European Railroad Discussion > Coupler question

Is europe ever going to go to knuckle couplers? I thought there was a movement to do that many years ago but it appears nothing ever happened.

I doubt it, however, there are alternatives to that in wide use like the SA3. This Willison design from U.S. is even stronger than the knuckle coupler.

You have to realize that Europe in general is really "conservative" in railroading (not all countries of course). Looking at the situation how far apart for example Germany and Ukraine are today, or Nordic countries and U.K., Europe is really heterogeneous environment and the first decades of common market opening has been spent on standardization, still in progress. Only now there are talks and even trials on 1500 meters (0,9 miles) long freight trains. But again, I remember seeing my first 1,5 kilometer train in Finland already in 1972. The longer trains will pave a way to stronger couplers to replace the screw-n-hook couplers in use today, plus dangerous side buffers.

Here is a set of SA3 couplers in use. I hope our members in Holland or Germany can write on details on their center coupler design. The first coupler in pictures is tried in everyday use in temperatures as low as -40°C/-40°F and with trains of up to 8500 metric tons / 18 740 000 lbs. So it is pretty trustworthy.

---

---

---

A few more pics of SA3 from here and there in Northern Europe. The last one may surprise you.

---

---

---

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is europe ever going to go to knuckle couplers? I
> thought there was a movement to do that many years
> ago but it appears nothing ever happened.

I'm not sure what you mean, if you mean universally then never, but we do use knuckle couplers, and have done for 80+ years. But remember for passenger trains we've gone beyond manual knuckle couplings to fully automatic solutions, like the Dellner.

Back in 2003 all our 3rd rail EMUs coupled with knuckles, as here

But today they use Dellners, as on this 377 at Three Bridges

So what would be the purpose of taking a retrograde step? What would be the purpose of spending money on a needless standardisation process? Our railways serve a completely different purpose to those of North America.
They are mixed traffic operations with the emphasis on frequent (and fast) passenger service. For freight to survive in that environment it has to be fleet of foot. As McKey points out the SNCF has recently run trials of 1500 metre (1 mile) intermodal trains, but their intention is to operate trains of about 1000 m which should be achieveable given the spacing of passing sidings. But putting a long train into passing sidings to allow passenger trains to overtake negates the advantages of longer trains. So it's a compromise, screw couplings and side buffers suit our unit trains environment of moderate weight and length reasonably well.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/14 14:34 by 86235.

---

---

In the 60-ies European RR intended change to automatic couplers on an Easter weekend. The coupler was compatible with the Russian SA3 and could automatic connect air electric power and signals. But then it happened not.

Meanwhile switching needs or willing are reduced and there is no stron need for an automatic coupler.

Passenger trains are train sets for high speed and locals and block trains. In Germany and Austria is common the Scharfenberg coupler as on the 4023

For freight switching the Engines are equipped with automatic coupler which grap the hook of the cars as on the 2068

Erwin from Austria

---

---

There are two related derivative versions of the SA3 Willison design in use in Germany and the Netherlands, the first is the AK69e in use on DB Schenker Iron Ore Hoppers for the run from Maasvlakte to Dillingen in the Saar. The second is an improved version of the AK69e called the C-AKv in use on some DB Schenker BR189 Eurosprinter locomotives used to haul the Iron Ore Hoppers. The AK69e design cannot couple to conventional, for Europe, link and chain coupler equipped cars or locomotives, but Faivley Transport's new C-AKv design allows the vehicle to have side buffers. The other big benefit of the new C-AKv design is that it incorporates the trainline air connector, so if both vehicles are equipped then there is no need to manually couple air hoses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:189_038-3_C-AKv-Kupplung.jpg

I understand unit trains using any type of coupler since there is little to no switching involved. But, on general car load frieght, screw couplers prevent using hump yards and take much longer to couple cars into trains, and can not be as safe as automatic couplers. It seemed (at least to me) most pictures I saw still had the screw/buffer couplers on freight cars..

The original question referred to "Europe" so I have to assume the writer means European railroads in general.

The answer would be a resounding NO!

European rail systems in general are struggling with ever-declining shares of freight traffic. The greatest factor is lack of interoperability, which is manifested by trains stopping at borders to change locomotives because country "A" requires this or that on locomotives while country "B" requires that or this, etc.

