Erik_MagAccording to White, a substantial fraction of the American passenger car fleet was equipped with Miller couplers just prior to the universal adoption of the Janney coupler.
In some respects using a knuckle coupler instead of the mutual Miller hooks acts the same way in keeping the consist in tension and aligning the carbodies against telescoping in collision. The Miller had a somewhat unfortunate secondary effect that isn't always fully described: if one car actually got to the point of turning over, the additional ones were much more likely to follow suit, and often in the kind of accidents starting to occur with higher speeds in the 1870s this was worse than cars separating and sometimes remaining on the rails ... particularly when there was no 'shoulder' to the roadbed on a curve and rocks or water 80' down.
In my opinion it would not have been highly difficult to provide some form of 'anti-vertical separation' for passenger cars of similar weight and suspension, particularly cars where the live load was comparatively small compared to the car's weight. For instance, a combination of 'shelf' couplers with a long-contact anticlimber would likely provide this, while retaining some of the swing and vertical accommodation that a Janney coupler in a typical draft gear might possess.
In my opinion, you can recognize the Miller principle clearly in Tomlinson and other later couplers that use lateral hooks combined with 'shell' positive location to couple. This specifically includes the latest designs of 'automatic' coupler being touted in Europe for container and similar freight use.
According to White, a substantial fraction of the American passenger car fleet was equipped with Miller couplers just prior to the universal adoption of the Janney coupler. One advantage claimed for the Miller coupler over the link and pin was that the buff forces were handled inline with the center sill.
As an Australian I can certainly give a view from the outside...
The main differences between Australian and USA operations are the clearances and the permitted axle loadings. The standard gauge network in Australia has clearances and loadings generally similar to those in Europe, although some specific lines allow loadings closer to those in the USA.
Freight operations in Australia have followed the practice in England, with unit trains predominating. There is almost no loose car operation. This concentration on unit trains has allowed adoption of ECP braking on the National Network as well as on the private Iron Ore systems in the North West of Western Australia.
Standard and broad (5'3") gauge systems used buffers and screw couplers as in the UK and Europe until the mid 1920s when the Janney/ AAR knuckle coupler was adopted for new vehicles. Side buffers were retained in conjunction with various transition devices to allow coupling of buffer and screw coupler fitted vehicles to knuckle coupled vehicles.
The first locomotive I ever saw without buffers (in 1953 at the age of four) was the Victorian Railways locomotive B63, the fourth of the double cab six motor F unit derivatives. Victoria was more advanced in its conversion to knuckle couplers than NSW, particularly regarding passenger cars. I was somewhat concerned at the time that the VR locomotive should be broad gauge and I checked to see that there wasn't a third rail there... (it was of course fitted with standard gauge wheelsets, needed for delivery over the SG track as far as the Victorian border.)
However, buffers have been used in the USA on passenger cars at least.
The Miller coupler, used on passenger cars prior to the Janney coupler only operated in tension and the compression forces were taken up by the end vestibule connections. This was acceptable for the relatively small and light passenger trains of the time. The Miller coupler looked and operated like the HO scale "X2F" coupler, although it lacked the downward projecting uncoupler pin and the flat section under the hook to allow pushing through the coupler.
On one occasion on a special steam train in NSW in 1973 passenger cars with screw couplers and buffers and cars with knuckle couplers were combined. A special car with a knuckle on one end and screw couplers and buffers on the other was placed between the two sections of the train. Unfortunately it was facing the wrong way. At the automatic end, the car it coupled to had both a knuckle and buffers, so the screw coupler was used, connecting to a small bollard above the knuckle intended for that purpose. At the screw coupler end of the train, the transition car had only the knuckle. This had the bollard, so the screw coupler was tightened up against this, but all the compression forces were taken by the two corridor connections. That train made it back with no problem but the diaphragms might not have taken the thrust on a daily basis for long.
Peter
seppburgh2 OMG, the truck's trailer weight limit is 80,000 lbs and the industry is always claiming to go to 90,000 over here. I live in Harrisburg Pennsylvania which is the central hub of the North Eastern US for truck traffic which means Sunday afternoon throughout the night is heavy (think driving next to a steel wall at 70 when the speed limit is 65 miles per hour) heading East. It's in the evenings when Westbound truck traffic picks up. Thanks for sharing.
