Well folks.... want some good news? Read on.....
After much prompting, I have a boxcar right here that has a working, non mechanical coupler on it. My original design was to remake the couplers, but for expediency i altered some Kadees.
What took all night was winding the cores by hand. Tedius work. The couper itself took just a few minutes. Matter of fact the whole thing (if i had everything ready to go) only took maybe 20 minutes to do.
I used the coupler mounting holes and the original coupler box (made onto the frame like an Athearn), a couple Kadee #5's, more than a few different batteries. All dead now from the testing. At 7am this morning i went to bed with a working coupler on my workbench.
I do have a working coupler. But only one. As you know, it takes two to uncouple. So i need to make another car up to really see how this is going to work.
Alot of discoveries were made along the way. Metal wheels and axles will play more of a part than i thought. However i do not see this as a problem. It is funny to watch the circuit activate (when holding the car in hand off the track) and seeing the truck next to the coupler, jump towards the end of the core, along with the coupler acutator pin.
The core itself is nothing more than the mounting screw which would be there anyways to hold the coupler to the car. I just reshaped the coupler pin (cheating!) to work with it. Remember, I didnt want to use original Kadees. It proved the theory does work. When activated, the reworked Kadee trip pin is pulled towards the core. Thus opening the knuckle.
No mechanical connection was used. Totally no moving parts! Except the coupler, but thats a given... and also the goal. Yes the coupler works. Does it uncouple? No, as it takes TWO cars to uncouple. Just like Kadees do when you stop over the magnet. BOTH couplers have to open.
By design, there isnt enough room for the knuckle face to pass out of the opposing coupler (the car your uncoupling from). So, both cars must be activated at the same time. I need to build one more car, but folks. Im not gonna spend another all nighter wiring up cores anytime real soon. And i need to make a trip to the battery store too, not to mention i need more winding.
I have gathered up a reem of data to also mull over. One thing of important note is, even though i wanted to remake the whole coupler i am starting to wonder if it isnt even easier to just adjust existing Kadees. A simple 5 minute pin alteration (which has been done before by many) seems to be a better idea than remaking couplers from a ferrous metal. And No patent application is needed either!!! That saves about $7500 in patent fees and lawyers expenses.
Plus, everyone already has Kadees. Why buy a new coupler when a Kadee can work? So all you really need is to place a winding around a longer coupler mounting screw that protrudes through the car floor. Hook it up to a switchable power source then VOILA! a working uncoupler.
Try it yourself folks, it isnt hard at all. Everything is easily removable, and no damage to the car. Actually, having the windings and battery in my car seems to add enough weight i didnt put the car weight back in. This will change though once the DCC part takes over for the battery test configuration im using.
The coupler pin itself is alot more hidden than i thought it would be. Easily seen if the car is up side down, it follows the shank path. You have to be at eye level with the coupler to see it when on the track. Even when activated the swing of the pin does not expose itself.
With this new configuration, even though it was only a test, seems to make me want to think about a few design changes. I will keep you posted.
Cheers!
Douglas
PM RailfanThe core itself is nothing more than the mounting screw which would be there anyways to hold the coupler to the car.
Not all couplers are held on by a screw. There are a gazzilion Athearn blue box cars out there where the couplers are held in place by a metal snap on piece. There are probably another half-gazzilion cars out there where the couplers are held in place by a plastic box cover that has a plastic pin attaching it to the frame box.
PM RailfanI have gathered up a reem of data to also mull over.
I'm wondering if you have mulled over how you are going to activate, or maybe I should say control, these things? Assuming that you are going to propose DCC control, each car/loco will need some sort of decoder, and each decoder will need an identifier or address. In addition, you will need to be able to tell the decoder that it is going to activate the coupler on either the A or B end of the car. And since you need to have the mechanism activated on two cars, you will need to be able to simultaneously address two decoders at the same time.
maxman Not all couplers are held on by a screw. There are a gazzilion Athearn blue box cars out there where the couplers are held in place by a metal snap on piece. There are probably another half-gazzilion cars out there where the couplers are held in place by a plastic box cover that has a plastic pin attaching it to the frame box.
maxman I'm wondering if you have mulled over how you are going to activate, or maybe I should say control, these things? Assuming that you are going to propose DCC control, each car/loco will need some sort of decoder, and each decoder will need an identifier or address. In addition, you will need to be able to tell the decoder that it is going to activate the coupler on either the A or B end of the car. And since you need to have the mechanism activated on two cars, you will need to be able to simultaneously address two decoders at the same time.
