The transition from one coupler type to another must have caused some operational problems for railroads… for some time couplers of both types must have been in use as railroads made the conversion. How did crews deal with coupling cars that had non compatible couplers? Given that the 1870s were a tough time economically, how long did it take to change over to the Janney?
I don’t know other than I have seen couplers with a slot in the knuckle where a pin could be placed that would allow some mingling.
The Janney coupler was required by the Safety Appliance Act of 1893 to be installed by 1900.
It took a very long time, with several extensions which were granted with increasing exasperation. A very similar thing was observed with implementation of the Westinghouse brake.
If you have the time, the best way to ‘follow’ the answer to your question is to find, and download, the Google Books or archive.org PDF copies of contemporary publications like Railway and Locomotive Engineering. These cover both the legislative and operational issues associated with the changeovers. (They also represent in many cases a good way to waste many an idle hour, and no few non-idle ones!)
RME
A lot of good railroad history books like that of known and respected railroad authors like Jensen, Withune, and White are available at your library.
Note the vertical hole and horizontal slot in the knuckle.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulofcov/6220304899/in/photostream
This is from “The American Railway”, a 1988 reprint by Castle of a compilation of articles from around 1889.
The slotted knuckle is the basic explanation. However, a point that is often missed in the historical overview is that there was a considerable amount of incompatibility between link and pin couplers. There were many different designs and many required a variety of specialized connecting links and pins in order to mate.
This led to crews hoarding the loose link and pin hardware so as to have the proper components to mate couplers. A crew setting out twenty cars might strip all of the links and pins, and add them to their stockpile in the caboose. The crew arriving to pick up the cars, would have to go through their stockpile to find all the necessary links and pins to install on the couplers of the twenty cars.
Undoubtedly, this fundamental awkward incompatibility problem continued into the changeover phase to automatic couplers as the well-established working practice of the pure link and pin era.
That’s interesting about the hoarding of link and pin components. I’ve read that theft was a big problem, with underpaid workers and others stealing the pins in order to sell them for their metal value. Maybe there’s some overlap between the hoarding for practical purposes and the outright theft of the pins. It must have been tough on the crews to have to deal with incompatible link & pin couplers as well as the Janney.
Sadly, not at my library. All we have are books on investing, living with same sex partners and shelves filled with books on how to lose weight, and of course war. Some drug store fiction type books available too. I’m not sure where my tax money goes, but it ain’t going to the libraries, that I can tell you for sure.
Bite your tongue, Ulrich. I am personally appalled that you would suggest theft was any part of American railroads in the second half of the 19th century. Since you are European I guess I can forgive your misunderstanding of us. But no American would ever EVER believe there was any kind of foul play connected with the development of our railroads during those years.
John
DISCLAIMER: I am fully aware of the ‘whooosh’ factor.
The real theft issue, according to no less an authority than C.F.Adams, was not the conversion pins for the couplers, although – yes – that was recognized as a significant factor, and attempts were made to address it.
A FAR more significant cost was links and pins in the link-and-pin coupling system. There are some horror stories about employees selling a great number of “broken” links as ‘old iron’ to scrap dealers. ISTR replacement link numbers upward of 20,000 per year - don’t have the reference at hand to check.
Yes, the loose hardware was a big problem with link and pin couplers in addition to the widely known safety hazard. Another problem was that link and pin couplers generally had a lot more slack than Janney couplers. Unlike Janney couplers, link and pin couplers were not as capable of transmitting a shoving load. So the solution was to equip cars with “deadblocks” on each side of the link and pin coupler. To the best of my knowledge, however, deadblocks were not universal during the link and pin era.
When shoving, the deadblocks came together and transmitted the compression force, leaving the link and pin coupler somewhat slack. Link and pin couplers were well known to amputate fingers or hands. Deadblocks smashed torsos.
I can just imagine railroading at some time around 1885, in the middle of a Maine winter. It is too bad that more railroad people from that era did not leave a written record. But then again, the life expectancy for the average male was only 45 years, and he probably had no time to think about anything other than getting through the day in one piece.
From our modern perspective, most railfans do not relate at all to the pre-1900 period. They tend to dismiss it as the beginning times. But it was a wild and exciting time in those teenage years of railroading in the 1880-1900 period.
The best book on the topic of this thread that I have seen is The American Railroad Freight Car by John H. White, Jr. The diversity of rolling stock in the pioneering era is astounding.
Again I want to send Ulrich and all others to their libraries for so many books about pre and post 1900 railroading…individual railroad histories as well as broader histories…book written this morning and thousand more written since the first rail and spike were placed. Check rail museums and rail historical societies, local historical societies, flea markets and train shows for some of the older books. Be careful of books published for the sake of publishing or for the sake of selling books on trains…usually photo books with little editorial content and often poorly captioned pictures. Look at the bibliography of each searching for names of authors, railroads, people, and books which you might know to anchor the information for you. Check the ads in TRAINS, CLASSIC TRAINS, and others for new and old titles…even run down books on Ebay, Amazon, and other internet services. Most libraries, if they don’t have the book or books you are looking for, can search and find ones you might want. Old Railroad Magazines (dating back to ca.1910) have great stories and news and pictures; TRAINS started in 1938 with some great articles. Even Life did photo essays and Saturday Evening Post magazines did articles and fictional stories.
Not to mention having to be between the cars during the coupling. Dvds IGN
Not to mention - after the train is built - the Brakemen riding the cars so they can apply and release the hand brakes on the cars at the Engineers whistle signal - and moving from car to car on the moving train to accomplish their duties.
If you should happen to have access to the book The American Railroad Passenger Car by John H. White Jr., there is an excellant photo of how the Janney coupler was modified for used with a link and pin coupler. This can be found in the chapter on Running Gears, page 569. This modification applied to freight as well as passenger cars.
Just a side note, my great-great (maybe a third ??) uncle was employed by the PRR and working in the Altoona Shops when the Janney coupler was taken to the PRR for tests. He was assigned to the project and family stories have him telling of the modifications that were made so it could be of practical use on rail cars. Multiple coupler types was one problem, and a project he worked on was to modify the coupler so it could be securely attached to a railcar. Their work assisted in further improvements to the original design.
Sounds like “deadblocks”, as you described them, evolved into Buffers on various non North American railroad systems.
Yes, deadblocks are very much like buffers. But buffer systems also include a means to stretch the couplers aganst the compression of the buffers. This achieves the important attibute of eliminating slack. Deadblocks reduced slack, but still left some. There was not a means to strtech the slack out by an adjustment feature with dead blocks.
Dead blocks were made as timber blocks mounted to the end sill on each side of the link and pin coupler. They acted like bumpers on a automobile, although they were interrupted in the center by the coupler. The main purpose of dead blocks was to be there when an engine wanted to shove cars. Then the dead blocks would all close up and transmit the shove without disrupting the cars as a string.
Bucyrus,
Many railroad managers of the post Civil War period also seem unable to relate to the railroads of their own day. Witness the general reluctance to adopt the Janney coupler and Westinghouse air brakes.
John