Since there is controversy about reviving old threads (and rehashing old arguments) let me bring up the topic with a slightly different pair of emphases:
1) What's the current 'state of the art' (and the best historical designs and approaches that have undeservedly gone out of production) for performing remote uncoupling?
I don't want to limit this just to Kadees, and in particular I want to discuss options like the ones mentioned for MTH that permit 'digital' uncoupling on demand, rather than just over a fixed location with the 'right' slack action and no curves.
To get the juices flowing: I worked up a design many years ago that used a magnetic chuck arrangement combined with a switch motor for power, which at least in theory combined the attributes of a power uncoupler and a fixed one, for relatively small power demand (and of course simple unpowered actuation with nothing more complex than a piece of Bowden cable). This would probably work well with 'modern' high strength NIB magnets...
I'm also wondering if there has been any work on 'remote' uncoupling of Serjent couplers (or designs like them) that can have full-scale heads and don't use those ridiculous non-touching imitations of air hoses.
2) It occurs to me that some of the unassigned codes in digital control might be assigned to 'onboard' coupler adjustments of a more interesting nature. Imagine a cable-actuated Sergent-style head, with a second lateral adjustment on the 'draft gear' or shank that would nudge or move the coupler head laterally "on request" as well as open the knuckle. (While we are adding the cost for the decoder, we could also add 'sound' for the individual cars, perhaps using the relatively inexpensive speakers salvaged from old cell phones; the additional 'cores' for the functionality being relatively cheap to add in production...) Is there a perceived need to add vertical compliance to couplers/draft gear to keep cars coupled over rough transitions or trackage -- or can we do that with something like a model F coupler head with alignment ramps in the extensions?
I did build one locomotive years ago that 'cheated' in a way that was sort of hinted at in the old thread: this was a locomotive with a drop coupler, and I rigged up working coupler lift and knuckle release from the levers, so it could be actuated from 'outside' more easily and prototypically. I might also add that there might be more justification for retaining the 'sticks' when you want to use those "realistic" plastic brakelines/intercar connections with magnetic terminal gladhands -- have the 'other end' of the stick optimized to move the two ends together when coupling, as I am not sure an 'automatic' coupler that also does that reliably is quite entirely practical or cost-effective...
1). The "State of the Art" in stationary uncouplers is the Rapido Rail Crew uncoupler. It's a 1.75" dia. cylinder that mounts right under the ties/roadbed. It has a permanent magnet that rotates 90 degrees when activated. When it's rotated one way, it opens Kadee-like knuckles w/ "hoses" when the couplers are slackened. When rotated the other way, it doesn't work because the magnet is now pulling in line with the track rather than to either side.
The Rail Crew uncoupler draws power when it's throwing, but otherwise the LED located in the center of it is the only other draw. The LED comes on automatically when the magnet is rotated for uncoupling, and assists the user in lining up his couplers over the otherwise hidden magnet.
The old Kadee electromagnet required a large rectangular slot to be cut out of the benchwork, and drew current the entire time it was on. IIRC, they were also prone to being burned out by accidently leaving them on.
Other than that, you've got the Kadee under-the-track magnet, and the Kadee delay and non-delay between-the-rails uncoupler. That's pretty much it, other than a bamboo skewer or a screwdriver.
2). Onboard uncouplers are completely impractical. Oh, they're possible on boxcars and the like, but what about flat cars, hoppers, tank cars, etc.? And how much are we talking about? It's still $20 for a decoder, and even just 1-function lighting decoder costs $17. Add the actuator (like these: http://www.precimodels.com/en/shop) and that's an additional $20. So today, to add remote onboard DCC uncouplers would cost at least $37...per car. I currently own approx. 300 freight cars and 50 passenger cars. It would only cost me $12,950 to equip my fleet. Um, no thanks.
That's not even getting into the actual usability of such a thing. Imagine drilling a yard with 20+ cars. Every time you go to drop a car on a yard track, you have to stop, find out the DCC address of the car, punch address of the car into your throttle, turn the function on to uncouple it, move the train away, and then turn the function back off...over and over again. I would routinely class 50+ cars in a yard during one of my operation sessions, and I can't imagine button pushing 50+ addresses every single ops session.
And sound? How much power do you have going to your track? Sound engines are bad enough at my club, and so are lit passenger cars. Adding sound to every freight car as well? Let's put it this way; one of our members brought down a dozen BLI sound-equipped stock cars to run at one of our Open Houses (along with 4 sound locos). The train kept tripping the 3-amp circuit breakers we use for mainline blocks.
