Could Lionel License The Construction And Sale Of A Full Complement Of Super "O" Track To Another Manufacturer?

Dennis, I would build at least one Super-O layout if the curves and turnouts were available in wider radius.  As you say, the business case would be the challenge, so this seems unlikely.   Perhaps a "crowd-funding" effort might gauge the level of interest.  -Ken

Dennis are you referring to my Super O Manifesto?  Lol...  

The answer is obvious, Lionel "could" license it if they choose.  Also, depending on the age of the track, there may not be a necessity for a license, but I'm not a patent lawyer.

Sure, Lionel could license Super-O to an outside supplier.  But since it would be competing with their existing FasTrack line, I'd be pretty surprised if they did so.

That said, if Super-O became available in the same array of diameters as FasTrack (including switches), I wouldn't hesitate to convert my FasTrack layout to Super-O.  Back in the Seventies, I had a Super-O layout, and I had no problems whatever with it.

An idea worth exploring! But also agree that Lionel has gone all-in on FasTrack as that is the track system that appeals to newbies, youngsters, and that huge part of their customer base entering the hobby by purchasing a starter set for a carpet central or 4x8 plywood set up.

Have really enjoyed that Super O thread.   Other than knowing that it did exist I really don't know much about it.

Why?,  Excluding the 3 rail tinplate track, we already have Gargraves and Ross making great products with a full compliment of radaii, flexibility. The blackened middle rail of these two is much less destructive the the pick up rollers than Super-O was/is

If an extinct track system would ever be re-issued, why not the K-Line Super-Snap?  It looks very similar to Super-O, but unlike Super-O, all O-gauge trains, from tinplate to modern, will run on it--even the switches. We had a pile of Super-O straight track many years ago, and the only thing it was good for was shelf track.  Tinplate trains won't run on Super-O as the rail profile is too low. The tooling for the Super-Snap track must be around somewhere, all it would take is someone willing to produce it. 

John 

Could they do it? Yep! Will they do it? Not at all likely.

Personally, I would love to see Super O resurrected.  However, just imagine the tooling costs for wide-path Super O switches which would be purchased by only a small and ever declining group of niche buyers.

I would like Lionel to consider a better track system like Super O.  Unfortunately, Lionel has determined that those who operate Legacy scale equipment appear willing to  settle for the same Fastrack system that satisfies the low end of the market.

I have also heard that this track system was originally very difficult and labor intensive to manufacture .

And then there is the matter of that "copper" center rail using a material which is anathema to Lionel due to its cost.  

And, as others have pointed out, why would Lionel permit sales of Super O to cut into the fat margins on their lousy but high volume Fastrack system?

I'm in! Although I'd like to also see turnouts using lanterns and equivalent length both routes, so as to be able drop into an expanding layout,realistic siding bumpers,grade crossings  and legacy features such as lcs. And lastly, improved rail to rail contacts.But I  won't hold my breath for this reason. I believe  lionel doesn't solicit it's customers for any product ideas. Period. It's ''here it is boys, take it or leave it''policy is doing back room damage to an otherwise fine institution. I had the opportunity to discuss this issue when at an orlando train show back in 2017. I asked a lionel rep. who appeared to be in his mid 30!s hWhy did you start then stop using a blackened center rail? His response was; we (lionel llc.) thought it was ugly. Ok, so I mentioned that growing up,walking the old Hudson to Mohawk trackage assured me that it would be prototypical to blacken the cr and roadbed out just past the running rails. His response though me back! He replied that he was aware of the coal cinders used as ballast, and that along with the oil drippings left by passing trains the center rail would be harder to detect. Good answer. So I assumed that he would have passed info/idea up through the chain and maybe he did. But somehow all we got folks is orange roadbed fastrack? Well that's certainly prototypical when you have a vat car derail while carrying orange paint? Thank for allowing me my 2cents. Lionel,are you listening?  Be awesome to run a $1000.00+ loco on lionel and not somebody else's track. 

L.I.TRAIN posted:

Why?,  Excluding the 3 rail tinplate track, we already have Gargraves and Ross making great products with a full compliment of radaii, flexibility. The blackened middle rail of these two is much less destructive the the pick up rollers than Super-O was/is

Well, if  I'm building a PW-style, toy train layout (like the one I have now!) you can be sure I'm not going with Gargraves or Ross.

"Form over function."

L.I.TRAIN posted:

 The blackened middle rail of these two is much less destructive the the pick up rollers than Super-O was/is

Super o doesnt damage rollers.

Super O Bob posted:

Dennis are you referring to my Super O Manifesto?  Lol...  

 

Hi Bob,

I thought the points that you made regarding a case for reissuing Super "O" track on the companion thread were very compelling.  Quite frankly, the fortunate people who had a chance to run trains on your beautiful Super "O" layout with wide radius curves would leave with an understanding of why so many people love this track system, and would be excited to run their scale equipment on it.  

For me, the excellent point you made about Lionel selling premium equipment, particularly highly detailed, scale, fully featured  locomotives, without having a companion premium track system, really made sense to me.  (And, I do fully understand why many people would be perfectly happy with Lionel's current offerings if they fully suit their purposes.)

Forum Members,

The above posts are very enjoyable to read, and make many well considered arguments and suggestions. Thanks to each of you!

Ron464nyc posted:

 Be awesome to run a $1000.00+ loco on lionel and not somebody else's track. 

That is my point exactly...

Yesterday it was Addams Family Super O Layout...  now we look to be heading back to ressurection of super o! 

This topic used to come up about once a year.  I have a barn full of super o in storage...  literally hundreds of switches and everything.  But if lionel ever did reissue it, or some NEW scale like track system, i would be all in.. 

Super O Bob posted:

L.I.TRAIN posted:

 The blackened middle rail of these two is much less destructive the the pick up rollers than Super-O was/is

Super o doesnt damage rollers.

Only badly formed rollers from the 50's.  I would love to see it SuperO come back but sadly since my layout is already built it's too late for me.

I would be awesome though, different length straight sections, different radius curves.  Switches that look like Ross or AtlasO and didn't melt when they fail.

One thing that would be a plus, since MTH and AtlasO track is hardly ever in stock, Lionel or who ever could make a killing if they could get it on store shelves.

I would be awesome though, different length straight sections, different radius curves.  Switches that look like Ross or AtlasO and didn't melt when they fail.

One thing that would be a plus, since MTH and AtlasO track is hardly ever in stock, Lionel or who ever could make a killing if they could get it on store shelves.

Exactly... its not like you can even get the alternative...

Ken-Oscale posted:

Dennis, I would build at least one Super-O layout if the curves and turnouts were available in wider radius.  As you say, the business case would be the challenge, so this seems unlikely.   Perhaps a "crowd-funding" effort might gauge the level of interest.  -Ken

Ken,

I didn't mention turnouts because of the likely assumed cost, but that would be phenomenal.  I hadn't thought of crowd funding, which would be a great idea if it is a feasible alternative.  (I did find myself musing about the unlikely possibility that some devoted, but unknown, Lionel enthusiast with the means could do the reissue under license, if necessary, without the same necessity for establishing a business case for the project.  He or she would likely  have to be a big Super "O" fan, and that hasn't happened yet.)

Allan Miller posted:

Could they do it? Yep! Will they do it? Not at all likely.

Given the passage of 50+ years, history makes a compelling argument that you may be correct.  But licensing (if necessary), assuming Lionel would not be competing with its present track systems to a significant degree, may provide an alternative.  I suspect the reissue would provide Lionel with some great, additional promotional material for both their high-end, and, postwar inspired product.

Orange'a gonna respond lionel?

Ron464nyc posted:

Orange'a gonna respond lionel?

Why would they?  It's pretty clear that if they were going to reissue Super O, they would have done it a long time ago.

Rusty

Would love to see “NEW” Super O - wide radius curves / switches / long straights / etc

Does anyone remember seeing the samples of 3 foot straights at York a few years ago ? 

They were done privately not by Lionel - looked awesome 

Plenty of old 027 and 0 gauge track out there but they still keep making more - some people want new track

Me 😎

I hadn't realized the Addams family layout was super O.  It would have been an appealing choice when building my layout right now its all built with Atlas O track. There will be other layouts in the future though.

BlueComet400 could very well be the future of our hobby, and their money is just as green as yours. 

John

Lets hope not...  because the hobby of scratch building a detailed hirail scale layout would be lost.  

What you are missing in this is that you have different customers for o guage product.  Lets make an anology...  consider selling cars...

If you dont provide enough market bandwidth, such as types of vehicles, like minivans, sedans or pickup trucks you have situations where as a company u are forcing your customer to buy something they dont want.  Like trying to sell a farmer a sedan.  Makes sence if you only sell sedans, but that vehicle doesnt fit the farmers lifestyle.  He needs to haul trailers, bulk goods in the vehicle, have off road capability etc, etc.  He simply goes elsewhere to buy his truck.

Offering only a track system that appeals to the carpet layout once a year crowd, doesnt fit the lifestyle of model railroaders with scale layouts that are permanent.

You have to realize the scarcastic tone of what was being said.

Calling any fellow train enthusiast a fool for what he/she chooses to run is flat-out rude and immature. We all have our own individual interests within the hobby. None is better than the other, just different. 

John 

Could it be made today at the same quality of the past and still be affordable? 

I would love to see superO made again but Lionel told me a few years ago that most of the tooling for superO has either been lost or destroyed. If that is true then forget Lionel ever doing it. 

If just certain pcs could be made like 30"straights, wider radius curves and better switches I think that could be a start. 

New tooling is expensive so either a company or a person with very deep pockets need to be involved and in the end how much would it cost to the hobbiest for the track. If too expensive it could kill the whole project. 

With all the negatives I still think it would be a great track system to do again. Let's hope!!!!!!!!!

Dave

romiller49 posted:

Could it be made today at the same quality of the past and still be affordable? 

I wondered that myself...  i would expect the copper in the original track would be very expensive today.  The copper quality i think was really good.

I have tried in the past to get super o made again.  Im not expecting to go there again.  I will let others try that.

I am amused this keeps arising.  Let everyone have their point of view...

I like and dislike Super O track.

Like: nostalgia and it is a decent track system. 

Dislike: buss bar for center rail. A minor issue, but one extra step when assembling the track. Plus accurately getting it placed on the center rail. My bigger issue is the switches, specifically the switch motor housing.  I have an FM Trainmaster that will catch on the housing if the switch is used in a curve. This is remedied by placing a short section of track prior to the offending end of the switch. Unfortunately, this increases the size of the layout, a bit of a problem if you’re trying to keep the layout compact.

Steve

Hi steve...  actually in the super o instructions, they show that straight being needed...  i think they used a #746 in the example...  i will see if i can find that.

On my custom switches, i designed them in CAD, and i placed the motors farther out to clear a postwar GG1 pilot on the adjacent track.  I was using 5-inch track center spacing.

Super O Bob posted:

romiller49 posted:

Could it be made today at the same quality of the past and still be affordable? 

I wondered that myself...  i would expect the copper in the original track would be very expensive today.  The copper quality i think was really good.

The fact the copper in the original track would be very expensive is an interesting point.  It would also be interesting to quantify the inflation in the price of copper, say since 1960.  Using an inflation calculator online, $1.00 of Super "O" track in 1960 would cost $8.53 today.  But, that obviously calculates the general inflation rate.  The inflation rate for copper would be the important calculation for this particular material.  (Of course, if the product was made in Asia  the calculation would be different - and might be almost incalculable with any precision for the future in the present environment depending on the sourcing.)

