Dangling shackles!

[E3109]

It's almost unheard of these days, to see conventional drawgear hanging off the drawhook into free space, at least on the main line.

Yet this practice was very common, in fact normal, not so long ago.

 

Does anyone have a definitive date as to when it was outlawed? In fact, has it even been outlawed or is it simply a case of good working practices being applied?

 

I know that the GWR (or at least BR(W)) used to stow the shackle/chain assembly almost horizontally via further chains, presumably this was in part to avoid striking ATC equipment.

 

I can imagine that if the turnbuckle is set at its longest position, AWS magnets and pointwork would be struck every time the base of the shackle ran over them.

If you look at photos as late as the 1980s (or even early 1990s?) the screw coupling is not secured to anything at its free end, I do wonder why this was not only permitted, but the norm.

 

Nowadays they're always stowed, either on the bracket provided, or over the drawhook itself, the latter being my preference.

I have seen documents suggesting that the coupling should not be stowed on the hook, I wonder if this is to limit any wear, but most drivers and shunters seem to prefer that method.

[hobbyhorse]

We was always taught on the South Eastern to hang the coupling on the hook on the locos. One of my regular drivers would always comment when taking over trains from other regions if the coupling was hanging, and on one occasion we had a bit of a standoff between the two driver. In the end I hung it up, but I had the last laugh as I shook the other drivers hand and said "no hard feelings mate" unfortunately I had a really greasy hand.

[LMS2968]

It would probably be to do with the use of individual wagons hooked on / off with a shunting pole. This was very handy, saving the shunter from going in between, but you didn't hang the link on the drawhook with a pole. So the same attitude might apply with a loco shackle.

 

Another point is the AWS receiver on the loco, although here there was a protection plate ahead of it specifically to save it from a swinging loose shackle.

[eastglosmog]

Harold Gasson in one of his books states that GWR locos had a hook under the buffer beam to hang the coupling on and it was bad practice not to use it.

[Dava]

I was intrigued by the thread title and wondered if it belonged in the 'fetish modelling' area, but clearly not!

 

Great Western express locos had a little hook towards the left buffer for the coupling shackle to hang from, thus avoiding it swinging about untidily - see 'Steam Railway' p46 this month for example. AWS would be one reason for this.

 

Other lines had to use the coupling hook, or leave the shackle hanging loose. Some LMS/BR Standard types had a metal plate below the buffer beam for it to hang against.

 

Dava

[Poor Old Bruce]

It would probably be to do with the use of individual wagons hooked on / off with a shunting pole. This was very handy, saving the shunter from going in between, but you didn't hang the link on the drawhook with a pole. So the same attitude might apply with a loco shackle.

 

Another point is the AWS receiver on the loco, although here there was a protection plate ahead of it specifically to save it from a swinging loose shackle.

 

IIRC, that protector plate also incorporated a slot for the loose end of the coupling as well. A loco coupling could be stowed on the hook as that was usually the desired coupling to use, if a coach or wagon coupling was stowed on the coupling hook it would be in the way when another vehicle was to be coupled to it. There was a time when many AWS track magnet boxes were smashed by dangling couplings as some screw coupling could dangle below rail level but it only took one! Fitting ramps at the facing ends of the magnets relieved some damage but even the ramps sustained damage.

[Gibbo675]

H Folks,

 

A lot of LMS and BR Std locos had a small hook underneath the back of the buffer plank to which the loose end of the shackle was to be stowed. LMS shackles had a fixed tommy bar and could be slid through the shackle loop keeping it up and out of the way.

 

AWS protection plates were fitted to protect the receivers mounted on the fronts of leading trucks and bogies and not to protect the track mounted ramps, the shackle should not hang so low as to strike the rails, if it does then the springs and axle boxes need more attention than the shackle does.

 

Hanging the shackle from its own hook is vary bad practice for should it not be lifted down and another shackle placed over it it causes a point loading on the tip of the hook stretching it open and giving rise to possible failure, also should the train be jolted then the top shackle may be thrown off allow the train to divide. Part of the draw gear maintenance procedures includes a check upon the throat gap of the hook and also wear to the root of the hook and loops, pins and trunnions of the shackles for this sort of reason.

 

Brake and team heat pipes must be stowed upon their brackets or chains as the can foul track work and be ripped off or their fitting damaged.

 

Gibbo.

[jim.snowdon]

So far, this has all been about locomotives, but a lot of carriages and fair number of wagons were also fitted with screw couplings and they weren't fitted with neat little hooks to take the bottom shackle. In general, they were just left dangling and weren't a problem, except for the continental stock that came over via the train ferries. Their couplings were longer and if not screwed up would dangle below rail level and do the inevitable to AWS magnets.

