Does anyone know of a source for the MDC/Roundhouse track cleaning accessory kit that could be attached to either the Boxcab or Climax loco frame? I’ve checked “the 'bay,” but the only ones listed there are $18 EACH! I can’t help but think that there aren’t some other, more reasonably priced ones somewhere else.
Thoughts / suggestions?
Thanks!
dlm
When I built my first grown-up layout, I had a real underground subway system with 3 stations and a passing track. I had a number of liftoffs that I could remove for cleaning, but some had wiring and were awkward. There were some tunnel sections that were not easy to clean. I bought a CMX cleaning car, an expensive option, but it has served me well for many years and keeps my main lines and subway tunnels clean. It uses a cleaning pad, cloth, not abrasive, and has a large reservoir for cleaning fluid.
I know that your post isn’t about buying an expensive accessory, but these things are pretty much universally accepted as the best way to go.
Hi Dan,
I believe that people have made their own track cleaners using a piece of masonite rough side down with the ends beveled, a couple of nails that are glued to the masonite and go up through holes in the bottom of the car, and a couple of soft springs to keep a bit of pressure on the pad.
I have never done this myself. Maybe someone can provide a better description.
Cheers!!
Dave
I’ve done it, pretty much as explained by Dave. The key point is to sand the side of the masonite pieces smooth to prevent them from blocking against uneven track (e.g. turnouts). Works well.
Simon
My take on a John Allen track cleaning car. In my opinion, springs are not required, just an added complication. But a chamfered leading edge, as mentioned by Simon, is essential.
[2c][2c] Cheers, the Bear.[:)]
Hello All,
I used the A-Line track cleaning kit installed on a transfer caboose that I kitbashed from a crane tender car.
The cab was moved from one end of the car to the center to hide the nails connecting the masonite pad through the frame.
The use of springs would have been a great addition I didn’t consider.
Hope this helps.
Having to clean track is prototypical! If a seldom used piece of track is signalled, railroads occasionally run a train over it to make sure the rails are clean enough to make electrical contact with the wheels of a train and activate the signals.
Mine is stiil working like a swiss watch, roughly 43 yrs. later. Used Lacquer thinner for cleaner the whole time. Got it when they first came out. I push it to clean the rails, not pull it, with two Proto GP7’s:
DC layout started in 1980…still runs today!
Take Care![swg]
Frank
Bear, the word you want is ‘chamfered’, not ‘chambered’.
I recommend beveling all four edges of the Masonite, not just the ‘leading edge’ in the normal direction of motion.
Attach the Masonite to something that has ‘weight’, and attach the guide pins to that. Then if you want springs, mount them like ‘side bearers’ near the latitudinal centerline of the backing, I think at about railhead spacing. Leave a little ‘rattling clearance’ between the pins and the guides (plastic or brass tube is what I would use) in the chassis. The pad assembly should be able to rock a bit independently of the car for better following. I would use some method of attaching the Masonite that would let you ‘index’ the pad either side of ‘center’ so that as the contacting areas blacken and lose ‘tooth’ you can adjust until most of the Masonite area will have been used.
I think this does not replace a wet-pad cleaning car, using a solvent like 91% alcohol or lacquer thinner if desired. The Masonite car is run at some time after, when most of the solvent has evaporated but the remaining deposits will still be solubilized. The one thing you have to watch is the potential for more rapid ‘varnishing’ or deposits clogging the Masonite – hence the desirability of fine lateral indexing.
You are of course quite correct, and while I’m annoyed with myself for my mistake and my poor proof reading, I’m also tickled pink, that someone read my post!
I perhaps should elaborate, but as I have before, I don’t want to bore everyone to tears, but for those who missed out…
Living in an active geothermal area, the elevated levels of hydrogen sulphide in the air plays havoc with electrical contacts, Her-in-Doors silver teapot, and nickel silver track.
That is why one of the Club rules was that every train had to have at least one “John Allen Masonite” track cleaning car in its consist.
Having experimented with weights on the Masonite, (too much drag if it was a long train), and springs (getting them set so as not to pogo the car off the tracks), we adopted the KISS method as shown in my photo. (Though the photo doesn’t make it clear, both fore and aft ends of the Masonite pad are chambered chamfered.)
I can’t speak to finding the kit, but building your own masonite car is pretty easy and lots of examples out there.
A few thoughts on wet cleaning.
One, don’t just do went cleaning. Follow it up with a dry cloth cleaning car to pick up residue and keep from spreading.
