Traction Tires; A Necessary Evil, Or...?

I’m with you. Not needed however, there are Ogaugers that still like 4,5 or 6% grades. 

Strummer posted:

 

As always, I'm looking to start an argument; just wondering out loud, now that baseball is done for the year. 

Mark in Oregon

You sure you're not missing a 'not' in there somewhere?

Then again I haven't looked into your posting history, so.....

---PCJ

simple....run your engines without them and see how they perform. decide for yourself

if you don't pull many cars or don't have grades then it shouldn't matter. if you like to pull a lot of cars and/or have grades well......see what happens without tires.

When did they come into existence and how long was stuff running WITHOUT them before that? That should tell you something.

Simon

romiller49 posted:

I’m with you. Not needed however, there are Ogaugers that still like 4,5 or 6% grades. 

Pretty much it.

I do not like them; were the driver tires of heavy Hi-Rail 3RO locos made of carbon steel they would grip steel rails quite well, though nickel silver might be a problem per the wheel/rail grip. Not sure. A heavy train - a real one - often caused wheel slip and looks really impressive on a steamer. All this would require that you actually drive your loco more skillfully. Also part of the fun. Imagine - "taking slack" because you needed to. Sweet.

But, with the toy train guys it's all about whee! (that's OK, but not for me), and some of these toy train guys will pony up for the big-buck 3RO scale locos, and if they didn't climb like mountain goats there would be lost sales, and there you go.

One caveat: traction tires also help with our sharp model curves; even 072 would be sharp in the real world. A curve is like a grade when it comes to the physics of it. A 1:48 heavy train behind a steel-wheeled loco might get wheel spin on some flat curves.

I like to pull long trains, long is 10 to 12 Postwar operating cars for me, around my sharp 031 curves, so I like both traction tires and Magnetration to enhance pulling power.

Most of my traction tires lasted 15 + years, until last year when I ordered a bunch from MTH for my steamers.  Not cheap, but not prohibitively expensive, especially when considering how long they lasted, so I an very pleased with MTH and traction tires.

The traction tires on my diesels seem to last even longer, going on 20+ years without having to replace them.

Magnetration is a different but related topic. My experience with Magnetraction is it lasts 50+ years. I think that is very good.  Don't know how to restore Magnetraction, but I think it's possible. I also think it is trickier and more expensive, if an expert needs to be paid, to restore Magnetraction, than simply replacing traction tires.

I also believe traction tires pull a little better than Magnetraction.

Arnold

RailRide posted:

Strummer posted:

 

As always, I'm looking to start an argument; just wondering out loud, now that baseball is done for the year. 

Mark in Oregon

You sure you're not missing a 'not' in there somewhere?

Then again I haven't looked into your posting history, so.....

---PCJ

HA! You're right. I will fix that now....

Mark in Oregon

Simon Winter posted:

When did they come into existence...?

1962 for Lionel.

1953 for American Flyer.

Simon Winter posted:

When did they come into existence and how long was stuff running WITHOUT them before that? That should tell you something.

Simon

Traction tires appeared on Lionel with the beginning of MPC era in 1970, so that makes 48 years.

I'm not sure, but I think some of the low end 1960's stuff had traction tires also.

Rusty

I have to admit I hadn't considered "...4,5 or 6% grades". 

As far as "...try running your trains without them...": I don't know how that would be a realistic test, due to the grooves cut into the wheels for the traction tires to slip onto.

In any case (like most of my posts), it doesn't really matter; just thinking out loud. 

Mark in Oregon

I just don't like traction tires and think they are out of place on a scale-sized and detailed locomotive. They make me feel like the locomotive has an incomplete set of wheels and sometimes entail significant disassembly to install. I think they are a nuisance. Yes, many O gaugers like to run long trains on O-31 curves and the manufacturers have to provide that capability for the customer. MTH Premier has been smart to offer scale wheels but, not sure how they would operate, I usually played it safe and opted for hi-rail wheels. Conventional or command speed-controls are probably capable of maintaining constant speed around wide-radius curves needed by large and heavy scale-sized locomotives - even without traction tires. So, I think that traction tires could be limited to O-31 conventionally-sized locomotives and eliminated from the O-72 scale-sized products, but I don't expect that to happen. I suppose that most people do not object to traction tires as much as I do.