The MTH ones on their locos are a joke. They're huge, ugly, and they don't work very well when trying to couple to a freewheeling car.
Paul A. Cutler III
There was nothing wrong with reviving an old thread but I will repeat my comment here.
Am I wrong I thought prototype railroads uncouple manually meaning someone gets out and pushes an uncoupling lever. Thus using a bamboo skewer or such is as close as we get to the real thing.
Joe Staten Island West
joe323Am I wrong I thought prototype railroads uncouple manually meaning someone gets out and pushes an uncoupling lever. Thus using a bamboo skewer or such is as close as we get to the real thing.
Not even close.. Its to easy unless one takes time to set the car hand brake,close the air line valves. Did I mention some times you need slack on the pin so you can lift the uncoupling bar?
KD magnets is close if one is good at stopping on the magnet and being careful with installing the KDs.
Back to topic. Even on my former small 1x12' switching layout I would not want to have a DCC decoder in every car because in a simple pickup and drop there is three uncoupling moves :
(1) Uncouple from the train/pick up the car.
(2) return to train uncouple the pickup
and
(3) Uncouple the setout.
Also Paul3 makes a good point on terminal switching.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
RME Since there is controversy about reviving old threads (and rehashing old arguments) let me bring up the topic with a slightly different pair of emphases: 1) What's the current 'state of the art' (and the best historical designs and approaches that have undeservedly gone out of production) for performing remote uncoupling? I don't want to limit this just to Kadees, and in particular I want to discuss options like the ones mentioned for MTH that permit 'digital' uncoupling on demand, rather than just over a fixed location with the 'right' slack action and no curves. To get the juices flowing: I worked up a design many years ago that used a magnetic chuck arrangement combined with a switch motor for power, which at least in theory combined the attributes of a power uncoupler and a fixed one, for relatively small power demand (and of course simple unpowered actuation with nothing more complex than a piece of Bowden cable). This would probably work well with 'modern' high strength NIB magnets... I'm also wondering if there has been any work on 'remote' uncoupling of Serjent couplers (or designs like them) that can have full-scale heads and don't use those ridiculous non-touching imitations of air hoses. 2) It occurs to me that some of the unassigned codes in digital control might be assigned to 'onboard' coupler adjustments of a more interesting nature. Imagine a cable-actuated Sergent-style head, with a second lateral adjustment on the 'draft gear' or shank that would nudge or move the coupler head laterally "on request" as well as open the knuckle. (While we are adding the cost for the decoder, we could also add 'sound' for the individual cars, perhaps using the relatively inexpensive speakers salvaged from old cell phones; the additional 'cores' for the functionality being relatively cheap to add in production...) Is there a perceived need to add vertical compliance to couplers/draft gear to keep cars coupled over rough transitions or trackage -- or can we do that with something like a model F coupler head with alignment ramps in the extensions? I did build one locomotive years ago that 'cheated' in a way that was sort of hinted at in the old thread: this was a locomotive with a drop coupler, and I rigged up working coupler lift and knuckle release from the levers, so it could be actuated from 'outside' more easily and prototypically. I might also add that there might be more justification for retaining the 'sticks' when you want to use those "realistic" plastic brakelines/intercar connections with magnetic terminal gladhands -- have the 'other end' of the stick optimized to move the two ends together when coupling, as I am not sure an 'automatic' coupler that also does that reliably is quite entirely practical or cost-effective...
Andre,I have KD magnet that's well over 30-35 years old and they still work as intended.
I just purchased and installed the Rail Crew Uncoupler on an out of the way siding partially concealed by other structures. The electrical wires have not been routed so I can't speak for the operation; however, the installation was very straight forward without any problems. The kit came with excellent instructions, a toggle switch with face plate and a diode that fits into the face plate. All of my other sidings have, or will have, Kadee Delayed Action uncoupler magnets which have always worked well for me.
Wayne
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
BRAKIE Andre,I have KD magnet that's well over 30-35 years old and they still work as intended.
A lot of us prefer manual uncoupling. Nothing against Kadee magnets (which pretty much have an indefinite lifespan), but the skewer has the twin advantages of low price and portability.
The only magnet on the 24x36 layout where I'm a regular crew member as well as being part of the construction crew is on a spur where there's a building in the way of reaching in with a skewer.
