Jump to content

Talk:Railway coupling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allison Willison

[edit]

Allison? What's that?

It is called the JANNEY coupling, after its inventor, Eli Janney. I might add that I couldn't find any reference to "Allison" couplings on the 'Net.

Anyway, I am going to try to merge this article with the "Coupler" article, and try to make it all make sense.

...I have now done that.

Maybe Allison is a mishearing of the Russian SA3 Willison ... Tabletop 09:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was also a result of a Google search for Allison Janney, who played a character in the West Wing TV series - no doubt search results would more often pick up on her than on a railway coupling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.94.137.1 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which railways use Janney couplers?

[edit]

A more complete list of railways that use Janney couplers would be nice!

Tabletop 05:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, Tabletop, I'm not sure you're right about China's use of Janney couplings. I've spent a bit of time there, and I was sure that Chinese couplings more closely resembled the Russian ones. The old Metro-Cammell trains once used by the KCR in Hong Kong had knuckle couplings that rather resembled Janneys. -------Kelisi User:Kelisi
Photos of the ends of trains are often small and dark, making it hard to tell what kind of couplers are in use. Tabletop 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The China Railways use the AAR coupler, any hard couver edition of Jane's World Railways will tell you so. The various Chinese steam locomotives imported into N. America did not need to have their coplers changed. Trackside 140 - QJ Steam Locomotives At Bureau Jct., Illinois Peter Horn User talk 00:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Chinese QJ steam locomotives 15 Sept 2006 Peter Horn User talk 15:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way there is a newer article (page) called Janney coupler. Peter Horn User talk 15:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated content

[edit]

Substantially the same content is now duplicated at Coupling (railway) and Coupler. We should standardise on one and make the other a redirect or disambiguation page. The accurate content at Coupler predates Coupling (railway), so that might be an argument in one direction. The word 'coupler' is more common in US English, while 'coupling' is more common in British English (probably because a European railway coupling is not a single device, but rather the combination of hook and chain for draft forces and buffers for buff force). —Morven 07:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hello all, Coupler is an disambiguation page. So what/where is that "duplication"? Peter Horn User talk 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection

[edit]

The "Coupling (railway)" article is more complete and should be retained over the "Coupler" article.

Things can be renamed and redirected if you like.

Tabletop 07:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is that it is only more complete after having copied the content of the Coupler article. —Morven 18:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Article melding

[edit]

As mentioned further up, I am responsible for the melding of the two articles.

While it is true that the Coupling article is more complete now owing to copying from the Coupler article, there were a few things, most of which have been retained, in the former which made it more complete in its own way. The Coupler article focused mainly on the development of railway couplings in North America (specifically in the USA), and although it mentioned the buffers and chain and Scharfenberg couplings used elsewhere, the Coupling article mentioned other systems, such as the meatchopper and Russian system.

I believe that the two articles have now been melded in a more or less coherent way, and I'm all for keeping it as it stands now, other than pertinent additions that other editors might choose to make.

And yes, a "Coupler" search should redirect the searcher to "Coupling". The only problem is that the "coupler" article does mention another use for this word, and I can personally think of two or three other usages. So, perhaps a search of "coupler" should lead to a disambiguation page from which there should be a link to "Coupling (railway)".

Kelisi 2005/1/26

[edit]
Section heading but no further comments were added by anon editor at 213.78.107.245

Good question. First off, do you have a definition or another reference that discusses them? I haven't heard of this kind before. slambo 20:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Before there were screw couplings there were three link couplings, say around 1850. To reduce the slack, the middle link was replaced with a screw thread which could tighten or losen the coupling. Tabletop (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different types in the UK

[edit]

I admit I don't know a lot about different coupling types, but I do know there are at least three used in the UK, Dellner, BSI, Scarfenburg, Hook and Chain, tightlock etc. Some of these might the same but with different names.

