Uncoupling

Ed,

You might want to look at using electro-magnetic methods so that you can control when the magnet is powered to avoid unintended uncoupling. I think Kadee make an electromagnetic uncoupler which has poles which come up close to the running rails and look like check rails. In this case you would have to cut a hole in your MDF top.

Jim.

Rout it out Black and Decker would be great but a mini drill and a dramel bit will work. Or a electro magnet would just need a small hole drilling to pop up though the base board

Trev,

From what I remember of messing about with Kadee coupling some years ago, the magnet has to have its two poles laterally orientated at track level with the trip pins being attracted to the respective pole to pull them apart.

Their permanent magnets have their NS orientation across the magnet, and their electro-magnetic uncoupler had two poles which were positioned close to each rail. And it doesn't need all that small a hole. I've got one of their No.309 H0 uncouplers beside me at the moment and it would need a hole about 2" long and 5/8" wide in the track base to accommodate it.

Jim.

....

I love my Dremel one of the best bit's of kit I've got, but what's wrong with an old-fashioned chisel?

I'm not from the UK, but if "furriners" are allowed to comment I have a suggestion.

The permanent magnets are cheaper and less complex than the electromagnets, but they do have a tendency to cause uncoupling when not wanted.

I've read of layouts where a hole was cut in the roadbed and the permanent magnet installed on a hinge. It would be controlled much like you plan to control your turnouts.

And I've also heard that one-half of a magnet works fine, you just have to position your cars (wagons?) a little more accurately.

I haven't tried these ideas. I use the "hand in the sky" method :-).

"Larry Blanchard"

I hand uncouple my Kadees all the time. I use pieces of code 40 rail bent thus: -

_____________/

With a little practice, you can uncouple, using the 'glad hands', with little effort.

I don't like magnetic uncouplers. They're unrealistic in that railways uncouple where they want to uncouple, not where a magnet dictates.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

I've done exactly that - cutting away all the trackbed immediately beneath the track, leaving just the cork. As it's only a short length of "unsupported" track, I had no problems. I also fixed a microswitch to operate with the hinged magnet, so that it isolated one section of track to the side of the uncoupler, so I could separate two DMU's.

Cheers, Mick

We did an article on the measurements of GEM sleepering in issue 3 of Model Railways online magazine

Graham Plowman

Ed Callaghan wrote:

You bought a whole yard of code 40 rail just to make a little uncoupler?

No, I use code 40 for guard rails on bridges, plus I've two industrial spurs that have code 40 rail.

One could just as easily use code 70 rail.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

Hey, that's not fair - Peco never claimed their track matched any British prototype! ;-)

How would you ever make OO track proportional to the British prototype?

- If you made the sleepers to scale dimensions then proportionately there will be too much sleeper sticking out either side.

- If you make the sleeper dimensions proportionate to the gauge (HO scale) then the spacing between tracks will be proportionately too great.

Regards, Greg.P. NZ

How about a piece of 14AWG household wire?

"MartinS" <

That works as well.

I made some fancy ones with some heavy copper wire and some 1/4 or 5/16 bass wood for a handle. Drill a hole into the end of the handle and glue the wire into the hole. Actually, and stiff wire, about that gauge, would do.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

The problem that I've found with making basic uncoupling tools out of odd bits of wire and the like is that they disappear when put down on the layout! You _need_ a distinctive handle - pink plastic and a screwed in eyelet for hanging it up should do the job.

Regards, Greg.P.

"Gregory Procter" <

Mine are all bright yellow. However, it doesn't stop operators from taking them home, which I why I changed to code 70 rail and dipped in yellow paint. Not as fancy as the wooden handled ones, but a darn sight easier to make.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

Greg, Probably best to see the MROL article as this issue is covered. Peco track doesn't reallistically represent US or British outline - it is somewhere in between. Having said that, if it is laid properly with correct levels, transitions, canting and no wires and solder globules on the sides of rails, you can achieve some good effects, at least with code 75:

In message , Gregory Procter writes

I'd have thought you would remove 2.3 mm from the middle of the sleeper, and not worry too much about the extra spacing between tracks. After all, track spacing varied around the country: the ex-GWR broad gauge lines for example have rather wide track spacing.

Hi Greg,

You can't make it *proportional*, but you can make it look reasonable. The BRMSB standards for this were published way back in 1950.

Sleeper width and spacing is per prototype for sharp curves (26 slepers per 60ft length) at 4mm/ft scale. Sleeper length is reduced to 32mm (8ft scale.) Flexible

Recently some modellers are using "EM minus 2" to give better appearance and improved running with modern 00 stock. i.e. 16.2mm gauge with 1mm flangeways. This standard is called 00-SF in Templot. See for example:

Martin.

---------- email: snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web:

OK, bright yellow might work, but you could mistake them for model MOW tools - bright pink plastic handles on the other hand (old knitting needles) really don't look as though they are a part of the scenery. ;-)

Regards, Greg.P.