Amdre
Andre:
andrechapelonwhy not develop 1:87 robotic crew members that can perform manual uncoupling, turnout throwing and other actual railroad operations?
Heck, you could just hire somebody to stand around and do all that for you! You know - 20 something 5' 6", blonde, single. Then the most expensive part of the uncoupler would be the divorce!
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
To the original proposition: KISS!!!
I'm sure I am not alone in having several hundred cars and locomotives with operating couplers. The idea of having each coupler be an electromechanical gizmo requiring beaucoup maintenance attention, not to mention having too keep track of the codes for each coupler (on a layout where almost every freight turns end-for-end with every run...)
So I use Kadees, leave the 'hoses' on and take advantage of the 50 year old remote uncoupling technology of under-the-tie magnets to keep the clumsy, arthritic hamhooks out of the over-layout airspace. Where false uncoupling might be a problem I mount the magnet on a hinge, then move it to operating position by pulling a string with a coat button. Other places just get fixed magnets. And then there's always the skewer (actually a small screwdriver with a pocket clip) as a last resort.
What I would really like to see is a working link and pin coupler. The prototypes for my two narrow gauge operations were still using them in 1964. The one that's still operating (Kurobe Gorge Railway) is still using them in 2016!
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - as simply as possible)
andrechapelonA lot of us prefer manual uncoupling. Nothing against Kadee magnets (which pretty much have an indefinite lifespan), but the skewer has the twin advantages of low price and portability.
And the chance one may break off a detail part on today's finely detailed cars and at $30-50.00 a pop I don't think those round sticks will be use here.Hands away is better then a OOPS followed by a line of unprintable words.
All of my cars almost are of the finely detailed type, no problem with the bamboo.
rrebell All of my cars almost are of the finely detailed type, no problem with the bamboo.
I hope your luck holds forever and a day but,when you have shaky shake hands and do a lot of switching on a ISL the odds goes up with each uncoupling and one thinks twice about using a round stick on those high dollar cars on the other hand the older near bullet proof Athearn BB and Roundhouse cars no worries.
Being a MTH fan and I have quite a few of their locomotives, I detest their automatic couplers. I replace them with kadee.
On the other hand I use the five finger method to uncouple my cars, easy and cheap.
What is the prefered tool to use when manually uncoupling?
I use a tool that comes with a Radio Shack soldering kit. On one end is a beveled edge and the other end has a point with a 45 degree bend near the end. The bend allows me to "pull" the trip pin to uncouple.
Pat Bandy
Ignatosky What is the prefered tool to use when manually uncoupling? I use a tool that comes with a Radio Shack soldering kit. On one end is a beveled edge and the other end has a point with a 45 degree bend near the end. The bend allows me to "pull" the trip pin to uncouple.
If I may..A little history..For years we used KD magnets for hands free uncoupling then comes a article in MR showing the Bamboo Skewers and saying how evil the magnets was. I never fell for that line about that being the better way simply because it wasn't the best idea and that article should have been filed away in draw 13...
IMHO for the money we pay for KD couplers should we not reap the benefits of hands away uncoupling especially with today's freight cars?
Being fair minded I will yield and say the round Bamboo stick is very popular today for uncoupling cars.
Back after having my account once again terminated and its cookies made to disappear from my own persistent storage (!) Now I'm back on the previous but not most previous ancient user name... complete with persistent PM action from months ago.
Paul3 ... Onboard uncouplers are completely impractical. Oh, they're possible on boxcars and the like, but what about flat cars, hoppers, tank cars, etc.? And how much are we talking about? It's still $20 for a decoder, and even just 1-function lighting decoder costs $17. Add the actuator (like these: http://www.precimodels.com/en/shop) and that's an additional $20. So today, to add remote onboard DCC uncouplers would cost at least $37...per car. I currently own approx. 300 freight cars and 50 passenger cars. It would only cost me $12,950 to equip my fleet. Um, no thanks.
Someone was kind enough to point me at the Wyoming Yards coupler mods. It is not very far from there to a workable onboard system that charges from the rails. I'm expecting to see relatively cheap decoder 'cores' in the next few years -- why should digital tech remain relatively exotic and over-expensive in this hobby? Even if we support our local dealers and not hit up the 'maker' communities directly for tech and support?
