lionel megatraction

Bill, you need the right type of bushing too, they are of a different metal.

Isolated trigger rail circuits would be provided the "missing" ground path to the rail through wheel. Ie, I think it's magnetic force is active anyhow and both rails are attracted, but I haven't tested or read up lately.

I've had some incredibly strong magne-traction. I'd like to see it with a traction tire too, lol. I bet they tried and it made flat spots on the tires when they sat around on track, rotf.

Testing 9 Types of Track Article

One good source of information on Magne-Traction and types and brands of O gauge track is the October 2004 Classic Toy Trains magazine.  An article on pages 66 to 71 titled "Testing 9 Types of Track" by Phillip Hays gives test data he generated with various tests of the tracks of the the 2004 time including Lionel O & 027 tubular old and new, Atlas Steel and nickel-silver, Gargraves regular and SS, MTH RealTacx.  He runs 5 tests and 16 locomotives.  Tests are Loco push, Loco drag, Loco lift, Magnetic merit and Electrical resistance.  He evaluated traction tires, Magne-Traction and plain metal wheels.

I will give you all a few bits to chew on.  As far as Magne-Traction, he found it accounts for 33-50% of total traction force on the rails for lightweight locos (mostly diesels), 25% on heavy diesels and 10-20% for heavy die cast metal steamer locos.  The type of track also gives different results too.  The Atlas O steel track with T profile gave the best results.  The common tubular track with steel ties performed 43-53 % as effectively as Atlas T while GarGraves track was 20-30% as effective.  Atlas O nickel-silver, MTH RealTrax both non-ferrous produced near zero magnetic adhesion.  He found the Lionel tubular track has 6% better traction over the metal ties.

I found the result interesting as I have not noticed my non Magne-Traction Lionel 2025 to pull any less than the Lionel 2035 with Magne-Traction.  The engines are mostly the same except for MT.  But my engines are all 60 plus years old and the magnets may be weak with age, like most 2035s.

He also showed that locomotive weight increased traction.  I have noticed this for sure on my 027 tubular Marx and Lionel track as I have had to go from 2.0-2.4 pound plastic body 2-4-2 Lionel 248 type;  to 3.5 pound metal body Lionel 2016, 2026 2-6-2v type;  to 4.5 pound metal body Lionel 2025, 2035 2-6-4 type locomotives to pull heavier and heavier trains with 3 or 4 heavy operating cars like milk, cattle and drum cars.  I had fun weighing many of my locos.

I found this one of best magazine articles I have read and I have most of the CTT and OGR from way back when OGR was O Scale and when CTT first came out.  If you are a data dude and would like to learn more about O gauge track it is worth trying to get a copy of CTT October 2004.

Charlie

  Magnetic force is down force in this case; i.e. the same as more weight. There is likely no more than a car or two more in traction on some, but others easily bring track up out of the ratty old train box when you pick them up. The bottom line is, it helped some.

I'd like to see full O's results vs O-27's thinner metal too.

  Part of my confidence is I grew up with both.  Two different engines, but close, my brother's heavier, stronger at low end near stall, Santa Fe Hudson, non MT, that pulled out of the hole better, but still skipped with lost traction at speed before the lighter 2037 with MT did, but you had to break loose & spin hard till she moved and could grab or just stall low end on the 2037 too. A more tourqey motor would have been nice. Only the bigger Hudson (not scale) without MT ever bettered it, but that's a much bigger and heavier engine that outperforms everything but GG-1s....On 027 yet, lol.

  Would I pay a few extra bucks for a loco with vs one without? Yep!

Adriadic

Not much interest in track and locomotive performance but you and me.

Here is a photo of the graph of data on Magne-Traction verses track type.  The O gauge track is the 100% standard for Magne-Traction with 027 coming in 2nd and 3rd both over 90%.

This is a great article and I wish other CTT and OGR authors would take up experimental data collecting on the track and locomotives of our hobby.  This work could be updated with newer track styles produced since October 2004.

Charlie

  I grew up trying to sort out every bit of performance I could. How fast, how slow, how many, how steep.. Backwards, forwards, sideways, down...Too many tests to recall them all. The results were a mixed batch of goods that makes me judge broadly. There is no "best" for most situations; just making the best OF situations.

With metal wheels, it looks like overall, the better the track metal, the worse they perform. Even plain wheels. You can blame that on carbon/iron content for sure with the MT, and I think the softness helps the plain wheels grab.

The traction tires seem to like the smoother surfaces and flat tread.

No Super O? Lol. That was supposed to be the best for MT, if you bought the ad work at all.

What doesn't surprise me is the tube and matching flange combo seems to win out. There is a whole lot of grip geometry on a rounded mating surface, especially in curves.