OO gauge automatic uncoupling

[RJS1977]

The simplest way of avoiding the "big hand from the sky" is to drill a hole on the centre line of the tracks at the place where you want to uncouple. Then glue a piece of dowel or, better still, a length of brass rod, to the centre of a rectangle of card or clear plastic and drop it into the hole. The uncoupler can then be pushed up from underneath the baseboard, either by a finger or using a servo.

[DCB]

The problem is for realistic shunting you need to uncouple at a lot of different places and sometimes couple up at the same places.   The magnetic uncouplers for Kadees look great but at £13 a throw could get expensive.

I wonder if you could place a number of pairs of super neo magnets down amongst the sleepers so each pair is the correct distance to lift both coupling hooks of the Kirby couplings,  That would probably mean being accurate to within about 15mm but all you have to do is propel and wait until both hooks lift.   That way you could have multiple uncoupling "Stations"  Just be careful about getting stock jammed against  the buffers when couplings are over a pair of magnets, but even then its no worse than a Uncoupling ramp.  Super neo magnets are super cheap and free from old CD drives.,, Can be held down by a steel strip below them, don't see why this wouldn't work.   I just use Peco couplers and a cocktail stick, screwdriver what ever to uncouple manually, 

[frobisher]

No one's said it yet, but if trying out Kadee couplers, absolutely 100% get one of the height gauges.  In theory you shouldn't need it with NEM versions but we all know how that went...

[Halvarras]

1 hour ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

 

Just to clarify.

 

NEM boxes are a European HO standard and they sit virtually directly under the buffer beam of an HO wagon.

 

Because of the scale difference (i.e. the wagons it higher on the track) the NEM box should sit with a gap between its top and the bottom of the buffer beam on OO vehicles, but 30+ years ago when Bachmann first introduced pockets on their OO stock they wrongly set them just under the buffer beam and so their standard couplings had to have a step down to compensate. Several years later they accepted their mistake and set their pockets at the correct NEM height and adopted the standard 'straight' plug in coupler.

 

As far as I know, it was only Bachmann who made this mistake and as far as I know all Bachmann introduced in the last 20 odd years has been at the correct standard.

 

Many or most or all Heljan OO diesels appear to have NEM pockets mounted close up under the bufferbeam and are fitted with cranked couplings to compensate. Trouble is, they nearly all droop and there seems to be no easy fix for the drooping boxes, so I routinely fit my own compensation for this in the form of Bachmann 'flat' couplings, long or short as appropriate.

[Roger Sunderland]

The answer you are looking for is out there , just not that well known.

A company called Precimodels, a Swiss company, sells a small actuator which can be fitted to almost any loco front, back or both, which can be operated by one button press on DCC to uncouple Kadee couplings ANYWHERE ON A LAYOUT. No magnets or ramps or tools needed at all. I have fitted them to a Dapol B4 0-4-0T, a Bachmann Ivatt 2-6-2T, and a Hornby J69 0-6-0T to name just a few. They operate faultlessly on our Bournemouth West exhibition layout. They are also used on the McKinley layout.

Go to their website, just Google Preci Models and have a look at the videos. The answer to all your prayers for hands free uncoupling - but does require DCC and a chip capable of operating the uncoupling sequence. All Zimo decoders, including their £20 basic will work as will all ESU decoders.

[TEAMYAKIMA]

2 hours ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

As far as I know, it was only Bachmann who made this mistake and as far as I know all Bachmann introduced in the last 20 odd years has been at the correct standard.

 

Apologies to all, I have not modelled OO for 15/20 years and I must admit I simply assumed that manufacturers set the NEM box to the correct height these days.

Edited July 3, 2022 by TEAMYAKIMA

[DCB]

The NEM Socket and Kadees are great for US outline but boy are they ugly,  Its when you compare the side view of a rake of 1950s Hornby Dublo wagons seen from track level as they pass with a rake of Modern NEM equipped wagons that it hits home.

 

The problem for me, though it can be sorted by equipping every wagon wagon and loco with DCC and two actuators, is replicating actual shunting as in spotting wagons.  You need to uncouple at a number of separate places, and ideally uncouple while propelling without stopping the wagons

 

With prototype shunting a yard a loco will typically push a rake into a siding, maybe spot one at the buffers or against an end load or loading bank, then pull the rest back, spot one one in the goods shed, several where its convenient to unload them, but stop uncouple and move on, not put one at the buffers, go back for another to spot in the goods shed etc.    Marshalling a loco will propell a rake of wagons which are not coupled. to a certain extent Kadees can replicate this.