This should be a graph of copper prices in the United States since 1960 that I located online:

       https://www.macrotrends.net/14...istorical-chart-data

Assuming I'm reading the graph correctly, the price of copper in early 1960 was about .30 per pound.  "The current price of copper as of October 25, 2018 is $2.75 per pound", according to that website.  Interestingly it looks like the price of copper decreased during 1960. [Note the drastic drop in the price of copper since 2011. That level of volatility might be concerning all by itself.]

In conclusion, this somewhat less than rigorous attempt at quantification indicates that copper prices are only slightly greater than the general rate of inflation from roughly 1960 until yesterday.

But the "affordability", question is a very relevant fact.  Built to Order?

I am very unconvinced that any current, and certainly past tube rail, track system l know about is what l want, and has been an obstacle.  I would like to see an article in OGR showing all commonly used O scale track, in good clear side-by-side photos.  I want simple to use, non -proprietary, compatible, but REALISTIC track for high rail use.  I have plenty of Marx 0-27 and 0-34 tube track for a historical 1940's temporary holiday layout, and it looks funny under modern locos that can even make those curves.

Great topic and great points by all. The one thing we can all be thankful is when Lionel DID come out with Super-O, that was (in my opinion) the start to the realistic era and your railroad can now have a sense of realism, which was and is not possible with traditional tubular track.  My first Lionel train came on Christmas 1961 and that set came with the Rio Grande 2379 and Super-O track. All my friend that had Lionel trains were WOWED when they saw my Super-O train board.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

The answer is obvious, Lionel "could" license it if they choose.  Also, depending on the age of the track, there may not be a necessity for a license, but I'm not a patent lawyer.

The patent that might have covered Super O track (here) expired a long time ago.

Anyone today is free to produce the same track without a license.

You could likely even call it Super O, since Lionel has probably abandoned that trademark.

https://youtu.be/0PnRp8oQR40

Look at this guy!  I thought i had the largest...

Goes to show i am not the only nutty super o guy around...  i wonder if its because we (the latter half of postwar era) kids grew up with super o, we love it so...

L.I.TRAIN posted:

My first Lionel train came on Christmas 1961 and that set came with the Rio Grande 2379 and Super-O track. All my friend that had Lionel trains were WOWED when they saw my Super-O train board.

Channelling clyde... dang!  You started out top shelf...

Thundering out of the west on super o track...

Interestingly, Lionel filed for a trademark on the Super O name in 1997 and 2003.

 The 1997 application was abandoned.

The 2003 application was granted in 2006, but subsequently cancelled, probably because Lionel did not use the mark in commerce.

L.I.TRAIN posted:

Great topic and great points by all. The one thing we can all be thankful is when Lionel DID come out with Super-O, that was (in my opinion) the start to the realistic era and your railroad can now have a sense of realism, which was and is not possible with traditional tubular track.  My first Lionel train came on Christmas 1961 and that set came with the Rio Grande 2379 and Super-O track. All my friend that had Lionel trains were WOWED when they saw my Super-O train board.

Steve, my first set was brought by Santa on Christmas morning in 1960, and it also included Super "0" track. And like you, "All my friends that had Lionel trains were WOWED when they saw my Super-O..."  And this included my first cousin and close friend who had very large O Gauge layouts, since their dads had also become avid hobbyists.

Professor Chaos posted:

Interestingly, Lionel filed for a trademark on the Super O name in 1997 and 2003.

 The 1997 application was abandoned.

The 2003 application was granted in 2006, but subsequently cancelled, probably because Lionel did not use the mark in commerce.

Great work by you and gunrunnerjohn regarding the patent and trademark.  I had some vague recollection of a filing by Lionel around the time they made the track Super "O" Bob referenced.  Perhaps it was the 2003/6 Trademark you referenced.

Great detective work!

Menards?

Sounds to me that the copper center rail of Super O track is both a major disadvantage and advantage. A disadvantage is its cost, an advantage is its superior conductivity, which might have great appeal. Do you agree?

Another advantage is it's very nice appearance.

If new Super O was resurrected, it would be great if transition tracks were made, so Super O could be connected to existing layouts with  O Gauge, 027, etc., track. That way, Super O could be added to our already existing layouts. Could that be done?

My guess is that if major manufacturers would not make such transition tracks, then clever, highly skilled OGR Forum members could create them and maybe have a nice side business. Super O lovers would pay a pretty penny for such transition tracks so they could add Super O track to their existing layouts. 

If such transition tracks are pragmatic (and they might not be), they could be very useful now in order to add existing used Super O track to existing layouts with different track.

Arnold

superwarp1 posted:

Super O Bob posted:

L.I.TRAIN posted:

 The blackened middle rail of these two is much less destructive the the pick up rollers than Super-O was/is

Super o doesnt damage rollers.

Only badly formed rollers from the 50's.  I would love to see it SuperO come back but sadly since my layout is already built it's too late for me.

I would be awesome though, different length straight sections, different radius curves.  Switches that look like Ross or AtlasO and didn't melt when they fail.

One thing that would be a plus, since MTH and AtlasO track is hardly ever in stock, Lionel or who ever could make a killing if they could get it on store shelves.

I have a locomotive, tender, and a few cars made in the late 50s-60s whose rollers are worn due to many hours of use on Super "0" track.  My dad bought one set in 1961 and a handful of extra cars that he ran on a small Super "O" track layout.  All the units with rollers he ran at the time have varying degrees of Super "O"  "grooveage" with the locomotive and tender having the most.  After very many hours of constant usage, that layout was later damaged and never used again.  When I got interested in trains a few years later, my dad bought me quite a few additional cars which I ran on O27 track exclusively in the late 60s & 70s.  None of the units I used have any "grooveage".  It's very easy to see "grooveage" on our 233 Locomotive, 233W Tender, 6434 Poultry Dispatch, 6517 Bay Window, and 6822 Searchlight Car.

None of the rollers appear to be "badly formed", and they continue to work fine using Lionel O27, FasTrack, K-Line Super "K", and K-Line SuperSnap track.  I doubt the average person would NOT classify the Super "O" "grooveage" on the units I mentioned as damage.  I fail to understand why anybody would deny the thin rail and/or buss connectors on Super "O" track causes it.  I don't have anything to gain from reporting it, and I doubt others who've experienced the same thing with Super "O" track don't have anything to gain either---other than replacement rollers.  Is that a potentially untapped, huge, money-making market?.......selling unnecessarily replaced rollers on ebay?

I like the look of Super "O" track and FasTrack.  However the look of both when using trestle sets doesn't appear to be realistic.  With Super "O", the ties appear to be hanging.   Incredibly, the ballast on FasTrack seems inanely glued to the rails???

"New tooling is expensive so either a company or a person with very deep pockets need to be involved and in the end how much would it cost to the hobbiest for the track. If too expensive it could kill the whole project." 

I'd be surprised if the tooling for Super-Snap track has been destroyed. It has been produced a lot more recently than Super-O. The 2 brands are nearly identical, but Super-Snap was produced in many different dimensions--I think as wide as 96" curves, as well as extra-long straights and O-72 switches. 

Super-O curve

I had two postwar locomotives growing up, and they were run a significant amount, with all running on Super "O" track.  The No. 2332 GG-1 definitely has some grooves on the rollers.   I don't recall the steamer that came with the Super "O" track as having any groves, but would have to check.  I honestly never paid any attention to the groves other than noticing them, and I still run both engines with the original rollers.

I also haven't paid any attention to the difficulty or cost of replacing rollers, but grooves did occur in my GG-1.  It's still my favorite electric locomotive though! 

 It would be interesting to know what that cost would be for replacing rollers.  Does anyone know the likely cost to replace two rollers?

I have no groved rollers.  Beenvrunning on it since 1967.  Arching on dirty track is what groves rollers.

Im in traffic.  Cant text.  Arcing sparks take a nibble of the rollers witg each spark.  Tenders when whistles arc on dirty track. 

Copper is much softer than steel... 

I have high milage engines with copper on the roller.  Ill take pics.  O gauge track eats rollers if dirty.

U just cant cut hardend steel with soft copper!

Im driving to lhs to get my naiagra

K-Line SuperSnap curve, straight, switch, bumper, and conversion tracks have all been reissued in recent years under the name "O-Line Reproductions".

BlueComet400 posted:

...I'd be surprised if the tooling for Super-Snap track has been destroyed. It has been produced a lot more recently than Super-O. The 2 brands are nearly identical, but Super-Snap was produced in many different dimensions--I think as wide as 96" curves, as well as extra-long straights and O-72 switches. 

 

 

Blue Comet 400,

That is a very attractive track, and Lionel may own the tooling. (Do you think Lionel does?)

Their is admittedly a nostalgic attraction to Super "0" track for many of us.  But having replaced my Super "O" layout with similar GarGraves track, the appearance is very different.  On a large layout, the copper center rail virtually disappears from view - likely the intentional design characteristic, which is enhanced by its coloration, low profile, and, in all likelihood the shape of the non rectangular ties. That virtual "disappearance" didn't happen at all with the GarGraves track, although I believe my GG layout was the quietest layout that I ever built.  For me, Super "O" much more closely resembled prototypical two rail track.  

But the Super Snap track looks very nice.

Considering all of the options that are available, I don't think there would be much of a market for Super O.  IMO, the segment of the market that would buy Super O is far smaller than the tinplate market, and we've all seen what is happening there.

Super O Bob posted:

I have no groved rollers.  Beenvrunning on it since 1967.  Arching on dirty track is what groves rollers

The arcing on dirty track is precisely what I learned as an adult.  As a child I virtually never cleaned my Super "O" layout because conductivity issues were never an issue because of the copper center rail.

For me, the grooves were a non-issue, and they still are.  But, the issue seems to be important to some.  I would just clean the track now since, as an adult, I understand the importance.

Grampstrains posted:

There is still plenty of "Super "O" still out there so why make more?  Even if they did, the first thing posted on  this forum would be to complain about the price.

You make a good point there about potential price. The various track systems that are out there now aren't exactly cheap, and I expect that a resurrected Super-O, given its relatively limited market potential in the grand scheme of things, would be a pricey little bugger. 

You are very lucky for not having any "groved" rollers, Super O Bob.  I don't know what "arching" is, but if you mean "arcing", your statement might be correct.  However it has no bearing on the trains in my collection.  My dad's layout was used heavily, and I remember him wiping it often.  I don't think he soldered nor glued the bus connectors to the track.  If that caused any arcing, then that's the fault of the Super "O" design.  I certainly never saw any Lionel instructions nor tips about securing the bus connector permanently to the track to prevent arcing which may have contributed to the problem.  I think the main contributor was the slight bump the rollers got each time they came across the two small spaces between the beginning and the end of each bus connector and the blades from each track.

Perhaps you've filled in the small spaces on either side of the bus connectors, or you don't run the same few trains over and over as my dad did.  Just because you haven't had the problem, doesn't mean others haven't had it.

RE: Availability of Super O.

Granted, not the only source but a quick check on Ebay shows there's plenty listed for sale! I'm not making any judgments on price (frankly I'm not clued in enough to know) but if you want Super O it's a click away.

