Has anyone seen a layout using manual uncoupling (i.e. with a handheld tool) at an exhibition recently? The reason I ask is that it seems to me that it is becoming less common. Currently I am constructing a micro layout which will require a lot of uncoupling, but since this will require individual Roco/Minitrains skips to be uncoupled and in various locations I don't think fixed ramps or magnets are going to give the flexibility I might need. I have always used an uncoupling tool in the past and would happily continue but I always feel that people (at exhibitions) judge the layouts negatively based on the use of manual uncoupling irrespective of the quality of other aspects of the layout.
It seems to be more common with larger models and things like (semi) prototypical 3-link couplings. Also with knuckle type couplings where a "poke and twist" action is employed.
I'm not sure my hands would be steady enough to uncouple individual 009 skips manually, especially at an exhibition where I might be behind the layout leaning over rather right in front of the wagon in the line of sight.
My impression of exhibitions is that exhibitors run a reduced complexity routine to reduce the chances of things going wrong and to keep things moving. Is considering a number of "set piece" moves for exhibition use and putting ramps in the appropriate places and have the option of more complex manual operation as conditions permit?
Quote from: GraemeD on December 15, 2017, 11:06
Is considering a number of "set piece" moves for exhibition use and putting ramps in the appropriate places and have the option of more complex manual operation as conditions permit?
This is something I am considering, but my concern would be that the ramps will not work well because the wheelbase of the wagons is too short. The main point of the layout is to shunt the wagons underneath the loose gravel loader (which ironically works without any problems so far), swapping them round to allow each wagon to go under the chute, and then re-form the full train and leave again. I think I will need at least one ramp on each siding. I could use Greenwich couplings with delayed uncoupling and one magnet off stage but these may not be easy to fit to Roco skips.
I can confirm that the use of uncoupling ramps with Roco/Mintrains small four wheel wagons is not easy, but it is achievable with great care and precise adjustment of the ramps and couplings.
I have two layouts that have extensive hands free shunting etc. one an exhibition layout the other at home, both have ramps for uncoupling.
A lot of the coaches and rolling stock we have use the Roco wagons as bogies complete with couplings and these work very well indeed, however to get this to work requires every coupling loop to be perfectly horizontal and at exactly the same height. On the layout at home the ramps are worked with electromagnets, the height these go up is critical and requires exact adjustment. Too high and the ramps will hit the axles and lift the vehicles, too low and they will not uncouple properly. The exhibition layout uses hand control wire in tube for the ramps so how high they lift is down to the eye of the operator.
So in conclusion if you adjust all the couplings on every item and adjust every ramp precisely it will work with very few problems.
In regard to the location of the ramps some careful thought will be needed. If you wish to disguise the ramps then it is possible to make them look like a section of sleepers with ballast, but we just paint them all rust brown the same colour as the rail sides, sleepers and ballast.
Brian Meldon
Quote from: danny on December 15, 2017, 08:11
..... but I always feel that people (at exhibitions) judge the layouts negatively based on the use of manual uncoupling irrespective of the quality of other aspects of the layout.
*
In my opinion such judgements are entirely correct and appropriate. When exhibiting a layout one is essentially engaged in offering a theatrical presentation to the public. This of course means that legitimate artiface is necessary in the creation of an illusion of reality. The intrusion of an out of scale "hand of God" from the sky destroys this and is therefore to be avoided.
CP
Quote from: B.Meldon on December 15, 2017, 13:31
So in conclusion if you adjust all the couplings on every item and adjust every ramp precisely it will work with very few problems.
In regard to the location of the ramps some careful thought will be needed. If you wish to disguise the ramps then it is possible to make them look like a section of sleepers with ballast, but we just paint them all rust brown the same colour as the rail sides, sleepers and ballast.
Brian Meldon
I think I should be OK regarding identical coupling height since the wagons will all be Roco skips (other wagons may not fit under the gravel loader).
