This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Railway coupling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Railway coupling was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: August 30, 2007. |
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.
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)
A more complete list of railways that use Janney couplers would be nice!
Tabletop 05:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Unknown Coupler seen on Swiss EMU dead link Peter Horn User talk 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
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.
Does anybody have information about this type? BenBurch 15:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This article is currently at Good article review. LuciferMorgan 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
For Eastlake Park Scenic Railway#Carriages, what are Coit's automatic couplings? Peter Horn User talk 14:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
For SZU Be 510, what is a Schwabe coupler? Peter Horn User talk 02:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
In de:Kupplung (Bahn) there is de:Trompetenkupplung. Peter Horn User talk 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
Railway coupling#Schwab coupler. What does TRN stand for? Peter Horn User talk 17:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this in any way related to Railway coupling#Wedgelock coupler? Peter Horn User talk 17:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
Peter Horn User talk 01:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Railway coupling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Railway coupling was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: August 30, 2007. |
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.
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)
A more complete list of railways that use Janney couplers would be nice!
Tabletop 05:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Unknown Coupler seen on Swiss EMU dead link Peter Horn User talk 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
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.
Does anybody have information about this type? BenBurch 15:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This article is currently at Good article review. LuciferMorgan 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
For Eastlake Park Scenic Railway#Carriages, what are Coit's automatic couplings? Peter Horn User talk 14:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
For SZU Be 510, what is a Schwabe coupler? Peter Horn User talk 02:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
In de:Kupplung (Bahn) there is de:Trompetenkupplung. Peter Horn User talk 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
Railway coupling#Schwab coupler. What does TRN stand for? Peter Horn User talk 17:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this in any way related to Railway coupling#Wedgelock coupler? Peter Horn User talk 17:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
Peter Horn User talk 01:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)