OMG, the truck's trailer weight limit is 80,000 lbs and the industry is always claiming to go to 90,000 over here. I live in Harrisburg Pennsylvania which is the central hub of the North Eastern US for truck traffic which means Sunday afternoon throughout the night is heavy (think driving next to a steel wall at 70 when the speed limit is 65 miles per hour) heading East. It's in the evenings when Westbound truck traffic picks up. Thanks for sharing.
MidlandMike
beaulieuThe major locomotive manufacturers are Alstom(French) and Siemens(Germany), along with recently merged Bombardier. Stadler(Spain),...
Isn't stadler a swiss company?
Ok on to mainland Europe.
The two largest trade organizations for railways are the UIC (which is International and to which the AAR is an Associate Member), and CER which is the most equivalent to the AAR. In Europe all standard gauge railways must be "Open Access" to all companies operating approved rolling stock, approved training standards, and having adequate insurance. Like North America many of the locomotives and freight cars are owned by large leasing companies, some American. The major locomotive manufacturers are Alstom(French) and Siemens(Germany), along with recently merged Bombardier. Stadler(Spain), Skoda(Czechia), and Electroputere(Romania) are smaller builders. The largest freight railcar builder is the American company Greenbrier whose subsidiary Wagon Swidnica is in Poland. All the countries east of France have fairly robust railfreight operations. In Germany the national railway DB Cargo is faced with nearly 100 competitors including the national railways of Austria(Rail Cargo Austria), Switzerland (SBB Cargo), Poland (PKP Cargo), France (Captrain), Italy (TX Logistics), Luxembourg (CFL Cargo), Belgium (Lineas),and Czechia (CD Cargo). DB Cargo does hold the monopoly over carload freight within Germany, but driven by their political masters they do try to run that business as best as possible. Carload freight is similar in all the other Western European countries with the exception of the Baltic States, the Netherlands(which sold their freight business to DB Cargo), and France (where SNCF Fret has almost abandoned carload freight).
Clearances in Europe are higher than in Britain, but are similar to AAR Plate "B". Freight cars can be long, the now standard "Boxcar" is 23 meters over the buffers (78 feet).
Like North America freight cars have letter codes although European codes are typically longer and more descriptive.
Hbbinss = a two-axle boxcar with sliding door sides and interior sliding lockable partitions
Habbiillns = a four-axle boxcar with sliding doors and interior sliding lockable partitions
Fas = a simple four-axle high side gondola
Rs = standard four-axle flatcar
Tagnpps = four-axle cover hopper with outlets for grain
The SBB Cargo website has multiple pages with all the car types they have available for their customers here.
Now as to train lengths, and weights. Train lengths are limited by things like signalling systems, the need to accelerate more like Hares than Tortoises, passing track length, etc. In Europe freight trains have horsepower to weight ratios closer to 8 to 1 rather than 0.7 to 1 like most trains in North America. Most freight trains have a top speed of 100 kph (62 mph), unlike North America they are expected to accelerate to and maintain that speed on grades up to 1 percent.
Regarding Intermodal, the normal situation is for companies like IMCs in North America to own some of the Intermodal terminals, to own or lease the railcars, to market the services and to bear the financial risk involved. Normally the freight operating companies operate as "Hook & Haul" contractors providing the locomotive and driver. The large national railway companies may have a financial stake in the IMCs but in case of the two largest operators it is not a controlling stake. Many of the Intermodal terminals are owned by cities, ports, or Freight Forwarding companies. With the shorter length of trains in Europe many Intermodal trains are dedicated to a single trucking company or shipping line. Hupac SA based in Switzerland, is the second largest IM operator in Europe and provides service to most of the EU, Russia, and China. It was founded by four trucking companies who thought that Intermodal was a better way to move their trailers and swapbodies from Germany to Italy. Today Hupac is owned by three of the same companies plus SBB Cargo and DB Cargo, though the two railway companies have less than 50% of the shares combined.
