Track deposits, stay alives and stalling

[jamespetts]

Discussion continued from this thread.

 

I did not say the the black deposits was pitting please re read my post. The posts are getting a bit off topic if you wish to start a new topic on this ? as it not fair to the OP. I’ll let you do your own research as I spent many hours doing my research on track cleaning. I’m not here to prove a case as it comes across as such, but track cleaning is a complex subject but think to a real railway and how rails go when nothing runs on them as opposed to a used railway. Yes I use the wd40 contact cleaner as well as other methods.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your post - my apologies. What did you intend to say that the black deposits were made of if not oxides of nickel and copper? Or did you mean that deposits are indeed oxides of nickel and copper?

 

As to the video - there are a huge number of videos on YouTube, and many of those about model railway track cleaning, and it will be extremely hard to find the one that you are referring to without some clue as to how I can identify it. A video by a research chemist sounds much more useful than a general track cleaning video, but I will need some clue as to how to locate it.

 

As to rails going rusty, i.e., ambient oxidation, real rails go rusty because real rails are made of steel and steel rusts at room temperature in the presence of water, which is commonly encountered outdoors. I am not sure whether or not any sort of ambient oxidation occurs with nickel silver; any reliable sources on this would be very interesting (and this would suggest even more of a need for regular cleaning/stay alives than dynamic oxidation only).

 

I am still not sure why you say that micro-arcing does not result in oxidation, however - can you elaborate?

[WIMorrison]

Surely this has already been discussed to the point where no more information can be found, and all existing views and videos by modellers, research chemists and uncle Tom Cobley  have been posted in this forum already

 

A rudimentary search suggests that this is very much the case.

 

[Andymsa]

The black deposits are bits of the wheel that get blasted off during micro arcing, it is these bits of wheel that get lodged in the pits on the rail head and oxidise ( black crud) not the rail itself. Using a polar cleaner like IPA will make the situation worse as these types of cleaners will accelerate the process, where as non polar will protect the rail more reducing black crud build up. The point about real rails was not what it’s made of but remains more clean when used, the same can be said of our model tracks running keeps them cleaner, or longer periods between cleans. I really can’t understand why you need to find that particular video, there are many out there that say the same thing, it’s like you must have evidence of the cause either accept the advice given in good faith or not. one further point good track laying is a must for good running and some examples of this are shown below.

 

 

[jamespetts]

The reason that I ask for the specific video is because you mentioned that it was from a research chemist, which suggests that there might be a scientific basis for it, which would be very interesting indeed. That something is said in good faith does not make it true; many people genuinely believe things that turn out not to be correct. What I am interested in is thus what the evidence is for the particular mechanisms to which you refer.

 

You refer to "bits of the wheel" being "blasted off" during micro-arcing - do you mean that these are simply fragments of nickel silver chemically unaltered, or are these indeed oxides? Or do you not know? What we do know is that the substance is black - if we file nickel silver, the filings that we get are shiny and grey in colour, suggesting that the deposits are chemically different from the metals from which they are formed (note that wheels on model trains are also made of nickel silver). Also - is there a particular reason that you think that the deposits come from the wheels alone rather than both from rail and wheel in circumstances where they are chemically identical and in contact or close proximity with one another during the micro-arcing events that give rise to the depositions? Or did you mean to state that they come from both?

 

Also, you had mentioned in an earlier post the issue of ambient oxidation - I should be very interested in any research sources that you have on this (or, if you cannot remember specific links, keywords by which you found those research sources and some idea as to how I will know when I have found the specific research sources that you remember having found), as this is a potentially significant mechanism that might alter how best to deal with regular maintenance. I have heard it said elsewhere - without citation of evidence - that running trains can reduce ambient oxidation build up on rails, but, without anybody having tested this, I remain sceptical. It does not follow from the fact that running real trains on real rails prevents the tops of those rails from becoming rusty that the same will apply to oxidation of nickel silver on model railways. The mechanism on real railways is that the trains exert great forces on the rails physically abrading away the rust and effectively polishing the rail heads. I am doubtful that model trains are heavy enough to exert sufficient force to have any significant level of abrasion on the rail head surface. Certainly, one cannot safely assume, without testing, that the same mechanism will work at 1:76th or 1:148th the scale of a real railway, especially since the weight will (approximately) reduce by the cube root of the scale factor and that the wheels and rails are made of different types of metal than on real railways. It is possible that there is nonetheless something similar occurring - but it would be irrational to assume this without testing it. If anybody has actually tested this rigorously, this would be very interesting indeed.