MELGAR

Rusty Traque posted:

Simon Winter posted:

When did they come into existence and how long was stuff running WITHOUT them before that? That should tell you something.

Simon

Traction tires appeared on Lionel with the beginning of MPC era in 1970, so that makes 48 years.

I'm not sure, but I think some of the low end 1960's stuff had traction tires also.

Rusty

Thanks Rusty,

So they got along without them for 60 or 70 years! That says something.

Simon

MELGAR posted:

I just don't like traction tires and think they are out of place on a scale-sized and detailed locomotive. 

MELGAR

That's kind of the dilemma faced by modelers in general and 3 railers, it seems, in particular.

"We" want beautifully detailed and scale-sized engines but, due to space limitations or whatever, want (need) them to run on wholly un-realistic grades and curvatures. I get it that most of us (myself included) don't have the room to build a layout with gentle, sweeping curves, etc.

Thinking about it now, I guess it makes more sense to have traction tires on 3 rail models than say, HO locos. I've posed this same question on a (mostly HO) German website, and the general thought was "that's the way they've always done it, (for better or worse) so..."

And lets's face it: almost everything we do in this field is a sort of compromise, isn't it? 

Mark in Oregon

Strummer posted:

MELGAR posted:

I just don't like traction tires and think they are out of place on a scale-sized and detailed locomotive. 

MELGAR

That's kind of the dilemma faced by modelers in general and 3 railers, it seems, in particular.

....

And lets's face it: almost everything we do in this field is a sort of compromise, isn't it? 

Mark in Oregon

Correct. I tried to make that point in my post.

"many O gaugers like to run long trains on O-31 curves and the manufacturers have to provide that capability for the customer. "

That's what most of the market requires so it's unlikely to change.

MELGAR

Absolutely. 

In fact, it was your post that I was (more or less) referring to... 

Mark in Oregon

Laidoffsick posted:

simple....run your engines without them and see how they perform. decide for yourself

......see what happens without tires.

Once a scale model is built with unrealistic grooved wheels, why remove the traction tires? I suspect that the grooved wheels would not run well over the solid-rail Atlas O track on my layouts and either the rail or wheel could be damaged without the tire in place.

MELGAR

I strongly dislike traction tires. It was a breath of fresh air when they disappeared from high-end products after a rather pitiful period of cheapness during the 60's and 70's. However, generally from 1950 until the late 1990's most high-end Lionel products had Magne-Traction, and most people had Lionel ferromagnetic track. Toy trains were toy trains.

Then came the scale 3-railers, and a plethora of non-magnetic track brands and types. Now everything has tires to cater to this new reality.

I can marginally tolerate tires on some of the newer Lionel and MTH engines that I have - at least until egregiously bad engineering decisions are made.

For example - some MTH  2R/3R locos are built with electrically isolated outside wheels, so they are all nice and easy to convert in case the occasional two-railer comes along. Here's the problem: Out of 4 wheels on a diesel truck, two lose contact because they have tires, and a third loses contact because the chassis ground wiper only picks up power from one side of the truck. That leaves only 1 wheel per truck capable of being grounded. Therefore, your engine constantly goes dead over switches or track with insulated outside rails. So,  you're stuck pulling trucks apart to implement modifications and make it right, so it can run on 3 rail track. If manufacturers were not trying so hard to make trains that are everything to everyone, I would probably have 4 wheels picking up power, not one!

Way back when, that would be the late 60's to early 70's, my favorite train to pull was a 681 and 671 double headed with around 10 PW hopper cars with loads of coal glued to 1/4 inch pieces of plywood.  If all the axles on the cars were oiled and the wheels cleaned of crud it would run very well around the homemade 072 curves. 

With fast angle wheels and needle point axles I am pretty sure I could have doubled that load.  Perhaps someone with a layout could do a test.  Magnatraction performed very well then on steel track.  Today I would guess that on half the layouts it would be pointless.

My single data point is my Lionel Rdg T-1, w/o tires. On the AGHR club layout it pulls a "legal" consist around O-72 curves and on our grades just fine. The drives slip a bit upon starting, so a bit of throttle jockeying is necessary. Overall, satisfactory.

Fast angle makes a huge difference in ease of movement. OVER double the cars isn't out of the question if you throw light MPC semi-scale into the mix.

