Are passenger and freight "Buckeyes" the same?

[USRailFan]

"Buckeye" couplers have been used on passenger trains in the UK since the 1930s, AFAIK, although for freight traffic they're a more modern phenomenon, mostly post-privatisation. BUT - are these 'buckeyes' the same? I've seen some suggestions that the passenger buckeyes are a lighter/weaker type, while the freight "Buckeyes" are identical to the standard North American "AAR" coupler?

 

[Supercoss]

Two very different styles the modern " knuckle" coupler found o DB class 66s and 67 m swings away horizontally also known as a combination coupler , older locos like 33/1 and 73 and class 90 have drophead buckeye that lowers vertically (normally associated with 'rubbing plate for gangway stock and extendable/retractable buffers. The National Power class 59/2 also has drop head knuckle when new .
I once saw a non combination coupler loco sent to assist a freight train in rear only to find the last wagon had a knuckle coupler with no buffers.
-
Also throwing into the mix the Highspeed Train sets "Alliance" style coupler a fixed buckeye!

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

I believe that the geometry of the mating face is the same. However, the swing-head coupler as fitted to 66's and 67's (and FCA and MBA wagons) unlocks by means of lifting the pin from above which is incompatible with the Pullman breastplate above most passenger couplers. I know that the swing-head works with fixed-head couplers (I once sent a Mendip Rail box attached behind a FCA). The presence (or not) of top shelves, bottom shelves, side pockets, &c. shouldn't affect the issue.
The Alliance is the one fitted to EMU's, isn't it? If so, it's the same as a buckeye but machined to finer tolerances (the AAR 'E' & 'F' are pretty agricultural).
Pat

 

[43096]

The Alliance is the one fitted to EMU's, isn't it? If so, it's the same as a buckeye but machined to finer tolerances (the AAR 'E' & 'F' are pretty agricultural).
Pat

Alliance couplers are those fitted to HSTs. Tightlock is the name usually given to the type on EMUs.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

Alliance couplers are those fitted to HSTs. Tightlock is the name usually given to the type on EMUs.

You can tell I was in freight, can't you So. in my post above, substitute Tightlock for Alliance. Simples!
Pat

 

[43096]

You can tell I was in freight, can't you So. in my post above, substitute Tightlock for Alliance. Simples!
Pat

Presumably the finer tolerances you mention are the reason why Tightlock is used as the name?

 

[Supercoss]

Tightlock as the name suggests with little 'tell tale' indicators that pop out when couplers locked correctly
here is a view from above of a class 319 tightlock

http://bed-pan.homestead.com/emu_couple_319_61175199.jpg

tightlock to buckeye can be coupled in emergency with adaptor bits kept on train

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

Presumably the finer tolerances you mention are the reason why Tightlock is used as the name?

I only encountered the Tightlock during my shunter's course in 1993. I know they had to be finished to finer tolerances to allow the electrickery to couple as well. That's as much as I can remember from that far back!
Pat

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2020 ==

Tightlock as the name suggests with little 'tell tale' indicators that pop out when couplers locked correctly
here is a view from above of a class 319 tightlock

http://bed-pan.homestead.com/emu_couple_319_61175199.jpg

tightlock to buckeye can be coupled in emergency with adaptor bits kept on train

Is that the mushroom headed doofer? Intended to push the breastplate away, if memory serves (which it often doesn't).
Pat

 

[Supercoss]

Yes that's it and a long screw thread bar that caters for height difference

 

[USRailFan]

OK.
The reason I asked, was that in a Norwegian facebook group, it was claimed that UK Buckeye couplers used for freight, were identical to the standard US AAR type coupler, but that the 'Buckeye' couplers used on passenger stock was of a lighter/weaker type, and they couldn't be coupled to each other.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

I've just looked back into some TOPS notes I have. Among the 2 dozen codings for different combinations of couplers / couplings there are: Drop-head Buckeye, Fixed-head Buckeye, Alliance, Tightlock, & AAR 'E' & 'F'. The Buckeyes are for Loco-hauled carriages, aren't they? I have an idea (probably mistakenly) that they are an older US standard, probably one of the Master car Builders (MCB) 'D'. The AAR couplers are as currently used in the US. Operationally there is a difference; with AAR types you don't have to hang on to the lever for grim death until they part!
Pat

 

[hurri67]

I believe that the geometry of the mating face is the same. However, the swing-head coupler as fitted to 66's and 67's (and FCA and MBA wagons) unlocks by means of lifting the pin from above which is incompatible with the Pullman breastplate above most passenger couplers. I know that the swing-head works with fixed-head couplers (I once sent a Mendip Rail box attached behind a FCA). The presence (or not) of top shelves, bottom shelves, side pockets, &c. shouldn't affect the issue.
The Alliance is the one fitted to EMU's, isn't it? If so, it's the same as a buckeye but machined to finer tolerances (the AAR 'E' & 'F' are pretty agricultural).
Pat

Are you sure about FCA’s with autocouplers? IIRC I thought they were all screw couplings.
I know the FAA’s were combination couplers.

 

[WAO]

If you can download this file (Except you probably can't get it direct from RSSB)

RSSBsd001 Iss 2.pdf or the full document RIS-2790-RST Iss 1

You might try (No g'tee):

Cryptocurrency Prices, Market Cap, Trading Charts: Bitcoin, Ethereum and more at PiedPiper

Live cryptocurrency prices, market caps, charts & daily insights for a wide range of coins on PiedPiper. Compare trends, top gainers and trading volume 24/7.

docplayer.net

you'll be able to couple and wire anything into anything else in older rolling stock! It's (SD001 section) has 156 pages and couplers don't start until page 120.

WAO

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

Are you sure about FCA’s with autocouplers? IIRC I thought they were all screw couplings.
I know the FAA’s were combination couplers.

Aha, you spotted my deliberate error!
Stupid of me, you're quite right. Its worrying how quickly familiarity with wagons declines once you stop being involved. (Proves the value of periodic assessment and refreshing, I suppose.)
Pat

 

[edwin_m]

If you can download this file (Except you probably can't get it direct from RSSB)

RSSBsd001 Iss 2.pdf or the full document RIS-2790-RST Iss 1

You might try (No g'tee):

Cryptocurrency Prices, Market Cap, Trading Charts: Bitcoin, Ethereum and more at PiedPiper

Live cryptocurrency prices, market caps, charts & daily insights for a wide range of coins on PiedPiper. Compare trends, top gainers and trading volume 24/7.

docplayer.net

All RSSB standards are freely available on their website: Select the standards catalogue from the standards menu and you can search on just 2790 in this case. I've tried it and it works, but I suspect the link only works once so I won't put it here.

 

[WAO]

All RSSB standards are freely available on their website: Select the standards catalogue from the standards menu and you can search on just 2790 in this case. I've tried it and it works, but I suspect the link only works once so I won't put it here.

It was just that one is asked to login or register (said to be free); some may not wish to do that. Hence the alternative.

WAO

 

[edwin_m]

It was just that one is asked to login or register (said to be free); some may not wish to do that. Hence the alternative.

WAO

You do get asked, but to access the standards catalogue you don't have to. Not so important for a forum discussion, but anyone using standards "for real" is better to go directly to the source to be sure they pick up the latest version.