| Author | Messages | |
Jim Agnew
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Posts:77
Send Message
 | | 08/04/2008 5:19 PM |
| | I'd try one on a headend car just to change out engines. | | | |
| joe rusz
1st Class Member
Foreman
Posts:253
Send Message
| | 08/04/2008 11:18 PM |
| | OK, so someone IS reading this stuff. As for TOC having to spend $260 for an op session, heck, I thought that the feed he provides with his sessions already costs that much. Guess he needs the cash to keep that Jag-you-are running. | | | |
| Pete Thornton
1st Class Member
Annapolis, MD
Conductor
Posts:523
Send Message
| | 08/05/2008 8:35 AM |
| uncouple cars without using a magnet
I've been playing with the concept, as I do a bit of switching every now and then. One of my battery+r/c locos has a coil (HO switch machine electro-magnet) with the metal pin through it, mounted vertically in the air tank on the rear tender deck. The pin yanks a rod up and the rod sticks out of the tender beam to lift the pin on the coupler.
It's triggered from the "B" button on the Aristo TE remote. Sorta works - but I hardly use the 1/24th scale loco these days.
| |
 | |
| Gary Woolard
1st Class Member
Canoga Park, CA
Brakeman
Posts:62
Send Message
| | 08/05/2008 4:50 PM |
| Richard, Todd, Joe, et al;
Golly, Shucks, y'all, you;re making me blush -  THANKS! Most of you know that I couldn't even attempt this stuff without the enthusiastic and talented cooperation of SWMTP! Moral of the story -- you gotta pick a wife who enjoys your hobbies as much as you do! 
Now about these couplers..
Looks like we all agree that a major, if not the major variable in this equation is COST. Another is INSTALLATION -- how easy would a battery, servo & actuator be to install in your boxcar? Tank car? Or even a flatcar -- you'd probably have to disguise the works underneath some sort of load.
This leads to another complication -- if you line your consist up right,(going in one direction or another), you'll only need one 'active' coupler per car. (Mating an 'active' coupler with a 'passive' one on the next car, see..) But in the course of operations, how likely arte you to maintain this alignment? Or if you're handling a 'prototypically' empty flatcar, you'll probably need to have 'active' couplers on either side. I can see the probability of needing to automate the couplers on each side of your boxcar.
This also complicates the question of ADDRESSABILITY . I think we've all immediately jumped to the conclusion that you should be able to address a car by inputting its car number into a keypad. I'm not even sure that the Kadee prototype can do this -- I think I heard Mr. Clarke talking about "two-digit" numbers on his keypad. But let's assume that by the time it gets to market, a product like this could address 3 or 4 digits. If you're going to put two addressable couplers in your car, you'll need some way to signal front and back.
Last but not least (leastways so far as I can figure right now) Sam Clarke made the point to me that this would be a discrete product with it's own controller, independent of any R/C or DCC control system. While I can see the advantage of marketing something this way, is it really want we want? Wouldn't the DCC people want the coupler control integrated into their other controls? And ditto for R/C folks?
So here are the questions we need to ask and answer if we want to see this thing, or something like it, to come to market --
COST - How much would YOU be willing to pay to have automatic couplers? On a CAR-by-CAR basis? (figure something for the controller and amortize that amount over the number of cars you want) As part of this question, you'll have to decide whether you'll need ONE or TWO couplers per car.
INSTALLATION & MODIFICATION. Is this something you're willing to do with your existing equipment? Would it be easier if manufacturers sold 'auto-coupler-ready' equipment? Or would you just pay somebody else to install the gizmos? (For comparison, think of installing the electronics in a 1 or 2 channel RC glider..)
ADDRESSABILITY. I assume we'd all want the couplers electronic addresses to mirror car numbers? (TOC, just go get your binoculars to read the numbers!  ) How would YOU handle two couplers per car?
STAND-ALONE vs.INTEGRATED into your control system?
Answers, anybody? | |
-Gary the Garden Rail Hobo- | |
| CCSII
Norman Oklahoma
Foreman
Posts:173
Send Message
| | 08/05/2008 5:18 PM |
| "you'll need some way to signal front and back. "
You will need some way to determine front and back. If a switcher drops a car on a siding whilst going west (with the car behind) the front would be the west, if an engine then backs onto the siding from the east and picks up the car the front becomes the east (the opposite end.) Now the new engine runs the car through a reverse loop and returns it to the siding, the front is now on the west but is the same as when it was picked up. Now the switcher comes in from the west and picks up the car, the front is now the west but it is a different west from the initial condition.
Confused?