Johnstrains,

Thanks!  If you don't mind a few more clicks, could you post examples of the pricing for 72" radius curves and switches?  That's great news to hear that they are readily available, as I have 1/2 of the tables built for a new layout in a second room in the basement where space has been made available to me.  Since my other layout is now limited to O - 31track to avoid the duck-unders, I want to use 0-72 radius curves to run my larger equipment.  That Williams scale GS-4 is stunning, as is the Williams scale N&W No. 611!

The old wives tail of superO track causing grooves in rollers has been around for many years. There is no proof of superO track causing this condition. I have been running trains on super0 and have never seen this condition. 

Filthy, dirty track arcing is what causes wear on rollers not superO. Does not happen, never did happen and never will happen. It was only a rumor. 

Dave

I have planned to use Super O on a new layout with Ross Switches. I wonder if Ross could make Super O switches. For double the price I would probably still consider it. I have plenty of track. The switches have always been the problem. Nothing, and I repeat, nothing looks as good as Super O. Replace the rollers- Every time I send an engine to Len for restoration he replace the rollers and arms.

SuperO and K-Line super snap track look nothing alike. The super snap is much larger in size then superO. 

Maybe the tooling could be used to make superO, but I doubt it.

Dave

when atlas O track was designed and made in the late 1990's, 2 of the goals of the atlas people was to make a track line that used rails  like prewar t-rail track and look as good as super -o does . i believe they  did it. ....its the last track system i will ever buy .

Wow, this thread had some legs, which indicates real interest.

- The K-Line Snap-Track was not something that I cared for at all. Seems it was as tall and ridiculous-looking as the traditional Lionel 0-31 and Menard's track.  The 0-27 track always looked better; too bad it wasn't produced in 0-72 radius.

- Super-O was certainly a step forward, too late. The rail/blade support hump in the ties, however, always stood out in a bad way. It would have to be engineered away. People complain about the center blade wearing rollers. Have we seen that with MTH Scale-Trax and its only slightly thicker blade? Also, if the blade on Super-O was copper, it would not have worn down the much harder Lionel rollers. Was it copper? Bronze is very hard. Was it bronze? (I've never messed with any Super-O.)

With GG and Ross I see no need for Super-O, though I do like the more subtle color of Super-O rails, as compared with the 50's chrome bumper effect of the other two.    

Super O Bob posted:

I have no groved rollers.  Beenvrunning on it since 1967.  Arching on dirty track is what groves rollers.

 

Im in traffic.  Cant text.  Arcing sparks take a nibble of the rollers witg each spark.  Tenders when whistles arc on dirty track. 

Copper is much softer than steel... 

 

I have high milage engines with copper on the roller.  Ill take pics.  O gauge track eats rollers if dirty.

 

U just cant cut hardend steel with soft copper!

 

Im driving to lhs to get my naiagra

Ok.  Finally home from the lhs with my 6013...  i couldnt type and drive so i am behind in response...

This is one of my favorite subjects...  roller wear...  i really dont care if any of you believe me.  I will continue running on super o.

I have had NO ROLLER WEAR on any of my PWC, pw original, MPC, or modern scale engines and have operated on super o extensively. 

As a kid, i would run for 1 to 2 hours every day from about 1967 to 1983 on two different super o layouts on conventional voltages.  First a 5x9ft and then a 16x32ft... stopping in '83 when i went to college.  Then I built my big super o layout and ran about the same amount from about 2003 to 2011 all solidly at full power 18v tmcc&legacy.  

I would have train parties where friends engines and my engines would run for hours straight usually starting at 4pm and ending at about 1am to 2am (8 to 9hrs straight).  We hosted alot of running parties in those 8 years.  Many on this forum will tell you they didnt damage any rollers on their engines running at my house.  We always joked about roller wear at the parties.  We would have about 8 to 10 parties a year.

From 2013 till now i have a 50ft x 23ft back room super o layout 18v legacy only which i do not run enough, probably only 2 to 3hrs a week.

I have never had any roller pickup notched or warn by the super o track.  Keep in mind, steel material rollers are 3 to 4 times harder than the copper material depending on grades, and MECHANICALLY you can roll all day on soft copper and not cut STEEL.

FREE ROLLING Roller wear is from arcing (sparking) of the rollers operating on dirty track.  This can happen on any track type if dirty.  In my years collecting postwar,  i have seen a few rollers clearly notched that matches the exactly the rail head shape and widgh of tubular track.  Some kid never cleaned the track and ran alot while pickup rollers and whistle tender rollers sparked away.  It is the sparking that pits and cuts the rollers irregardless of track type.

This is dirty super o and i would never run on track looking like this... rails are black with wheel grime and center rail is badly tarnished.

This is clean super o.  I simply use 3m abrasive pad and wipe the track after about 2 weeks or so of operation.  Clean track top of railhead is shiny.  You can also see the shiny glint on the copper.  Keep your track clean.  Use track cleaning car if you are lazy.  I just wipe with scotchbrite abrasive pads (the dark oxide ones).  I can post a pic.  Its so easy and i can wipe one 275ft loop in about 5min or less. Even the nastiest super o can easily have shiny railheads and top of center rail with these pads without alot of effort...

There is no sparking on clean track.  So no roller wear.  Proof the super o track alone doesnt cut rollers are all my engines and all my friends engines on my track.  Infact i can find some rollers that have clear copper residue on rolling surfaces showing the copper is softer than steel and moves from rail to roller.

 Cleaning your track is in every manual on model trains...  this electrical performance is why.

So thats it.  Ripley's.

D500 posted:

Wow, this thread had some legs, which indicates real interest.

 

Yeah, great thread. Learning a lot.  

phrankenstign posted:

I don't think he soldered nor glued the bus connectors to the track.  If that caused any arcing, then that's the fault of the Super "O" design.  I certainly never saw any Lionel instructions nor tips about securing the bus connector permanently to the track to prevent arcing which may have contributed to the problem.  I think the main contributor was the slight bump the rollers got each time they came across the two small spaces between the beginning and the end of each bus connector and the blades.

Hi phrank...  no i have never soldered the bus clips...  besides, if you have a bump, you dont have it right.

Repro bus clips WILL NEVER FIT FLUSH with the top of center rail.   Use only the original bus clips.  The notches may need filing slightly to clean up the cuts so the bus fits FLUSH.  Sometimes the center rail slips to one end or another creating a fit problem of bus clip.  You grab it with a needlenose and move it.  The center rail is just staked to the ties.  It can move legthwise a little.  So that is something to help get the bus clip fit just right.  There is no noise or bumps when its bus clip fits flush.

As for cleaning, its important to get the grime off the rails.  Wheel grime from oiling axles etc...  so use abrasive pad to strip the grime...

 This is a video of old layout 4 loops of track, all super o, each about 200ft long.  No bus clips ever came loose, they are not soldered.

https://youtu.be/O9yUJojQhKw

 Lots of extreme operation...

 https://youtu.be/6RlYLTU5gvM

Super O Bob said:

"Some kid never cleaned the track and ran alot while pickup rollers and whistle tender rollers sparked away.  It is the sparking that pits and cuts the rollers irregardless of track type."

There is no question that as a 9 - X year old young boy, that I ran my two locos on a 90 square foot Super "O" layout without proper cleaning of the track.  For one thing, the placement of the layout required that you walk on the train table to get to the back 12'.  Since the trains ran flawlessly on the track, I was no wiser other than the "clean your track regularly" mantra.  And, the sparking was normal operation to our way of thinking.  I certainly would be more vigilant now, and, I certainly wouldn't construct a train table that required walking on to clean and service the track.

I never used the Super O track my dad had.  In fact, as a teenager I always wondered how he powered the track.  I was unaware of the clip and lockon that were used.  I do know my dad didn't use any repro ones for two reasons:  I don't think anybody was making knockoffs back then.  Each track always came with a clip.  There was no need to buy more.

This being a physical world, nothing is perfect.  Some bus connectors were tighter than others.  It's possible the ones that weren't as snug as the others may have slowly been pushed toward one side creating a bigger gap on the other side.  I don't know if that contributed to the problem, but the wear did occur over the long run---whatever the cause(s).

The cost of replacing rollers doesn't matter to me at all.  Despite the grooves on the rollers of the trains I mentioned, none of them have failed to work over the years.  I've used Lionel O27 & FasTrack, and K-Line O Super "K" & SuperSnap.  The center rail on all three is the same as the outer rails, so the wear is even across the rollers.  I rotate through all of the trains from year to year.  (I don't have a permanent O gauge layout.)  The trains aren't subjected to the same intense usage my dad subjected them to in the early 60s.

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

Super O Bob said:

"Some kid never cleaned the track and ran alot while pickup rollers and whistle tender rollers sparked away.  It is the sparking that pits and cuts the rollers irregardless of track type."

There is no question that as a 9 - X year old young boy, that I ran my two locos on a 90 square foot Super "O" layout without proper cleaning of the track.  For one thing, the placement of the layout required that you walk on the train table to get to the back 12'.  Since the trains ran flawlessly on the track, I was no wiser other than the "clean your track regularly" mantra.  And, the sparking was normal operation to our way of thinking.  I certainly would be more vigilant now, and, I certainly wouldn't construct a train table that required walking on to clean and service the track.

Yea, track maintenance is NOT just for the 1/48th scale men in hardhats!  I always design for accessability...  if you cant, there are those diecast track cleaning cars that secure the abrasive pads that you can run around.  They do ok...

phrankenstign posted:

I never used the Super O track my dad had.  In fact, as a teenager I always wondered how he powered the track.  I was unaware of the clip and lockon that were used.  I do know my dad didn't use any repro ones for two reasons:  I don't think anybody was making knockoffs back then.  Each track always came with a clip.  There was no need to buy more.

This being a physical world, nothing is perfect.  Some bus connectors were tighter than others.  It's possible the ones that weren't as snug as the others may have slowly been pushed toward one side creating a bigger gap on the other side.  I don't know if that contributed to the problem, but the wear did occur over the long run---whatever the cause(s).

The cost of replacing rollers doesn't matter to me at all.  Despite the grooves on the rollers of the trains I mentioned, none of them have failed to work over the years.  I've used Lionel O27 & FasTrack, and K-Line O Super "K" & SuperSnap.  The center rail on all three is the same as the outer rails, so the wear is even across the rollers.  I rotate through all of the trains from year to year.  (I don't have a permanent O gauge layout.)  The trains aren't subjected to the same intense usage my dad subjected them to in the early 60s.

Phrank...  yea if you see a larger gap on either side of the bus clip, the center rail is slightly out of position.  Just grab with a needlenose and slide the rail to fill gap.  It will also fix the snug ones you mentioned.

The bus clips should be flush, then wipe your finger across the top and as you pass from rail to bus back to center rail, it should feel smooth.

The art of sucessful bending the track, you get alot of experience w/dremel cutting new notches and adjusting for proper fit of bus clips.  

I was really meticulous with shimming my track and there was no lumps bumps or anything.  Used alot of 1/64 plywood shims and a bubblelevel to make everything perfectly level.

Depending on how nuts you want to be...  super o rails also have a reflex bent on one end (up and down).  This was to capture the rail better to the clips so they stay put after years of reassembly with other tracks.  To make things SMOOTHER i would take each piece of track to a small vice and take this bend out.    It was tedius but my railhead is perfectly smooth.

