# Does anybody read this stuff?



## joe rusz (Jan 3, 2008)

Recently, in the Large Scale Events forum, Garry Woolard provided us with some great photos and informative descriptions of some of new, large scale products including Kadee's radio-controlled couplers. Personally, as soemone who looks forward to the day when my layout is built, I was excited about this gimmick that would allow me to switch and uncouple cars without using a magnet or a chopstick. Unless I missed something, the response was underwhelming, which made me wonder if any besides me reads this stuff. Or cares? 

Just asking...


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Nope. 
You're the designated reader.


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

I read a lot of this stuff. I think that if you have a large amount of rolling stock Like Marty and me. The price of putting the coupler system in each car is expensive. Even if you did evry other car. But I try to read about every new idea and gadget. 
Who know you might come up with a new idea for your layout.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2008)

Posted By joe rusz on 08/03/2008 8:33 PM
Recently, in the Large Scale Events forum, Garry Woolard provided us with some great photos and informative descriptions of some of new, large scale products including Kadee's radio-controlled couplers. Personally, as soemone who looks forward to the day when my layout is built, I was excited about this gimmick that would allow me to switch and uncouple cars without using a magnet or a chopstick. Unless I missed something, the response was underwhelming, which made me wonder if any besides me reads this stuff. Or cares? 
Just asking..." border=0>




AAAAAAAA, the 1st thing i did when i read the thread about the auto kadees was to call them up and get a little info, it appears they will be avalable after the 1st of the year, they will come in different sizes and they work with a servo. now i really wanted them for my locos but as they will need some room to mount i guess i will buy a few and try them on box cars 1st... 
Nick...


----------



## ShadsTrains (Dec 27, 2007)

I have a german magazine that Manfred (lotsasteam) gave me a couple years ago. There was an aristo FA that had the exact same thing done with the kadee coupler, although it was controlled with DCC. I've kept the magazine around as I plan on making this modification to my switching engines.


----------



## paintjockey (Jan 3, 2008)

I read about it but since i aven't seen one and don't know anyone who has, i didn't want to make too many comments. 
Personnally, i wouldn't use them. I like to follow may trains and uncouple them manually. My $1.50 dollar store screwdriver/uncoupling tool has held up this long i just may keep it around a few more years. 

The other thing is that products get announced and then are never heard from again. People see a proto type fall in lust, and swear they're gonna buy 30 of em. 

I quit watchin, has Accucraft released it's swiches yet?


----------



## Gary Woolard (Jan 2, 2008)

The price of putting the coupler system in each car is expensive.


I think JJ has it nailed. This general kind of solution has been bandied about for a while, but even if Kadee can bring it in very inexpensively, the cost scales up pretty fast if you're doing any kind of real ops -- and the ops peolple are the only ones who'd care enough!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif When you compare that to the cost of a more 'traditional' solution like a two-foot length of dowel with a bent nail in the end.. well golly../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/blush.gif 


BTW, Joe, thanks for reading my thread! Sometimes _I_ wonder if anybody's reading them!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crying.gif


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

No Kadees here, so I guess I don't care. A long thin screw works just fine when I am around them. I did enjoy the other pics though. A reply:view rate of 1:70 isn't atypical of the forums. 

-Brian


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I think it's an interesting concept, though most of my switching is done via the front pilot of my steamers. I'm not sure where I'd put the servo. That, and I'd still need to uncouple cars within the train, so there's not a whole lot of advantage to be gained. 

Later, 

K


----------



## david bunn (Jan 4, 2008)

Dear All 
Unless one has loads of funds automatic couplers on all stock is really out of the question. Bent nails, lengths of wood etc do the job just as well especially if you like being next to your trains while operating. 
My solution is simple, my couplers have been modified so that the cut bars operate, basically just lift the bar and hey presto coupler release and no fiddling around under the coupler to release the pin.A short piece of chain and a small pin plus ca is all it takes. 
Regards 
Bunny


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

The concept of an electrically activated coupler has been talked about for a while. It has two drawbacks the first one of which - cost - has been spoken of here. 

The other drawback was hinted at - only those of us who really are into operations are likely to have the interest to massively install these things. And all of the operators that I know use battery power (there has to be at least a very few DCC guys out there who operate but I do not know them)... which makes installation of the proposed product doubly expensive and difficult. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Na, I just look at the pictures


----------



## Gary Woolard (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dougald on 08/04/2008 5:34 AM

The other drawback was hinted at - only those of us who really are into operations are likely to have the interest to massively install these things. And all of the operators that I know use battery power (there has to be at least a very few DCC guys out there who operate but I do not know them)... which makes installation of the proposed product doubly expensive and difficult. 