 

Shunting plank can work with two Hornby uncoupling ramps, and even better with a Hornby freelance inside frame diesel shunter with auto uncoupling, but that's not really shunting

 

[brossard]

35 minutes ago, DCB said:

The NEM Socket and Kadees are great for US outline but boy are they ugly,  Its when you compare the side view of a rake of 1950s Hornby Dublo wagons seen from track level as they pass with a rake of Modern NEM equipped wagons that it hits home.

 

The problem for me, though it can be sorted by equipping every wagon wagon and loco with DCC and two actuators, is replicating actual shunting as in spotting wagons.  You need to uncouple at a number of separate places, and ideally uncouple while propelling without stopping the wagons

 

 

Kadee/NEM couplings are indeed ugly.  The make up for it in ease of installation for many people.  I really disliked them and preferred the #5 type.  These are far more unobtrusive.  Another bugbear I have is the trip pin which looks particularly stupid on unfitted wagons.  I cut them off but then, my preferred method for uncoupling was bamboo skewer.

 

When shunting, I want the option of uncoupling anywhere and the idea of shuttling the rake back and forth to a magnet doesn't appeal.

 

John

Edited July 3, 2022 by brossard

[The Johnster]

11 hours ago, brossard said:

 

I had a couple of brief forays into 3 link in 00.  As you indicate, it is propelling that is the problem since buffers tend to lock.  I think the reason for this is smallish radius curves and overhang swing of the wagon such that the buffers are not in contact.

 

I have seen 3 links used on EM and they seem to work fine there.  A friend of mine has a P4 layout but (shock, horror) uses Kadee.

 

My 7mm layout is a BLT and, as I mentioned, I use 3 link etc.  I've never had buffer locking.  I put that down to gentle curves through turnouts and near scale gauge.

 

John

 

The problem is not directly related to the gauge, John.  It is entirely feasible to use scale couplings on a 00 layout, so long as the curvature is gentle, as on your 7mm layout.  I would recommend a mimimum radius of around 3'/1metre if you intend to propel stock, especially if there are reverse curves.  But modellers prepared to build 4mm layouts to that standard of scale realism tend to be those less prepared to accept the compromises inherent in 00, and thus scale couplings are more often associated with EM or P4 layouts.

 

On my 00 BLT trains have to be propelled in shunting and as autos.  Minimum radius is Peco Streamline 'medium', 30" radius, and I use RTR tension locks, uncoupled with a wire hook shunting pole attached to a penlight torch.  Uncoupling in this way can be done from overhead or the side of the stock, and of course at any point on the layout.  There is no way of preventing stock from re-coupling when it is being propelled, and I am experimenting with a wire hook and loop system for the autos and mineral rakes.  GW autos are a particular issue because of the very long buffer housings.

 

I am frankly contemptuous of the ability of RTR manufacturers to provide t/l couplings to a standard configuration.  Material, bar and hook profiles, height above railhead, and distance protruding proud of the buffer beam seem beyond their ability to standardise, and Dapols suffer from a sort of erectile disfunction.  Of course, the different ways in which they have to be mounted on UK outline stock don't help, particularly with locomotives, and vehicles with long fixed wheelbases are the most likely to cause trouble.  A combination of Bachmann NEMs, which come in 4 types short and long straight and cranked, and Peco Parkside PA34 NEM coupling mounts can be used to establish at least a standard bar height above the railhead, vital for reliable propelling and preventing bar overriding.  Tension locks are effectively buffer/couplings and the buffers become cosmetic.  The PA34 mounts can be trimmed with a sharp knife (they are fairly soft plastic), or packed to fit to wagon floors.  Mounting on locos or bogie stock sometimes requires a little more bodgery, or ingenuity as I prefer to call it...

 

The OP may be interested in checking out NHY581's various ovine layouts or AlastairG's 'Ladmanlow', shunting layouts in 00 with tension lock couplings using weathered and detailed RTR stock, to see what can be achieved with this standard. 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Roger Sunderland said:

The answer you are looking for is out there , just not that well known.

A company called Precimodels, a Swiss company, sells a small actuator which can be fitted to almost any loco front, back or both, which can be operated by one button press on DCC to uncouple Kadee couplings ANYWHERE ON A LAYOUT. No magnets or ramps or tools needed at all. I have fitted them to a Dapol B4 0-4-0T, a Bachmann Ivatt 2-6-2T, and a Hornby J69 0-6-0T to name just a few. They operate faultlessly on our Bournemouth West exhibition layout. They are also used on the McKinley layout.