 

Incidentally, I think that you may be mistaking my inquiries for hostility whereas they are actually grounded in a desire to understand whether or not there is sufficient empirical evidence to alter my existing understanding of the subject based on a combination of my own experiments and such information as I can piece together from general knowledge and such research as I have been able to carry out. Obviously, real scientific research on this topic will be superior to that, which is why I am particularly interested in the video to which you refer. Can you not give any clue at all as to what it was called or how I would know if I had found it from a search result? Likewise, if you have conducted experiments or have undertaken research which contradicts the understanding that I have so far arrived at by the process described, then the results of those experiments and the substance of that research might be a good reason for me to update my understanding of the mechanism involved. This is why I ask for details: I am very keen to ensure that my understanding of the subject be as correct and complete as possible. If you are not able to provide those details, then I will have to conclude that I do not have sufficient reason to revise my current understanding. This is not intended as a personal criticism of you; but you should also likewise not be hostile if I continue to state publicly my current understanding despite you believing something different to be true in circumstances where the evidence to which you refer is incomplete or inconclusive.

[WIMorrison]

Have you tried searching, it took less than 5 secs with a Google search to find the relevant posts already posted here that answer all your question, plus the video that you want?

[RobinofLoxley]

Its fair enough to want to understand the fundamental science in this area. Not something that everyone will wish for or need, but if you can understand the fundamental science without someone filtering it out, then combined with a lot of railway specific knowledge something good might appear. 

 

Maybe off topic of maybe not @Andymsa but you were investigating graphite for your helix - how did that go?

[Andymsa]

14 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Its fair enough to want to understand the fundamental science in this area. Not something that everyone will wish for or need, but if you can understand the fundamental science without someone filtering it out, then combined with a lot of railway specific knowledge something good might appear. 

 

Maybe off topic of maybe not @Andymsa but you were investigating graphite for your helix - how did that go?

 

robin, I decided against graphite on my helixes because although it would give better conduction it would of acted like a lubricant. Also it really goes against all the effort of keeping rails clean. Some swear by putting it on the track but for me no.

[jamespetts]

51 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

Have you tried searching, it took less than 5 secs with a Google search to find the relevant posts already posted here that answer all your question, plus the video that you want?

 

I have already undertaken general research, which is what lead me to my current understanding. If somebody has a reason to believe that a different understanding is correct, then it is entirely reasonable to ask that person what that reason is.

 

Either the person knows the answer to that question or he or she does not. It takes no effort to state which it is, and, if the answer is known, to state that answer.

 

If the person does not know or will not answer the answer to the question of the evidence supporting her/his conclusion, then it is reasonable for another person not to change her/his view on the basis of the assertion of that conclusion unless and until such reason and evidence should become apparent.

[Andymsa]

1 hour ago, jamespetts said:

The reason that I ask for the specific video is because you mentioned that it was from a research chemist, which suggests that there might be a scientific basis for it, which would be very interesting indeed. That something is said in good faith does not make it true; many people genuinely believe things that turn out not to be correct. What I am interested in is thus what the evidence is for the particular mechanisms to which you refer.

 

You refer to "bits of the wheel" being "blasted off" during micro-arcing - do you mean that these are simply fragments of nickel silver chemically unaltered, or are these indeed oxides? Or do you not know? What we do know is that the substance is black - if we file nickel silver, the filings that we get are shiny and grey in colour, suggesting that the deposits are chemically different from the metals from which they are formed (note that wheels on model trains are also made of nickel silver). Also - is there a particular reason that you think that the deposits come from the wheels alone rather than both from rail and wheel in circumstances where they are chemically identical and in contact or close proximity with one another during the micro-arcing events that give rise to the depositions? Or did you mean to state that they come from both?