You "should" be able to uncouple a pair of cars by only opening one coupler. I use a method at the opposite end of the spectrum .... a small wooden dowel with a bent wire hook inserted into the end. I can easily uncouple two cars by reaching in and pulling one of the trip pins towards me.
That tells me you don't have to open both heads for the couplers to separate. Maybe try adjusting your pins further to provide more pull ?
As for consisting the decoders, if you think about it, that won't work very well (providing you understand how consisting works). Say you have three cars - 1,2 and 3. You can consist 1 and 2 together. But, with 1 and 2 consisted, you can't consist 2 and 3 because 2 is already in a consist.
This IS a neat idea, but the final details really aren't working in your favor.
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
Mark R. You "should" be able to uncouple a pair of cars by only opening one coupler. I use a method at the opposite end of the spectrum .... a small wooden dowel with a bent wire hook inserted into the end. I can easily uncouple two cars by reaching in and pulling one of the trip pins towards me. That tells me you don't have to open both heads for the couplers to separate. Maybe try adjusting your pins further to provide more pull ?
I thought so too. But in looking at it in detail, when you pull that trip pin over, you are actually pulling 'both couplers' to one side in their horizontal plane. This allows the coupler to come undone. try doing that without moving the coupler shanks.
Ive tested my working coupler with other couplers. Just opening the knuckle wont work. Either the couplers have to sway a bit (as in your method), or both jaws have to open (straight shank- no sway).
To elaboate on what im saying, gently push two kadees together - shanks straight. You notice both faces move aside as the measurement of the open area (left to right over open face) is not as wide as the coupler face itself.
You did touch on an important aspect, pin location and angle. I found that in my testing it "made a great deal of difference" where the pin was placed in relation to the end of the core that activates it. Too far away and it wont move. To close and the travel of the coupler face doesnt have enough swing. There is definately a 'perfect setting' to this.
Ofcourse, playing with the magnetc field is also a variable that can be tweaked. It will be a harmony of these two feature because if your field is too strong, for those who have metal wheels and axles, the coil will pick the axle/wheel closest to it - right off the track!
Since metal wheels and axles are part of the design, a proper field will have to co-exist with the trucks. Interesting side note: the magnetic field (too strong) acted like a braking system. Im wondering if this isnt another project peeking out of the vale of undiscovery.
Mark R. As for consisting the decoders, if you think about it, that won't work very well (providing you understand how consisting works). Say you have three cars - 1,2 and 3. You can consist 1 and 2 together. But, with 1 and 2 consisted, you can't consist 2 and 3 because 2 is already in a consist. This IS a neat idea, but the final details really aren't working in your favor. Mark.
Ahhhh finally some info on DCC. And no, this is why i am here asking, i dont know anything about DCC except 'the basics'. I use ADC so i have never programmed a DCC decoder.
So if i read you right, what your saying is you may consist multiple units (1, 2 and 3), as long as they are in "one" consist. But you cannot "share" decoders with other consists, once used in an existing consist. Now this is gonna be problematic.
Hmmmmm. So right now, each car would have to have two distinct addresses to be shared. IE: the A end has one address, and the B end has another. That would get tedius. Gotta be another way.
As i have eluded, DCC makers are going to be key in this endeavor. Only solution i can think of is hypothetical. Meaning, DCC makers would have to allow for "shared consisting". OR allow for decoders to be able to access each auxillary funtion as a sub address. Both would be nice!
DCC folks, this is why im here.... any ideas around this?
Another potential wrench in the works ....
Say you are running your train and want to drop a car. You now have to bring up the car's address and press the function key to activate the coupler. Now you have to re-enter your engine's address to pull the engine away from the car .... but wait .... the coupler power is still turned on. So now you have to go back to the car's address to turn it off and then back to the engine to leave.
Ok, that was the worst case scenario. Suppose you could put the magnet power on a timed function. That timer would have to be long enough for you to get back to the engine's address and pull away from the car before it turned off.
