Thanks–it’s really interesting.
1 Like
deleted
I’ve never done any actual tests to confirm it, but I’ve always thought that the flat-topped rail profile was one of the great advantages of Super-O.
1 Like
Welcome aboard Altoona! 
1 Like
I’ve always liked Super O, but it’s so hard to find affordably…
1 Like
Yes, it is. I got mine back in the Seventies, when it was still relatively inexpensive. But even then, its big drawback was its lack of wide-radius curves. 36" was pretty impressive in 1957, when it was introduced. But these days, it’s awfuly tight. I use FasTrack 072 today.
If only Lionel had resurrected Super O with curve radii suitable for today’s larger locomotives!
And yes, I know, there are people who can custom-bend Super O curves to make them wider. But that only reduces the already limited supply of surviving Super O track.
2 Likes
By my standards, 36" is too big for almost everything! Such is the difficulty of a small space. Maybe some small manufacturer can revive Super O.
1 Like
Doubtful unfortunately. Gargraves pretty much filled that niche a long time ago. The next logical steps were taken by MTH when they introduced ScaleTrax and then by Atlas O, both of which have better realism and capabilities than Super-O. The time for Lionel to update and rerelease Super-O was before they went all in on FasTrack.
2 Likes
I s’pose.
1 Like
Magne-Traction works fine on GarGraves, even OK on stainless.
2 Likes
The wheels don’t pick up power – they are the ground side. While it’s true that the traction tire wheels don’t contact the rails, all of the other wheels do, and they are ALL connected to the ground side of the circuit. So putting rubber tires on one set of wheels doesn’t really affect the power situation much, if at all.
Having said that, I don’t understand why they got rid of MagneTraction. I hate traction tires.
2 Likes
Welcome back MTsteamfan!
I’m guessing but I suspect they got rid of Magne-Traction because traction tires are cheaper.
By the way, I detest traction tires as well! If they wear out and fall off and the locomotive doesn’t miss them I don’t bother to replace them.
(I run on nickle-silver track so Magne-Traction wouldn’t help me anyway!)
1 Like
Technically, since it’s AC, it does actually pick up power–about half the time. Because AC muddles up polarity!
1 Like
There are basically two types of stainless steel; martensitic and austenitic. 400 series stainless steel is martensitic which can be heat treated and hardened. It is also magnetic.
300 series stainless steel is austenitic and it cannot be heat treated. It is the best for corrosion resistance but not the best for Magnetraction.
Good old fashioned tubular track work best with engines with Magetraction. You can travel faster around curves and pull many cars.
There is a ferritic commercial grade of AISI 400 stainless that would be near-ideal as a stock for tinplate rail (430). I have to suspect this is what the ‘STAINLESS’ track in the video has used.
This is roughly like 304 – 18/8 – with the nickel content omitted, and hence cheaper. It’s what is most often used for ‘stainless’ automobile and appliance trim.
1 Like
430 is a very popular grade of stainless and probably the best material for tinplate rails. It is also used in cutlery. I just wonder about the quality of the material especially if it comes from China. As long as the material is ferritic or Martensitic, it will work well with Magnetraction.
Just as a comment on this-
There exists one commercial solid steel rail track that I’m aware of. For a while in the early 2000s, Atlas O made a decent portion of the 21st Century Track System in steel.
It never sold particularly well(I have a couple of “starter kits” of it stashed away that a shop I was local in was happy to FINALLY sell at something like half their cost) and I don’t think has been made in a number of years. My local store has a small stock of it new tucked in a corner-some O54 curves and some straights along with one or two switches-but I suspect anyone wanting to build out of it in 2026 would be on a wild goose to find little stashes of it here and there.
With that said, for all intents and purposes it’s identical to the more common nickel silver version of the track, and can be freely mixed and matched. The rail color of course is different(bright white rather than the yellow tint of nickel silver). If one is running Magnetraction locos on Atlas O, it actually works great, although given the difficulty of sourcing it, it might be prudent to reserve it for places on a layout where the traction is needed and use nickel silver elsewhere.
I run a lot of tubular track now, but I’m increasing preferring T-rail profile. Magnetraction compatibility is nice, but it’s not a huge deal to me. I’ve been on a kick lately of brass 2-rail cabooses-it can be a real struggle to find road-specific designs in plastic 3 rail. You often have to go brass to get to get something “correct” unless it’s a design that manufacturers have latched on to, like the PRR N5C. My most recent one was an 80s Sunset model of an N&W steel caboose, something that as far as I know have never been made. The 2 rail version can often be had for a fraction of the price of the 3 rail. They will cooperate with wide enough 3 rail curves, and if you put a Kadee 805 coupler on them they will generally couple to Lionel-type couplers(although my nicer ones get a 740 since it looks better, and I’m probably only going to run them in consists where I already have some Kadees in the mix). Unless you want to spoil the whole look of it with 3 rail trucks, though, you really need T rail track to have a hope of 2 rail staying on at anything more than a crawl.
