Uncoupling at exhibitions

[B.Meldon]

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:





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:





In both versions the operator lifts the ramp just enough to uncouple so there is no need for limit on the travel.

Brian Meldon

[danny]

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:





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:





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?

[Stan Williams]

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.

[B.Meldon]

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

[Frank]

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

[Retiarius]

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/



There are 4 'hidden' uncouplers in the photo below

[rod335]

 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!

[Graeme Dunbar]

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!

[rod335]

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.

[danny]

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

[clayliner]

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.

[danny]

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

[Frank]

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

[Graeme Dunbar]

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.