Geoff Weeks

yes

Only if it puts the AUX in Lo-lo, otherwise it doesn't change much. If he did put in Lo-lo with it turned around I wouldn't bet on any part of the driveline staying together.

And how many souped up 3406, Big Cams and KT19's were running around pulling freight when the biggest transmissions were 1200 ft/Lbs? Rear axles that were geared fast so the high power engines could reach triple digits and still held together with all that torque?

Shock load can kill anything. If you are not an idiot, and I know you're not, then you aren't going to twist a shaft with a little more engine. Your money, your choice, but I wouldn't loose a minute of thought about using that engine with that transmission. One place I worked, one driver broke the shift handle off the 1/2" rod, now he could break an anvil with a rubber hammer. Your not pulling hard 10 or more hours a day, I wouldn't worry too much, You can run SAE 50 that handles heat better than GL.

Just my 2 cents, if the ratios work for you, I keep the triplex that you just went through. You know the condition, and you aren't moving heavy loads where you would be pulling hard in the lowest gears. I've never thought twice about putting 1.5 times or greater the torque rating though the USED transmissions I have had. Yours has new bearing and bushings, you know the condition of the dog clutches. "stronger" I wouldn't consider it worth the time, better match to the engine and rear, might be worth it, depending on how bad a match the triplex is.

With good lining (his is new) and proper adjustment, they do fairly well, not as good as "tru-stop" but can lock the rear wheels, just hard on driveshafts and U joints. if you apply while moving.

To be clear, there are two "air traffic controls". There is regional (for lack of a better term) that coordinates and keeps all traffic in the air above a set altitude a safe distance apart, and then there is the airport "control tower" the coordinates landing and departures and ground traffic on the runways. They set up which runway for each plane to use and space out the traffic landing and taking off. Once cleared for final approach the airport tower has taken responsibility. Their job is not to direct any and all aircraft in the area that may be there but not landing at the airport. They will and did alert the helicopter had ventured into the landing path for the airport. Once a plane has taken off and rises to its assigned altitude from the "ground tower" they are switched to regional's purview. Low flying craft not landing should ask the ground tower for permission to enter the controlled space if for some reason (Life flight, for example) it is required. It would have to be extraordinary, because it would "close the airport" for the duration. Otherwise it must keep clear, the military craft did neither. What and how many staff were in the tower is not what cause the helicopter to fly where it should not have. It is like blaming the red traffic light for not stopping a vehicle from running it.

I'm hearing differently The helicopter was VFR and not the air traffic controller perview, as they were to fly below the altitude of the incoming jets. At less the 400' the helicopter isn't able to be tracked by radar with all the buildings. Airtraffic control warned them as they entered the air space but it was the helicopters responsibility to stay clear as they are flying VFR. Anything flying that low in that airspace is VFR,and that make sense as they must avoid buildings and other obstacles. We'll have to wait and see what the investigation concludes but so far this is squarely the fault of the helicopter.

I've got two truck with that style brake.

Kinda looks like #12 in this. Load sensing brake valve? Not something I have seen.

It doesn't look like the line unloaders on the buses, but they didn't have a duel brake system either. It seams like something that splits the system in two and possibly unloads the line coming from the compressor. I am just guessing, it could be set up to react to either sides tank pressure. Seams to have two sections with a common exhaust. They use a different unloader system for the compressor in Europe, they dump the outlet from the compressor when the set pressure is reached, the compressor keeps pumping but has no resistance on the outlet.

That is a weird one, Nothing I have see fits the pictures. On the 2nd picture, it looks like there is a tag riveted to it. Wonder if it is European style compressor unloader? More I think about it, I bet that is what it is. Discharge line unloader.

????? I am not a mystic that can see what isn't there. We need pictures to know what you are talking about.

I have yet to see a credible source saying that the helicopter acknowledged, but haven't read everything. I'm waiting for VDR and FDC from both before making any cause predictions.

I read a story in the news where a EMD shucked a piston into a house, now that is dramatic!

Look again, it isn't the frame, the alternator is wider and still inside the frame.

Glad you are happy. When I was running trucks, a month and that kind of coin would have put me out of business. Of course back then you could buy a good used truck for 1/2 that. Times have changed!

I know someone in Pa who could use the parts.

Can't tell from pictures, but if the seal bore is or over 7.125" you could have the hub bored to accept a 776/772 combo and your done. https://www.ebay.com/itm/126201388758?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=126201388758&targetid=2299003535955&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9018343&poi=&campaignid=21214315381&mkgroupid=161363866036&rlsatarget=pla-2299003535955&abcId=9407526&merchantid=118875154&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvYah3YeZiwMVWDuHAx0yvyDmEAQYASABEgIXs_D_BwE

https://www.timken.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Timken-Tapered-Roller-Bearing-Catalog.pdf Never did find my paper copy.

I hadn't finished my coffee before I posted, so made a mistake. However, there are many options. The shaft size is 3.75 and the bore as it is now is 6.75, You could have a sleeve made to bring the O/D down to 6" and get a real common 594 bearing. That make the sleeve thick enough to not be a problem. The shaft size has more an effect on the load capacity then the OD of the bearing. It is even possible that someone in the past bored out the hub to make a repair and put that odd ball bearing in there. A good machine shop should be able to fix you with something that is a permanent repair. You need to measure the seal diameter at the spindle, if a common size, the best thing would be to press in a sleeve in the hub to take a common bearing and seal.

They were fine for their time. I use 6 way on all my trailers that aren't semi's. They were from a time with few bulbs on a trailer. Only major difference is the tail and marker feed a separate on a 7 and combined on a 6, pins are a little bigger on the 7. during the change over period, many had both receptacles on the front of the trailer. Some older ones were still around with only the 6, hence the adapter. I had one of those under my seat for a while, but never had to use it. Towed many with both receptacles, however.

Never heard of TN&C either and the .net doesn't have anything I can find either. I can't tell from the pictures, but if the air lines are still copper (quite often what was used back then) there is a good chance they are plugged up. If so I'd pull new plastic line. Should be easy on that one with the only problem over the 5th wheel. May have to pull a few deck boards for access. ext frame are great for lumber, and palleted material as the tend to "bow in and keep it tight together, but not as good for dense things like coils. I towed many trailer of that vintage and older, I see it has the hole in the bulkhead for the 6 way as well as having a 7 way on it.

At least around here, cut-off don't come with the center gears, so you are talking cut-off and a matched pair of center sections, possibly axle 1/2 shafts. depending on what you can find. If it were me, I would take a careful assessment of what I have now. What if you did all the changing and found the trans was no good? how about the engine? Look at what you have, decide what is good or could be cheaply fixed. Then decide what stays and what gets replaced. From what I can see you have Rockwell stop-master 15" brakes on the rear. Full kits for those can run some bucks, but each and every part can be purchased individually. It may only need seals, shoes, and chambers with the rest cleaning up. If your present rear suspension/housing/brakes can be brought to good condition for little money, that leaves more money for finding gear sets with a ratio more to your needs. Buying a cut-off and rear gears, having it welded in and reinforced, will soak up some serious cash, if you then find the trans has to be changed, that is more money you didn't plan on. If the same model trans can't go back that mean new driveshafts and the list goes on. Spend the time now, to assess the condition and make a plan, including finding out the exact price of the parts you need. Don't look at prices for any rear gear-set, look to see what the set you need will cost. Not assessing and making plan is how the best intentions go off the rails. People get so deep in and find they need serious bucks for something they didn't plan on having to replace. That is how some of these end up as a "pile of parts".