EU is pushing for a digital automatic coupler EU wise by 2030. Included will be air brakes, Electronic brake control, digital info bus , Etc. Evidently car knockers will not have to lace up couplings and air lines. That will put the EU ahead of north America.
https://www.railwaygazette.com/technology/european-digital-automatic-coupler-deployment-planned-by-2030/57402.article
I remember reading this exact same story in Trains Magazine, before 1966. Of course that was UIC, and it came as a great surprise to me to find, when I first actually went to Europe, that in fact they were not all using optimized Scharfenberg doohickeys on all their government-subsidized trains.
Better late than never, probably with greatly improved reliability and certainly greatly-improved materials and fabrication. Perhaps when we get fully-funded socialism under Kamala and successors to pay for sweeping improvements in the best interests of shortsighted-financier-owned railroads, we can have these for a mere couple of trillion on top of transition to ECP. (Problem for the other thread is that precisely 0% of this would apply to a 'government' administration of a separated iron-ocean running infrastructure, except as an unachievable mandate for competitors to existing operators...)
If network managers in Europe could get on the same page..Begin to offer near or seamless slots across the continent for freight trains, increase length from the current 800m limit to 1600m, and increase axle load to at least 30 metric tonne (66,000 lbs.). They could hammer the road freight market over there.. This coupler is big news. Passing us up as far as network productivity goes. SNCF has already tested 1600m trains with success using DPU. I believe one test involved MU'ed motors as well.
Overmod I remember reading this exact same story in Trains Magazine, before 1966. Of course that was UIC, and it came as a great surprise to me to find, when I first actually went to Europe, that in fact they were not all using optimized Scharfenberg doohickeys on all their government-subsidized trains. Better late than never, probably with greatly improved reliability and certainly greatly-improved materials and fabrication. Perhaps when we get fully-funded socialism under Kamala and successors to pay for sweeping improvements in the best interests of shortsighted-financier-owned railroads, we can have these for a mere couple of trillion on top of transition to ECP. (Problem for the other thread is that precisely 0% of this would apply to a 'government' administration of a separated iron-ocean running infrastructure, except as an unachievable mandate for competitors to existing operators...)
You just can't stop your political bias from leaking through, can you, even in a thread as apolitical as this?
The idea is dead on arrival for U.S. rail industry because of need for a very rapid changeover.
However, this raises the question of how it can be accomplished in the EU rail system. Basically, what is needed is to keep current couplers in operation as the new couplers are added as the conversion. Then when the conversion is complete, you make a rapid switch to the new couplers. It is kind of like changing gage by moving one rail over in one day.
Think something like ECP Brakes would be first on the list.
Euclid The idea is dead on arrival for U.S. rail industry because of need for a very rapid changeover. However, this raises the question of how it can be accomplished in the EU rail system. Basically, what is needed is to keep current couplers in operation as the new couplers are added as the conversion. Then when the conversion is complete, you make a rapid switch to the new couplers. It is kind of like changing gage by moving one rail over in one day.
The C-AKv coupler was created for this purpose. It's compatible with link and chain, also the Russian SA3 coupler. Until Europe rolls the dice on a center buffer coupler.
EuclidThe idea is dead on arrival for U.S. rail industry because of need for a very rapid changeover.
In both cases, a considerable part of the engineering part of the changeover is handled asynchronously ... just like preparing for a line change of gauge. You do not do this by building 1000 enormous shop buildings with multiple tracks and running all the equipment through them on the designated 'flag days'.
In the case of ECP, if you read the manufacturers' offerings they have conversion kits for one-pipe that let you switch back and forth between accelerated-release Westinghouse and their version of constant-pressure-trainline supply. Gradually over time, and probably with the assistance of third-party contractors, the work would be done until whole consists are assembled in 'key' services, and then later for various kinds of interchange acceptance.
With couplers, any 'automatic' design would still be capable of mating with existing forms of knuckle, the difference being (as with older attempts) having the air and electrical connections make and break mechanically and protected from weather and other damage. For conversion you install the new devices with the air gagged off, and keep the older hoses and gladhands for brake and any other connections (such as ECP 220V) as they are for 'standalone' cars; then cut over to integrated air when desired, and integrated other connections when appropriate. All of this essentially doable any time a carman accesses the end of a car, or when a switchman makes a joint...