Go to their website, just Google Preci Models and have a look at the videos. The answer to all your prayers for hands free uncoupling - but does require DCC and a chip capable of operating the uncoupling sequence. All Zimo decoders, including their £20 basic will work as will all ESU decoders.

So a £20 wagon needs another £40 or so to remote uncouple?

Sorry, not economic at all, I'll stick to strategically placed magnets.

[brossard]

6 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

The problem is not directly related to the gauge, John.  It is entirely feasible to use scale couplings on a 00 layout, so long as the curvature is gentle, as on your 7mm layout.  I would recommend a mimimum radius of around 3'/1metre if you intend to propel stock, especially if there are reverse curves.  But modellers prepared to build 4mm layouts to that standard of scale realism tend to be those less prepared to accept the compromises inherent in 00, and thus scale couplings are more often associated with EM or P4 layouts.

 

On my 00 BLT trains have to be propelled in shunting and as autos.  Minimum radius is Peco Streamline 'medium', 30" radius, and I use RTR tension locks, uncoupled with a wire hook shunting pole attached to a penlight torch.  Uncoupling in this way can be done from overhead or the side of the stock, and of course at any point on the layout.  There is no way of preventing stock from re-coupling when it is being propelled, and I am experimenting with a wire hook and loop system for the autos and mineral rakes.  GW autos are a particular issue because of the very long buffer housings.

 

I am frankly contemptuous of the ability of RTR manufacturers to provide t/l couplings to a standard configuration.  Material, bar and hook profiles, height above railhead, and distance protruding proud of the buffer beam seem beyond their ability to standardise, and Dapols suffer from a sort of erectile disfunction.  Of course, the different ways in which they have to be mounted on UK outline stock don't help, particularly with locomotives, and vehicles with long fixed wheelbases are the most likely to cause trouble.  A combination of Bachmann NEMs, which come in 4 types short and long straight and cranked, and Peco Parkside PA34 NEM coupling mounts can be used to establish at least a standard bar height above the railhead, vital for reliable propelling and preventing bar overriding.  Tension locks are effectively buffer/couplings and the buffers become cosmetic.  The PA34 mounts can be trimmed with a sharp knife (they are fairly soft plastic), or packed to fit to wagon floors.  Mounting on locos or bogie stock sometimes requires a little more bodgery, or ingenuity as I prefer to call it...

 

The OP may be interested in checking out NHY581's various ovine layouts or AlastairG's 'Ladmanlow', shunting layouts in 00 with tension lock couplings using weathered and detailed RTR stock, to see what can be achieved with this standard. 

 

When I was working out what to do with my 7mm layout, I originally started building a horseshoe shape, with a 4'6" radius at one end.  I did some testing and found that, with just one exception, all stock negotiated the curve just fine.  I could even propel a GWR autocoach, long buffers and all, without issue.  The exception was my friends' NBR G5, 0-4-4T.  When propelling bunker first, it was a disaster since the bunker swing is huge.  The horseshoe was ultimately abandoned and we have a BLT today.  My friends love it and the reliability of the locos and consistent standards make it a joy to operate.

 

FWIW, here is a short video of shunting on my layout:

 

https://www.facebook.com/BritishModelRailwayMontreal/videos/508460853702174/

 

John

 

[Roger Sunderland]

41 minutes ago, melmerby said:

So a £20 wagon needs another £40 or so to remote uncouple?

Sorry, not economic at all, I'll stick to strategically placed magnets.

You’ve clearly not read my post and have just jumped to conclusions. The actuator is fitted to the loco not the wagon. Where do you get a cost of £40? The actuators, at last look are £6 each, less if you buy more. Why don’t you look at the website?

[melmerby]

38 minutes ago, Roger Sunderland said:

You’ve clearly not read my post and have just jumped to conclusions. The actuator is fitted to the loco not the wagon. Where do you get a cost of £40? The actuators, at last look are £6 each, less if you buy more. Why don’t you look at the website?

I did read your post and I did go to their website.

Pair of actuators £18:90 (their price)

Decoder £20 therefore total cost £38:90. (close to the £40 I quoted)

 

Some posts were on about placing a wagon from a rake in a certain position, you can't do that if only the loco is equipped. You need to be able to cut the rake somehow.

e.g.

2 hours ago, DCB said:

 

With prototype shunting a yard a loco will typically push a rake into a siding, maybe spot one at the buffers or against an end load or loading bank, then pull the rest back, spot one one in the goods shed, several where its convenient to unload them, but stop uncouple and move on, not put one at the buffers, go back for another to spot in the goods shed etc.    Marshalling a loco will propell a rake of wagons which are not coupled. to a certain extent Kadees can replicate this.

