1990 Scale Hudson Not Running On T-Rail Track

T rail track is a funny creature....some engines like it....others don’t....I can tell you the 18005 doesn’t.....it’s got more toy like flanges than the 700’s that are designed to run on T rail....wish I could tell you different,....but that’s the skinny...

Pat

I believe the 18005 has the wheels from the 763 so it will run on tubular track.  If you have built a tee rail layout you may want to find a 701 switcher to run on it.  

Like Harmon says the flanges are too high. Measure the flange depth on the Hudson vs one of the engines that doesn't hit the rail spikes. A fraction of an inch deeper is all it takes.

Pete

Thanks for your help everyone.........I guess just like anything t-rail has it's advantages and disadvantages. Sounds like some engines like it and some don't.

@Dwayne B posted:

Thanks for your help everyone.........I guess just like anything t-rail has it's advantages and disadvantages. Sounds like some engines like it and some don't.

If you have the room on your layout, do a second loop of a different brand of track.....I run a slue of 18005’s on Atlas track, and they are unbelievably smooth on that track....I swear it’s like they were made for Atlas solid rail.....

Pat

OK, dumb question: why not use Ross or Gargraves 3-Rail track?

Not a dumb question at all.........I had heard good things about t-rail and I just liked the idea of using a vintage track. I also have plenty of Lionel O gauge tubular.....But once you hold a piece of t-rail in your hands you can't compare the quality.

Is it that the drivers are hitting, or is it all the wheels?  Can you replace the wheel sets on the pilot and trailing trucks with some that have slightly smaller flanges? If it's the drivers, there's a scary way to correct them, a method not for the faint at heart. The proper way, of course is to spend big bux to have the wheels machined to have smaller flanges. 

The other way is to secure the loco on a bench, on its back. Power the motor and hold a very fine file carefully against the moving flanges. This is the poor man's lathe. Do it very gradually and cautiously. Use a digital caliper to measure your progress. I did this once, on an admittedly not-so-rare or expensive locomotive of European manufacture that would misbehave on GG switches.

If the excess tread depth is minimal, just a few passes will get the result you need.  

Don't have a beer first. Have a beer when you're done.

Its the drivers that are hitting.........The flanges are just too large. I might think about giving this a try. Thanks for the idea. I'll keep a cold one on ice.

          I have done that to one and also cut groves for traction tires I set them on edge and use a dremal and a strong vacuum to keep the filings away from everything

Dwayne, the folks who turn flanges down (and do a precise job with it) are experienced machinists using lathes, etc.  The driving wheels are permanently pressed onto the frame.  If you mess them up with crude hand tools, there's no way to undo the damage.  A really nice loco will be permanently ruined, and basically reduced to scrap. 

Frankly I can't imagine cutting a groove for traction tires to a consistent depth with a hand-held Dremel tool.  I wouldn't even attempt it.

Joe Foehrkolb of Baldwin Forge and Machine is one of the best for working on steam loco drivers.  I think he's retired but no harm in asking him about your job.  See his contact info in this post:  https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...paging-joe-foehrkolb

If Joe is willing to do it there will be a cost.  So here's another option:  Why not sell your 18005 intact and look for an identical MTH J-1e Hudson with "scale wheels?"  For the last 17 years MTH has sold most of their Premier steam locos in a small-flange version, which should be perfect for T-rail track.  Look for one with a product number ending in "-2."  O scale 2-railers didn't really embrace these MTH models, and they don't run well on "traditional" 3-rail track, just like your 18005 doesn't run well on T-rail.  So it's a perfect fit for you and you should be able to get a good deal!

@Dwayne B posted:

Its the drivers that are hitting.........The flanges are just too large. I might think about giving this a try. Thanks for the idea. I'll keep a cold one on ice.

This just sounds like a very bad idea.....if you’re insistent on running that Hudson on T rail, have it machined properly, don’t do hack work...the risk of doing severe, irreversible damage is just too great.....