Personally, I dislike having to play with more buttons than necessary. I have one friend who has ALL his mainline turnouts on accessory decoders, even though they are well within reach so he can use his JMRI dispatchers panel. Trouble is, he has no local buttons on the facia. You have to stop your train, dial up the turnout address, throw the turnout, re-address the engine, then proceed. I find this rather annoying.
Now, throw in the added "fun" of now having to dial in yet another address just to uncouple my train car, I think I would throw in my engineer's hat ! I'm not much of an advocate of all these "hands off" methods of operation. Makes me feel like there should be a piece of glass between me and the layout so I can't actually touch anything. But, that's just me ....
Mark - lol at the glass between you and layout. I had already thought about the fact of switching through all the addresses. I had originally asked for a dual function decoder with 5 or 7 second (user choice depending on how fast you could acces addresses) timed pulse just for this reason. This way all you had to do was switch back to loco address and pull apart the cars. It would time out after 5 or 7 and all be back to normal.
But your right. The final outcome is you do have one more thing to do on top of all the other things to do. Since we only have two options of control (ADC and DCC) i am limited on how to make this work to get rid of the dreadfull "magnets between the rail" and/or "uncoupling wands".
I am certainly open to other options here. Heck i have even considered bluetooth (bad idea no matter what bluetooth is on) OR a totally seperate system using RF to control things. Alas, that would be one more hand held device to hold on top of the DCC handheld controller too.
Just when did model trains get so complicated????
Effectively, the only sensible way i ever thought to operate trains was with a computer. No DCC hand held ever had 112 keys to operate with. Or had the ability to use both hands for keying. Or can even come close to the abilities of computer management of a railroad. But then, you cant carry a puter around the train room either.
Im thinking right now of using a momentary "on" micro switch that lets say, on a boxcar, could be hidden under the catwalk, or ice hatch cover. There went that "no hands on" approach out the window.
I think i said this before.... I thought the coupler was the hard part to make. Seems the control aspect is proving otherwise.
Very good points your making. And definately good input from the stance that i am curious as to how folks are going to react to using "auto-couplers". Keep them coming.
Way back when I mentioned a simple one-shot circuit to fire the magnet for a set period of time. The trigger to this circuit would be very low current - so much so that you could fire it with a reed switch, OR a decoder output. Wave the magnet wand over the car to release the coupler, no physical contact needed. OR a decoder could be installed to control it.
Triggering front or back isn't really that difficult, as most any decoder has the capability to add a directional qualifier to the function outputs - so you press F1 with the direction set to forward and it triggers the green wire, F1 while direction set to reverse triggers the purple wire. Or whatever. Even simple decoders have at least a front light and a rear light, directionally triggered.
Some of the other stuff - you need to realize DCC is a STANDARD. You can't expect any manufacturer to just stick some extra stuff in there. To get beyond the 9999 address limit would require a completely different packet format - and that will NOT happen. Some of the euro manufacturers get around this by using pictures for selection, and the actual DCC address being used it entirely arbitrary. This has been an issue for them for a long time, because unlike typical north american practice, loco numbers often exceed 4 digits.
I think for this to truly take off - to the point where a significant number of freight cars are equipped with a device like that, a completely new and different control system is needed. Even the direct radio systems like Ring's, it's too cumbersome to switch to the car address, activate the coupler, and switch back to the loco to pull it away. Just like Mark's example witht he DCC turnouts - it's the same issue. Yes, my turnouts will all be DCC controlled - however they will have buttons as well, which are locked out when the layout is under dispatcher control, but if I just want to walk around and run a train by myself, they can all be enabled so I don't have to figure out an address to dial in or run back to the dispatcher panel every time I want to switch tracks. The 'ideal' couple operating system would have to be somewhat intuitive and 'know' what car you are trying to drop. This is partly why the skewer method is so popular - at least with real Kadees and not the knockoff kind, it's quite reliable - I can get them to uncouple every time without jerking the car or otherwise touching anything, and you cna drop any car anywhere, not in locations as dictated by a magnet location or some position behind it (since in delayed mode you can shove back all you want). This is why you see two-man crews on many operating layouts - an engineer, and a conductor/brakeman to do the cuts. It's actually a realistic way to work. Hands-free is neat, but the real thing is very much a hands-on job.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I never could understand this fasination for remote uncoupling (ala. Lionel & MTH O scale).