 

I'm a little surprised at the comment about brake and heating pipes, as these are by definition shorter than couplings. Of course, it is good practice (and essential for vacuum brake hoses) for them to be stowed, but not essential. I doubt that many hoses on wagons got regularly stowed when they weren't at the end of the train, and especially not when fitted wagons were travelling in amongst unfitted stock in ordinary goods trains.

 

Another lasting memory of routinely unstowed brake pipes was watching the SR 4-COR stock at speed, when the airflow round the front of the cab would cause the air brake pipes to be blown out towards the corners of the car body.

 

Jim

[The Johnster]

A locomotive screw coupling is a much heavier and longer device than the ones fitted to other stock.  Both are too heavy to be used with shunting poles, but the principle was that as the shunter had to 'go between' anyway to couple the vacuum hoses on the stock that screw couplings was fitted to.  They were thus regarded as a bit of a nuisance in branch pick up or similar work, and the colliery owners hated them!

 

At Canton in the 70s, the use of the the hooks to stow them had been long abandoned, and we were instructed not to stow them on their own drawhook for the reason stated above; they were left dangling, but with the shackle screwed up on the bottle to avoid potential damage to AWS gear.   Drivers bemoaned the drop in standards, but were themselves responsible for it of course; the practice dated from before the final end of steam in the area.  The purpose of hanging the coupling up properly was to avoid damage to the loco's vacuum and steam heating bags if it swung about.

 

We were instructed to use the loco coupling and not the first vehicle in the train's when coupling the loco to the train, except in the case of a loose coupled class 9 train, which meant a coal train at Canton and anywhere else in South Wales, when the leading wagon's instanter in the long position was to be used; I believe this was to facilitate work at the collieries.  The other exception was the very heavy iron ore trains from Port Talbot to Llanwern, originally with triple headed 37s at a 2.700 ton trailing load.  For these a further beefed up version of a screw coupling was used and fitted to the end vehicles of the rake; the couplings within the rake were a special heavy duty buckeye that could be rotated on the end of the wagon painted orange, so that the wagon could be unloaded by the tippler at Llanwern without being detached from the train.

Edited August 24, 2018 by The Johnster

[LMS2968]

As The Johnster says, you didn't use the loco shackle with a loose coupled train. The wagons in such a train could contain a mix of three-link and Instanta couplings in the long position. It was very undesirable to have couplings of different lengths between individual wagons and / or the loco as it made judging the closing up of the train and its braking performance difficult to judge. If using the loco coupling in such a case, the screw would need to be wound out and therein lay the problem. The three link or Instanter would, when braking and the buffers closed up, sag to accommodate the shorter distance between wagons. A screw shackle was usually stiff and wouldn't bend; in these circumstances the rigid shackle would be pushed up the drawhook of the adjacent wagon, and then possibly off it into space. The resultant break-away with a loose coupled train was only the start of your problems!

[Gibbo675]

As The Johnster says, you didn't use the loco shackle with a loose coupled train. The wagons in such a train could contain a mix of three-link and Instanta couplings in the long position. It was very undesirable to have couplings of different lengths between individual wagons and / or the loco as it made judging the closing up of the train and its braking performance difficult to judge. If using the loco coupling in such a case, the screw would need to be wound out and therein lay the problem. The three link or Instanter would, when braking and the buffers closed up, sag to accommodate the shorter distance between wagons. A screw shackle was usually stiff and wouldn't bend; in these circumstances the rigid shackle would be pushed up the drawhook of the adjacent wagon, and then possibly off it into space. The resultant break-away with a loose coupled train was only the start of your problems!

Hi There,

 

You are quite correct in that the locomotive's screw shackle should not be used on loose coupled trains. The reason being that any snatch could damage the threads by way of stretching them and also bending the trunnions of the nut which in turn make the coupling stiff and difficult to operate as you mention in your post.

 

In extreme circumstances a loose screw coupling that has been subject to snatch may be a cause that coupling to fail.

 

Gibbo.

[Simon Lee]

The stowing of the not in use coupling became more rigorously enforced as freight became an all Air brake railway.

 

There was an increasing amount of unsolicited brake applications and train divisions caused by the pendulum action of the loose coupling swinging up and parting the air pipes and on occasion knocking the in use coupling off the hook. Not so often today but still happens on occasion.

