|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Sept 25, 2012 17:09:12 GMT -8
I hear great things about this ballast, so I figure on getting some.
Problem is, what size? I'd like to have scale size ballast. For those of you who use it, what size would that be? My guess would be "fine HO". I'd rather not end up with several bags of the wrong size.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by spookyac47 on Sept 25, 2012 18:10:03 GMT -8
I hear great things about this ballast, so I figure on getting some. Problem is, what size? I'd like to have scale size ballast. For those of you who use it, what size would that be? My guess would be "fine HO". I'd rather not end up with several bags of the wrong size. Ed For reference, their website . . . www.rrscenery.com/Home/Links/AZROCK5.html |
|
|
|
Post by fr8kar on Sept 25, 2012 21:06:45 GMT -8
The #3 stuff looked too heavy to my eye, so I went with #2 for mainline ballast. In retrospect, I think I could have at least blended some #3 with the #2 stuff. Anyway, here's a shot showing my custom mix of 3 parts CSX/Southern Pacific/Wabash with 1 part Chicago & Northwestern Pink Lady Granite:  |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Sept 26, 2012 9:48:05 GMT -8
RCH,
That's some very informative information. Now to the pushy part:
Can you please do a much closer shot? Or, much easier, crop and enlarge a sample with some ties in it?
Your mix does look very promising, and thanks for the posting!
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Sept 26, 2012 9:51:51 GMT -8
I hear great things about this ballast, so I figure on getting some. Problem is, what size? I'd like to have scale size ballast. For those of you who use it, what size would that be? My guess would be "fine HO". I'd rather not end up with several bags of the wrong size. Ed For reference, their website . . . www.rrscenery.com/Home/Links/AZROCK5.htmlI note that there are sizes discussed and illustrated, but the photos are useless for determining ballast size--they're TEENY! Ed |
|
|
|
Post by fr8kar on Sept 26, 2012 10:02:29 GMT -8
Sure, Ed. Here's an original size photo, probably the closest shot I have that includes ties and ballast: www.pbase.com/mecrharris/image/142119591Feel free to look around the gallery and find other photos that provide a better view. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Sept 26, 2012 11:13:24 GMT -8
Sure, Ed. Here's an original size photo, probably the closest shot I have that includes ties and ballast: www.pbase.com/mecrharris/image/142119591Feel free to look around the gallery and find other photos that provide a better view. Thanks! That informs me very well. Nice work! Ed |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Sept 26, 2012 15:50:38 GMT -8
Keep in mind that scale ballast in HO scale is N scale ballast.
Most "HO" ballast in the real world would be the size of softballs are bigger.
Or course that might not look great in the scaled down world of a layout.
Arizona is real rock. Do not use Woodland Scenics ballast.
|
|
|
|
Post by umtrrauthor on Sept 26, 2012 16:07:11 GMT -8
I switched to Arizona Rock and Mineral ballast and have never looked back. It's not easy to find, but I have on several occassions filled a USPS Small Flat Rate box with it from Santa Clara California to back here in Western New York.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Sept 26, 2012 16:48:36 GMT -8
Keep in mind that scale ballast in HO scale is N scale ballast. RCH's photos look very close to scale. And he's using #2 (fine HO). Am I missing something? Ed |
|
|
|
Post by alco539 on Sept 28, 2012 3:36:25 GMT -8
A question to the group, related to this topic. Do most folks "scale" items like ballast for photo purposes, or for viewing from a normal distance (known as the two foot rule by some)? I know "scale" is scale, but to my eye sometimes "scale" can't be seen by these "old eyes".
I once met a professional model maker who made museum (Smithsonian) quality models. He said that if a client wanted a "scale model" that was surely made. However, if a client wanted a "realistic model" for normal viewing, proportions were often "fudged". For example, a ship model often has the "funnel" (stack) made shorter and fatter, which to the viewer looks better, or so he said. In other words, "scale ballast" often looks like "dust".
I live next to the CSX (old B&O) main line to Baltimore. Ballast varies in size from "stone dust" to 4-5 inches, bigger than a tennis ball.
Don't get me wrong, I myself always try to "go scale", but I wonder if in the long run if it's worth it.
Charley
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Sept 28, 2012 8:56:53 GMT -8
Sounds like CSX is letting quality control slip pretty badly. There's a reason that ballast is the size it is. At least on the better maintained railroads.
I don't have any ballast handy, but from years of trying to walk on it, I'll say that the length of the major axis of most pieces is from 1 1/2" to 3". And I think I'll try to reproduce that in my ballast choice.
