Ron Keagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You mentioned the “F” configuration puller that
> was used. If I understand it, that would be a
> puller where the handle extends perpendicular to
> the rail, whereas the patent claims a puller with
> a handle that runs parallel to the rail with its
> fulcrum resting on the rail base. So it appears
> that the puller mysteries that I asked about may
> have been obstacles that did not exist because
> they were circumvented by not following the design
> of that patent claims. I also suspect that the
> “F” puller rested its fulcrum on the tie rather
> than on the rail base, and thus did not deliver
> the advantages claimed in the patent about using
> the rail base as support for the puller fulcrum.
>
>
Ron in my mind I see the Puller or Claw-bar, having two claws then to the side a short extension then the handle. The handle would lean back away from the claws but be Parallel with there direction, and the rail.Thus from an overhead view it would look like an F.
Basically it would be a normal claw-bar with the handle offset from center.
Here is a very basic drawing of what I think it would look like. And a backwards F.
In reality the handle would be a little closer to the claws. It would be a short F.