One thing that helps Transalpine Intermodal is that Switzerland does not allow any trucks bigger than a small van to operate within its borders on Sunday. Also all trucks heavier than 3.5 metric tonnes are subject to a road tax LSVA based on weight and mileage operated within Switzerland.
Hupac Intermodal SA
One other type of Intermodal found in Switzerland, Austria, and France is the Rolende Landstrasse(Rolling Highway) where the complete semi is driven onto and off the train. for Switzerland these services operate between Freiberg, Germany and Novarra, Italy thereby avoiding the LSVA road tax and the Sunday driving ban.
Ralpin AG
Any further questions just ask.
That was a nice, concise report on the UK system. I've ridden it a few times but nobody knows a line better than a local. Thanks!
Ok, does anybody mind if I jump into this thread late?
I will attempt to answer many of the questions posed in this thread.
First I will answer several points about why European trains use Buffers. The reason is because European freight cars were until fairly recent not built with a center sill strong enough to take the buffing force of a train, instead the strength members were along both sides of the car.That has started to change, first because of the planned introduction of Autocouplers to freight cars, which was approved by CER members(European eqivalent to AAR), but the French backed down at the last minute pleading no money. Second due to the EU's legislating "Open Access" which almost eliminated the Interchange of freight cars, along with the gradual fading of single carload freight. Carload freight is virtually dead in Great Britain, minimal in France, but still significant in the rest of Europe.
I will cover Great Britain first.
Clearances for freight cars are quite small in Britain due to the early construction of railways there. Piggyback(TOFC) or doublestack is impossible. Indeed many lines cannot accomodate an ISO container on a standard flatcar. In Britain they use a system of letters and numbers to denote clearances, W10 denotes clearance large enough to carry a Hycube(9' 6") container on a standard flatcar.
Network Rail clearance map
Network Rail the government organization managing rail lines in Britain is expanding the number of lines cleared for W10 and the higher W12, but the process is painfully slow.
The most common freight trains in Britain are container trains from Felixstowe(near Ipswich), Southhampton, Thamesport and Tilbury(just east of London, and a few from Liverpool. Also you will find Aggregate from the area around Westbury and just SE of Manchester. Trains hauling gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel operate from refineries to distribution terminals near major airports and cities. Potash and Salt from the Boulby mine to export terminals near Middleborough(Teeside). Busy hotspots(though not necessary scenic) are near the ports of Felixstowe and Southampton, Nuneaton on the West Coast mainline, and Barnetby in the NE. Be aware that like most of Europe everything that doesn't have to run 24/7 is shutdown on Sunday. So Saturday freight dies after noon, and is very rare on Sunday. Barnetby is the place to go on Sunday as almost all traffic through the Station is Coal and Iron Ore to feed the nearby Steel Mill.
Persons seriously interested in freight in Britain are recommended to the Website Freightmaster which has timetables for freight(most of which is scheduled), a forum for discussing railways, and realtime maps of much of Britain showing trains and their symbols. Except for the few samples it is a pay website though I consider the price reasonable since the schedules are updated almost daily.
Freightmaster
I think a larger point is that a mixed long freight train is more risky and difficult to handle than a train of similar or identical cars. I don't see that sort of mixed consist to be common with India freight trains, or Russian freight trains.
KBCpresident RobinTW Hi from England! A couple of points arise from the comparative coupling discussion from a British perspective. Firstly British rail freight operators got out of the less-than-trainload market some years ago. Therefore all freight trains in Britain are, as far as the rail freight operator is concerned, unit trains. It follows that the coupling and uncoupling of freight cars is not an issue: the only coupling routinely undertaken is that of the locomotive to the train. A cumbersome coupling method between the cars themselves is of no consequence. That's interesting. So the mixed freights of the USA (a few boxcars, a few tank cars, a few centerbeams, etc.) don't exist in England? I am not a railroader myself, but I assume one of the advantages to rail is that large amounts of, say, lumber, can be loaded at a saw mill in California, stuck on the next train to New York, and unloaded at a lumberyard in New York. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Seems like eliminating this sort of traffic would make it harder to ship by rail, wouldn't it? Is this sort of shipping just done by truck in England? Wouldn't that make railfanning less exciting?
