Greetings - I've been reading through these threads for quite a while, even though I've only been a member for a short time, and I feel I just have to put my two cents in on why I like traction tires on my steam engines. Everyone knows that the average plastic steam engine doesn't pull worth a darn. Hook up ten or twelve cars and everything is fine, but start going around a curve less than 19" in radius or (gasp!) start up an incline and the next thing you know it's sitting there spinning its drivers. Improvements have been made for sure, but without the weight on the drivers it's just not going to go anywhere. This problem is easier to alleviate on diesels because the shell usually has a lot of extra space for additional weight. Perhaps this is realistic. The average diesel (with exceptions of course) could usually pull more than the steam engine they were designed to replace. I would fully expect that a lash-up of first-generation geeps would perform better and pull more than a 2-8-0. Most of those who run diesels rarely run a single unit, preferring instead to lash up multiple units to make sure they have enough pulling power. Most of the trains I pull wouldn't be able to make it around my layout with one diesel. Three or four is what it usually takes, but I don't think four connies would look right - hence the dilemma. Three Dash 9's good, four mikados bad. Bachmann has, in my opinion, solved part of this with their newer J and its diecast boiler. But even this locomotive has traction tires. As much as I would like my scale trains to be able to pull a realistic-length train, I'm not willing to pay absurd amounts of money for it - this is a hobby, after all, and I can only afford so much fun. If plastic keeps costs down then I'm all for it. Die cast boilers can help, but to get detail you have to put a bunch of add-on detail parts which adds cost. I think the Life-Like/Walthers Berkshire is a perfect example of a beautiful locomotive that has a fatal flaw - it can't pull anything. So where do we compromise? Quite frankly, traction tires are a cheap fix for a manufacturer. I can buy a Kato Mikado, add a $7 set of traction tires to it and it will pull 30-40 cars all day up my 2% grades. Pretty realistic. And I didn't have to do anything special and the manufacturer didn't have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for product development on a niche product. Let's face it, N scale is more popular than ever, but the big money for manufacturers is in HO. When I switched from HO to N I was surprised that, overall, N scale costs just as much if not more. I really don't expect that every steam engine I would love to have is going to be made. But when I have to pay as much for an N scale steam engine as I would for an HO steamer that has the added bonus of being equipped with DCC and sound, it makes me go hmmm. Hopefully PCM will indeed produce their M1a/b and a new standard will be set, but, again, even that locomotive with its die cast boiler will have traction tires. Let's face it, one of the attractions of N is the ability to run bigger trains in the same space as HO. Give me the ability to do that with N scale steam, even if it means the locomotive needs rubber sneakers, and I'll deal with the need to replace them every now and then. Besides, replacing traction tires pales in comparison to the abilities needed to convert them to DCC - that's an area that manufacturers need to focus on!
You're going to get Rick all fired up. I agree, traction tires are a necesary evil. It would be great if loco's didn't need them to pull realistic loads but it is not going to happen any time soon. Every steamer I own and continue to enjoy running has traction tires, including many old RR, Arnold, and Minitrix loco's.
RR, Arnold, Minitrix and you can add to the list Fleischmann and others, were/are made in Europe where practically all model locomotives, have traction tyres and are the accepted norm. The same applies to Japanese prototype made by Kato, Tomix, Micro-Ace, etc. It seems to be mainly in the US that there is some sort of aversion to traction tyres, when they are done properly they are an asset to a loco.
My first minitrix steamers had those traction tyres It would make the loco limp down the tracks like an old man wobble, wobble. I think that is where the dis-taste for traction tyres arose here in the states. You would like a loco,pick it up,turn it over & see those TT and put it back(no sale). today is a different story, if they have TT that is a plus these days. The Traction tyre is now a common practice that has been accepted and is here to stay. The truth be told it never really went away.
I had a traction-tired Concor, Sagami remotored SD50 (not a steam engine...) that I had weighted to 8 ounces (227 grams) that would pull 70 N scale cars up a 2 percent grade. True fact.
Let's face it. There was NEVER a steam loco without traction tires that could pull a realistic consist on grades. There have been vague hints of improved weight, or weight distribution, in steam that would make traction tires unnecessary but no one has achieved this and probably will not. The objections to traction tires - hard to replace, hard to clean, hard to find replacements, or simply don't know how to replace - are merely the shortcomings of modelers. There is no valid argument for eliminating traction tires. I don't think there is a manufacturer who disagrees with this and hopefully we will never again see steam without traction tires. Ben
First thing I do with a Kato Mikado is install the traction tire axle. Unless your layout has no elevation changes, TT's are pretty much your only option unless you like running short trains. I wish my Bachmanns 2-6-6-2 had traction tires, as it's now relegated to NTrak use. It's little brother 2-8-0's run happily around my layout pulling twice the load. However, my Walthers 0-8-0 WITH traction tires is hopeless (3 cars up my grades) anywhere except for yard duty where it will handle 8 cars. Thankfully that's all it's required to do.
