For standard gauge there’re roadbed sections available.You have some type of embankment and ballast.
But what’s about narrow gauge. Do you have a roadbed or did they put the tracks just at the earth? Is there any section profile available?
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
I checked my pictures I took in 1974 while visiting the D&RGW in Durango and it appears to me that the track was just laid “in the dirt”. Unfortunately my pictures are old slides and not yet digitally available…
At stations this looks so. But what’s about the line??
Wolfgang
Wolfgang:
Sometimes it depends on the railroad itself. When the Nevada County Narrow Guage was constructed between Colfax and Nevada City, CA in the late 1870’s, It was actually built to higher standards than its standard-gauge connection (Central Pacific) in Colfax. The roadbed was graded, then ballasted with gravel from the Bear River and then laid with fairly heavy (for the time) rail. Throughout its existance, the roadbed was kept in excellent shape, with relatively wide radius curves and manageable grades. Throughout its history (1876-1942) there was always talk of standard-gauging the 22-mile short line, though nothing ever came of it. However the roadbed was kept in such a high state of maintainance that sections of it are still visible even 60 years after its abandonment.
I also remember seeing a metre gauge railway in Zell-Am-Zee, Austria some years back that was beautifully ballasted and maintained, so narrow-gauge does not always mean ‘laid hurriedly’.
Tom
Thank you, Tom.
I’m special intersted in DRGW, RGS and C&S. From the pictures I’ve seen in the web I can not decide wheather the have a roadbed or not. At yard pictures everything is flat. ok
But at the line you see often snow. [:)]
Or tall grass. Or you have scenic rocks.
Wolfgang
Except for the abundant grass, this is my impression of typical Colorado narrow-gage roadbed based on the photos in my many narrow-gage books. Don’t be fooled, however. To survive rain and melting snow, the roadbed needed to be above the wash of water and high enough to cross culverts and bridges allowing the collection of precipitation to flow without routinely carrying away the track.
Mark
Remember the word “cheap”. I don’t mean “thrifty” “frugal” or “economical” I mean “C-H-E-A-P” as in skinflint, tight, “won’t give a fly to a blind spider” kind of cheap. That is the concept behind the narrow gauge mentality. If it is possible to throw the track down without proper roadbed, then that’s good. If it’s required to have a roadbed, then it will be the minimum needed to provide a reasonably safe track. I don’t believe there is any “standard” roadbed profile for narrow gauge, each line did as they saw fit and maybe some were standard along the individual rail line, but not as an industry overall.
You will find examples of it being done either way, roadbed or bare ground. For your modeling purpose, do as you please, there is a prototype somewhere that has done it.
It may depend on when you’re talking about too. I suspect many larger narrow gauge railroads started out with track built to fairly high standards and would have been maintained as long as the RR was making money and labor was cheap. As things got tougher, track maintenance would be allowed to suffer.
BTW most all yards are flat, including the big CP yard I go by every day to-from work. Been raining lately so I imagine that huge puddle by the tracks will be back again, maybe with ducks swimming in it?? [swg]
Wolfgang,
I took a ride on the Durango & Silverton back in the spring. The train did not go all the way to Silverton because of the snow but turned around at a wye about half way there. I’ve posted my pictures here http://s638.photobucket.com/albums/uu107/cicsos2/Riding%20the%20Train/ and also here http://s638.photobucket.com/albums/uu107/cicsos2/Riding%20the%20Train%20-%202/
There are a few of the pictures that show the roadbed.
This is my favorite. IT also shows how the sides are braced using old rails.
While that initial description is probably accurate for some lines, it is a long way from being a universal truth. I have ridden on two lines that were 30 inch gauge - and built like the Norfolk and Western, with deep crushed limestone ballast and bridges that would have supported a Y6b without strain. In both cases, the driving force behind the design was a hydroelectric project, and the only way to get massive generators, water turbines and megatons of cement to the sites was over the slim-gauge rails.
At the opposite extreme, the temporary woods routes of the Kiso Forest Railway weren’t even graded. They were built on rough trestlework that appeared to have been fabricated from slash that wasn’t worth sending down the line to the sawmill!
Outside the United States, there are whole countries which have extensive systems built to less than standard gauge. Japan, South Africa, New Zealand, parts of Australia and most of the rest of Africa come to mind. Not to mention the system in Argentina that runs those Garratts that appear in this forum e
My experience with contemporary narrow gauge railroads shows they have heavy rail, large ties in good condition, and well-ballasted with gravel. Of course, they are all carrying valuable cargo which are potentially litigious.
Here is a photo featuring a siding and spur which are in great shape. The unseen main track is in even better condition.
The end of the spur even has a first-class end-of-track bumper stop, a good idea since the end of spur is downgrade.
Mark
All true, and that’s the point I’m trying to make. There is no universal rule book when it comes to real railroading vis a vis our modeling activities. Somewhere out there is a prototype that did it one way or another. The universal idea is to do it a cheaply as possible. In the case of the well maintained track to the construction project, of course the track would be high quality as it had to carry heavy tonnage and there could be no provision for derailments and delays. Modern narrow gauge must be built to certain FRA standards, and as mentioned, liability is a cost of doing business, which was not the case 100 years ago.
The bottom line is that the pictures posted are worth 1000 words, it can be seen a variety of methods that can be used on our models. If you are trying to duplicate a certain railroad in a certain era, a picture of that line during the time mentioned is what should be used. In the absence of a photo (or even a contemporary painting) then do what a similar railroad in a similar environment did. Other than that, do what you want, there is a justification for it somewhere.