To the sort of original premise, though-I’m actually not a big fan of Magnetraction at least on steam engines. I don’t like the appearance of solid sintered iron drivers. On diesels, I’m indifferent. There are also a few steamers that pull off Magnetraction with a realistic looking wheel-the 1997 “763E”(6-18056) comes to mind with its Scullin disks.
My real preference is for a bare steel(or nickel) tire on the drivers with no traction tire grooves, and of course a correctly styled wheel for the loco. From the time Lionel started fitting Magnetraction up until the 90s when they started paying more attention to fidelity, this was pretty uncommon. At least among “scale” models the only ones I can think of are the 1990 1-700E(a lot of the other scale steamers of the early 90s had traction tires-sometimes a plethora of them). My 1-700E is a good puller thanks to its respetable weight, including an added traction weight.
With that said, too, I tolerate traction tires, and yes I replace them when they go bad. If one spins off a wheel, that’s generally a signal that it’s time to replace(even if it’s a never installed tire, the rubber can still degrade). Generally, once one spins off, it’s toast-about the only time I will reinstall a spun one is if I know it’s fresh and there’s a direct reason for why it came off(such as double heading with mismatched speed). MTH tires work great for most MTH, Lionel, and K-line applications and they don’t have the million and a half variants like Lionel does, plus IME they fit better and last longer. I order some every time I order from MTH parts. For scale Lionel or K-line models, I consult the MTH Premier chart and find the closest equivalent MTH has made and use that one. My only real annoyance is on the steam engines where Lionel thought it was a good idea to put the tires on the front axles. Samhongsa built locos, whether they’re brass imported by Williams or Weaver, or even some of the 90s Lionel/MTH cooperation diecast like the Southern Mikado, installed tires on both the front and rear drivers. My Williams Challenger has 8 total tires on it.
With that said, though, weight paired with properly fitted tires are the traction kings. Magnetraction, even in good shape, isn’t in the running. At one point, I did side-by-side tests with an 8-car 18" heavyweight consist on O72 curves. I lined up a bunch of NYC Hudsons-in the mix were several 700E-based ones including the 1990 1-700E(no magnetraction or tires, added traction weight not present on newer locos on this chassis), the 6-18056 1997 763E(Magnetraction+a skinny tire on the blind driver), a Century Club 773(Magnetraction only), and both a K-line and MTH scale Hudson(traction tires only, but heavy).
The CC 773 and the 1-700E were about equal, or basically Magetraction in the 773 made up for the missing traction weight. Both needed a careful throttle to start, but were okay once going. Neither had much luck starting when I upped it to 10 cars.
Next in like was the 763E, which was pretty sure footed with 8 cars, but would struggle with 10.
The K-line had plenty of traction, but the puny motor was struggling to haul 8 cars. There are plenty of stories of people killing motors in these locos with an 8 car heavyweight consist.
Meanwhile, the MTH ran away with as many cars as I could throw behind it. I have a total of 14 18" NYC Heavyweights between Lionel and K-line, and on the track I had set up it was basically chasing its tail but doing so without missing a beat at 14. None of the others could keep that train moving even I pushed to start it. The MTH Hudson-this one the 1996 20-3020-1 upgraded by me to Protosund 3-has a rock solid drive train with a big Pittman motor, weighs about the same as as a Lionel 773, but has nice sticky MTH traction tires on the rearmost drivers.
And at the other end of this, start looking at drawbar pull of diecast scale articulated locos with good big motor drivetrains(especially the ones with Pittmans) and traction tires, and a lot of people don’t have enough track space to assemble a long enough freight train to weigh one down. Not too long ago, I was playing with my two Y6bs-a Lionel JLC series, and a brass 3rd Rail. I was actually trying to doublehead them(no luck there) and had 30 scale 2-bay hoppers behind them. I was about at the traction limit of the 3rd Rail, and it needed help starting, but the die cast Lionel ran away with it. These locos actually have pretty similar drive trains-both are 9000 series Pittmans(9233 in the 3rd Rail, 9434 in the Lionel, which is a bit larger). The Lionel is geared 20:1 and the 3rd Rail 22:1, which more than makes up for the slight torque loss from the smaller motor. Both have 4 traction tires. The big difference is that the 3rd Rail weighs about have the Lionel. I did have SOME Kadees in the train I was pulling, which actually makes a difference since the slack action of those lets the loco pick up cars one at a time-I’ve since gotten more of that consist over to Kadees so I want to try again.
Very much!
This is why the Fundimensions F3s with twin motors and 4 traction tires are some of the best pullers ever made by Lionel up to that point.
I’ll bet–much like my Menards FP7!