looking for digital couplers

ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.


I think Tony's Train Exchange was offering four axle switchers with this conversion way back before MTH. At least there will be no lawsuit :eek::D

Check their website and see if they still offer this. It will probably cost you a bit. I also remember seeing this done with memory wire in MR or RMC sometime back in a "how to" article

I'm pretty sure that was in MR. I think the author did it as an experiment, didn't seriously try to convert any of his rolling stock.
 
thanks willis i would have to ship a few to you for wishing me luck. lol.
i do like the infrared design but it has two three flaws,
1: it has a high risk of uncoupleing other cars at the same time do to inacuracy plus it cant see through buildings and other trains.
2: if it does uncouple multiple cars and they were on an incline you can say good by to the others.
3: i just thought of another idea that uses pre made wireless modules that so far has the price per car at 30 dollars plus the time it takes to install it. but then i am limited by frequencies (scratch the idea of radio frequencies)
oh yeah the original 3rd reason was you have to find a place to conceal the receiver and have it still pick up the signal.

does anyone have an idea on how to make these problems work if so i think i can build it for about 15 bucks per car
 
also to do it with simple point and click methods i would only have it uncouple one coupler per car which means that your cars would have to be lined up right or you have to put two units in. idk i think IR could work i will have to do a little bit of research
 


Radio frequencies themselves would not be a limiting problem. Any frequency can be activated by the use of one of 50 CTCSS or 112 DCS tones. Thus, you'd have 162 unique addresses for one radio frequency. With many low lower and unlicensed frequncies available, you could easily have thousands of unique id's based on frequency and tone.

What you've just done is made a system that could be used with DC or DCC, since the receiver could pick up track power from either system. For DC systems, there is normally no voltage at the track when the train's stopped or nearly stopped. With DCC, it wouldn't matter, since the voltage is constant. So, for DC, you'd have to provide a battery system. Next, you need a receiver small enough and cheap enough to beat the price of a DCC decoder. A simple receiver with a dual IF stage and tone decode circutry, but no expensive items like speakers or keypads, could probably be be built for $3-$4 if mass produced in China. A tiny watch battery could provide the power needed, since the duty cycle would be something like 99% receive and 1% triggered. This does away with the need for track power pickup in DCC as well, which would be more expensive than using a battery.

You still have to solve the problem of what the receiver does when it's triggered. You'll need some sort of mechanical linkage to the coupler to make it open and close. An electomagnetic system might have some possibilities, since the couplers already work with electromagnets, but that's going to require some serious power. However, coming up with a way for your system to work with existing couplers is the only viable alternative. If you could get the price down to something like $10 a car, people might be willing to buy some, but they won't want to replace all their couplers on top of it.

I'll leave the details of that to you, since you have experience in robotics. Don't dismiss radio frequencies, however, since they may be be the best answer for a really universal automatic uncoupling system.
 
ok wow know electro mechanical but i dont know the electronics portion the greatest it would take me a year to build such a device initially till i did all the research. but the coupler problem i was thinking of memory wire attached to the coupler. how it is attached is up to the installer. dont get me wrong i really want to go back to school for electrical engineering but i am actually a slow learner in electronics. to be honest it took me years to learn what i know now and i had to figure it out on my own all the first level students in my robotics class knew more then i did at the first level stuff. where i excelled was in pnuematics, programmable logic controllers, and industrial motor controls
 
i personally only know one guy capable of designing complex circuits

As in what kind of complex circuits?

For radio packages, a lot of the work has been done. You can buy a two pack of Family Radio Service radios for about $12. They have 8 frequencies that can be used without a license and about 150 tone codes per frequenciy. That's over 1,000 unique address. Your job would be to tear a few apart and find out eactly how much of the guts you need so that the reciever, which is always on, also retains a transmitter that's capable of triggering the coupler. These radios operate at about 463 MHz and would only require an antenna about one inch long at such close distances as would usually b found on a layout. The antenna could be mounted inside a plastic car without degrading performance. For proof of concept, a couple of cheap FRS radios should give you the receiving and transmitting capabilities. Think of them as PLC's that operate off radio signals instead of direct input. How would you make a robot move by sending him radio signals? That's what you're trying to do with couplers.

If electonics is not your strong point, then you need to get a partner who does understand such things. No matter how good a mechanical system you come up with for remote control couplers, it won't do you any good unless you can find a cheap way to trigger the action.
 
Jamie - Keep looking at the world from what you want to do instead of what can be done, and you'll
do OK. The more elder (Not elderly!) members of this forum (and I'm surly one of them to you at 54)
tend to look from what is possible. Only thing is, that changes, and rapidly. Automated uncoupling
doesn't sound impossible to my untrained eye but certainly not a drop in Kaddee replacement, today.
I think when we really start mating up our PCs with our layouts your going to see a lot of automation
and cheaper than the stuff available now. At least that's what I think. If you think you have a circuit
that can do it, build a prototype, don't worry about the size. Test it out. Then pursue having it
burned into a chip and sell it. I'm sure a few of us would be in line to buy some. Well, good luck in
your quest, keep us posted.
 