Pat

@Ted S posted:

So here's another option:  Why not sell your 18005 intact and look for an identical MTH J-1e Hudson with "scale wheels?"  For the last 17 years MTH has sold most of their Premier steam locos in a small-flange version, which should be perfect for T-rail track.  Look for one with a product number ending in "-2."  O scale 2-railers didn't really embrace these MTH models, and they don't run well on "traditional" 3-rail track, just like your 18005 doesn't run well on T-rail.  So it's a perfect fit for you and you should be able to get a good deal!

I think a scale wheeled engine would be a nightmare on older T-rail turnouts.

Does the MTH scale model suggested run on three-rail track, or is it designed for two-rail operation?

To the persons who warn about ruining the model, we're not talking a major re-profiling of the wheels, with changes to tread width, angle, relief for traction tires, etc.  Just taking a few thousandths off the edge of the flanges. A steady hand and a focused eye are all that are needed. Rest the file on a block of wood, that itself is fastened to the bench.  Go slowly and take a zillionth off at a time.  It doesn't seem worth the hand-waving and hair-pulling from the well-intentioned advisors.

@Dwayne B posted:

Not a dumb question at all.........I had heard good things about t-rail and I just liked the idea of using a vintage track. I also have plenty of Lionel O gauge tubular.....But once you hold a piece of t-rail in your hands you can't compare the quality.

That is how I feel about Super O.  You just have to accept that certain types of track come with certain limitations.

The other option is to add a second traction tire,  instead of lowering the engine, try raising it. 

I have decided to let a professional grid the flanges smaller....The 1990 Hudson is to nice an engine not to have running on my layout. I'm concerned if I tried to do it I would mess it up. Thanks again everyone for your help!

@Dwayne B posted:

I have decided to let a professional grid the flanges smaller....The 1990 Hudson is to nice an engine not to have running on my layout. I'm concerned if I tried to do it I would mess it up. Thanks again everyone for your help!

That’s a smart idea!...

Pat

"The other option is to add a second traction tire,  instead of lowering the engine, try raising it."

Brilliant.  But how would the electrons get to the motor? Through the pilot and trailing trucks? Through the tender? Pretty easy, actually, with a little rewiring.

As an aside, the Williams brass steamers from the late 80's - early 90's have larger than average flanges, and used to hit the "spikes" on modern Atlas O track must a bit - but they did. As I recall it was the USRA Pacific and Mikado that I noted doing this on a club layout. They never had trouble on any other track (and GG flex-track has no "spikes").

Note: I am talking about the nice Wms Samhongsa-made locos, not the very early brass Hudsons/B&O Pacific locos that were marginal efforts anyway. Don't know if they hit Atlas or not, nor who built them.

I mention this in case you want to combine old T-rail with additional later locos. May not be a problem, but...

I think T rail was designed for scale wheel sets- the 700 E and the scale cars all had scale wheel sets.

@rplst8 posted:

I think a scale wheeled engine would be a nightmare on older T-rail turnouts.

I'm curious, why do you think that?  Since T-rail track was designed for scale-wheeled engines with smaller flanges, the unloved MTH Proto 3-2 locos might be a bonanza for the original poster.  At least they wouldn't ride on the roadbed, as reported of the Lionel and Williams locos.

Honestly Dwayne, it sounds like by using this track in conjunction with anything but early Lionel you're setting yourself up for frustration and a limited selection of motive power.

Something is wrong here.

You can run deep flanges on Lionel prewar T-Rail track. Way back in January, 1993, CTT ran an article about a guy who built his whole layout with nothing but T-Rail, and ran nothing but Lionel postwar on it. In a February, 1992 article, another collector mentions that T-Rail worked well with all his O gauge trains.

I don't know what they're doing differently than you, but it sounds like your problem is not in the engine!

@nickaix posted:

Something is wrong here.

You can run deep flanges on Lionel prewar T-Rail track. Way back in January, 1993, CTT ran an article about a guy who built his whole layout with nothing but T-Rail, and ran nothing but Lionel postwar on it. In a February, 1992 article, another collector mentions that T-Rail worked well with all his O gauge trains.

I don't know what they're doing differently than you, but it sounds like your problem is not in the engine!

Wrong.....I’ve run the 18005 on T rail....it just doesn’t work....some stuff with toy like flanges made it through just fine, a 763 said no ...and the 18005 followed suit...the flanges just won’t pass over the rail joints....sorry....