It seems that just because it can be done that the majority (to make it profitable for those that develop it) everyone would need to want this.
Just as the remote turnout control - I just reminds me of the old Lionel and American Flyer TOY train set of days gone by!
While the majority of the casual Model Railroaders (those that think of TOY trains only at Christmas time) are the ones that like the PLAY value of such things as Remote Uncoupling or Remote Control of the Turnouts.
BUT - not too many of the more serious Layout Owners that Host Operations Sessions will go for these TOY like features - or at least the ones I have run on in Allentown area and Phila areas
Maybe I just haven't visited the right TOY Train layouts - but then again those types of layout DON"T Host OPs Sessions - so hold little value to me to visit other than a quick look see thing!
Everyone has their own thing and this proliferation of animated TOY like features - one can only hope that it draws in more NUBEs.
Will it hold their attention for more than a month or two - this will be the key to increasing the number in the Hobby!
Time will tell!
BOB H - Clarion, PA
I agree with Bob, as would most all the guys in my area that have operating sessions as well.
However, there must be something to it. Considering the feeble attempts at smoking engines, animated water tower with sound and even sound decoders for freight cars recently brought to market, there must be enough interest in it to make it viable. Maybe it's a throw-back / longing for our childhood train-sets and all the automatic accessories that is driving this phenominon. (?) There is always going to be multiple camps when it comes to "playing with trains" - this is just one of them.
There is a BIT of difference - things like DCC and RF control allow the car couplers to work ANYWHERE, unliek the good old Lionel days where it only worked on the remote control track section.
However, like I've been saying, the operation thereof is just too cumbersome. It's like having only DCC control of turnouts, but worse. I'm pretty sure the first attempts at this came not long after DCC ht the scene. Yes, I know this is a different way of doing the coupler part of it, without a mechanical linkage or muscle wires or a pager motor, but the control issue is still the same as it has always been.
Randy - once again your valued input rings true. I am becomming painfully aware that this project is going to require an above the 'standard' control system. Or a totally new control design that doesnt exist. I dont know, it just seems inevitable that an autocoupler would be the next advancement in model railroading. Much like smoke, directional lighting, and sound have been in the past 2 decades or so.
I think your right. The closer I get to figuring out the details, the more cumbersome it gets. Without the aid of a DCC maker getting on board, the coupler will remain on the shelf i spose. I am going to go ahead and finish what i started by making car #2. I want to be able to say 'I did it', then move on.
Bob & Mark - Never once did I think this was 'toy-like'. Certainly wasnt my intent. I have heard over many years 'gee it would be nice if we had working couplers'. And i took the bait. Seemed a simple thing to do really. It was in all actuality.
Does it really seem like this is something.... 'toy-like'? Like you both, i am also turned off by the 'Lionel' aspect. Tis why i have never liked Lionel except for its history and pertenance in the industry. They are toy - like to me too.
I would like to hear from others who think this aswell. I havent lost anything but time. It cost me nothing to make (just simple parts around the house). But if it really appeals to the community as a simple toy, then its not worth my efforts. Im not into making XMas train set stuff.
My intent was to let the user be able to uncoupler 'anywhere - anytime'. Also for those like me with bad eyes, and shaky hands, to get rid of the wand to uncouple cars. This is why it never dawned on me that this was child like to make this project happen.
Thank You for your enlightenment and input on this!
PM Railfan to get rid of the wand to uncouple cars
A wand, eh? Well maybe now you're on to something. If you look at Soundtraxx's advertising for their new sound car decoder, they talk about intelligent consisting. "When the mode is activated, you can simply wave a magnet over the cars to quickly cut them in and out of the consist."
Seems to me that all you'd need, aside from getting current to your device, would be a simple magnetic switch of some type that the wand can attract. No need for a decoder or DCC.
While I mean no disrespect - the conciquences of designing this type of system is the method of control!
In the Lionel scenero - only the engines tended to have the electic couplers and could be activated anywhere using the BELL side of the later Transformers as they used the Positive side of a DC pulse where the Direction Reverser used the standard DC negative pulse it always had to change directions.
I had used the + & - to activate all sorts of animation on our Clubs Lionel display layout years ago.
