I’m about to move into the tracklaying stage on my layout and need some re-affirmation, if anyone would be so kind.
I’m modelling a freelanced interchange between two roads (one secondary) in Western Minnesota in the early 20’s. From all the reference work I’ve consulted I’m fairly happy that the prototypical roadbed should be pulverised ash around the depot, and track laid straight onto a formed earth shoulder elsewhere.
Any comments, suggestions or queries would be welcomed.
I’d say the apperance around the depot would be ash or cinders, a lot of times they were more thoroughly coated with the starting and stopping of steam locomotives in the area close to the depot.
But the main lines would be ballasted with something other than earth, the drainiage would be very poor? The typical slag ballast might be finer than usual, but it would still allow water to get away from the ties, so they would last longer.
Sounds good to me. I’m building a logging line dated in the late 1800s. Most research I’ve done indicates there was little to no roadbed used, so the only thing I’m using is 1/8" soundproofing insulation. I’ll come back over that with some form of media such as dirt.
The trouble I’m facing is that most photographic evidence from the period I’m looking at (1920-25) is “Stock” shots taken, and generally posed, in depots.
The question of drainage has puzzled me but my feeling and impression is that if the track is laid on a raised, formed earthen shoulder with frequent and adequate culverts rainwater runoff should’nt pose a problem, especially in Minnesota.
Slag ballast used sparingly is also a consideration but I wonder whether the logistics of transporting it to an essentially agricultural area would have been considered worthwhile in the 20’s.
Neither of my roads are going to be major carriers but as this layout will be built to UK exhibition standards (ie not very big but potentially open to the scrutiny of 10,000 people over a weekend) I’d like it to look the part.