I agree it would be very nice if a carefully designed, scientific test were conducted by MR or a contributor. But that's a huge challenge. There are so many variables, including environment, cleaning methods themselves, approaches with a combination of cleaning methods, loco and rolling stock wheel cleaning methods, rolling stock wheel types, etc. Plus the issues of things like post cleaning lubricants, corrosion inhibitors, conductivity aids, etc.
So I suspect that any such article would be too likely easy to critique, not just because of biases (for example, polishing is the key) that we have from our own experiences, but also because of very likely many sound reasons to question the methodology.
These thoughts drove me to consider how many times this has been attempted. I googled this search, and see also for example the related MRH July 2014 article. (I hope I'm not violating a forum policy but I'm not previously familiar with MRH.) You can download the issue and read the article. I read it and have problems, basis my exerience and bias, with several points therein.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=model%20railroad%20track%20cleaning%20methods%20tests&oq=model%20railroad%20track%20cleaning%20methods%20tests&aqs=chrome..69i57.24561j0j7
http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/magazine/mrh-2014-07-jul
My main point is that the prior attempts to compare may be helpful in what does not work so well but perhaps less so the "best" way to handle. And that there are doubtless several such prior attempts with attendant conclusions. I do wonder what the best executed existing study is.
So, don't get me wrong, it's a great suggestion. But it seems like a daunting task, which would need to address the many conventional conclusions and determine not just what is a scientific conclusion but also to credibly rank lower older theories that are less than best overstated. I'll be delighted if it occurs with a first class approach. But I'm not much interested in a general, not authoritative, article.
I've got my system (track prep, routine and non-routine track cleaning, and loco/rolling stock cleanint) that works satisfactorily for my DCC setup in my envioronment. It does not do as well as some claim on their system but I'm satisfied. I won't go into my specifics (though I'm grateful to the key suggestions from past forum threads) lest I contribute to this thread turning into another monthly suggestion on specific "best approach".
EDIT: An additional thought. Crandall's idea reminded me of what I considered a good, certainly helpful article on track roadbed that I found when I considered my track roadbed. The article was in one of the Kalmback track related booklets that I acquired around 2011. The author tried various materials and combinations of materials and assessed the results in a least a couple of variables. It was well done if not the ultimate. I guess I conclude that a track cleanliness thesis would more likely warrant a book article than a typical MR monthly magazine article. I would presume that the latter would be more of an overview than the in depth analysis we would enjoy seeing.
Just my thoughts.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
CMX cleaning tank car, run one hour per day at train shows seems to work pretty well for my club. For wheel cleaning I have used a #11 blade in a x-acto knife to scrape grime paint from metal wheel treads. The woodland scenics wheel cleaning gimmick thing works okay for rolling stock, not so much for locomotives.
I've sean more then a few, many more, ways to clean track. How would you decide witch ones to test?
BTW I also use ATF, works way, way better then the 10$ bottle of stuff that said Track Cleaner on it.
Thanks for contributing, Kevin. Some/most/all modern auto transmissions have sending units encased, or comprising, plastics of some kind. The kind of ATF I use, the quoted Dexron Mercon III, is plastics AND paints-safe. As for it's effects on ballast, I didn't observe any running down onto the webs of my rails, and thence onto the ties and ballast, but it may have happened. I suspect it would stain the ballast, but it shouldn't otherwise have a deleterious effect.
Wouldn't a regular feature of "Myth Busting" in Model Railroader Magazine be great? The editors could do experiments with all kinds of gimmick to see what really works.
.
I would be interested in the long term effects of Automatic Transmission Fluid on railroad ties and ballast cement. I'll bet it is not good.
What a fantastic idea.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
It's a topic, perhaps eye-rolling in its frequency, that crops up nearly once a month; how do I keep my tracks from getting that grey 'rust' that wipes off on my cleaning cloth? How do I keep the tires on my rolling stock clean, or how do I clean them effectively if I see or suspect that they are dirty?
I have conducted one trial. It was five years ago, about a month prior to tearing down the layout on which almost all of my photos had been taken. I had nothing to lose, and had just read a thread on this topic where Gleaming and Wahl's Clipper Oil were touted as reliable and effective methods. I had long since taken to using Dexron Mercon III auto-tranmission fluid as my exterior lube of choice on my steamers without ill effects of any kind. I figured...what the heck? So, I coated my entire main line, including its 3.6% grades, liberally with ATF. I let a BLI steamer run through it and spread it everywhere. Then I hooked up my typical trailing 'tonnage' and watched. It was as if I had done nothing. A couple of weeks later, there was no discernible difference in performance.
What I didn't do was to evaluate tractive effort as our hosts routinely do when they test a new model. It should be relatively simple and quick for them to perform a series of trials with the two or three most highly acclaimed methods or materials, and to test actual tractive effort on the same stretches of rails. It's not as if they would suffer from a lack of cred; with an introduction to their methods and then a table showing the results, I think it would be both definitive and welcome.
But, it probably wouldn't preclude that month's thread.
-Crandell