Why does Australia have a different train coupling system than America?

Because we are a different country! We also have our own minds, well I could go on. From the practical side, I have no idea, but then the coupling systems have also changed over the years. I dare say Britain is different too.
 
Basically it's because their railways were developed at different times. The early British influenced lines had buffers and chains just like that which is still used in the UK and Europe. Other lines had American or Canadian influence, thus the Janney couplers - the same ones we use on our railroads. The signaling system too is the same as we have if you haven't noticed with the big US&S and GRS signals.

The advantages... I don't know. I would leave that up to the people that know more about that stuff than I do.
 
It's the same reason we adopted different track gauges - the six Australian states were originally seperate independent British colonies that had their own ways of doing things, which included coupler standards. As JCitron stated above, the early lines usually were originally planned and designed by British engineers who adpoted then contemporary British practices, including British style link-and-pin/chain couplers and double buffers. Only in later after Federation and the gradual shift in social attitude from 'Mother England' were other ideas (read: American) practices adopted, one of which was the adoption of automatic knuckle couplers (helped by the national track gauge 'Standardisation' project from the early/mid 60's onwards).

As well, the narrow gauge systems were even more varied: Queensland and Tasmania originally used the double buffers and chain link couplings like the standard gauge NSW and broad gauge SA and Victorian systems, while WA and the SA/Commonwealth narrow gauge networks used the distinctive Norwegian 'chopper' couplings. Again this is no longer really the case and auto knuckle couplers are pretty much standard on all systems with only older legacy or heritage equipment still retaining older couplings.

Another standard that was wildly different between state rail systems in Australia was braking systems: some states used the British vacuum braking system (Tasmania, Western Australia), and the others used the American Westinghouse air braking system. Only recently was air braking adopted as standard Australia wide. It's one of those weird quirks of a nation that was created from seperate colonies that never really fully saw eye to eye with each other prior to Federation. A lot of of it was just plain stubborness.
 
Last edited:
It's the same reason we adopted different track gauges - the six Australian states were originally seperate independent British colonies that had their own ways of doing things, which included coupler standards. As JCitron stated above, the early lines usually were originally planned and designed by British engineers who adpoted then contemporary British practices, including British style link-and-pin/chain couplers and double buffers. Only in later after Federation and the gradual shift in social attitude from 'Mother England' were other ideas (read: American) practices adopted, one of which was the adoption of automatic knuckle couplers (helped by the national track gauge 'Standardisation' project from the early/mid 60's onwards).

As well, the narrow gauge systems were even more varied: Queensland and Tasmania originally used the double buffers and chain link couplings like the standard gauge NSW and broad gauge SA and Victorian systems, while WA and the SA/Commonwealth narrow gauge networks used the distinctive Norwegian 'chopper' couplings. Again this is no longer really the case and auto knuckle couplers are pretty much standard on all systems with only older legacy or heritage equipment still retaining older couplings.

Another standard that was wildly different between state rail systems in Australia was braking systems: some states used the British vacuum braking system (Tasmania, Western Australia), and the others used the American Westinghouse air braking system. Only recently was air braking adopted as standard Australia wide. It's one of those weird quirks of a nation that was created from seperate colonies that never really fully saw eye to eye with each other prior to Federation. A lot of of it was just plain stubborness.

The American couplers seem more logical and efficient by design. Probably much safer for RR personnel to handle. Automatic knuckle couplers were invented to improve safety. Being an American, buffer and chain couplers I no familiarity with. I only first became aware of them by playing the Trainz game which had some rolling stock that won't couple with American rolling stock. The first American couplers were very dangerous for RR personnel to deal with.
 
Last edited:
As it seems that you had your mind made up, and answered your own question, yourself deciding which one was safer, and better, why was the question posed the in the first place ?

Well, I just couldn't understand why so much Trainz rolling stock content has those seemingly old-fashioned double buffer things on them. It would seem that the whole world would have adopted the Janney ones by now.

I compare the double buffer ones to the auto knuckle ones as I compare candle sticks with electric lighting. America uses mostly electric lighting in homes these days. Candles are sometimes reserved for blackouts. Is candlelight still common in other parts of the world?

Internationally, the controls in automobiles are pretty much universal. Clutch pedal on the left, gas pedal on the right, brake pedal to the left of the gas pedal, gear shift lever in the middle, steering wheel below eye level and so on. I just couldn't understand the logic behind the international diversity in railway equipment. It sparked my curiosity enough to make a thread about it.
 
Last edited:
Internationally, the controls in automobiles are pretty much universal. Clutch pedal on the left, gas pedal on the right, gear shift lever in the middle, steering wheel below eye level and so on. I just couldn't understand the international diversity in railway equipment. It sparked my curiosity enough to make a thread about it.