 

Also, you had mentioned in an earlier post the issue of ambient oxidation - I should be very interested in any research sources that you have on this (or, if you cannot remember specific links, keywords by which you found those research sources and some idea as to how I will know when I have found the specific research sources that you remember having found), as this is a potentially significant mechanism that might alter how best to deal with regular maintenance. I have heard it said elsewhere - without citation of evidence - that running trains can reduce ambient oxidation build up on rails, but, without anybody having tested this, I remain sceptical. It does not follow from the fact that running real trains on real rails prevents the tops of those rails from becoming rusty that the same will apply to oxidation of nickel silver on model railways. The mechanism on real railways is that the trains exert great forces on the rails physically abrading away the rust and effectively polishing the rail heads. I am doubtful that model trains are heavy enough to exert sufficient force to have any significant level of abrasion on the rail head surface. Certainly, one cannot safely assume, without testing, that the same mechanism will work at 1:76th or 1:148th the scale of a real railway, especially since the weight will (approximately) reduce by the cube root of the scale factor and that the wheels and rails are made of different types of metal than on real railways. It is possible that there is nonetheless something similar occurring - but it would be irrational to assume this without testing it. If anybody has actually tested this rigorously, this would be very interesting indeed.

 

Incidentally, I think that you may be mistaking my inquiries for hostility whereas they are actually grounded in a desire to understand whether or not there is sufficient empirical evidence to alter my existing understanding of the subject based on a combination of my own experiments and such information as I can piece together from general knowledge and such research as I have been able to carry out. Obviously, real scientific research on this topic will be superior to that, which is why I am particularly interested in the video to which you refer. Can you not give any clue at all as to what it was called or how I would know if I had found it from a search result? Likewise, if you have conducted experiments or have undertaken research which contradicts the understanding that I have so far arrived at by the process described, then the results of those experiments and the substance of that research might be a good reason for me to update my understanding of the mechanism involved. This is why I ask for details: I am very keen to ensure that my understanding of the subject be as correct and complete as possible. If you are not able to provide those details, then I will have to conclude that I do not have sufficient reason to revise my current understanding. This is not intended as a personal criticism of you; but you should also likewise not be hostile if I continue to state publicly my current understanding despite you believing something different to be true in circumstances where the evidence to which you refer is incomplete or inconclusive.

im not being hostile at all. Track cleaning is the holy grail there are many products and devices out there. Every modeller swears by there method and are free to employ them, as  I said my advice is was made in good faith but you state that may not be true without evidence, I am not here to prove a case If a specific method works or not. All I can say my track when I’m running trains ( nothing has run for 11 months due to changes to the layout) Stays fairly clean and goes long periods between cleaning and works for me. Do I care why it works no, I just accept it and enjoy my trains. As you seem to be asking for evidence and don’t seem satisfied with the replies I shall withdraw.

 

[jamespetts]

9 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

im not being hostile at all. Track cleaning is the holy grail there are many products and devices out there. Every modeller swears by there method and are free to employ them, as  I said my advice is was made in good faith but you state that may not be true without evidence, I am not here to prove a case If a specific method works or not. All I can say my track when I’m running trains ( nothing has run for 11 months due to changes to the layout) Stays fairly clean and goes long periods between cleaning and works for me. Do I care why it works no, I just accept it and enjoy my trains. As you seem to be asking for evidence and don’t seem satisfied with the replies I shall withdraw.

 

 

I simply ask because you appeared to have a very confident belief in some very specific claims (e.g. that the black deposits arise from particles blasted off wheels, that oxidation of nickel silver rail occurs over time without the running of trains and that the running of trains can mechanically remove the oxide deposits) and because you referred to a specific video in which a person whom you described as a research chemist had tested relevant claims. One would normally expect a very specific belief to a high level of confidence to arise only where there is strong specific evidence for that particular belief, so it is very much worthwhile, reasonable and to be expected for a person who is not aware of that evidence to want to ask about it to understand the topic in more detail.

 

Incidentally, I did not suggest that you were being hostile so much as that you might incorrectly have believed that I was being hostile by asking the questions.

 

If you or anyone else ever remembers the link to the video featuring the research chemist, incidentally, please do post it here: I should be very interested to see it.

