Skip to main content

I've tried running without them and found the performance to be lacking.  I think it has to do with the groove in the wheels.  If you have grooves in 4 of 6 or 8 wheels then they're not making full contact with the rail, add in the smooth plating on the surface of the wheels then there's just not a lot of traction to be had.

You would think my 14lb Williams brass N&W J wouldn't need them, but throwing a single tire will cause it to slip.  I have an assortment of tires now to deal with the problem when it pops up.  A small clamp to hold one side of the tire in place and 2 small jewelers screwdrivers to work it around the wheel work for me.

Strummer posted:

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

Your entitled to your opinion.   For me I'll keep them if they are required.  I'm saying theres engines that don't some that do.

Magnetraction was "officially" dropped with the pulmore I think. My last was a Tmcc E-33 from the 90s. (Also my last 100% new engine as the pw charm got shelved.) I've only seen tires on PW plastic motor Scouts (some had magnetraction, some we're plain) Then larger 4 driver cast steam engines during the MPC era. Around the next co. transition, when boards took over some e-units jobs, I noticed them on diesel switchers. I'm not big on diesels, likely those began in the MPC era too and I just didn't notice. I only had magnetraction locos till the late 70s when the (plain wheel) RIP General couldn't be passed up.
superwarp1 posted:
Strummer posted:

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

Your entitled to your opinion.   For me I'll keep them if they are required.  I'm saying theres engines that don't some that do.

I have to admit I was also a touch confused on your stance Gary. This cleared it up nicely 

SURFLINER posted:

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

Hi Surfliner,

Thank you so very much for reading (i.e., comprehending) my post!  You're the only one so far.  I'd also like to thank the person that "liked" it, although they obviously didn't read it that close.

If I get some more interest, I'll go ahead and explain.  I would love to share my thoughts and my findings with everyone.  But I'm not gonna' waste my time typing away if no one is gonna' pay attention.  I did that recently with an entire topic that I started, and after a week of zero replies, I deleted it.  That was somewhat of a letdown to say the least. 

Hang in there, let's see what happens!

Adriatic posted:
superwarp1 posted:
Strummer posted:

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

Your entitled to your opinion.   For me I'll keep them if they are required.  I'm saying theres engines that don't some that do.

I have to admit I was also a touch confused on your stance Gary. This cleared it up nicely 

Gary

I meant no offense; when you wrote "get rid of them", I took that as meaning you were willing to just take them off, and run the engine without them.

"Adriatic's" post reflects my thoughts as well....

Mark in Oregon

Mixed Freight posted:
SURFLINER posted:

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

Hi Surfliner,

Thank you so very much for reading (i.e., comprehending) my post!  You're the only one so far.  I'd also like to thank the person that "liked" it, although they obviously didn't read it that close.

If I get some more interest, I'll go ahead and explain.  I would love to share my thoughts and my findings with everyone.  But I'm not gonna' waste my time typing away if no one is gonna' pay attention.  I did that recently with an entire topic that I started, and after a week of zero replies, I deleted it.  That was somewhat of a letdown to say the least. 

Hang in there, let's see what happens!

I think I (and others, perhaps) got the gist of your original post, but unless you share your "theory", how will we know?

I was in N scale for a long time, and did a fair bit of mods on diesels myself, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you:

1. swapped out the TT'd wheel sets for the ones without (nice that the set included those) and...

2. wired all (4) engines together, so you basically ended up with a 32 wheeled "single" locomotive.

Not surprisingly ( ) I have often posted things that generated no interest; just part of the game, I guess...

Mark in Oregon

Necessary evil for me because the long train syndrome found me years ago.  in my experience a scale steamer without traction tires will pull about 3/4 of what one with traction tires can.   If your pulling around 15 cars max I don't think you need them.   With a 50- or 60 car freight train.   You'll be lucky to get it into motion without them.   I think the tires give the steamers that extra little bit to handle a train.   Think of it as a realistic approach to sanding lol.  I will say scale diesels don't seem to care much one way or another about the traction tires.  

