For whatever this is worth -
My initial train set was a 1958 027 outfit. The track had shiny rails. Some of 'dad's' track that got mixed in to expand the set had a dull grey finish.
I never gave it much thought, other than 'dad's track is different than mine'. I now have what I assume to be dad's first train. It is 027 and dates to the early 20's. This might date the track with a dull grey finish to the 20's?
JTrainsIn the case of track, would having a bi-metal cathode alter its potential? Only the outside of the rail is either tin or, potentially (ha – chemistry joke!), zinc the inside is still steel. Yes, a bi-metal cathode would produce two voltages, confounding the results. The rail is plated on both sides so the steel will not confound the results... except some steel is exposed on the cut end. That might explain the slightly low voltage. I probably should have painted some nail polish on the end before placing it in the vinegar. Using rails in both batteries would seem logical to cancel any effect – but perhaps there’s something in the interaction between the differing plate metals and the steel that could introduce unknown variation? I made one battery with known zinc plating as a test standard to compare to the unknown plating on the rail. If the rail produced the same voltage, I would know it was zinc plated. Because the rail produced a voltage predicted for tin, I was convinced it was tin. Having rails in both batteries would have added tin ions to the zinc/copper battery. Better to keep the experiment pure. Also, does the relative mass of the cathode vis-à-vis the anode introduce another variable that materially alters its observed voltage potential? IOW, could making a cathode using a wire of mass A in one battery and a track rail of mass B in the other introduce a confounding variable? Mass and surface area are related to current capacity, not voltage, so no, makes no difference in an ideal battery. Of course, an ideal battery does not have one electrode end with two elements exposed to electrolyte. If I had thicker wire the higher current capacity might have overcome currents between the tin and steel at the cut end, resulting in voltages closer to predicted.
Yes, a bi-metal cathode would produce two voltages, confounding the results. The rail is plated on both sides so the steel will not confound the results... except some steel is exposed on the cut end. That might explain the slightly low voltage. I probably should have painted some nail polish on the end before placing it in the vinegar.
Using rails in both batteries would seem logical to cancel any effect – but perhaps there’s something in the interaction between the differing plate metals and the steel that could introduce unknown variation?
I made one battery with known zinc plating as a test standard to compare to the unknown plating on the rail. If the rail produced the same voltage, I would know it was zinc plated. Because the rail produced a voltage predicted for tin, I was convinced it was tin.
Having rails in both batteries would have added tin ions to the zinc/copper battery. Better to keep the experiment pure.
Also, does the relative mass of the cathode vis-à-vis the anode introduce another variable that materially alters its observed voltage potential? IOW, could making a cathode using a wire of mass A in one battery and a track rail of mass B in the other introduce a confounding variable?
Mass and surface area are related to current capacity, not voltage, so no, makes no difference in an ideal battery. Of course, an ideal battery does not have one electrode end with two elements exposed to electrolyte. If I had thicker wire the higher current capacity might have overcome currents between the tin and steel at the cut end, resulting in voltages closer to predicted.
Aside--The battery I made is actually called a "Galvanic Cell," so named by Alessandro Volta after Luigi Galvani who gave Volta the idea from his "animal electricity" experiments with frog's legs. It was Volta who discovered the different voltage potentials of the elements by trying different metals in his Galvanic Cell.
..........Wayne..........
cwburfle Most people don't care about track, regular "O" and "027" track has little value
Most people don't care about track, regular "O" and "027" track has little value
The value on this subject is more about Lionel's production methods and adjustments based on materials available during difficult times.
Rob
I'm from Missouri, so I will say still there was no galvanized rail used for Lionel "O" or O-27. O-27 ties, perhaps.
It seems reports of galvanized rail is actually the patina taken on by track used & stored in different environs. I've seen a literal cornocopia of different patinas, or tin plating, but never any galvanization.
there seem to be few references to this topic on the Internet
Most people don't care about track, regular "O" and "027" track has little value.
So, this is why I love this forum - one member asks an informational question, and another member goes and creates a research experiment! Nice job webenda!
Anything more than simple battery design goes beyond my chemistry knowledge, but I offer a couple of questions on constructing as accurate of an experiment as possible:
I’ll add a few other comments/suppositions to the thread:
Might be some time for an experiment later today. If only I had one of those cheap spectrometers…
IT consultant by day, 3rd generation Lionel guy (raising a 3YO 4th generation Lionel Lil' Man) by night in the suburbs of the greatest city in the world - Chicago. Home of the ever-changing Illinois Concretus Ry.
Below is what my buddy wrote back. I did an internet search on "Lionel Grey Track", and found a thread on another train board. Folks interested in the subject might want to do the same.
Question: Do you remember when it was made, and what was galvanized? Was it the ties, rails or both? I thought it was the rails. Answer: Rails only. I recall getting galv 027 in an original boxed set I got from Ransome, I believe it was a 1948 set. My factory layout came with galvanized 0-gauge track and switches, it was from 1952. Until i got the set from Ransome I always assumed Korean War production. I have a bunch if anyone wants some.
Thank you CWBurfle. Hope you friend can shed some light on Lionel Galvanized track.
Here is one of the "often read about galvanized Lionel track" sites I refered to:
The ties were galvanized, but not the rails
I am going to write my buddy. I think the rails were galvanized.
The ties were galvanized, but not the rails.
Lionel did make galvanized track for a brief period. I have not commented before because I don't know the details. I do know that one of my train buddies was looking to acquire some in order to complete a boxed set.I assume there was a materials shortage, so I would guess the track was made either right after WWII or during the Korean war. I will try to remember to ask my buddy the next time I see him.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month