THIS THREAD HAS BEEN ANSWERED AND IS HERE FOR REFERENCE ONLY.
The discussion about working couplers has moved to -
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/744/t/244165.aspx
Please join us there if you want to follow the non DCC side of the project as it continues.
OP - PM Railfan
Dave - i wished you had told me that before i spent 45 minutes looking for a way to change the title. Never found the answer. Thanks Dave for enlightning me.
Douglas
Douglas:
To change the title of the thread you need to go back to your first post and click on 'Edit' in the lower right corner.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
At this point I think that a new thread that links back to this one but concentrates on your continuing development efforts would be useful. Since you have moved away from DCC involvement it could go into the General Discussion section unless the use of coils and magnets keeps it in the section. Either way, keep up your development efforts and by all means keep us informed.
Joe
Joe - Have no worries, passenger cars with diaphrams are on the list of car types to develop. I have two concerns with passenger cars though....
1) The vestible side door windows will allow the coil post to be seen. Gotta figure out how to hide that.
2) Truck mounted couplers.
Stay tuned for this one.
As for the thread. I started it in the Gen. Disc. section because i knew it wouldnt be all about DCC. MR Staff moved it here. I have been wanting to change the title for a while now.
Pretty much since it was ascertained that there is no current DCC decoder capable of handling autocouplers, the question is answered. So do i rename, or actually close the thread and open a new one consisting of the coupler work? Because even if i change the title, someone looking for couplers would be in Gen Disc., not DCC section.
And since I cant seem to figure out just HOW you change the title.... it may be i just start a whole new thread in Gen Disc. Kinda leaning that way.
Since this thread has migrated away from the original DCC title maybe an edit of the title to reflect the current discussion would serve to attract more followers.
The boxcar version, if it could be adapted, would be an answer for the uncoupling problem with passenger cars equipped with close fitting diaphragms. The evolution of this thread has been very interesting and I hope that it will continue.
Mark R. Is the boxcar an unpowered version as well ? Mark.
Is the boxcar an unpowered version as well ?
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
Mark R. Pretty impressive !
Pretty impressive !
Thank You.
Mark R. Do they work on boxcars where you can't get the magnet down to floor level ? Mark.
Do they work on boxcars where you can't get the magnet down to floor level ?
The first design does. Second design doesnt. Here is a video of an over the roof wand activated boxcar. I need to make one more boxcar and I can make a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRkOt_TiPpY
OK, I'm impressed!
The videos really settled my doubts about adequate coupler opening. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with next.
Sorry guys, maybe this is what your looking for.....
Working Gen II couplers- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGEWhRLt01U
Working cars with Gen II couplers in tight spaces (roof overhang between cars) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SILl5v-6YtQ
Working cars with Gen II couplers in tight spots (roof over hang between cars) and a working Kadee coupler gauge - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXVE8kqjvl4
4 videos in all i made today, the first being in my last post. For a recapsulation of all the videos, or to see any video you may have missed.... use this link -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO_5kkhEiUXdOx_YHJHU6FQ
Mark R. Now the acid test .... will it actually uncouple from another car ? Doesn't look like it opens enough to do so. (?) Mark.
Now the acid test .... will it actually uncouple from another car ? Doesn't look like it opens enough to do so. (?)
Mark:
I was wondering the same thing myself. I think that this is very interesting work and with a little more tweaking should develop into a nice addition to operation.
Hello Railfans! You folks getting bored yet? Ah ha ha not I! And I have yet one more update for ya. Except this time, its just a pinch different.
How you ask? Well this time, it is a whole other way of doing things. In the poor video that i made I try to show you all angles. You will notice 1) its a flat car. Gonna be interesting to see where the electronics and power are. 2) um, thats right, this time there ISNT any electronics or power! Ha HAAAHHH! No mag switches, no batteries, no wiring, no insulators, no resistors, no fuss no muss (yes its done with magic now)! 3) still wand activated though. 4) still Kadee compliant too... kinda since i use them to begin with. 5) an unforseen bonus during testing was i found that you can hold the coupler open indefinately 'without the wand' (as long as the car isnt jostled or re-coupled to). Dont know why youd want to hold it open, but nice to know you can. Watch til the very end to see it stay open.
The video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwCMWwYklHI&feature=youtu.be
Give it a look see, Id like to know what you think.
Now that is truly useful. Simple magnetic wand with no touching the car being uncoupled. "Be the brakeman" and pull the pin without physically touching the car.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Neat, I admire your tenacity.
Jack W.
UPDATE - Heres where I am now. Pretty much, one car is now finished. On to the other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRkOt_TiPpY&feature=youtu.be
Well folks, I never could sleep on Xmas Eve. So i decided to stay up and wait for ole Santy Claus doing more work on the couplers.
Havent seen him yet but I do have another video to post! I already showed you the working "above floor - boxcar type" autocoupler. Now I want to show you something else you should like.... the working "underfloor flatcar/gondola" autocoupler (Beta Version!).
This is only a test video of one of the many prototype designs (note the destruction in the frame and floor of the test car from all the other.... 'designs'. ) Ive been working on.
This one is the 'bumble bee" and is the best working so far as it opens the coupler, it fits 'between' the wheels but, doesnt clear the forward axle yet. More tweaking. Heres the video....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV5yKGxATw4&feature=youtu.be
Sorry about the bad quality. Let me know if there is a problem with the link, and definately what you think about the coupler.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
PM RailfanPS: This is for Maxman.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whQQpwwvSh4
AC/DC? Should be AC/DCC.
Bob and Ed - Gentlemen, thank you for the kind words. It has been a fun project so far. I think were close now to the end!
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
The link worked.
Impressive!
BOB H - Clarion, PA
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
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".
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
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!