Let's not also forget that in the UK, they drive on the left side of the road, and the driver of a UK car sits in what's the passenger's seat in a US car. Fun fact: US Post Office vans that deliver your mail all have the steering wheel where the passenger would sit, just like cars from the UK, so that the mailman won't have to reach as far to open a mailbox.
 
Last edited:
Let's not also forget that in the UK, they drive on the left side of the road, and the driver of a UK car sits in what's the passenger's seat in a US car.

I once went to Jamaica with my mother and a woman friend on vacation. I discovered that this island was in the West Indies because Columbus thought he had landed his three ships in India.
They drive on the wrong side of the road in Jamaica following the English custom. The car rental bloke told us to remember to just stay left when we drove. The Japanese import had right-hand drive. Still, the pedals on the floor were still oriented the same. I used my left foot to rest and do nothing and my right foot for gas and brakes. I had to use my left hand to operate the parking brake, though. The car was an automatic so I don't know how driving a stick would have felt to me with right-hand drive. It seems as I would to have had to shifted with my left arm if it were a stick shift instead of a column shift.
 
Most of the reasons I'm aware of seem to have been covered here, however, don't discount the "that's how it's done" factor. That is the natural resistance to a new way of doing things and, if you haven't noticed railroads can be very traditional places and most resistant to change.

As to the advantages, buffer coupler equipment can be shoved with out hitching together and can be made to control slack better, while automatic/Janey/AAR couplers do automatically hitch together. As to the disadvantages, there seem to be more with the buffer style; I will speak on my personal experience having switched standard gauge stock with both types of couplings (US with AAR type E & H and Swedish passenger cars with buffer and turnbuckle). In terms of ease of use I'll take the AAR every time, it lets you spend less time between the cars and normally takes less physical effort. In terms of safety I will prefer the AAR as well as it reduces the amount of time you are between cars as well as provides better egress from between the cars.
 
Ah, the good old link-and-pin days!

I long to be a brakeman
and on the footboard stand,
With a star upon my bosom
and a finger off each hand!

Courtesy of my conductor granddad. His grandfather went back that far.

Having ridden and observed Deutsches Bahn, JNR, Queensland Rail, NSW Rail, BritishRail pre-Maggie, along with Canadian, US and Mexican, it seems as though Janney gear is the coming thing most places, although the Euro auto-couplings are a contender. I'm not sure what couplings are used on the Shinkansen or Chunnel trains, I didn't really notice at the time, to my regret. Any observations on those?

:B~)
 
They drive on the wrong side of the road in Jamaica following the English custom.

Where I live we would call that the 'right' side of the road, as in the 'correct' side of the road. But let's not start a flame war over that.

With the Uk system of two buffers and a chain and hook the forces on the buffers and the forces affecting the couplings are kept separate. Remember this system was devised in the early days of the railways when techniques for make good quality iron and steel are not as they are now. It seems to me that the Janey coupling by combining buffing and coupling together with automatically moving parts is very much dependent on being made from high quality steel forgings if it's not going to break in service.
My grandad and uncles worked on the railways and I can certainly appreciate that a coupling that works without anybody having to step between railway wagons to hook anything up is going to be a whole lot safer.

No one has mentioned the 'Norwegian' coupling which is what we used here in New Zealand for a very long time. I travelled to school by train when I was a lot younger than I am now and watching wagons being shunted in the goods yard was a highlight of waiting for the train each morning and evening.
TD0FwBI.jpg
 
An acquaintance of mine is a carpenter, he runs a table saw a lot, the nickname we refer to him as: "Fingerless Bill", he is about as bright as a Box "O" Rocks, never uses a "pusher stick" around revolving table saw blades. I myself, got myself out of the RR, before I got seriously kilt' ! I have met many a 9 finger employees who "got it" from goosing the knuckle pin, and a one arm hump tower operator who "got it" from pushing a boxcar plug door closed, and the dang thing fell off the sliding door track.

I was formerly an automobile mechanic by trade and a fleet truck mechanic in the army.
I witnessed a small-engine-power-equipment mechanic in the army severe a couple fingers working
near a running diesel power generator set in the shop. That treacherous exposed cooling fan!

An army surgeon successfully reattached his fingers. I had the morbid task of searching for his fingers on the
generator set right after a sergeant in a Humvee drove him to the hospital on post. It turned out his two fingers
were still hung onto his hand by their skin and the loose fingers were cupped under his hand to hold them in place.
I believe the soldier was discharged sometime after the hand operation for medical reasons. I don't know if he ever
regained full use of those mended digits.The complex nerves and tendons.

I'm so lucky to still have all ten fingers intact, both eyes that see, both ears that hear and all ten knuckles which aren't "literally" busted.

Grease monkeys were reputed to "bust their knuckles" in their trade.

A careful locomotive engineer doesn't bust his train's knuckles on steep grades.
 
Last edited:
While we are on fingers etc......
Had a butcher mate that lost a digit (a lot of butchers do I suppose) ….well after that he got the nickname "9 pin bowling". And he is still a butcher.
 
