Turnouts and Couplers

Larwain,

I do not understand why you would have to re wire anything regarding your switch machines, unless you plan on getting rid of your current control panel altogether when you go DCC. Even more so, I do not understand why you would have to change couplers when you go DCC. For me.......I have a railroad that is DCC contolled. Whenever possible I use hand throws for my switches. On most railroads, a hand throw was used except at major junctions where the railroad was controlled by a tower. You will find that you will be walking around a lot, following your train, with DCC. So, unless you have the modules that allow you to throw switches from you handheld throttle, the hand throw will be every bit convient. Actually, it will be quicker, easier, and less expensive to use hand throws. I use slow motions machines only on hard to reach turnouts.

Bob Rule, Jr. Hatboro, Pa.

=>What is everyone's approach to turnouts and couplers? On my old =>layout I had all automatic turnouts and Kadee magnetic couplers with =>magnets in the tracks at key spots. I liked the idea that I never had =>to lay a hand on the layout to run the railroad, I could do it all =>from the control panel. =>

=>Is this something other people think about?

Not much.

=> Does it bother you at all to manually switch a turnout or uncouple cars?

No.

=>Or was I just being silly and obsessive?

No. It's _your_ layout. :-)

=>I'd like to do the same thing with my next =>layout but since I'm probably going DCC it's likely to get expensive, =>and I'm not looking forward to doing all the extra wiring, changing =>the couplers, etc.

No extra wiring needed. In fact, you can eliminate a lot of wiring, since you won't need control blocks any more. OTOH, "power districts" are a good idea on a large layout, according to the DCC guys, so some block switches may still be useful. You can continue to control the turnrouts as you always have. Couplers don't need changing, either. (There have a been a few attempts to make DCC controlled couplers, but so far none has been successful.)

HTH

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

On 12 Jan 2004 00:51:02 -0800, iarwain snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Iarwain) mumbled incoherently:

Every layout I have had used Kadee under the track uncouplers. I like switching, so that's the best for me.

Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department ___________________________________ email:

Tug McGraw: when asked what he would do with his World Series bonus money, he replied, " I'm gonna spend 80% on booze and women and the rest I'm gonna waste."

Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading? A: Telling your parents you?re gay.

spammers can send mail to snipped-for-privacy@ftc.gov

Boy, these subjects can start a real 'fight' whenever they come up.

For what it's worth, I see the hobby splitting into two main groups on these issues.

1) The "Operators" ... They like the manual ground-throw switches and manual uncoupling Kadee couplers using 'skewer' sticks. Some even cut the 'tails' from the Kadee couplers. They feel the working process is more like real railroad 'operations'. Probably quite true. the 'price' is the horribly out-of-scale hands and telephone pole uncouplers intruding on whatever model scene has been created.

2) The "Model Builders" ... They prefer the automatic (electric?) switch machines and hidden Kadee uncoupler magnets. They feel the entry of the 'giant hand' into the model scene destroys realism. Also true. The 'price' is unprototypical movements as trains search for magnets to uncouple.

Personally, I'm a "type 2".

So, which is 'right' ... who cares! I've had fun running on BOTH types of layouts. There are 'points' to be made on both sides of the argument. Decide what YOU want from your model railroad, and choose accordingly.

Dan Mitchell ==========

Iarwa>

=> The =>'price' is unprototypical movements as trains search for magnets to uncouple. =>

=>Personally, I'm a "type 2".

Put a "milepost" next to the uncoupler.

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

It depends on what is meant by "search". Actually my magnets are marked. The approximate location of each magnet is indicated on the schematic control panels, and the exact location marked, unobtrusively, on the layout using some small piece of scrap metal on the near-side ballast slope. Looks a LOT better than mileposts or whistle signs every hundred yards! I have yet to have ONE person comment on this trackside debris untill they have been told the 'secret'.

By 'search" I was more referring to the fact that usually SEVERAL magnets are available that MIGHT be useful in any given uncoupling move. Sometimes more than one must be tried to get the desired effect (the problem of multiple magnets and different car length multiples leading to sporadic unwanted uncouplings, for one thing). It CAN be a 'search'. The need to make such runs to the magnets is usually unprototypical, thus 'funky' train movements are required to effectively make switching moves. Careful planning of magnet location can minimize such problems, but not eliminate them. Even electromagnetic uncouplers only IMPROVE the situation, not eliminate it.

And, yes, under the best of conditions, occasionally one must employ the dreaded 0-5-0.

Dan Mitchell ==========

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

We think about prototypical operation all the time. We freed the engineers from sitting at a control panel "operating the layout" to walk around control and "operating the trains" with command control about 20 years ago. Many people are just discovering this with DCC.

Lately we have just gone through and ripped out almost all the magnets. Other than the main line passing tracks (controlled by dispatch), we purposely have manual turnouts where they can be easily reached. Why? Because when operating a 1953 real railroad one does not sit at a control panel. I doubt for the most part that they do that today. Even in the big yard here in Denver switchmen get off the locomotive and manually change the turnouts. Brakemen manually couple and uncouple the cars. So do our operators.

Doesn't bother the operators at all, prototypical operation is the part we enjoy.

Just to make this clear, I am not converting my old layout to DCC, I'm starting a new one totally from scratch.

Anyway, reading some of the posts here makes me feel much more comfortable about putting in manual turnouts, and it seems to even have some sort of minimalist appeal. I still have a little trouble with the idea of uncoupling by hand. I kind of liked the challenge of using the magnets to move the cars around, even if it isn't exactly prototypical. But damn, I hate installing those Kadee couplers, especially in the locomotives.