Clearly they worked for a considerable period of time. It’s a question of construction: In this case, the paper is encased in a metal enclosure and is strong in compression, much like concrete, without being as brittle as concrete.
That was the main question that I had -- how durable and cost effective were these wheels?
According to this page (p.148) of the "The Railway Purchasing Agent (Jan 1881)" they had a service life of 500,000 miles vs 50,000 miles for cast iron wheels resulting in an operation savings of 3.5 cents per 1,000 miles.
Given the rave reviews and obvious cost savings, it makes me wonder why|when they fell out of favor; my naive assumption would be a dramatic improvement in metallurgy?
Disclaimer: statements made using an historical sample size of n=1 ;)
You are asking “what if an industrial piece of equipment does not perform to specification?” The answer is, mechanical failure. Which apparently (again in the article) did happen a few times which eventually contributed to steel wheels taking over.
I am wondering if they weren’t covered in wax or some other water barrier. Or perhaps the protective disc was welded at the seams. Seems unlikely given the era and the extra expense involved.
It also mentions that they were known to fail, so one could assume exposure to the elements played a part.
TL;DR: It had a steel rim and an iron hub. But its center was laminated paper. People had made other kinds of composite wheels. They'd tried wood, but wood reacts to weather. Laminated paper was more stable. Wood can split along its grain. Paper doesn't.
https://www.si.edu/object/allen-paper-car-wheel:nmah_1028135
https://www.si.edu/object/allen-paper-car-wheels:nmah_117622...