Very true, Art. The sand does have a positive effect on traction, this is a known fact. But it is like giving a hot rod a shot of nitro, it’s something you don’t want to do all the time, but when you need a little extra ooph it’s there for you. Obviously a textured surface will give better traction, but how long will texturing last before a 400 car steel wheeled train reduces it yet again to a smooth rail head? If it were practical the railroads would be doing it already.
Now the question is, how do we get sand down on our miniature rails without getting it stuck in the motor gears???
“I wonder what track looks like after it was hit by sand and a 100 ton loco runs over it, I expect clean and shiny?” Simple - NO The sand increases traction, not make track shiny. Never has and never will. I am right you are wrong, as I work with a railroad.
Snoq. Pass RR, sure have no arguments with your response. I worked for a railroad for 4 plus years but not out on the line, just towers and stations. But the rails around where sand was used sure weren’t shiny in my memory. I cleaned my HO track with kerosene; of course I had no grades so that worked, and it sure stopped oxidation. Wahls clipper oil was touted in the MR at the time but my budget was the beer kind, not champaigne.
Wouldn’t be a bit surprised that if the rails were ‘abraided’ slightly using 600 trimite paper crosswise, not longitudinally, would improve traction. When tracks are cleaned by sliding something gritty along the rail, it should actually reduce the surface area in contact with the wheel as there are now grooves. admittedly near microscopic, in the rail.
Hey Snoc you sound like Tedd Bullpitt, you forgot to add on to the end"and I’m king of the castle".
I will tell you now, i would be very surprised if anything my mate Jack said was too far off the mark.
It is possible for a metal surface to appear quite clean and shiny but in fact be be pitted with microscopic highs and lows which make it quite resistive to anything sliding along it. I think it is to do with coefficient of depth of molecular penetration and surface tension; which is of course as we all know is very much affected by temperature and humiidty.
‘There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.’
J. Robert Oppenheimer
(1904- 1966)
I did some more research on the subject of traction and I find no error in this argument. If anybody can dispute the following research with supportable facts and references I will be more than happy to change my position on the matter.
, Effects of friction on steel to steel contact as it applies to locomotive traction and the effects of the roughness of the surface.
Frictional resistance to the relative motion of two solid objects is usually proportional to the force which presses the surfaces together as well as the roughness of the surfaces. Since it is the force perpendicular or “normal” to the surfaces which affects the frictional resistance, this force is typically called the “normal force” and designated by N.
Very impressive, T-J, but I cannot determine if you’re for or against friction. Friction is what we need; on a smooth clean rail, a little friction is helpful - going uphill anyway, and when sand doesn’t get the job done, cogs come into play.
So the sand provides friction and once it’s crushed to smithereens, we have to apply more and so we have more than one pipe per side delivering what’s needed, clean rail or not.
And it helps even if we have grasshoppers or leaves all over the railhead. Now behind the engine, it’s a different story, the less friction, the better. Opinions, though, must yield to tests, and I know I don’t have the wherewith all for that.
There is a thread on this site that shows a foreign 2-10-0 with 7 - count’em, 7 - sand pipes coming down from the sand dome on just ONE side!! Probably a few of them are for reverse moves.
Art, I voted to support friction before I voted against it. I supported the idea of molecular adhesion, then I flip flopped and unsupported it. I did not support school athletics, but now I am a jock supporter.
Donna, next time I’m on the Sunshine coast you got a date…
Instead of scratching up yer rails, why not just add more weight to the engine, thats the easiest way to get additional friction and pulling power without destroying yer track, just my [2c]
Vic, that might work in G, if you can find enough space, but it didn’t always work on the real thing. The B&O foisted off on to the Alton a 4-6-4 and a 4-4-4 named Lord and Lady Baltimore, respectively. The Lady was no lady; the weight on just 4 driving wheels spread the rails - not a good thing, at least for track. The Lady was retired in short order, and the Lord got replaced quickly by a slant nosed diesel so as to not have to stop for water and coal. Speed was of the essence in those days.
I agree I have proven in my own instance; that clean track has better traction than a dirty one. I have a short section of track that has a 4 % grade and somewhere between an R3 and an R2 curve and my Sachsen will spin its wheels with 4 box cars in tow, when rail is slightly dirty. When clean it will just pull 5 up the hill. Incidentally my Stainz with a powered tender will beat it and my Mallet pulls 7 carriages up the same incline.
Getting back to the original statement, “Slightly dirty rails will improve traction,” it really depends on what the rails are dirty WITH.
Oil, wet clay mud and dripped grill juice are unlikely to help anything - with the possible exception of vocabulary development.
Anything that interferes with getting power to the locomotive is bad - and whether or not it improves traction isn’t the reason.
Scale plays a part. Something that would stop a G-gage train in its tracks probably wouldn’t even be noticed by the engineer of a 1:8 scale live steamer.
Unless your loco has operating sanders, bright and shiny is probably the best available choice for rail condition.
OTOH, back about the time I was teething on a Lionel box car, one railroader (O scale, outside third rail) was reputed to deliberately apply ‘scale sand,’ (scouring powder) to one rail only, to convince his locos to make his worst grade. I’d be willing to bet that his track looked just like some of the sand-fouled rail seen under N&W Y6’s in some half century old photos I have.
If somebody actually does some detailed research on the subject, I’d be happy to read the resulting paper, right after I wipe the metal polish off my rails.
Chuck mate you are quite right, i have an unusual set of circumstances contaminating my rail.
!) I live near the ocean and i get salt laden air.
The track runs through tropical palms and ferns which have an exudation into the air.
and now i have this problem with ants. It only involves certain types of ants which leave a trail od acid on the rail the passage of electricity through it converts it to a sticky black substance and only certain locos are affected.
I clean my track weekly but i could weel do it twice per week.
I clean my track before and after every operating session and at least once a week. I clean locomotive and rolling stock wheels once a month (twice if I have run them alot over the course of th e month).
Well mate you have a lot more energy than me or else wyou only have a small layout and not many locos or more free time on yopur hands than me and i’m retired.