The Victorian Railways adopted the American Westinghouse brake from 1884 then the American auto couplers from mid 1920's, in 1925 the American Car Foundry built two flat wagons for the Victorian Railways "known as S class flat wagon and I've got them on the DLS" and came with auto couplers, from then some Steam locomotives "C & K Class" where converted including new ones built "N, X and H Class" fitted auto couplers, wasn't until 1950 the auto coupler became a standard with most steam locomotives that where not converted scrapped and rollingstock that could not be converted where also scrapped, old Electric trains kept the screwlinks while new ones built like the "Harris sets built in 1956 (I've got a set on Victrainz)" where auto couplers.

so it's to do with the time period that has the difference with the trainz ones, that's why Billegulla's are auto coupler and Zec's are screwlink, two different time periods.

Cheers.
 
Where I live we would call that the 'right' side of the road, as in the 'correct' side of the road. But let's not start a flame war over that.

With the Uk system of two buffers and a chain and hook the forces on the buffers and the forces affecting the couplings are kept separate. Remember this system was devised in the early days of the railways when techniques for make good quality iron and steel are not as they are now. It seems to me that the Janey coupling by combining buffing and coupling together with automatically moving parts is very much dependent on being made from high quality steel forgings if it's not going to break in service.
My grandad and uncles worked on the railways and I can certainly appreciate that a coupling that works without anybody having to step between railway wagons to hook anything up is going to be a whole lot safer.

No one has mentioned the 'Norwegian' coupling which is what we used here in New Zealand for a very long time. I travelled to school by train when I was a lot younger than I am now and watching wagons being shunted in the goods yard was a highlight of waiting for the train each morning and evening.
TD0FwBI.jpg


That's a very curious arrangement! Looks like the wagons have to all be A-end forward. Though there is what looks like a transverse hole in the B-end coupling, you could fit a hook in that. The glad hand air coupling is what we use in this hemisphere. Is it customary to couple both sets of safety chains? A body would have to climb or crawl over...

:B~)
 
No one has mentioned the 'Norwegian' coupling which is what we used here in New Zealand for a very long time. I travelled to school by train when I was a lot younger than I am now and watching wagons being shunted in the goods yard was a highlight of waiting for the train each morning and evening.
TD0FwBI.jpg

Good old Chopper couplers!

These got a bit of use in Australia as well, from memory the South Australian Railways narrow gauge system used them till the garratts came along. And the Victorian Railways' 2ft6in system also used them, again till the garratts came along in the 1920s (the VR actually used the 2ft6in system to test automatic/knuckle couplers, before adopting them on the broad gauge!).

For screwlink/chain couplers with buffers, a big part of their usage in Australia came from the early locomotives and rolling stock originating in the UK. This lead to the adoption of many UK practices in the early days, with a few changes to suit local conditions as we learned lessons during operation. But the screwlink couplers persisted till quite late in some areas (Tasmania I think still had screwlink wagons in use into the 80s or 90s?).

The transition from buffers to entirely auto couplers on the VR in the 1950s actually bought forward some interesting information here. It should be noted that from about 1926 onward, the VR's auto coupler conversions were primarily 'transition' conversions (a 3link/chain coupler was fixed to the top of the auto coupler, so it could couple to both autos and hooks; with buffers permanently mounted to the wagon). This meant that even when using auto couplers, the buffing forces were taken up by the buffers themselves. Buffers were removed during the 1950s from all regular service wagons (the latest I've seen is about 1958 in photos from memory!).

So, when buffers were removed, a change was noted by guards in the vans at the back of trains...

On a train using all transition, or screwlink, vehicles (ie everything has buffers fitted) there was minimal slack action through the train. The buffers took up the 'compression' movement, so you only had the 'expansion' movement taken up by the auto couplers.

On a train fitted with just auto couplers, without buffers, the slack action increased by a fair bit since the compression movement was now taken up by the auto couplers, which had a lot more movement.

In the end the solution was to provide extra travel/cushioning on the auto couplers on guards vans.

So for advantages/disadvantages, there's a few...

Auto couplers are safer, for the most part, and can handle much heavier trains. But they have a greater issue with slack action at the rear of the train. They are much much faster to couple/uncouple.

Screwlink with buffers is a bit more dangerous if treated inappropriately (basically, don't get between moving vehicles with buffers; but the same is said for autos as well really!), but the bigger drawback is that they take time to couple/uncouple, and can't handle the train lengths. But they provide much smoother operations.

3-link with buffers though is a different matter. All the drawbacks of the screwlinks, as above, but they are a 'loose chain' so still have slack action in them! But they're cheap, and actually quicker to couple/uncouple (no need to wind/unwind the screw portion). Also very good for freight trains that run as a 'block' train where coupling/uncoupling isn't as important.

Regards
 
Back
Top