Randy Hees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the first (1879) edition, Coupler was “that
> which couples…” while Draw-Bar was “an open
> mouthed bar at the end of a car to which coupling
> links are attached and from which the car is
> drawn….”
>
> By the 1888 edition, Coupler is “That which
> couples in relation to cars the term usually
> designates the appliances for coupling or
> connecting cars together, and usually means some
> form of automatic coupler…: While Drawbar is
> still “open mouthed,,, ”
>
> In the 1906 edition The description for coupler is
> the same… the definition of Drawbar “1. Link
> and Pin… ….The word drawbar is used
> indiscriminately to designate both the old link
> and pin drawbar and the modern automatic coupler.
> There has been an effort to confine the name
> drawbar to the old link and pin type.” (it goes
> on to scold the MCB standards which use the term
> drawbar for height of the MCB automatic
> coupler….)
>
> All three editions (there were other editions,
> some new, some reprinted with different ads)
> included a definition for “Automatic Car
> Coupler” or “Automatic freight car coupler”
> which includes a description of Janney and other
> “vertical plane couplers”
>
> In general, a miller hook was considered a
> coupler… the SAM automatic Link and Pin was a
> coupler under the rules of the Railway Safety
> Appliance act… (until a c 1913 accident on the
> SPng after which it was not considered a coupler,
> because it wasn’t automatic when coupled to a
> miller or other types…
Thanks for the journal cut-and-paste, I like that stuff. A link and pin coupler is a coupler if you're talking about the 19th century, or railroads not under federal jurisdiction (various logging/industrial railroads or private entities like Cedar Point). It's not a coupler in a purely legal sense on modern federally-controlled railroads but is still commonly referred to as such in casual conversation. You can still use them on federally-controlled railroads, but it's treated as a drawbar and must be fixed in such a manner that it cannot be easily separated. I consider the distinction interesting from a historic and technical standpoint, but not usually necessary in normal discussion. Neat little tidbit.
That the "class 1" term was author's invention explains why I had no idea what the original poster was talking about. I apparently haven't read that book.
Those Billmeyer & Small listings for 8 wheel cars must be for the very early cars that had 20 inch wheels. The year and weight looks about right, anyway. Don't you love how "ton" in sources from that era can indiscriminately refer to both gross and net tons? In the specific case of what you posted it's used for tons of 2000 pounds but then you have Carter Brothers advertising its 8-ton cars at nearly the same time and it used 2240-pound tons. Sometimes it's not obvious and creates confusion, at least to the modern reader.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2020 01:46PM by James.