Between countries on the continent, freight moves slowly and inefficiently largely because of these legacy restrictions, and continental rail freight will likely never recover back to past market shares or even grow slightly unless and until governments and regulators stop regulating European railroads in this haphazard manner.

There are two exceptions, one of which McKey points out regarding IORE trains with the SA3 ("Russian" version of "AAR" coupler). IORE of course is largely a railroad unto itself. Interchange and interoperability is not critical to IORE's mission or success. It is essentially an Artic Circle version of the western Australian iron ore railroads which are built and operated at heavy haul levels. The SA3 coupler, incidentally, is favored by IORE because it has better wintertime performance than the AAR couplers in terms of functioning under extreme snow pack conditions (coupling and uncoupling when the coupler body may be packed with snow).

The other exception would be a herculean all-at-one-time conversion of the entire continent from screw/link couplers to a more modern coupler, like the gauge conversion which occurred in the United States in the later 1800s. But the economics would be a tough case to justify. And ... European carbodies are not designed for the greater buff and draft loads which US/AAR or even SA3 couplers would permit. In other words, many European freight cars would likely be destroyed because the couplers would exceed the strength of the end sills, etc.

The fact that cars would be destroyed by using different couplers is not there fault but the fault of the operators and how that would happen is how???? To use the buffer style is so dangerous to the workers and that only a few in this discussion seem to care about them. The EU is onto itself and only hurts its own economy by the things it does to stop progress. The roads the trucks have to travel on are not much better for the most part and traffic is always a problem due to the amount of them on the roads. Rail traffic if allowed to use longer trains and the ability to interchange without problems should be addressed otherwise it will go the way of the steam engine. The US is now suffering problems due to the fact tracks were removed without thought for the future and now they are paying the price of trying to catch up.

Exactly, the structural strength is not sufficient, one more thing where North America is well ahead. I say ahead because the fleets are being renewed at least in some Nordic countries keeping the center couplers in mind. Finland has been building everything for center coupler for 20 years now, so the change is happening. Meanwhile to cope with the frequent SA3 freight cars and Russian coaching (it somehow still seems strange to me that a coach should have an SA3 with some slack) all the bigger locomotives are carrying an SA3 and "heavy" switchers and road switchers also the semi automatic "Vapiti" coupler (same idea as with the Austrian class 2068 in Ervin's picture), that can grab the freight car when switching is done. Obviously this does not work online because the cars at any higher speeds might come loose.

contactpatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... European carbodies are not designed for the
> greater buff and draft loads which US/AAR or even
> SA3 couplers would permit. In other words, many
> European freight cars would likely be destroyed
> because the couplers would exceed the strength of
> the end sills, etc.

Now, you are probably wondering how to cope with the SA3 equipped locomotives and incompatible screw coupler equipped freight cars and coaches. Initially this was tackled by using adapter flat cars (of class Hkba), the other end had screw coupler and the other SA3. Obviously you need one at both end of the train and maybe more in the intermediate points where the coupler type changes. In other words, this was a logistical and economical nightmare. It was finally solved by a small orange or yellow iron that I see hanging on every single Finnish road locomotive's front and in many places at Swedish/Norwegian Malmbana. Why this adapter iron only came in to picture in 2000s must be its exceptional strength, and price, the small irons are normally locked away in shelves at rail yards. This iron needs preferably two people working together. The brakeman goes between the loco and the coach/car and then the engineer powers the locomotive so that the side buffers are pressed hard. Next the brakeman puts the adapter iron to the mouth of the SA3 and screw couplers hook just at the right moment. This sounds complicated, but the personnel of the VR have practiced so much that they make it look really easy.

Incredible as it is, this little orange iron can pull a huge train!

Look carefully at the picture. Can you spot the orange iron hanging under the Swiss LOK2000 type VR class Sr2? The next picture shows class Sr2 with a similar iron. And here is one of the old treasures of 4rail.net: Novocherkassk (Soviet) VL40 / Vr class Sr1 with just the screw coupler installed. Very unusual and unlikely sight for a loco built in Russia!

---

---

---

86235 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> process? Our railways serve a completely different
> purpose to those of North America.
> They are mixed traffic operations with the
> emphasis on frequent (and fast) passenger service.
> For freight to survive in that environment it has
> to be fleet of foot. As McKey points out the SNCF
> has recently run trials of 1500 metre (1 mile)
> intermodal trains, but their intention is to
> operate trains of about 1000 m which should be
> achieveable given the spacing of passing sidings.
> But putting a long train into passing sidings to
> allow passenger trains to overtake negates the
> advantages of longer trains. So it's a compromise,
> screw couplings and side buffers suit our unit
> trains environment of moderate weight and length
> reasonably well.

