# Very new beginner



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Hi all,

I'm just getting started in the model train hobby and I am designing my first layout, ho scale. I am not concerned with being perfectly prototype, but I'm going to try and be as consistent as time and cost allow.

For my layout I am looking at doing an L/U type of layout, since I'll be using the end of an immense basement, I'm looking at about a 10'x12' space to use. I have kids who will like to watch the trains go with minimum input, so I'm thinking a good continuous run with some bridges and tunnels will do the trick, with a small industry and yard to add some variety.

If you are familiar with the 101 track plans book I think #45 Superior & Iron range will work well with some minor modifications. Has anyone used this layout before? This seems like the best continuous run type of layout I can get with an open U shape. Any advice on this or any similar layout would be much appreciated!

Thanks!


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

My advice would by that those books are best for ideas. Things may not line up perfectly in reality like the book states. My advice is to first get the elevations etc. in. Then lay the mainline and only place the turnouts in. Then run the electrical for this portion. Then test all of this extensively. The reason I say this is if you are doing continuous operation most of it will be on this main loop. If it is running smoothly you have the following advantages: 1. A reliable electrical system to build off of, i.e. if it starts to fail then it is probably do to a new addition. 2. Something to test new locomotives and rolling stock on as you collect it. 3. You can see progress by actually seeing it work. 4. The kids can watch the working portions while you add the additional spurs etc. 5. If you do get board of track work you now have landscaping around the main, board of that then there is buildings for around the completed working area. There is always something to do and always something that is working this way. This is how I did mine.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Thanks for the reply tkruger, I've been wondering what the best order of operations is for actually building the thing, since it will take some time to complete. I like that plan, so trains can run while work continues on the layout, the kids will be overjoyed. I figured I'd have to make some changes to this layout, since it's just an artist's rendering and not a technical drawing.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Once you select your layout you'll then want to consider
what to use to create it.

The members will have a number of suggestions for that.

Mine would be stay with ordinary Atlas or one of the other
makes of flex track. Avoid the 'fawncy' systems such as
Bachmann EZ track on a fixed road bed. Flex lets you
build your layout with your curves, not those of the track
maker. I would also recommend that you go with Peco Insulfrog
turnouts, you will have no turnout derails with them.

And since you are starting out all new, by all means go DCC.
It is the easiest to wire and the easiest to operate. You
can run 2 or 3 trains at the same time with individual control
of each. For the size layout you propose a Bachmann EZ DCC system would
be sufficient. But if you think you would want to make fine
tuning of your decoders you would want to go with an NEC or
Digitrax system. 

Don


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Hello and welcome. +1 for the suggestion that you use Peco turnouts and a a good brand of flex track.. 10 x 12 is a large space to fill. If you're starting from scratch you'll need to budget around $1000 to cover track, turnouts, DCC system, locos and stock. You'll also need lumber to construct the baseboard. People will wade in to suggest the best surface material.

Good luck.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Welcome to the asylum!

Cycleops is right: you'll need to bite of a pretty big chunk of your total expenditures just to get going, but you DON'T have to spend it all in one day.

Before you spend anything at all -- except maybe for some introductory books and layout planning software -- take the time to nail down your design and theme (what era, railroad, location, etc) you want. This will probably save you from buying things that you later decide you don't want or need.

Your kids just want to watch trains.... right now. They will grow, and eventually leave home. What will you do with the layout then? While many of us do abandon our first attempts and start over, I would advise you to think about what YOU want to do with the layout. Many people find that just watching trains go around gets boring. If you don't have sidings, passing tracks, and so forth now, leave a provision to add them later.

And I'll reinforce the advice given above. Start with good quality materials, and take the time necessary to build well. The number one reason why newcomers abandon the hobby is because their trains won't run. Better materials and care in construction help to avoid this.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Thanks for the replies and info! CT, that is what I'm thinking about now, I have enough space to add plenty of yards/ports/whatever the budget allows in the future, so my goal for now is to get a good size run built that I can add to later. It sounds like the peco turnouts are the best, and will work with the atlas flex track for the rest of the layout. Does flex track also do well for straight portions, or should it be mixed with standard piece together track for straights? 

For reference I have a bunch of the Bachman EZ track that I run on the ground for my son right now, I got a nec power cab and Walter loco to make it more fun until I can get a real layout built.