Traction tires are found on almost ALL european locos. But perhaps is because we have less space and we are forced to have steep grades and tight curves on our layouts. Also few modelers would want to waste useful car leght by adding another loco to the lead unit. Therefore, tractions tires are necessary evil. However, I'm happy I switched to US because, among other reasons, engines don't have traction tires. Traction tires have those drawbacks: - They look unrealistic - They collect A LOT of dirt - They need frequent maintenance - They need to be replaced when consumed - They need to be replaced when they get oval - They need to be replaced when the rubber dries out - They need to be replaced and you can't find the part for your loco Just my €0,02
Thanks for posting and giving us a new voice to hear from! You're in luck, as least as far as "realism" is concerned. Steam engines were actually more powerful than diesels. In approaching very steep grades, railroads often dropped the diesels, replacing them with steam engines for the length of the grade--or attached a steam engine to the consist. Seems to me that the reasons we lost steam were more economic than anything. (You are right, of course, that a lash-up of geeps would pull more than would a single 2-8-0). In this respect, traction tires lend much more realism to an N-scale layout.
The Wrath Of Rick....Grin! You've got to know, I chuckled a Christmas belly chuckle when I read this. Gosh. I'm getting a reputation here. Good to hear from you Texas and I love TonyH's response. Too funny! You know I can't just pass over this without adding my two cents. Here we go, hang on: What? What? What? Tractions Tires #@!! NO...said loud and long. Texas, made a good point one I can't argue with (darn it). I do concur... that with many of the older steamers the only resolution to the pulling problems is Traction Tires. If you think I 'm happy with that I'm not. Yuck! Rick's Rant: There is no rhyme or reason, no excuse, why we can't have hard pulling steamers minus the traction tires. And, keep the cost down. Period. Listen I won't go on and on here. I have a busy schedule today and no time to elaborate. Now, I heard that big sigh of relief. Grin! The point I want to make is: As long as we, model railroaders, run around saying "We Love Traction Tires", that's precisely what we are going to get. So, think about it: Do you really want the future of model railroading to be all about traction tires on steamers? I don't! Thanks for the read. I do respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinion. Just asking that you consider the options. This choir boy is off to sing in a Christmas Church Program this morning and to wind up the day singing in the Methodist Church Christmas Pageant. Yeah, I'm a choir boy and not a member of the "Tuesday Night Choir Boys", Model Railroad Club. Although, I wish I were. Sing Alleluia to the Lord...., I love to sing. May the good Lord bless you and yours this Holiday Season. Merry Christmas ALL! HO HO HO or is that No No No Traction Tires? Smiling... as I drive away in my red improvised sled.
Does the need for traction tires to improve pulling power have anything to do with the lack of sprung drivers on N scale steam locomotives? I'm wondering if the rigid frames with solid bearing blocks leads to problems in keeping all drivers solidly in contact with the rails. Aren't sprung drivers more common in the larger scales? Or am I just imagining that? Just curious. Ed .
I figured I would get a little response from this - nice to know I can keep this discussion going. Part of the reason I am really happy about traction tires is because of the Bachmann 2-8-0. On my in-progress W&LE layout I'm using a few of them as stand-ins for their H-10 class - the real ones had over 62,000 pounds of tractive effort (more than the USRA Mikados they also rostered-hence the nickname "Logroller"). Quite frankly, I'm not sure how much weight you could possibly add to the N scale version to get close to that kind of pulling power. The engine itself is actually quite heavy, and I don't think even a die cast boiler would give it enough to replicate its real-life counterpart. You can only put so much lead or gold into a locomotive before it either becomes too hazardous or too valuable to risk operation. So traction tires to the rescue. I understand some of the limitations, but I figure if I can install DCC in my steamers then traction tire replacement should be a cakewalk. I do wish traction tires were all as easy to do as the Kato Mikado. I will admit, though, the reports about the Walthers 0-8-0 (which I'm planning to use as W&LE C-1 types) that can barely pull even with traction tires are a little disappointing. I will concede that there has to be some substance i.e. weight to a locomotive to begin with, but once you get that you have to look at other options. Hope everyone is enjoying their holiday!
Traction Tires Aren't An Acceptable Alternative. Howdy Texas and all tuned in, The concerts went well. All that work and preparation and it's over. We all had a lot of fun and the concerts was well received. Now back to business and the issue at hand. I don't consider traction tires as an acceptable alternative. I'd rather put in a cheater box car or find a way to power up the tender as compared to relying on traction tires. I have sitting on the dead line... my units in HO, N and others that belong to friends in O and S scale, waiting replacement TT's or locomotive parts (lost when they tried to replace the TT's). I have early diesels where Atlas and Mehano tried to use one power truck and the TT's for pulling. What a waste. I can't find replacement parts and I'm looking at ways to install a newer Atlas or Kato chassis. I quit looking at traction tires through rose colored glasses along time ago. Anyway, consider the statements provided here on TB by others then myself. Consider the pro's and con's. Then ask yourself is TT's, really what I want? My answer is NO! Traction tires aren't an acceptable alternative. Have a good holiday and hey, send me some of that famous Texas Fruit Cake. It is the best. Have fun!