If you have a big layout and can afford it, then you can run what they do at San Diego on the Tehachapi layout. One CMX followed by 2 centerlines. At least that was the config a few years ago. I think they modified it with a masonite on car on front to dust and replaced the centerlines with cheaper home made versions.
But in function, that’s what they provide. CMX to distribute liquid. Multiple centerlines to clean it up.
#2. Never use ISO alcohol. Always use a low dialectic constant non-polar solvent. Lacquer thinner, Mineral Spirits. CRC contact cleaner (check which version)
This forum, at least under Kalmbach discouraged linking to other sites, so I won’t link to the full breakdown of why, but the upshot is, high dialectic constant polar solvents affect the electro chemical skin on the rail surface and incourage microscopic arcing which deposites oxidation on the track and the wheel.
Low dialect constant solvents do not do this. It will stay clean longer.
Again back to San Diego and La Mesa club. They used to use 90% ISO and couldn’t keep the tracks clean longer than a few days. They switch to exclusively Mineral spirits and have had much much better success keeping things clean and reducing issues due to dirty tracks.
Wahls clipper oil was always a recommended hack…it’s got a low dialectic constant which is why it works (though it is an oil, so that’s not ideal)
A high dialectic-content solvent would be Marxist! The word you want is spelled ‘dielectric’ and it implies that the solvent is a good insulator even in thin films.
The point of using alcohol is that it evaporates completely without leaving a residue. But it is a solvent, not a detergent, so when it evaporates, whatever contaminants it ‘solved’ go right back plated onto the track again – clean your smartphone screen or mirror with alcohol to see the effect. You have to mechanically wipe up or absorb the dissolved schmutz while still wet, and that is precisely what the prior posts are saying.
We have had previous threads about the actual function of ‘dielectric grease’ in electrical contacts. Static clamped contact is different from rolling weighted contact, and there is an enormous amount of wack theorizing that gained considerable traction in the model railroad community. Not quite the wack theorizing in the highly-related ‘conductive lubricant’ lunacy, but you could see it from there.
I’ve seen the previous threads. A lot of pontificating and showing how much of our chemistry we remember. Not a lot of helpful explanation of any results one might actually have. Of course, many posts were deleted. One might charitably guess that all the actual practical posts were lost to the server gods.
But I think the root question to be asked is what is the explanation for the observed results
Specifically:
Traditional suggested products like Wahl clipper oil or Gun oil, CRC-26 and CRC contact cleaner and Protectant. are non-polar as is mineral spirits.
Neverstall is non-polar, Track Magic is as well. No-Ox-ID is non-polar(which is I guess the source of the conductive lubricant bruhaha. given it is not the same as “normal” no-ox), Bachmann track cleaner is somewhat in the middle, but certainly low-polar.
These products are some of the core “old wives tale” products along with modern cleaning products. What explains their popularity and consistantly falling in the non-polar category?
Further, we have the well publicized results from the La Mesa club.
They have of course not done any sort of scientific experimentation, but they do have far more hours of run time than the average model railroad and the difference in reliability of the railroad and effort to clean between IPA and Mineral Spirits is so significant that they made the explicit point to remark on it.
What is the the theory of why this is the case? Why, given how poorly IPA worked for this critical model railroad, should anyone rely on it?
My experience at our club was similar. Once we removed IPA from the equation and stuck with Minieral spirits. Oxidation related wheel and track filfth reduced significantly.
But I also have not set up a scientific experiement. And we’ve since had to tear down and move. The new layout requires the far more practical cleaning effor
The study for ‘microarcing’ damage needs to start with a careful analysis of exactly where the contact points between wheel and rail are, and how the pitting from the arc plasma develops.
This used to involve something like a metallurgical microscope but I believe there are current cameras with the resolution and lens capability available at a size and weight that could allow deployment “by rail” to many locations on a given layout in reasonable time, and then servo positioning to precise alignment.
Obviously isopropyl alcohol doesn’t form a ‘barrier layer’ at all; the only ‘science’ here might be to see if the redeposited contaminants have any effect. I certainly think that the “absorbent pad” closely following alcohol application (this including Masonite for analytic convenience) ought to be SOP even before any ‘proof’ of its efficacy can be developed.
Mineral spirits is certainly a reasonable alternative solvent but not because it is ‘more non-polar’. Again, picking up the detritus that has been solvated is important.