The only thing I can add to this is for the prototype modelers that want to operate thier model railroads like the real thing. Why would you want an automatic coupler when the real thing isnt operated remotely? Not really looking for a response here so need to respond and answer this question. Its just that part of operating trains is manually disconnecting the cars.
 
ok chris i have a reason for you. my layout will be consisting of a yard undernieth the bench and geting hands in the to uncouple what you cant see wont work very well. my layout will have excellent sensorsory in the yard to determan everything but my hands fitting in there is not gonna happen.

yeah i can do stuff with the robot cause i am not worried about a size constraint. and thanks for the ideas guys i will have to look into that and i will definatly keep you guys posted when i get my work space cleaned up and start experimenting.
 


That memory wire stuff is seductive looking, but beware: to move, it has to be heated, usually by passing a current through it, and the amount of current needed is large. It's not going to work off a tiny battery. With track power available, it's possible, assuming you get good contact with the wheels.

I'd look at miniature motors to drive the output, maybe by rotating a screw and pulling the mechanism via a traveling nut:
http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G16777

That's a motor made for a vibrating pager, and you'd have to get the weight off the shaft. I don't know how easy that would be.

There are cheap little radio links made for garage door openers etc, which have coded outputs:
http://www.reindeersystems.com/receiver-module.html

I just found the websites via a quick search and I've never dealt with those people or tried the products.
 
ok chris i have a reason for you. my layout will be consisting of a yard undernieth the bench and geting hands in the to uncouple what you cant see wont work very well. my layout will have excellent sensorsory in the yard to determan everything but my hands fitting in there is not gonna happen.

yeah i can do stuff with the robot cause i am not worried about a size constraint. and thanks for the ideas guys i will have to look into that and i will definatly keep you guys posted when i get my work space cleaned up and start experimenting.

I had a feeling someone would come back with the. "I cant reach the cars in that spot very well so remote couplers would be perfect" response. While I get what your saying. This goes right down to one of the golden rules when designing a layout in the first place, accessibility. What happens if cars derail on this spot of which is difficult to reach? How do you reach them back there? My point is, and im not trying to get on yours or anyones case here because honestly, I think its a neat idea. That if one is need a coupler like this because they have an access problem on thier layout. Then I would say that the real problem is the access and not the need for a remote coupler in the first place.

After all is said and done. If one really needs a remote way to uncouple cars, the best way is to just install uncoupling magnets. They have worked for those that are fans of them for years.
 
The only thing I can add to this is for the prototype modelers that want to operate thier model railroads like the real thing. Why would you want an automatic coupler when the real thing isnt operated remotely? Not really looking for a response here so need to respond and answer this question. Its just that part of operating trains is manually disconnecting the cars.

Then all prototype modelers should chop off any coupler wire since it's not prototypical then. But the point is it's there for easier coupling/uncoupling, so why wouldn't an electronic controlled coupler system be any different?

You have to face it, no matter how much you put in a model railroad you will never make it to spec of prototype.
 
Then all prototype modelers should chop off any coupler wire since it's not prototypical then. But the point is it's there for easier coupling/uncoupling, so why wouldn't an electronic controlled coupler system be any different?

You have to face it, no matter how much you put in a model railroad you will never make it to spec of prototype.

Obviously these are models and not like the real thing. Were not all like Warren whats-his-face that could play with real trains. However. Tell that to guys like Tony Keoster and Allen McClelland. Which IMO, are just 2 of the guys that have done a pretty danged good job of turning a model railroad into as close to the real thing as you could get.

I know the reason why its there but thanks though. The difference here is the electronics, linkages going to the couplers, trying to get all those freight cars to each have its own address. Not to mention the cost involved to outfit each car and locomotive.

The only way this would feasibly work is by couplers that worked as 100% magnets. It would be much easier to have a magnetic connection you could control then some sort of coupler that had rods attached to release it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ok chris i have a reason for you. my layout will be consisting of a yard undernieth the bench and geting hands in the to uncouple what you cant see wont work very well.

I had a feeling someone would come back with the. "I cant reach the cars in that spot very well so remote couplers would be perfect" response. While I get what your saying. This goes right down to one of the golden rules when designing a layout in the first place, accessibility. What happens if cars derail on this spot of which is difficult to reach? How do you reach them back there? ...

I have followed this thread since it came up and here I have to agree with Chris, 100%. I haven't commented since the start because I have basically zero knowledge on the electronic stuff that has been discussed. But I do know layout design.

If you have an area in your design that is inaccessible, and that will be a "focal point", then the design of the layout needs to be changed.

Having a staging yard that is "hidden" is one thing, but having what sounds like the main yard "hidden" is just poor planning. Change the design. If not, you'll find yourself with 100X more headaches than figuring out how to build a cheap, reliable, remote auto coupler will ever give you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
it will not be my main yard it will be a storage yard. for extra trains also if any friends bring trains over thats where theres will be put until they come over
 
How do you plan to put cars on tracks you can't see or reach? If it's just a temporary yard, why not just build a fiddle yard you can atttach to the layout when it's needed? The remote uncoupling is an interesting project to work on, but not to solve your current problem.
 


Oh, OK, well, then good luck. You're still going to have to back cars and engines down tracks you cant see and hope nothing derails. In my experience, the less chance you have of seeing a problem, the more likey it is that it will occur. You'll find all this out if you choose to ignore our advice and go ahead with your plans.
 




Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)

Back
Top