zugmann BaltACD Current rules (at least on CSX) require a movement be stopped when necessary for knuckles to be adjusted on either car of a coupling. (YMMV). Presumably air hose get laced only after the cars have been coupled and the coupling has been tested and except for having 'your' engineer or 'your' engine (RCO) coupled to the cut - the engine should not move when necessary to foul and lace air hoses. Ever have to wrestle with hoses between bottom-shelf couplers? Or those flats where they love to put the angle thingie under the drawhead? NOt as much room in there as you'd think. And don't get me started with MU receptacles under anticlimbers. But despite all of that - yeah, the equipment *SHOULD* not move. You spent your life on the railroad. You, as well as I, know many things happen when it SHOULD not have. Being between equipment is dangerous - no matter the geographic region.
BaltACD Current rules (at least on CSX) require a movement be stopped when necessary for knuckles to be adjusted on either car of a coupling. (YMMV). Presumably air hose get laced only after the cars have been coupled and the coupling has been tested and except for having 'your' engineer or 'your' engine (RCO) coupled to the cut - the engine should not move when necessary to foul and lace air hoses.
Ever have to wrestle with hoses between bottom-shelf couplers? Or those flats where they love to put the angle thingie under the drawhead? NOt as much room in there as you'd think. And don't get me started with MU receptacles under anticlimbers.
But despite all of that - yeah, the equipment *SHOULD* not move. You spent your life on the railroad. You, as well as I, know many things happen when it SHOULD not have.
Being between equipment is dangerous - no matter the geographic region.
Agree - everything about railroading is dangerous, especially to those that don't respect or see the danger.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Secondly, coupling/uncoupling occurs most frequently between passenger multiple units. Almost all passenger carrying in Britain is by multiple unit trains and these are routinely mixed and matched, split and joined en route. A three unit train leaving a main terminal may have each unit heading for a different destination, dividing (and on the return journey joining) at different points. The coupling and uncoupling of these units is mostly carried out automatically.
Thirdly, the point about how dangerous the British style coupling scenario can be: I believe I am right in saying that since the turn of the century two staff have been killed whilst working on British heritage (tourist) railways and in both instances they were killed having gone between vehicles to couple or uncouple when movement of the train occurred and they were crushed. I am responsible for coupling trains on a heritage railway myself and I always stay well clear until I am absolutely certain the vehicles cannot move.
Euclid BaltACD zugmann BaltACD As well as not requiring a person to get in the foul between cars just to couple them. Unless you want to lace up air hoses. Or have to manually open a kunckle. Or close one, or move one... Should we have buffer plates on USA rail cars in addition to knuckle couplers? It is a cost issue just like ECP brakes, automatic air connectors, and single control train securement brakes. All of those items are improvements with positive benefits. Eliminating coupler slack is also an improvement with benefits. That could be done with buffer plates, but that does not have to give up the automatic coupler. A slack eliminator could be powered rather than hand tightened. If it were powered, the automatic coupler could be retained. The power for the slack eliminator could be air fed by a second trainline similar to what I earlier suggested to power a train securement air brake lock. In U.S. railroading, there are two forms of slack; one in the couplers and the other in the draft gear. Both contribute the run in and out that causes problems with train handling. So a powered slack eliminator would ideally eliminate both types of slack. The automatic coupler needs slack for its locking pin to function. Drawbars need slack to cushion against the slack run in/out caused by the couplers. Maybe if you use a power slack eliminator for couplers, the drawbars could be mounted completely rigid. Then the drawbars would have no need for a slack eliminator because they would not have any slack.
BaltACD zugmann BaltACD As well as not requiring a person to get in the foul between cars just to couple them. Unless you want to lace up air hoses. Or have to manually open a kunckle. Or close one, or move one... Should we have buffer plates on USA rail cars in addition to knuckle couplers?
zugmann BaltACD As well as not requiring a person to get in the foul between cars just to couple them. Unless you want to lace up air hoses. Or have to manually open a kunckle. Or close one, or move one...
BaltACD As well as not requiring a person to get in the foul between cars just to couple them.
Unless you want to lace up air hoses. Or have to manually open a kunckle. Or close one, or move one...
Should we have buffer plates on USA rail cars in addition to knuckle couplers?