Dan Padova posted:

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.

Added weight most likely won't do it on grades. My O scale Hudson is a very heavy engine and it will pull an 8 car aluminum passenger car consist but only on flat rail.

I have an old Kline E-8 diesel that has traction tires on it. One day, it threw off a traction tire, but it ran ok without it, so I didn't bother replacing it. After a while, the groove cut for the tire began to get deeper, so, I was forced to install a new tire to stop the wear. To continue to run the engine that way would have finally wore the wheel so deep that it would have been ruined. That is why you must replace the tires when they come off.

Last edited by tncentrr
Dennis LaGrua posted:

Added weight most likely won't do it on grades.

Hmmm. Added weight in an MTH J made it possible for me to go from only 7 cars up a 3 percent grade to at least 12 cars up the grade on my layout. Weird stuff happening here.

 

Bob D.,

My engine weighs less than your 14 pound Williams J. You are probably right about the groove being a problem. From the start I'm guessing your J only gets four wheels in contact with the rails with the traction tires. When one of the traction tires goes away, then you have 3 wheels in contact plus one that is probably working like a bike with no wheels.

Prototype steam and diesel engines can't pull long trains through sharp curves and up steep hills by themselves.  This is the reason railroads used steam helpers and multiple unit diesels.  Why should we expect our models to pull better than real railroad engines?

I hate traction tires and would prefer not to have to deal with them.   Command control allows us to easily consist engines together.  I would rather do that.  NH Joe

As a 2-railer, I think they are an unnecessary evil.    First with 2 rail pickup they hinder electrical pickup.    Second, real trains don't have them.    If the loco won't pull the train, I just add another loco.    But truthfully with modern model easy rolling trucks, most of my locos will pull 25-30 cars with ease on level or up a 1.5% grade.    That is plenty for me.

I hate traction tires, which is one reason I went to scale wheels on my diesel acquisitions. Running without them can cause the grooves in the wheels to become distorted. What I've been looking at is filling the groove with silicone rubber caulk then shaving it down to replace the Neoprene tires. The scale-wheeled diesels pull fine, and if one slips, I add another to the consist. Of course, Dustin took a jab at me when he named the view-block warehouse "Jackson Tires". That was just wrong on so many levels

Strummer posted:
Mixed Freight posted:
SURFLINER posted:

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

Hi Surfliner,

Thank you so very much for reading (i.e., comprehending) my post!  You're the only one so far.  I'd also like to thank the person that "liked" it, although they obviously didn't read it that close.

If I get some more interest, I'll go ahead and explain.  I would love to share my thoughts and my findings with everyone.  But I'm not gonna' waste my time typing away if no one is gonna' pay attention.  I did that recently with an entire topic that I started, and after a week of zero replies, I deleted it.  That was somewhat of a letdown to say the least. 

Hang in there, let's see what happens!

I think I (and others, perhaps) got the gist of your original post, but unless you share your "theory", how will we know?

I was in N scale for a long time, and did a fair bit of mods on diesels myself, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you:

1. swapped out the TT'd wheel sets for the ones without (nice that the set included those) and...

2. wired all (4) engines together, so you basically ended up with a 32 wheeled "single" locomotive.

Not surprisingly ( ) I have often posted things that generated no interest; just part of the game, I guess...

Mark in Oregon

I think these post's existing shows interest. You left us hanging.... Tune in next week to see if Fonzie makes his jump kinda stuff

  Reading shows interest; I just don't comment on everything I read a lot, fast.

Comments can be purely bad timing. I've had one not take root for two weeks I thought it was dead; one lone question and it took off a bit.

Likes don't always work on devices. There are so many deserved likes out there I've skipped I couldn't count them.  POST!

The composition in the original post IS great in the lead. But there IS something missing.

