FasTrack Timesaver

Here is my current configuration.

Was that supposed to say image not found? lol

Edit: Actually now that I look this is happening on other images across the forum.

Sounds like a cool idea. The automation feature and LCS integration are something I would like to see. If you can get it working, you should post a video of the layout in operation, as well as discussing how you made everything work.

@Tracker John posted:

Here is my current configuration.

So @Tracker John, laid out in SCARM, it's basically this: right? sensor tracks in red.

Were your adjustments (like more WYEs and some extra 10 inch straights) basically about making it easier to couple up to the O-Gauge claw couplers?

Ryan, your SCARM diagram mirrors my AnyRail diagram.  My central module is 75" long and has all of the wired/cabled components.  I have module extensions on each end of the central module and Fastrack 30" sections extend the leads beyond the Sensor Tracks.  I'm fabricating bumpers that can be attached to Fastrack at positions that adapt to John Allen's rules on siding length so I don't have fuss with managing Fastrack sections for lead length.

I don't have uncoupling tracks and I use mostly single car movements.  Coupling with my SW7 switcher requires both the engine and the car be both be on the same straight section.  I'm adding weight (mass) to the cars hoping to lower the speed (currently "slow", or 20 mph) the engine has to attain to close the claw.  I'll experiment with lube in the electrocouplers to hopefully make the claw easier to close.

In contrast to an HO Time Saver layout that uses track uncoupler devices and a FWD/REV toggle to manage movement, a Legacy/LCS layout has engine momentum and electrocouplers.  Uncoupling requires the engine be moving away from the car while the electorcoupler is fired.  Coupling requires a minimum speed.  These factors require adjustment of lead length beyond a simple measurement of car length x number of cars on the lead.  I can't be too rigorous on lead length - hence the adjustable bumpers to come.

@Tracker John posted:

Ryan, your SCARM diagram mirrors my AnyRail diagram.  My central module is 75" long and has all of the wired/cabled components.  I have module extensions on each end of the central module and Fastrack 30" sections extend the leads beyond the Sensor Tracks.  I'm fabricating bumpers that can be attached to Fastrack at positions that adapt to John Allen's rules on siding length so I don't have fuss with managing Fastrack sections for lead length.

I don't have uncoupling tracks and I use mostly single car movements.  Coupling with my SW7 switcher requires both the engine and the car be both be on the same straight section.  I'm adding weight (mass) to the cars hoping to lower the speed (currently "slow", or 20 mph) the engine has to attain to close the claw.  I'll experiment with lube in the electrocouplers to hopefully make the claw easier to close.

In contrast to an HO Time Saver layout that uses track uncoupler devices and a FWD/REV toggle to manage movement, a Legacy/LCS layout has engine momentum and electrocouplers.  Uncoupling requires the engine be moving away from the car while the electorcoupler is fired.  Coupling requires a minimum speed.  These factors require adjustment of lead length beyond a simple measurement of car length x number of cars on the lead.  I can't be too rigorous on lead length - hence the adjustable bumpers to come.

Thank you for the clarification, that's really awesome. I also was just recently working on doing the same thing involving weights, a picked up a box car up at a train show that actually had car tire balancing weights glued to the floor inside. Makes sense that doing all this would be a bit trickier in o scale with our coupler designs. I wonder if a dry lube would be a good fit for those coupler latches. It always bugged me with the speed you had to ram cars at to do a coupleing otherwise.

I can't wait see what you come up with in terms of those adjustable bumpers. Definitely sounds like more than just simple quality of life for making that puzzle playable.

20 mph, wow!!  I love your concept, but it's been my experience that O gauge coupler are hopeless.  Surprisingly, postwar cars work better than most, some earlier MPC are ok too.  Mixing different vintages and manufacturers makes the coupling problem worse.

Here's a relevant thread with photos/video by @geysergazer.  He installed a lever to control brass tubing that can be discreetly poked up through the layout surface in the track gauge.  The tube blocks the car axle so that it doesn't roll away when attempting to couple up to  it:

https://ogrforum.com/topic/90547142151364666

I love the idea of automation for layout control.  But when it comes to coupling, my expectations are nil.  I'll stick to the "hand of God," aka the ol' 0-5-0.

@Ted S posted:

20 mph, wow!!  I love your concept, but it's been my experience that O gauge coupler are hopeless.  Surprisingly, postwar cars work better than most, some earlier MPC are ok too.  Mixing different vintages and manufacturers makes the coupling problem worse.