Except it seems more complicated than this! It really ought to be covered in the article (or even a sub-article!) if anyone understands it better than me. Is there a difference between Dellner and Scharfenburg other than manufacturer? Thryduulf 11:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 14:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this article is too heavily biased towards the US types (I have only ever heard Janey coupling called "Buckeye" in the UK). First move to improve thinks might be a list of types with a photo and a brief description. Perhaps a separate article for each major type could be justified. Also to be noted is the number of variations.
As for types, add - "Ward Coupling", used on the London Underground; "ABC" and "Grondana" (spelling might be wrong), both used on narrow gauge lines in Africa and/or India. AHEMSLTD 12:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some better photos for some of the types above, and a good article on how some types - but nothing on how the BSI coupler works. I'll ask on a mailing list I'm on. Thryduulf 15:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This section mentions Blue Square and Yellow Triangle codes. These aren't differing couplings, rather they are differing types of control equipment for powered vehicles (which are all coupled using standard screw couplings). Blue Square can be coupled to Yellow Triangle or Red Diamond but they couldn't be controlled. Propose deleting section as it's a control feature, not a coupling one.Patrick lovell (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dropped head exposes a regular hook. Peter Horn User talk 16:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Introduced to the UK by the LNER, I believe. Examples can be found on the back of several preserved locomotives, including Flying Scotsman
From my 1963 Ian Allen British Railways Motive Power, there were seven systems for diesel locomotives (Blue Star, Red Circle, Orange Square, White Diamond, Yellow Triangle, Red Diamond and Red/White Square) and five system for DMUs (Red Triangle, White Circle, Yellow Diamond, Blue Square and Orange Star). It doesn't mention electric locos or EMUs but they had their own systems. However, every single one of them used a conventional screw coupling. All the locos might be called upon to haul freight trains, most of which had old-fashioned couplings, and the DMUs had to be compatible with the locos. BR coaches had Buckeye couplers, just like the LNER coaches before them, but I observed Class 47 and Class 87 locos coupling to them with screw couplings on Intercity trains in the 1990s. Later types, such as the Class 90, use Buckeyes. The 1989 edition says that Southern EMUs built by BR used Buckeyes, connected by an SR-specific electro-pneumatic control system. Class33/1s and Class 73s also had this fitted, so that they could work with EMUs.
L.E. Greys--86.159.79.232 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages of Soviet SA3 over AAR Janney?

[edit]

Soviet railways borrowed quite a lot of ideas from the AAR manuals, automatic couplers not being one of them. Presumably they thought that they could do better, with 100 years of experience to play with, especially as there was no need to be compatible for convenient interrunning.

What are the advantages of the SA3 over the Janney?

Tabletop 10:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think the main advantage is that the SA3 is a single unit with no moving parts required to actually couple up, the only drawback is that the necessary locks are contained within the body of the coupler and are hence somewhat inaccessible. SA3 couplers do not require being bashed together to connect either, and as far as I know they can be uncoupled under load. To allow for the necessary slack the couplers must have dampers inside the body of the rail vehicle.
Robbie aka Zoqaeski 12:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How would the maximum tonneage of the SA3 compare to the Janney?
I don't know - I think the main reason that the knuckle coupler is stated to have a larger maximum tonneage is simply because the trains which have SA3 couplers are nowhere near the length and weight of those which use knuckle couplers. Russian rolling stock might be the same size as their North American equivalents, but I don't think Russian freight trains are, on average, over 1.6 - 2 km long, like most American ones.--Robbie aka Zoqaeski 12:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Russian trains are often electrically hauled, and 3kV limits the load. Tabletop (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Russia has a lot of cold snow and ice which might clog up the AAR coupler but which might NOT clog up the SA3 ! Comments anyone ? Tabletop (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BSI coupling

[edit]

Having just seen the picture of the BSI coupling in the section on UK couplings above, can anyone explain how it works?--Robbie aka Zoqaeski 12:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some better photos for some of the types above, and a good article on how some types - but nothing on how the BSI coupler works. I'll ask on a mailing list I'm on. Thryduulf 15:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC) User:Thryduulf

New Coupler design

[edit]

Unknown Coupler seen on Swiss EMU[dead link‍] Peter Horn User talk 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know anything about this design of coupler? It's fitted to the FLIRT series of EMUs built by Stadler. If anyone can find sufficient information about it, perhaps a section on fully automatic couplings should be added (differing from plain automatic couplings in that all the connections are made without human intervention.

I'll make a start and add some information on the Scharfenberg coupler.