 

Interestingly trains via the Channel Tunnel depart UK with the leading wagon coupling in use between the loco and wagon, as per UIC regs. When the first through 92's were introduced between Wembley/Trafford Park and Calais there was a regular job of rearranging the couplings at Dollands until those up country got used to the practice.    

[Ncarter2]

We had a GBRf train uncouple going over battle down flyover late last year. One of the recommendations was the couplings not in use got secured rather than being left to dangle.

[jim.snowdon]

A locomotive screw coupling is a much heavier and longer device than the ones fitted to other stock.  Both are too heavy to be used with shunting poles, but the principle was that as the shunter had to 'go between' anyway to couple the vacuum hoses on the stock that screw couplings was fitted to.  They were thus regarded as a bit of a nuisance in branch pick up or similar work, and the colliery owners hated them!

 

I don't see any reason for the couplings on a loco being any longer than those on other stock. The length of the coupling is essentially determined by the distance between the headstocks of the loco and the adjacent vehicle, and that is in turn determined by the length of the buffers. Certainly in the steam era, and I would expect for a long time into the diesel era, buffers were either 18" long for stock with 3-link coupings, and 20.5" long for  anything fitted with screw couplings, including locomotives. Some diesel locos have longer buffers, but then this is often compensated by the drawhook standing farther out from the headstock.

 

At the same time, there is no purpose in having a loco coupling that is much stronger than the coupling on the wagon at the head end of the train. All but a very small part of the tractive effort being exerted by the loco on the train has to go through the coupling between the first and second vehicles.

 

UK standard screw couplings, even when fully unwound, still cleared the rail head; the continental couplings were longer by virtue of European buffers being longer.

 

Jim

[Steadfast]

Throwing the coupling up onto the hook is much easier than lifting the coupling with one hand and tucking the lower link under and onto the stowing hook. I tend to put the loco coupling back up on the loco hook for this reason. Wagons I'll always stow underneath, unless it's a run round on a set with one of our 66s (no screwlink on the locos with buckeyes) and I know the 66 will bring it back. Makes it easier for me and the shunter at the other end of the journey.

Some air pipes are very long and could catch the track and fittings, these tend to be buckeye, or former buckeye, fitted stock. 59/2s hang lowest (except 201) and the HTAs come close. Even if it's short, if the air pipe is left flapping it could be exposed to flying objects. If it's stowed, the rubber hose will make first contact.

 

Jo

[The Bigbee Line]

When I was a guard the appendix rule was that screw couplings not in use were to be hung in the rest hooks provided.  If the hook was missing and the other coupling was a screw coupling, they were to be swapped.  If both couplings had missing rest hooks, the coupling was screwed into the short position and the tapper would tie up the bottom link with 'brake release' cord.  Plus they would apply green cards as appropriate.

 

Attached is a PDF with most coupling variations shown for your perusal, sample shown below.  Note that there were couplings of the same type with different breaking strains...  a test paper will be handed out later....

 

 

1q1cB1-C0-90299821 .E B R COUPLING TYPES (2).pdf

Edited August 24, 2018 by The Bigbee Line

[The Johnster]

I don't see any reason for the couplings on a loco being any longer than those on other stock. The length of the coupling is essentially determined by the distance between the headstocks of the loco and the adjacent vehicle, and that is in turn determined by the length of the buffers. Certainly in the steam era, and I would expect for a long time into the diesel era, buffers were either 18" long for stock with 3-link coupings, and 20.5" long for  anything fitted with screw couplings, including locomotives. Some diesel locos have longer buffers, but then this is often compensated by the drawhook standing farther out from the headstock.

 

At the same time, there is no purpose in having a loco coupling that is much stronger than the coupling on the wagon at the head end of the train. All but a very small part of the tractive effort being exerted by the loco on the train has to go through the coupling between the first and second vehicles.

 

UK standard screw couplings, even when fully unwound, still cleared the rail head; the continental couplings were longer by virtue of European buffers being longer.

 

Jim

 

That's right. a fully extended screw coupling will not foul the rail head, but can cause damage to AWS/ATC gear, and water troughs.  

[Ken.W]

In my time as a secondman loco couplings wern't hooked back over the drawhook, but they were to be screwed up short in order to avoid contact with AWS magnets.

They are significantly longer than other couplings if left unscrewed.

 

Regarding brake pipes, vacuum pipes of coarse had to be placed on the dummy plug, or you couldn't release the brakes. With air pipes, although they have isolating cocks, they were still to be placed on the dummy plugs or bracket, as fitted, to help keep dirt from getting into the pipes and subsequently the brake valves

[E3109]

Just a thought, something I recalled after reading all the comments on this thread (and thanks guys, some very interesting anecdotes and info here).