Buy holding back you deprive a chance t  o happen. Elaborations would be appreciated. Seriously. POST

Adriatic posted:
Strummer posted:
Mixed Freight posted:
SURFLINER posted:

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

Hi Surfliner,

Thank you so very much for reading (i.e., comprehending) my post!  You're the only one so far.  I'd also like to thank the person that "liked" it, although they obviously didn't read it that close.

If I get some more interest, I'll go ahead and explain.  I would love to share my thoughts and my findings with everyone.  But I'm not gonna' waste my time typing away if no one is gonna' pay attention.  I did that recently with an entire topic that I started, and after a week of zero replies, I deleted it.  That was somewhat of a letdown to say the least. 

Hang in there, let's see what happens!

I think I (and others, perhaps) got the gist of your original post, but unless you share your "theory", how will we know?

I was in N scale for a long time, and did a fair bit of mods on diesels myself, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you:

1. swapped out the TT'd wheel sets for the ones without (nice that the set included those) and...

2. wired all (4) engines together, so you basically ended up with a 32 wheeled "single" locomotive.

Not surprisingly ( ) I have often posted things that generated no interest; just part of the game, I guess...

Mark in Oregon

I think these post's existing shows interest. You left us hanging.... Tune in next week to see if Fonzie makes his jump kinda stuff

  Reading shows interest; I just don't comment on everything I read a lot, fast.

Comments can be purely bad timing. I've had one not take root for two weeks I thought it was dead; one lone question and it took off a bit.

Likes don't always work on devices. There are so many deserved likes out there I've skipped I couldn't count them.  POST!

The composition in the original post IS great in the lead. But there IS something missing.

Buy holding back you deprive a chance t  o happen. Elaborations would be appreciated. Seriously. POST

Well, okay, if there's enough interest, I will spill the beans.  Please bear with me, kinda' snowed under at work right now.  May take a day or two before I can round up a few free hours or more for tapping out a short novel on the keyboard.

Stay tuned, same bat time, same bat channel.  Or sumthin' like that....................... 

BobbyD posted:

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.

BobbyD - we are only stuck with the new Lionel thumbtack uncoupler freight cars because we elect not to PROTEST with our DOLLARS.  Lionel is not the only source of nice freight cars.  If we all "take a stand" and do not buy them - Lionel will get the message - let's face it - we "NO BUY" they no get "PAY CHECKS".  Time to stop all of our whining and vote with our dollars - works every time!  Now let us all stop whining and vote as suggested.

Adriatic posted:
ADCX Rob posted:
Adriatic posted:
Magnetraction was "officially" dropped with the pulmore I think.

Here is the new 2021 Diesel with Magne-Traction & traction tires.
11%20the%20powered%20trucks

Sometimes ya gotta love being wrong

What was the thinking behind Magne-Tractionand  Traction Tires ?

Dan Padova posted:
Adriatic posted:
ADCX Rob posted:
Adriatic posted:
Magnetraction was "officially" dropped with the pulmore I think.

Here is the new 2021 Diesel with Magne-Traction & traction tires.
11%20the%20powered%20trucks

Sometimes ya gotta love being wrong

What was the thinking behind Magne-Tractionand  Traction Tires ?

Could it be maximum traction?

Never knew it was possible to have both. Anyone know if both traction tires and Magnetraction on one engine is effective?

SURFLINER posted:

BobbyD - we are only stuck with the new Lionel thumbtack uncoupler freight cars because we elect not to PROTEST with our DOLLARS.  Lionel is not the only source of nice freight cars.  If we all "take a stand" and do not buy them - Lionel will get the message - let's face it - we "NO BUY" they no get "PAY CHECKS".  Time to stop all of our whining and vote with our dollars - works every time!  Now let us all stop whining and vote as suggested.

We have. Per orders from the CEO only purchased one Lionel car with the thumbtack truck, a 65' Mill Gondola.

Was going to attempt to swap the plastic thumbtack trucks for the good die cast sprung trucks that the "scale couplers or die" folks scream in agony about but read here on the forum that the frame mount is different when someone attempted to change them on a LionScale (aka Weaver) car.

