile of railway wheel 2, such as that shown in FIG. 1A. This operation is expensive and time consuming. As a result, it is desirable to minimize the instances in which a railway wheel 2 is recut/retrued unnecessarily. To this extent, a railway wheel 2 must have a minimum rim thickness, R, in order to safely operate. The rim thickness of railway wheel 2 can be measured using a reference groove 8, if available, resulting in a rim thickness measurement RG, or using a rim break point 9, which results in a rim thickness measurement RB.
Frequently, railway wheels 2, even when installed on the same rail car/engine, do not experience an even or predictable amount of wear. To this extent, railway wheels 2 on the same axle of a rail car/engine may become unsafe when the relative diameters are sufficiently different due to uneven wear. In particular, since railway wheels 2 are connected by a solid axle, a smaller diameter railway wheel 2 may introduce a force in the system that turns toward the smaller railway wheel 2. As a result of the force, the railway wheel 2 may “ride up” over the rail, causing a derailment. As a result, a diameter of railway wheel 2 can be measured, which can be determined based on the measured rim thickness R of the wheel and the corresponding type of railway wheel 2.
As a result, a need exists for accurately measuring various features of a railway wheel 2, such as flange thickness T, flange height H, rim thickness R, diameter, and/or the like. Errors in measurements can lead to an unacceptable railway wheel 2 remaining in service, which presents a potential safety and liability hazard, increases noise, wear, and fuel consumption for the train, and the like. Additionally, a railway wheel 2 may be mistakenly condemned when it could have been retrued, which wastes a viable railway wheel 2. Further, a railway wheel 2 that should be condemned may be sent for retruing, which wastes time and disrupts the operation of a truing shop.
Several devices have been proposed to obtain measurements of railway wheel 2. One such device comprises a mechanical caliper-style gauge that looks like an inverted “J”. In use, the gauge is hooked onto a railway wheel 2 and the measurements are read from scale markings imprinted on the gauge. However, this gauge is difficult to use when railway wheel 2 is installed on a rail car/engine due to the presence of other components (e.g., brakes, shock absorbers, axle supports, etc.), as well as other ambient conditions, such as lighting, precipitation, etc. Additionally, the measurements must be manually recorded, which may result in data-entry errors.
To address this situation, several proposals have been made for performing electronic railway wheel/rail measurement. However, each of these proposals includes one or more limitations. For example, some proposals only measure a subset of the required attributes, such as a rim profile. Additionally, some proposals are not portable, require additional computing capability, and/or cannot provide data to a remote system. Further, current solutions are limited in the speed with which measurements can be taken, as well as an overall integration into a complete wheel management system.
In view of the foregoing, a need exists to overcome one or more of the deficiencies in the related art.