It might be added that additional functions and switching in a decoder core or board don't add that much incremental or marginal cost to it. Most of the cost of these things is in design and setting up the fab or whatever to produce it. Be interesting to see what a Kickstarter or other crowdfunded model-railroad function decoder might produce ... or one that supports limited sound (of which more below)
Spoken like a die-hard BASIC programmer trying to do 5-axis CNC programming on the TRS-80 from cassette tape! Did it occur to you that nobody keeps on entering crude low-level codes for access to complex or sequential functions if they know either scripting or IxD? Seriously: if you were going to build an interface for switching cars, one obvious thing you might do would be install cheap sensors on the cars that would command uncoupling if you designated the car with a laser or waved a magnet near ... but not touching ... its finely-detailed majesty. Another might be to show a graphical representation of the train and its location on your iPhone screen, and you used gesture to move the train to the right 'fine' location, make the cut and then move 'prototypically' to the next expected location... in other words, this is not a technology problem, but a user-interface and interaction-design issue. And there is a great wealth of available knowledge, ingenuity, and built solutions in those communities, waiting for you.
I have little to say about the MTH/BLI 'school' of the kind of sound effects and relative loudness of same (even if there are more interesting versions of 'train yard sounds' that could be used to produce complex sequences that match the commanded 'actions' and then transmit them or render them as appropriate). Something to remember is that millions of cell phones contained very effective amplifiers and 'speakerphone' transducers, now available essentially below zero cost if you have the time to take them out of scrap. And the actual volume of sound coming off the cars doesn't need to be 'all that much' than what is needed to localize some of the noises, with the rest of the 'ambient' being provided from nearby speakers in lineside structures or under the roadbed, etc. Guess we need some more cognitive scientists involved with our hobby...
If you want to run toy train effects, you might need a little more power, but it still wouldn't need to be drawn directly from track power at the same time it's needed for propulsion. Even small lithium-ion batteries would work long enough to keep peak amperage clamped below critical, wouldn't they?
Something I started thinking about when PM Railfan deprecated the Raspberry Pi approach was whether one 'decoder' could be used to multiplex responses across a number of separately-powered Wyoming Yards coupler rigs -- all that's needed is an addressable trigger to one of those little one-wire 'button' devices and a little circuit (might even be a RLC circuit with a short time constant) that pulses its attached magnet for a short but effective time. I'd think about superposing pulses on the track that can be distinguished from DCC logic, perhaps much shorter, but this isn't really rocket science or super-MEMS level of fabricated sophistication. It might, however, be useful to put a little design and technology in on the front end to bring Moore's-law advantages to this hobby...
One other comment: I am by no means opposed to using any of the magnetic, bamboo, or dental-instrument methods of manual uncoupling ... or even use of fine implements to actuate scale coupling levers or trip pins. I've already started sketching a combination tool for those scale link-and-pin couplers -- we already have good descriptions for the special 'stick' that positions the link (real railroaders thought they were for sissies and lost fingers instead, but modelers will have less objection to them!) and it is not difficult to gin up the device that holds and positions the pin to drop it in precisely even if the hands shake (I'm thinking adaptive re-use of one of those 'camera shake reducing' lens systems from camcorders that now appear in the thrift stores for a few bucks...)
This is supposed to be a fun hobby that lets different folks enjoy different parts of the railroading experience. I confess my tastes are different from most, as I enjoy the idea of modeling very-high-speed railroading over realistic distances (and that leads to some very careful thinking about how to build large distances of HO and O track with functionally-realistic horizontal and vertical spiraling and easy shimming adjustment in an outdoor environment) and am too much of a Yankee not to let advanced tech do lots of the grunt work of verisimilitude for me. But I also enjoy the idea of precise and convenient GHA when solving a switching problem against the clock or when I don't have giant buzzing ramps convenient to hand... this is neither a 'one-size-fits-all' or 'my approach is cooler than yours' discussion.
Overmod,You expect to see cheap decoders in the future? Good luck. The $20 DCC decoder has been the same price for at least 17 years. They've even improved it several times (DH120-121-123-126), and it's still $20. If they haven't dropped the price one cent in almost 20 years, what makes you think it will drop in the next 20?
Why is it like this? First of all you have the capitalistic idea of charging what the market will bear. No one is going to sell decoders for cheap money when people are willing to spend more. Secondly, this is a very small market. There might be 250,000 model railroaders in the USA, and only half of them use DCC. Compare that to the billions of other tech. devices that are out there, and our hobby is an incredibly tiny niche market. All Digitrax and NCE decoders are made in the USA, not in some mega factory in China.