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

Flex track works well with just about any shape you want to use, including straight sections. Flex is around 3 feet long, so a yardstick can be used to ensure a truly straight piece. Have fun! :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Flex track is just about the standard for serious modellers. It's
easy to use, you bend it to match your curve design and you
cut it to fit. Be sure to order enough brass rail joiners and a 
few insulated rail joiners. The latter are used to make an isolated
section of track IF NECCESSARY. Nice to have on hand just
in case.

For cutting you'll want one or more of the following cutting devices:

A: The special Xuron Track cutting tool, similar to a wire snipper.
B. Dremel cutting wheel.
C. Fine tooth razor saw.

You'll also want a set of small files to trim up your cuts.

Another need is a 15 or so watt soldering iron, resin flux
and resin solder.

Try to keep your curves to a minimum of 22" radius, even wider
is desirable if you plan to run large steamers or long passenger
cars.

Your NCE Power Cab is a very good DCC system and will serve
your larger layout very well.


Don


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Thanks DonR, a question on turn radius. Will loco's and stock have trouble on 18" turns, or is it just a cosmetic issue? I ask because i am working on a layout idea that needs an 18" radius turn, but it is hidden in a tunnel, so you wouldn't see it while operating.


----------



## RH1 (Jan 4, 2016)

MarylandVol said:


> Thanks DonR, a question on turn radius. Will loco's and stock have trouble on 18" turns, or is it just a cosmetic issue? I ask because i am working on a layout idea that needs an 18" radius turn, but it is hidden in a tunnel, so you wouldn't see it while operating.


Possibly both. Cosmetically, larger radius curves certainly look more realistic. But the real problem is that some equipment (longer cars, locomotives, large steamers) will not run properly on smaller than 22" radius curves.

On my layout, everything I have WILL run properly on properly laid 18" radius curves, but I still went with a 20" minimum (a compromise because of the tight space I have to work with). I also am not planning on running any of the newer, longer freight cars. If you have the space, it's a good idea to stick to a 22" minimum just to be safe.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

I've looked at the suggested plan and honestly...I don't like it.It has an 18 in. radius loop that is entered/exited through an up-and-under track arrangement.Not only the curve is very tight the climb will also be very steep,thus limiting to the smallest four axle locos having a hard time climbing with a car or two,if not alone.Worse yet,there's a turntable access track under the curve about half way wich makes the climb even steeper.I don't think this layout plan has ever been built......


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

I was starting to think the same thing Jake, i have already moved on to designing my own, utilizing that plan really only for the shape of the bench work, because it will work well within my space. I plan on expanding the depth a bit where the tight curve is to allow for a 22" curve, and reducing the height of the layout by about half, since i will remove or relocate some of the track.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You've already gotten some good answers, but I'll put my spin on things a bit.

Curve radius -- bigger is always better, as long as it fits. Think of both the truck length and body length of your equipment. They don't bend, so if the chord created by either doesn't fit within the curve radius, you're out of luck. A good rule of thumb is that the bare minimum curve radius is 2.5x the length of the model, and up to 5x to avoid excessive overhang and allow coupling / uncoupling.

Joiners -- Don said brass. You should use the same metal as your track (nickel-silver, if you're smart).

Grades -- this is another area where beginners get into trouble. 5% grades are nothing for cars, but impossible for trains without special considerations. 3% is bad, 2% bearable, 1% manageable. The problem is that these gentle slopes use up tons of real estate. A 2% grade requires 50 linear inches to gain 1" of height, and that much again on the far side to come back down. Considering that you need 3" of vertical clearance (in HO), tracks crossing over can mean that you can find yourself with your entire layout used up by grades, which starts to cause problems. Also, steeper grades require an easement (a stretch of track with a shallower slope leading into and out of the main grade. These can be tricky for beginners.

Build order -- you mentioned this in an earlier post.
1) FINISH your design, or at least have a fairly smooth draft.
2) Build benchwork
3) Transfer track plan to surface. Pre drill holes for wiring and turnout motors.
4) Lay roadbed
5) Temporarily apply track, switch motors, and wiring. It's a good idea to at least mock up structures at this point, at least those that are near tracks.
6) Test everything, including clearances. Fix any kinks, s curves, dead spots, clearance problems, etc.
7) Fasten track down.
8) Finish scenery, ballasting, structures, details, vehicles, figures, etc., as time and budget allow.
9) Never, at any point in the previous 8 steps, allw this to become a chore or a race. That's one sure way to remove the fun from the hobby.