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

 

...If new Super O was resurrected, it would be great if transition tracks were made, so Super O could be connected to existing layouts with  O Gauge, 027, etc., track. That way, Super O could be added to our already existing layouts. Could that be done?

If such transition tracks are pragmatic (and they might not be), they could be very useful now in order to add existing used Super O track to existing layouts with different track...

Arnold

Arnold,

Transition tracks would be a nice addition if economically feasible.  My recollection is that Lionel made transition tracks for at least O gauge track during part of the Postwar era (as defined by Dr. Greenberg).

You guys have convinced me to clean my O Gauge tubular track and 022 switches, which I will do tomorrow, for the 1st time in over 10 years. LOL, Arnold

I have used different kinds of track for many years from 0-27 to Super 0 as well as K-line, Atlas, Ross, and Gargraves ... you name it.  I don't "clean" my track because I found out years ago that a spray of electronic cleaner properly spaced on the track keeps the trains running and the track "clean".  I don't know why it works so well but it does and without gunk building up on the wheels or rollers.  I know .... hard to believe but just try it, you may just like it!  By the way, I love the look of Super 0 track and like several of you, had it been available in broad radius curves (commercially), I would have probably gone that route.

Alan

I would switch to Super O in a minute if made on the on the same plan as Fastrak or Atlas O. I used Super O from 1974 to 1985. I started buying it in 1966. Took a while to collect all that I needed. I am using Atlas O right now.

This is what i use to get the grime off my rails and make them shine (i only do it to the TOP of the rail heads.

I just stay on top of it and clean after a few weeks of operation, keep rails shiny.

If you have hard to reach areas or are lazy, use this...

Doing it by hand is easier and faster and better.  Put 3 fingers on pad holding to the railhead and walk along the layout.  It goes fast.

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

 

...If new Super O was resurrected, it would be great if transition tracks were made, so Super O could be connected to existing layouts with  O Gauge, 027, etc., track. That way, Super O could be added to our already existing layouts. Could that be done?

If such transition tracks are pragmatic (and they might not be), they could be very useful now in order to add existing used Super O track to existing layouts with different track...

Arnold

Arnold,

Transition tracks would be a nice addition if economically feasible.  My recollection is that Lionel made transition tracks for at least O gauge track during part of the Postwar era (as defined by Dr. Greenberg).

This Super O was done with adaptors in mind...

So Actually you are good to go right now.  Super O was made with a series of pins to allow you to connect to ogauge.  The railheads are close to same height.  I also used the SO to Ogauge pins to run my super o up to a 313 bascule bridge with no issues...

There is o27 adaptor pins too but track needs a shimming...

This is what they made to get super o to attach to EXISTING o gauge and o27 switches and track.  You can see by picture which is which and the number.

O27 adaptors on top, o gauge on bottom.  I used these to integrate postwar acessories.  You could reuse all your ogauge remote switches with super o if you wanted.  The circle L boys designed it that way from the beginning.

OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

I have used different kinds of track for many years from 0-27 to Super 0 as well as K-line, Atlas, Ross, and Gargraves ... you name it.  I don't "clean" my track because I found out years ago that a spray of electronic cleaner properly spaced on the track keeps the trains running and the track "clean".  I don't know why it works so well but it does and without gunk building up on the wheels or rollers.  I know .... hard to believe but just try it, you may just like it!  By the way, I love the look of Super 0 track and like several of you, had it been available in broad radius curves (commercially), I would have probably gone that route.

Alan

Alan,

Thanks for posting.  Is there a brand, or brands, of electronic cleaner that you could recommend?  Also, any rough estimation as to the "spacing" that you have found to be effective.  This seems to be an excellent method for track cleaning.

In this regard, I am also taking notes as to the other methods suggested for track cleaning, including the excellent posts by Super O Bob.

Super O Bob said:

"Super O was made with a series of pins to allow you to connect to ogauge.  The railheads are close to same height."

Great reminder!  I even have some of those pins, and, had totally forgotten. 

OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

. hard to believe but just try it, you may just like it!  

Alan

Thanks a ton Alan...  i will try that...  great suggestion!

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

Super O Bob said:

"Super O was made with a series of pins to allow you to connect to ogauge.  The railheads are close to same height."

Great reminder!  I even have some of those pins, and, had totally forgotten. 

I was taking pictures and reposting...  see the envelopes.  I think there are also insulated versions i may have but didnt take picks...

Here is illustration for you...

david1 posted:

I would love to see superO made again but Lionel told me a few years ago that most of the tooling for superO has either been lost or destroyed. If that is true then forget Lionel ever doing it. 

If just certain pcs could be made like 30"straights, wider radius curves and better switches I think that could be a start. 

New tooling is expensive so either a company or a person with very deep pockets need to be involved and in the end how much would it cost to the hobbiest for the track. If too expensive it could kill the whole project. 

With all the negatives I still think it would be a great track system to do again. Let's hope!!!!!!!!!

Dave

Maybe somebody like John Menard could make this happen. Just saying!

Brad

Even if Ross were to use Super O rails with their wooden ties it would not be the end of the world.

petrifiedagg posted:

I have planned to use Super O on a new layout with Ross Switches. I wonder if Ross could make Super O switches. For double the price I would probably still consider it. I have plenty of track. The switches have always been the problem. Nothing, and I repeat, nothing looks as good as Super O. Replace the rollers- Every time I send an engine to Len for restoration he replace the rollers and arms.

Petrified-

You could easily use lionel o gauge o72" switches with the super o wide radius track.  If u wanted to make it look nice you could airbrush the switch housings and bases in brown to match super o.  Just mask the rails.

Check out the adaptor pins for super o to o gauge, in previous posts.  Super o and o gauge have about the same height to railhead.

So a despirate man could easily put o72 switches into a wide radius super o layout.

petrifiedagg posted:

Even if Ross were to use Super O rails with their wooden ties it would not be the end of the world.

Before i designed custom in CAD, i was thinking about taking ross switches and putting balsa wood ramps on top of ties to make it look like super o and paint brown.

But i decided to give the custom switch a try.

Super O Bob posted:

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

 

...If new Super O was resurrected, it would be great if transition tracks were made, so Super O could be connected to existing layouts with  O Gauge, 027, etc., track. That way, Super O could be added to our already existing layouts. Could that be done?

If such transition tracks are pragmatic (and they might not be), they could be very useful now in order to add existing used Super O track to existing layouts with different track...

Arnold

Arnold,

Transition tracks would be a nice addition if economically feasible.  My recollection is that Lionel made transition tracks for at least O gauge track during part of the Postwar era (as defined by Dr. Greenberg).

This Super O was done with adaptors in mind...

So Actually you are good to go right now.  Super O was made with a series of pins to allow you to connect to ogauge.  The railheads are close to same height.  I also used the SO to Ogauge pins to run my super o up to a 313 bascule bridge with no issues...

There is o27 adaptor pins too but track needs a shimming...

This is what they made to get super o to attach to EXISTING o gauge and o27 switches and track.  You can see by picture which is which and the number.

O27 adaptors on top, o gauge on bottom.  I used these to integrate postwar acessories.  You could reuse all your ogauge remote switches with super o if you wanted.  The circle L boys designed it that way from the beginning.

Very helpful, Super O Bob. Thank you! My O22 switches look very toy like, but I absolutely love everything about them. Great to know that you can add Super O to an O Gauge layout  and still use O22 switches. Arnold

Does anyone know if Scotch Brite pads are good for cleaning tubular track, and will not damage the track?

Does anyone know if Scotch Brite pads are good for cleaning tubular track, and will not damage the track?

Super O Bob posted:

Ron464nyc posted:

 Be awesome to run a $1000.00+ loco on lionel and not somebody else's track. 

That is my point exactly...

Yesterday it was Addams Family Super O Layout...  now we look to be heading back to ressurection of super o! 

 

This topic used to come up about once a year.  I have a barn full of super o in storage...  literally hundreds of switches and everything.  But if lionel ever did reissue it, or some NEW scale like track system, i would be all in.. 

Hey super 0 bob, have anything for sale? Enjoyed your topic and opinions so much I'm looking at all my 0gauge track and,well,got me thinking! I am curious though about the track to track connectors. Can the bus clips be solderd? Or is this really a non issue like roller wear.

BlueComet400 posted:

If an extinct track system would ever be re-issued, why not the K-Line Super-Snap?

Already done HERE.

Ron464nyc posted:

Super O Bob posted:

Ron464nyc posted:

 Be awesome to run a $1000.00+ loco on lionel and not somebody else's track. 

That is my point exactly...

Yesterday it was Addams Family Super O Layout...  now we look to be heading back to ressurection of super o! 

 

This topic used to come up about once a year.  I have a barn full of super o in storage...  literally hundreds of switches and everything.  But if lionel ever did reissue it, or some NEW scale like track system, i would be all in.. 

Hey super 0 bob, have anything for sale? Enjoyed your topic and opinions so much I'm looking at all my 0gauge track and,well,got me thinking! I am curious though about the track to track connectors. Can the bus clips be solderd? Or is this really a non issue like roller wear.

HEY RON...  I REREAD YOUR QUESTION...

I might have misunderstood.  If you use original (not repro) bus clips and fit them properly (flush) they will not come up.

It is possible you might have a clip that was spread open and bent open slightly, and you and rebend it with needlenose pliars.  But i have not encountered this.  Normally they fit snug and stay in place.

Because of how good the solid copper center rail carrys current, i actually only wired drops to my track every 18ft or so!  This is unheard of for atlas or gargraves because it is so much tougher to push current thru those other types of track.  Usually they do drops every 6ft or less for optimim performance.

Even with the 18ft separated drops, i still measured a steady 18volts!  I used the Super o #43 power track to hook my wires on.  I used all solid core large gauge feeders and under table bus wires.  My point with this is because the drops are so far apart 18ft separation, if any bus clips came up (they are every 9 inches or so) the trains would STOP.  So they never did and i never had any issues with them popping up so they didnt need to be soldered.  Realize i took care in fitting them down and filed the edges of the center rail notches so that the bus clips would fit flush.

So if done right, you dont have to solder them down...

I think it can solder.  I solder my solid copper bus bar under the table to my drops to my #43 power tracks...

Yea i got stuff for sale...  on ebay...  i also will have a huge stash of atlas o freight cars to sell, those i will put up on the ogr buy/sell in a few weeks...

My dad had quite a few packs of those O27 transition pins.  I always wondered why Lionel engineered those metal tail pins and metal rail pins rather than just mold them as round pins on the O & O27 sides.  It seemed weird to stick in a folded flat pin into a round hole.  What was up with that?

Hudson ron1956 posted:

"Hey super 0 bob...Enjoyed your topic and opinions so much I'm looking at all my 0gauge track and,well,got me thinking!"

_______________

Bob is very knowledgeable about Super "O" as you have clearly recognized.

And, as you can see, he's very generous with sharing that knowledge.

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Does anyone know if Scotch Brite pads are good for cleaning tubular track, and will not damage the track?

I’ve used it to clean all types of three rail track and had not had an issue. The caveat might be to not use it excessively. Once I’ve cleaned with the scotch bright, I’ll keep it clean with track cleaner fluid or a track cleaning eraser. Remember, some brands of track are plated and the scotch brite after excessive use will remove the plateing.

