Is it possible to put remote couplers on cars like they have on the engines that work from your hand held tmcc controller ? i was wondering about this but haven't seen anybody talk about it. I would like to able to move cars around on my sidings and be able to uncouple them where ever they are regardless of whether or not there is an uncoupling section of track there.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
You can, but you'd quickly run out of ID's if you have a lot of cars. They'd each need an ID just like the locomotives do. This is why no one does it/talks about it.
keeping track (no pun intended) of the ID's would be a mess, too.
One way would be to just equip a handful of cars with electrocouplers. Also, you can use the MiniCommander ASC to energize the couplers and use accessory addresses. Just sprinkle a few of these around your fleet on selected cars.
That's where I got my answer Bill! 
I ordered a few of these, I'm going to do a couple of cars.
Thanks gunrunnerjohn , I really like your idea. I am going to try purse this real hard. I enjoy trying to move a few cars from from switch to another . thanks again.
Lionel has issued command cabooses that had railsounds/ remote couplers as well as command aquarium cars that also have command control couplers.
While not command controlled yet, wouldn't old postwar coil couplers be good candidates too?
Kadee makes a remote coupler in G Scale. Basically use RC technology with servos. Read somewhere that G scale Kadee's will mate with 3 rail. Not sure though. You would have to body mount these and they are costly to add to a fleet of cars. Certainly enough room in an O Scale car to hide everything. If you were interested you could just purchase their standard G coupler and see they how the mount and work with what you have.
Lionel has released a number of cars with command couplers, another is the Vision Line Cattle Car, and the new PFE Reefer set that should be arriving later this year.
You can drive the PW coil couplers with a MiniCommander, so those are a candidate.
Adriatic - I was going to do a tender truck this way (I had a couple of nice early PW
coil-couler trucks around, and thought that it would be an interesting project; the shoe would have to be siliconed up out of the way), but I backed off when I traced the simple circuit: one side of it is, of course, the running rail, which would have 18V AC on it, and insulating the coil (this side) from track power is essentially impossible, as the coil is actually mounted on the Common side truck frame/axles for electrical continuity as originally designed, and you certainly do not want to get your TMCC board DC (I guess...) coupler output involved with AC track power.
Too bad, as these old electrocoupler trucks are really going to waste out there, and some of us Hi-Railers aren't afraid of the Old Bones showing through. If anyone ever figures out a
way to use these with TMCC (or shows me that I'm wrong - and I'd like to be) they should
do a short article for OGR.
The TMCC board uses a common ground, so you just need to rip off the shoe and wire that isolated wire to the coupler circuit on the chosen TMCC board.
gunrunner - OK, maybe I'll look into it again. I was being very cautious. Next semi-scale tender project may get another shot at it.
I measure the DC resistance of the PW coil coupler at 5.7 ohms, and a modern Lionel EC at 6.55 ohms. The AC current at 11 volts was 1.55 amps for the PW coupler vs 1.35 for the modern coupler.
It certainly seems close enough to use without issues. I have seen this done, and I tested it once, but I haven't actually gotten to use the feature. I don't know of any reason it wouldn't work.
Note that the MTH couplers are much lower in resistance and will NOT work with standard TMCC equipment, they require a much lower voltage at higher current.
I have a number of cars with coil couplers, and I am careful to preserve them with the hope of adding control to them. I don't know how many I have, but it could be as many as 20.
Dave,
On this upgrade you can see I used only one wire for the coupler. I forgot why we only used the rear coupler.
Bill
Could you have a modern coil coupler on one end of two different cars. Have a ERR dummy controler in both cars. Hook one cars coupler to front coupler pins on one dummy unit and the second cars coupler too the rear coupler pins on the second cars dummy unit and have both dummy units ID'd with the same number.
---UP boxcar coupler opens by using engine ID # 33 front
---SP boxcar coupler opens by using engine ID # 33 rear
Just thinking out of the boxcar
Could you have a modern coil coupler on one end of two different cars. Have a ERR dummy controler in both cars. Hook one cars coupler to front coupler pins on one dummy unit and the second cars coupler too the rear coupler pins on the second cars dummy unit and have both dummy units ID'd with the same number.
---UP boxcar coupler opens by using engine ID # 33 front
---SP boxcar coupler opens by using engine ID # 33 rear
Just thinking out of the boxcar
Nice use of available addresses.
Could you have a modern coil coupler on one end of two different cars. Have a ERR dummy controler in both cars. Hook one cars coupler to front coupler pins on one dummy unit and the second cars coupler too the rear coupler pins on the second cars dummy unit and have both dummy units ID'd with the same number.
---UP boxcar coupler opens by using engine ID # 33 front
---SP boxcar coupler opens by using engine ID # 33 rear
Just thinking out of the boxcar
That would work. When I done the caboose I switched coupler leads. The front coupler on the caboose is connected to the rear coupler spot on the board. I then program the caboose and engine as a train. Train can then drop off caboose and continue in the yard. Nothing special just a little different. You still can address the caboose with its engine number.
Bill
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