Just my $0.02. Hope it's worth something to you.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Thanks for the additional information CTValley, everyone has already been very helpful. I have what I think is a decent first draft at a layout. It has only one overpass height, so I've been able to keep all the grades under 2.5%, and it gives a pretty good continuous run, with opportunities for industry sidings and a small yard, along with expansion avenues on either end. A few key measurements, the long side is 134", the top is 107", and the bottom is 79".

I think the layout gives ample room for scenery and a town, but I have yet to place any of that. My main concern is the yard, is it sufficient and is it designed properly? 

Any thoughts you all may have would be most appreciated, thanks! Keep in mind I designed it with sectional track only so I didn't have to plot out the curves with the flex track. I will be using flex track for the whole layout, with the peco turnouts as recommended. (so call this an approximation)


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

MarylandVol said:


> Thanks for the additional information CTValley, everyone has already been very helpful. I have what I think is a decent first draft at a layout. It has only one overpass height, so I've been able to keep all the grades under 2.5%, and it gives a pretty good continuous run, with opportunities for industry sidings and a small yard, along with expansion avenues on either end. A few key measurements, the long side is 134", the top is 107", and the bottom is 79".
> 
> I think the layout gives ample room for scenery and a town, but I have yet to place any of that. My main concern is the yard, is it sufficient and is it designed properly?
> 
> Any thoughts you all may have would be most appreciated, thanks! Keep in mind I designed it with sectional track only so I didn't have to plot out the curves with the flex track. I will be using flex track for the whole layout, with the peco turnouts as recommended. (so call this an approximation)


I looked at the layout map you attached. I would have only one concern with this setup. In the lower left will you be able to reach to the far corner for maintenance or derailments? It looks like a long stretch to me if this layout is against a wall. I am mentioning this since I have made this mistake myself before.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

The bottom side of the layout is open to the room, so I will be able to reach there from the side okay.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Track Plan*



MarylandVol said:


> Thanks for the additional information CTValley, everyone has already been very helpful. I have what I think is a decent first draft at a layout. It has only one overpass height, so I've been able to keep all the grades under 2.5%, and it gives a pretty good continuous run, with opportunities for industry sidings and a small yard, along with expansion avenues on either end. A few key measurements, the long side is 134", the top is 107", and the bottom is 79".
> 
> I think the layout gives ample room for scenery and a town, but I have yet to place any of that. My main concern is the yard, is it sufficient and is it designed properly?
> 
> Any thoughts you all may have would be most appreciated, thanks! Keep in mind I designed it with sectional track only so I didn't have to plot out the curves with the flex track. I will be using flex track for the whole layout, with the peco turnouts as recommended. (so call this an approximation)


Marylandvol;

I think I see why you're concerned about the yard. It looks as though the yard tracks can(and in my opinion, should be extended. We all tend to acquire more cars pretty quickly, so more yard track capacity is usually a good thing. If you want to, you could eliminate the grade that others have advised against, Your option, of course. The track running over track gets hard to disguise, when, or if, you want to make things look more realistic. 
Such overpasses exist on real railroads, but they're unusual since the railroads don't use any grades they can avoid. The plan could use rail crossings instead of overpasses if you chose to do so. The crossings could represent an interchange with another railroad company. This opens up some interesting operation possibilities.

good luck;

Traction Fan


----------



## Chip (Feb 11, 2016)

Reach is the #1 something to remember when building the table, my limit was three feet, a good reach (for me) to fix derailments, turn switches that are manual and lean in to do scenery details. I was still able to have sections four and six feet wide as long as I could reach from both sides. Plenty of room for industries, scenery and of course, more track.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

I've made a few more adjustments, and have a new layout designed. I've made it a bit smaller, as well as restricted the design to one level.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

It haws continuous running and switching. You'll enjoy it.

You are aware that the lower left loop is a 'reverse' loop and
if you are DCC it will be an easy wire and automatic
phasing. If you are DC you'll need more complex wiring
and panel operation for continuous running.

Don


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Looking Good!*



MarylandVol said:


> I've made a few more adjustments, and have a new layout designed. I've made it a bit smaller, as well as restricted the design to one level.