The coupler on the photo looks to me like a "Schwab Verkehrstechnik Frontkupplung". -- 145.253.237.114 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can be put a thumbnail of this picture in the Gallery? Tabletop (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow Drop Coupler

[edit]

Does anybody have information about this type? BenBurch 15:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that such a thing exists as a railway coupier. Google was of no help. Peter Horn User talk 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has stepped to the plate. Perhaps it is a Janney coupler head that drops down? Peter Horn User talk 02:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

[edit]

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safety of buffer and chain.

[edit]

I am sorry if I have started an edit war but the part about buffer and chain being safer than central was just the opposite ofthe truth. There are many killed everey year by being squashed between the buffers. By intensive propaganda about being careful the number is lower than it was half a cetury before but still far too high. Seniorsag 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seniorsag. Can you quote any references for this - any statistics to back up the claim that centre-buffers are inherently safer? It seems to me that any situation where a person is between two items of rolling stock where one may move is potentially dangerous. Adequate training and operating procedures & individuals taking care are likely to be as much to do with increased safety as the actual method of coupling. Whether you're crushed by two centre couplings coming together, or by a pair of buffers, the result is much the same. Regards Lynbarn 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer (without statistics)
When you use a central coupler you can stand aside (and take a step back) without risk of chrushing, BUT with chain or screwcouplers with buffers you have to stand between the buffer and hook to coupple. If you stand to far back you are chrushed, OR if you are late and don´t want to duck under the buffer to hook up and do not get out of the buffer you are chrushed. The same problem but only for hands exists for pin and link. You have to steer the link in into the "buffers".
Seniorsag 12:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we have had a single accident with a worker being squashed duing coupling work in Finland for very many years. They tend to move the two wagons together before getting "in there" to put the chain on the hook. We use the chain system on many freight trains and older passanger trains. Dvortex 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review

[edit]

This article is currently at Good article review. LuciferMorgan 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been delisted per the discussion, now in archive, found here. Once the issues have been addressed and the article is brought up to the standards listed at WP:WIAGA, the article may be renominated at WP:GAC. Best regards, LARA♥LOVE 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Meatchopper" couplings?

[edit]

I have changed the name "Meatchopper" coupler to "Norwegian" coupler throughout the article. I have always known these couplers to be called "Norwegian" and a quick Google search turned up no references to the term meatchopper in this context. If anyone can find a good source for Meatchopper, please add that term back in with the source. Thanks, Gwernol 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of 'Meatchopper', but a google search for 'chopper coupler' finds quite a few uses. I'll see if I can find a definitive source. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A FAQ for the Indian railways (http://www.irfca.org/faq/faq-stock2.html) uses the term 'Jones coupler' for this device, also calling it the 'chopper'. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also: http://www.irfca.org/faq/faq-stock2.html#coupler
"Meatchopper" is a fairly self-evident name for this type. Where does "Norwegian" come from? -- EdJogg (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Norwegian coupler was first used in 1067 Norway, and many railways copied the basic idea, but varied the details. Queensland and Tasmania used buffers and hook on their early 1067 as did Mali and Ivory Coast on their 1000 lines. Most other narrow gauge lines use the Norwegian, by this name or some other name. Tabletop (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed the name might have come from Norway originally :o) Do you have a ref for this, as it must be missing from the article. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Pihl from Norway was a early if not the earliest pioneer of narrow gauge (1067 lines), and he presumably devised the Norwegian coupler for NG use

with its sharp curves. The coupler was widely copied elsewhere on NG lines, though not in Queensland or Tasmania, which kept the buffers like England. Maybe the Norwegian coupler is lighter or handles sharp curves better? Tabletop (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow gauge coupler choice timeline

[edit]
Narrow Gauge Railways 3' 6"/metre gauge coupling timeline
Date may be start of construction or opening of railway
2Buffers - 1865 - Queensland Railways - chopper coupling yet to be invented
Chopper - 1870s- Norwegian Railways - chopper coupling invented
2Buffers - 1876 - Tasmanian Government Railways - choppers not heard of ??
Chopper - 187? - South Australian Railways - choppers are heard of !!
Chopper - 1879 - Western Australian Government Railways
2Buffers - 1885 - Dakar–Niger Railway - strange for French to use British-style buffers and not choppers [1]
2Buffers - 1905 - Abidjan, Ivory Coast - Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso [2]
The NG Buffers appear to have lower heights and narrow separations than SG ones.
1Buffer 1906 - Benin, a common French type [3]
See: Railway coupling by country

Contradictory statements?