Steve

RideTheRails posted:

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Does anyone know if Scotch Brite pads are good for cleaning tubular track, and will not damage the track?

I’ve used it to clean all types of three rail track and had not had an issue. The caveat might be to not use it excessively. Once I’ve cleaned with the scotch bright, I’ll keep it clean with track cleaner fluid or a track cleaning eraser. Remember, some brands of track are plated and the scotch brite after excessive use will remove the plateing.

Steve

Thanks, Steve. I will follow your advice and be "workin' on the railroad" tomorrow. Arnold

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

I have used different kinds of track for many years from 0-27 to Super 0 as well as K-line, Atlas, Ross, and Gargraves ... you name it.  I don't "clean" my track because I found out years ago that a spray of electronic cleaner properly spaced on the track keeps the trains running and the track "clean".  I don't know why it works so well but it does and without gunk building up on the wheels or rollers.  I know .... hard to believe but just try it, you may just like it!  By the way, I love the look of Super 0 track and like several of you, had it been available in broad radius curves (commercially), I would have probably gone that route.

Alan

Alan,

Thanks for posting.  Is there a brand, or brands, of electronic cleaner that you could recommend?  Also, any rough estimation as to the "spacing" that you have found to be effective.  This seems to be an excellent method for track cleaning.

In this regard, I am also taking notes as to the other methods suggested for track cleaning, including the excellent posts by Super O Bob.

Dennis....the brand I use is CRC.  The particular product is called CRC 2-26 multipurpose electronic lubricant.  I generally use it once per year and spray it directly (light push of the spray nozzle) on the middle track.  Just leave a "line" of lubricant on top of the rail.  You can also spray a small amount on the outside rails but just a little goes a long way.  Do this every 6 or 8 feet.  No need to wipe the track ... just run a locomotive around a few times and you are good to go. 

When I didn't run trains every day, I could go a couple of years between applications but I run trains more often now so once a year seems to work fine.  Honestly, you will be amazed at how well the trains run and the increase in reliability of the signals going to the locomotives....

Scotchbrite is an abrasive and will eventually wear through, but I can't think of a lighter abrasive pad really. It does have various grits as well, green kitchen stuff usually being a medium/light grit, browns get coarser. I've seen red and white both coarser and lighter.

 Clips might pop up once a week, or once a year, or never.  I don't think I've had one come up in two years now. 

But if they do, it can cause "pole vaulting"  of cars with pickups.  I've had it happen about 4 times in the last 6 years.

The connection itself is great. So soldering one side, just enough to hold the clip level is really all you'd need.  I've lost 3 clips that never resurfaced...?  I just wrapped the spots with a cut tin can.  It still conducts better than any track I own except maybe brand new O track. I just haven't measured yet.

Roller and shoe wear is not a non-issue on MANY locos. But I think it's worth it. I'd call it a minor issue. Easily delt with, but some folks are touchy on things like roller wear. I see rollers as a maintenance part that will have to be changed once or twice before the motor ever dies. (Like axle bushings, brushes, etc)

Some we're pretty bad, but I have new rollers that show what I know is Super O wear. Tube track center rail is wider, and the contact patch actually grows with wear and slows wear with more support at that area after wear. 

The angles and edges of S-O takes a toll even though the center rail material is softer copper.

phrankenstign posted:

My dad had quite a few packs of those O27 transition pins.  I always wondered why Lionel engineered those metal tail pins and metal rail pins rather than just mold them as round pins on the O & O27 sides.  It seemed weird to stick in a folded flat pin into a round hole.  What was up with that?

I think because molded pins would be plastic and not carry current from the o gauge track to the super o outer rails...  so the super o side needed to be a pin.

The pins also have a short section where they are raised up and act as RAILHEAD also because they fill the gap between the super o and the ogauge that is formed because the super o ties and o gauge ties prevent the rails from touching, there is a gap.  So these pins also fill that gap and become railhead for about 1/8 inch.  That contributes to the wierd shape. 

So then to fill that huge hole in the ogauge track rail they just folded over the metal pins.

OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

Honestly, you will be amazed at how well the trains run and the increase in reliability of the signals going to the locomotives....

Alan...  yes another great point...  clean track really helps the robustness of command signal... and trackside signals as you mentioned.  I highly recommend clean track...

On scotchbrite, that stuff is designed to strip the surface of metal to polish it.  I rather use the abrasive pads that just clean gunk from metal and leave it clean.  The pads work great and turn black with rail gunk and track remains clean and shiny.

I think its better to use than scotchbrite.

Adriatic posted

 Clips might pop up once a week, or once a year, or never.  I don't think I've had one come up in two years now. 

But if they do, it can cause "pole vaulting"  of cars with pickups.  I've had it happen about 4 times in the last 6 years.

 

The angles and edges of S-O takes a toll even though the center rail material is softer copper.

 

Adratic...  if you have any pop up, it usually is the center rail has slid to one side.  You can move the center rail about 1/16" side to side down length of track and get better fitment of the bus clips.  Also use a small flat file and debur the edges of the notch and that usually fixes it.  If they come up, it is because the notch may need filing and fitting.  When flush you will not pole vault.  

I have seen the edges of the center rail wear.  The center rail has a flat on top then it drops off on edges.  It seems to not mess with rollers because as i said, mecanically the steel is 3 to 4 times harder than copper.  So that copper wears away not the steel.

I will look for some cabooses i have seen get copper rollers and take a pic... 

We had train nights with a theme.  Few times it was run UNION PACIFIC night.  My cabooses would get a workout.  I have lionel scale cabooses with smoke so they are pulling power, and ran for so much time they would see the most time on track.  Not one has roller wear.

I am big UP guy, and run only freights, so these UP cabooses dont really ever leave the track.  Its a good test...

Ok...  i have a comment on wide radius super o track.

I know many will just try and get O72" curves and be good with that.  But if you are bending your own, bigger is better.  If you can fit it, i encourage o92" or larger.

I designed my original layout around 5 inch centers, that means each parallel track measures 5 inches from center rail of one to center rail of the other adjacent line.  So i planned o72", o82", o92", o102", and o112".  Then for really sweepy curves i have o134" and o144".  As you know the measurement is the diameter of the circle.  So o144" super o is a 12 foot diameter!

One thing i noticed (if you run long trains) is its best operation is around 092".  It was still tight enough to get a good folded dogbone layout, but also permitted great train function.  That is to say the freightcars stayed on the track really well with o92".

I cringe with o82" and that was the MINIMUM radius i would do in the tightest curves.  From o72" to o82" was an improvement, but things got much better around o92" to o102".

So if you are pulling long trains, and can, i would encourage you thinking BIG and going to o92" or larger.

I built my current (new) back room layout (temporary) with 4.5inch centers.  It looks better to me, and i did it for appearance.

However now with the 86ft box cars, and 89ft autoracks and 21inch passenger cars, the overhang can cause impact with big boys and articulated engines on adjacent tracks.  Even with o92", big boys will hit the 21" pass cars and 86ft box cars in the turns. 

So i an planning to tear it up and go back to the 5inch centers.

I am getting too old to remember what cant run on adjacent tracks next to big boys.  And i dont want to tear up my trains.  So i am going back to 5inch centers so i can run anything and not worry (because there is always at least one big boy on the layout).

So my best reccomendation is 082, o92, o102, o112 for mainline loops, that is 5inch centers...  your choice of center to center distance impacts which radius curves you do (if you are keeping things square, without easements or lead in curves).  K.I.S.S.

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

RideTheRails posted:

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Does anyone know if Scotch Brite pads are good for cleaning tubular track, and will not damage the track?

I’ve used it to clean all types of three rail track and had not had an issue. The caveat might be to not use it excessively. Once I’ve cleaned with the scotch bright, I’ll keep it clean with track cleaner fluid or a track cleaning eraser. Remember, some brands of track are plated and the scotch brite after excessive use will remove the plateing.

Steve

Thanks, Steve. I will follow your advice and be "workin' on the railroad" tomorrow. Arnold

I forgot to add and I think most would agree, NEVER use steel wool pads to clean track and/or wheels.

Steve

It is too bad no one has tried to expand the Super O assortment. I've always been a fan but like everyone else, was limited by the lack of larger radius curves and turn outs. I still have a small Super O layout that I use occasionally with my traditional trains, but I went with Atlas O in order to run my scale sized trains. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought I remember seeing some black plastic Super O "test shots" surfacing before Lionel released FasTrack. There was some speculation at the time that Lionel was kicking around the idea of resurrecting Super O, but ended up developing FasTrack.

OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

I don't "clean" my track because I found out years ago that a spray of electronic cleaner properly spaced on the track keeps the trains running and the track "clean"...

Alan

 

Dennis....the brand I use is CRC.  The particular product is called CRC 2-26 multipurpose electronic lubricant.  I generally use it once per year and spray it directly (light push of the spray nozzle) on the middle track.  Just leave a "line" of lubricant on top of the rail.  You can also spray a small amount on the outside rails but just a little goes a long way.  Do this every 6 or 8 feet.  No need to wipe the track ... just run a locomotive around a few times and you are good to go. 

When I didn't run trains every day, I could go a couple of years between applications but I run trains more often now so once a year seems to work fine.  Honestly, you will be amazed at how well the trains run and the increase in reliability of the signals going to the locomotives....

Alan,

Thanks much! That is an elegant solution to track cleaning, and will make the process much quicker and easier.  I just ordered some and it should arrive in a couple of days.  Among the other likely simplifications resulting from using this process is cleaning those harder to reach areas, or, areas with scenery close to trackside.

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

I don't "clean" my track because I found out years ago that a spray of electronic cleaner properly spaced on the track keeps the trains running and the track "clean"...

Alan

 

Dennis....the brand I use is CRC.  The particular product is called CRC 2-26 multipurpose electronic lubricant.  I generally use it once per year and spray it directly (light push of the spray nozzle) on the middle track.  Just leave a "line" of lubricant on top of the rail.  You can also spray a small amount on the outside rails but just a little goes a long way.  Do this every 6 or 8 feet.  No need to wipe the track ... just run a locomotive around a few times and you are good to go. 

When I didn't run trains every day, I could go a couple of years between applications but I run trains more often now so once a year seems to work fine.  Honestly, you will be amazed at how well the trains run and the increase in reliability of the signals going to the locomotives....

Alan,

Thanks much! That is an elegant solution to track cleaning, and will make the process much quicker and easier.  I just ordered some and it should arrive in a couple of days.  Among the other likely simplifications resulting from using this process is cleaning those harder to reach areas, or, areas with scenery close to trackside.

Personally ive had bad experiece with any kind of lubricant on outer rails.  Traction tires and lubricant don't mix.

Train Nut posted:

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

I don't "clean" my track because I found out years ago that a spray of electronic cleaner properly spaced on the track keeps the trains running and the track "clean"...

Alan

 

Dennis....the brand I use is CRC.  The particular product is called CRC 2-26 multipurpose electronic lubricant.  I generally use it once per year and spray it directly (light push of the spray nozzle) on the middle track.  Just leave a "line" of lubricant on top of the rail.  You can also spray a small amount on the outside rails but just a little goes a long way.  Do this every 6 or 8 feet.  No need to wipe the track ... just run a locomotive around a few times and you are good to go. 