 MarylandVol;

Your latest plan looks pretty darn good to me! Nice work.:thumbsup:

Things you may want to consider, while it's still in the drawing stage. In a few places it look like the track comes very close to the table's edge. That may be an illusion since the scale of the drawing may make it look that way, when in fact there is more room. If track, especially curved track, is within an inch or two of the edge, you may want to put some sort of safety "train stopper" along that edge to prevent a disastrous trip to the floor. Slightly elevated scenery, or a clear plastic wall would work.
This track plan, like many others, has trains quite obviously going back and forth as they circle. This is simply a matter of your opinion as to weather that will look OK, or unrealistic to you. Different modelers have different views on what has been called " an honest scene", where the train can only be seen traveling through the scene once, in one direction. 
To have continuous running we have to loop the track back on itself. We don't need to show it doing so, though. If you wanted to you could try to get a bit more space between some of the main line's tracks. This would allow hills, structures, or a backdrop to conceal the "other track" where the train goes right back where it just came from. Again it depends on you. Yours is the only opinion that maters. If you like it as is, go for it. If not, see what changes you can do.

Good luck with whatever you decide;

Traction Fan


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Hi all, I am designing my bench work now and I have a question on style. My layout will go in the corner of the room and is not anticipated to move (though you never know). Is it better to mount the wall sides of the layout directly to the wall, or build a true table with legs in the rear as well?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

My room size layout is against 3 walls of the room, but the modules
that support it are free standing. If your benchwork is well done
the layout should be quite stable without attachment to the walls. Mine is. 

Don


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

You just never know when you might NEED to get to the back side of your layout. I built mine on casters, knowing I would need access back there. I'd suggest you build not attached to the wall, just giving yourself that possibility of future unplanned-for access.


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

I did not attach mine to the wall, it is free standing. I have had a few different layouts in my current house. The latest is on the opposite side of the room. I do not want to damage the paneling if I move it to a different part of the house for some reason.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

It isn't a question of "better" or "style", but personal preference.

Primarily, attaching your layout to the wall means that you have more space underneath it, and fewer things (legs and braces) to distract the eye from the layout. It also removes legs which can be kicked by operators, potentially jarring the layout and damaging it. It works best with narrower layouts. It usually requires less material and may be cheaper.

Using legs at all four sides provides more stability (if built right), and, as the others have said, allows it to be moved away from the walls if necessary. It is also much easier to level a layout that has legs on all sides and is not attached to the walls. For me, free standing is the right answer.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Thanks for the replies, my own analysis has led me to agree that free standing is best.

I will build my bench out of 6 independent boxes (well 4 boxes and 2 trapezoids) which will bolt together, the two trapezoids will be suspended between leg-supported boxes. My plan is to use 3/4" plywood ripped to 1x3 sections for the boxes, as well as 1x3 and 1x2 sections joined in an L shape for the legs, the legs will be braced with cross members joined by a plywood top used as storage shelves. The bench itself will be topped with 3/8" plywood (same for the shelves underneath) and 2" of foam.. The whole thing will be joined with glue and 2" wood screws, with 1/4" carriage bolts for the connecting sections. Legs will also be joined with carriage bolts for portability/packability. This design will allow me to both move the layout if needed, and add sections later if desired. I plan to buy my supplies this weekend and have the bench done within the week!

If you are curious, the bench will be built with: 

3 sheets 3/8" ply
2 sheets 3/4" ply
1 8' 2x2
16 leveling feet
42 1/4" carriage bolts with washers and wing nuts
~200 wood screws
1 tube liquid nails
2 full sheets 2" foam (or 4 half sheets)

I'll post some pics once I have it completed.


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

Just a heads up when buying you lumber. Some places will have plywood priced differently if there are two good sides, one good side or none. If you are not using it for the finished surface save the cash and get the stuff with fewer good sides. (good sides means no knots, marks etc). Also look for the bin where they place damaged and mis-cut wood. I know Loews does not do the but Home Depot does. Anything in that bin is under a $2, most less than a $1. I built most all of my bench work from the cheap bin or scrap I found. All the saved money just went into other areas of the layout. 