I think Nick has really answered the original question quite nicely here.
European railroading is MUCH different from North America.
Passenger trains outnumber freight trains.
European trains, especially freight trains, are considerably shorter and lighter than North American trains.
Trying to compare European and North American rail operations side-by-side is almost like comparing apples and oranges.

On a side note ... I enjoy following the European and International boards as much as I do all the other boards here on Trainorders.com.
I start with the Canadian board first (because I am Canadian) but then work my way down the rest of the boards in order.

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

There was a plan to convert western European railroads to centralized couplers by the late 1980ies or early 1990ies. I believe that this was aggreed on by the relevant European Railroad body (UIC??). I seem to remember that the automatic coupler also was to include automatic brakeline connection. Some member railroads were seriously implementing the change, not only ordering new equipment that would allow a quick exchange from link to automatic coupler, but also modify existing equipment. For example, the Swiss Railroads modified many of their venerable 1927 built Ae4/7 for this purpose... Well, the change obviously never happened. Rumor is that the Union of one of the member railroads vetoed the project.

Given the dramatic changes in railroading in the last 30 years, there is less need (or benefit) for a change, needless to say that because of the decline in short distance freight teaffic many of the above union members are out of work. I doubt that a change to automatic couplers could have reversed that trend, albeit it certainly would be of operational benefit (once the investment has been amortized).

Thomas Eckhardt

BAB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To use the buffer style is so dangerous
> to the workers and that only a few in this
> discussion seem to care about them. The EU is onto
> itself and only hurts its own economy by the
> things it does to stop progress. The roads the
> trucks have to travel on are not much better for
> the most part and traffic is always a problem due
> to the amount of them on the roads. Rail traffic
> if running lo gered to use longer trains and the ability to
> interchange without problems should be addressed
> otherwise it will go the way of the steam engine.
> The US is now suffering problems due to the fact
> tracks were removed without thought for the futur
> and now they are paying the price of trying to
> catch up.

Running longer trains is not simply a matter of adopting a different coupler, it would require a wholesale infrastructure rebuild, new yards, new passing sidings. And for what? Europe isn't North America just as North America isn't Europe. Our railways have evolved in totally separate directions, neither is 'better' than the other.

Freight has traditionally been the poor relation in Europe just as passenger traffic has been in North America. The introduction of competition into the railfreight market has spurred positive change, and that competition was as a result of the EU. So operations like Euro Cargo Rail have generated new traffic, as well as capturing market share from incumbents. Also we now have both electric and diesel locomotives that cross borders. It is not perfect by any means but there is progress. In comparison the coupler issue is insignificant.

I also think that the statement 'the buffer style is so dangerous to the workers and that only a few in this discussion seem to care about them' is something of an overstatement. When it comes to investing to eliminate risk you look at what produces the best return in terms of reduced loss of life/serious injury/near miss. Here in Britain that means the on-going elimination of level crossings where the majority of deaths, injuries and near misses have occured in recent years. Not wanting to tempt fate but the railway itself has become increasingly safe for both employees and passengers.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/14 04:12 by 86235.

Listen to what Nick says. I believe similarly in the gradual progress for freight railroading in Europe. And see many developments happening. Like the ones in pictures below. The time for center couplers and longer long haul train will come.

86235 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Freight has traditionally been the poor relation
> in Europe just as passenger traffic has been in
> North America. The introduction of competition
> into the railfreight market has spurred positive
> change, and that competition was as a result of
> the EU. So operations like Euro Cargo Rail have
> generated new traffic, as well as capturing market
> share from incumbents. Also we now have both
> electric and diesel locomotives that cross
> borders. It is not perfect by any means but there
> is progress. In comparison the coupler issue is
> insignificant.

1) Here is an example from Sweden. HectorRail runs trains from all over Sweden to Germany. The route goes from Sweden through Denmark all the way by land connection to mid Germany. Long frequent trains with need for even more. Sidings on this route are now 850 meters long even on the German side, and I can imagine the European Union (project Marathon?) long train project will accomplished these being even longer in 10 years or so. The need is there: because of the environmental regulations for the Baltic sea much of the forest ans steel industry transportation will move to steel wheels in 2015, when using ships comes increasing expensive. Max. 200 miles / 3000 kilometers. Need for many long trains. Picture by Gerry.