Pat

@Ted S posted:

I'm curious, why do you think that?  Since T-rail track was designed for scale-wheeled engines with smaller flanges, the unloved MTH Proto 3-2 locos might be a bonanza for the original poster.  At least they wouldn't ride on the roadbed, as reported of the Lionel and Williams locos.

The frogs would be too large and the wheels would likely fall in.  

P.S. Proto 3-2 locos aren’t necessarily scale wheeled. They come in hi-rail and scale versions, but can be converted back and forth.  The ones that have scale wheels usually have fixed pilots and Kadee couplers. 

@Dwayne B maybe you could post a video and/or some pics of your situation. This may help with the differing solutions to the problem that you attempted to describe in words only.....just a thought. 

@rplst8 posted:

P.S. Proto 3-2 locos aren’t necessarily scale wheeled. They come in hi-rail and scale versions, but can be converted back and forth.  The ones that have scale wheels usually have fixed pilots and Kadee couplers. 

We're discussing steam here.  Unfortunately MTH Proto 3-2 steam cannot be "converted" (the roller pickups can be removed, that's about it.)  MTH never spent the money to retool their steam chassis so that the wheels and axles are removable as a set.  Like most toy trains, the driving wheels are permanently pressed onto the axles at the factory.  They're equipped with small, scale-like flanges which don't operate well over some popular brands of 3-rail switches.

I'm not 100% sure of the tread width (if that's what you're referring to), or how it compares to Lionel's 1937 Hudson.  That's one variable which has evolved in 2-rail O scale over the decades.  But if you're saying that T-rail switches only accept scale depth flanges and also demand a wide tread width, then Dwayne's choices will be pretty limited.

I machine drivers from rough castings, and make my own steel tires.  I have 2-railed a Lionel 701 doing what Arthur Bloom suggested, although I admit to a rather sophisticated fixture.  Not sure whether that qualifies me to comment, but here goes:

If all you are doing is removing a few thousandths of an inch from the flange, the file trick is worth at least an attempt.  Just remember three things: 1-  do not let iron filings near a modern can motor - a vacuum cleaner and lots of masking tape or clay can help in that department. 2- do not press so hard that you stall the motor, and 3 - use a brand new quality file.

Polish afterward with sand paper.

@Ted S posted:

We're discussing steam here.  Unfortunately MTH Proto 3-2 steam cannot be "converted" (the roller pickups can be removed, that's about it.)  MTH never spent the money to retool their steam chassis so that the wheels and axles are removable as a set.  Like most toy trains, the driving wheels are permanently pressed onto the axles at the factory.  They're equipped with small, scale-like flanges which don't operate well over some popular brands of 3-rail switches.

I'm not 100% sure of the tread width (if that's what you're referring to), or how it compares to Lionel's 1937 Hudson.  That's one variable which has evolved in 2-rail O scale over the decades.  But if you're saying that T-rail switches only accept scale depth flanges and also demand a wide tread width, then Dwayne's choices will be pretty limited.

What I meant was, looking for “Proto 3-2” steam isn’t necessarily going to get you scale wheels.  All my MTH steam says Proto 3-2 on the box and yet have high rail wheels. 

The ones with the scale flanges have a different product number ending in "-2".  A lot of 3-rail guys have gotten burned because they bought these, and discovered they don't operate well on some types of 3-rail track.

I've never actually run on T-rail, but if I built a layout with it I would be curious to try one of the scale-wheeled Proto 3-2 steam locos.  I've seen plenty of them at meets, I think the supply exceeds the demand and there are deals to be had.

I'm also not sure what the original poster is describing.  I had a T-rail layout for over a decade and ran the 1-700E with no problems, along with postwar, prewar tinplate, and modern trains, even 2-rail scale (but that didn't like the switches as I explain below).  I don't understand how the flanges could be hitting the nuts holding the rails together since they are on the outside of the rails, along with the steel plate.  The only thing on the inside of the rail is the head of the small bolt, and that is designed to fit against the web of the rail and under the railhead so that very little or nothing protrudes into the area where the flanges would be.  The operation was extremely smooth, and the Magne-traction worked great, better than on tubular track.  There shouldn't be any need to modify any train to work on T-rail track.  Note that Lionel sold the Rail Chief set with a 700e, the articulated streamline cars, and T-rail track, where the cars all had deep tinplate flanges, and that worked fine.