Here's a relevant thread with photos/video by @geysergazer.  He installed a lever to control brass tubing that can be discreetly poked up through the layout surface in the track gauge.  The tube blocks the car axle so that it doesn't roll away when attempting to couple up to  it:

https://ogrforum.com/topic/90547142151364666

I love the idea of automation for layout control.  But when it comes to coupling, my expectations are nil.  I'll stick to the "hand of God," aka the ol' 0-5-0.

Wow I was about to do something very similar except I was thinking I would need to use a hook shape attached to the end of a servo piping out of a slot in the track to catch the axle but I was worried that different truck designs might give it a harder time. I figured if I can catch the first axel behind the coupler it would be much less likely to try and twist into derailing if hit with too much force. Probably just over reacting.-

I also had an idea for a solenoid that can push against the wheel flange in a special break car or caboose, ideally it would have at least an r2lc TMCC decoder on board to run things but I could technically make it work off another wireless receiver like my diy LionChief receiver. (Set the remote to reverse for break.) Neutral for no breaks. The solenoid would have a spring and a rubber tip to help push it against the backside of the wheel for breaking. In my initial testing a locked axel without extra weight in the car can't do too much to stop it. With weight it actually works pretty well. For the test all I did was jam the axel and add weight to see how it did. Still have to see if I can get a solenoid to lock an axel on it's own.

At least four times since 2015, I've posted the idea of a working remote-control brake on an observation car or caboose.

Ted's posts about a working train brake

The CAB-2 (R.I.P. ) has a train brake slider.  Why not make it actually do something?  If it weren't for the &*%&# rubber tires, you could apply the brake and come to a stop stretching the slack until you get a little wheelspin!  I suggested the design could be a solenoid that pulls up to spread a pantograph with the sides rubbing on the wheels.  We're thinking alike here.

I like geysergazer's solution because it's simple.  From an implementation standpoint, I'm afraid it won't be practical or cost-effective to retrofit large numbers of cars with working brakes.  Or body-mounted Kadee couplers such as the 3-rail scalers use.  Those might work on your O72 timesaver, but definitely not an option for sharp toy train curves.

@Ted S posted:

At least four times since 2015, I've posted the idea of a working remote-control brake on an observation car or caboose.

Ted's posts about a working train brake

The CAB-2 (R.I.P. ) has a train brake slider.  Why not make it actually do something?  If it weren't for the &*%&# rubber tires, you could apply the brake and come to a stop stretching the slack until you get a little wheelspin!  I suggested the design could be a solenoid that pulls up to spread a pantograph with the sides rubbing on the wheels.  We're thinking alike here.

I like geysergazer's solution because it's simple.  From an implementation standpoint, I'm afraid it won't be practical or cost-effective to retrofit large numbers of cars with working brakes.  Or body-mounted Kadee couplers such as the 3-rail scalers use.  Those might work on your O72 timesaver, but definitely not an option for sharp toy train curves.

I smell a new thread topic coming soon. Caboose with DIY Working Break.

At least they are using that train break slider to do cool things like activate wheel slip on the triplex, and it triggers the sound effect of wheel slip on the big boy. Also, good news is that even the CAB3 App has a train brake slider on it.

And something like that pantogaph idea is certainly more complicated to implement, but maybe it could be done well with nothing but laser cut parts I am envisioning something like a car scissor jack design, the advantage to this scissor/pantograph idea is that you could theoretically get both axles on the same truck at once. Clearance might be an issue, though, since I just remembered that the bulk of the break will have to exist on the truck to account for the rotation independent of the chassis. Maybe a model air plain push rod cable could do the trick for us here. Heck, with a push cable driven by a servo, you can get both the front and rear trucks at once. Maybe we just pull an actual rubber brake shoe with that cable. I think we just invented the train break, lol. A 9 gram servo as the actuator and we got something here.

Here is my version

Cool plan and discussion. I have a plan for a small switching Timesaver layout that fits on an old door I took out of the house. It's designed with fastrack but I may use something else if I build it.

Running the SCARM simulator I can fit 1-2 cars on each siding and the run around in the middle works. The top left spur would be the lead track. I may add an extension off the door to extend that track.
Power would be a SW-1 or similar. I have a few MTH models with PS2. As Ted mentioned, the 5-finger switcher would need to be employed as well.
I have added weight to cars with tire weights and it does help with coupling and wheel tracking.

Bob