It is a cost issue just like ECP brakes, automatic air connectors, and single control train securement brakes. All of those items are improvements with positive benefits. Eliminating coupler slack is also an improvement with benefits. That could be done with buffer plates, but that does not have to give up the automatic coupler.
A slack eliminator could be powered rather than hand tightened. If it were powered, the automatic coupler could be retained. The power for the slack eliminator could be air fed by a second trainline similar to what I earlier suggested to power a train securement air brake lock.
In U.S. railroading, there are two forms of slack; one in the couplers and the other in the draft gear. Both contribute the run in and out that causes problems with train handling. So a powered slack eliminator would ideally eliminate both types of slack.
The automatic coupler needs slack for its locking pin to function. Drawbars need slack to cushion against the slack run in/out caused by the couplers. Maybe if you use a power slack eliminator for couplers, the drawbars could be mounted completely rigid. Then the drawbars would have no need for a slack eliminator because they would not have any slack.
I should add that all of these improvements are practically impossible due to the loose car railroading of the U.S. system. As I mention on the previous page, it is a cost issue, but the key point is the extra cost imposed by converting standardized methods because of the loose car nature of the U.S system. On the contrary, all of the above improvements would not incur that extra cost penalty if all trains were unit trains or dedicated, semi-permanently coupled trainsets.
This point is the point made by RobinTW in the post above about British freight trains.
In effect, our loose care system freezes our technology for components affected by car interchangeability. The problem is that changing these components in our system renders the car unable to connect with unconverted cars until the changeover is complete. The only remedy is to change cars to a dual system with both the old and the new components. Then when the dual system conversion is eventually complete, new cars can be built with only the new system, and the old dual system cars can be gradually converted by removing their old system.
It is the need to design and execute this dual system, and to operate it during the changeover that adds so much more cost that it renders the plan to be impractical on the basis of total cost.
Euclid Euclid BaltACD zugmann BaltACD As well as not requiring a person to get in the foul between cars just to couple them. Unless you want to lace up air hoses. Or have to manually open a kunckle. Or close one, or move one... Should we have buffer plates on USA rail cars in addition to knuckle couplers? It is a cost issue just like ECP brakes, automatic air connectors, and single control train securement brakes. All of those items are improvements with positive benefits. Eliminating coupler slack is also an improvement with benefits. That could be done with buffer plates, but that does not have to give up the automatic coupler. A slack eliminator could be powered rather than hand tightened. If it were powered, the automatic coupler could be retained. The power for the slack eliminator could be air fed by a second trainline similar to what I earlier suggested to power a train securement air brake lock. In U.S. railroading, there are two forms of slack; one in the couplers and the other in the draft gear. Both contribute the run in and out that causes problems with train handling. So a powered slack eliminator would ideally eliminate both types of slack. The automatic coupler needs slack for its locking pin to function. Drawbars need slack to cushion against the slack run in/out caused by the couplers. Maybe if you use a power slack eliminator for couplers, the drawbars could be mounted completely rigid. Then the drawbars would have no need for a slack eliminator because they would not have any slack. I should add that all of these improvements are practically impossible due to the loose car railroading of the U.S. system. As I mention on the previous page, it is a cost issue, but the key point is the extra cost imposed by converting standardized methods because of the loose car nature of the U.S system. On the contrary, all of the above improvements would not incur that extra cost penalty if all trains were unit trains or dedicated, semi-permanently coupled trainsets. This point is the point made by RobinTW in the post above about British freight trains. In effect, our loose care system freezes our technology for components affected by car interchangeability. The problem is that changing these components in our system renders the car unable to connect with unconverted cars until the changeover is complete. The only remedy is to change cars to a dual system with both the old and the new components. Then when the dual system conversion is eventually complete, new cars can be built with only the new system, and the old dual system cars can be gradually converted by removing their old system. It is the need to design and execute this dual system, and to operate it during the changeover that adds so much more cost that it renders the plan to be impractical on the basis of total cost.
Trust Euc to take a facetious comment and run with it.
charlie hebdoWouldn't that break the coupling?
BaltACDTrust Euc to take a facetious comment and run with it.
I assume you refer to your earlier comment as follows: "Should we have buffer plates on USA rail cars in addition to knuckle couplers?"
I don't regard your question to be facetious. It is a serious question, and I think the answer is basically "yes." But it is not really a simple yes or no question. The purpose of buffer plates is to eliminate train slack. But the solution does not have to necessarily use the round saucers at each corner of the car end.
