I don't like touching the cars. It's rather unlikely, but it's possible to damage details, scratch paint, disturb weathering, or leave fingerprints. Theoretically, the skewers don't cause this kind of damage; but I'd rather not risk it. Passenger cars are particularly hard to uncouple without trip pins, due to the presence of diaphragms. True, the trip pins are not prototypical. But there are lots of compromises in this hobby. I have a hard time accepting a lot of those compromises, but this is one I can live with.
Tom
ACY I don't like touching the cars. It's rather unlikely, but it's possible to damage details, scratch paint, disturb weathering, or leave fingerprints. Theoretically, the skewers don't cause this kind of damage; but I'd rather not risk it. Passenger cars are particularly hard to uncouple without trip pins, due to the presence of diaphragms. True, the trip pins are not prototypical. But there are lots of compromises in this hobby. I have a hard time accepting a lot of those compromises, but this is one I can live with. Tom
I'd rather do all hands off uncoupling but that raises so many issues that using the skewers is a compromise I can accept. In the OP I alluded to the problem of unwanted mainline uncoupling if slack develops in the train when passing over the magnet and I don't like any of the alternatives. The electromagnetic uncouplers are bulky and expensive and I'm not really enthused about the idea of retrofitting hinged uncoupling magnets. Perhaps the biggest issue is how many magnets I would have to place to do all hands free uncoupling. Even using the delayed action feature, complex switching can require quite a few magnets and each one presents the potential problem of unwanted uncoupling. Some of my industries require both trailing point and facing point switching and each requires magnets in different places. So I cheat and do some manual uncoupling with the skewers and save the magnetic uncoupling for places that are either difficult to reach or allow a simply drop of a car or cut of cars.
Right. If the couplers don't separate or couple when they're supposed to, then you have to resort to some handling or the use of the skewers. I'd just prefer to try the hands-off method first, then do whatever is necessary if that doesn't work.
I am laughing as I read this thread. When a passenger car with 'touching' diaphrams is uncoupled using the track magnet, the knuckle is 'stretched' and it does not work. One has to push the cars together so you can get some slack. The 'Big Hand' is needed.
I use 3M 'Gift' tape to cover my diaphrams, it has a 'satin' finish and one has to really 'look' at the end if the car to see it is there. Even with 'touching' diaphrams, I can slide my skewer down to the knuckle without getting hung up in the diaphram. I originally started using it so the faces of the diaphrams did not 'catch' when backing throught the passenger depot leads at the club layout. I think a guy named Art Bergstrom showed my this trick - I was not aware of it as the other passenger cars at the club had been modified with the 3M Gift ape and I did not even see it.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
jrbernier I am laughing as I read this thread. When a passenger car with 'touching' diaphrams is uncoupled using the track magnet, the knuckle is 'stretched' and it does not work. One has to push the cars together so you can get some slack. The 'Big Hand' is needed. I use 3M 'Gift' tape to cover my diaphrams, it has a 'satin' finish and one has to really 'look' at the end if the car to see it is there. Even with 'touching' diaphrams, I can slide my skewer down to the knuckle without getting hung up in the diaphram. I originally started using it so the faces of the diaphrams did not 'catch' when backing throught the passenger depot leads at the club layout. I think a guy named Art Bergstrom showed my this trick - I was not aware of it as the other passenger cars at the club had been modified with the 3M Gift ape and I did not even see it. Jim
I for one was not refering to using magnets to uncouple passenger cars with diaphragms, but rather using a skewer/hook from the side to operate the coupler via the trip pin.
I am more than familiar with the idea of the tape, or clear plastic on the diaphragm faces, but in my case, with nearly scale car seperations, there is not enough space/movement in the diaphragms for that to work.
So laugh all you want, but my cars are easily uncoupled using a skewer/hook on the trip pin. And I often use a similar method with freight cars rather than sticking the skewer in the knuckle.
Sheldon
I remove the trip pin on the pilot couplers of my steamers and between diesels in lashups that tend to stay together all the time like F units and a couple of my GP9 two unit teams. Otherwise everything else has trip pins set to the Kaydee gauge. I also promptly trash any plastic couplers on rolling stock I buy. I run nothing but Kaydee metal couplers. The local club is based on operation with many magnet ramps, only on grades do we have the electromagnet ramps that Kaydee offered to prevent unwanted uncoupling. Qualified mainline engineers know where the mainline ramps are and keep their trains "stretched" to prevent loosing part of the train or the caboose which is the most common occurance. My primary caboose is a heavy coined brass ATSF caboose, it has enough drag from its weight to help keep my train stretched, preventing unwanted uncoupling. Even with the trip pins, on close up industries that I can reach, I use my skewer instead of installing ramps. Mikie
Silly NT's, I have Asperger's Syndrome
Nice weathering. What color is that?
