Uncoupling Levers - Low vs High

[Bayfield Transfer Railway]

I'm trying here as it's more appropriate here than in "General."

Nowadays all (or almost all) uncoupler levers on the prototype connect to the bottom of the coupler pin.

Once upon a time, they connected to the top.

When did the switchover occur?  And were the top-lifting levers like modern ones, only reaching from one corner to the coupler, or were they like the ones you see on locomotives that reach all the way across the end?

[dknelson]

I expected to find this discussed on one of the many freight car obsession sites but so far have come up empty.  Started to look at various freight car books in my collection and found that the bottom connection goes back farther than I would have thought - into the 1940s and 30s.  Found no example from the 20s or early 30s.  

The upper connections are seen in cars built into the late 40s and perhaps 1950s.  

I think this was not a rule but a practice but am continuing my search.

The top lifting levers seemed to reach only to one corner -- but on much older cars were flat steel not a rod.  I saw just such a flat steel lever being worked this summer on the locomotives of the Iowa Traction in Mason City.  

Dave Nelson

[gmpullman]

Bayfield Transfer Railway

I'm trying here as it's more appropriate here than in "General."

Maybe the moderator can combine the two threads?

Here are a few AAR drawings related to the coupler and operating mechanisms (maybe more than you need but, eat the meat and spit out the bone)

It would appear from the first document here that cars built after 8/1/1933 could not have the "Pump handle" type lever arrangement applied but must use the rotary type, as they are refering to the style used today where the lever is turned up. It goes on to say that it is recommended that cars shopped should be converted to the rotary type handle.

Also that there must be a direct linkage therefore no clevices, chains, links, etc. can be used.

Here's "Plate B" 

More Stuff:

As Dave Nelson pointed out,  and just like the NMRA, the AAR provided "recommended practices" along with stricter regulations that HAD to be complied with. I'm sure the committees that come up with these practices are aware of the huge variety of equipment and that many adaptations had to be made to accommodate some of the more unique situations.

Trying to pinpoint a specific date that one change or another was implimented is made more difficult due to the sheer numbers of equipment out there and some of which was "grandfathered" or became exempt because of interchange rules. Often the railroads requested extentions, such as the roofwalk/side ladder adoption, due to financial constraints or logistics of completing such a big project.

Hope you find something of use to you here,

Good Luck, Ed