Origin of Scharfenberg couplers
Jimmy Schmincke
couplers. In Norway all EMU's from 1970 and up have been equipped with
Scharfenberg half-automatic couplers. These have two "hooks", and a
board with 80 or so electric connectors under a hood. The newest
generation of ICE trains has over 100 connectors (rough estimate).
I work on a museum tramway in Bergen, where we have recently aquired
three Reko-wagens (built 1969) from east Berlin. These also have
Scharfenberg couplers, but with far fewer connectors. Could this
indicate that Scharfenberg is an East German consept? Subway trains in
Oslo also use Scharfenberg type couplers, but without any connectors.
What is actually a Scharfenberg coupler? Are there several
different types? And where and when did it originate? An American rail
fan I met at an exhibition called Scharfenberg "european crap", and a
pathetic european version of the American knuckle couplers. Any truth
in this?
It would really be nice if someone could answer these questions, as
no one working at the railways seem to know anything about it.
:-) Jimmy Schmincke
jim...@online.no
Tobias Koehler
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:40:35 +0100, Jimmy Schmincke (jim...@online.no)
wrote in misc.transport.rail.europe:
> I am somewhat puzzled about the origin of the Scharfenberg-type
> couplers. In Norway all EMU's from 1970 and up have been equipped with
> Scharfenberg half-automatic couplers. These have two "hooks", and a
> board with 80 or so electric connectors under a hood. The newest
> generation of ICE trains has over 100 connectors (rough estimate).
> I work on a museum tramway in Bergen, where we have recently aquired
> three Reko-wagens (built 1969) from east Berlin. These also have
> Scharfenberg couplers, but with far fewer connectors. Could this
> indicate that Scharfenberg is an East German consept? Subway trains in
> Oslo also use Scharfenberg type couplers, but without any connectors.
The Scharfenberg couplers were invented by Scharfenberg :)
and are built by Scharfenbergkupplung (Schaku), a subsidiary
of LHB, which is owned by Alsthom - and other license-takers.
One early application is the S-Bahn Berlin (from the 30s on)
... but I don't know whether this was the first application.
> What is actually a Scharfenberg coupler?
It's a bit hard to explain in ASCII graphics ;)
Each coupler has a disk with a hook and a loop, the disk
is held in its basic position by a spring, and turns when
two vehicles approach and the loop is pushed backwards,
so the hook of the disk emerges, and the loop of the other
coupler can snap into it, after that the springs pull the
disks back into the original position. A lever or electric
uncoupler is used to turn the disks and uncouple. Too
complicated? I told you I can't explain without a drawing.
(I can try to find a good drawing which I could scan.. or
maybe someone else?)
> Are there several different types?
Yes, certainly, for trams, narrow gauge and full gauge
railways, with different number of pneumatic and electric
connectors ....
> And where and when did it originate?
Rough guess, Germany '20s or '30s...
> An American rail fan I met at an exhibition called
> Scharfenberg "european crap", and a pathetic european version
> of the American knuckle couplers. Any truth in this?
European yes, but why crap? They have a disadvantage to the
knuckle couplers: if water gets inside and freezes in winter,
they won't work anymore - which is why they are mostly used
in EMUs and DMUs, where they can be heated. Perhaps the max.
pulling force is also lower. However the advantage is that
ALL connections, electric and pneumatic, can be coupled
automatically....
I'll ask on de.etc.bahn.eisenbahn - they must know ;)
--
tobias benjamin koehler t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
__________<_ ______________ ______________ ______________
,''____________||______________||______________||______________|
`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'
gf
Jimmy Schmincke wrote in message <34D20282...@online.no>...
An American rail
>fan I met at an exhibition called Scharfenberg "european crap", and a
>pathetic european version of the American knuckle couplers. Any truth
>in this?
>
Unfortunately, some people tend to dismiss with disdain all items or facts
that are new to them and which they don't understand. It sounds as if you
have met one of these unfortunates. The two different coupler types have
some things in common but have funtional differences. It is these
differences that are so interesting.
I am sure that more technically oriented fellows (such as Tobias) will not
only fill you in on the details and advantages but also the limits of the
coupler type. It is this balance of information that is useful and
important.
>:-) Jimmy Schmincke
> jim...@online.no
Ciao for now
GF
David Bromage
While Scharfenbergs may be useful for fast coupling and splitting of
passenger trains, it's true that they would be totally unsuitable for mile
long freights as you might see in the USA.
Cheers
David
Tobias Koehler
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:40:35 +0100, Jimmy Schmincke (jim...@online.no)
wrote in misc.transport.rail.europe:
> I am somewhat puzzled about the origin of the Scharfenberg-type
> couplers.