When I didn't run trains every day, I could go a couple of years between applications but I run trains more often now so once a year seems to work fine.  Honestly, you will be amazed at how well the trains run and the increase in reliability of the signals going to the locomotives....

Alan,

Thanks much! That is an elegant solution to track cleaning, and will make the process much quicker and easier.  I just ordered some and it should arrive in a couple of days.  Among the other likely simplifications resulting from using this process is cleaning those harder to reach areas, or, areas with scenery close to trackside.

Personally ive had bad experiece with any kind of lubricant on outer rails.  Traction tires and lubricant don't mix.

Well...with all due respect, you must not have been using a rubber/plastic friendly product.  I have been using CRC 2-26 for many years ... more than enough time to find out if there is some kind of incompatibility.  So ... like I said, try it, you may like it!  AND, by the way, this particular product is designed to help prolong rubber/plastic parts.  I have found that even if I put too much of it on the track and get some wheel slip, I just run the trains until that slip goes away.  Plus, I don't have the dried out cracking tire problem that some folks have had.  Never have had any bad interaction using 2-26. 

But of course, you don't have to believe me ... I am just making my observations from a long time experience with this particular product.  I can't speak about other competing products with which you have used.

Bob, I have seen your switches in pictures  in years past- how did you make them?

petrifiedagg posted:

Bob, I have seen your switches in pictures  in years past- how did you make them?

Hi petri...  i basically took the idea Marx had for their switches and applied it to super o.

The marx switch has a unique frog.  Depending on the position of the switch the one rail can be the center rail <or> the grounded outer rail.  Polarity is flipped depending on the position of the switch.  I will drop in a pic soon.

So i used the CAD system at work to figure out the geometry of where the rotation point had to be based on the diameter of the curve, so that the typical width roller on our engines would not fall off the 'center rail' depending on which position the switch was in.  

The base was made out of model plane plywood and layered with counter top material so it slides well.  The switches worked well.  I used them for passing sidings and spurs.  

I basically run 'cowboy' and just have separated loops with long trains and just let them run.  I dont really do switching or trust any manufacturers switch with a $1000 engine and about $1500 in freight cars to not cause a derailment on a elevated line.

So i keep loops free of route switches and use switches only for spurs and passing sidings where i drive a train in or out and flip switch back to mainline loop running position.

I will put up some pics of marx. .

These are the marx switches that were the model for my custom super o switches. They are brilliant in that there is very simple geometry.  The train doesnt know its going thru a switch.  This eliminates all the usual guides and rail breaks in a typical switch and simplifies it greatly.

There is also a guy named Dick Reichart (sp) who was in the silver hall at york on one end who would sell switch building manuals, and he would do some amazing stuff...  

In 1957 I got my train- a bottom of the line 202 in o27. Then I got the 57 catalog and later the book “model railroading.” When I got my ping pong table Sears had a nice price for Super O.  I bought enough track for an outside circle and used the adapter pins to connect to a switch to connect with my inside o27 loop and siding. I thought my 202 riding on Super O was just about the best looking train there was. While I was in med school in the late 60’s early 70’s I started acquiring Super O track and switches and had a fairly large layout. Since then I have acquired a number of engines, cars etc and have planned a new layout to be 8x16. Initially I planned on using Ross and Gargraves but I could never get past my love and identification with Super O. Then I decided to do Ross switches with SuperO bent to O72 and O84 and an inside yard half loop of O64 and O66- long story. I agree with Bob about even wider radius but I don’t have the space. I had talked with Len about bending the curves and he said he could but haven’t talked further. Obviously I would love Super O switches- I would need 072, O64  and standard 11 degree. I plan on using Dennis Brennan’s ballasting method for simplicity. Super O has issues but for guys like me who started with the 57 catalog- there is nothing better.

I dug thru storage and came across a custom O-134" super o switch with the motor flipped around for clearance on a spot on my old layout.  Here is a pic...

The other switches are all still packed away, so this is one that was finished and not used before layout was torn down.  They took a good 40hours to build.

You can see that similar to marx, the 'frog' is a one piece deal with rail stock on each edge.  To keep it all super o looking, super o track was used in construction.  This switch you can see is both the center rail and outer rail depending on frog position, just like the marx.

They worked really well before and i will use them again.  As i said before, you could use lionel o gauge o72 switches with super o, as it was designed that way with adaptors.

For scale, here it is with a new vision niagara...

Beautiful switches. Little sidenote. I thought I had seen that mechanism before so I pulled out my 1937 catalog. Lionel used the same mechanism for their O27 switches back then.

Bob,

Those look very nice and are impressive in their apparent simplicity, which is likely deceptive given the design process and fabrication time.

Does anyone know, in general terms,  what tooling was likely required to manufacture the original Super "O"?

I am really enjoying this thread.  My father built a 5 x 9' Super O layout for me for Christmas of 1960.  My parents had stockpiled Super O track and switches against the time when we would move and my father and I would expand the layout.  That never happened and the brand new Super O switches were stolen before they ever got used.

Over the years, the layout got damaged and was the target of a robbery (all of the accessories were stolen).

Last year I restored the layout and enlarged it to 5 x 13' (the largest practical size I could have in the available space).  It did not even occur to me to use anything other than Super O track (I wanted to make it as it might have been if my father-now deceased-and I had expanded it together back in the 1960's.  

The track diameter includes 036 (stock), 042, 048, and 054 (the largest that would fit and allow clearance between the overhang of the locomotives and the small wall/fence around the layout).

Even though it is tiny, toy-like, and very modest compared to those shown above in this thread, large, modern Lionel (and MTH) engines look right at home on the scale-like Super O track.

https://youtu.be/JnYWJ1GVKaE

Dennis, I mentioned in my earlier post that I remembered seeing somewhere that Lionel had done some test shots with the tooling around 1999/2000. I found this link that shows a sample of a half curve that was sold on eBay. So, it's interesting to know that Lionel did seem to still have the molds/tooling in Mount Clemens prior to moving to China...…..Hmmm...…….

Rob

https://www.worthpoint.com/wor...adbed-test-459710591

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

Does anyone know, in general terms,  what tooling was likely required to manufacture the original Super "O"?

 

No idea.  But the tie beds are molded.  Then each piece of trach has 3 identical tie clips stamped and folded metal.  Then the rail stock is quite impressive and folded and shaped strips of steel.  Then the copper track pins...  of course the bus clips...

RAK posted:

I am really enjoying this thread.  My father built a 5 x 9' Super O layout for me for Christmas of 1960.  My parents had stockpiled Super O track and switches against the time when we would move and my father and I would expand the layout.  That never happened and the brand new Super O switches were stolen before they ever got used.

Over the years, the layout got damaged and was the target of a robbery (all of the accessories were stolen).

Last year I restored the layout and enlarged it to 5 x 13' (the largest practical size I could have in the available space).  It did not even occur to me to use anything other than Super O track (I wanted to make it as it might have been if my father-now deceased-and I had expanded it together back in the 1960's.  

The track diameter includes 036 (stock), 042, 048, and 054 (the largest that would fit and allow clearance between the overhang of the locomotives and the small wall/fence around the layout).

Even though it is tiny, toy-like, and very modest compared to those shown above in this thread, large, modern Lionel (and MTH) engines look right at home on the scale-like Super O track.

https://youtu.be/JnYWJ1GVKaE

Awesome layout

Thank you sir!

RAK posted:

I am really enjoying this thread.  My father built a 5 x 9' Super O layout for me for Christmas of 1960...  Last year I restored the layout and enlarged it to 5 x 13'...Even though it is tiny, toy-like, and very modest...

RAK,

I absolutely love the layout!  Toy-like layouts are easily among my favorite layouts because I enjoy the postwar style, with a painted table-top, postwar accessories, postwar style buildings, cars, etc.  And, Super "O" is hands-down my favorite.  Interestingly, I especially enjoyed the Lionel pickle vat car, since my original trains had one.  It was one of those cars that always seemed to be on the train table because of its uniqueness for any consist.

"My father [and I] built a 5 x 9' Super O layout [during the] Christmas [week] of 1960."  How about that for symmetry?  I received the set on Christmas morning, 1960, and by New Years Day, we had a layout constructed.  I helped my dad more as an assistant for the benchwork construction, but helped significantly with the painting, track layout, and wiring, which was fairly basic.  It was an enjoyable and memorable time.

About 15 years ago, I joined a very nice HO group in our area which is working on a beautiful, highly detailed, 2400 sq. ft., HO layout.  That was fun, but my heart belongs to toy train "O" gauge layouts which is what I have.  Not that I don't also enjoy visiting  "Hi-Rail", or, "Scale-Rail" layouts, since they are beautiful.

robmcc posted:

Dennis, I mentioned in my earlier post that I remembered seeing somewhere that Lionel had done some test shots with the tooling around 1999/2000. I found this link that shows a sample of a half curve that was sold on eBay. So, it's interesting to know that Lionel did seem to still have the molds/tooling in Mount Clemens prior to moving to China...…..Hmmm...…….

Rob 

Rob,

Very interesting, as is the link.  This portion especially caught my eye:

       "...what is clear is that this piece was produced using the original tooling that last produced Super O in the mid-1960's. It even still has the original Lionel Corporation/Patent Pending notations!"

I wonder where the tooling is.

Ok...  this section will focus on ROLLER DISTRUCTION on Super O track! Oh The Horrer...

These are photos from my highest milage engines that have only operated on SUPER O.  These ran extensively for YEARS on my super o layout, many times they ran continuously for 8hrs straight on my layout during parties.

First up...  simply SHREDDED rollers on my Lionel Scale Y3 2-8-8-2 tmcc which would pull my pennsy train for months...  and subjected to dieseldan's continuous running...  HOURS AND HOURS.  This engine must have atleast 200 hours on super o...

Next up...  rollers literally FALLING OFF my JLC big boy...  this also was always on my layout and has more than a hundred of hours run time.

Before you say it...  that black line is rail grime that is pushed to the farthest point in operation (engine running mostly in one direction), and it wipes off...

Finally, the kicker...  my Legacy FLAG UNIT sd70ace from about 2008...  this engine stayed on the layout for years pulling my UP bathtub gon train and modern freight train.  It is the highest milage engine i have.  Still runs great except for the DESTROYED rollers.

Again grime is that black line pushed to the far edge of rail contact because engine is mostly turning one direction around layout, this wipes off.  You can see the miles on those rubber tires.

So freiends, i dont doubt for a minute people have had worn rollers before, i have seen them on used equipment myself.  But i think its more when there is arcing and sparking due to dirty track that causes it.

In each case these are original rollers that came on these engines and i got them NEW and they only have ever run on my super o layout.

I have never replaced a roller yet.  I keep my track clean.  These engines have only operated at MAXIMUM voltage 18v in legacy and tmcc....  Ripley's...

Dennis GS-4 N & W No.

About 15 years ago, I joined a very nice HO group in our area which is working on a beautiful, highly detailed, 2400 sq. ft., HO layout.

HO is for wimps Dennis...  Glad you came back!

My only rebel moment was that Actually I LOVE N-scale!  I always loved it as a kid.  In the 90s i got a ton of n scale, and started building layout.  Then i went to train shows to get more N, and i would see my old postwar favorites on tables, and kept explaining to my wife how the accessories worked, or stories of how i have a mint one of those back home at my parents house...

