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.
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.
Quote from: ntpntpntp on July 12, 2020, 11:28:07 AM
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?
Quote from: emjaybee on July 12, 2020, 12:04:00 PM
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.
Quote
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.
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.
I am REALLY having a senior moment day today.
@ntpntpntp (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=5885) and @PLD (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=647) 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 (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=4209) do you have any experience with the US knuckle couplers?
@emjaybee (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=5604) 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. :)
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
Quote from: N_GaugeModeller on July 13, 2020, 09:16:29 AM
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 (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=4209) is part of the reason behind this for dangling bargain US stock in front of me a while back.
Quote from: emjaybee on July 13, 2020, 10:28:16 AM
@dannyboy (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=4209) 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. :angel:
Have to admit I'll stick with Rapidos and a dentist's probe as an uncoupling pole :D 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 :no:
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.
Quote from: dannyboy on July 13, 2020, 10:35:18 AM
Quote from: emjaybee on July 13, 2020, 10:28:16 AM
@dannyboy (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=4209) 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. :angel:
Have you any idea how much US outline stuff I'm 'watching' on FleaBay?
:smackedface:
Quote from: ntpntpntp on July 13, 2020, 10:38:21 AM
Have to admit I'll stick with Rapidos and a dentist's probe as an uncoupling pole :D 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 :no:
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.
Nowt wrong with watching ................. :no:. Just keep away from the 'Bid' box! :) >:D
Quote from: dannyboy on July 13, 2020, 10:43:41 AM
Nowt wrong with watching ................. :no:. 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'.
Quote from: emjaybee on July 13, 2020, 10:28:16 AM
I suspect the answer will be aftermarket permanent magnets and DCC controlled electro-magnet.
Seems to me an electromagnet solution is desirable to try and cope with both types of uncoupling action, though how you'd do knuckles with electromagnets I don't know. Otherwise I can imagine the Rapido lift arms might still be attracted by the permanent magnets intended for the knuckles.
My mind is starting to envisage some sort of tuning-fork shaped piece from the electromagnet, to attract the knuckle coupling arms to either side maybe? Maybe a mechanism to turn that fork 90 degrees to work a Rapido dropper arm?
Stick with Rapidos and use a servo controlled ramp/lifting section to uncouple everything, nice and slow so no throwing wagons about the layout like some solenoid operated systems do, no modification to your rolling stock and everything can be uncouled by the same method.
A no brainer really as long as you can design and build the servo controlled uncoupler which I am sure is something you are more than capable of doing.
@N_GaugeModeller (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=7874) It does require that your stock have enough weight to counteract the force against the coupling spring. I know a lot of British N wagons are very light (compared to the majority of my continental models), especially the old style short 4-wheel wagons. That was one thing I liked about the Peco ELC coupling being springless and indeed "Easy Light Lift Coupling" as per the name :)
Quote from: ntpntpntp on July 13, 2020, 10:52:14 AM
Seems to me an electromagnet solution is desirable to try and cope with both types of uncoupling action, though how you'd do knuckles with electromagnets I don't know.
I tested the micro trains knuckle coupler permanent and electromagnet solutions many years ago. The permanent magnets are relatively unobtrusive, particularly if you cut them in half, (and there are now many users of tiny magnets between the tracks) but the electromagnet is huge and requires major baseboard work. I didn't like it, so it has sat in the garage for 30 years.
This is a link to the electromagnet. It looks like it is now designated for HOn3 which uses 9mm track.
https://www.kadee.com/documents/708ins.pdf (https://www.kadee.com/documents/708ins.pdf)
Mark
Quote from: emjaybee on July 12, 2020, 11:37:40 PM
I'm not overly enamoured with having uncoupling ramps, I'm trying to go for a more realistic look.
Other disguises could include AWS ramps, point-rod covers, sleepers (part of an "accommodation" ie informal, pedestrian -crossing).
Mike
Blimey fellas, I think some of you, @ntpntpntp (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=5885) , are seriously overestimating my capabilities!
I'm intriqued by the multi-position electro magnet idea, but I think that one is soaring above my capabilities.
I think I shall have to have a play around with some rare earth magnets that have been mentioned in other threads on the subject, and then nearby/next door try and develop a DCC/servo uncoupling lifting section. @maridunian (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=2947) that's a blinding idea, a timber pedestrian crossing that functions as an uncoupler. Maybe a couple placed down the sidings in question.
As regards the weight issue in wagons with springs in the ELC, I seem to remember that the springs can be carefully hooked out, thus sidestepping the lifting issue.
I'm aware that some of my stock does have metal wheels/axles which may well cause the 'pull' issue previously mentioned.
Quote from: emjaybee on July 13, 2020, 11:58:29 PM
As regards the weight issue in wagons with springs in the ELC, I seem to remember that the springs can be carefully hooked out, thus sidestepping the lifting issue.
IIRC the Peco ELCs don't have springs, it's most of the non-Peco ones that do, e.g. more recent Farish, Lima, Minitrix, Dapol, etc.
If you remove the springs from those you might need to add some form of "stopper" plate below the coupling shank to prevent it hanging down too low.
Sorry, yes, should have said Rapido. And yes, there is possibly the need to support the coupling.
The springs are there forca reason, I would think twice before blanket removal. If going down the lifting plank route give them a try before pulling all the springs out. You will probably have better luck adding weight to the wagon via a fake load than removing springs and risk making the couplings unreliable.
NGM
Quote from: N_GaugeModeller on July 14, 2020, 08:43:54 AM
The springs are there forca reason, I would think twice before blanket removal. If going down the lifting plank route give them a try before pulling all the springs out. You will probably have better luck adding weight to the wagon via a fake load than removing springs and risk making the couplings unreliable.
NGM
Duly noted. Spring removal would be on a as needed basis, and yes, additional weight would be a first course of action.