If the remote uncoupling is to be of any use for those of us that are into OPERATIONS - like you have found - each car on the layout will need both ends of the car with operating couplers.
This will drive up the cost to the layout owner and some layouts have over 1200 plus cars.
This is now a major cost - if one chooses to go this route.
Is it needed ???
Yes - it is neet thing that can be done - but is it really necessary for those that do OPERATIONS!
Only the layout owner can determine that - just as having every turnout Throttle controlled!
Cost is the only deterent!
How deep is ones wallet!
Thus - it is that these ideas border on the relm of TOYs - A neet thing as the train whizzes around the turns on the layout - but never do they try replicating the way a real Railroad goes about its business.
Again TOY like - Roundy Round - same goes for the Operating Glug Glug Water tower.
Is it realistic ? Doubtful - as so many others have stated - Back to the TOY like thing!
The way you are overcoming the problems is very interesting - keep going - and letting us know your progress!
SO - Am I saying to dump the idea - NO!
But!
Bob - oh no, not at all did i take that as disrespectful, and meant none either. Not in the least! Rather, i took it as very informative and enlightening. You and Mark offered valid points that I hadnt remotely considered (concerning toy like).
You have posted other very good points of interest which quite frankly, i have no answer for, yet. Alas, thats the fun part of this..... figuring it out! Hopefully, in the end, not only will this appeal to the 'roundy - round' types, but i am sincerely hoping this will also be of use to folks like you and I, who love operation. Even IF we have large rosters. Somehow i will make it work! I do have cost in mind, and am trying my darndest to keep it low.
I do plan to continue the project to atleast complete the coupler aspect. As for the control, I am relying on you folks to keep the good posts coming. I need the use of your experience, ideas, opinions, and general views on this subject. I feel the answer is close at hand.
MaxMan - hey thanks for posting that! I am going to check out the article and see if it gives any hints. I think this is what Randy has been trying to get me to understand for a while now.
Using a 'waving' wand instead of the existing 'uncoupling wand' might just be the better idea. Randys idea of using a reed switch sounds promising! Both combined might just yield the answer. This does get away from remote control (which was one of the original design requirements) and provides for having (from an operational point of view) a switchman/brakeman work with an engineer during club operations.
One holds the wand, the other holds the DCC control pad. Both work as a crew, together. Again, this deviates from the original plans and may force me to alter the car (to mount the switch near top of car). But also gives some ground towards what Bob has suggested - operation.
Query:
Would this be prefferable to the community rather than the hassles of DCC control?
If i lessen the constraints of the original requirements, would this make the autocoupler more appealing to the community?
Again, if you come across more ideas yourself - POST THEM! Id love to hear them. That goes for everyone reading this. Dang good stuff!
Well, if you make this controllable by a magnetic wand you wave over the car, that opens the system to ALSO be controlled by a DCC decoder if people so wish. Out of the box, the car would work witht he wand - hold it over the car you are trying to uncouple, and pull the train away. There are some simple magnet tools that do this for kadee couplers, but you risk damaging end detail, and on passenger cars with full diaphragms you can;t get the toll in place. So, while a more expensive option, it still has some features that may be worth the extra cost to some. No touch uncoupling. For those that want to go furhter and do all this from their chair, they can add a decoder to trigger the couplers - if the circuit is designed such that a reed switch can handle the current (it pretty much will NOT be able to simple switch the magnet on, you will need a simple and cheap driver) then pretty much any decoder can also handle the load of triggering the circuit. Users can install whatever decoder they want perhaps a good use of old decoders with poor or blown motor control outputs but the light functions work. But they don't HAVE to put a decoder inside in order to use your product. Right there it broadens the appeal. The only problem is that with DC, you need to have power on the track to operate the circuit, but that means the loco will move - so maybe this isn't for DC.
rrinkerThere are some simple magnet tools that do this for kadee couplers, but you risk damaging end detail, and on passenger cars with full diaphragms you can;t get the toll in place.
There is nothing that requires the wand to be anywhere near the end of the car. The switch can be up under the middle of the roof if mounted in a boxcar.
maxman rrinker There are some simple magnet tools that do this for kadee couplers, but you risk damaging end detail, and on passenger cars with full diaphragms you can;t get the toll in place. There is nothing that requires the wand to be anywhere near the end of the car. The switch can be up under the middle of the roof if mounted in a boxcar.
rrinker There are some simple magnet tools that do this for kadee couplers, but you risk damaging end detail, and on passenger cars with full diaphragms you can;t get the toll in place.