Overmod charlie hebdo Wouldn't that break the coupling? It'll probably derail, or the cars will tip, long before the coupling breaks.
charlie hebdo Wouldn't that break the coupling?
It'll probably derail, or the cars will tip, long before the coupling breaks.
I thought we were referring to older style hook and link/chain couplings in Europe? The the chain would certainly snap.
Euclid BaltACD Trust Euc to take a facetious comment and run with it. I assume you refer to your earlier comment as follows: "Should we have buffer plates on USA rail cars in addition to knuckle couplers?" I don't regard your question to be facetious. It is a serious question, and I think the answer is basically "yes." But it is not really a simple yes or no question. The purpose of buffer plates is to eliminate train slack. But the solution does not have to necessarily use the round saucers at each corner of the car end.
BaltACD Trust Euc to take a facetious comment and run with it.
Whether a remark is facetious is in the pen of the scribe, not the reader.
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.
EuclidWhat 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.
European-style buffers either side of the coupling would be ridiculous on a wide range of North American stock under a wide range of conditions, as well as being functionally redundant in a world where functional controlled-impact cushion underframes for load protection are significant.
(Now, in an alternate-reality world in which the Bishop coupling knife caught on, and cars were connected with high-tensile alloy links and duranium/Hastelloy pins, buffers might serve a purpose...)
Overmod,
I understand your point, but I have tried to make it clear in my comments that I am not advocating the Euro-style buffers on the ends of U.S. railcars. I am only saying that some form of direct slack elimination would be an improvement in the U.S. coupling system.
I see that as a means to force the cars into a slack-streched condition after they are coupled and underway. This stretching would not be done by hand lever winch or jack. Instead, it would be done by power, such as air or some form of air-over-hydraulic.
I agree that car end buffers with compression springs are just a slack cushion and do not actually eliminate slack action.
EuclidInstead, it would be done by power, such as air or some form of air-over-hydraulic.
Becuase we aren't working that singe unit's air compressor hard enough already.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
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?
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
Also, if I recall correctly, steam was still widely used in much of the world. I would suspect this is due to a ready supply of coal, but the USA has plenty of coal. Any thoughts on this?
KBCpresidentSo 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?
One thing to remember about the USA, Australia and Europe. At the time railroads entered humanity - Europe was a substantially setteled plat of land and the railroads had to find their way across competing property rights and were relatively constrained in how and where they could build their lines.
The USA & Australia were considered to be mostly unsettled wilderness and the railroads were used as tools to settle the lands and then transport the natural resources that would be found on thoise lands. West of the Allegheny Mountains there was little in the way of established property rights and additionally the federal government granted various railroad companies land alongside their tracks as they built in the Western 2/3 of the USA. I don't know what if any inducements Australia made available for their railroad construction.
Railroads have to be viewed in the context of the society's they originated in and continued to grow in.
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).
KBCpresident Also, if I recall correctly, steam was still widely used in much of the world. I would suspect this is due to a ready supply of coal, but the USA has plenty of coal. Any thoughts on this?
Steam hung on in a lot of countries, especially underdeveloped countries, since it was (relatively) simple to work on. Diesel-electrics need somewhat sophisticated facilities to maintain them, steam locomotives can get by with a basic machine shop or a good blacksmith shop. Steam is more labor-intensive but in those countries where it lasted labor was plentiful and relatively cheap, think China for example.
Also, you can run a steam engine on anything that will burn, wood, bagasse, coal, oil, or as related by Rogers Whittaker, in one African country by eucalyptus logs.
Whittaker said eucalyptus burned with almost nuclear intensity, and it smelled nice too!
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 hebdoWest of the Allegheny Mountains? Hardly. The Northwest Ordinance laid out property clearly in 1787 out to the Mississippi (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin).
The rudiments were laid out, however, in 1830's the Northwest Territory, in some circles known as the Western Reserve were still considered The Frontier.
With the relative lack of land title issues - railroads in many cases could follow eitehr straight lines or geographical lines of least resistance as they felt necessary to build their lines.
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?
For their heavy duty mining railroads, yes.
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).
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Didn't the Delaware and Hudson start out as a canal company?
Yes. IIRC the main commodity from the beginning was coal.
54light15Didn't the Delaware and Hudson start out as a canal company?
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.