Multi discipline uncouplers.

[emjaybee]

I'm currently undertaking a smallish layout build with the intention of running a wide variety of stock.

The proposed stock will be mainly Rapido style couplings, possibly some Dapol Easi-Shunt, and probably some Micro-Trains knuckles.

I'd like to have remote uncoupling via DCC. If a use a electro-magnet will that do Easi-Shunt and (modified with metal lifter) Rapido?

How do the Micro-Trains knuckles work? Are they similar in operation to Easi-Shunt?

If I can't get one to do all three, I may well fit multiple systems to enable operation of all three systems.

[ntpntpntp]

Knuckle couplings like Easy-shunt and Microtrains work by separating to the sides, Rapidos work by lifting.  I would think you'd need a very complex mechanism to be able to uncouple either type at the same location.

Really the only sensible solution is to standardise on one coupling.

I've had a brief play with coupling an Easy-shunt to a Microtrains, they're similar in operation but not the same profile so tricky to uncouple.

[emjaybee]

Knuckle couplings like Easy-shunt and Microtrains work by separating to the sides, Rapidos work by lifting.  I would think you'd need a very complex mechanism to be able to uncouple either type at the same location.

Really the only sensible solution is to standardise on one coupling.

I've had a brief play with coupling an Easy-shunt to a Microtrains, they're similar in operation but not the same profile so tricky to uncouple.

My brain says that Easi-Shunt and Micro-Trains work on a magnet in/under the sleepers and Rapido work with electro-magnet in/under the sleepers.

Am I over simplifying this?

One is designed to push two parts away, one is designed to push two par up. Both are magnets.

What is the standard auto uncoupler for Micro-Trains?

[ntpntpntp]

My brain says that Easi-Shunt and Micro-Trains work on a magnet in/under the sleepers and Rapido work with electro-magnet in/under the sleepers.

There are mechanical uncoupler "ramps" for Rapido couplings.

One is designed to push two parts away, one is designed to push two par up. Both are magnets.

I thought with knuckles it was two magnets attracting from either side of the uncoupler block?  I don't know for sure as knuckles aren't my thing. Would be interesting to do the old schooldays iron filing experiments and see what the poles and field pattern is :-) 

With Rapidos fitted with a metal "lever" and an electromagnet it's an attraction downward.  You really only want to lift one coupling not both.

[PLD]

The issue you have is the orientation of the magnetic north-south poles.

For types such as Dapol Easi-Shunt and Micro-Trains knuckles where the requirement is to push the couplings apart the magnet poles need to be orientated side-to-side i.e. N facing one rail S the other rail. for Couplings that work by attracting towards the magnet such as lifting arms attached to rapidos,  B&B, DG the magnet poles need to be orientated up-down.

In a traditional iron-cored solenoid type electromagnet the poles are orientated with the core, so an easy install in the orientation for lifting types, near impossible for Easi-Shunts etc.

[emjaybee]

I am REALLY having a senior moment day today.

@ntpntpntp and @PLD I apologise for being as dim as ditchwater today. Of course the Rapido system is a 'pull down' system, as oppose to a 'side to side' as in the knuckles and Dapols'.

It looks like I'll have to go with one of each on the two sidings. If the two magnets are very close to each other are they likely to interfere with each other?

I'm not overly enamoured with having uncoupling ramps, I'm trying to go for a more realistic look.

@dannyboy do you have any experience with the US knuckle couplers?

[dannyboy]

@emjaybee The only experience I have of US couplers is seeing what is fitted to Kato and Atlas locomotives. Altering couplers is something I have not even contemplated - reading of other members trials and tribuations has somewhat put me off. 

[N_GaugeModeller]

Hi

If I was you I would stick to one type and convert all your stock to just the one coupling.

Dapols Easyshunt would be the way to go in n-gauge, but use different magnets as Dapol are over charging for theirs, Magnets can be bought for pennies that work just as well as the Dapol version, you just need to use 2 side by side because of the polarity issue pointed out above as Dapol magnets are polarized across their width and most normal magnets are polarized along their length, so you need 2 side by side.

The other e advantage is becsuse you can buy much stronger magnets they can go under the sleepers sunk into the base board, rather than between the rails so they are not visible, you just have to remember were they are or put some sort of marker post by each one

NGM

[emjaybee]

If I was you I would stick to one type and convert all your stock to just the one coupling.

Ah, but the goal of the Brookline project is to be able to run any stock, any era, any country, any time. Hence the exploration of uncoupler systems.

I suspect the answer will be aftermarket permanent magnets and DCC controlled electro-magnet.

@dannyboy is part of the reason behind this for dangling bargain US stock in front of me a while back.

[dannyboy]

@dannyboy is part of the reason behind this for dangling bargain US stock in front of me a while back.

Don't know what you are talking about.   

[ntpntpntp]

Have to admit I'll stick with Rapidos and a dentist's probe as an uncoupling pole    Maximum compatibility, uncouple anywhere.  With getting on for 1100 items of stock in the "official" inventory (let's not worry about the uncatalogued stuff!) dating from the 60s onward  I can't be bothered with changing to a different coupling now 

Some of the remote uncoupling systems I watched have been quite effective, whilst others just seemed to cause the operator problems.  I've seen wagons jump toward electromagnets due to having steel axles, and knuckles simply refusing to cooperate. The brass tension lock style couplings just don't "do it" for me, especially where the builder ends up running a bar between both buffers.

[emjaybee]

@dannyboy is part of the reason behind this for dangling bargain US stock in front of me a while back.

Don't know what you are talking about.   

Have you any idea how much US outline stuff I'm 'watching' on FleaBay?

[emjaybee]

Have to admit I'll stick with Rapidos and a dentist's probe as an uncoupling pole    Maximum compatibility, uncouple anywhere.  With getting on for 1100 items of stock in the "official" inventory (let's not worry about the uncatalogued stuff!) dating from the 60s onward  I can't be bothered with changing to a different coupling now 

Some of the remote uncoupling systems I watched have been quite effective, whilst others just seemed to cause the operator problems.  I've seen wagons jump toward electromagnets due to having steel axles, and knuckles simply refusing to cooperate. The brass tension lock style couplings just don't "do it" for me, especially where the builder ends up running a bar between both buffers.

My other thought was rather than having a uncoupling ramp between the rails, to have a piece that was servo/DCC controlled that looks like a section of rails/ballast that lifts up to do the job.

[dannyboy]

Nowt wrong with watching .................  . Just keep away from the 'Bid' box!   

[emjaybee]

Nowt wrong with watching .................  . Just keep away from the 'Bid' box! 

You did see the 'mallet' I bought didn't you?

So much for 'keep away from the Bid box'.