OM: Remember, we're talking about two major changeovers in a very hidebound business.
charlie hebdoOM: Remember, we're talking about two major changeovers in a very hidebound business.
The issue with couplers is that freezing design at any point might result in wacky design features or missing a whole technological revolution. Imagine if more than just motor electronics had been built with early-80s proprietary electronics, or the couplers designed with near-field RFID using only Kar-Trak data exchange; we recently saw an appalling failure of what I consider common sense with ECP technology...
It might be interesting to see an activist Congress come up with some rationale to involve automatic service couplers in 'safety' and then mandate a design effort, perhaps like that for ATS in the 1920s, coupled with a combination of mandate and support to stage it in. But I think you'll see the push for ECP much earlier; I hope it doesn't devolve into mere politics and divide the communities still further.
It's tough to drag a horse to water. Most of the safety appliances were not voluntarily adopted. Besides, judging by their actions, the freight rails seem to be cutting back, moving into an under-a-siege mentality. We may see going out-of business sales unless some clever idea guys who want to get into new markets move into positions of control. Don't hold your breath.
When I speak of rapid changeover as being the showstopper, I am referring to its cost as being the objection.
I am referring to its cost of taking equipment out of service for the change, and keeping it out of service until the last car is changed—or some degree of that principle. Basically, the “change” is to remove the old coupler equipment and replace it with the new equipment.
The fundamental reason it has to be rapid is that as each car is changed, it is no longer usable until all the cars are changed. Although, this change can be done in car groups that are smaller than the whole national pool. But most likely, it will not be rapid enough to be viable. It cannot be as viable as moving one rail over in one day. So it is not a viable option.
This problem is unique because of the standardization of components for both ECP brakes and couplers. There is no similar problem with things like buying new locomotives, new cars, or new rail and ties, for example. Those items can be changed one at a time, and each one that is changed improves the entire system immediately.
However with the standardized interoperating components such as couplers and ECP brakes, when you spend the money to change the first car, nothing has been improved. So the high cost is not just for the new equipment, but also due to the long delayed benefit and return of investment of the changed system.
The most attractive alternative to the full rapid changeover is the dual system changeover in which you add the new system to each car while leaving the old system intact and operational. With this approach, there are two different options of the method as follows:
Add the new equipment and leave it inoperable until all cars have been thus modified.
Add the new equipment in a way that can be operated while compatible with the older equipment in the same train.
It sounds like the EU is pursuing the option #2. Of course the economic viability of this method depends on the number of cars in the interchange pool. The downside of option #2 is that you are adding the cost of an entire second system to the cost of the first system. Also, providing this kind of interchangeability between two different systems forces limitations and compromises on the design perfection of the new system by forcing it to be compatible with the old system.
Also, these compromises to the new system are only needed temporarily while it has to work with the old system. So once the changeover is complete, it may be desirable to go back and redesign the new system to get rid of the now unnecessary compromises it needed in order to be compatible with the old system.
And of course, the redesign of the new system would have to be done in a way that keeps it compatible with the first compromised version of the new system. Otherwise, you would be starting this compatibility rat race all over again to perfect the uncompromised new system once it replaced the initial compromised new system.
It would be very interesting to see the EU detailed plan for this new coupler system and how it will be introduced into the interchange car pool.
Remember that railroading in Europe is quite different to that in the US. Organizationally and operationally. SBB Cargo already is operating a test fleet of locomotives and freight cars in domestic carload service. They use a beefed-up version of the Scharfenberg coupler. Pending the results of these tests, Hupac(the second largest Intermodal provider in Europe) intends to convert their entire fleet of flatcars to this equipment. Kombiverkehr(the largest) will likely follow, with many trains being dedicated to a single customer. It will be relatively easy to convert, especially with all the freight companies using their own freight cars or leased from a few leasing companies like GATX, or VTG.
beaulieu Remember that railroading in Europe is quite different to that in the US. Organizationally and operationally. SBB Cargo already is operating a test fleet of locomotives and freight cars in domestic carload service. They use a beefed-up version of the Scharfenberg coupler. Pending the results of these tests, Hupac(the second largest Intermodal provider in Europe) intends to convert their entire fleet of flatcars to this equipment. Kombiverkehr(the largest) will likely follow, with many trains being dedicated to a single customer. It will be relatively easy to convert, especially with all the freight companies using their own freight cars or leased from a few leasing companies like GATX, or VTG.
