# Scharfenberg Couplers



## CSXfoamer1997 (May 19, 2016)

The Scharfenberg Couplers are commonly used on Light Rail vehicles and some EMU's. I saw a demonstration on how the couple together.

However, how do they detach compared to the AAR knuckle couplers? On the AAR couplers, they're simply detached by pulling the coupler cut lever to pull the pin out. But I'm interested to know how the Scharfenberg couplers detach.


----------



## CCC1007 (May 19, 2016)

No real difference, just a horizontal pin instead of vertical.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (May 19, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> No real difference, just a horizontal pin instead of vertical.


Oh, is that so, Cody? I kinda figured. I was just interested if anyone else knew how it worked. Now I know. Lol


----------



## jis (May 19, 2016)

Actually in many cases Scharfenberg couplers are remotely detachable by pressing a switch in the cab or some such. That is how the multiple unit trains are detached quickly to become two or more trains.


----------



## CCC1007 (May 19, 2016)

jis said:


> Actually in many cases Scharfenberg couplers are remotely detachable by pressing a switch in the cab or some such.


I was referring too the actual mechanism, and usually both pins need to be retracted in order to actually uncouple.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (May 19, 2016)

Also, Cody, which do you think would give a passenger train a smoother ride? The AAR Knuckle Couplers or the Scharfenberg Couplers?

I'm kinda guessing the Scharfenberg, because with the AAR couplers, the cars can buff when braking, and when accelerating, the cars can lurch and jerk. Whereas the Scharfenberg wouldn't jerk and buff as much.

But correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## CCC1007 (May 19, 2016)

It's more a question of mechanical tolerance in the machining of the couplers. The aar couplers are nearly universal in the North American network, and they vary considerably from one run to another. Because Amtrak uses tight lock couplers, there is already very little slack in their trains. The extreme end is the auto train, which could have as much as three inches of slack in the couplers and running gear.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (May 19, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> It's more a question of mechanical tolerance in the machining of the couplers. The aar couplers are nearly universal in the North American network, and they vary considerably from one run to another. Because Amtrak uses tight lock couplers, there is already very little slack in their trains. The extreme end is the auto train, which could have as much as three inches of slack in the couplers and running gear.


Ah, I see. And with the tightlock couplers, would it help increase passenger comfort?

And also, are the tightlock couplers less likely to break than the ones freight cars have?


----------



## CCC1007 (May 19, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > It's more a question of mechanical tolerance in the machining of the couplers. The aar couplers are nearly universal in the North American network, and they vary considerably from one run to another. Because Amtrak uses tight lock couplers, there is already very little slack in their trains. The extreme end is the auto train, which could have as much as three inches of slack in the couplers and running gear.
> ...


I have only seen them break as designed in the event of a derailment. The weaker coupler breaks away from its car, but the knuckle does not release in this type of failure. I don't recall any incidents where Amtrak has had a pull apart incident.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (May 19, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> > CCC1007 said:
> ...


Oh, that's good.


----------



## cirdan (May 19, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Ah, I see. And with the tightlock couplers, would it help increase passenger comfort?


Generally, the less tolerance you have, the smoother the ride.

However, on long freight trains tolerance is useful because while one car is already rolling a car further down the train may still be standing still. You thus don't need to start the entire train at the same time and can thus get away with providing less locomotive power and thus saving $$$$.

So there are good reasons to have slack and good reasons not to have it.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (May 19, 2016)

cirdan said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, I see. And with the tightlock couplers, would it help increase passenger comfort?
> ...


Thus, the smoother the ride, the more passenger comfort. Right?


----------