One thing that might get me towards using oversized ballast is if I used oversized (Code 100) rail. As in the olden days. In my head, the two go visually together. But as I drift towards trying to get other track components more to scale, I believe the ballast size should move in the same direction.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by fr8kar on Sept 28, 2012 12:45:21 GMT -8
I don't think anyone has ever accused BNSF of having good track, so I don't know how appropriate it is to base my modeling on their roadbed. That said, in my area the typical mainline ballast stone is roughly equal to my fist. This is what I used as a size comparison to 7" x 9" x 8' ties to figure out what grade of ballast to use.
Once you get off into industries or yards, the ballast becomes finer. Some newer industries have ballast made of quarter to half dollar size stones. A lot of the newer oil loadouts and ethanol facilites that have been built in recent years are good examples of this. Most of the older industries just have a mix of whatever depending on where derailments and repairs have occurred over the years and what the MOW department had on hand to fix it.
The yard I usually work is notorious for rough track, drainage problems and terrible walking conditions. There are long sections with road ballast under 90 lb. rail and other tracks with everything ranging from fist size stones to fines and dust. Most rail is 132 lb., but there are a couple lengths of 140 lb. rail. The rail size affects the apparent size of the stone, but your feet, knees and back know the difference!
Now as far as modeling any of this is concerned, it's really difficult to model yards effectively since the grain of stone gets so fine. To make it "look right" the stone would be oversized on the prototype if the model were scaled up. The reverse is true of mainline ballast. I second guess my mainline ballast in nearly every photo I've taken of it. Measuring a single grain of ballast comes out with a pretty close match, but my eyes tell a different story. I'm not really sure what to do to fix the problem. I've already laid ballast on my Dalwor Jct. module twice (first time was Woodland Scenics, second time was AZ Rock) and I don't plan on ever chipping it all out again to start over. Yes, it was worth it, but it was a beating, a truly miserable task.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Sept 28, 2012 14:43:15 GMT -8
There's what BNSF does, and what it says. On page 17 of this document is a discussion of ballast size for industrial trackage: www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/indytrkstds.pdfIt calls for 1" to 3/8" ballast. But if you look at the chart, it shows that that means that EVERYTHING has to pass through a 1 1/2" mesh, and a maximum of 15% may pass through a 3/8" mesh. If we consider a "long" piece of ballast, I would think the maximum length would be about double the pass-through size (very roughly). If so, nothing would have a dimension greater than 3". And that is the BIGGEST thing you would see. I also just looked at a couple of shots of BNSF tracks at Lyle WA. The trackage looks very presentable, being mainline and adjacent. The ballast there pretty much fits the above description. There MIGHT be something occasionally with a major dimension out to 4", but it's pretty rare. And long. I'm planning on modeling just this area, so I'd like to go with those dimensions. On other parts of the railroad that I'd just as soon pretend belonged to someone else, standards might be more lax. The reason ballast can't be too large is that it has to support the ties. Pretty obviously, ballast 12" in diameter wouldn't work. 6" doesn't look too promising either. But you start getting smaller, and it starts to be believable. And, of course, it can't be too small. It has to allow for drainage. So, as my old girlfriend Goldilocks said: "It has to be just right." Ed |
|
|
|
Post by alco539 on Sept 29, 2012 6:21:19 GMT -8
Hi folks, I asked my "B&O expert" neighbor about the ballast size used on the CSX (old B&O) main, I mentioned in my earlier post. He has modeled the entire "old main" from Relay to Point of Rocks in his basement (1000 SQ FT) in HO. I guest that makes him more knowledgeable than me. By the way he's never added ballast to his track. Why? He say's it keeps the track cleaner. He's kinda changed his mind after seeing how "good" my track looks ballasted (N scale), but he has alot of track to do, LOL.
Anyway, according to him, the ballast is suppose to be 1 to 2 inches on average (major axis), as found on other railroads. However, if there is a "problem area" they will increase the size of the stone, up to including stone rip-rap along the sides of the track. The track bed remains 1 to 2 inches, but large pieces may migrate anywhere. The "big" pieces I saw were indeed next to an area that receives run-off from a highway bridge, and may account for the larger sizes. Some pieces were oblong anyway (like a football) so may be OK by the standard. Sorry for the false reporting.
Regards Charley.
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Sept 30, 2012 5:17:37 GMT -8
Keep in mind that scale ballast in HO scale is N scale ballast. RCH's photos look very close to scale. And he's using #2 (fine HO). Am I missing something? Ed The ballast appears scale, but if you were to measure it, it would be huge in scale still. Just saying there is a difference between appearance and actual scale. If it looks good to the users eye that is what really matters. |
|
