Before I even begin this thread, let me quickly be clear that I am not being critical of the layout shown in the photo on pages 34 and 35 of the November issue of MRR. In fact, the ballasting on that layout is reminiscent of my own ballasting efforts and I am quite pleased with my results.
My observation is this. In the photo, you can see areas where the ballast covers some ties and other areas where the ballast does not fill in the areas around the ties. Perhaps this is the effect that the modeler intended. However, when I ballasted my current layout (my first real attempt at ballasting), I gave no thought to trying to level out the ballast so that it would essentially be even with the ties. At first, after the glue (matte medium) dried, I was displeased and set about to remove as much excess ballast as I could, an impossible task on a double mainline 30’ x 22’ layout. I finally settled for what I now have and, as I say, I am pleased with the results. But the ballasting is not perfectly manicured.
What is your opinion? Can there be too much or too little ballast? Is there a standard? Should it be “museum quality”, whatever that might be?
In real life I have seen “too much ballast and too little ballast”.
Major mainline runs can appear to have too much ballast covering the ties, sometimes almost completely. They have recently been redoing and upgrading the NS tracks-rails, ties and ballast- around here that way.
But the yard at Steamtown, for example, seems to have to little ballast on many of it tracks. It appears more like the ballast has settled down in and under the ties and dirt has filled in between the ties appearing like dirt is the only ballast there holding everything together. They do not use their tracks heavily of course, and ARE ungrading some tracks with new ties and ballasting there as funds become available.
A nearby shortline also has been granted a large grant to upgrade tracks from “dirt ballasted tracks” 10 MPH tracks to “rock ballasted tracks”.
I guess it’s all in age, settlement and perception.
I think it can be a mistake to groom ballast on a model so effectively/meticulously that it looks contrived. Any tracks that I have seen have variations in appearance from place to place. But generally, ballast is not allowed to remain in quantities on what are meant to be exposed tie top surfaces. And generally the spaces between ties is fully filled with ballast.
It turns out that some of my own work is less than ideal…to say the least. I will work hard to be more patient about this important part of the model next time, but I’m not going to produce a super-detailed plastic ballast on manufactured track look.
Unless you are trying to recreate a prototype railway stone for stone, or plan on entering the layout in a contest, the only one that has to be pleased with it is you. If you want a meticulously even, manicured look to your ballast, then do it. If you like a more uneven pattern, that’s fine too. Yes, some of that depends on what you’re trying to model. There’s even an option of not ballasting or just giving the impression of ballast when there really isn’t any (works better on the smaller scales).
In short, too much or too little is in the eye of the beholder.
I’ve always thought that groomed ballast looked a little better on a model railroad. When I did my last switching layout I put some extra effort into getting that look. Later I was looking at some prototype photos of an actual industrial park and noticed that a lot of the ties were covered with ballast. In other words, if I wanted to be nit picky with myself I did it wrong. I think the most important thing is to make you don’t have ballast particles stuck to the side of the rails.
To me that looks like too much ballast. ANd what really stands out to me are the giant track nails right in the middle. The track plan is also simplistic.
However, the owner’s goals were wide radius curves for railfanning. Not my goals, but it’s not my layout. For what the owner wanted, the pictures show he has done a great job of achieving it. The low level photos look awesome.
Yeah, I noticed the track nails too and the missing ties under the rail joiners at the bottom of the photo. The ballast is a bit uneven to the point of almost being distracting. However, the rest of the scene is excellent.
I think much of r.o.w. appearance would depend on how much money the parent railroad spent on such maintenance. Before a total rehabilitation, my hometown line had ties that were almost completely exposed while in other sections the rails barely protruded above the surrounding dirt and cinders…and this was a busy commuter line. But the operating company was in dire financial condition and couldn’t pay to keep things even and pretty. (Lucky for me since I’m modeling that line)
I agree with Archer that aside from getting crazy over every speck of the layout, you have to go with what’s right for what you’re modeling and know when it’s good enough for your expectations.
First of all, if you are pleased with your ballast that s fine. However, ballast can be a model too. Not all tracks are ballasted the same, and not all railroads ballast the same way. I try to simulate four major types of track and ballasting on my layouts.
1- The class one mainline. This is the most traveled line with the heaviest power and longest trains. I use heavier track, code 100 or 83. I use light gray ballast and try to get it as perfect as I can.
2- Secondary routes, Passing sidings, and Branch lines. These tracks are not maintained as well as the Class one mainline and usually use lighter rail. I use code 83 rail for this. I simulate these by using a darker gray ballast, and don’t make it as perfect as my class one mainline.
3- Industry tracks. I use code 83 here too. The ballast is similar to number 2 above, but I also sprinkle in some weeds and grass on top of the ballast.
4- Yards. I will use code 70 or 75 here. The ballast is cinders or very dark gray, and I cover a lot of ties with it. I also add weeds, grass, and dirt on top of the ballast.
As you should have noticed by now, the class one mainline is maintained the best and it goes down hill from there. By ballasting the different types of track differently, you add variety to your railroad.
The other thing to consider is what type of railroad you are building. If just a branch line, the ballast and maintenance may not be as good as the class one line. So use your judgement and ballast your track accordingly.
Addressing, specifically, the photo in MR - it looks pretty good to me!