With strategically placed magnets you can do that in a fashion but not if only the loco can uncouple.

 

Therefore my reply was correct, nearly £40 per wagon.

[Roger Sunderland]

Well I’ll leave it to others to work out if you’re right but for the record

1. If you already have a suitably equipped loco there’s no extra cost for a decoder.

2. You don’t necessarily need 2 actuators per loco, especially on a shunting plank layout  so cost is halved

3. yes I agree you do need strategically placed magnets to break a rake of wagons but these can be had for next to nothing.

 

I think you’ve simply quoted the worst case scenario to emphasise your point and I stress the cost is per loco NOT per wagon. however I do think the system is probably most appreciated in say a terminus station environment where coaches need to be marshalled and placed in a multitude of positions and far too many magnets would be required.

I thought the system may have been useful in view of the OPs initial post eg one or two locos to equip at most, that’s all.

 

[KingEdwardII]

51 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Pair of actuators £18:90 (their price)

That's correct if you're doing a single loco or wagon. If you are doing multiple, they have a bundle of 20 for £79.90, working out at £8.00 per loco or wagon for the pair of coupling actuators.

 

For a loco, I'd expect a DCC decoder to be present already, so no extra cost there.

 

For a wagon, you would need to add a decoder, but a really cheap one would do since you're only looking for functions not motor control. The bargain decoders are around £12 - £14. The other item for a wagon would be pickups - assuming the wagon already has metal wheelsets.

 

So, I suspect you might get the wagon cost down to £20 - £25 per wagon. Still pricey.

 

I'm considering them for locos initially. Fine for locos hauling fixed carriage rakes, where the vast majority of coupling/uncoupling operations are between the loco and the end carriage. OK as well for modelling preserved railway ops involving "exhibition" freight trains.

 

For traditional freight operations, it's going to get expensive to equip many wagons this way. Fixed under track (electro) magnets seem more cost effective for this.

 

Yours,  Mike.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Roger Sunderland said:

Well I’ll leave it to others to work out if you’re right but for the record

1. If you already have a suitably equipped loco there’s no extra cost for a decoder.

2. You don’t necessarily need 2 actuators per loco, especially on a shunting plank layout  so cost is halved

3. yes I agree you do need strategically placed magnets to break a rake of wagons but these can be had for next to nothing.

 

I think you’ve simply quoted the worst case scenario to emphasise your point and I stress the cost is per loco NOT per wagon. however I do think the system is probably most appreciated in say a terminus station environment where coaches need to be marshalled and placed in a multitude of positions and far too many magnets would be required.

I thought the system may have been useful in view of the OPs initial post eg one or two locos to equip at most, that’s all.

 

Sorry if I sounded a bit brusque!

I am really talking from my perspective, which I assume isn't unique, where locos uncouple at station platforms, termini, carriage sidings, goods reception sidings etc. These are mostly fixed points.

Those scenario would not require a mobile uncoupler, fixed magnets do the job fine.

Where I would like a mobile uncoupler, such as in a goods yard where wagons need sorting, a mobile uncoupler would be desirable but even at the bulk buy/cheap function decoder route they are relatively expensive compared to the wagons themselves. Fitting  loads of wagons becomes prohibitive.

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by melmerby

[DCB]

So how much are we talking per wagon, 2 actuators and a DCC chip?  Plus pickups?  and where to hide the decoder?   I found an old two piece Triang metal chassis pegged with plastic rod and spacers with Bachmann split axle wheels in Romford top hat bearings provided a very free running pickup equipped 9ft WB chassis, but I expect anything less than 60 years old will be rather more challenging to equip for pickup.  Sounds like £40 to me. That's probably why you can't buy them RTR.  Yet.

[philsandy]

On 02/07/2022 at 19:15, johna said:

Just in the process of building a small shutting layout using two points but would like to be able to in uncouple the wagons hands free. I will be using  pecket and ruston loco so can anyone advise me what couplings to use please? 

 

Have a look at my post here:

 

 

[melmerby]

Earlier on I found a Japanese company that had made a DCC controlled uncoupler where the mechanism is inside the gear box, with just the two wires to the decoder.

It said it was manufactured partly under license to Kadee but was a lot more expensive than the Preci Model version. ¥3,500 (about £20 each):

 

https://www.smart-coupler.com/home-eng

 

[Roger Sunderland]

19 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

That's correct if you're doing a single loco or wagon. If you are doing multiple, they have a bundle of 20 for £79.90, working out at £8.00 per loco or wagon for the pair of coupling actuators.