RobinTW Hi from England! A couple of points arise from the comparative coupling discussion from a British perspective. Firstly British rail freight operators got out of the less-than-trainload market some years ago. Therefore all freight trains in Britain are, as far as the rail freight operator is concerned, unit trains. It follows that the coupling and uncoupling of freight cars is not an issue: the only coupling routinely undertaken is that of the locomotive to the train. A cumbersome coupling method between the cars themselves is of no consequence.
Hi from England!
A couple of points arise from the comparative coupling discussion from a British perspective.
Firstly British rail freight operators got out of the less-than-trainload market some years ago. Therefore all freight trains in Britain are, as far as the rail freight operator is concerned, unit trains. It follows that the coupling and uncoupling of freight cars is not an issue: the only coupling routinely undertaken is that of the locomotive to the train. A cumbersome coupling method between the cars themselves is of no consequence.
That's interesting. So the mixed freights of the USA (a few boxcars, a few tank cars, a few centerbeams, etc.) don't exist in England? I am not a railroader myself, but I assume one of the advantages to rail is that large amounts of, say, lumber, can be loaded at a saw mill in California, stuck on the next train to New York, and unloaded at a lumberyard in New York. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Seems like eliminating this sort of traffic would make it harder to ship by rail, wouldn't it? Is this sort of shipping just done by truck in England?
Wouldn't that make railfanning less exciting?
Even though there is far less freight traffic throughout Europe, there is a lot of good passenger railfanning available. It's fun to just hang around a major rail station like Munich or Frankfurt and watch the passenger trains come and go, because there are a LOT of them of varying types. It's also fun to book a hotel overlooking a rail station for the same reason.
For better or worse, the European railroads have ceded most of the carload traffic to trucks. The emphasis has always been on hauling passengers.
I see that India Rail plans to allow private operators to add 151 new passenger trains to the system. They say the objective is to introduce modern technology, rolling stock with reduced maintenance, reduced transit time, boost job creation, provide enhanced safety, provide world-class travel experience to passengers, and also reduce the demand-supply deficit in the passenger transportation sector.
https://zeenews.india.com/economy/indian-railways-allows-151-trains-to-be-run-by-private-operators-selection-process-on-2294466.html
Another major difference I am aware of is the bell. I think North America ais the only place wiht locomotive bells. Why weren't they adopted elsewhere? It seems like it serves a distinct safety roll--what do other countries use in its place.
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
Most trains that I saw in the UK were either containers or aggregate (rock) trains. Most rail traffic is passenger trains. The UK is relatively small. London to Glasgow, one of the longer mainlines, is only a little over 400 miles. Now that they have more "dual carriageways" (divided 4 lane highways), trucks can do their runs much quicker than they used to be able to.
charlie hebdoVery interesting. Surveying starting in the 1790s on through the 1820s for the most part. But railroads came later, 1836 in Ohio, 1836 in Michigan, 1841 in Indiana, 1838 in Illinois and 1851in Wisconsin.
They were still doing the primary surveying in northern Michigan into the 1840s.
Of note, two of the earliest railroads in Michigan were started building by the State: the Michigan Central and the Michigan Southern. They were both sold off in the 1840s, and both eventually came under NYC ownership.
Euclid What I am saying is that our system using the automatic coupler would be better with some form of buffers to keep slack stretched when the train is under way. Some comments here indicate a misunderstanding of the purpose of buffers.
What I am saying is that our system using the automatic coupler would be better with some form of buffers to keep slack stretched when the train is under way. Some comments here indicate a misunderstanding of the purpose of buffers.
Technically we don't have a fully automatic couple in the U.S. either, though I understand that work on designing a fully automatic(that would include air hose lines, train lines and anything else) is being worked on.
Also in reply to KBCpresident--they're more like regionals or the older, smaller Class 1's like KCS (the original) or MKT.
I wrote the post below, and it wound up just below a post by Balt, making it look like I was responding to him. I was not.