Quote from: cp.409067 on December 15, 2017, 15:35
In my opinion such judgements are entirely correct and appropriate. When exhibiting a layout one is essentially engaged in offering a theatrical presentation to the public. This of course means that legitimate artiface is necessary in the creation of an illusion of reality. The intrusion of an out of scale "hand of God" from the sky destroys this and is therefore to be avoided.
CP
This was my original point but equally some uncoupling ramps can be very obtrusive and spoil the layout, so there is a point where they become worse than manual uncoupling, which at least only momentarily spoils the illusion. However, I think I have now worked out a way of creating hands free uncoupling ramps using the Peco parts I was originally planning to use but substituting a smaller and less noticeable ramp in place of the Peco one. The rods to operate it will be hidden by styrene conduit which I can then hide or paint to represent some sort of drain or electric cable across the quarry floor.
Danny
Quote from: danny on December 15, 2017, 15:55
Quote from: B.Meldon on December 15, 2017, 13:31
So in conclusion if you adjust all the couplings on every item and adjust every ramp precisely it will work with very few problems.
In regard to the location of the ramps some careful thought will be needed. If you wish to disguise the ramps then it is possible to make them look like a section of sleepers with ballast, but we just paint them all rust brown the same colour as the rail sides, sleepers and ballast.
Brian Meldon
I think I should be OK regarding identical coupling height since the wagons will all be Roco skips (other wagons may not fit under the gravel loader).
Danny
Sadly you will find that new out the box Roco skips often have wire coupling loops that are not quite correct. I have found that many need fine adjustment to get them spot on. But once done they are good for ever unless damaged.
Brian Meldon
The ones I will be using are part of my existing stock and have worked reliably for several years, so I should be OK on that front.
I have successfully done some shunting (at exhibitions) while co-piloting John Varley's Ghylldale. This was while John was engaged in driving trains round the layout. He has permanent magnets at places on the dockside.
Quote from: hughn on December 15, 2017, 19:30
I have successfully done some shunting (at exhibitions) while co-piloting John Varley's Ghylldale. This was while John was engaged in driving trains round the layout. He has permanent magnets at places on the dockside.
Was this with Greenwich couplings though? This would allow magnets to be used as they have to be 'pulled down' as opposed to 'pushed up' like standard Bemo/Roco/Minitrains couplings. I will be sticking with the original couplings on my skips because the couplings are very small and integral to the frame, changing them would make them incompatible with my other stock (including older/less regularly used items that would never get converted) and also because I feel having the loops on both ends is useful for keeping small wagons coupled together.
Regarding "realism" using automatic uncoupling is just as unrealistic as hand uncoupling. In the real thing there would be a bloke running around doing the job so having auto uncoupling is just as bad as there's no-one there at all! In fact you could argue that at least when using your hand to uncouple you are following prototype practice! ;)
Quote from: Hobby on December 16, 2017, 08:53
Regarding "realism" using automatic uncoupling is just as unrealistic as hand uncoupling. In the real thing there would be a bloke running around doing the job so having auto uncoupling is just as bad as there's no-one there at all! In fact you could argue that at least when using your hand to uncouple you are following prototype practice! ;)
This is a very good point, and perhaps one solution is to have a few figures standing in appropriate locations to give the impression of this. I think with manual uncoupling on this layout, quite apart from the question of realism, I would find that I would constantly be hitting the loading hopper or tipping the small wagons off the track with the uncoupling hook. In the absence of a trained woodlouse with a figure (complete with shunter's pole) on his back ;) :D, I think everyone has to find an uncoupling method that works for them, and I was just going to try out a hands off uncoupling method this time to see if I prefer it. Some modern coupling designs such as buckeyes are automatic and do not require anyone on the ground but this is not particularly relevant to industrial narrow gauge.
Quote from: cp.409067 on December 15, 2017, 15:35
Quote from: danny on December 15, 2017, 08:11
..... but I always feel that people (at exhibitions) judge the layouts negatively based on the use of manual uncoupling irrespective of the quality of other aspects of the layout.