Randy wasn't refering to the electrically operated coupler controlled by a wand as proposed in this thread, he was referring to currently availble magnetic tools for Kadee couplers
Randy - YES!!!!! It fits! The idea is sound! I like it! The interchanability! The upgradability! And ofcourse, the simplicity right out of the box.
You shoulda clubbed me over the head weeks ago about it! I am gonna head back to the drawing board and incorporate your idea into a new test design.
I get it now! And am re-energized on this! THANK YOU!
Thanks to MaxMan also for mentioning the wand ("you may be on to something") which triggered me into seeing just what Randy was saying in the first place all along.
I will post an update on the new idea to see what you folks think. I have some electrical schematics to draw and ponder! I just hope Kadee doesnt get upset with me repurposing their stuff.
CSX Robert maxman rrinker There are some simple magnet tools that do this for kadee couplers, but you risk damaging end detail, and on passenger cars with full diaphragms you can;t get the toll in place. There is nothing that requires the wand to be anywhere near the end of the car. The switch can be up under the middle of the roof if mounted in a boxcar. Randy wasn't refering to the electrically operated coupler controlled by a wand as proposed in this thread, he was referring to currently availble magnetic tools for Kadee couplers
This. The wand for the electric uncoupler can be anywhere, but needs to be at least somewhat offset towards the end that it's operating the coupler for so you don't accidently release both ends. Depending on how strong a magnet is used, you wouldn;t even need to get that close to the car to trigger the reed switch, but balance out with wanting to only trigger ONE at a time. Also the idea should be to make the palcement as uniform as possible, so people don;t have to go 'hunting' all over the car to make it uncouple - ala the magnetic wand reset on QSI sound decoders, at least on some of the Atlas diesels it's easier to take the chell off and see the reed switch.
What I was referring to is a tool like the Rix uncoupler, the h shaped stick with magnets in the legs of the h to pull the kadee trip pins apart. There was a modification in a recent issue of MRH to build one that springs open to fit around passenger car diaphragms, but then how many times are you going to lift it straight up after uncoupling, forgetting to squeeze it up, catch the diaphragm, and lift the car off the rails?
rrinkerThe wand for the electric uncoupler can be anywhere, but needs to be at least somewhat offset towards the end that it's operating the coupler for so you don't accidently release both ends.
A valid point. Maybe the wand needs to be tuning fork shaped so that when it straddles the ends of two cars it activates the proper coupler on each car.
OK, to avoid confusion, I am only talking about the proposed electric coupler in this post.
The magnet wand for this would be waved over the roof of the car, not down over the end. Like the Soundtraxx SoundCar. I am just aying that since there is a coupelr at each end of the car, you don;t want the reed switch in the middle, you want one NEAR the ends of the car, so if you want to open the A end coupler, you wave the wand near the A end. Nothing down enar teh rails, or near the coupelrs themselves, so this would be fine for passenger cars even with diaphragms, nothing needs to go between the cars to operate this uncoupler.
I'm assuming this works by moving the coupler knuckle enough that only one car has to 'open' to uncouple, not both. ANd since they are otherwise normal Kadees, there is no actual 'open' and 'closed' psoition and they will couple back up with a gentle push, not the slam that those operating couplers on MTH HO locos need.
rrinker OK, to avoid confusion, I am only talking about the proposed electric coupler in this post. The magnet wand for this would be waved over the roof of the car, not down over the end. Like the Soundtraxx SoundCar. I am just aying that since there is a coupelr at each end of the car, you don;t want the reed switch in the middle, you want one NEAR the ends of the car, so if you want to open the A end coupler, you wave the wand near the A end. Nothing down enar teh rails, or near the coupelrs themselves, so this would be fine for passenger cars even with diaphragms, nothing needs to go between the cars to operate this uncoupler. I'm assuming this works by moving the coupler knuckle enough that only one car has to 'open' to uncouple, not both. ANd since they are otherwise normal Kadees, there is no actual 'open' and 'closed' psoition and they will couple back up with a gentle push, not the slam that those operating couplers on MTH HO locos need. --Randy
And that being said, Douglas has already noted that BOTH couplers need to be opened in order to allow separation. Just activating one coupler isn't adequate.
