the headline says it all.
since when do railroads use buffers, as we know them now, or as we see them on our models?
(specially - did they have them already during the north american civil war era?)
Link and pin railroads common during the civil war did NOT have buffers. I have only seen a couple pictures that depict what look like buffers like this famous shot:
But if you look carefully those are not buffers, they are bolster plates for the truss rods. Most cars are more like this:
Buffers are only really necessary when using the chain-link type couplers common in Britain and Europe. They quickly disappeared here in the US by the 1840’s when by then link-pin couplers were the defacto common standard.
Most European railroads have buffers because they didn’t have the horrible American Link-And-Pin couplers that we replaced with Janning couplers. There’s a short rod or even chain between the cars to deal with draft forces. Of course, this can’t buff very well. That’s what the buffers are for. We don’t use buffers because Janning couplers buff well.
Tom, that would be Janney couplers. There was slot in the movable part where a link could be pinned…
This helped the transition between couplers as they modernized.
John
Thanks for bringing that pic of Hanover Jct. back up …I see …never mind as I’m not going off topic
That “Moveable part” is known as a “Knuckle”. The couplers themselves, as we know them were not what replaced the need for “Buffers”. The “Draft gear” is what acts as a buffer. With the typical British style hook and loop couplers, the buffers were the flex in the coupler system. The “Link” included a tightening device that was used to pull the two cars together, against their buffers. This kept the train tightly together, the buffers allowing enough slack needed for curvature in the track etc.
With the "“Janney” coupler, which is commonly called a knuckle coupler, the draft gear, which is hidden under the car, and where the coupler is attached to the car, provides the flexibility, in the coupling system. In Large Scale Kadee couplers, the #820/1906 coupler draft gear (The “G” Scale size is the same) , partly resembles real draft gear, but is missing springing in one direction. The Kadee couplers of this style act like the real coupler system, in use in North America (And elsewhere).
Some like the realistic “Slack action” of the draft gear, and others detest it.
Fred Mills
Modellers for decades, have tried to model the buffer system and make it actually work. It is a rather tricky balancing act, to get just the right amount of spring in the buffers, and the correct amount of travel in each buffer, to allow a train, especially in the smaller scales, to go through curves and switches. The tight curves in most model railroads prevents the tight coupling needed for them to work realistically/successfully.
Coupling, and uncoupling is rather difficult, with the rather large fingers of the average modeller, just like the use of the often modeled “Link N Pin” system.
The Link N Pin coupling system did not have any shock absorption system built into it, as it did not employ draft gear.
Fred Mills
thank you all.
the answers, i got here and on the other side of the pond all seem to point to cut off any buffers i got on my roling stock when i replace my bottle openers for link & pin.
although we are still on the first page, as threadopener i allow myself a threaddrift:
that pic of hanover junction…
were the trains there gauged wider than standard gauge?
or were the cars much lesser in hight than in later times?
With the typical British style hook and loop couplers, the buffers were the flex in the coupler system. The “Link” included a tightening device that was used to pull the two cars together, against their buffers.
Fred’s correct about close-coupled passenger and other express trains in Britain, but there’s another category of “loose” 3-link couplers between buffered stock. Mostly older freight wagons on slow trains. The coupling hook is sprung in one direction so that it takes up the stress when the loco takes off, and the buffers are sprung the other way to handle slow-downs.
An old-style unfitted freight (no continuous train brakes) was often started by backing up until all the wagons are touching buffers, then slowly pulling ahead. You recall the 3-links are loose, so that the loco is only accelerating one truck at a time.
I noticed how nicely Bachmann modeled the Thomas wagons, so I have a little train. The couplers were replaced with metal 3-link couplers from the UK, and they are tied together inside the frame with a spring, like the prototype. The buffers are not sprung, though I could get some and fit them if I really wanted to. As I usually run them behind a live steamer, there isn’t much call for backing up - which is a good thing.
Oh, somewhere out there is a really nice website on modeling UK railways and it has lots of diagrams, including buffer and coupling hook springing, give a minute to dig it out of a bazillion bookmarks.
Here we go, http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/4-rstock/04arstock2a.htm
Note: The large transverse springs seen behind the headstocks and the long rod running from end to end of the wagon are explained below in the sections on couplings and buffers.
Goods Rolling Stock Design - Chassis - Couplings & Hoses http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/4-rstock/04arstock2b.htm
Goods Rolling Stock Design - Chassis - Buffers http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/4-rstock/04arstock2c.htm
Korm Kormsen said:
or were the cars much lesser in hight than in later times?
Independent of everything else, cars of that era were narrower and lower than even 1910 cars.
There is a very good and almost 20 year old ‘Early Rail’ group on Yahoo which has much material and even knowledgeable professionals in it.
Is also Civil War RRs group which was founded 2003.
If you do not already have a Yahoo account, yes it would be yet another login to have to have - I’m going to claim the information available is well worth having to do that.