Lithonia Operator There's that. But also because, like us, it's mainly diesel. Aussie and American trains share a lot of visual similarities. Do our two big builders supply most of the locomotives in Australia?
There's that. But also because, like us, it's mainly diesel. Aussie and American trains share a lot of visual similarities.
Do our two big builders supply most of the locomotives in Australia?
So regarding how different railroad features in Europe vs the USA, is it just a matter of geography and the sheer size of the USA vs European countries? Considering the size of Eurpoean countries, their national carriers are proably shortlines by our perspective here in NA.
Do you think Australian railroads seem more familiar to me as an American because both operate in significantly larger countries than European railroads?
Overmod 54light15 Didn't the Delaware and Hudson start out as a canal company? As did Chesapeake and Ohio. Note the importance of why connecting rivers was relevant...
54light15 Didn't the Delaware and Hudson start out as a canal company?
As did Chesapeake and Ohio. Note the importance of why connecting rivers was relevant...
The B&O Railroad and the C&O Canal waged 'war' for several years in the legislature and courts to get both operations through Point of Rocks, MD
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In Kingston, N.Y. if you drive along the Rondout creek, there is a lot of stuff to see. Go far enough and you pass the site of Iron Mountain, the record keeping company which is in an old iron mine adjacent to the canal. A very secretive operation. There are also the remains of one or two riverboats, at least there were 30 years ago.
54light15Didn't the Delaware and Hudson start out as a canal company?
Yes. IIRC the main commodity from the beginning was coal.
Didn't the Delaware and Hudson start out as a canal company?
charlie hebdo Very interesting. Surveying starting in the 1790s on through the 1820s for the most part. But railroads came later, 1836 in Ohio, 1836 in Michigan, 1841 in Indiana, 1838 in Illinois and 1851in Wisconsin.
Very interesting. Surveying starting in the 1790s on through the 1820s for the most part. But railroads came later, 1836 in Ohio, 1836 in Michigan, 1841 in Indiana, 1838 in Illinois and 1851in Wisconsin.
Keep in mind that major settlements prior to the introduction of the railroads were limited to areas with access to navigable waters or canals. Canals required a reliable source of water and construction of locks to accomodate changes in elevation. Railroads could easily be built in areas where canal costs would have been prohibitive as well as areas too arid to support canals. Railroads were also faster.
Pre-railroad development of the Western Reserve was facilitated by the Erie Canal along with steamboat service up the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.
Erik_Mag While the Northwest Ordinance stated how the property should be laid, the actual surveying didn't start until the late 1790's. Settlements were mainly where water transportation was available, which meant there was a lot of land for the railroads to open up. Fun fact about the Northwest Ordinance was that it encted under the Articles of Confederation and probably the most consequential law passed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. Another interesting fact is that it prohibited slavery in the lands subject to the ordinance.
While the Northwest Ordinance stated how the property should be laid, the actual surveying didn't start until the late 1790's. Settlements were mainly where water transportation was available, which meant there was a lot of land for the railroads to open up.
Fun fact about the Northwest Ordinance was that it encted under the Articles of Confederation and probably the most consequential law passed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. Another interesting fact is that it prohibited slavery in the lands subject to the ordinance.
charlie hebdo West of the Allegheny Mountains? Hardly. The Northwest Ordinance laid out property clearly in 1787 out to the Mississippi (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin).
West of the Allegheny Mountains? Hardly. The Northwest Ordinance laid out property clearly in 1787 out to the Mississippi (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin).
Indeed, and this is evident when looking at maps of the region - townships are almost always square (36 square miles), and counties followed on that.
While you'll find some roads are "here to there," most follow the grid.
Of course, this makes railroads easy to follow on maps, if not when chasing, as they were built "here to there" and following the lay of the land - which is fairly flat in much of the region.
A case in point is a place I favor - northwest Ohio, specifically the former B&O, which runs nearly arrow straight in both all directions from Deshler.
Of interest to some may be the fact that townships in the Northwest Territory are numbered based on a meridian and a baseline in each state. The official designation is "township X north/south, range X east/west."
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...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.