 

For a loco, I'd expect a DCC decoder to be present already, so no extra cost there.

 

For a wagon, you would need to add a decoder, but a really cheap one would do since you're only looking for functions not motor control. The bargain decoders are around £12 - £14. The other item for a wagon would be pickups - assuming the wagon already has metal wheelsets.

 

So, I suspect you might get the wagon cost down to £20 - £25 per wagon. Still pricey.

 

I'm considering them for locos initially. Fine for locos hauling fixed carriage rakes, where the vast majority of coupling/uncoupling operations are between the loco and the end carriage. OK as well for modelling preserved railway ops involving "exhibition" freight trains.

 

For traditional freight operations, it's going to get expensive to equip many wagons this way. Fixed under track (electro) magnets seem more cost effective for this.

 

Yours,  Mike.

Hi Mike

As I tried to explain in my earlier post ( I don’t think I’m doing it very well) these Preci Models uncouples can only be fitted to a loco. Zimo and ESU decoders have a built in group of CVS that enable the remote uncoupling of the loco from its train, wether that be a rake of coaches or 1 wagon. On the press of the assigned function button the loco moves slightly towards its train to release the tension on the Kadee, the jaws of the Kadee are then pulled open and the loco moves slightly backward away from its train.

As you can see this does involve motor control so function decoders will not work. Also as I’ve been trying to say, that’s why you can’t apply a cost per wagon to these. The cost is per loco, and at around £9 each to allow remote uncoupling anywhere on a layout, I think that’s good value. Just maybe not what the OP was after.

[amdaley]

15 hours ago, melmerby said:

Earlier on I found a Japanese company that had made a DCC controlled uncoupler where the mechanism is inside the gear box, with just the two wires to the decoder.

It said it was manufactured partly under license to Kadee but was a lot more expensive than the Preci Model version. ¥3,500 (about £20 each):

 

https://www.smart-coupler.com/home-eng

 

 

Very interesting item.

Doesn't seem to be any stockists except the company in Japan ?

[JZ]

Neodymium magnet placed between the rails.

 

I used the grass clumps for sighting. All my stock was fitted with Kadees. Minimum radius on the layout was 35" in the yards and 42" on the main line. People say they are hideous on UK outline, but I found them less obtrusive than tension lock.

[The Johnster]

Both t/ls and Kadees are pretty ugly lumps on UK traditional stock, but current NEM t/ls are much better than they were a few decades ago and can be painted to camoflage themselves a bit, a basic track colour wash being surprisingly effective.  I am able to sort of mentally 'tune them out' on Cwmdimbath. 

 

Automatic uncoupling for t/ls could be devised by having lifter ramps, hand-operated wire or automated and disguised with ballast and sleepers, that push the hook droppers up at strategic locations, but I am not keen on the idea of having to uncouple at specific spots when goods and mineral shunting requires uncoupling to take place anywhere along a siding or road.  I'm content to use the shunting pole, but appreciate the objection that folk have to the  'great hand in the sky', and there is a need in some cases to operate the layout within a glass case box.  Anything of this sort has to be absolutely 100% reliable first time every time, as opening the case to allow the sky hand in is even worse than just the sky hand!

Edited July 4, 2022 by The Johnster

[fulton]

I know this not an automatic coupling, but while the thread has drifted off talking about Kadees, I use this tool made by RIX PRODUCTS, it pulls the droppers apart, turn the tool over and the flat part is handy to align couplings, especially on a curve. The big hand from the sky has never concerned me, I like the hands on approach, I use 3 links on my British layout, as long as you are not reaching too far and have good light I can handle them even with my varifocals! 

[Pacific231G]

If you're good at building things from scratch, the Alex Jackson coupling may be worth looking at.

https://www.mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/alex-jackson-coupling/  (first of a five part article)

 

I've not used them myself (I use Kadees on European H0 stock) but they seem particualrly popular in protofour and fine scale circles. with many finer scale modellers. They're incredibly unobtrusive- it sometimes appears that there is nothing coupling wagons together. Gordon Gravett used them on Pempoul (metre gauge 1:50 scale) and his current 0 gauge layout and  I think Ian Jowett uses them on his H0 French prototype layouts.

 

They're not available commercially but 0.011 inch (0.274 mm) diameter spring steel wire is very widely avaiable (in the form of guitar strings!)   and I think the jigs required are available and in any case fairly simple to make. Despite their apparent delicacy they will handle long trains.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Pacific231G
not sure about Gordon Gravett