Digital Uncouplers

[lewi]

Wouldn't it be nice if Bachmann could develop digital couplers for its rolling stock.  It would be nice to have something where you wouldn't need a magnet or solenoid in the track.  If Bachmann was the first to develop it, at a fairly decent price,  they could set a new standard for couplers.  You wouldn't need it on the engines if it was built in to the rolling stock.   Kadees are great couplers, but we're in the digital age.  Any discussion out there?

[Nathan]

hate to burst your bubble, but they already exist:

http://tonysdcc.com/products/ddc.htm

[Jhanecker2]

The Ultimate Question would and always will be : How much would you be willing to pay for this benefit and what level of failure would you be willing to accept ?  Everybody assumes that every new application of remote control technology is going to work easily and flawessly , real world experience says the odds are long and not very good . It gets to be a long and expensive research and development process and if successful means patents and licensing of patents has to be figured in . Then comes engineering and production costs , all of the following is surmountable if there is a large and profitable market over time.  If you want it cheap, you are going  to have develope it yourself .  Good Luck in engineering School and Make Sure You  Get an MBA .  J2

[Michigan Railfan]

Also, I'm pretty sure that MTH's SD70ACe had remote control (DCC) couplers. Upon watching several videos on YouTube, there were several problems with it, like not opening or closing completely, or not opening or closing at all.

[lewi]

I agree with every one of these statements.  Tony's Trains, unfortunately, was simply too small a company.  You need engineering. That's why you need a company like Bachmann who has the both the engineering and manufacturing expertise.  Most of the attempts, so far, have been small companies. I'm hoping for something integrated into the frame of the car, not something added on.  I'm talking about a whole new standard.  It may take cooperation from several large companies to pull it off.  I think digital uncoupling will be like sound...once you have a sound locomotive, you don't want to go back.  As to price, yes, it will probably be pricey in the beginning.  But the price should drop faster for this than, say, sound decoders, because people have more rolling stock than locomotives, so volume should contribute to this.  Further, it is a simpler decoder, with a specific function - to couple and uncouple.  You don't need 250 different CV's on this decoder.

[richg]

There is a DCC operated coupler for locos but requires a decoder.

Rich

[CNE Runner]

If I have read the posts correctly, it would seem that each car would have to have its own decoder. That also means that each car would have to have its own address. Following that logic to its inevitable conclusion one would have to 'key in' the address of the car in question; 'key in' the appropriate coupler (front or rear, A or B, that sort of thing) - then push an F function key to perform the uncoupling maneuver. 'Sounds like a lot of busy work. I think I will stay with my uncoupling sticks.

Price: With the price of good quality RTR cars approaching $30 (and quite a few considerably more expensive), how much is the public willing to pay for this option? A person having just 10 cars would be 'out of pocket' some $300 to $500! Our hobby is slowing declining as it is without pricing future model railroaders out of the market.

Someone once observed that model railroading (and building plastic model kits) are becoming the purview of 'old men'. Am I wrong? Spend a day at a model railroad show and look at the age of the attendees. [...better yet look at the age of the attendees who actually buy something...it isn't the young folks.]

Ray

[jonathan]

Yes, technology may be in the digital age, but my wallet is still analog.

I have to agree with Ray.  I couldn't be a serious modeler in my younger years because I couldn't afford to do it properly.  Even later in life, with a regular income, model railroading can be an expensive undertaking.  Then again, any hobby requires a certain investment and commitment that can prove daunting.  Fun money can be hard to come by.

I look at uncoupling from another perspective.  Look at the prototype.

Coupling cars in the real world is just like modeling:  we back the loco or train into a car and presto, the cars couple.  Marvelous.  Uncoupling a real piece of rolling stock requires human intervention of some sort.  So it goes with our models.  The "stick" works and is almost free.  It can be performed anywhere on the layout.  Magnets are relatively inexpensive, and have good results, if all the stars are aligned correctly.  Permanently mounted magnets limit you to where you can unassemble trains.  I have two permanently fixed magnets and one between the rails magnet that I can drop on any piece of straight track.

Perhaps there is a happy medium.  Could there be a decoder controlled uncoupler permanently fixed to the layout?  It would require precise installation of both couplers and the device, but I could see an electromagnet, controlled by a decoder.  Then you only have the expense of one magnet and one decoder for every uncoupling station required.  Now the cost is not quite so daunting.  Ooh! did I just invent something, or has this idea been marketed as well?

Regards,

Jonathan

[Joe323]

Perhaps there is a happy medium.  Could there be a decoder controlled uncoupler permanently fixed to the layout?  It would require precise installation of both couplers and the device, but I could see an electromagnet, controlled by a decoder.  Then you only have the expense of one magnet and one decoder for every uncoupling station required.  Now the cost is not quite so daunting.  Ooh! did I just invent something, or has this idea been marketed as well?

Not as far as I know but I wonder how many would buy this.  As Ray says the stick works well and can be used anywhere. Assuming a magnet and a decoder would cost $30 x the 7 sidings I have on my my layout that would be $210 doubled if they were 2 ends and I wanted an uncoupler at both ends.  Putting a decoder in each car is impractical for the same reasons (Not to mention the time involved in retrofitting old rolling stock if it could be done).  Perhaps it might make sense as a new item but I'm still not sure it would sell.