If all you have in your area are big box hardware stores like Home Depot see if you can find a Tractor Supply or other farm store around. They still sell bolts and other hardware by the pound. Far cheaper than paying by the bolt.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Hi guys, got another question for the experts! I am still pondering different track ideas and creating variations on my main layout plan. In regards to actual track, if i know i want an entire curve to be 22" radius, is it still better to use the flex track, or is it better to just buy the proper curved pieces for that curve?


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Flex track every time. Not only will you cut down on the number of joiners which can impair electrical integrity but it'll be cheaper too!


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

If you do not have 22" radius tracks, get flex track instead. They are cheaper in long run. Like others said, less chance of electric connections being a problematic. Also, they will look much prettier.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Well I am slightly behind schedule, but I've got the boxes constructed, and today I plan to get the legs built. Top is also cut as well.


----------



## HOMatt (Feb 14, 2016)

You're not in Australia are you?

Just kidding, the pic is upside down.

I'm running into a problem with the base, some of the joists are right where an under table switch needs to go. Make sure you don't have that issue. If you're not going with the under mount switch, it's not an issue for you.
Matt


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

OMG! Your world is turned upside down! 

I would ditch the schedule. This is supposed to be fun, and imposing a schedule on yourself adds stress, which reduces fun.

This took longer than you thought, or had hoped, perhaps? Looks like a good, solid job to me. Done right is much better than done fast.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

HOMatt said:


> I'm running into a problem with the base, some of the joists are right where an under table switch needs to go. Make sure you don't have that issue. If you're not going with the under mount switch, it's not an issue for you.
> Matt


That's almost impossible to avoid, and trying to can really screw up your track plan. If you can cut a notch in your joist without compromising strength too much, that is one solution. Another is to rig an offset crank using hardened steel wire (music wire) or brass rod.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Sorry about that, not sure how I got turned upside down! No worries though, I've straightened the garage out without anything falling out of place

Here are a few more construction pics, we had some last minute changes submitted by my son!


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> OMG! Your world is turned upside down!
> 
> I would ditch the schedule. This is supposed to be fun, and imposing a schedule on yourself adds stress, which reduces fun.
> 
> This took longer than you thought, or had hoped, perhaps? Looks like a good, solid job to me. Done right is much better than done fast.


Well really my only schedule is: I wanna get this done ASAP so I can start building my layout! Though I do enjoy building as well, no worries, as long as I am working with my hands I'm having fun!


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Another question for the group as well, what size holes do you drill through your cross members for wiring to run?


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

MarylandVol said:


> Another question for the group as well, what size holes do you drill through your cross members for wiring to run?


This is not a standard, it is just how I have done it. I always drill as close to the center (top to bottom) as possible with the smallest hole possible. This is to maintain as much strength in the piece of wood as possible. I used 2x4s so mine is over built but this is how I was taught to run wires as a kid so I apply it to everything.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

tkruger said:


> This is not a standard, it is just how I have done it. I always drill as close to the center (top to bottom) as possible with the smallest hole possible. This is to maintain as much strength in the piece of wood as possible. I used 2x4s so mine is over built but this is how I was taught to run wires as a kid so I apply it to everything.


That's how I do it as well. There are a million other ways, to be sure, but if it ain't broke (for me), I'm not fixin' it.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

The Benchwork is almost complete! I have one more piece to wood to cut for the shelf on the end piece, and it will go in tomorrow.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Got another question for the group. For operations with sidings and rail yards, are there 'rules' for how trains are supposed to behave? For instance, if I have an industry on a siding that I want to serve I am assuming I have two choices: 1, I can back the train in and leave cars there to be emptied/filled and return later to pick them up, or 2, I can pull the train in, have the cars emptied/filled, and keep the loco on site while this takes place?

I'm just curious as to how those actions are usually played out, any resource that describes how these processes work would be very beneficial, thanks!


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

The normal operating procedure for a train is to
drop the car at an industry per manifest, pick up
any empties as directed, then continue on. The
train crew is not expected to sit around while
the car is being loaded or off loaded. That could
take much of a day.

I don't know if there is an exception to this in the
case of unit coal trains with semi=automatic unloading
facilities. The coal mine or the power plant could
have their own locomotives to handle this.