ADCX Rob posted:
Adriatic posted:
Magnetraction was "officially" dropped with the pulmore I think.

Here is the new 2021 Diesel with Magne-Traction & traction tires.
11%20the%20powered%20trucks

Regarding this new Lionel 2021 diesel with Magnetraction and traction tires, is it a very good puller?  Does anyone know if Lionel has any other locomotives with both Magnetraction and traction tires?

Arnold D. Cribari posted:
ADCX Rob posted:
Adriatic posted:
Magnetraction was "officially" dropped with the pulmore I think.

Here is the new 2021 Diesel with Magne-Traction & traction tires.
11%20the%20powered%20trucks

Regarding this new Lionel 2021 diesel with Magnetraction and traction tires, is it a very good puller?  Does anyone know if Lionel has any other locomotives with both Magnetraction and traction tires?

If I recall correctly some (many?) of the new scale F units do, Lionel was changing the truck design almost every year. 

Wasn't there even one year of scale F units with only one powered axle per truck?)

Last edited by BobbyD
Arnold D. Cribari posted:
Dan Padova posted:

What was the thinking behind Magne-Tractionand  Traction Tires ?

Could it be maximum traction?

Never knew it was possible to have both. Anyone know if both traction tires and Magnetraction on one engine is effective?

Different Axles? One Magnetraction equipped, the other with rubber tires?

Sshhhh... we won't have a topic

...if they throw a set of scale wheels in the box , all bases are pretty much covered.  Track just has to follow suit for this to be a standard.

  We've touched on the advantages of each. Where they differ they their partner compliments and helps. The Cons are there too, but generàl performance is peaked. Peak traction, and some antiroll thrown in

  One thing not touched on was magnetractions "artificial gravity" increase in pressure on the rails improves electrical contact with both higher pontential of occurrence and quality of contact made (less resistance per sq²"/ I.e. a gauge increase; current carrying increase).    Magnetraction should resist bouncing over rough track.

   I think someone mentioned more weight might be a better goal, I just realized the magnetraction IS more weight in a smaller package. Actually, gravity is a big electric field of sorts so is it even "artificial" gravity? Or just different...is gravity directional, lol.(yes, towards a point, vs anti-G or reverse or negative gravity for away)...

Soooo.... less slip (fuax sand) , heavier (art-grav) when railed...hey, lighter when removed....I eclair magnectraction is magic .

Typo stays, because eclairs are the magic no-hole donut and I want one now, I can't get to one, and I hate to suffer that alone. Just call me Homer today

Bill DeBrooke posted:

Postwar engines never had traction tires.  They either had magne traction or not.   I am sure someone here knows exactly when tires appeared.   

It is definitely Post War. I only know of the plastic Scouts myself, that's close enough for me. I was surprised to see it. I had a magnetraction version and a plain one ...or the magnet came out ???? I recall I got the wheel off by pulling hard (as a kid..so not a very tight fit, lol)

  EXACT engine would likely could be be determined more exactly with an hour at Tandum Associates.  Then catalog info for the year.  If the wheels could be used elsewhere you still really never know 100%... an unexpected X-version or Lionel thank you gift could pop up the next morning.

Arnold D. Cribari posted:
ADCX Rob posted:
Adriatic posted:
Magnetraction was "officially" dropped with the pulmore I think.

Here is the new 2021 Diesel with Magne-Traction & traction tires.
11%20the%20powered%20trucks

Regarding this new Lionel 2021 diesel with Magnetraction and traction tires, is it a very good puller?  Does anyone know if Lionel has any other locomotives with both Magnetraction and traction tires?

The conventional classic F3s, GP7s, GP9s, and FMs had both Magnetraction and traction tires.

BobbyD posted:

Is there much "attraction" thru the tires Rob?