Note that the track outside the coal drag has different color and texture ballast. It looks like a track that is either newly-laid or in the process of being re-aligned and re-laid. The track inside the train has more of a ‘been there forever’ look.
Since we have time to pore over the static scene, things like the track nails and missing ties jump out and bite us in the eyeballs. If we were actually in the layout space, watching that drag growling around the curve, we probably wouldn’t notice them. IIRC, it was John Allen who said that the best way to critique your own modeling is to photograph it, blow the print up to 8 by 10, then go over it with a magnifying glass.
Now, will everyone here who owns a 24 by 40 basement filler that is absolutely flawless in every detal hold up their hand… (Please note that mine are in my pockets.)
Did a Google search and found that Tom Harris’ Lakeside Lines has it’s own website with a ton of pics, videos, and info on the layout. It’s at http://www.lakesidelines.com.
When you stand near (or on) prototype track and look down the track, it seems to me the overwhelming impression is of repetitive and regular order more or less right to the point of infinity. That is, the ties all seem evenly sized and spaced and the ballast looks thoughfully measured out. Nothing in particular catches your eye.
By contrast, when you walk down the track, that is when you notice the ties are not all the same length and are not always evenly spaced; that is when you notice that for some ties there is hardly any ballast and others are ballasted right to the top of the tie. That is also when you notice the ragged edge of the ballast, as well as the variations in color and tone of the rail itself. And that is also when you notice “junk” such as discarded tie plates, trash, and portions of deceased animals.
Except for special locations or effects I think making ties and ballast look fairly regular and ordered leads to the impression of the most realism, particularly if you scale out the normal viewing height and angle. Note that I said the impression of realism.
Applying that notion to this topic, perhaps the test is not the amount of ballast but being consistent and not doing anything “eye-catching.” Dave Barrow has shown that a surprisingly small amount of ballast can convey the general idea quite convincingly.
I too, thought there was to much ballast, I like my mainline a little more groomed. But…I am saving that picture because the scene is spectacular, I just love the trees the way they are positioned up the side of the hill and overall composition.
There are so many factors that come into play when ballasting in my o/p what era for starters, ballasting and track maintenance in general lets say back in the 40’s & 50’s even though many railroads took great pride in their ballasting and actually became sort of a signature between railroads as to whom had the best looking ballast the methods and techknology was not what it is today and for that matter neither was/is track maintenance all around… Not saying that railroads neglected track work but just that there are much better methods and equipment today then back then when most of it was done by hand. So depending on what era you model can be directly seen in your ballasting if you choose to get that detailed.So I don’t think if you have a few ties with ballast on the tops is no big deal, but looking at the photos I find it hard to believe that any railroad would be that sloppy with their ballasting. I am by far no railroad expert but have looked at thousands of prototype pics and have never seen anything remotely close to that with maybe the exception of some engine serving yards and that would be cinders not ballast. Several things about this article in MR stuck in my mind. First being it’s obvious by the presence of the track nails being clearly visible the photo editors do not photo shop the pictures we all know even someone who has just basic knowledge of photo-shop or any similar program could make those nail heads disappear in an instant. But the one thing that bugs the heck out of me when looking at this photo is the absence of bridge track. I am no prototype expert but I would say it safe to say that on any bridge that supported three lines bridge track would most definitely be used. I have spent hours trimming the ties on two lengths of Micro-Engineering bridge track so I have enough room to lay them side by side on a PRR stone viaduct bridge that I am currently working on.
Not implying that this in any way makes me a rivet counter but I believe we all have one common thread in
I agree with you about the nails-- I looked at the photo for at least 30 seconds before it dawned on me what it was I was looking at. I kept thinking-- “no way, those can’t be nail heads”… but the layout did look very, very nice and I thought he did a good job.
I don’t have much time to read forum’s, however this afternoon, while googling my lakesidelines website, I quite suprised tp run across all these discussions going on about my Lakeside Lines Railroad I was not aware of. I’m flattered the railroad is a subject of so much discussion. I appreciate all the kind words and the constructive crirtism.
The flaws in my trackwork noted in this thread I am very much aware of; however a large operating model railroad , such as the Lakeside Lines, is kind of a living thing, with a good deal of history behind it. I wanted to avoid track nails an such cxompletely in the construction of the railroad, so all the track was glued in place. This has worked well for me for many years, but this time in some areas of the railroad I used an uncured rubber poroduct one of my buddies is very enamoured of for my road bed. I also decided to solder all the rail joints for increased reliability and to help me lay smother curves, reasoning the highly climate controled space would prevent much in the way of expansion and contraction.
As the railroad got a few years on it the track on the rubber did succomb to the forces of expansion and contraction, and began to lift off of the rubber road bed on some of the curves. The track nails were needed to hold it in place again. At first I hid the nails by covering the track in these areas with excess ballast as is often seen where it is put down on the prototype. This was pretty effective, but I decided it looked odd to have the track treated this way in only certain places, so I went back and removed the excess ballast. It was kind of difficult to remove, thuse the inconsistent results you see in the photos.
I will continue to work on the problem, of course.
I also read the track plan is simplistic. Yes it is; I planned to run 80 car long trains, and wanted to be sure they would work, so I applied the maxim "Keep it Simple Stup