I now got an answer in de.etc.bahn.misc : The Scharfenberg
coupler has been invented in 1906 in Germany.
--
tobias benjamin koehler t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
__________ ______________ ______________ _>________
,-'==H=======H||= H======== H||H============H||H=======H==`-.
`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'
Urban Fredriksson
In article <34D20282...@online.no>,
Jimmy Schmincke <jim...@online.no> wrote:
>An American rail
>fan I met at an exhibition called Scharfenberg "european crap", and a
>pathetic european version of the American knuckle couplers.
If what you want is "bigger and stronger", sure, then the
American and Russian knuckle couplers are better than any
Scharfenberg coupler I know of; If you want automatic
coupling of all connectors, then Scharfenbergs are for
you. They don't have a reputation for failing, so they
aren't crap, but they're often intended for uses where the
loads aren't very high.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@kuai.se Photos from my travels
http://www.kuai.se/%7Egriffon/travels/travels.html
New Jan 21:st: My vacation in Cape Verde
Piers R Connor
Jimmy Schmincke wrote:
> I am somewhat puzzled about the origin of the Scharfenberg-type
> couplers. In Norway all EMU's from 1970 and up have been equipped
> with
> Scharfenberg half-automatic couplers. These have two "hooks", and a
> board with 80 or so electric connectors under a hood. The newest
> generation of ICE trains has over 100 connectors (rough estimate).
>
> I work on a museum tramway in Bergen, where we have recently
> aquired
> three Reko-wagens (built 1969) from east Berlin. These also have
> Scharfenberg couplers, but with far fewer connectors. Could this
> indicate that Scharfenberg is an East German consept? Subway trains
> in
> Oslo also use Scharfenberg type couplers, but without any connectors.
>
> What is actually a Scharfenberg coupler?
It is a fully automatic coupler allowing mechanical, electrical and
pneumatic connections between vehicles. It can be remotely controlled
from the driver's cab by pushbutton. The two vehicles are held together
by two flat plates shaped like hooks which are locked together by air
cylinders. The pneumatics also provides the power to release the
couplers.
They are rather complex devices and are susceptible to climatic
conditions. Some versions are provided with heaters to them prevent
icing up.
> Are there several
> different types?
Yes. Each customer specifies what he wants.
> And where and when did it originate?
In Germany. The earliest version I have seen with pneumatics and
electrics is in a photo of a Berlin U-Bahn unit built in 1924.
> An American rail
> fan I met at an exhibition called Scharfenberg "european crap", and a
> pathetic european version of the American knuckle couplers. Any truth
>
> in this?
The US "Buckeye" coupler is simply mechanical. It has no pneumatic nor
electrical connections. It has been used for over 100 years all over
the world.
Automatic couplers in general are complicated beasts and require
dedicated maintenance and regular use if they are to work properly. The
US is not known for its maintenance skills. Every railway I have worked
on in the US and elsewhere has had trouble with them of one sort or
another. They should not be purchased without a very careful evaluation
of the need for them.
Piers, Singapore
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8788/
Railway Technical Web Pages
Krist van Besien
On 31 Jan 1998 19:39:32 +0100, gri...@canit.se (Urban Fredriksson)
wrote:
>In article <34D20282...@online.no>,
>Jimmy Schmincke <jim...@online.no> wrote:
>
>>An American rail
>>fan I met at an exhibition called Scharfenberg "european crap", and a
>>pathetic european version of the American knuckle couplers.
>
>If what you want is "bigger and stronger", sure, then the
>American and Russian knuckle couplers are better than any
>Scharfenberg coupler I know of; If you want automatic
>coupling of all connectors, then Scharfenbergs are for
>you. They don't have a reputation for failing, so they
>aren't crap, but they're often intended for uses where the
>loads aren't very high.
The Belgian Railways uses knuckle couplers on some of it's trainsets
(all pre-80 2 and 4 car sets), and some of these couplers are equiped
with a system that also connects the sets electrically. As far as I
can see though, coupling is automatical, but uncoupling is not.
What about that new coupler I saw on the DB cargosprinter? What's its
origin?
Krist
--------------------------------------------------------
Krist van Besien besien(at)casema.net
Delft, the Netherlands
--------------------------------------------------------
dave pierson
In article <1d3q8np.1r7...@pec-7.au4.m.uunet.de>, wolf...@amadeus.m.eunet.de (Wolfgang Keller) writes...
>> And where and when did it originate? An American rail
>> fan I met at an exhibition called Scharfenberg "european crap", and a
>> pathetic european version of the American knuckle couplers. Any truth
>> in this?