*
In my opinion such judgements are entirely correct and appropriate. When exhibiting a layout one is essentially engaged in offering a theatrical presentation to the public. This of course means that legitimate artiface is necessary in the creation of an illusion of reality. The intrusion of an out of scale "hand of God" from the sky destroys this and is therefore to be avoided.
CP
My opinion is that it can be one or the other. Just like there is more than one type of theatre, there is more than one way to put on a display of railway modelling. The full
Quote from: Hobby on December 16, 2017, 08:53
Regarding "realism" using automatic uncoupling is just as unrealistic as hand uncoupling. In the real thing there would be a bloke running around doing the job so having auto uncoupling is just as bad as there's no-one there at all! In fact you could argue that at least when using your hand to uncouple you are following prototype practice! ;)
*
I cannot and do not deny that this is essentially correct as regards "realism".
However, pending the day when there are available miniature, to scale, working figures (at reasonable cost) we must make use of that essential aspect of theatre - the willingness to use our imagination.
When operating or viewing a layout we do this with regard to passengers getting in and out of carriages, wagons and vans being loaded and emptied, locomotives being refuelled and watered, etc.
We can at this time portray the movement of whole trains, locomotives shunting, and so on in scales such as 4mm/ft and smaller. That is worth doing, worth doing well using automatic couplings, and permits theatre to fulfill one of its primary functions - to evoke reality in the process of telling a story.
That said there is no reason why those who want to engage in "hand of God" activities cannot do so if that is their wish. And equally they cannot complain if such activity is judged negatively by those of us who understand and believe in the theatrical approach to exhibiting a layout. At a production of "Macbeth" the audience will accept the apparent death of King Duncan without demanding an actual corpse on stage.
CP
Quote from: cp.409067 on December 16, 2017, 13:06
the willingness to use our imagination.
Exactly... And so to criticise someone for the use of the "hand of god" when so many other compromises are glaringly apparent on our models seems to me to be to be a bit rich! ;)
Hmm. I
Quote from: Hobby on December 16, 2017, 17:02
Quote from: cp.409067 on December 16, 2017, 13:06
the willingness to use our imagination.
Exactly... And so to criticise someone for the use of the "hand of god" when so many other compromises are glaringly apparent on our models seems to me to be to be a bit rich! ;)
*
[1] Using one's imagination to accept that there is not a miniature figure using a shunting pole is a small thing to ask.
[2] Asking for the huge (in relative terms) human hand descending from on high to be ignored asks so much - indeed too much - more.
The relative size of the "hand of God" is important and significant. Let us imagine we are looking at a "OO9" layout from a distance of 1m. That obviously means that in scale terms we would be 250ft from the point of action. At that distance in the real world could one actually see a railway employee using his shunting pole? On the other hand one could see a locomotive pull away leaving a wagon infront of a goods shed.
To use your phrase some "compromises are glaringly apparent" whilst others are not. Thus for me lack of shunter wielding pole is acceptable - huge hand from above is not.
As usual Blair, I fear that we must agree to differ.
CP
Think when we talk of horses, that you see them
Printing their proud hoofs i' the receiving earth;
For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings,
Carry them here and there; jumping o'er times (Henry V, prologue)
I think we have reached an important point, which is that it can be better to omit something than represent it badly or overscale (so, for instance, rivet detail is not modelled in T gauge as it would have to be hugely overscale). Obviously couplings are one of the weak points of realism (along with loading of wagons) since they have to work without being too obtrusive. One way is simply to have layouts with continuous running (usually also a compromise in terms of realism) and no uncoupling (as in the Macbeth analogy where Duncan is killed offstage).
who is this bloke Duncan? is his Macbeth layout 009? does he have auto uncoupling, or does he rely on God?
Quote from: cp.409067 on December 16, 2017, 19:58
As usual Blair, I fear that we must agree to differ.
Agreed, Chris!
