Uncoupling track????

[Anonymous]

Us guys that play make believe engineers on the other forum use the Lionel uncoupling track to separate our trains. Do the rail railroads have anything like that where a brakeman doesn't have to separate cars manual???? Thanks Easter.

[mudchicken]

Brother Carl may get around to answering you as soon as we can get him out of these forum-induced laughing hysterics as he rolls on the floor![(-D][(-D][(-D]

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The only way of which I've heard that doesn't require a man on the ground is the use of Tomlinson or other fully automatic couplers on MU cars or similar systems on rapid transit equipment in which the uncoupling can be made from the cab.

[arbfbe]

Each rail car has a pin lifter on each end of the car to make the uncoupling. Mechanically it would be a daunting task to design a location specific device to lift this device at say the top of a hump in the yard. Realistically, there are a myriad of locations where cars need to be uncoupled and the best way to do that is still a man on the ground.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all your input gentlemen. I will always keep those little men next to the track section for the added realism. Easter

[CShaveRR]

[(-D][(-D][(-D].....[sigh]

I saw this question and MC's response in the late morning. Don't know which I was laughing at more. Actually, Ed might better be able to use one of those than I. But we do have a few lazy-a$$ pin-pullers who think they're uncoupling machines--never move from the same spot regardless of how many cars they must cut off, nor do they stick with the pin to make sure the cars separate.

On a more somber note, we've already had somebody mistake a rail grinder for a track-cleaning car. And people who used to laugh at the thought of moving a prototype train with a transformer, or power-pack, are seeing it done all the time now, complete with limiting zones, or blocks.

[edblysard]

Yeah, but it usually gets you 90 days off fired, and makes a big, big mess...but it does keep mudchickens busy!

Breath Carl, breath, slow even breaths....[:D]


Ed

[espeefoamer]

[(-D][(-D][(-D] I will [(-D][(-D] reply[(-D] to this as[(-D][(-D] soon as I [(-D] stop laughing[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]!!!!!!

[edblysard]

Actually, all joking aside, it’s a valid question...
Easter, one of the reason railroads and railcars are so efficient is because parts of them are primitive...the KISS principal to the max.

You could design and make an automatic coupler, in fact, some light rail has them already, you can couple and un couple on the fly, but...

With who knows how many thousands of freight cars on the rails today, you have to have a cheap to build, cheap to replace and easy to operate device...the cut lever and a switchman/brakeman.

With the beating couplers and knuckles take in hump and flat yard switching, anything beyond the most simple and strong device wouldn’t live more than a day or two....

and any device, be it stationary at trackside or car mounted, designed to uncouple car, would have to withstand repeatedly being slammed into...not much can, except the simple knuckle and cut lever arrangement we use now.

Simple steel castings and a cheap steel rod bent in a L shape have worked for over a century, are cheap to make, cheap and quick to replace, require almost no special tools other than a hammer, adjustable wrench and some pliers. In fact, if the knuckle pin does not have the cotter pin in it, (and a lot of them don’t) you can change a knuckle with no tools at all...
Simple, quick, cheap....

Ed

[Murphy Siding]

Ed -thank you for taking the time to explain things to us non railroad people. It's always rewarding to learn something new from someone in the know.