Poor choice of words, nor particularly accurate.
>Scharffenberg couplers are afaik also much older then those used in the
>US.
Since someone has provided a patent date of 1906 for the Scharfenburg,
it is the younger.
>I don't know when the concept was introduced, but it should have
>been before world war I.
The US 'knuckle' or Janney coupler dates to ca 1880. I can dig up an
exact date if needed.
>Afaik it was one of the first automatic coupling systems, if not THE
>first in the world.
The US Knuckle coupler dates to 1880, more or less.
>It is fully automatic and can also connect electric wires and hydraulic or
>air tubes.
Which the US knuckle coupler does not.
In the US the Scherfenburg is used on some 'commuter' applications,
notably on Metro-North & LIRR around NYC.
As To Maintainance, the US is quite capable of doing maintainance,
but fail to see the need for making something more complex than
needed.... 8)>> '100s' (1000's?) of Scharfenburg pairs are in daily
use here.
For freight work, which, until recently, has not required the electrical
couplings the added complexity of the Scharfenburg has not seemed
needed.
thanks
dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own.
334 South St |
Shrewsbury, Mass USA pie...@gone.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J Raffles
"....the net of a million lies...." Anon
John S.Robinson
Piers R Connor <prco...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>Jimmy Schmincke wrote:
>> What is actually a Scharfenberg coupler?
>It is a fully automatic coupler allowing mechanical, electrical and
>pneumatic connections between vehicles. It can be remotely controlled
>from the driver's cab by pushbutton. The two vehicles are held together
>by two flat plates shaped like hooks which are locked together by air
>cylinders. The pneumatics also provides the power to release the
>couplers.
>They are rather complex devices and are susceptible to climatic
>conditions. Some versions are provided with heaters to them prevent
>icing up.
<snip further details>
What, if any, is the relationship between these and the various types
of automatic couplings used on, e.g., London Underground stock? Is
there a fundamental design difference or are the latter merely
developments of the former?
Cheers,
John
B.Rumary
Am I right in thinking that the Scharfenburg coupler has no slack
action? The knuckle coupler certainly does, which is one of its main
disadvantages. It is not as bad as the British loose chain coupler, but
it is still a couple of inches, and this mounts up on the sort of huge
trains that are often worked in the US. The British screw coupling has
no slack, as long as it properly adjusted.
Brian Rumary, England
(brian....@virgin.net)
Tue, 03 Feb 1998 16:05 GMT
Piers R Connor
John S.Robinson wrote:
> What, if any, is the relationship between these and the various types
> of automatic couplings used on, e.g., London Underground stock? Is
> there a fundamental design difference or are the latter merely
> developments of the former?
The origin of the "Wedgelock" type of automatic coupler on LU dates back
to the 1920s when a trial of a Tomlinson coupler was initiated. It
doesn't seem to have found favour since a local design by the G.D..
Peters company was first tried on the 1935 Tube Stock and has been used
on almost all stocks in various forms ever since.
The main difference between the Wedgelock and Scharfenberg is the former
has the electrical butt contacts on either side of the mechanical link,
whereas the Scharfenberg's are below it.
Both are intricate and difficult to keep in good order but people insist
on having them whether they need them or not.
Piers, Singapore
Railway Technical Web Pages at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8788/
Marc Dufour
==============================================================
Piers R Connor <prco...@pacific.net.sg>
écrivit le/wrote on Tue, 03 Feb 1998 21:39:51 +0800
à propos de/about Re: Origin of Scharfenberg couplers
--------------------------------------------------------------
>The main difference between the Wedgelock and Scharfenberg is the former
>has the electrical butt contacts on either side of the mechanical link,
>whereas the Scharfenberg's are below it.
Sharfernbergs can have the electrical contacts on either side.
Scarborough, Detroit and Vancouver's ICTS systems have side-connector
sharfernberg couplers.
- --------------------================----------------------- -
Marc Dufour --- http://www.emdx.qc.ca
Boycottons les profiteurs de la tempête de verglas au Québec !!!
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8808/profiteurs.html
Ernst Kers
Piers R Connor wrote:
>
>
> The main difference between the Wedgelock and Scharfenberg is the
> former
> has the electrical butt contacts on either side of the mechanical
> link,
> whereas the Scharfenberg's are below it.
The NS (Dutch railways) is using Scharfenberg on all trainset types
introduced since 1934. And with almost all the electrical contacts are
on top of the mechanical link. With one type they are at either sides.
Never below the mechanical link.
> Both are intricate and difficult to keep in good order but people
> insist
> on having them whether they need them or not.