[edit]

"The AAR coupler has stood the test of time since its invention, and has seen only minor changes:

"It is clear that the original Janney coupler is no longer compatible with the latest AAR couplers."

These statements occur one right after the other, and seem contradictory. If the changes have been "only minor," why is the Janney incompatible with the AAR couplers? 66.234.220.195 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Coupling (railway)#Not original research, just visual comparison. below. Peter Horn User talk 23:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've got a nice image of a railroad coupling Image:Railroad Coupling (CMRR).jpg that I took on the Catskill Mountain Railroad last summer. I think it meets all the technical requirements to be a featured picture, except that it's missing a good caption. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject matter to write a good informative caption. I mean, it's a coupling, right? What do I know? Somebody must know what kind of coupling it is, when it was made, all that good stuff. If you could fill that in, and find an appropriate place to work it into this article, then I think we'd have a winner. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are already 5 pictures/diagrams of the Janney/AAR coupler, from various views. Your sixth picture could be put in the gallery. You picture shows significantly different drawgear, and a fair amount of slack. Tabletop (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A small problem with this picture is how does one make it reasonably small. It is otherwise huge:
OK, I formatted it using the <gallery> tag. Sv1xv (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Tabletop (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Peter Horn User talk 22:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 22:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Buffer Coupler

[edit]

Is Centre Buffer Coupler just another name for the Janney/AAR coupler? If not, what is it? [6] Tabletop (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be another name for the Automatic Buffing Contact Coupler aka ABC coupler[4]. This needs to be sorted out. Peter Horn User talk 22:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Automatic Buffing Contact Coupler Peter Horn User talk 22:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
See also Balance lever coupling Peter Horn User talk 21:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ http://www.answers.com/topic/dakar-saint-louis-railway
  2. ^ http://www.mongabay.com/history/ivory_coast/ivory_coast-railroads.html
  3. ^ http://www.sinfin.net/railways/world/benin.html
  4. ^ a b ABC[dead link‍]
  5. ^ http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r011.html
  6. ^ http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/20/stories/2005102018160300.htm [dead link‍]

Bufferlocked?

[edit]

What does it mean to be "bufferlocked"? I have an idea from the article, but either a link to an article describing or explaining it, or a parenthetical explanation (e.g., "buffers slide away from each other on a curve so that one gets hooked behind the other," or whatever explanation is accurate and understandable) ought to be included. 69.42.7.98 (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not original research, just visual comparison.

[edit]
Diagram of the top view of Janney's coupler design as published in his patent application in 1873.
AAR Type "E" railroad car coupling.

Just for the record, one needs only to look at the illustrations to see that the knuckle contour of the original janney coupler Coupling (railway)#Janney coupler and that of the actual prototype AAR coupler Coupling (railway)#AAR coupler that is still in use are quite imcompatible. Peter Horn User talk 03:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Original contour is that shown on the patent drawing(s). The actual contour is that of first prototype or the first production model, and the latter is the one still in use today. Peter Horn User talk 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional image

[edit]

Could someone upload Drawing of an AAR type E knuckle coupler from US Army Field Manual FM 55-20, Figure 8-9 AAR type E knuckle coupler? Peter Horn User talk 19:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East & North Africa couplings

[edit]

The railways in the Middle East, Arabia, and North Africa (especially the standard gauge ones) don't yet join up much, but are likely to do so in the foreseeable future as large if not vast sums of money are spend on them. Links to Europe and China are also likely. Concentrating on locomotives and freight wagons since passenger units tend to have their own automatic couplings, there are three couplings in use, AAR, SA3 and Buffers, with the addition of dual fitment and adaptors. What are these systems likely to be? Tabletop (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

[edit]