Tires out do magnetraction, but aren't my choice. First because changing them is a pita (or nightmare) that never occurs without them. Second, because if it's a front wheel especially, I see a tire. Third because at higher speeds, the tire does nothing to keep from rolling, something protoypical weight does in real life.  My best pullers are a small PW magnetraction Hudson and a Berk Jr w/tire. The Hudson is best on flats, the Berk better on a grade... 5%.  (4.5-5% is Lionel PW riser grade if I recall right)

  The rolling smoothness of tires would be better on any track. Not ease, but smoothness, as the tire provides a shock absorber. 

  The friction and o.d. says it's harder to move the tire (minimal). Diesel wheel diameter is smaller than steam, more turns per foot, but other stresses are lower. (Think "lever"; longer from the pivot (axle) has more leverage, so more stress) The smaller o.d. curve also improves wheel grip to a tire in ways. Stretching from tire to wheel stresses happens faster than any surface wear.

  If our engines we're weighted to standards similar to NMRA cars we'd have trouble lifting them with our basement hoists, let alone our hands.

In the end, the tire allows for more realistic car counts on a lighter loco.

Magnetraction is still my preference. I have balked on buys due to tires and bare wheels without it.

On my layout compromises had to be made on track curvature and grade so on two of the four loops , 16V sections and traction tires are necessary. I much prefer magnetraction as its permanent but there is a place for traction tires. On flat loops my 5340 O scale Hudson pulling 8 aluminum passenger cars does fine and that has neither magnetraction or traction tires.  Just got to keep the tracks clean.

I don't "like" or "dislike" them, but rather treat them more like a tool. 

In my case, I run, or try to run a much as possible, scale length passenger, named train consists. In the case of steam engines, traction tires are a must. 

I have no interest in running a 8 car Broadway Limited or 20th Century Limited just to run the train without traction tires. Seeing a 12-15 car length train is so much more impressive and a single steam engine without a traction will not pull this type of train.

Now, with a diesel engine, more units can be powered and thus, pull more accurate consists without traction tires.

Honestly, no big deal either way for me, certainly, not something I would let get in the way of enjoying the hobby.

Charlie

I find them to be really funny things.I had a set of traction tires that after cleaning the track.Just kept coming off not wanting to make things whorse.I gave up the next day.The tires had some how got pack to being really tight.Other times traction tires have helped out a lot.I never tough of trying to operate without them.For fear of doing more damage to the wheels and tracks.I just would not risk it.

I'm with Charlie, I probably wouldn't miss them for the most part if they went away.  OTOH, they're here, and I am not going to try to lose them all! 

I have the Lionel 6-18006 Reading T1 that I upgraded to TMCC, fan driven smoke, etc.  It actually does pretty well without traction tires, and on the long club grades, I do get some pretty realistic wheel slip if I don't handle it carefully, kinda' cool.

Hate them - they don't look good, interfere with grounding, deposit crud on the rails, and are a pain to replace. 

I'm with those of you who don't care for traction tires.  Added weight, in a loco, would solve the traction issue.  But how much weight can be added ?   

In the large scale world, we often add weight to locos to improve tractive effort.  Almost all manufacturers of large scale trains install traction tires on their locomotives.  LGB traction tires are almost indestructible.  USA Trains and Aristocraft tires are inferior to LGB's, so pop off or wear out much more quickly.  My point is that even with traction tires some large scale locos need the added weight.

The Lionel 110 trestle is used for my incline on my layout.  Without my calculations i don't know the true % incline for this discussion.  I find from experience the Lionel steam post war 2026, 2055, & 2056 will not reach my plateau on the layout.  The consist is short with tender and two post war Lionel cars . These three engines may not include magnetration, no rubber for traction.  So there was a lesson here for each engine wheels spun two thirds the incline.  

Two Lionel engines purchase in late 1990's did include traction tires and will reach the plateau with the same consist and more.

So it appears Lionel felt there was a need when using their trestles to include traction tires.  Possibly their fans requested more traction when using Lionel trestle in their layouts.

I would not attempt rep replace traction tires on my engines right now. Not without assistance or practice!

This time to toe!

John d.

John d Sewell posted:

1. So it appears Lionel felt there was a need when using their trestles to include traction tires.  Possibly their fans requested more traction when using Lionel trestle in their layouts.

2. This time to toe!

John d.

