A Competitive Analysis, V2

8/14/2019 A Competitive Analysis, V2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-competitive-analysis-v2 1/28

A Competitive Analysis

How Tranergy’s lubricants &systems stack up to the industry

leader, Portec-Kelsan



©2009 Tranergy Corporation. All Rights Reserved.©2009 Tranergy Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Tranergy’s 1 machine vs.Tranergy’s 1 machine vs.

Portec’s 2 machinesPortec’s 2 machines



AREMA, the American Railway Engineering &Maintenance-of-Way Association, isdedicated to the technical advancement of railway infrastructure.

Earlier this year, Norfolk Southern made apresentation at an AREMA seminar, thatpowerfully illustrates all the problems withKelsan’s TOR lubricant and Portec’s bar technology.

We could not make a better competitive case.We invite you to review the followingunaltered Norfolk Southern presentation.



Kevin Conn – Research Engineer

AREMA Sponsored Grinding and Lubrication Seminar

CTL Skokie, IL - April 28, 2009

TOR Friction Control

Experiences on Norfolk Southern



A User’s Perspective of

TOR Challenges

1. Reducing Waste

a. Examples

b. Causes

2. Reducing Maintenance

3. Improving Product Quality

4. Quantifying Benefits



Bluefield, WVNorton, VA

Williamson, WV Narrows, VA

Smith, KY

Harriman, TN

Powhatan, OH

Danville, KY

current (222 units) 2009 (33 units)

Current NS TOR Deployment

Chattanooga, TN

N Sale Creek, TN



……. Waste from a user’s perspective …….



Example - Backflow at Bar



Example - Waste at Bar End



Example – Waste at Field Side



Example - Waste at Site



Causes - Transfer Mechanism

Material is picked up by the front face of the passing

wheels and deposited around the tread.



Causes - Material Properties



To achieve the desired coefficient of friction, the material

must dry quickly. This results in a skin forming around it.

Causes - Material Properties



Causes – Crowned Head Profile

• Harder for wheels to scrape

away dried or skinned over

material.

• Increases the potential for backflow due to material skin.• Decrease the potential for

backflow due to seal damage.

Wheel profile

Rail profile

Gaug

e

Fiel

d

Topseal

material



Causes – Flat Head Profile

• Easier for wheels to scrape

away dried or skinned over

material.

• Decreases the potential for backflow due to material skin.• Increases the potential for

backflow due to seal damage.

Wheel profile

Rail profile

Gaug

e

Fiel

d

Topseal

material



Reducing Waste = Better Transfer

EffectiveNot effective

Need to figure out how to get more of the material

directly into the contact patch.



Maintenance – Cleaning Bars



Maintenance – Ripped Seals



Maintenance - Bent Bars



Quality

Products should be designed and engineered correctly from the

beginning. Poor quality is costly to both the buyer and seller.



Quality

Products should not be overly complicated to use and

should address customer concerns and requirements.



Quantifying Benefits

• TOR reduces lateral curving forces,

offering the potential to save fuel and

extend rail life.

• These benefits cannot be “guessed”

at, but must be factually supported andstatistically proven.

• Careful and accurate modeling must

be used to “extrapolate” these benefits

to large scale implementations.

• Benefits must be expressed in metrics

that engineering and financial

departments understand.

• Benefits must be monitored and re-

validated

A Competitive Analysis, V2

Documents

Transcript of A Competitive Analysis, V2