Joe

[Jhanecker2]

The problem with digital control of uncoupling is the sheer complexity of affecting the uncoupling reliably . In our current system , a magnetic device effects the coupling by releasing the  grippers  after  pressure is released  by putting slack into the connections
this allows the uncoupling at an area directly over the couplings and is fixed at that point by the location of either a permanent  or an electo=magnet . At every point that you wish to uncouple  you need a similar device .    This of course  would require each car to have two addressable decoders some way of powering their circuits and some method of making every other car backward compatible .  This tends to add cost and  complexity and another point at which failure can and will be introduced . Murphy's Law  applies in analog and digital realms  as well as where  Quantum Mechanics rule.  For those of us of a certain age;  remember what happened to the  Krell   and why .  ( The Journey to the Forbidden Planet )    John  II

[Doneldon]

Another aspect of the "happy medium" idea is to have DCC-controlled uncoupling just on locomotives.  After all, the majority of uncouplings involve a loco so simplifying just that would go a long ways towards easing the uncoupling hassle.  Like others who have commented here, I don't see digital uncouplers on every car as achievable.  That's just too expensive and too time consuming.

Old Rounders will remember the days of dummy couplers which, frankly, looked outstanding compared to even the best couplers today.  Of course, they were a pain in the arse to couple and uncouple.  Magnetic uncoupling, and the delay feature, have gone a long way in the right direction.  I really don't see any universal uncoupling in the future but I could sure be wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time or even the first many thousands of times.
                                                                                                               -- D

[Guilford Guy]

I don't think it's the cost of the hobby that is causing a decline. I'll go even further to say there isn't a decline, just a change. Right now, most teenagers have a very limited budget, and furthermore, school, work, and social lives all require time, and in some cases money. The time factor is likely why you don't see many teens at train shows. I'm going to use myself, a 17 year old railfan and model railroader going into my senior year at high school, as an example. This hobby is expensive, and right now I have higher priorities to spend time and money on, but that doesn't mean I'm no longer interested in trains because I haven't purchased a locomotive since December, haven't gone to a show since January, and have only made it to 4 club meetings this year. There will always be a dedicated group of young modelers, but many are likely to take a hiatus when they go off to college or begin a career, only to rediscover it later in life.

Back on topic... Having an automatic coupler in every car will be more trouble than it's worth. Having to select each freight car address, and press a function button is a time factor. Determining which end of the car the knuckle will open on is another, and duplicate road numbers? Forget it! On a large layout there are bound to be cars from different railroads that have the same road number. Having an automatic knuckle on a locomotive is a better option simply because there is a clear front and back to a locomotive so you have better control over opening a knuckle(or however you plan to do it, personally I'd go for an option that utilizes a Kadee #5 that moves vertically to slip out of the coupler) and you won't have to enter a roadnumber every time you need to uncouple a car. Even in this situation you'd need an uncoupling pick to separate cuts of cars, but it would likely make set outs in hard to reach areas much easier.

[jonathan]

Alex,

I am always encouraged when someone your age demonstrates wisdom and logic.  There's hope for the future.  You will do well in life, my friend.

A discussion like this causes me to view the past 6 or 7 decades of the advancement in model railroading.  It seems we continue to strive for some operational ideal... That ideal seems to be running our trains without actually having to touch them.  Does this add to the illusion of realism?  Perhaps so... There's no "giant" 87.1 times the size of layout, reaching in to save the people, hopelessly frozen in a traincentric universe, where the same one or two trains keep passing by every couple of minutes.

I have seen layouts that automatically produce day and night, make realistic sounds, raise and lower doors and gates, blink lights, and even the vehicles will move.  It's a question of time, money, talent, and mostly, how far you need the illusion to go to get modeling satisfaction.

If I were a model manufacturer, I can imagine spending some days scratching my head trying to figure out what people say they want AND what they are actually willing to pay for.  Just about anything can be mass produced.

Personally, I like the god-like feeling of reaching in to affect my imaginary universe.  Don't need that many bangs and whistles.  That's just me.  Gotta go and watch some more Spongebob.

Regards,

Jonathan

[Guilford Guy]

Now that you mention it, yes it does seem that modelers continue to look for a way for semi-completely hands free operation- buttons to do this, do that, make this turn, make that move. When you think about it, no we can't get 1:87.1 scale hands that are useful, but why not operate like the real railroad in the sense of manually uncoupling cars. In railroading there are almost no applications of automated coupling and uncoupling. When running a local and setting out cars, the brakeman/conductor still has to exit the cab and pull the cut lever on the car to open the knuckle. Even hump yards still need a crew man to pull the cut levers when the cars reach the summit of the hump. So why is it, that even though the real railroads always uncouple cars utilizing a hand, we strive to automate this feature? Very peculiar my dear Watson. As for myself, I dislike the look of Kadee track magnets and trip pins, utilizing only a skewer to uncouple cars.

[lewi]

So far, the discussion has been very enlightening and not unexpected.  It wasn't that long ago that computers were the size of office buildings and people couldn't imagine a desktop computer.  Just a few years ago, people couldn't imagine a computer or a hi-fidelity sound system in their HO scale engines, let alone in N scale.  I think we, as modelers, have to think outside the box.  Just around the corner there are shape-shifting metals that are being developed which would allow a coupler to be cast in one piece and the coupler would open and close on demand. Nano technology promises a future with motors the size of a grain of rice that can be manufactured for pennies.  Why do we have to punch in addresses when we could possibly use a laser pointer built right into our wireless cabs to indicate which couplers we want opened or which engine we want to control? Computer chips will be 1/10 the present size. All these technologies are not pie-in-the-sky.  They either currently exist, or are being worked on.  In my opening post, I talked about setting a new standard, not rehashing old technology.  I think it is important to express the "wants" to encourage manufacturers to explore new technologies and encourage development.  Otherwise we'd all be blowing wooden whistles and using MacDonald's coffee stirrers to uncouple our cars.  Yes, these work, but there are options out there because for some, these weren't enough.  Let's plan for the future.