A problem I think is potential with microarcing in the presence of a hydrocarbon film is that the arc plasma will degrade components of the film to carbon and other material. Perhaps this, in addition to nickel and copper oxide, is in the ‘black’ deposit recovered from cleaning.
I continue to think that one of the purposes, and indeed the last step in particular, of “gleaming”, is to form an actual railhead rather than a random square shoulder from the rail drawing process for the wheel to run against. Then if necessary to follow an analogue to the ‘magic wear rate’ for full-size rails that periodically dresses out any microarc damage, or periodically apply a conductive material that fills the pits (which is something I believe the graphite application would do).
As I said, if we want to extrapolate the known efficacy of dielectric ma
Oh, and perhaps it’s time for a poll: what do people here think is the meaning of ‘polar’ and ‘non-polar’ in this context?
The contact points between an RP-25 wheel and standard railhead are almost explicitly on the inner edge of the railhead and similarly and the corner of the wheel tread as that’s the only point of consistent contact. None of the model manufacturers have a curved shape to the top of their rail so gleeming, if it means also rounding the rail head ever so slightly could in fact be an improvement just because it creates more contact surface. Though that may or may not decrease arcing and may or may not decrease “gunk”
I would imagine that any arcing would degrade any flim. Or also a graphite/graphene layer (I’m hesitant to describe it as graphene when it isn’t laid down preciesly, but the general electrical properties of Graphite in thin layers vs. thick apply. )
But if the theory is that the solvant is also leaving a film or otherwise reducing arcs, then it would stand to reason that fewer cases of that would occur.
In the case of La Mesa, they are super regimented and will run the cleaning train even if it isn’t technically needed.
While at the same time, some report a reduction in “liquid” cleaning of months. Again. Nothing we can call data. Maybe anecdata.
There are also other variables. A layout with naught but classic athearn sintered metal wheels that have not been polished or replaced is going to see more arcing and more gunk collection. That’s a mechanical difference.
Similar traditional Kadee metal wheels have a blackening product on them that comes off on the rail. Again, a mechanical gunk creator.
Hi there. I was away last week, so I’m catching a bit on this thread.
I took out my MDC track cleaner for a few pics. You can see below how the homemade masonite pads were sanded smooth. I can’t remember how I glued them but it was probably CA. I noticed that I also managed to keep the original springs inside the cylinders - so there is a bit of a value-add here in terms of pressure on the track. Mine is not motorized, it needs to be towed. I actually don’t use it that much, I did it for the fun of it (I’m a bit of an MDC junkie on the lookout for pretty much all they did in terms of engines).
It works very well, I just don’t like the space it takes on my smallish layout. I keep the tracks clean by simply rubbing the rails with a clean, dry piece of cloth.
IMG_20240724_210905 on Flickr
IMG_20240724_210920 on Flickr
Simon
Hello All,
I have three (3) of these; two (2) with the track cleaning pistons, one is converted to DCC.
It uses the OEM motor and gearing. It runs slowly and loudly so I cannot included it in a MOW track cleaning consist because of its speed- -or lack there of.
The use of masonite pads is brilliant!
Can you describe in more detail how you made them?
Thank you in advance.
Hope this helps.
Well, I did this about 10 years ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy about the project. I probably drew a circle on a piece of masonite with a pen. I’m pretty sure I cut the masonite using a hand saw, probably multiple cuts to remove most of the material around the circle. I definitely remember using a file to get a nice rounded shape. I think I used CA to glue the pads on the original parts. Or was it epoxy [*-)].
I kinda remember having to make some adjustments to make the pads functionnal, something like some filework on the inside pistons because the components were too long as a result of the added layers (pads). I don’t remember it as being particularly difficult.
Simon
There is a good video (from Darth Santa Fe) that shows the construction of one of these cleaners.
The original pads were a type of felt, with a little more compliance than the ‘back side’ of Masonite. They were made with an adhesive film to stick onto the ‘pistons’ with minimal height. “Ideally” gluing the top face of a Masonite pad onto one of the felt pads would give the desired compliance while preserving the ability to ‘rotate’ the pad and piston to use more of the backside area as it becomes contaminated.
Looks to me as if the length of the ‘tubes’ that hold the pistons might need shortening (and internal chamfering) to allow the pistons the necessary travel, and the pistons themselves might need to be slightly shortened so they don’t hit the caps retaining the tops of the springs.
Perhaps the easiest way to do the Masonite pads would be to cut them with a hole saw, and there are ‘rings’ of foam with double-stick tape sold for attaching things like appliance feet that could substitute for felt.