Re Coupling (railway)#Dual coupling: Locomotives and some freight cars of the Indian Railways are fitted with a 'transition coupler' that incorporates a screw coupling hook within an SA3 coupler: the head of the coupler remains in position and does not swing away when not in use. The screw coupling hook is mounted on a lug within the coupler which is built by SAB WABCO.[1] (The previous text made no sense compared to what is shown on the link) Most Indian freight cars use the SA3 coupler alone, without buffers, whereas passenger coaches almost exclusively use screw couplers and buffers. Exceptions are the new LHB coaches imported from Europe, and a few other makes of carriages converted to use knuckle couplers.[2][3]Why would passsenger cars use tightlock coulplers and freight cars use SA3 couplers??? I smell rotten fish. It seems/appears that the following diagram is totally misleading [1]. I think I'll revert my revision(s) and get rid of that misleading image Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely AAR not SA3 ! Tabletop (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]
  1. ^ a b SAB WABCO C-AK
  2. ^ Coupler conversion
  3. ^ Centre Buffer Coupler of AAR type

Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the intended reversion. Now can someone find an appropriate image showing a knuckle coupler with a lug incorporated? Peter Horn User talk 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Gear?

[edit]

A search for "draft gear" points to this article, which doesn't even use the term, let alone describe the subject. It does seem a logical place for the subject, though. 208.103.155.224 (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a redirect from draft gear, and a mention in the lead section.

I've never heard of draft gear - have heard of draw gear though...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.94.137.1 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Draft gear at work. Peter Horn User talk 05:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something new

[edit]
Budd Pin and Cup coupler

For Arrow (railcar) & Talk:Arrow (railcar)#Coupler, what is a Budd "Pin and Cup" style? Peter Horn User talk 00:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Image added. Peter Horn User talk 04:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Railway coupling#WABCO N-Type. Peter Horn User talk 05:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/brakes/dellner/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/vancouver/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Railway coupling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finland and sar3

[edit]

I see that on the sar3 section it is mentioned that Finland use sar3. That is wrong, they have stayed with Russian gauge but also stayed with screwcouplers. If you go the Helsinki railway station and look at the train to Petersburg you will see that there are buggers and sar3 on the Russian locomotive and an adapter for screw coupler. (I once saw when the adapter got in wrong and they worked with sledgehammer for many minutes to get the adapter out. After they got it out everything worked fine, with the same adapter.)Seniorsag (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I saw something about English 3 link and screw coupling. England for a long time used 3 link, sometime late they invented a triangular link (sometime after the war) which in one position gave the long slack coupling and in the other a short stiff coupling. It was faster but not quite as good as screw.

Reason for slack coupling is that when you are not using rollerbearings you must have slack between the carriages to be able to start rolling on one at a time. after rolling about a ½ turn there are oil back in the bearing and friction is about nil, but before it is metal to metal and need a high breakavay force. The locomotive can break and start a few carriages at a time but not a long train. The same applies in cold wheater when the snow have melted from brake heat and train have stood long enough for the water to freese. (Worse if driver forgot to release the brakes just before stopping and the brakeblocks are frozen to the wheel! Solution: reverse so the springing in the buffers will enable you to break lose one carriage at a time.)Seniorsag (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another new one

[edit]

For Eastlake Park Scenic Railway#Carriages, what are Coit's automatic couplings? Peter Horn User talk 14:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No answers yet. Peter Horn User talk 02:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 03:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schwabe coupler

[edit]
Schwab coupler type FK-15-10
SBB RABe 511 coupler (Schwab coupler)

For SZU Be 510, what is a Schwabe coupler? Peter Horn User talk 02:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be Schwab coupler? Peter Horn User talk 14:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Files added. Peter Horn User talk 15:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Make that Schwab coupler, see Railway coupling#Gallery. Peter Horn User talk 16:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Make that Schwab coupler. Peter Horn User talk 19:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Railway coupling#Gallery It looks like the two files (images) feature the same coupler. Peter Horn User talk 13:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 14:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another one

[edit]

In de:Kupplung (Bahn) there is de:Trompetenkupplung. Peter Horn User talk 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be the Bell-and-hook coupler or perhaps also the Johnston coupler. Peter Horn User talk 02:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

