Uncoupling at exhibitions

[Graeme Dunbar]

Hmm. I

[cp.409067]

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

[cp.409067]

.....

Is it more

[danny]

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).

[paul ludlow]

who is this bloke Duncan? is his Macbeth layout 009? does he have auto uncoupling, or does he rely on God?

[Hobby]

As usual Blair, I fear that we must agree to differ.

Agreed, Chris!

[danny]

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

[B.Meldon]

I will try to find some photos of the ramps we use and post them on here.

Brian Meldon

[clayliner]

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.

[danny]

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.

[Graeme Dunbar]

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.

[clayliner]

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.

[Hugh Norwood]

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.

[danny]

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.

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

[cp.409067]

*

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