Large Scale Central

Track plan

Track and Trestles
#121

David Maynard said:

I did the 6 inch deep by 6 inch wide trench. If I were to do it again, I would go with a shallower trench, and fill it with larger gravel for my sub base.

That is exactly how I lay my track. A shallow 1.5-2" trench filled with "drainage rock’ from Lowes.Then final layer of “paver base” again from Lowes. This is how it ends up.

Of course moving all that rock with that lonesome ballast car does take a bit of time.(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)

Doc Tom

#122

Steve Featherkile said:

I didn’t have any expert help. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)

Well… sometimes I wonder if I have “expert” help… There are some that are experts and some that are helping but expert help might be reaching…(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)

#123

The only issue I found with using larger rock to fill the trench and then stone dust ontop, is the stone dust seems to dissapear into the cracks of the larger stone. Thats why i like the 6 inch trench filled with all stone dust and then packed down. I found the stone dust does not disappear and seems to hold up in heavy rain, snow, etc… I have very good luck with this method. I dont deal with frost heav like they get south of me because once the ground freezes its frozen till spring.

#124

Shawn Viggiano said:

The only issue I found with using larger rock to fill the trench and then stone dust ontop, is the stone dust seems to dissapear into the cracks of the larger stone. Thats why i like the 6 inch trench filled with all stone dust and then packed down. I found the stone dust does not disappear and seems to hold up in heavy rain, snow, etc… I have very good luck with this method. I dont deal with frost heav like they get south of me because once the ground freezes its frozen till spring.

And that’s why into longer recommend using stone dust, it disappears. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)

#125

Steve Featherkile said:

Shawn Viggiano said:

The only issue I found with using larger rock to fill the trench and then stone dust ontop, is the stone dust seems to dissapear into the cracks of the larger stone. Thats why i like the 6 inch trench filled with all stone dust and then packed down. I found the stone dust does not disappear and seems to hold up in heavy rain, snow, etc… I have very good luck with this method. I dont deal with frost heav like they get south of me because once the ground freezes its frozen till spring.

And that’s why into longer recommend using stone dust, it disappears. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)

I found it only disappears when you use larger stone underneath. When I use stone dust along it stays. :wink:

#126

OK so I am seeing a couple of schools of thought on the trench. Large fill rock verses stone dust or some combination. First off what is stone dust? this to me brings to mind a fine powder. I was thinking before this discussion using say a 1"- 1 1/4" crushed material; angular smallish with some fines. That’s what is used for base rock in roads around here. It is compactable and still allows drainage. What is the goal of the trench; I would think drainage and stability.

#127

After rock is broken and crushed, it is screened, what falls through the finest screen say 1/4" openings is dust, powder and stone bits. Referred to as Stone Dust, Fines and by local names… etc…

Rain runs off faster than it soaks in here, instead of a trench. I made low rock walls to contain my ballast on top of the dirt. Same migratory rocks as with a trench… but no worse either. I suggest a barrier cloth between the 2 stone grades.

John

#128

The advantage stone dust has vs just stone, is after wetting the stone dust it acts like cement and hold the track in place. But if you need to lift the track up it will break free easily. What I like is once the dust compacts and settles you get very small stone. In my opinion looks more to scale.

This is what it looks like once established. You have to experiment. I know this might not work for everyone and I found those living south of me deal with frost heave. Being north once my ground freezes it stays frozen.

(http://oi58.tinypic.com/2d763pl.jpg)

(http://oi41.tinypic.com/8z4uaf.jpg)

#129

Thanks for that explanation.

#130

A comment, and not meant to be criticism, but Shawn, seeing your second picture and watching your videos, you have overballasted your track and I was wondering why? The only places I have seen in the prototype where the ties “disappear” in the ballast is switchyards.

Regards, Greg

#131

No offence taking Greg. The reason why I over ballast is because I like the look of a logging railroad where the ties don’t show much. The one photo above I had just freshened up the ballast so that’s a bit of an exaggeration.

#132

Double post

#133

I agree that 1/4 minus, crusher fines, stone dust, paver base, or whatever works well. I used what is called crushed limestone. Once it gets wet and dries out, it does expose the small rocks and sets up hard. But by having a 6 inch deep trench, I find that each spring I have air pockets in the trench that need to be filled. If I had a shallower trench, and larger rocks, then I wouldn’t have to add as much of my ballast every spring.

I do pack my ballast into the trench while its damp, so it packs in until is rock hard. But every spring I do find some air pockets down there.

#134

That’s not ballast, that’s pine bark that fell off the logs. Real logging railroads didn’t ballast because the rails weren’t going to be down that long. Or at least, that’s what my uncle told me, and he spent a lifetime in the woods in Skagit County, WA, hunting the elusive Douglas Fir.

#135

Steve Featherkile said:

That’s not ballast, that’s pine bark that fell off the logs. Real logging railroads didn’t ballast because the rails weren’t going to be down that long. Or at least, that’s what my uncle told me, and he spent a lifetime in the woods in Skagit County, WA, hunting the elusive Douglas Fir.

Yes I know but in our world bark will wash and float away. So I use the ballast to get that look. Tough crowed lol…

David I use the same limestone stone dust and never experienced the air pockets. Wonder if that has something to do with the freeze and thaw.

#136

Shawn

Off topic but that is one heck of a log!!! Must be a ships mast or some such.

#137

Eric Schade said:

Shawn

Off topic but that is one heck of a log!!! Must be a ships mast or some such.

That being a Darius Kinney photo, he of “Locomotive Portrait,” fame, and probably taken in the afore mentioned Skagit County, that log is almost small enough in diameter to be considered throw away slash, so, given its length, you’re likely right about it being a ship’s mast.

#138

Thanks Shawn, was just curious, and I do appreciate the explanation.

Great picture, any information on how long that log is, wow!

Regards, Greg

#139

Shawn Viggiano said:

Steve Featherkile said:

That’s not ballast, that’s pine bark that fell off the logs. Real logging railroads didn’t ballast because the rails weren’t going to be down that long. Or at least, that’s what my uncle told me, and he spent a lifetime in the woods in Skagit County, WA, hunting the elusive Douglas Fir.

Yes I know but in our world bark will wash and float away. So I use the ballast to get that look. Tough crowed lol…

David I use the same limestone stone dust and never experienced the air pockets. Wonder if that has something to do with the freeze and thaw.

Shawn, I would say that it does have to with that. As well as the moisture in the ground and the fact that the ground here has a lot of clay in it. So water will flow through my ballast, since my railroad is a constant grade. That will wash away some of the dust, and then every late fall and early spring we get the freeze thaw thing going on. Well, since water doesn’t soak into the ground here very well, it would run along the ground, into the ballast, then freeze. And that is why I think a shallower then 6 inch deep (or deeper in some places) trench would work better here, as well as using larger rocks in the trench, and dressing it with the crushed limestone. In certain areas I did bury larger rocks in the trench after a wash out. And in a few places I buried bricks in the trench. Those sections don’t develop the air pockets like the areas with just crushed limestone in them.

#140

Im not sure how long that log is. i sure hope that line doesn’t have tight curves lol…