Then i went home and filled my car with postwar and drove back to St Louis where i lived at the time.  It took only a few weeks to drop that N scale for my good old O scale...  i sold it all to some guy and bought a lionel F3AA Western Pacific...  the rest is history...

"Its O gauge or NO gauge".

Bob, I actually still had my 3-rail toy layout during my HO tenure.  My plan was to learn landscaping with many seasoned layout building veterans, and turn my toy layout into a Hi-Rail layout.  (The club actually has a separate room with woodworking tools, and one filled with shelves and drawers and cabinets brimming with landscaping supplies - a layout builders heaven!)   After spending hours working on a detailed mountain scene, among other scenery endeavors, I decided that my true interest was running  trains, blowing the whistle, smoking up the train room, and watching the trains on the lighted layout.  To me, by contrast, the club members' "real" hobby was layout building, and, that wasn't my favorite activity.  That finally settled it for me:  I wanted to have toy-like layouts where I could watch the trains run.

I was unaware of the term "Cowboy Running" that you used above, but, I'm buying a cowboy hat to augment my U.P. Steam Power hats when I run the trains...

That's why I enjoy the literally lifelike video of RAK's layout in the post above.  "O Gauge trains and accessories, vibrant colors, and Super "O" in a beautiful, well designed, postwar style layout.

Dennis...  ok i get it you were a spy...  well good to have you back...

Super O Bob posted:

So freiends, i dont doubt for a minute people have had worn rollers before, i have seen them on used equipment myself.  But i think its more when there is arcing and sparking due to dirty track that causes it.

By your own admission, you've gone to great lengths to make your track as smooth and clean as possible.  This includes bending the middle rail, squeezing the bus connectors, and smoothing the top of the rails.  I'd bet the majority of O Gauge railroaders DON'T do that.  I don't believe my dad ever did the first and third of those.  Heck one guy in this thread claimed he hadn't cleaned his track in ages.    I do remember seeing some tracks have slightly higher or lower middle rails/blades.  Slight imperfections in both the bus connectors and middle rails/blades all contribute to additional wear.  One can buy brand new traditional track, connect it, and there will be a clickety-clack sound.  Guess what?  At a microscopic level, each clickety-clack sound is the result of both the wheels and the rollers being worn away.  The bus connectors double that clickety-clack.  Sure the middle rail may be a softer metal, but try this:  punch through a piece of hardwood.  Your skin is much softer than the wood, but you'll be able to break it.  Some people punch through bricks and other hard materials.  However the only people I've ever heard of who had their rollers worn are those who've used Super "O" track.  Perhaps it is the imperfections in each track, bus connector, and dirt combined that create arcing and additional wear compared to what happens with conventional track.  Whatever the reasons, a number of people have noticed an increased amount of wear of rollers while using Super "O" track.  I've yet to learn of anybody who has claimed "O" and/or "O27" and/or FasTrack gauge track has worn out any of their rollers.  Why is that?  Are non-Super "O" users immune to increased roller wear?  Are all non-Super"O" people very meticulous about smoothing their rails, cleaning them often, and eliminating all forms of arcing?

By your username, it's clear you have a great amount of appreciation for Super "O" track.  That's fine.  I don't want to get you to hate it in any kind of way.  Just don't view any criticism of Super "O" track as a personal attack.  I've always liked it's look.  The thinner middle rail looks a lot better than tracks made by other manufacturers where the middle rails are the same width as the outer rails.  However its obvious to me it's not perfect.  Apart from the roller wear, I've seen a number of complaints about the unreliability of the switches.  Sure, not all fail.  However it's enough that anyone contemplating reissuing them will probably think about redesigning them to increase their reliability.

Hey Phrank...

I have seen many examples of roller wear on ogauge and o27...  profiles of rollers cut to match the shape of o gauge track that could never be done by super o...  so saying its only on super o is not accurate.

My uncle had a 1932 lionel set on tubular track.  My dad replaced his rollers in 1972...  that train never touched super o.  We also can find that lionel sold replacement rollers before 1957 as a wear item, that predated super o.

I understand this may be hard to believe, and it challenges common belief... but there just is no evidence of wear on my trains or anyone elses whos run on my layout.  Its just not because i make my track level... 

The question was asked and I shared with you my evidence...  i looked at all of my cabooses and many high mile engines showed you what they look like, and there is no significant wear.

All manufacturers tell us to clean the track and rails...  thats not just for super o...

I realize your success is limited and not good with Super o.  So you can do what you like and believe what you like, it wont stop me from running on super o and having fun...  im just sharing my success with it... 

If lionel redesigned super o or even came up with an all new design for a more scale like track WITHOUT ROADBED so i can do that part myself, i would be delighted...

I just like to keep it all Lionel.  These high end trains should be running on a high end lionel track...

Interesting discussion.  Battery/RC is coming, and may make this moot.

Can you guys clarify for me?  What is battery/rc and what does it do in track?

I fly r/c airplanes, i played with r/c cars too.  But is there some new thing for trains?

Super O Bob posted:

If lionel redesigned super o or even came up with an all new design for a more scale like track WITHOUT ROADBED so i can do that part myself, i would be delighted...

I just like to keep it all Lionel.  These high end trains should be running on a high end lionel track...

Then why did you not go Scaletrax? It's as close to Super O in today's world as one can get.

prrhorseshoecurve posted:

Super O Bob posted:

If lionel redesigned super o or even came up with an all new design for a more scale like track WITHOUT ROADBED so i can do that part myself, i would be delighted...

I just like to keep it all Lionel.  These high end trains should be running on a high end lionel track...

Then why did you not go Scaletrax? It's as close to Super O in today's world as one can get.

Well first off like everyone else mentioned, alot of it is i had super o as a kid...

As for scaletrax, I didnt like the thin ties...  they didnt look right to me.  This track does look great ballasted...

I am not familliar with MTH, but do they have roller wear on that track with the thin center rail?  I dont know what material scaletrax center rail is...  help mth guys?

Super O Bob posted:

Can you guys clarify for me?  What is battery/rc and what does it do in track?

 

I fly r/c airplanes, i played with r/c cars too.  But is there some new thing for trains?

There is a vocal few here that prophesize that all the perceived ills of track systems, power delivery, and control will be eliminated at any moment by high capacity batteries and remote control. Very similar to cheap G scale battery powered Christmas/kids trains with a remote and plastic track, sometimes augmented with recharging capabilities. They often derail the discussion at hand with this tangent, and trying to rerail the conversation usually is then received as an offensive attack on the RC/battery technology rather than a recognition of it's tangential stretch to the discussion.

Now back to our regular scheduled program, Super O:

Super O is, or was a beautiful track system. But, it did have it's problems. For one the center rail was a real roller killer and it did have conductivity issues due to joint problems.

Thant said I know people who would jump into head first if it ever did come back.

bmoran4 posted:

Now back to our regular scheduled program, Super O:

Battery...  That's really funny!  Are you serious?  I been away for a few years...

Patents only last 20 years from date of filing of the application.  Back when super o came out patents lasted 17 years from issuance.  Unless someone wanted to use the name I don't see how a license from Lionel would be necessary. 

To get to the bottom of all the Super O center roller destruction, I will say it is real - but it only drastically affected a subset of postwar rollers that were manufactured with certain material makeup which was discontinued. This is a far cry from the myth that Super O will destroy all rollers all the time.

On the other hand, a set which has been in the family for 60 some years and only has seen tubular track, needed to have its center pickup rollers replaced as a groove was worn into them. No big deal. Under $5 in parts and 5 minutes upside down and the deed was done.

The stress between a flat pickup roller and a curved-profile center-rail is known as a Hertz stress and depends on the rail profile and the deformation of the rail and roller as they contact each other. From first engineering principles, the contact area between a Super O center-rail and a pickup roller is less than with other types of track due to the narrower width of the center rail. Therefore, for a given pickup roller and equivalent contact force (a function of the spring stiffness), the contact pressure with the narrower center-rail is higher and the roller wear would be expected to be higher. I don't have experience with Super O track or its actual effects on pickup rollers, but engineering theory alone indicates that it would probably cause increased wear. My layouts have Atlas O track and I think the wide flat-top center rail is likely to result in the lowest contact roller wear - even less than with traditional track. The same thing goes for traction tire wear. However, you should use Super O track if you think it looks best. Pickup rollers are easy to replace.

MELGAR

Super O Bob, glad to see your back after absence. Viewing you 10 year old YouTube layout videos which are the best!  You need to build a large Super O layout again bar none!

Seacoast posted:

Super O Bob, glad to see your back after absence. Viewing you 10 year old YouTube layout videos which are the best!  You need to build a large Super O layout again bar none!

Yea, but it sounds like i have to replace all my rollers first.

MELGAR posted:

The stress between a flat pickup roller and a curved-profile center-rail is known as a Hertz stress and depends on the rail profile and the deformation of the rail and roller as they contact each other. From first engineering principles, the contact area between a Super O center-rail and a pickup roller is less than with other types of track due to the narrower width of the center rail. Therefore, for a given pickup roller and equivalent contact force (a function of the spring stiffness), the contact pressure with the narrower center-rail is higher and the roller wear would be expected to be higher. I don't have experience with Super O track or its actual effects on pickup rollers, but engineering theory alone indicates that it would probably cause increased wear. My layouts have Atlas O track and I think the wide flat-top center rail is likely to result in the lowest contact roller wear - even less than with traditional track. The same thing goes for traction tire wear. However, you should use Super O track if you think it looks best. Pickup rollers are easy to replace.

MELGAR

Your analysis, Melgar, makes as lot of sense. Another factor previously mentioned is the softness of the copper center rail compared to the rollers made of harder metal. Do you agree that would tend to reduce roller wear?

Super O Bob posted:

Seacoast posted:

Super O Bob, glad to see your back after absence. Viewing you 10 year old YouTube layout videos which are the best!  You need to build a large Super O layout again bar none!

Yea, but it sounds like i have to replace all my rollers first.

Naw.  Your rollers looked darn good to me. Happy I had the honor of running on your old layout.

MELGAR posted:

the contact area between a Super O center-rail and a pickup roller is less than with other types of track due to the narrower width of the center rail.

MELGAR

Actually super o has a flat top on the center rail, so it theoretically has less stress than a curved track like tubular that contacts at a point.  Atlas or wide flat top railhead would have the least stress with a wide contact patch...

The spring forces are really low... but these are disimilar hardnesses...  roller is 4x harder than the center rail...

Copper would be much more elastic than the steel roller, but with such low spring force the deformations on the rail and roller are microsopic.

MichRR714 posted:

Naw.  Your rollers looked darn good to me. Happy I had the honor of running on your old layout.

Hey sorry about all those rollers you smoked charlie.

Super O Bob posted:

MichRR714 posted:

Naw.  Your rollers looked darn good to me. Happy I had the honor of running on your old layout.

Hey sorry about all those rollers you smoked charlie.

LOL

For what it's worth:

I have a 1951 2026 with original whistle tender.  The locomotive rollers are pristine, though it has run countless miles.  The tender rollers have grooves in them.  And yet they have run exclusively on 027 track for their entire lives.

How do I know?  Because I have owned that locomotive/tender combination since December, 1951.  It has never run on Super O track.