1. That is very possible.

2. Not sure what that means...

Mark in Oregon 

It depends on the engine.  Die cast big boys or challengers there is no reason for tires.  The engines weigh a ton plus have two sets of drivers.  No need for traction tires get rid of them.  I’d bet the new Lionel niagara would be just fine with out them also.  As for my smaller engines, mikados ten wheelers and moguls yes keep them.  Brass engines, keep them.

Gee Gary, I don't if it's really a question of "keep them or get rid of them", is it?

After all, the drivers/wheels made to accept them are grooved, so it seems to me that they would have to be replaced with "full tired" wheels, right...(?) On a diesel maybe it's not a big deal, but on a steamer... 

I guess like 'em or hate 'em, we're "stuck" with them in any case. They really don't bother me; like I say, I was just wondering. 

Mark in Oregon

Hi there,

I have an MTH J in 2 rail that pulls 12+ scale cars up a 3 percent grade with no traction tires, no problem. I did add weight to the engine. There is a 56" radius curve on the grade. Just something for consideration in the mix.

For freight trains, I don't add weight. I just add engines or helpers if necessary. It's more fun this way.

Taking traction tires off an engine and leaving a groove would be a ridiculously flawed test.

Importers adding weight might add considerably to shipping cost and damage in shipping which might be a consideration.

In my experience running a 4-6-2 that broke a tire, there were 3 areas that suffered; traction, smoothness, and stability. All somewhat related but it pulled less; wobbled, hopped, & grabbed the rail, slowing or climbing on curves as the rail sunk within the groove, and it rocked like a table with one short leg as it started or slowed.  None of it reallyreally out visually until I noticed the rocking on slowing and paid more attention.

"none of it stood out really".  Auto spell-wreck strikes again 

I never use them....

I recently worked on a set of 4 beautiful brass N-scale Santa Fe F7s (2 AB sets, Key Imports IIRC). Each loco had one axle (or maybe 2 axles?) with traction tires on both wheels.  Also included in the boxes were extra axles with no traction tires on the wheels.  Being brass to start with, and including traction tires, there shouldn't be any shortage of pulling power here!

Test running each loco individually, they seemed to run alright.  Although they sometimes derailed when going through a switch, and sometime on a curve.   Hooking them all together into a gorgeous Santa Fe A-B-B-A set, they really ran like cr@p.  Herky-jerky, derail for no reason, they just didn't seem to work or play well together.  One thing I had noticed, one loco ran slightly faster than 2 of them.  The 2 ran about the same speed.  A fourth loco ran slightly slower than the 2.

I've had a theory about traction tires for a long time.  After re-configuring the consist based on my theory, it was a whole new story.  They ran absolutely beautifully together.  Like a well-trained set of top-notch, thoroughbred chariot horses.  Smooth, powerful, absolutely no derailing or jerkiness or any other distasteful characteristics.  It was the difference between night and day!

I pretty sure my theory would work in EVERY scale, not just N-scale. 

Great post - NOW- and your theory is?  Please share.- thanks

Kind of a mixed bag, double-edged sword situation, and occasionally a PITA.

I like this post. I don't particularly like traction tires, but I suspect they help a whole lot with speed control.

Magnetraction? When was that last made? It was great in its day, but (for example) I don't believe it will work with the regular Atlas track. I don't know what other limitations it has. 

Gerry

Did post war Lionel ever use traction tires on top of the line engines? Or just the light weight cheaper lines? Did MTH need to add tires to compete advertising wise with Lionel? And then Lionel jumped on the tire wagon? They are just another piece of maintenance headache plus expense, (provided they are available when you need them!) and like forced Ethanol in gas not of any benefit to me. Have had to completely disassemble and remove the cab on some diesels because the design genius placed the side frame screw top down instead of facing bottom up.

I agree with John, a steam engine with drivers slipping is way cooler than a stuck like glue, "traction control", rubber tired one. You might be able to leave a tire off of a Northern without it rocking into the missing tire wheel groove. On a Hudson, Pacific, or Atlantic probably not? Everyone wants to run 28 foot passenger consists though unless you have 50 feet between corners and/or grades probably not going to be done without tires. Adding another pound of weight might change the shipping costs from China for a steam engine though since they ship cars can 1,000 pounds more in a container with 1000 steam engines in it change the costs dramatically? 

In any case, like the new Lionel thumbtack uncoupler freight cars, we are stuck with them like it or not.