3 ms·

The difference in couplers between the US and Europe is a fascinating bit of history. The US mandated automatic couplers in 1893, taking effect in 1900, since t

The difference in couplers between the US and Europe is a fascinating bit of history. The US mandated automatic couplers in 1893, taking effect in 1900, since the existing manual couplers were a major cause of industrial accidents. Even today, most European freight rail depends on absolutely ancient manual couplers. A major secondary benefit of the AAR-style automatic coupler is a much higher strength, allowing for much longer and heavier trains than are possible with the manual connectors. Historically, the few European trains using automatic couplers were exceptionally large/heavy, like Swedish iron ore trains between Kiruna and Narvik.

panick21_ 3y ago
Its kind of a back and forth. Before Adopting the Janney coupler the US had an even worse coupler then those used in Europe. The current European coupler don't have as high and injury rate as those that were the justification for the US government to force the Janney coupler. Even Soviet moved to an automatic coupler, SA3, but somehow the Europeans never went beyond the screw coupler. > AAR-style automatic coupler is a much higher strength, allowing for much longer and heavier trains than are possible with the manual connectors. This isn't necessarily generally true for all 'manual' connectors. You could design a very strong manual connector as well. But your overall point is true, the US coupler are much higher strength. Europe never had much cause to improve on this aspect because you simply can't be using very long trains on the European network. > Historically, the few European trains using automatic couplers were exceptionally large/heavy We have to be specific about cargo trains here, lots of passenger trains use forms of automatic coupling. But the issue with those is, while many of them use the same kind of Scharfenberg couplers they don't have things like power, hydrolics and data in the same place. We really need to standardize all of those things, including the decoupling protocol. It looks like the new standard will be a form of Scharfenberg coupler, they will be able to form much bigger trains then is possible today but still not be as strong as the American ones are. Good video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUj4ne3ENRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUj4ne3ENRI

panick21_ 3y ago

Its kind of a back and forth. Before Adopting the Janney coupler the US had an even worse coupler then those used in Europe. The current European coupler don't have as high and injury rate as those that were the justification for the US government to force the Janney coupler. Even Soviet moved to an automatic coupler, SA3, but somehow the Europeans never went beyond the screw coupler. > AAR-style automatic coupler is a much higher strength, allowing for much longer and heavier trains than are possible with the manual connectors. This isn't necessarily generally true for all 'manual' connectors. You could design a very strong manual connector as well. But your overall point is true, the US coupler are much higher strength. Europe never had much cause to improve on this aspect because you simply can't be using very long trains on the European network. > Historically, the few European trains using automatic couplers were exceptionally large/heavy We have to be specific about cargo trains here, lots of passenger trains use forms of automatic coupling. But the issue with those is, while many of them use the same kind of Scharfenberg couplers they don't have things like power, hydrolics and data in the same place. We really need to standardize all of those things, including the decoupling protocol. It looks like the new standard will be a form of Scharfenberg coupler, they will be able to form much bigger trains then is possible today but still not be as strong as the American ones are. Good video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUj4ne3ENRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUj4ne3ENRI