>
As far as I know, with the NS the Scharfenbergs are very reliable and do
not give any trouble or need for extraordinary maintaince.
Marc Dufour
==============================================================
PASdeMERD...@yahoo.com (Marc Dufour)
écrivit le/wrote on Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:03:26 GMT
à propos de/about Re: Origin of Scharfenberg couplers
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>==============================================================
>Piers R Connor <prco...@pacific.net.sg>
>écrivit le/wrote on Tue, 03 Feb 1998 21:39:51 +0800
>à propos de/about Re: Origin of Scharfenberg couplers
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>The main difference between the Wedgelock and Scharfenberg is the former
>>has the electrical butt contacts on either side of the mechanical link,
>>whereas the Scharfenberg's are below it.
>
>Sharfernbergs can have the electrical contacts on either side.
>Scarborough, Detroit and Vancouver's ICTS systems have side-connector
>sharfernberg couplers.
And it also can have NO electrical contacts. See:
http://emdx.qc.ca/rail/metro/photos/Tunnel-Cueuillette.jpg
Tobias Koehler
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:28:15 +0100, Ernst Kers (ernst...@wxs.nl)
wrote in misc.transport.rail.europe:
> The NS (Dutch railways) is using Scharfenberg on all trainset types
> introduced since 1934. And with almost all the electrical contacts are
> on top of the mechanical link. With one type they are at either sides.
Can you couple all Dutch trains with Scharfenberg couplers
together?
When I was there I only saw EMUs of the same type with each
other. Other than in Hamburg where three different generations
of S-Bahn can operate with each other.
--
tobias benjamin koehler t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
_-_____>_ ______________ _______------_ ____------____
('H=====H`)|H= ======== =H||H====== = = ||H===`----'===H|
_____`ooo---ooo'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'
Tobias Koehler
On Thu, 05 Feb 1998 13:44:57 GMT, Marc Dufour (PASdeMERD...@yahoo.com)
wrote in misc.transport.rail.europe:
> And it also can have NO electrical contacts. See:
> http://emdx.qc.ca/rail/metro/photos/Tunnel-Cueuillette.jpg
Funny to see this in a metro. I know it from narrow gauge, see
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/de/steam/99/099_70/99_1562a.jpg
for example. :)
--
tobias benjamin koehler t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
Jimmy Schmincke
do these rubber tired (RER is the name, I think..) metro trains get power? I
could not see any third rail in the picture. As it is rubber-tired, one would
think that it needs two power rails to operate...?
Best regards, Jimmy Schmincke
jim...@online.no
Marc Dufour wrote:
> ==============================================================
> PASdeMERD...@yahoo.com (Marc Dufour)
> écrivit le/wrote on Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:03:26 GMT
> à propos de/about Re: Origin of Scharfenberg couplers
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> >==============================================================
> >Piers R Connor <prco...@pacific.net.sg>
> >écrivit le/wrote on Tue, 03 Feb 1998 21:39:51 +0800
> >à propos de/about Re: Origin of Scharfenberg couplers
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >>The main difference between the Wedgelock and Scharfenberg is the former
> >>has the electrical butt contacts on either side of the mechanical link,
> >>whereas the Scharfenberg's are below it.
> >
> >Sharfernbergs can have the electrical contacts on either side.
> >Scarborough, Detroit and Vancouver's ICTS systems have side-connector
> >sharfernberg couplers.
>
> And it also can have NO electrical contacts. See:
>
> http://emdx.qc.ca/rail/metro/photos/Tunnel-Cueuillette.jpg
>
Matthew Geier
PASdeMERD...@yahoo.com (Marc Dufour) writes:
>>The main difference between the Wedgelock and Scharfenberg is the former
>>has the electrical butt contacts on either side of the mechanical link,
>>whereas the Scharfenberg's are below it.
>Sharfernbergs can have the electrical contacts on either side.
>Scarborough, Detroit and Vancouver's ICTS systems have side-connector
>sharfernberg couplers.
New South Wales (Australia) has two types, EMU's have top contact
Sharfernbergs and DMU's have side contact versions.
I dont know if the air-lines will couple properly if some one tried to
connect both types of rolling stock, but it looks like they should.
Both types of rolling stock are required to divide and rejoin with
out the aid of a shunter, or other staff member to be on the ground
to connect the air and electrical feeds. Both are also multiple unit
trains so drawbar strength isnt an issue.
--
Matthew Geier, | Australian Public Access Network Association
mat...@sleeper.apana.org.au | +61 2 9587 9773
mat...@law.usyd.edu.au | 018 977 356
Dik T. Winter
In article <6bd68g$gjl$7...@rks1.urz.tu-dresden.de> t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de writes:
> > The NS (Dutch railways) is using Scharfenberg on all trainset types
> > introduced since 1934. And with almost all the electrical contacts are
> > on top of the mechanical link. With one type they are at either sides.