Fortunately I should soon be able to get the parts I need to try out my idea for making uncoupling ramps, and hopefully post pictures on here, thus bringing the thread back on topic! I fear we may have got a bit carried away with the the whole 'theatre' idea, but before we move on I must point out that the prologue I quoted also has some useful things to say about compressing the scene to fit the available space. :D
Danny
I will try to find some photos of the ramps we use and post them on here.
Brian Meldon
To answer Danny's original question, the answer is a firm yes. As it was within the last month or so it must have been at the Colehill Members' Day, and there may well have been more than one. However, I can't recall now exactly which layout so I won't attempt to name it for fear of upsetting someone (or doing them a perceived injustice).
To be honest, I'm usually so in awe of the modelling skill on display that even if I notice manual uncoupling it doesn't worry me in the least, and I'm also admiring the dexterity of the uncoupler who seems to manage the operation without dragging the whole caboodle off the rails entirely.
While my standards may not be as high as some modellers' I think most people who know me would agree that if there's a nit to be picked I'll usually have a go at doing it. But life seems to have taught me to reserve my energy for things that matter! (though that's a subjective judgement, I realise).
Just my personal take on the discussion - I'm very happy for others to disagree.
David.
Quote from: clayliner on December 18, 2017, 14:09
To be honest, I'm usually so in awe of the modelling skill on display that even if I notice manual uncoupling it doesn't worry me in the least, and I'm also admiring the dexterity of the uncoupler who seems to manage the operation without dragging the whole caboodle off the rails entirely.
This is partly what I was getting at originally, which is that the model may be very good but negatively perceived because manual uncoupling is used, while conversely you could also have a layout with remote uncoupling on which the stock, scenery etc is to a very low standard. This is not a criticism of anyone's particular approach, just the idea that one element of the layout should be valued so highly over other aspects. As has been pointed out, several finescale layouts (often regarded as perfect in other respects) use scale couplings and therefore manual uncoupling.
I would not be bothered by any perceived negative perception. It is your model. You operate it as you see fit. There will always be opinionated people at exhibitions who think their approach is the only valid one. There are may different interpretations of railway modelling.
However, uncoupling ramps or magnets may be the most practical approach with models as small as 009 skips as manual uncoupling without knocking them off the track is likely to require a very steady hand and good concentration as well as clear access to the model which could limit the locations of trees, buildings, telegraph poles etc. It may be fine in the quiet of a home running session but could get mighty tiring at an exhibition under the gaze of the public for any length of time. If you know you uncouple manually quickly and cleanly without swearing and picking scattered stock off the scenery then go for it. The response from those admiring your skills will be at least as much as those tut-tutting about the "hand of god". Also bear in mind that if you want to share the operating with someone else then they may have 5 thumbs.
It might not be to some people's taste but I think manual coupling with 3 link couplings in O gauge and for those who can manage it OO standard gauge is a highlight of modelling. There is even a certain "theatre" in a shunter's pole with a miniature torch beam on it.
Quote from: danny on December 19, 2017, 07:51
This is not a criticism of anyone's particular approach, just the idea that one element of the layout should be valued so highly over other aspects.
You raise a wider issue about what we do which has intrigued me for some time. Which is that while many aspects of a layout may be exemplary one often sees something (or things) which for the viewer may appear a glaring deficiency or inconsistency, and one wonders how the modeller could not have seen what is so obvious to the viewer (and done something about it!)
I think the answer is simply that certain aspects of modelling - and they will be different for each of us - appeal to us particularly and others less so. As there is only a certain amount of enthusiasm / time / other resources to go round we naturally major on what matters more to us and do the best we can with the rest.
So this is certainly not a gripe, but perhaps more a plea for tolerance of others' shortcomings, which will hopefully also cover our own in return. So we may have perfect scenery and a lovely Scout campsite but too
few rivets, oversize lining on our locos and the wrong era cattle wagons. So be it!
David.