Yeah exactly. In essence, something is going to have to keep track of end "A" and end "B" determining both whether "A" is front or back and whether it is east or west as either can change in the scope of simple ops. | | | |
| toddalin
Foreman
Posts:406
Send Message
| | 08/05/2008 5:24 PM |
| I don't think you could only put them on one side, even if you could assure that the cars always stay oriented in teh same fashion. If they are like the Kadee couplers, they won't reliably let go unless both sides trip.
Also, I think that you would have to keep the cost under $15/pr (basically twice the price of Kadees) to sell enough that people would buy more than just one for the lead car/engine interface. People complain about the cost of plastic wheel replacement as it is.
It's been mentioned, but this would have a very limited market, primarily for operations. I wouldn't put them on my trains, except maybe one or two cars just for the coolness factor of being able to uncouple remotely when guests look on and I do change out all of my couplers to Kadees.  " border=0>
It needs a laser pointer and you just point it at the pair that are to release, and when the beam hits the spot, voila! | | | |
| Richard Smith
1st Class Member
Port Orford, Oregon
Foreman
Posts:446
Send Message
| | 08/05/2008 5:31 PM |
| Posted By CCSII on 08/05/2008 5:18 PM
"you'll need some way to signal front and back. "
You will need some way to determine front and back. If a switcher drops a car on a siding whilst going west (with the car behind) the front would be the west, if an engine then backs onto the siding from the east and picks up the car the front becomes the east (the opposite end.) Now the new engine runs the car through a reverse loop and returns it to the siding, the front is now on the west but is the same as when it was picked up. Now the switcher comes in from the west and picks up the car, the front is now the west but it is a different west from the initial condition.
Confused?
Yeah exactly. In essence, something is going to have to keep track of end "A" and end "B" determining both whether "A" is front or back and whether it is east or west as either can change in the scope of simple ops.
You've brought up the very first operational concern that'd have to be addressed before auto couplers could become a convenience instead of a headache. I would think Kadee would have to include an A or B prefix in the address code. The front and back needn't be a problem as "B" would simply be the brakewheel end of the car with the other the "A" end regardless of which way it faced. Front and back is meaningless so far as switching a car is concerned. Of course the installer would have to follow protocol in his installation.
| |
 | |
| Curmudgeon
Foreman
Posts:401
Send Message
| | 08/05/2008 7:40 PM |
| One other......we do "ops" with a waybill, cup o' joe, and transmitter.
Where, espcially with full rain gear, would you store another transmitter?
And, how many operators?
Each one needs a transmitter.
Are they each a discrete frequency?
Or, are you going to uncouple trains all over the railroad?
Guarantee:
That system won't show up on the CCRy. | | | |
| East Broad Top
Moderator
Centennial, CO
Conductor
Posts:601
Send Message
| | 08/05/2008 11:38 PM |
| This entire concept hinges on one premise--that Kadee couplers will reliably uncouple with only one knuckle rolled out of the way. Maybe the act of not only pulling the knuckle over, but also moving the entire coupler to the side is sufficient to disengage the other coupler. Otherwise, you'd need to activate both couplers at the same time, requiring two codes to be entered. Even if it were free, it'd be a royal pain. Thank you, I'll stick to my screwdriver or five-finger uncoupler.
Later,
K | |
Tuscarora Railroad
Friends of the East Broad Top | |
| Greg Elmassian
1st Class Member
Carlsbad (San Diego), CA
Engineer
Posts:1225
Send Message
| | 08/06/2008 9:58 PM |
| I run DCC, so the power supply problem is not a problem. But since Kadees have remote and delayed uncoupling, just adding them to the locos is of limited interest, since dropping an entire train is less common than the individual cars, at least in the operations I like.
Also, I have the capability to address individual cars, that's also solved.
So, adding these to both ends is just a matter of cost, the Kadee unit at both ends of each freight car, and then a decoder capable of handling the current for these is a lot of cost to add to a $60 car.
So to me, it's more of a novelty, not a big deal. I guess if I was a multi-millionaire then it might appeal to me.
Regards, Greg | |
Be sure to visit my site, lots of technical tips and modifications, and you can search for topics and key words.
Click here for Greg's web site | |
| Richard Smith
1st Class Member
Port Orford, Oregon
Foreman
Posts:446
Send Message
| | Mik
Indiana, Pa
Foreman
Posts:344
Send Message
| | 08/06/2008 11:17 PM |
| | I use hook n loops and a credit card on a stick. Low buck, low tech, AND reliable.... I just wish CARS were still built so the average Joe could fix 'em too. | |
Mik
Unsupervised children will be given espresso and a free puppy | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 |
|