2) Finnish VR is running its own very heavy and long mineral trains from Eastern Border to harbor in Kokkola, Finland. These are long haul from Kola Peninsula to Western Finland. Because of the gauge differences these trains can't be run directly to the customers in Central Europe through Sweden. ~1000 kilometers / 700 miles. Already pretty sizable trains, and since this is Russian-Finnish cooperation, they use all SA3 rolling stock only. No side buffers, except of Finnish diesel and electric locos. Double electric of 6100 kW is a norm in the road duty. Because of the lack of electric locomotion here is though double running Wolves of VR 6:00 in Kokkola passing the city station on their way to harbor. Wolves can handle the duty, but the efficiency is just poor compared to their more powerful Western alternative.

3) These locos are running double light in Austria, but in Austria and Switzerland the countries are often run through by intermodal traffic carrying trucks.

Nick has also reported on long haul Spanish produce trains from Spain to U.K. Similar trains also run from Spain to several other West European locations, one being Helsingborg in Sweden. 1000 - 3500 kilometers routes. Need for longer trains.

I hope all these example can give you idea that "the European freight train" is developing, the development just taking its time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/14 02:26 by McKey.

---

---

---

Thanks for all the replys.

One further point of clarification for Tomsp, the Screw and Link coupler system does not prevent humpyards. Indeed there are more Hump Classification Yards in the EU plus Switzerland, than there are in the US, Canada, and Mexico combined. Indeed the newest Hump Yard in Germany at Halle replacing the now poorly located Engelsdorf Rbf at Leipzig was completed in the last couple of years.

Thanks Soo, buy the cars don't couple by themselves and that is what I meant why said "hump yard".

Yes, they won't. But in U.S., Russia and all of Europe the brake lines need to be coupled anyways after humping. Plus turn the handle to make the cars use their normal brakes again. Lots of expensive work involved there.

One clarification: "Scharfenberg-type" (not all manufactured by Scharfenberg) are fully automatic, but used _only_ in EMUs and DMUs, etc. And they have their share of worries too. Every now and then the airline is leaking so its not 100% sure way to automate everything.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Soo, buy the cars don't couple by
> themselves and that is what I meant why said "hump
> yard".

To amuse you all here is two examples of the use of "Scharfenberg" in the Nordic countries ;)

---

---

McKey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, they won't. But in U.S., Russia and all of
> Europe the brake lines need to be coupled anyways
> after humping. Plus turn the handle to make the
> cars use their normal brakes again. Lots of
> expensive work involved there.

The brake hoses are coupled and the angle cocks are opened by the car inspectors as a part of the pre-departure air test that has to be accomplished before the train is released to the train crew.
The air test also includes a leak check and a set-up and release test to verify that all of the brakes in the train work.

So there is very little "added" work by having to couple the hoses and verify that the angle cockes are open.

By added work I mean that brake lines need to be connected (and in case of coaches electrical connections too). I still see that for a kilometer long train this takes considerable time opposed with the alternative that you should simply walk by the train and see that brake shoes are coming off on a brake test. 10 minutes opposed to 25 minutes (if the locomotives have enough air generation power).

I don't know if you are familiar with the long European trains. Where I live the Nordic big people have difficulty squeezing under the side buffers and screwing the connection tight to the hook takes time. With automatic coupler the coupler just clicks and that is it. Adding brake line(s) in confined space can be difficult (to again Nordic big people). And when you go between two coaches and try to get them coupled properly, the space is totally hopeless, unless you are on your back on the dirty soil under the coaches. Lots of cursing there, especially adding the air lines, that the crews do last because there are two on each side.

Compare this with totally automatic couplers with air lines and electrical connections and link going together with a click. And checking leaking air and brakes after that. Or walking by connecting brake lines with the the nonbuffered cars. Or doing like in U.S.: once the coupler comes loose, the brake line comes automatically loose (instead of braking apart). Lots of ingenious design work done here for crews and productivity's sake.

Now picture this with the difficulties I described above, I still see a mountain of difference unless otherwise convinced. U.S. and Russia are way ahead of most European countries here.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So there is very little "added" work by having to
> couple the hoses and verify that the angle cockes
> are open.