Quote from: danny on December 15, 2017, 21:32
Quote from: hughn on December 15, 2017, 19:30
I have successfully done some shunting (at exhibitions) while co-piloting John Varley's Ghylldale. This was while John was engaged in driving trains round the layout. He has permanent magnets at places on the dockside.
Was this with Greenwich couplings though? This would allow magnets to be used as they have to be 'pulled down' as opposed to 'pushed up' like standard Bemo/Roco/Minitrains couplings. I will be sticking with the original couplings on my skips because the couplings are very small and integral to the frame, changing them would make them incompatible with my other stock (including older/less regularly used items that would never get converted) and also because I feel having the loops on both ends is useful for keeping small wagons coupled together.
I believe Roger Christian has successfully adapted Bemo-type couplings to work with magnets.
I should have some photos soon but I have already experimented and the uncoupling ramps are complete (apart from minor adjustments to be made when the layout is finished). Essentially what I am using are Peco uncoupling ramps. The wire used to control these passes to the edge of the layout and is hidden in a plastruct conduit, itself hidden under landscaping. This is essentially the same as for wire in tube points, except surface mounted in order to give the wire a completely straight and level run. Despite my previous reservations about coupling together wagons with only one loop, I have removed the loops from one end of the wagons. The issue is that which wagon has to be positioned over the ramp to uncouple effectively depends which loop is underneath the other, as this loop will push the other one up but lifting the uppermost loop will not lift the lower one (this is probably easier to understand by just looking at two wagons coupled together than it is to explain). Anyway, it follows that only having one loop makes positioning and uncoupling easier, as well as preventing the couplings getting tangled. This also means I avoid accidentally lifting the axle, which is near the coupling loop because the wagons are so small. I think the tension on the couplings will be OK on this layout as each train will only have 3 wagons and the track has no appreciable gradients, but I have kept the loops safe to be refitted for use on other layouts.
Quote from: GraemeD on December 19, 2017, 09:25
I would not be bothered by any perceived negative perception. It is your model. You operate it as you see fit. There will always be opinionated people at exhibitions who think their approach is the only valid one. There are may different interpretations of railway modelling.
However, uncoupling ramps or magnets may be the most practical approach with models as small as 009 skips as manual uncoupling without knocking them off the track is likely to require a very steady hand.
I have never heard any actual comments about this when exhibiting layouts with manual uncoupling, but I think people seem to lose interest or are surprised/disappointed/shocked when the use of the uncoupling tool interrupts the layout's operation. I also agree that manual uncoupling with small wagons (particularly if they have been loaded with loose gravel) may not work well and this is backed up by my previous experience (this layout is a development of an earlier one). Also I feel that 'hand of God' uncoupling is more acceptable if it takes place less often and on a larger layout (where uncoupling in various different places may render fixed ramps /magnets impractical anyway). For this layout I will be constantly shunting and the scenic section is tiny, so uncoupling will be taking place all the time and generally in the same places - if I was using the 'hand of God' method the audience would never get a clear view of the layout! Pulling a little bit of wire behind the layout also puts less pressure on the operator than flailing around with a hook while everyone watches and can be quicker too.
Danny
*
May I add to the discussion the obvious point that there are of course other factors that (I am glad to say) preclude the intrusion of the
As promised here are some photos of the wire in tube ramp uncouplers we have in use on Pitztalbahn. This layout is now over 30 years old. They are Peco ramps.
We have two versions the first are in the upper station and are very close to the back scene so they are direct action with the wire inserted into the ramp pivots, the wire is turned to operate the ramp. The white stripes on the figures indicate where to stop the couplings:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5448/9153185521_02028ff800_z.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5533/9155420248_dc6c93075d_z.jpg)
The other type that are further away from the back scene have a simple crank under the base board and the wire is pulled to operate the ramp:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2880/9169083192_24407e8f71_z.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7334/9153192893_1e5c872839_z.jpg)
In both versions the operator lifts the ramp just enough to uncouple so there is no need for limit on the travel.