Don


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

A grain elevator by where my brother lives has two locomotives of their own, a pair of GP9m. Generally a group of cars are left on one spur for the elevator to process. and the train takes a different set when it leaves. The locomotives at the elevator will both pull and push cars into the locations they are needed. All depends on space. One side they seem to pull the cars and leave the locomotive hooked up, the other side of the yard they switch the locomotive from one to another.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

MarylandVol said:


> Got another question for the group. For operations with sidings and rail yards, are there 'rules' for how trains are supposed to behave? For instance, if I have an industry on a siding that I want to serve I am assuming I have two choices: 1, I can back the train in and leave cars there to be emptied/filled and return later to pick them up, or 2, I can pull the train in, have the cars emptied/filled, and keep the loco on site while this takes place?
> 
> I'm just curious as to how those actions are usually played out, any resource that describes how these processes work would be very beneficial, thanks!


I know you're looking for prototype information, but just remember Rule #1: Your Layout, Your Rules.

That said, it is rare for prototypical roads to have the road loco wait cars to be filled. Even with flood loaders and dumping arrangements, loading or unloading any significant number of cars takes a lot of time, during which the loco can be off doing other work (dropping other cars, to be picked up on the return trip, for instance).

Some facilities have dedicated switchers to move cars, others have mechanical arrangements, or even roller coaster type chains, hills, and retarders.


----------



## MarylandVol (Feb 5, 2016)

Thanks for the replies guys.

CTValleyRR, yea I am just doing some more fiddling with my layout design, and I was curious about how best to position my industry spurs. No doubt I will be taking quite a few liberties with typical prototype operation!

I do have another related question too, how do you decouple cars from a train without reaching in and pulling them apart yourself?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

If you use knuckle couplers on your cars, such as
Kadee, you have several methods of uncoupling.

First, in yard tracks and spurs, you install a magnet
under the track at a point near the beginning of the spur.
When you back the train in slowly, the magnet will 
cause the metal 'hoses' to swing wide, opening the
knuckles. Kadee offers these but many of us now are
using the new super power rare earth magnets. You
must install a small 'square' of steel under them for
added power.

Second, in main lines, you can buy an electromagnet
uncoupler from Kadee. It also mounts under the
track and is electrically remote controlled. The cars
will uncouple at that point ONLY when you push the
button. Some others have devised a pulley or lever
system to raise a magnet to the track so it can be
used to uncouple on main lines.

Third. Hand of God (HOG). This is a wood or plastic
stick (skewers work fine) with one end filed flat and
narrow enough to jab into the coupler knuckles. With
a twist, they open (sometimes).

Fourth. Hand of God, again, but with a device that
has magnets on a fork with which you surround the coupling
and the hoses open the knuckles.

There is a 'trick' you will want to use. Most of the time
the uncoupler is NOT where you want the car. You take
advantage of what Kadee calls 'delayed' uncoupling.
Actually, when the 'hoses' are swung wide, you push
the cars together and they can't couple. You proceed,
then to push the car to the spot you want, and pull
the train away, leaving the car.

Kadee couplers are as good as you can get. Even so,
there are times you'll have to resort to one of
the HOG methods even over a magnet.

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

MarylandVol said:


> Thanks for the replies guys.
> 
> CTValleyRR, yea I am just doing some more fiddling with my layout design, and I was curious about how best to position my industry spurs. No doubt I will be taking quite a few liberties with typical prototype operation!
> 
> I do have another related question too, how do you decouple cars from a train without reaching in and pulling them apart yourself?


Don covered the subject pretty well, as usual. I have tried all the methods he talks about. 1 and 2 got really fiddly for me, and things never worked right, so I went back to 3 and 4. I do have 3 Rix uncouplers for method 4, but I find that it's still kind of fiddly, and if the cars are on a curve, it's sometimes real hard to get the device down to the couplers without accidentally derailing something.

So I'm back to method 3. I made some nice ones by cutting bamboo skewers in half, and mounting them on a 3" length of 3/8" dowel. I have half a dozen, and they are my tool of choice for uncoupling. Sometimes, the low tech method is the right one.


----------



## brob2k1 (Dec 7, 2015)

DonR said:


> If you use knuckle couplers on your cars, such as
> Kadee, you have several methods of uncoupling.
> 
> First, in yard tracks and spurs, you install a magnet
> ...


Great info. Considering I have one locomotive and no cars yet I was wondering the same thing a few weeks ago. This was probably the best write up I've read on the subject covering everything.


----------