[WIMorrison]

The answers that you want ... a new approach  ;) 

[RobinofLoxley]

OK so you didnt run an actual test? I would be looking for  reliable witness, lol. Otherwise you tend to get conclusions without properly reported observations and you have no idea really what happened. Graphite may be a lubricant but if its filling micro-voids in the track surface the outcome can be a net gain of traction. FWIW I will be able to provide a test bed eventually as Im building a ramp, and I could treat the 'downhill' side which is slightly steeper, then run trains up it. to compare with the normal 'uphill' side, which has a gentler transition.

 

(sorry this was writen earlier but didnt make it to the thread)

[jamespetts]

1 hour ago, WIMorrison said:

The answers that you want ... a new approach  ;) 

 

I am aware of the learning on polar vs. non-polar chemicals in this context, but the questions that I was asking were not about this specific topic, but rather about the specific other claims being made (e.g. that oxidation of nickel silver occurs in ambient conditions and that these oxides can be removed from the railhead by running trains).

 

May I ask the reason that you posted a link relating only to polar vs. non-polar chemicals in response to this?

 

Robin - I should be very interested indeed in any test results for the consequences of the use of graphite on track.

[RobinofLoxley]

Have any of you seen this before?

 

https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/3229?page=2

[jamespetts]

5 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Have any of you seen this before?

 

https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/3229?page=2

 

I had not - but this is very interesting indeed! Thank you for that. (In summary: laboratory testing shows that the black accumulations are indeed nickel (III) oxide, a black, non-conductive substance which accumulates on track in patterns suggesting causation by micro-arcing.)

[WIMorrison]

Now I understand, when someone that you don't know posts the same information on another forum and claims that a metallurgist, who isn't named or credited,  told him it was nickel oxide then it is true, but when someone posts the same information here it isn't true or acceptable.

 

The same applies to the analysis by a chemist of polar v non polar.

 

I'm out-a-here

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

The second and third contributions on the thread are readable as well

[RobinofLoxley]

Im not trying to throw any curveballs here, even if it appears that way, but if you consider (metal, mainly steel) corrosion in general, it is accelerated in high humidity conditions and by sodium ions and similar. If you take PVA adhesive as an example, it normally contains tackifiers  based on borates which are very sodium rich. Not only do people glue their track down with it, potentially glueing cork underlay to baseboard with it then track to cork, but then glue ballast down by using diluted solutions of PVA. Im not sure about the composition of acrylic paints but in cheaper ones PVA will be present as a diluent - its cheaper. So a lot of people are putting corrosion accelerators in close proximity to their track.

[jamespetts]

1 hour ago, WIMorrison said:

Now I understand, when someone that you don't know posts the same information on another forum and claims that a metallurgist, who isn't named or credited,  told him it was nickel oxide then it is true, but when someone posts the same information here it isn't true or acceptable.

 

The same applies to the analysis by a chemist of polar v non polar.

 

I'm out-a-here

 

 

 

This is a bizarre and frankly disturbing response. It is totally inappropriate and verging on the wilfully abusive. (This is not being reported to the moderators because the moderators on this site are also abusers who deliberately enable abuse of this sort by locking threads when there are abusive posts in them irrespective of who is responsible for them, taking no specific action against those responsible for the abuse themselves, thereby allowing people deliberately to stifle discussion of an issue by abusive behaviour).

 

The post to which Robin linked specifically referred to a sample of the black deposits on track having been sent to a laboratory and spectrographically analysed, being found to constitute mostly nickel (III) oxide. Unless one were to think that what is stated in that post was a deliberate lie, for which there is no remotely plausible motivation, that describes a cogent and specific reason to believe that which is stated, viz. that the deposits on model railway track are principally composed of nickel (III) oxide.

 

That is a long way from a bare assertion of the mechanism without any attempt to explain the reasoning. I have not doubted the truth of  any descriptions of actual experiments carried out by anyone on this thread. If somebody here had claimed to have sent the results to a laboratory and described the result of a spectrographic analysis on this thread, I should not have suggested that the person was lying.

 

You need urgently to change your attitude to critical thinking and questioning in a radically fundamental way.