Always up for a debate..... Rick, After reading many of the anti-TT statements, I see one continuing theme. The units you keep refering too as dead line loco's appear to be all older model loco's. The loco's you mention, as far as I can tell, all used rubber traction tires. Rubber is prone to drying out and causing all the problems you mention. Current technology does not use rubber. They use either a synthetic or a silicone tire that do not suffer from the shrinking, warping and other drawbacks you keep refering too. Has anybody out there had a modern loco (Kato Mikado, Bachmann Spectrum, or Model Power) traction tire dry rot or break yet? Don't write off current equipment because of bad experiences with older technology. The Mehano loco's you mention were not worth the metal they were made of, traction tires or not. The only early loco's I have seen that do not use rubber TT's were some of the RR/Con Cor steamers that used the clear tire. Those tires didn't fail, they were just got so hard that they didn't improve performance enough to justify their use. The only problem I have had with a "modern" traction tire equiped loco is having a loco stretch and walk out of it's tire when pulling near it's maximum, something many will never come close too. There is an easy cure to that, a little black paint on a tooth pick or small paint brush spread around under the tire to "glue" it to the wheel. Since doing that, I have not had a TT failure.
I've never had to replace a Kato traction tyre and I agree with you that they've come a long way from the old days when they made a loco waddle down the track like a lame duck. If any manufacturer can come out with tyreless steam locos that will pull more than a fraction of what they should I'll be the first to rush out and buy them, but I don't see it happening. In the meantime I'll go and run my traction tyre equipped Japanese 2-6-0 that'll pull more than my 2-6-6-2 and 2-8-8-2 double headed with the 2-8-4 pushing.
As a German who is used to traction tires since my first modelling days (running good old Märklin trains), I think they are a makeshift solution to a bigger problem. The ideal steam engine would be solid brass for the weight, has equalized drivers to have always all drivers on the track, and no traction tires at all. But this is ideal. And since we happen to live in the real world, we have plastic steamers with rigid drivers (some of them wobbling, too), and traction tires to improve this mess a bit. If you look at the German steam engines, their drive is often in the tender, and the tender wheels all have traction tires. They kind of stick to the track. Back side: they won't slip, even in case of overload, and fry the motor. Throwing off traction tires was a common sight when I was in H0, now I only had it once, and this was the Kato Mikado For me, the alternative to traction tires is a cheater box car, all the parts are here, but I have not yet started (as always....) Just my 2ct again.... Happy Holidays to all of you
Stewart/Virnex sells traction tyres for both steam and diesels in N scale. They also sell a tool that is good for diseasels but just about useless for steam, unless you want to change the tyre on a very low drivered steam locomotive such as the MDC/Athearn 1880s 2-8-0. If you want to replace them on a high drivered steam locomotive, such as the C-C 4-6-4, it takes about a week of graduated stretching to accomplish the change. On other steam, the time required for stretching varies. You must be careful lest you try to stretch them too much too quickly, lest they break. The Walthers catalogue usually has the tyres for both steam and diseasels. It also has the tool, from time-to-time. You can use the diseasel tool as a model to improvise one for steam.
From what I know about and have not experienced, there were sprung drivers in H0 scale, but it was rare. A brass H0 loco with sprung drivers was a sought after item and most did not have it. 0 gauge brass may have had sprung drivers; I do not know. The main discrepancy in N scale pulling power between diesels and steam is weight, IMHO. There is not much room in a steam engine to add weight compared to a diesel. I have seen some creative methods of adding weight to N scale steam like recasting the plastic shell in metal. That helps a lot even without sprung drivers. As a comparison, there is room in an H0 diesel shell to add enough weight that will damage the motor because it is so heavy. This is not a problem in N scale. But, my post here is a point about weight, not traction tires.
Distribution of weight is important as well. In most if not all diesels the weight is equally distributed over and between the drivers (trucks). It would require a smaller motor to achieve similar weight distribution in steam but not beyond the realm of possibility. The only reasonable alternative for satisfactory pulling power is traction tire drivers. Athearn, Bachmann, Con-Cor, Kato, Model Power, Walthers-Proto, and I assume Atlas have come to this conclusion. Is there any other manufacturer? That seems to be a mighty short list. I don't think manufacturers are interested in providing "cheater" cars or tenders, nor should they. But that is an option for modelers to build and add themselves. Kato has made the installation of traction drivers and the changing of traction tires a simple process and are maintaining a ready supply of both drivers and tires. And the regular driver is an option. The same applies with Kato's GS-4. A separate regular driver will be provided. Other manufacturers should follow Kato's lead. Both sides of the question would be happy, or at least be able to move to the next item of disagreement. And I do love traction tires. Without stretching and fitting Stewart tires I'd get no exercise at all. Ben