Brian Meldon
Quote from: B.Meldon on December 20, 2017, 08:20
As promised here are some photos of the wire in tube ramp uncouplers we have in use on Pitztalbahn. This layout is now over 30 years old. They are Peco ramps.
We have two versions the first are in the upper station and are very close to the back scene so they are direct action with the wire inserted into the ramp pivots, the wire is turned to operate the ramp. The white stripes on the figures indicate where to stop the couplings:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5448/9153185521_02028ff800_z.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5533/9155420248_dc6c93075d_z.jpg)
The other type that are further away from the back scene have a simple crank under the base board and the wire is pulled to operate the ramp:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2880/9169083192_24407e8f71_z.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7334/9153192893_1e5c872839_z.jpg)
In both versions the operator lifts the ramp just enough to uncouple so there is no need for limit on the travel.
Brian Meldon
How did you disguise the wires? Are they mounted on top of the baseboard?
There was a demo at Rainhill NG in November by Roger Christian using Greenwich magnets.
He converted the Peco skip wagon couplings by adding a small piece of wire to the Peco couplings.
He then demostrated uncoupling each skip along a siding.
It is very easy to convert the stock.
Stan.
Quote from: danny on December 20, 2017, 16:00
How did you disguise the wires? Are they mounted on top of the baseboard?
In the station near the back scene the plastic tubes with the wires in are set in groves cut into the surface.
In the lower station the plastic tubes with the wires are under the track bed.
This layout is built on a wooden framework with a 1/4 (6mm) plywood trackbed. So it does not have a flat baseboard across the entire area, only where there is track.
Brian Meldon
Danny,
To get back to the uncoupling ramps, I have seen these implemented using transparent plastic sheet rather than ordinary styrene sheet (which needs to be painted to merge into the ballast). They can be quite effective in that thay are very un-obtrusive.
Frank
I designed and built my own servo-powered DCC controlled uncouplers for use on my layout "Die Keinnamebahn."
https://narrowgauge.retiarius.com/dcc-controlled-servo-powered-decoupling-ramp-for-009-h0e-h0m-bemorepa-couplers/ (https://narrowgauge.retiarius.com/dcc-controlled-servo-powered-decoupling-ramp-for-009-h0e-h0m-bemorepa-couplers/)
(https://narrowgauge.retiarius.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/IMG_1777-400x300.jpg)
There are 4 'hidden' uncouplers in the photo below
(https://narrowgauge.retiarius.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FF4674D7-195F-45DB-9D85-2D4980D3892D-1024x768.jpeg)
I have read through this thread and marvelled at some of the points expressed. BUT going back to the original post I must make one point that will really cause comment. Danny appears to be trying to achieve automatic uncoupling so that he can shunt individual skips for loading (and unloading?) The reality is that on real industrial systems, very little shunting per se was carried out. Wagons were usually run in rakes and only uncoupled if one developed a fault. In addition, they were usually kept coupled to a (the?) loco which simply pulled them in one direction and pushed them in the opposite direction. These principles were used because they were the most efficient in time and infrastructure, savings in each resulting in cheaper operation. I really cannot recall ever having seen a real industrial railway where wagons were shunted individually for anything. Rakes may well have been short, 2 or 3 wagons being commonplace, but those rakes remained coupled at all times. In fact whilst we railway modellers delight in complicated stock movements, shunting, swapping locos etc., the reality was that all movements were carried out as ergonomically as possible, partly for financial economy but mainly because that way staff were involved in less effort!
Rod makes a valid point, but when you consider that a 4 ft by 2 ft baseboard is the equivalent of about an acre (if my calculations are right - about 46 m x 91 m in 1:1, a fair bit under half a hectare) then for many layouts a railway* is completely redundant as goods would have been moved over the distances involved by hand.
Even a layout ten times that size, which would be a big layout, is still a smallish field.
Different people will see different things as valid targets for compromise on a layout. There appear to be accepted norms of what is "realistic" but in many cases they are still grossly different to reality.