[jamespetts]

5 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Im not trying to throw any curveballs here, even if it appears that way, but if you consider (metal, mainly steel) corrosion in general, it is accelerated in high humidity conditions and by sodium ions and similar. If you take PVA adhesive as an example, it normally contains tackifiers  based on borates which are very sodium rich. Not only do people glue their track down with it, potentially glueing cork underlay to baseboard with it then track to cork, but then glue ballast down by using diluted solutions of PVA. Im not sure about the composition of acrylic paints but in cheaper ones PVA will be present as a diluent - its cheaper. So a lot of people are putting corrosion accelerators in close proximity to their track.

 

That is an interesting hypothesis - one way of testing it would be to compare the build-up of deposits on fiddle yard track which has been nailed down and is not ballasted to build-ups of deposits on scenic section track that has been glued in place with PVA and which has been ballasted using PVA.

[Andymsa]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

OK so you didnt run an actual test? I would be looking for  reliable witness, lol. Otherwise you tend to get conclusions without properly reported observations and you have no idea really what happened. Graphite may be a lubricant but if its filling micro-voids in the track surface the outcome can be a net gain of traction. FWIW I will be able to provide a test bed eventually as Im building a ramp, and I could treat the 'downhill' side which is slightly steeper, then run trains up it. to compare with the normal 'uphill' side, which has a gentler transition.

 

(sorry this was writen earlier but didnt make it to the thread)

I should of explained better my bad, I did do some basic tests on a test track and found uphill performance was worse at the gradient my helixes are set at.

[Andymsa]

8 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Im not trying to throw any curveballs here, even if it appears that way, but if you consider (metal, mainly steel) corrosion in general, it is accelerated in high humidity conditions and by sodium ions and similar. If you take PVA adhesive as an example, it normally contains tackifiers  based on borates which are very sodium rich. Not only do people glue their track down with it, potentially glueing cork underlay to baseboard with it then track to cork, but then glue ballast down by using diluted solutions of PVA. Im not sure about the composition of acrylic paints but in cheaper ones PVA will be present as a diluent - its cheaper. So a lot of people are putting corrosion accelerators in close proximity to their track.

 

 

I use Matt medium to glue ballast down, it stays slightly flexible and is extremely easy to remove.

[melmerby]

Just an observation.

All my track is "glued" to cork underlay with PVA (not really glued as PVA cannot actually glue the plastic used for Peco sleepers) and the cork is glued to plywood.

The track is not ballasted with anything.

I am using DCC and the dark deposits I get seem to be random both in position and extent and don't seem to relate to usage, some little used areas have deposits that seem to just "appear" over time.

 

All very puzzling.

[Andymsa]

13 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

 

This is a bizarre and frankly disturbing response. It is totally inappropriate and verging on the wilfully abusive. (This is not being reported to the moderators because the moderators on this site are also abusers who deliberately enable abuse of this sort by locking threads when there are abusive posts in them irrespective of who is responsible for them, taking no specific action against those responsible for the abuse themselves, thereby allowing people deliberately to stifle discussion of an issue by abusive behaviour).

 

 

 

may I suggest you reference the word abusive in the dictionary, no foul language was used and no threats were made. Is this hypocritical in itself to then make reference to moderators because an individual is stating how they see something. The only observation I can see was it was factual.

[Barry O]

Some practical examples of the use of Graphite on Model Railway Layouts.

 

"Carlisle" as seen in the Railway Modeller... a very extensive EM gauge DCC powered model of Carlisle and its environs with kit built and RTR modified locos and stock - the layout has some  very heavy trains (and I mean heavy!)  So far no locos are fitted with "Stay Alives" as they don't seem to need them. Track was cleaned then Graphite applied... it works.. locos can pull the very heavy trains.. Left for 18 months with not a wheel turned .. and it still works fine.

 

"Herculaneum Dock" again - this one is a OO exhibition layout. It was cleaned and Graphited ready to go to the Bristol Show in 2020.  Crated up and left for 18 months. When it was taken to Leeds Show we had some problems at first (spiders can be good at causing shorts .. not sure why?) but a bit of graphite added here and there and .. bingo.. off we go.  

 

It doesn't seem to cause any additional haulage reduction capabilities but it does work to improve the continuity of power to locomotives. While I can't prove it (I haven't got extensive laboratory facilities available) I suspect that the graphite fills in the marks in the rail heads (and sides) .

 

Baz