Voici pour information l’analyse qu

Voici pour information l’analyse que m’a transmise la Direction Technique de l’Ingenierie;
Les dispositions ainsi que les valeurs limites presentees dans l’email reference sont individuellement differentes de celles appliquees en France sur le reseau Ferre National SNCF. Par exemple, notre contrainte de limite pour ces cales porte sur chaque patte d’articulation dont l’epaisseur totale doit etre inferieure ou egale a 6 mm (alors que l’email semble faire mention d’une valeur limite de 7,5 mm par patte d’articulation).
Il faut certainement rapprocher cette valeur avec le type des cales de reglage utilisees (a priori differentes a celles utilisees en France) et les autres dispositions et valeurs de controle seuil appliquees (comme par exemple le lieu de mesure de l’entrebaillement - En France, nous mesurons l’entrebaillement de l’aiguille verrouillee au droit du ≪C≫ -, la profondeur admissible de l’empreinte de la 1erecale de reglage en contact avec le talon du ≪C≫, les limites des ≪rondelles ressort≫, les tolerances d’usure de la piece de verrouillage… sans oublier la politique de maintenance et les conditions de mise en œuvre de ces cales.
Toutefois, ce qui interpelle la Direction de l’Ingenierie reside dans l’application des regles decrites dans l’email, et notamment:
≪Si l'adherence?depasse 0,5 mm, il faut inserer une (ou plusieurs) ferrure(s) pour obtenir moins de 0,5 mm≫
Considerant l’epaisseur d’une cale indiquee dans l’email (2,5 mm), dans le cas d’un entrebaillement detecte de 1 mm, cela laisse penser que l’insertion d’une cale provoquera une forte pression entre les deux morceaux de rail (avec un risque de deformation sur les parties les plus souples…). Mais peut-etre est-ce une erreur d’interpretation.
Merci de m’indiquer les suites donnees, si le dossier reste encore d’actualite. Attention cependant au contexte lie aux situations respectives de Sampyo et Cogifer.

결과 (영어) 1:

Here for information analysis forwarded to me the technical Direction of engineering;The provisions as well as the limits presented in the reference email is individually different from those applied in France on Ferre National SNCF network. For example, our term for these cleats constraint deals with each leg articulation with the total thickness must be less than or equal to 6 mm (while the enamel seems to make reference to a value limit of 7.5 mm per leg of articulation).It certainly needs to be closer this value with the type of the used shims (priori different to those used in France) and other provisions and applied control threshold values (as for example the place of measuring the draught - in France, we measure the draught of the latched needle to the right of ≪C≫-, the permissible depth of the footprint of the 1erecale of setting in contact with the heel of the ≪C≫)the limits of the ressort≫ ≪rondelles, the tolerances of wear on the locking piece... not to mention maintenance policy and conditions of implementation of these holds.However, what appeals to the Direction of engineering resides in the application of the rules described in the email, and in particular:≪SI adhesion? exceeds 0.5 mm, it is necessary to insert one (or several) bracket (s) to obtain less than 0.5 mm≫Whereas the thickness of a specified in the email (2.5 mm) shim, in the case of ajar detected of 1 mm, this suggests that the insertion of a block will cause a pressure between the two pieces of rail (with a risk of deformation on the softer parts...). But perhaps what is an error of interpretation.Please tell me the follow-up data, if the folder is still topical. Attention however to the context bound to the respective situations of Sampyo and Cogifer.

결과 (영어) 2:

Here for information analysis that the Engineering Technical Department sent me;
The provisions and limits presented in the email reference are individually different from those applied in France on the network Ferre National SNCF. For example, our yield stress for these shims door on each leg articulation whose total thickness must be less than or equal to 6 mm (when the email seems to mention a limit value of 7.5 mm articulation leg).
We certainly closer this value with the type of used operating blocks (a priori different to those used in France) and the other provisions and applied threshold control values ​​(such as the place of measurement of 'half-open - In France, we measure the half-open the blocked needle «C» law - the permissible depth of the imprint of the 1erecale of adjustment in contact with the heel «C», the boundaries of " washers ressort» the tolerances of wear of the locking piece ... not to mention the maintenance policy and implementation of these conditions holds.
However, what challenges the Directorate of Engineering lies in the application of rules described in the email, including:
? «Si tacking exceeds 0.5 mm, then insert one (or more) bracket (s) for less than 0.5 mm»
Considering the thickness of a wedge indicated in the email (2.5 mm), in the case of a cutter jaws detected 1mm, this suggests that the insertion of a wedge will cause pressure between the two rail pieces (with a risk of deformation on the most flexible parts ...). But perhaps is it an error of interpretation.
Please tell me the data suites, if the file is still of actuality. However, attention to context binds to the respective situations Sampyo and Cogifer.

결과 (영어) 3:

Here is information for the analysis that was transmitted to me the Technical Direction of the Engineering;
the provisions as well as the limit values presented in the email reference are individually different from those applied in France on the National Railway network (SNCF). For example,Our constraint of limited for these door shims on each leg of articulation whose total thickness must be less than or equal to 6 mm (whereas the email seems to mention a limit value of 7.5 mm per lug of articulation) .
It must certainly be closer this value with the type of adjustment shims used (a priori different to those used in France) and the other provisions and values of control threshold applied (as for example the place of measurement of the tilt - in France, we measure the tilting of the needle locked to the right of the ≪C≫ -,The allowable depth of the footprint of the 1erecale of adjustment in contact with the heel of the ≪C≫, the limits of ≪rondelles ressort≫, wear tolerances of the locking part ... without forgetting the maintenance policy and the conditions of implementation of these shims.
However,What impresses upon the direction of the Engineering lies in the application of the rules described in the email, and in particular:
≪Si the adhesion?exceeds 0.5 mm, it must insert a (or several) fitting(s) to obtain less than 0.5 mm≫
recital the thickness of a shim indicated in the email ( 2.5 mm), in the case of a tilted detected from 1 mm,This suggests that the insertion of a shim will cause a high pressure between the two pieces of rail (with a risk of deformation on the parties the more flexible etc. ). But maybe is this an error of interpretation.
Thank You indicate to me the suites data, if the folder is still topical. However attention to context linked to the respective situations of Sampyo and Cogifer.