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

MELGAR posted:

The stress between a flat pickup roller and a curved-profile center-rail is known as a Hertz stress and depends on the rail profile and the deformation of the rail and roller as they contact each other. From first engineering principles, the contact area between a Super O center-rail and a pickup roller is less than with other types of track due to the narrower width of the center rail. Therefore, for a given pickup roller and equivalent contact force (a function of the spring stiffness), the contact pressure with the narrower center-rail is higher and the roller wear would be expected to be higher. I don't have experience with Super O track or its actual effects on pickup rollers, but engineering theory alone indicates that it would probably cause increased wear. My layouts have Atlas O track and I think the wide flat-top center rail is likely to result in the lowest contact roller wear - even less than with traditional track. The same thing goes for traction tire wear. However, you should use Super O track if you think it looks best. Pickup rollers are easy to replace.

MELGAR

Your analysis, Melgar, makes as lot of sense. Another factor previously mentioned is the softness of the copper center rail compared to the rollers made of harder metal. Do you agree that would tend to reduce roller wear?

As the center rail becomes softer, it deforms more and, if it's profile is curved, it tends to flatten, thereby increasing the contact area and reducing the maximum contact stress compared to a harder rail.

Super O Bob posted:

MELGAR posted:

the contact area between a Super O center-rail and a pickup roller is less than with other types of track due to the narrower width of the center rail.

MELGAR

The spring forces are really low...

Copper would be much more elastic than the steel roller, but with such low spring force the deformations on the rail and roller are microsopic.

The spring force, whether high or low, is the source of the contact stress. If there is no spring force, there is no contact force or stress (except for the minimal weight of the roller). In the case of Hertz stress, low contact force can produce high local contact stress. For the materials and forces involved, the Hertzian deformations are microscopic but, over time and distance, the wear can still be significant. Have you measured the "microscopic" wear on your rollers. If it's microscopic, your eyeballs can't provide a definitive answer.

MELGAR

MELGAR posted:

. Have you measured the "microscopic" wear on your rollers. If it's microscopic, your eyeballs can't provide a definitive answer.

MELGAR

Hi melgar...  thanks for your insights...  Yes but i consider microsopic wear 'no wear' because it would not wear out in my lifetime.  I could not feel any depression or low spot on the rollers, and they have hundreds of hours of operstion.

One more comment. With a flat-top rail and a wider roller, the stress distribution in the middle of the contact area is relatively uniform but at the edges (corners) of the rail there is a "spike" in stress and there will be a corresponding spike in the roller stress. The narrower the rail, the higher the local stress at the edges...

Again, I think Super O track looks much more realistic than traditional track, and there doesn't seem to be evidence of excessive wear with it. The stress discussion is academic. I would not let the potential for increased roller wear prevent me from using it. But, if I chose to use it, I would not be surprised to encounter higher roller wear. Replacing pickup rollers is not difficult.

MELGAR

  I'm sure modern rollers are quite a bit better at handling wear. That alloy looks harder from here.  I'll post some examples of (minor) wear on my old stuff soon.

  The wear didn't begin till I added S-O again.  It is not all pristine track, but the majority of it was. The tin can temp. fix is responsible for a slight bit of wear as well. But that was on straights. They wouldn cause a very defined line in the center, not to the sides.

It mostly shows on shoe pickups quickly. Rollers take much more time, and not all show wear.

    I put enough hours on my trains as a kid to wear concave grooves in drivers of my 2037.  Mom was a clean freak, I didn't clean the 0-27 track that replaced my O&S-O in first grade until I was in my late forties. 

Right now, I'm not as clean as I'd like to be as injury has kept me from doing so for years (not a biohazard, just not how I'd prefer things... the big +140lb dogs abandoned here did not help with dust, or my lawn, nor the dust from dead lawn (they have slowed with age, lawn is back) I understand the dirt vs electrical would cause excess molecule stripping in arc plasma too.  It's plain & simple not that bad. I run too often imo. There just isn't enough accumulation on the rails to cause that much wear that fast (still talking years) without also seeing the arçing. I run at night a lot too.  Nothing like lit passenger cars in a blacked out room.

  On my 4.5x9 table I run an 0-27 El, 0-27 oval, O half dogbone oval, & Super O half bone oval. Nothing big or fancy; lots of spruced up "junk" (which I enjoy doing most anyhow). I started with the 027 and decided I wanted one loop of each vintage style.(027 suited my El needs best)

MELGAR posted:

...Again, I think Super O track looks much more realistic than traditional track, and there doesn't seem to be evidence of excessive wear with it. The stress discussion is academic. I would not let the potential for increased roller wear prevent me from using it. But, if I chose to use it, I would not be surprised to encounter higher roller wear. Replacing pickup rollers is not difficult.

MELGAR

It's been a while since I took my college physics classes (Pluto was still a planet...), but each of you make many excellent points.  As stated earlier, I have some roller wear on my postwar 2332 GG-1 from extensive running on my Super "O" layout as a boy, and I simply don't worry about it, and haven't replaced the rollers to date.  I have an 18' X 8' layout built with a current manufacturer's track, and without running a number of feeder wires, had significant voltage drop.  I never had the same problem with my childhood Super "O" layout which had two mainlines on two, 5 x 9 tables.  Each mainline had only two wires, each running fewer than about two feet from the transformer table, with a significant amount of distant track to electrify.

Most of the industrial designers/engineers that  I have had the pleasure of working with frequently explained to me that the design of a particular product under discussion often required evaluating different trade-offs in terms of ultimate performance characteristics. Changes in material selection, composition, dimension, shape, etc., frequently resulted in either modest or significant changes in ultimate performance and durability. To the extent possible, these design parameters are compared and evaluated, and a final choice as to design and materials is implemented based on overarching goals, comparative performance and durability, comparative utility, and, of course, comparative pricing.  Compare "O" track to Super "O" track, and you can immediately identify the numerous design choices that Lionel evaluated, including, importantly, the size, shape, material choice, and composition of the critical center rail. Based on my experience, observations, and preference, Melgar succinctly crystalizes my view of Super "O", and, the issue of roller wear in the conclusion to his above post, and echoes what many hobbyists have said so far at various points in this excellent discussion.

Knowing my own performance as a child, and my failure to always keep my track clean, I would think a manufacturer would have to expect that at least some of its customer base won't constantly be vigilant with their track cleaning, while others will be more careful.   And, some hobbyists have experienced some roller wear, although as Balshis states, not merely on Super "O", but also Lionel 0-27,  based on his own lengthy experience.

For me, Lionel fully satisfied its overarching goal of creating a premium track system in 3-Rail that looks very realistic and is a close approximation to real world track.  For me, Super "O" also had excellent electrical conductivity.  In the design trade-off issue, my strong preference would be for Super "O" even if  it causes more roller wear.  As Melgar states:

                                    "Replacing pickup rollers is not difficult."

Finally, unless I have forgotten, I haven't seen a post as of yet indicating that anyone has actually changed pick-up rollers because of roller wear, although conceding or stressing its existence. 

Quoting Melgar, and fully supporting his observation and conclusion:

"...Again, I think Super O track looks much more realistic than traditional track, and there doesn't seem to be evidence of excessive wear with it."

I HAD to have only a single roller set replaced.  I cant recall the number (2-4-2..?) but I'd bet it was the one issued with the "soft metal" that also wears like crazy on tube rail.  The S-0 carved it in half .  It still ran on O till it went to Gramps for a swap out . Died in a flood

Adriatic posted:

I HAD to have only a single roller set replaced.  I cant recall the number (2-4-2..?) but I'd bet it was the one issued with the "soft metal" that also wears like crazy on tube rail.  The S-0 carved it in half .  It still ran on O till it went to Gramps for a swap out . Died in a flood

Hi Adriatic...  i know the dirt and big pets.  We have a farm, my pets are 10x the weight of your 140lb dogs.

I have resisted setting up a temporary layout in my barn...

I also have heard about the korean war era rollers, its possible they were cheapened or something...

I can take pics of some lionel PWC that ran also for years.  Look at cases in videos, i was getting all of that because true PW was too expensive with $3,000 to $5,000 engines, i could get pwc with a set for 450 or something like that with command and sounds added to pw tooling.

Anyway, i dont recall any roller groving on any PWC either.  But i will look again.

Adriatic,

Love the layout video!

Bob,

I probably need another shot of coffee, but I'm not certain as to the meaning of "PWC".

Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

Adriatic,

Love the layout video!

Bob,

I probably need another shot of coffee, but I'm not certain as to the meaning of "PWC".

See the Acronyms and Abbreviations Decoder: https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...s-used-in-ogr-forums

PWC - Post War Classics/Celebration Series - Post War Reproductions

Yes the postwar celebrations.  I also have lots of time on the century club 1 engines made to PW tooling.  They are in storage.  May take a while to find.

Thanks guys, thats what I thought, but the prices seemed lower than I remember.  Many of the (essentially) reproductions in the "PWC" Series would look stunning on Super "O" track. I too have some PWC Series.

That "decoder" is great.  Thanks.

BRB... 

Thanks Dennis.  Remember, a throttle is always open to you here if the itch won't stop   

Thanks Adriatic!

Yea glad to be back on forum and re/meeting new friends in the area, dennis and adriatic...

Thanks Bob!  Glad you're back.

I have to agree with Super O Bob regarding roller wear.

I ran the living daylights out of my trains when I was a kid-all on Super O track.

There was very little in the way of roller wear.

This was post war equipment with steel rollers which were made for Super O.

I do have a Lionel 248 which has excessive roller wear-it has never seen Super O track because it will not run on it due the the height of its wheel flanges.  The rollers were dirty on the surface and also very loose where they fit into their arms.  The sparked in a spectacular manner.

I have also seen Standard Gauge trains with rollers that look almost like bow-ties.  These could have only been run on tubular track.

I do find it interesting that sometimes, people have entirely different experiences with exactly the same equipment.

Great layout, Adriatic!

Well, I decided to actually go and inspect my two locos that were run on Super"O" Track as a young boy.  The #ABC Lionel steamer was run the most since I owned that locomotive from day 1, and, the 2340 Pennsylvania GG-1 was also run extensively, but Santa brought the GG-1 the following Christmas, so I had it one year fewer in my roster.  Those were my only locos, and were run extensively on two main lines one month after I receiver the GG-1 since we doubled the layout size to 2 5 x 9 tables, with my dad doing the carpentry work.

Importantly, what I remembered as "roller wear" on this loco is mostly dirt.  On one roller there is just a very tiny notch, almost imperceptible.  I couldn't really feel anything on the other roller.  They need a little cleaning after 57+ years, although they were obviously stored after the train table was taken down in my later years of grade school.

Hopefully, here are the GG-1 photos:

Hard to see...  the last pic looks like it is like mine, marked where contact is like but not rutted.  

Just you can see where it rolls.  Love that GG1

Thanks Bob. That GG-1 was a real surprise for Christmas, 1961.  My father was with me at Lopo's several weeks before Christmas, and Mr. Lopo took the loco out of the display case with my dad next to me so that I could look at it.  The next time we went to Lopo's, it had been sold.  I actually didn't even have it on my Christmas list because of the comparative cost.  My close friend had the Brunswick version, so my dad knew that was my favorite engine.

As to the first roller, I'll check again, but it seems like a very tiny groove on an engine that is very, very heavy - literally a stump puller.