Märklin uses magnetraction?

Marklin's version of magnetraction is different from the traditional Lionel system.  Like Lionel, Marklin rail is steel, so they can use a magnetic adhesion system as well.  Where as Lionel uses magnetic wheels, Marklin uses two small bar magnets mounted low in the frame and parallel to rails to "pull" the engine harder to the track.  They only Markin locomotives which use this system (to my knowledge) as the small "Kof" engines.

Stuart

I have 3 Williams GG1s with magnetic adhesion enhancement(magne-traction). I wonder if there are others as well.

The method of implementation of the magnets is interesting. I would imagine that the set up works best on their M-track with the sheet metal base versus their C- or K-track systems.  

busch makes a small locomotive for H0 what is using magnets as well

http://www.busch-model.com/onl..._id=en&spur_h0=1

Cor

Do it like the real ones do.  Weigh down the scale loco to scale weight.  That would be about 8,800 lbs for a 1:48 scale AC 6000, the largest loco in use today I think.  That would give you plenty of traction!  Of course, you would need a crane to place your loco and it would almost certainly collapse your rails and table.  I will just stick with rubber tires or multiple engines, like the real ones do.

The Marklin system reminds of what AFX H.O. race cars did, they have magnets very close to the bottom of the car chassis to help keep the car on the track better as the rails were made from a steel compatible with magnetic adhesion.

Lee Fritz

That's incorrect. From another post about scale weight...

WEIGHT

Using the formula given by WindUpGuy:

To find the scale weight of an O scale model - assuming it was built using exactly the same materials in perfect scale dimensions - you would divide the prototype weight by the scale factor cubed, i.e. 48^3 or 110592. 

So, 432,000 lb (max weight of an AC6000) / 110592 = 3.9 lbs not 8000 lbs.

Jerry

All I know is the original poster was able to get umlauts ( a vs ä  ) in the title.

I've seen that posted before by others more than once over the years, and just like then as well as now, I still don't buy it (and physics doesn't either).  It's kind of like that scene in the James Bond movie Thunderball where a full-size sedan is put in a crusher then you are supposed to believe that since it's now smaller, it's also lighter and therefore it can be put in the back of Oddjob's Ford Ranchero without collapsing the suspension & blowing out the tires. 

If you were able to take a prototype engine that is x- number of pounds in the real world and magically shrink it down to 1/48 scale, it would still be the same weight as it was in the 12" = 1' world, although significantly more dense (obviously) and weigh ever-so-slightly less since there would also less air occupying empty spaces in the loco (air has weight too).  So a locomotive that's 432,000 pounds would still be 432,000 lbs, no matter if it was half it's original size or if it were as small as a sugar cube.

Truth is that performance (adhesion, rolling resistance, stability) is what is factored when designing scale model and toy trains, not by "scaling down" what the weight would be if it were 12 inches = 1 foot.

Actually, the James Bond movie with Odd Job was Goldfinger.

Stuart

You're wrong John, we're not crushing a full size and weight locomotive down to a block the size of an O scale model.  A 48 (48x48x48) square foot cube of steel (real world size) would not weigh the same as a 1 (1x1x1) square foot cube of steel(O gauge size)or vice versa.

Jerry

Volume is cubic, length, width, and height are linear.   

The ratio of 1:48 applies to any linear dimension.   But the volume is 1 to 48 cubed, ie it goes out in 3 axis.  

Think how many inches in a cubic foot.   There are 12 inches in a foot (linear).   There 12x12 or 144 square inches in a square foot (area).   There are 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot.

When you go from O scale to full size, you expand the volume by going in all 3 dimensions.

I did some research on this back some years and realized our freight cars tend to be much heavier proportionally than the prototypes.  

Jerry,

Wrong, it would still be the same weight regardless of it's size, if you don't add or subtract material from that steel cube, which was the point of my post.

The so-called academic "suggestion" of dividing the weight of something by the scale of something cubed is just that:  Academic.  It does not alter the laws of physics where in the real word object X that weighs Y will still be the same even if you can compress the size of something (while retaining all it's relative dimensional elements).  It will increase in density but it's mass will remain the same.

So John what you're telling me is that if I cast a driver for SP 4449 and use the same metal batch to cast an O scale wheel for an O scale 4449 they would both weigh the same?Neat trick, please explain how they would weigh the same. The O scale wheel would weigh close to what a scale wheel should weigh.

Jerry

John,

I think you are violating both the laws of physics and geometry.   However, you are entitled to  have that opinion.

I have posted a reply to this discussion on how much should scale trains weigh here:

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/t...78#45918751657218278

So tell me how an object becomes lighter without subtracting molecules from it.

No Jerry, because what you're doing there is making a completely different casting for a completely different object that uses less materials.  I'm saying is that if you were able to compress the size of that 12" = 1' driver you originally casted down to O scale size, it's weight would be the same.  The only other attribute other than the size difference, would be its density, which would be higher.

Making a completely different casting using less materials that results in a smaller object is completely different.

British 00/H0 Hornby had their "Magnadhesion" system back when, which was also a magnet low down in the locomotive frame. It was matched up with the older Hornby Super 4 steel track. Later nickel-silver track made it redundant, and some modelers removed it and replaced it with lead.