Kickstarter? For DCC? For a market of maybe 125,000 people? A group of people who constantly complain about how expensive things are? Do you really think they're going to fork over their own cash to a kickstarter campaign to make DCC decoders (that may or may not ever happen) when they could just buy a decoder for $20?
I have to giggle a bit at your idea to use lasers to uncouple cars. All I can hear is Dr. Evil: "You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!" Where would the laser sensors go? You'd have to drill holes in the roofs/sides/ends of all your cars (and won't that be attractive?). This is just like the Lynx IR control system where they have to add sensors inside the cabs of their locos making them look like they're being run by all-black versions of R2-D2.Or magnetic wands. Have you ever used the Rapido lighting in the Osgood Bradley cars? They use magnet switches to turn the lights on and off. They don't really work that well as I used to have to make several passes over each one to turn the lights on or off. Or have you tried them with the manual reset on old QSI boards on BLI locos? They didn't always work, either.
An iPhone for a throttle and uncoupler control? Then you'd have to build your train on your throttle digitally as you build your train in "Real-Life"(tm). How would that work? Punching in 6-digit car numbers and up to 6-letter reporting marks every time you make a hitch? Or scrolling through hundreds of cars to menu-select the right ones? One would spend more time pushing buttons or swiping screens than running trains. That sounds like un-fun to me.
You missed the whole idea of having power problems; it has nothing to do with volume, it's about power. You don't want breakers set at big amps because a short can become a big problem in a big hurry. At my club, we have 3 amp breakers, and we've had a situation where someone melted a decoder through the side of an Atlas GP38. Just last week, a P2K PA-1 almost melted down when the decoder shorted against something. If we have to set our breakers at larger amp ratings to power sound in every freight car, then a short would potentially cause more serious damage to track and/or equipment.
Batteries are a non-starter. They do not last forever. Even if they last 10 years and only cost $5 ea., in my case with my 350 cars, I'd have to shell out $1750 every 10 years, or an average of $15 per month, to keep my fleet in batteries.
The point here is that onboard remote uncoupling is totally impractical. Can it be done? Of course. Should it be done? IMHO, no.
Don't Ever Give Up
Overmod -
You stated - "It is not very far from there to a workable onboard system that charges from the rails.".
The W.Y. couplers can work off DCC track power. The couplers can work by wand, DC (battery), or DCC power. For obvious reasons, DC track power is not usable. DCC is. To control the coupler, since we dont have a specific decoder to do such, use a wand and magnetic switch.
Many 'digital' forms of control 'can' be used, but this is supposed to be easy, cheap, and portable. 'Digital' control of any kind is NOT cheap! It works, but it aint cheap.
For those with large fleets, consider this:
Gondolas, Flat cars, and other exposed end of frame cars are the simplist cars to make. They work no matter if you use DC or DCC they require NO power. You only need to reshape the trip pin, use a metal coupler mounting screw, and own a magnetic wand.
Say 30% of your fleet are a mix of the above type cars. Interspersed throughout your trains, or in strings of cars in your yards.... makes no difference. 3 in 10 cars together will, by a wave of wand, uncouple. No need to worry about car numbers or decoder addresses.... just look for a flat car or gondola.
You have the cars, you have the Kadees, already. Some of you already mount your couplers with screws... i do. So what does a fleet of cars with working couplers cost? The price of a wand, and your time, the knowledge is free
The whole idea behind the working coupler is not how to power it, or how to control it. Thats the easy part. Its the trip pin. Focus your attention there! Kadee had the right idea, they just bent the trip pin the wrong way. Weve had working couplers since some school kid first figured out how to pick up paper clips with a nail.
PM Railfan
Have never damaged a car uncoupling with a bamboo skewer . Plenty of other ways drops crashes etc but not with a skewer.
I admit to being a bit ham fisted. A few times I have pushed the stamped metal Athearn draft gear cover off while using a skewer to uncouple a car. That wouldn't have happened to a car with a screw on cover.
joe323Plenty of other ways drops crashes etc but not with a skewer.
Ouch! Time was one could drop a Athearn BB or Roundhouse car with very little damage.. Drop one of these highly detail cars and I suspect one would have a instant "kit".
I won't risk it not at $30-60.00 a pop especially since a magnet still works. My older BB and Roundhouse cars no worries.
Besides Murphy's Law still reigns supreme.