Unless that same trend happens in the U.S., I don't see any possibility of ECP and/or new couplers with automatic air coupling happening in the U.S.
At least until PSR has run its course
Euclid beaulieu Remember that railroading in Europe is quite different to that in the US. Organizationally and operationally. SBB Cargo already is operating a test fleet of locomotives and freight cars in domestic carload service. They use a beefed-up version of the Scharfenberg coupler. Pending the results of these tests, Hupac(the second largest Intermodal provider in Europe) intends to convert their entire fleet of flatcars to this equipment. Kombiverkehr(the largest) will likely follow, with many trains being dedicated to a single customer. It will be relatively easy to convert, especially with all the freight companies using their own freight cars or leased from a few leasing companies like GATX, or VTG. I agree that the key to making conversions in standardized compoents such as couplers and ECP brake features is to group rolling stock into captive bodies that can be converted as a relatively smaller group, and not have to be loose car, interchange-compatible with an entire national pool of railcars. Perhaps this is somewhat the case with EU railroads. Unless that same trend happens in the U.S., I don't see any possibility of ECP and/or new couplers with automatic air coupling happening in the U.S.
I agree that the key to making conversions in standardized compoents such as couplers and ECP brake features is to group rolling stock into captive bodies that can be converted as a relatively smaller group, and not have to be loose car, interchange-compatible with an entire national pool of railcars. Perhaps this is somewhat the case with EU railroads.
Oh it will happen.. At least in regards to ECP there will be a government mandate. Just like PTC. Let there be a few more major derailments, and just like Chatsworth back in 2008. ECP will be forced. The C1's don't like investing money in incremental upgrades. So just like PTC cost billions more than if the C1's would've installed PTC overtime. ECP will add billions more than if it would've been introduced into captive service first. With the entire NA car fleet gradually getting ECP over time.
If this discussion is going to morph from couplers in Europe to brakes in North America it needs to be put in its own specific thread, so named.
OvermodIf this discussion is going to morph from couplers in Europe to brakes in North America it needs to be put in its own specific thread, so named.
That is no fun at all!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
What we need is at least two more threads on this topic!!
Overmod If this discussion is going to morph from couplers in Europe to brakes in North America it needs to be put in its own specific thread, so named.
Inasmuch as the mass changeover is a comparable dilemma, the comparison is apt.
OTOH, if the discussion is going to move in to brakes, yeah - needs its own thread.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
The relationship of ECP brakes to new coupler design is that both have the same mass changeover dilema. With U.S. railroads, that dilema is a showstopper with current pure loose car operation. So when we hear of other countries doing these changes of either new couplers or ECP brakes, we ask why we are not doing it here if other countries can do it. It feels like we are being passed up by the technological advancement of the rest of world railroads.
But on a forum that takes such great pains to make sure there is never any topic drift, I know how distressing it must be to touch on ECP in a topic started on couplers.
EuclidBut on a forum that takes such great pains to make sure there is never any topic drift, I know how distressing it must be to touch on ECP in a topic started on couplers.
If we continue the conflated discussion, it's difficult to think, on more than a moron level, that the technical implementation of ECP, (aside from first costs, which is not really a technical issue in the sense important here of rapid conversion) necessarily resembles the implementation of automatic couplings not fully compatible with existing knuckle couplers, draw bars, and air, and with future electric and radio connections. It is probably best to have actually looked at the systems involved before pontificating on their similarity.
Here's the coupler in action.
How does the man balance himself on the end of the car he is riding and not hold on to something?
Electroliner 1935 How does the man balance himself on the end of the car he is riding and not hold on to something?