It's thick and zesty bbq sauce, we ran out of skewers while cooking and had to borrow some from the layout but they are back now. lol
I keep the skewers on the grill and the magnets on the fridge. I saw an uncoupling tool in MR that works perfect so I made a few. I use a pencil size wooden dowel as the handle and a thin piece of metal rod with two 90 degree bends near the end. These bends allow you to easily grab the air hoses and uncouple cars anywhere you can reach.
I do have to admit I was spoiled by my old 1970s Lionel 027 trains which had realisitic couplers you could release with the touch of a finger. Maybe someone should copy that design for HO.
BRAKIE I use magnetic uncoupling for many reasons but,the main reason I like the "hands off" uncoupling.Why not use magnetic uncoupling since you are paying for that option with every pack of KD couplers you buy? If I wanted manual uncoupling I would use Sergent Couplers.
I use magnetic uncoupling for many reasons but,the main reason I like the "hands off" uncoupling.Why not use magnetic uncoupling since you are paying for that option with every pack of KD couplers you buy?
If I wanted manual uncoupling I would use Sergent Couplers.
ACY I don't like touching the cars. It's rather unlikely, but it's possible to damage details, scratch paint, disturb weathering, or leave fingerprints.
I don't like touching the cars. It's rather unlikely, but it's possible to damage details, scratch paint, disturb weathering, or leave fingerprints.
That's why I touch only the trucks. If you practice, it's pretty easy to learn to reach around a car and lift one end just by the trucks with a thumb and one finger.
wjstixWith Kadees, you can set the couplers so they interlock in such a way that you can push a car into a spur track, and when the engine moves forward, the car stays there.
I use that method on my ISL since its easier then using two magnets at the industries that has more then one spot or the transload track.I spot the cars separately.I find this completely removes any risks in damaging those $30-40.00 highly detailed freight cars or accidentally damaging the foreground scenery..
The Sergent Couplers uses a rod with a magnetic tip for activating the knuckles for uncoupling once it placed between the cars-a supped up skewer?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
emdmike I remove the trip pin on the pilot couplers of my steamers and between diesels in lashups that tend to stay together all the time like F units and a couple of my GP9 two unit teams.
I remove the trip pin on the pilot couplers of my steamers and between diesels in lashups that tend to stay together all the time like F units and a couple of my GP9 two unit teams.
A couple years ago somebody on this forum explained how he created drawbars for his F-units by cutting up old credit cards, painting them black. drilling a hole in each end at the appropriate distance and inserting them in the coupler pockets. Works great. Drawbars instead of couplers were prototypical on the earliest FTs. I can't remember for sure if this practice continued with the F3s before they were fitted with standard couplers.
jecorbett emdmike I remove the trip pin on the pilot couplers of my steamers and between diesels in lashups that tend to stay together all the time like F units and a couple of my GP9 two unit teams. A couple years ago somebody on this forum explained how he created drawbars for his F-units by cutting up old credit cards, painting them black. drilling a hole in each end at the appropriate distance and inserting them in the coupler pockets. Works great. Drawbars instead of couplers were prototypical on the earliest FTs. I can't remember for sure if this practice continued with the F3s before they were fitted with standard couplers.
The "stock" configuration for an FT was for the "A-B" sets to be drawbar connected, but early on roads asked for couplers on all units, ATSF in particular.
This is why FT B units do not have the same overhang at each end - the short overhang is the "front" intended to be drawbar connected.
They even built a limited number of ABA drawbar sets with a shorter B unit with the small overhang at both ends.
Drawbars remained an available option on later models, but few if any where built.
When developed, an FT AB set was about the same HP and TE of your average 2-8-2 or large 2-8-0, so the "set" was thought of as a "single locomotive".
Two of those sets MU'd was equal to a lot of the big non articulated power - 2-8-4's, 4-8-4's and 4-8-2's.
Railroads soon saw the advantages of couplers and most of those locos were converted from drawbars later on.
jecorbett Drawbars instead of couplers were prototypical on the earliest FTs. I can't remember for sure if this practice continued with the F3s before they were fitted with standard couplers.
