Talk:Janney coupler

Other article talk page

See Talk:Coupling (railway)#Which railways use Janney couplers?. Peter Horn User talk 16:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger

Lets get on with it without loosing any images. Peter Horn User talk 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gooseneck coupler

Re Janney coupler#Gooseneck coupler, please see my post at Talk:Victorian Railways box vans#Gooseneck type coupler. Peter Horn User talk 23:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janney coupler. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060926185507/http://www.wsr.org.uk/couplings.htm to http://www.wsr.org.uk/couplings.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone add a section explaining how it works?

Hi, this coupler is something I've seen my whole life and always wondered about. This article is great, but could someone please add some details on exactly how it works? Specifically:

1. They ram to cars together to get them to couple: if they immediately try to pull the cars apart: will they come apart? or does the coupling hold? If the coupling _does_ hold: how is that possible? Common sense says that if the coupling can join "smoothly" then just reversing the motion would cause them to uncouple (imagine playing a movie backwards). Is there some kind of cam action that is making it not uncouple?
2. The article talks about this pin that can be inserted into the coupling. Is that optional? Or is it required to keep the coupling together? Is it something that they don't use in the freight yard when assembling the trains, and then the only insert the pins at the last minute before the whole train departs?
3. The pins seem to go into the couplings from a variety of ways: top, bottom etc. If the pins go in from the bottom, what prevents them from falling out?
4. There is a picture of a pin that can be inserted "remotely" by the operator standing far away, at the edge of the car. That seems safe, but doesn't the operator have to go between the cars anyway to attach the brake hoses?
5. When cars are uncoupled, the coupling is always in the open position, correct? Would it ever be in the closed position (when cars uncoupled) or is that forbidden because then the cars cannot be easily coupled again?
6. If the train cars are on a curved track, is there any risk that the couplings will not line-up properly to make the connection?
7. The article says there is a specification which requires that the couplings have to align within 1" vertically (something like 30" above the track, I think). That make sense, but don't the cars have spring suspensions that would cause them to sink 2 or 3 inches under heavy loads? Or do the suspensions only sink 1" maximum?

Thanks in advance for any answers. You don't need to answer here: but if you create a section in the article and answer there, that would be great. Noleander (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

1. @Noleander: To uncouple, the pin needs to be lifted up (top operated) or pulled from the bottom (bottom operated). Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
2. The pin is a permanent part of the mechanism. Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Again, the pin is a permanent part of the mechanism and is shaped to suit. Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
4. In all cases the hoses are manually attached anyway. Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
5. When uncoupled it gets never in a closed position. The mechanism does not permit that. Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
6. I have personally seen couplers not align up when cars were on a sharp curve. The operator had to use force Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
7. The standard 11 inch tall knuckle can handle the vertical misalignments and is meant to do so. Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Noleander: Individual anxwer above. Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Re Janney coupler#Changes since 1873 see Talk:Double shelf coupler#Clarification needed Peter Horn User talk 23:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Henricot coupler

Janney coupler#Henricot coupler The corresponding article in the French Wiki is fr:Attelage Henricot. Peter Horn User talk 17:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Link to Janney Wikipedia page

Eli H. Janney The foregoing needs to be added to the article. Mkshbck (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Compatibility

In the description of the MCB coupler, it is written "By then there were a great many variations of MCB couplers in use - an 1899 Knuckle Identification Chart illustrates 78 mutually incompatible knuckles" [emphasis added]. In the following description of the AAR coupler is written "In the first decade of the 1900s there were upwards of 75 makes of MCB standard-compliant couplers in use on North American railroads. All of these could couple together."

So which is correct? Were different manufacturers' MCB couplers compatible or incompatible? And if the latter, what was the point of MCB? Czetie (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Remove Janney Type E section?

The section devoted to the Janney Type E could easily be removed. It repeats information found previously in the article, except in less detail. It is also odd that this one variant out of the entire history of the Janney coupler is given its own section. I propose that this information is adequately covered already and there is no need to call out the Type E distinctly. Czetie (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

But how does it work?

The only explanation of the locking mechanism is implicit, through the diagram, but I for one cannot quite figure out how it works. Are springs involved? They are not shown or mentioned. A (possibly more schematic) diagram of successive phases with some accompanying text might do the job (for me).  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)