Jersey Jimbo:
This will link to a detailed explanation written by the late Jeffery Wimberly. Scroll down to his post:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/212742.aspx
Dave
A Google search for “track gleaming” also returns results …
Mark.
OK, I’m going to cause a huge uproar here!
The proper term for polishing track so that it ‘gleams’ is ‘gleening’, with an ‘n’. ‘Gleening’ is a verb, i.e. the process by which a track (or whatever) is made to ‘gleam’, or ‘reflect brightly’.
I can just imagine the responses this will incur.
Check the dictionary before you shoot me.
XOXO
Dave
I can testify to the Gospel of the Gleam! After gleaming, all I need to do to clean my track after a long hiatus of no train running is to vacuum the dust off of it and rub over any few trouble spots with a small chunk of spare cork roadbed.
I read a post or an article a while back on track gleaming. Does anyone have imformation and/or opinion on it.
I’ve appended your post to an earlier thread answering your question. We only really need one thread on this issue, I think. [:)]
sounds like I want to try it. Can you do some track - run trains - do some more and so on until you’re done? Or do you have to complete the job once you start ?
You can gleam as you go. Worst case is that you may want to wipe down the track when you’re finally done.
Jim
Hi there. My experience is of a materials-scientist, theoretical metallurgist, teaching materials in a research university. I have given some thought about gleaming… In my personal opinion, gleaming is more than burnishing. Burnishing is the plastic deformation of a surface due to sliding contact with another object (see wikipedia), and for the purpose of increasing surface hardness (by creating surface stress) and reducing corrosion it is usually performed with a tool which is stronger than the material to be burnished. So, technically, the process of making the rail shine and smooth could be performed with a piece of hard (yet brittle) cast iron. However the best reports have always stressed the need of a “stainless steel” tool (washer). This made me think that there is something else going on. The Vickers hardness of nicker-silver (nickel-copper) is roughly half the one of stainless steel (Vickers hardness measures the resistance of a material to be indented, e.g. made a dent/scratch, see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_hardness_test) and therefore it seems plausible to me that some of the chromium of the stainless steel washer might migrate on the surface of the rail. The rail and the washer are burnishing each other. Chromium is quite hard, per se, but it can alloy with copper giving softer solutions. Chromium also forms a very thin layer of chromium oxide on the surface, very stable against corrosion and pitting, and therefore good for electrical arching between rail/wheel and normal wear. If this is the case than: 1) we have chromium on the surface of the rail. This can be checked if one raises the temperature of a test rail and there is some blueish-oxide-compound forming on the surface (remember the stainless steel exhaust manifolds of engines turning blue. 2) we could increase the strength of gleaming by increasing chromium cladding. This could be performed if one choose a high-chromium stainless steel washer to start with. Normal 304 Stainless Steel contains ~18
[quote user=“auro”]
Hi there. My experience is of a materials-scientist, theoretical metallurgist, teaching materials in a research university. I have given some thought about gleaming… In my personal opinion, gleaming is more than burnishing. Burnishing is the plastic deformation of a surface due to sliding contact with another object (see wikipedia), and for the purpose of increasing surface hardness (by creating surface stress) and reducing corrosion it is usually performed with a tool which is stronger than the material to be burnished. So, technically, the process of making the rail shine and smooth could be performed with a piece of hard (yet brittle) cast iron. However the best reports have always stressed the need of a “stainless steel” tool (washer). This made me think that there is something else going on. The Vickers hardness of nicker-silver (nickel-copper) is roughly half the one of stainless steel (Vickers hardness measures the resistance of a material to be indented, e.g. made a dent/scratch, see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_hardness_test) and therefore it seems plausible to me that some of the chromium of the stainless steel washer might migrate on the surface of the rail. The rail and the washer are burnishing each other. Chromium is quite hard, per se, but it can alloy with copper giving softer solutions. Chromium also forms a very thin layer of chromium oxide on the surface, very stable against corrosion and pitting, and therefore good for electrical arching between rail/wheel and normal wear. If this is the case than: 1) we have chromium on the surface of the rail. This can be checked if one raises the temperature of a test rail and there is some blueish-oxide-compound forming on the surface (remember the stainless steel exhaust manifolds of engines turning blue. 2) we could increase the strength of gleaming by increasing chromium cladding. This could be performed if one choose a high-chromium stainless steel washer to start with. Normal 304 Stainles
Would a chrome based polish work then?
Stephano,
Thanks for adding this insight. Indeed it would be interesting if someone could determine it the chromium transfer is actually happening, along with how much that aspect created additional performace improvement (vs. the smoothing). And if a certain SS type tool or washer (vs. whatever Home Depot stainless type I used) is much more effective per amount of effort expended.
When I did my track, I noted that with the initial rubbing (after the sandpaper steps) with the SS washer I could feel the reduction of the initial roughness. That gave me a guide on when I had achieved pretty good rail smothness improvement and when additional effort likely was reaching the point of diminishing return. It would be interesting to know, for example, whether additional rubbing had significant performance impact (due to more chromium transfer).
I am curious. Could you cite an example of chrome based polish?
Ed
patric
chromium plated has a bcc (body-centered-cubic) crystal structure and it is very shiny hard and brittle. the source of chromium must be compatible with the track. Nicker-Copper has a fcc (face-centered-cubic) structure and thus it is ductile and malleable. Natural iron is fcc but if you stabilize the austenitic phase, you can make it fcc and you can also dissolve chromium and retain the fcc organization. Then you have a supply of fcc-chromium which is compatible with the fcc track and would stick on it upon burnishing…these are my 2 cents… well washers.Stefano C
no, you need metallic chromium compatible with the metal of the track.
paul,
in the initial rubbing you are smearing the scratches & pores of both the rail and the washer. The vodoo magic is the use of a material with: fcc chrome inside, ductility similar to the rail… a bit of luck helped.
the thickness of the chromium is not that important. As long as the pores are full and you have enough surface chromium to passivate the surface with a few layers of oxide you are set. However, i would avoid damaging it with scratches. Some wear is normal (wheels rolling, electric arching), and to reduce it, a very thin coat of lubricant seems right to me, especially because the lubricant would increase the wheel-rail interface and thus reduce the density of current. It seems no-ox suffices…
Well, these are my guesses based on reading + knowlede and intuition.let`s hope we got it right.
Stefano C
Perhaps Stefano means Simichrome. EDIT It’s an old tube looked at by old eyes, It really says Ammonium My tube lists chromium as a content. I thought chromium was a hazard, but maybe that is another form of chromium.
The ammonium, white spirit and kerosene are consided the hazard. Use gloves
I wonder at the context in which chromium is listed.
I’ve got a tube of Simichrome, and it doesn’t mention chromium as an ingredient. Nor does the MSD:
http://www1.mscdirect.com/MSDS/MSDS00025/36962975-20071213.PDF
which does mention iron oxide.
I’ve used the stuff for over 50 years, and it is a superb polish. For “light” work, I don’t see the need for gloves. But I have used the stuff, at times, for fairly large tasks; and it will do nasty things to your fingers if you overdo it.
I intend to continue to use it.
Ed
well, looks like the only chrome in Simichrome is in the name of the product. Like silver in nickel-silver. Simichrome is a polish and as such it removes the top layer of oxide. The only left over inhorganic compound seems-iron oxide: i.e. rust ! if the particles of iron oxides are very small, they will be transparent. Like zinc-oxide (yellow) and titanium-oxide (white) particles in sunscreen (transparent).
Stefano (US based, but currently living in Germany for work).
Revised my post above, no chromium.