However, that's not to say that you won't encounter a few issues.  The sliding shoes on postwar coil coupler trucks and some operating cars hang down too low and will catch on the switches which is a real problem, sometimes derailing.  I put spacers inside the trucks to raise the shoes slightly, and that solved the problem.  Modern cars with the wheels fixed to the axles were sometimes gauged too narrow for the distance between the frog and the guardrail and would ride up, sometimes derailing.  Proper gauging of the wheelsets cured that problem.  The switch frog flangeways are too deep for reliable running with scale-sized flanges like you have on 2-rail equipment and would drop down into the frog area, also sometimes derailing.  This was especially annoying when trying to run the prewar scale freight cars since if one of those derailed at the switch dropping down into the frog, it would sometimes break the coupler, which is almost impossible to repair or replace.  This was doubly annoying since T-rail was supposed to be designed to work with Lionel's prewar scale equipment, but it wasn't perfect for the freight cars.

I would probably still have this track if it wasn't for the relatively sharp radius of 072 turns, which only became an issue when the large scale-sized engines like the 18010 Steam Turbine and MTH Challenger were released.  I didn't like the overhang with 072, so I changed to flex track and much larger radius.  A minor issue was the effect that Magne-traction had on the small bolts, loosening them over time so that I had to keep going around the layout retightening the nuts and bolts periodically, but don't try to tighten the bolts too much or you will strip the threads.  I did a few of those.  T-rail can also be tricky to work with due to the die-cast ties, some of which can be brittle due to their age, and then break off of the rails.  It was a real challenge to fix such issues with the track.

I really appreciated it when Atlas released their O gauge track since the rail profile is almost exactly the same as T-rail, but the rail web is thicker (which makes their flex track so hard to bend).  The rail height is the essentially the same, and if I remember correctly, when Jim Weaver of Atlas was interested in introducing a track system, he asked people what the best existing track system was at the time for 3-rail trains, and T-rail was most people's answer, so it wasn't a surprise to me that when Atlas O track came out, it was like T-rail with plastic ties.  It's what I now use for everything, even with the early switch problems.  I should note that Atlas O steel is terrific for postwar with Magne-traction, but they only made it for a short while, including flex track.

I'd be happy to help resolve whatever issue you have with getting your T-rail layout up and running.  Once you have it together, it is beautiful track, the trains run very smoothly and quietly if you put it on cork roadbed as I did, and as the original poster wrote, vintage tubular can't compare.

I had a loop of Lionel T-rail back 20 years ago. I ran everything on it and they ran great. The high cost and scarcity of the switches prevented building even a small layout with it. It sounds to me like the OP has the head of the small cap screw fastener on the outside and the nut on the inside. The fastener should have nut should be on the outside. The head should be no more than flush with the top of the rail. The OP may also be using the wrong size of fastener. (See photos

)

A picture is truly worth 1000 words.  Ricky I think you found the problem!

"The fastener should have nut should be on the outside. The head should be no more than flush with the top of the rail." 

Well, thanks to Mr Tanner, this may be the "duh" of the week. Never thought of that. 

Love those simple, "obvious"(!) solutions. Hope that's it.

@Rich Wiemann posted:

@Dwayne B maybe you could post a video and/or some pics of your situation. This may help with the differing solutions to the problem that you attempted to describe in words only.....just a thought. 

This is why a few pictures posted with a question is so beneficial in soliciting an answer on the forum. Hopefully the resolution is as simple as reversing the bolts.  

I would surprised if have the nuts on the inside is the problem. No 3 rail engine would clear them and others knowledgeable on both the track and the 1990 Hudson says it won't clear the tie bolts.

Pete

I wonder if in different years the track was made, Lionel used slightly different bolts?  Or maybe they had been replaced by a previous owner?

That’s how I bolted my T rail together, and my 18005’s still banged into the fasteners......clearly you wouldn’t want the stud end facing inwards, or a lot of stuff would bang and clang at every joint....

Pat