Well, the tires don't block the magnetic force, and the track is still the same distance from the magnets, with 2/3 of the iron surface of the wheels including the flanges still sitting on or below(flanges) or immediately next to the railheads, so it would be a negligible loss of magnetism due to the tires. Any loss would probably be offset by the now not necessary step of that constantly peeling an entire magnetized wheel off the rail(for the tire equipped wheels) while in motion that some of you have noticed.

That efficiency would be lost on sharp turns/bends by the locked / non-differential action of having the rubber tires on the same axle trying to go the same speed.

Last edited by ADCX Rob
Mixed Freight posted:

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. 

 

Well, okay, while this topic is probably getting close to being beaten to death, I did promise to elaborate on my original post.  Probably best I took a short sabbatical however, because it has given me time to think a little more about my theory, and perhaps modify it somewhat.

On the 4 brass N-scale locos, not only did they come with the extra, non-traction tire wheel sets, it also ended being fairly straightforward to pull individual wheels from the axles and press them back on.  Since I know the owner was always going to run them as an A-B-B-A consist, I ended up equipping ONE unit with ONE traction tire on ONE side only of ONE truck only.  In other words, out of 32 total wheels on the consist, I ended up with ONE traction tire wheel and 31 standard wheels.

That was my theory for taking care of two distinct problems with the consist.  One problem fixed was the fact that the slightly faster and the slightly slower locomotive wheels could "slip & slide" so to speak on the rails, instead of binding up like they did when all locos had traction tires.

The other problem fixed was one that nobody really thinks about very much, or how is a powered wheel set with a solid axle and traction tires on both wheels supposed to go around curved trackage without having a differential to allow the wheels to rotate at different speeds?  Extreme example: You would't want to try drive your car or truck on the road with a solid axle, would you?  It would be fine until the first time you had to turn.  Same thing with our little trains.  I'm sure they struggle in a miniature sort of ways themselves.  By having a traction tire on one wheel only, it provides most of the traction, while the other standard metal wheel with a lot less adhesion can slowly slip on the rail as needed while the solid axle wheel set rolls along the curved trackage.

I think HO and N have gotten away from traction tires in the past couple of decades more so due to their smaller scale factor.  They can have both reasonable grades and reasonable curves in smaller spaces than O-scale can have.  Take for instance, the good ol' 4 x 8 sheet of plywood.  You can easily build an N-scale layout on with super-generous curve radii and up & over track work with 2 ~ 2½% grades.  For HO scale, grades and curves not quite as good, but still plausible.  But basically, they can emulate their full-sized brethren fairly closely in this limited space.

For O-gauge, forget it.  It's pretty much toy train city all the way, complete with sharp curves, traction tires, and steep grades.  Unless of course, you have an entire floor of your house or a big barn/metal building to construct a layout in.  Unfortunately, the biggest majority of O-gaugers do NOT have that kind of room to spare, so steep grades, sharp curves, and traction tires will probably always be a mainstay for this scale.

Soooo................. how can we apply all of this nonsense to O-gauge/O-scale?  For the final step, we need to put our heads together in a good, logical orderly fashion just like the 3 Stooges would (complete with 3 Stooges sound effects) and come up with a plan.  Unfortunately I have to head in to work shortly, so I will have to close for now and continue this in the next session, hopefully in the next day or two........................

I don't have have a barn.    I do have a full basement on a medium sized house and I have a decent 2 rail layout.    A lot of 2 rail stuff will operate on 48 inch radius curves including all 40-50 ft freight cars in my opinon.   I have a small fleet of GGD 2 rail passenger cars which replaced a large fleet of Walthers built up 2 rail passenger cars (from kits).    All will handle my 52 inch minimum radius with ease (my branch is 48 inch radius).  

I mikados, pacifics and mountains a couple 10 drivered locos that handle the curves pretty well.    The Max Grey 2-10-4 does complains but still runs.

So I want to disagree that you need "40 acres" for a 2 rail layout and that you can't get along without traction tires in O Scale.      

By the way the grades on my mainline are 1.5 % or less which is NOT a steep grade.

Until you learn about 2 rail O scale and try it, you should not tell people what does not work.

 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×