>
> Can you couple all Dutch trains with Scharfenberg couplers
> together?
No, some types can not couple with some others. But interesting combinations
could and can be made. Like a DMU with an EMU.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
BobTrain
In article <VA.000001c7.01a20770@default>, B.Rumary <brian....@virgin.net>
writes:
>Am I right in thinking that the Scharfenburg coupler has no slack
action?
>The knuckle coupler certainly does, which is one of its main
disadvantages.
>It is not as bad as the British loose chain coupler, but
it is still a
>couple of inches, and this mounts up on the sort of huge
trains that are
>often worked in the US. The British screw coupling has
no slack, as long as
>it properly adjusted.
Don't confuse the "looseness" of the knuckle coupler with slack action. Most
of the "slack" available on US stock is in the draft gear ( the spring-loaded
connection between the coupler and the car body ) and is present even if
perfectly tight couplings are available. Similar "slack" can exist in european
stock when spring loaded buffers are compressed or extended.
(Bob Rollins)
Marc Dufour
==============================================================
t...@urz.tu-dresden.de (Tobias Koehler)
écrivit le/wrote on 5 Feb 1998 20:13:57 GMT
à propos de/about Re: Origin of Scharfenberg couplers
--------------------------------------------------------------
>> And it also can have NO electrical contacts. See:
>
>> http://emdx.qc.ca/rail/metro/photos/Tunnel-Cueuillette.jpg
>
>Funny to see this in a metro. I know it from narrow gauge, see
>http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/de/steam/99/099_70/99_1562a.jpg
>for example. :)
And on steam, too...
Is that an Österreiche 60 cm narrow gauge engine?
Marc Dufour
==============================================================
Jimmy Schmincke <jim...@online.no>
écrivit le/wrote on Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:35:21 +0100
à propos de/about Re: Origin of Scharfenberg couplers
--------------------------------------------------------------
>This picture is from the Paris metro, right? I'm just a bit qurious, so how
>do these rubber tired (RER is the name, I think..) metro trains get power? I
>could not see any third rail in the picture. As it is rubber-tired, one would
>think that it needs two power rails to operate...?
Ah, no, it is not in Paris, but in Montréal.
To find out how it works, look at
http://emdx.qc.ca/rail/metro/principeE.html
bri...@alpha.unisa.ac.za
In article <34DAD958...@online.no> Jimmy Schmincke <jim...@online.no> writes:
>From: Jimmy Schmincke <jim...@online.no>
>Subject: Re: Origin of Scharfenberg couplers
>Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:35:21 +0100
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------4F332061987183A3BE3C9B6E
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>This picture is from the Paris metro, right? I'm just a bit qurious, so how
>do these rubber tired (RER is the name, I think..) metro trains get power? I
>could not see any third rail in the picture. As it is rubber-tired, one would
>think that it needs two power rails to operate...?
1. Do not confuse the metro with the RER. Some of the metro lines are rubber
tired. The RER lines are totally different lines: they run into the suburbs,
are mainly above ground (except below Paris), and use heavier rolling stock.
The trains are the conventional steel wheels-on-steel rails type.
2. The rubber tyred trains get their power from the vertical rails that
guide the rubber tired bogies, and the steel rails that are in place between
the tracks for the rubber wheels. There are current pick-ups sliding against
the vertical rails as well as on the horizonatal rails.
Johan Brink
Piers R Connor
bri...@alpha.unisa.ac.za wrote:
> 1. Do not confuse the metro with the RER. Some of the metro lines
> are rubber
> tired. The RER lines are totally different lines: they run into the
> suburbs,
> are mainly above ground (except below Paris), and use heavier rolling
> stock.
> The trains are the conventional steel wheels-on-steel rails type.
>
> 2. The rubber tyred trains get their power from the vertical rails
> that
> guide the rubber tired bogies, and the steel rails that are in place
> between
> the tracks for the rubber wheels. There are current pick-ups sliding
> against
> the vertical rails as well as on the horizonatal rails.
>
> Johan Brink
Try Marc Dufor's excellent pages for a moving visual explanation
http://emdx.qc.ca/rail/metro/principeE.html
Horst Ebert
t...@urz.tu-dresden.de (Tobias Koehler) wrote:
>..
>When I was there I only saw EMUs of the same type with each
>other. Other than in Hamburg where three different generations
>of S-Bahn can operate with each other.
But not with the fourth one (being delivered now)..
--
Horst Ebert
D-Hamburg