There is some very interesting reading here:
http://utahrails.net/loconotes/emc-ft.php
Original material is from a post to the ATSF list in 2001 as credited in the link:
"As soon as railroads began creating passenger--not freight, but passenger--locomotives of more than one unit for its new streamliners, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers began demanding what amounted to a full crew for each unit. This hassle started around 1937, well before the first FT was introduced. It became known as the First Diesel Case, and it went on until about 1943, as I recall. (I'll have the complete story in the book.) Freight diesels were hardly mentioned in the First Diesel Case.
Where the four-section freight diesel became a problem was an altogether different issue. EMC and some of the railroads saw this problem coming. But those (including Dr. Wood) who assumed that the problem was with the engine crews were looking at the wrong end of the train. In Western territory (roughly, the railroads west of the Mississippi), a contract rule had existed since about 1903 in the agreements with the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Order of Railway Conductors that prohibited doubleheading if the tonnage of the train was greater than the rating of the more powerful of the two locomotives. Well, what was a four-section FT but two identical, equally rated, two-section locomotives coupled back to back? A train with a four-section FT, under the rule, could only weigh the rating of half the locomotive!
Most, but not all, railroads in the West got around the doubleheader rule by having EMD deliver their FTs with a drawbar between the B sections rather than with couplers at that location. EMD offered this drawbar as a no-cost option. It fit right into the draft-gear pockets just as a coupler would. Four-section FTs so equipped suddenly were one locomotive, not two. But the Santa Fe, having had EMD engineer the drawbars between the A and B sections out of existence, was stuck. All its FTs (most of which didn't arrive until late in World War II) were totally independent units with couplers at both ends. The special drawbar wouldn't work between the A and B sections.
Now you know why, as quickly as it could, the Santa Fe swapped out the trailing cab units of the first of its freight diesels for a third booster unit. With only one cab unit, a four-unit FT could only be considered one locomotive. The trailing cabs of the 100 and 101 became the sole cab units on the 102 and 103. The 104 was delivered as an A-B-B-B. So was every other member of the 100 class up to about 151. What happened to unit numbers and unit assignments after that is another story, one based on actions taken by the government during the war and the ultimate revision of labor agreements."
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
jecorbettI'm curious as to the reason for cutting the pins off. Is it for appearance sake or is it to avoid the pins snagging on turnouts and grade crossings?
riogrande5761 Now you know why, as quickly as it could, the Santa Fe swapped out the trailing cab units of the first of its freight diesels for a third booster unit. With only one cab unit, a four-unit FT could only be considered one locomotive. The trailing cabs of the 100 and 101 became the sole cab units on the 102 and 103. The 104 was delivered as an A-B-B-B. So was every other member of the 100 class up to about 151. What happened to unit numbers and unit assignments after that is another story, one based on actions taken by the government during the war and the ultimate revision of labor agreements."
I had read something along those lines before. As I understood it, labor agreements required an engine crew (engineer and fireman) for each cab which made sense in the steam era but defeated the purpose of MUing diesel units. That was the reason for B units for Es and Fs as well as Alco's PAs and FAs. Once the labor agreements were worked out, cabless units became obsolete. I might be wrong about this but to the best of my knowledge there were no second generation cabless units.
jecorbett riogrande5761 Now you know why, as quickly as it could, the Santa Fe swapped out the trailing cab units of the first of its freight diesels for a third booster unit. With only one cab unit, a four-unit FT could only be considered one locomotive. The trailing cabs of the 100 and 101 became the sole cab units on the 102 and 103. The 104 was delivered as an A-B-B-B. So was every other member of the 100 class up to about 151. What happened to unit numbers and unit assignments after that is another story, one based on actions taken by the government during the war and the ultimate revision of labor agreements." I had read something along those lines before. As I understood it, labor agreements required an engine crew (engineer and fireman) for each cab which made sense in the steam era but defeated the purpose of MUing diesel units. That was the reason for B units for Es and Fs as well as Alco's PAs and FAs. Once the labor agreements were worked out, cabless units became obsolete. I might be wrong about this but to the best of my knowledge there were no second generation cabless units.
The history of labor agreements in railroading is connected to the evolution of diesel locos, but it was only one factor effecting these choices. And labor agreements did vary from road to road and region to region.
In addition to negating problems with labor agreements, cabless units cost less to manufacture and purchase than units with cabs - so in the early days of lower HP units, where it was clear that two or three units would always be required, cabless units made sense for a list of reasons - labor agreements, cost, mainentence, appearance on streamlined trains, etc.
As HP increased, labor agreements changed, and streamlined appearance became less important, the versitility of use out weighed the only remaining advantage of the cabless unit - purchase cost.
Remember the cabless GP7/GP9 did exist - but was pretty much the end of the line for cabless units.