*Doug*, 
I should have made it clearer in my initial post -- the prototype that Sam Clarke was showing _is_ battery powered. The servo was fed by two double-A or triple-A batteries, can't remember which, & I think Clarke was talking about replacing them with a 9V. Control is via an independent, programmable transmitter about the size of a garage door opener. 
*Bunny* _(gotta' love that handle!)_ 
Sounds like you've put some effort into doing a 'cut-bar' mod that's practical and inexpensive!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/shocked.gif I'd love to see pictures & descriptions any time you'd like to post them!


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

[No message]


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

While slightly off topic, I saw the MTH video for their GG1 and it has automatic uncouplers. I guess for hard to reach places, and switching moves, this is important. In the video, the GG1 drops its observation car on the fly. Looks like the GG1 will find home in many yards as a swich engine. Small enough to hide behind 53' evans boxcars! (maybe!) 
For me, I don't even like Kadee couplers in the first place. I don't see any added benefit, and actually found the Kadee couplers separated much more frequently than my usual coupling methods. I have not had problems with the aristo and LGB knuckles. I find they work exactly as I need them to and stay coupled. Uncoupling is easier with the aristo than the LGB, due to the spring. 
From an ops point of view, who out there wants auto uncoupling? Isn't that why most of you got in to large scale, so that you could walk with your train and switch the cars? It seems like a case of a solution being presented before there is a problem. 
Oh, and like Tom, I also read just for the pictures!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Part of the issue is cost. 
One or two per car? 
Times 130 pieces of rolling stock (less locos)? 
Cut a hole in the floor of your EXPENSIVE hand-built 1:20 wooden passenger coach? 
Low-side gons? 
Flatcars? 
Tank cars will be fun. 

For me, not worth the effort. 
I am guessing there is the same vocal minority that resulted in a certain Socket that have hollered for this. 

To give you an idea, the outfit I work with has had remote control of turnouts available for, oh, 12-13 years or so. 

Sold? 

Not a lot. 
Folks in the field who do this don't care, don't want it, don't want the extra maintenance, are quite happy with manual throws or EZAir. 

Same with couplers. 
Maybe on the loco, but if you're dropping off car #3 in the string, then you have to have all of them so equipped. 

Now, if this transmitter is addressable to any specific car, great. 
But, if one transmitter triggers all of them, and you want to drop one car that is 3 back in the string, you back in, hold the button, pull away and leave the entire string. 

Let's say it's addressable by car number. 

The average age of Garden Railroaders? 

You want to drop that third car. 
You end up walking over to the train to read the car number anyway. 

9V batteries. 

Going to disassemble all your rolling stock and replace all those 9V cells every operating session? 

Let's see. 
Duracell, with tax, about $2 each. 
Times 130. 

That would cost me $260 per session, on top of the cost of the uncouplers, installation, AND mounting Kadees on all my stock, just to be able to "do" it. 

Nope.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By markoles on 08/04/2008 1:16 PM
Isn't that why most of you got in to large scale, so that you could walk with your train and switch the cars?


I don't think so. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/ermm.gif 

I think the vast majority of G-scale equipment just goes "round-and-round," or "back-and-forth" while people look on.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Todd, 

Agreed, most large scalers (including myself) watch their trains go round and round. 

I was directing my comments to the posters on the thread, most of whom are ops guys. 

Mark


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

No comments on the r/c couplers as I wouldn't need them anyway. I would imagine they might be of use to roundy round runners that want to change locomotives and/or trains as they're running. For that purpose you'd only need the r/c couplers on the first car of each string and the engine tenders. 

But I always read Gary Woolard's posts. They are amongst the most informative and best presented on this site and Mrs. Woolard's photos are excellent! I regard him as you would a very good news correspondent. Perhaps I should comment more about them in spite of having nothing constructive to add just for feedback. I know from my own experience that comments from others do let us know that what's being posted is interesting to others. For that reason an occasional "attaboy" does serve a purpose.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

LGB had a remote control hook and loop uncoupler system built into one of their switchers, same underwhelming responce. I'm all link and pin, and for the ones I have that still use knuckles, all the limits are rather restricting as to just what i could install this on? The rear tender coupler being the most logical place, but what happens when I need to shove a car onto the siding? See various comments above.


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd try one on a headend car just to change out engines.


----------



## joe rusz (Jan 3, 2008)

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 (Jan 2, 2008)

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 (Jan 2, 2008)

*Richard, Todd, Joe, *_et al_; 


Golly, Shucks, y'all, you;re making me blush - /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/blush.gif 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?


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

"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 (Jan 4, 2008)

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 (Jan 2, 2008)

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 (Jan 11, 2008)

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 (Dec 29, 2007)

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


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

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


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 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.




Shucks! I thought that anyone that wanted an uncoupling installation could drop by Bellingham and get a transmitter transplant/implant. Where'd be the best spot? Arm, leg, forehead? I'm not even going to ask where you'd stuff the batteries! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif 

The system won't be showing up on the POC either.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

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.


----------