Watch the video again on youtube's website so you can get a larger picture, and look closely there's a grab iron he has his arm wrapped around. You can see it on his right side.
SD60MAC9500 Electroliner 1935 How does the man balance himself on the end of the car he is riding and not hold on to something? Watch the video again on youtube's website so you can get a larger picture, and look closely there's a grab iron he has his arm wrapped around. You can see it on his right side.
Thanks, I see it now. It folds up from the front of the car. Looks more user friendly than the US platforms. Is he operating a remote controlled switcher?
Electroliner 1935 SD60MAC9500 Electroliner 1935 How does the man balance himself on the end of the car he is riding and not hold on to something? Watch the video again on youtube's website so you can get a larger picture, and look closely there's a grab iron he has his arm wrapped around. You can see it on his right side. Thanks, I see it now. It folds up from the front of the car. Looks more user friendly than the US platforms. Is he operating a remote controlled switcher?
Yes
Regarding my suggestion that converting rolling stock to ECP braking and to fully automatic couplers are similar challenges: In my opinion, the resemblance is obvious even without getting into the exact technical details of the actual design executions. I cannot think of one other loose car railroad upgrade that poses the challenges of converting to either one of these two which are ECP, and fully automatic couplers. Both are highly eligible for revision because the difficulty of changing them has frozen them for so long. Both are frozen because they are standardized, and interoperating between each piece of rolling stock, which is subject to continual re-grouping in within the national pool.
As I understand it, this EU conversion is testing various coupler products and designs and has not yet completed the process of the conversion strategy. I recall reading that the strategy was at least likely to involve equipping rolling stock with a dual system of the old and new couplers with the ability to unfold and use either one as required by the mating cars. This would allow the conversion to move at its own pace while maintaining full interchangeability. Then after the dual system is complete, the old couplers in the dual system could be gradually phased out.
In the process of that phase-out, the coupler mounting systems would also be changed and simplified to offer only the modern coupler.
So, this dual system approach avoids the challenge of instant conversion that would maintain compatibility; but it adds the burden of paying for and maintaining a dual system over a long period of time that it will take to make the conversion complete.
To repeat: the transition to ECP is not difficult; it is merely expensive. Equipment is modified with the conversion kits, over time, in normal shop cycles or contract work, and therefore when the time to 'switch' actually arrives, conversion can be made in a matter of minutes a car.
The chief issue with the dual system of couplers is much the same as replacing a single-track bridge: both couplers have to be in line with the draft gear and center sill; to be able to swing laterally to 'make' on curves, either the 'dual' arrangement has to pivot ahead of the draft gear (requiring it to be moved back in the under frame structure) or behind it (necessitating full duplication of draft gear and 'all that that implies' for the dual heads. Applying these changes together with harness and manifold changes would be exorbitant... and then, likely have to be done all over again to replace the heavy dual arrangement with a single 'new' head.
I think far likelier, given current yard-switching models, would be adoption of coupler adapters on a wider scale, particularly if the adapters are designed to be self-supporting once applied to a car. The chief difficulty then becomes the power equipment needed for carmen to work efficiently in yards (they can 'know' with reasonable efficiency which cars or ends need adapting with simple additions to car tracking). As with ECP the actual conversion from draft gear forward for the new system can be done incrementally, with 'changed' cars now able to be fully converted. Gradually the mix will change toward 'new' but older or legacy cars will still be accommodated.
Were it desirable, a similar model to that of ECP can be followed with adapters: when cars are shopped, they are given full conversion, with support brackets for deployed adapters, and then fitted with knuckle and hose adapters at both ends for interchange. As blocks are converted, the adapters can be removed at a common time; alternatively the bulk of the system can run 'as converted' and then on an agreed date 'switched over' (by exchanging adapters, mainly) from "majority knuckle" to "majority automatic" -- something that if necessary could be done in parallel over days or weeks, quicker if an arrangement can be made with carmen's unions to use contracted labor for this one task in the period of the switch.
A further advantage of this is that non-interchange cars can continue in service, using the by-now-costed-down adapters as needed, without expensive interchange modification.
With today's materials, a Janney=MCB coupler with all the automatic features and compatibilty is possible:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.