 

As some of you will know, I've been going to Cambodia for years and of course in that part of the world they continue to use buffers and shackles (albeit a single, central buffer with the screw coupling beneath, French narrow gauge style).

Anyway during an extended stay there a while back, I was asked to assist in a C&W course on a voluntary basis for the T&RS guys and shunters.

I've been friends with the western operators for a long time due to holidays: I've also done my best to promote the railway out there albeit as an interested outsider, and I do know a bit about wagons and so on. Thus I thought it would be rude to decline.

 

What I'd noticed since year dot is that they didn't seem to particularly care about loose shackles, obviously this knocks the buggery out of the screw couplings and buffing gear alike, leading to unnecessary and avoidable wear. One advantage of screw couplings is that you can mitigate to a degree, against 'stretch' in a way that AAR/buckeyes can't.

 

I did a few pieces on bogie maintenance, side bearer tolerances and the like but coupling methods were something I was more aware of than the Australian concessionaires, given that Australia went over to AAR many years ago.

 

As a 'Pom' I was able to get it over to the Cambodian staff that the screw couplings ought to be set so that they were tight but not too tight, the guys really took all this on board and hopefully my little speeches made a difference.

 

I'd like to add a little anectdode, the Khmer word for 'chain' is 'jawah'.

Unfortunately 'jawah' has connotations of 'prisoner', as in 'man in chains'.

'A jawah' translates roughly as 'the contemptible jailbird' and I've been called that more than once...

 

Anyway. Use of the word was unavoidable re screw couplings of course, via my mate who was interpreting there were a few gags to be had, I told the fellas that if you don't do this then you're 'a jawah', they of course reciprocated...

 

Fantastic times and last time I was there a few weeks ago, I noted wagons in the station yard being shunted, it seems that my little bit of ribbing has worked. Result!

Edited August 25, 2018 by E3109

[eastglosmog]

..........................

 

Great Western express locos had a little hook towards the left buffer for the coupling shackle to hang from, thus avoiding it swinging about untidily - see 'Steam Railway' p46 this month for example. AWS would be one reason for this.

 

............................................

 

Dava

I thought GWR locos always had the hook on the left, but was surprised today when reading Atkins GWR Goods train working, to see that there are a few examples (including one on the cover of both volumes) of the hook on the right (and no, the photos have not been printed in reverse).  Anybody know why there were these few exceptions?

[Mike Oliver]

I was instructed never to hang a loco coupling on the drawhook. There is a danger that another coupling gets hooked over the first coupling. It's easier for that coupling to ride up the hook and uncouple as it can't be in the bight of the hook. The pull of the coupling is on a weaker part of the hook and may damage it leading to inadvertent uncoupling.

[PM47079]

After a few damaged tpws grids caused by dangling couplings, it was suggested it might be a good idea to hang them up properly. The same applies to the air pipes, after years of them not being stowed properly, they tend to be tidied away nicely thus preventing those pesky rubber grommets seals from disappearing

[The Stationmaster]

After a few damaged tpws grids caused by dangling couplings, it was suggested it might be a good idea to hang them up properly. The same applies to the air pipes, after years of them not being stowed properly, they tend to be tidied away nicely thus preventing those pesky rubber grommets seals from disappearing

 

As TPWS grids are mounted below rail level, and lower than the top of an AWS magnet there must have been instances of other things being damaged as well.  Sounds like Continental screw couplings are most likely the culprits but how they managed to damage a TPWS grid without first hitting rail somewhere is a bit odd.

[The Bigbee Line]

A continental screw coupling fully extended on a loaded wagon (springs compressed) will clip the rails at turnouts, cattle grids, and AWS magnets. At speed it will be flailing around if not correctly stowed.

[L49]

Taking this thread a bit further, and onto LT metals. An old friend of mine who used to drive for TransPlant in the 80s and 90s told me that if they ever had to shift three link coupled wagons over fourth rail, the practice was to twist both sets of shackles round to 'double couple', with both shackles resting in the opposite hook, thus making sure there were no couplings hanging loose to strike the negative rail. Has anyone else ever heard of this, or was he winding me up??

 

I know it works with Smiths three links, because I chose to use them on my first LT engineers layout, and as a measure of authenticity, I 'double coupled' all the 12t Minerals which I was using! That'd be why there was never any splitting of engineers trains in the tunnel section on Houndsditch. You try to get a 4mm shunting pole to double couple three links with less than three inches of headroom.