So, you'd need a device that was like a two-pronged fork with a magnet on each tine in order to activate both couplers. Don't think I'd want to be carry THAT tool around with me.
This is where the mechanically operated ones, at least the one I saw that Dick Bronson built, have an advantage, only one coupler needs to to be moved.
It wouldn;t have to be a huge tool. slightly wider than the Rix tool, if the reed switches are near the car ends. You don;t put it down below the car roof, you hold it over, so one prong is over the roof of one car, adn the other prong is over the roof of the other. Works fine until you model modern cushion underframe equipment where there is a huge seperation between carbodies. Might be better to tweak the mechanism to get it to work with only one coupler opening.
Mark, Randy, and MaxMan - I lost a bit of sleep last night thinking exactly what you 3 are talking about today. IE: tuning fork vs a wand, one coupler vs two (to uncouple), location of where you wave the wand.
True, at this point, I could not get the autocoupler to uncouple from a second car with a standard issue Kadee (design requirement!) yet. The autocoupler i have that works only moves the knuckle face. The alignment stays at '0H' (0 = degree of shank in relation to car frame centerline [0 is dead center], H = denotes horizontal plane [side to side sway]). I have noticed a -2V movement when activated. But thats normal - the couplers have to be a pinch loose to work.
True, Dick Bronson's coupler DOES get around this as his version moves not only the coupler face, but swings the shank to one side (+??H) allowing for the proper degree of angle to let one coupler slide out of the other. Thus only needing one coupler to do the work. This also allows for shoving cars without recoupling. Mine does not. But then, with mine, you wont need to shove cars. Put them where you want them, uncouple, and leave.
True, as mine sits now, a tuning fork type of wand will be needed to activate BOTH couplers. My design utilizes '0H/-2V' movement. So both cars will have to be activated. I am considering this needing to be redesigned. This effectively places the 'wand area of activation' on top of the car at the ends.
Solution - well, as pretty much stated the wand is either going to be a tuning fork - which could still fit in your pocket, OR i will have to play with the magnetic field a bit - change the coupler activating pin shape - change placement of the core end - change the activator pin angle (currently 0H/0V) to a positive angle (+2H/0V) - a combo of all four points to make this a one car operation, and a standard wand. I gather a one car operation would be preffered by the community?
I am not opposed to using a tuning fork type, but this would mean the user must have two cars with the autocoupler. Not that i am against that but it would raise costs. From an operational stand point (as Bob pointed out), this would mean that the layout operator(s) would need to assemble trains with cars having the autocoupler right next to each other. This effectively doubles the amount of autocouplers one must get. Thus, raising costs.
And then there is Randys mention of cush. underf. type cars. Also, MaxMans idea of getting around diaphrams is valid as well. Decisions, decisions. Hmmmmm......
It sounds like what you 3 have really done is point out that I have ALOT of testing to do!
I gather this is shaping up to be a one car operation using a simple wand. I will be playing with the idea of +??H/0V angles. I sincerely hope this doesnt call for moving the end of the core. If so, then car alteration must apply. Once again, forcing me to rewrite the requirements of the original design spec.
Great posts guys and attention to detail. Keep it up. Again, your help has been invaluable on this project!
Just let me know when you are ready to give up on this idea. This link to a Queen song will be appropriate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE
MaxMan - Nope not yet! Been wanting to do this for decades now. Im not giving up til its done. No matter how much 'ing i have to do.
And thanks to you folks, I am that much closer to the goal.
Put Queen on hold for the moment, and que up the "little engine that could".
Morning folkses! Pulled another all-nyter. Got the second car done. Made a video. Gonna try and post the YouTube link here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkQjlLqgATs&feature=youtu.be
Let me know if the video link worked, and what you think about the couplers.
PS: This is for Maxman....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whQQpwwvSh4
The link worked.
Impressive!
That looks like a very viable concept! I'm impressed with your tenacity on this project, Douglas.
They laughed at Charles Kettering when he proposed an electric starter and told Westinghouse he was nuts for proposing to stop a train by simply using the wind!
Thanks for sharing this, Ed