In "The Locomotive Manipulation" (S07E15 of TBBT), Sheldon asks the waiter in the dining car whether it still has the original link-and-pin coupler or the Miller Hook and platform. His neighbour Eric replies "neither" and names the AAR TypeE coupler instead. Would that rather modern coupling really be alright for a historic train? --Kolya (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except for some of the smaller narrow gauge lines (and not even US ones) I'd be amazed to see anything using link-and-pin. For one thing, they're unsafe to work with for the train crew (you have to get far too close to moving rolling stock when coupling up), unless it's narrow gauge and you can lean in safely from the side. I'd expect the employer's liability insurers to be keen to get rid of any in use.
The Miller hook (I've never even seen one) was a US thing of the late 19th century. I suppose some museum somewhere will have an example, but again I'd be surprised to see any running on a tourist line.
The AAR is what the Napa Valley Wine Train was built with. It's not common in Europe until post-WWII, but they came to dominate US standard gauge working between the wars. For 1950s US diesel stock, I wouldn't expect anything else.
But it's just TV. Whenever BBT does anything technical outside their regular and narrow focus, they're often not even wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TRN

[edit]

Railway coupling#Schwab coupler. What does TRN stand for? Peter Horn User talk 17:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found Transports Régionaux Neuchâtelois Peter Horn User talk 17:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgelock coupler

[edit]

Is this in any way related to Railway coupling#Wedgelock coupler? Peter Horn User talk 17:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. The firm has only been going since 1987, whereas the Wedglock coupler used on the London Underground has been around since the introduction of the 1935 Tube Stock. Besides that, the couplings described are means of attaching a bucket, shovel etc. to an excavator. Totally different. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loads

[edit]

What are the maximum trailing loads for the different types of coupling? Consider no mid-train locomotives and/or end-of-train locomotives. ----MountVic127 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the galleries

[edit]

The gallery that User:Peter Horn is repeatedly trying to insert makes this article nigh unreadable. The gallery, set to a height of 300px, takes up the entire screen, and the caption on one of the images becomes massively distorted. The images in that section should be left as thumbnails. This is bad enough when I'm looking at it on my PC, on mobile the article most certainly becomes unreadable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: What is the problem? Ding things your way leaves for immage/files detached from and floating away from the pertinent sections
  • Three-link coupling on an antique tank wagon
  • Screw-tensioned three-link coupling, shown attached but not yet tensioned; when tightened, the turnbuckle draws the buffers together, eliminating jarring and shocks when starting or slowing the train. The narrow buffers of the left-hand vehicle are sprung; the thicker buffers on the right contain a hydraulic damper. The sprung buffers allow for some train articulation even when the cars are drawn firmly together.
  • A link-and-pin coupler
  • Transition era AAR knuckle coupler. The gap in the knuckle accommodates the link of a link and pin coupler and the vertical hole in the knuckle accommodates the pin.

Peter Horn User talk 01:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, The gallery, set to a height of 300px, takes up the entire screen, and the caption on one of the images becomes massively distorted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Issues with images not lining up with relevant text can be addressed by the use of things like Template:Clear, not just turning everything into giant galleries. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of galleries in the article already, one or two more is not really terribly. Peter Horn User talk 03:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the caption on one immage is way too long anyway. Some of it should be incorporated in the section itself Peter Horn User talk 02:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that point I agree. That should be in the text. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings Could you have a kick at it? Peter Horn User talk 04:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a summary of types currently widely used

[edit]

The article is primarily a list of types, and it simply tries to be comprehensive about listing every type that is or has been used. That's great and is highly valuable, but it would be very helpful to have some kind of summary of the main types in use now. It could be that the section listing different types could start with a category that is the main types in use now, followed by types that are in use limited areas or applications, followed by obsolete or mostly obsolete types. Or it could be a section before that, that gives a quick overview of the main types in use now without as much detail about them. This could be part of the lead. Another way to address this would be to have a table of types and where and when they have been used.

I don't have enough expertise to do this myself, so it would be great if somebody who knows more did it. Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accident subsection: revise or remove

[edit]

The accident subsection at the end makes an unsourced statement that different coupler types have different accident rates... followed by two singular accident examples. In an article currently focused on many many different equipment styles, this subsection seems unhelpful Remove it? Youblend2 (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Railway_coupling&oldid=1257403593"