Skip to main content

Awhile back, there was a discussion about Super "O" track.  Some people contended the middle rail could not and would not put additional wear on the middle rail contacts of locomotives and rolling stock.

My contention was that Super "O" track did.  I've had my cars with the worn rollers in storage for quite awhile now, so I haven't been able to access them to take pics.  Today I was perusing stuff on ebay when I chanced upon a set of 2333 Santa Fe AA units.  One of them, the one with the horn, has precisely the same type of wear my cars rollers experienced.  True, it's only on one of the rollers, but I'm guessing the other rollers just didn't have the same amount of pressure exerted on them.

Here is one of the pics:

2333 w/Unevenly Worn Rollers
2333 w/Unevenly Worn Rollers



The logical question that's probably running through your mind is, "How do you know Super "O" track is responsible?"

There's no proof I can come up with, since they aren't MY engines.  However I'll pose a different question.  If Super "O" track isn't responsible, then what else could have caused it?  Note how thin the wear is.  Doesn't it appear a blade from Super "O" track would fit perfectly in that groove?  Surely T-Rail wouldn't fit.

I don't know if rollers were sometimes made of softer metals at different times.  What I do know is that not all of the cars I used on Super "O" track suffered from the roller grooves.

I still think Super "O" track is pretty cool looking, and I prefer it over all of their other kinds of tracks.  It's just a drag Lionel never chose to produce different diameter curves to increase its versatility.  I think that may have helped make it a success.

Last edited by phrankenstign
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Really?  Wow!  The rollers on my other engines and cars look shiny like the roller on the lower right in the pic.  The only ones I have that are uneven are some of the ones my dad and I ran constantly on a bicycle wheel layout with Super "O" track around it.  They didn't run for years, but they ran for long hours at a time during two or three Christmas seasons.

Lionel machined rollers out of steel for many years.  These are the rollers with the stub axles on each end of the rollers. As volumes went up and there was pressure to cut cost, Lionel went to sintered steel rollers.  This was about 1949 or 1950.  These are the rollers with the roles all the way through them.  When Super O track was introduced, there were complaints about the narrow center rail cutting grooves in the rollers. Lionel responded by changing the sintered steel roller material to stainless steel.  But there were millions of the sintered steel rollers in service and in the spare parts network.  Even today it is not uncommon to find parts dealers still selling NOS sintered steel rollers. Rollers are cheap and easy to change, so I have never seen where roller wear should influence any decisions about Super O track.

An interesting design question with rollers I have never gotten answered is there are different part numbers for a couple of roller designs that are dimensionally identical, but made of different material. The rollers used on two motor locos were a different composition than rollers used on one motor locos.  In the engineering standards the different materials are only identified by the Lionel composition identification number, so I have no idea what the difference in the material is.  I am sure once they left the factory as spare parts the dimensionally identical rollers would have gotten mixed regardless of composition.

FWIW, Henning's has a track outside in front, it uses Atlas track.  We've replaced the rollers several times on the engine that goes around and round on that for days on end.

I just sent out a repair for a museum that has O and STD gauge trains running, apparently all day.  Besides replacing worn out wheels, we had to replace the pickups, some of them were worn all the way to the retaining shaft!  Remember, that little pickup is spinning a LOT faster than the wheels!

Rollers are cheap and easy to change, so I have never seen where roller wear should influence any decisions about Super O track.

As I mentioned above, I like Super "O" track.  Although I 100% believe the track caused grooves in one of my locomotives and some cars, they didn't get worn enough to warrant changing them.  I would in the future if it ever became necessary, but it wouldn't deter me from continuing to use the track occasionally.



Besides replacing worn out wheels, we had to replace the pickups, some of them were worn all the way to the retaining shaft!  Remember, that little pickup is spinning a LOT faster than the wheels!

I hadn't really thought of that before, but you're absolutely correct!

btw Did the rollers wear down evenly or unevenly on the Atlas track?

Wouldn't you have the opposite problem then?  The track itself would get worn out.  Then it would have to be replaced!  I think I'd much rather replace the rollers than a bunch of track!

Talking about the Marx shoes, I'm pretty sure @Dennis-LaRock was making a joke.  To which I would reply, then Mark would become a Tar Heel walking down the rail road tracks barefoot.

I don't think this question is asked correctly.  Does Super O track cause uneven roller wear?  Yes.  Under the same circumstances that other track types can cause uneven roller wear.  The better question might be does Super O track cause different wear patterns than other track?  This may be where the real difference is. 

Add Reply

Post
This forum is sponsored by Lionel, LLC

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×