Similar criticisms can be levelled at frequency of running, amount of stock and complexity of trackwork on many layouts. However I don't see the point in modelling a length of plain track over which trains rarely run. Nothing wrong with modelling dioramas, but they are not layouts.
Shunting layouts are a perfectly valid form of railway modelling in my eyes.
* well, one with locomotives, but I don't see walking model people pushing wagons happening anytime soon!
I don't think I would ever attempt to argue that compression in modelling is not inevitable. In fact the reverse is true. The occasional layouts that have been built EXACTLY to scale seem very strangely proportioned with much wasted space. But that is a consequence of our perceptions. In real life the human eye forshortens distances and items often appear much nearer than they actually are. And it is this look we try to reproduce in model form, influenced of course by the sheer overall lack of space we all to a degree suffer from. It is quite instructive to look at an aerial view of even a small station and see just how large it really is. Assume a (standard gauge for example) branch train is three coaches and a loco. This equates to roughly three feet in 4mm scale give or take. Yet that train in a real station would be dwarfed by the unused platform length. It is, as Roy Link once remarked, 'The art of compromise'. But I regret this has strayed very far from the original post, for which I apologise.
On the layout (a small micro) the loading hopper for the wagons is at the end of a short siding, so only one wagon can be loaded at a time. I have seen photos of similar setups in real life, so it is not without precedent. However, I agree that if possible a prototype railway would probably have had a long siding or loop to run all the wagons through in a rake. In any case, when I get a chance to do more work on the layout I will be moving on to scenic work.
Danny
Rod makes a good point with regard to prototype practice. Shunting - with the associated uncoupling and coupling - took time and labour and was an activity to be avoided whenever possible, I presume. While such activities offer scope for fun for us modellers working railways we not there to have fun! (Things may be different on preserved lines these days.) Many industrial lines existed to move mostly one commodity - timber, clay, stone or whatever - so rakes of similar wagons would have been all that was needed most of the time. When the occasional need to move something else arose extra wagons would just be hitched on as required.
Presumably on common carrier lines things were more complicated, with a variety of merchandise to move needing different types of wagons, plus passenger stock if mixed consists were run.
This has practical consequences: I'm in the process of fitting couplings to rolling stock and recently realised that I probably need to fit rather fewer than I originally envisaged.
David.
Quote from: clayliner on March 10, 2018, 21:56
Presumably on common carrier lines things were more complicated, with a variety of merchandise to move needing different types of wagons, plus passenger stock if mixed consists were run.
David.
This is a good point as well. With only one wagon type and the restrictions of the space and siding length, the shunting is going to end up being much simpler than I'd envisaged. One way to generate something more challenging is to load the three wagons in one order (with different loads - different grades of gravel) but require them to leave in a different one. For exhibition use though I will probably stick to the simpler and more realistic version. Annoyingly I have installed an uncoupling ramp where it isn't strictly needed now but it will come in useful for more complex operation.
Danny
I was at Narrow Gauge North yesterday, an excellent exhibition by the way, well done to all those involved.
There were eight 009 layouts, not all were shunting layouts by any means but I remember watching some very nice shunting operations on two of these, both being hand uncoupled. There may well have been others.
So I would say that hand uncoupling is alive and well in 009.
Frank
Quote from: clayliner on March 10, 2018, 21:56
Many industrial lines existed to move mostly one commodity - timber, clay, stone or whatever - so rakes of similar wagons would have been all that was needed most of the time. When the occasional need to move something else arose extra wagons would just be hitched on as required.
Presumably on common carrier lines things were more complicated, with a variety of merchandise to move needing different types of wagons, plus passenger stock if mixed consists were run.
Regarding this, do the same rules apply in NG to the ordering of stock in a train as with the "Big Railway" (which I can't remember) but is it something like (from the engine) passenger, milk, perishables, livestock, non-perishables, minerals? I think I'm right in saying there is a recognised order, on top of the order of mixed vacuum/non-vacuum braked stock - unless my leg was being pulled at running nights.