I've got as far as starting to build up the senic sections of my garage layout so I was scouting around as to what to use as ground cover/ballast.
Yup there's plenty of commercial products out there and some are very good but I do hate parting with money. Anyway lon story short I grabbed some sand I had left over from a building progect in the garden and some childrens poster paints and had a play around.
Net result, very good looking ground cover. Olive greens of all shades, browns - again of all shades and very dark greys (nearly black) come out really well. I guessed that this was due to the colour of the sand I used, very orange builders sand.
Anyway, even longer story cut short. I also have a bench sander and as one of my usual techniques when building buildings is to rough cut plywood to size using the fret or bandsaw before sanding a piece square I generate an awful lot of dust - which I collect(*) - waste not want not.
Mixing the dust with the sand allowed lighter colours to be made including pale grey.
All in all very sucessful, both types, pure sand and the sand/dust mix. Just thought I'd pass it on to any other tight a**** who may be lurking around.
(*) Dust from sanders = poorly lungs, use dustbags and face masks/filters. Fine when died though especially when mixed with sand, just doesn't fly around in he same way.
My opinion is that sand is too fine for use as ballast and its grading is too uniform (real ballast is a mixture of grades). Sawdust brings back memories of all those 1960's/70's layouts where flock (died sawdust) was used for everything and layouts looked like they were covered in dust! Modern commercial materials will give you a far more reallistic appearance.
I used sweepings from our car standing - we live next to a main road. Got bucket full of ballast, even after sieving and washing. Stones on the road are from local quarries, same as found on now disused local line. Nicely mixed with tar and other oily muck.
snipped-for-privacy@gppsoftware.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
(4mm) No, I disagree and certainly not for the period I'm aiming for (shortly after grouping), for modern layouts though you may have a point. Historically ballast was much smaller than it is today. Remember dear old Mr Stevenson, no ballast to be used unless it could fit insde a mans mouth ... got stymid when a huge Irish navie demonstrated what he could fit in his mouth. :-)
If you look at old photos many lines especially the areas around stations look as though they have been laid on something that has the consistancy of packed earth with a light ash covering. Even today in at least one London terminus (Charing X) there is a section of track (platform 6 IIRC - although it's ben some time since I was there looking at the track) that looks as though it is ballasted by pea gravel.
Moving of the main line in to the yard again ballast as we know it today virtually dissapears except where track has had to be relaid. Half buried in ash, coal dust, dirt and general detritus is the order of the day.
It's not saw dust, it's very fine dust from a *sanding* machine, very different kettle of fish (and a lot nastier if you breath it in).
Possibly, horses for courses, I've got some granet chippings for use on part of the main line, suitably stained they look very good, for the station and yard area they'be just plane wrong, hence the finer grade.
As for the rest as a base covering it should look fine, stained plaster mat, my scenic covering all topped by grass etc should look the business - well that's the plan.
Mark Bedingfield wrote in news:mEZWf.20378$ snipped-for-privacy@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
...
No my camera's S H one T and even then I haven't got round to even uploading my last photos yet. As it happens though I'm working this weekend which will allow me to borrow one of the cameras from work (I have to bring it home anyway in case I'm called out) ... I'll try and get some posted towards the end of next week.
(shortly after grouping), for modern layouts though you may have a point. Historically ballast was much smaller than it is today. Remember dear old Mr Stevenson, no ballast to be used unless it could fit insde a mans mouth ... got stymid when a huge Irish navie demonstrated what he could fit in his mouth. :-)
look as though they have been laid on something that has the consistancy of packed earth with a light ash covering. Even today in at least one London terminus (Charing X) there is a section of track (platform 6 IIRC - although it's ben some time since I was there looking at the track) that looks as though it is ballasted by pea gravel.
What you are observing are areas where all the clag, dirt and brake dust has formed a slurry in amongst the ballast. As I said, there are different grades (sizes of stones) all mixed together so that they lock together. Where you see what appears to be smaller stones is probably because the ballast has been topped up with a smaller grade because the smaller grades tend to fall through the gaps to the bottom of the track bed. When topping up becomes frequent or the ballast appears to have mud in it, then that is an indication of track bed failure (drainage) and the track needs to be all pulled up and relaid.
virtually dissapears except where track has had to be relaid. Half buried in ash, coal dust, dirt and general detritus is the order of the day.
It has always been that way.
different kettle of fish (and a lot nastier if you breath it in).
So it is probably even finer than the sawdust I was thinking of. In that case, I re-instate my statement that I believe it is too fine for main line use. When I applied a vernier calliper to the stones of Woodlands 'fine' and 'medium' ballast I found that a mix of the two was about prototypically correct for 4mm scale. Anything smaller is too small.
part of the main line, suitably stained they look very good, for the station and yard area they'be just plane wrong, hence the finer grade.
Granit would be correct for the main line but make sure you only put it under timber sleepers. This is done because the hard granit locks and embeds itself into the undersides of sleepers. Granit is too hard against concrete sleepers and ends up grinding the undersides of the sleepers, hence a softer stone (Limestone) is used under concrete sleepers. The downside of this softness is that it deteriorates with water and has to be replaced more often. Here in Sydney, Australia, CityRail has yet to discover why they get so much sleeper grinding!
I would suggest that your sanding dust might be suitable off the main line, suitably coloured.
(*) Dust from sanders = poorly lungs, use dustbags and face masks/filters. Fine when died though especially when mixed with sand, just doesn't fly around in he same way.
snipped-for-privacy@gppsoftware.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
...
Er yes, forgive me when I say "so what?", when modelling ground cover you represent what can be seen on the surface not what lies underneath (water features obviously excepted).
Two points, firstly sand (at least the builders sand I use) is not a consistant texture, when looked at carefully it can be seen to be all sorts of grades (sizes of grains), but they are all mixed togther. :-)
and secondly, back to my initial point, the period I'm modelling is shortly afterthe grouping. Back then most of the ballast away from the main lines had been laid pre- or just post Great War and typically was around 1" to 2" (tops) in size, tha is 1/3 to 2/3 of a mm when scaled down which is happily enough just about the same size as the grain size of the sand I'm using.
Just like just about every yard in the country at the time?
Hence teh very fine grades required.
Er, what you actually said was "My opinion is that sand is too fine for use as ballast and its grading is too uniform ..." without any qualification.
...
Damn foiled again, I've only got plastic ones. Seriously if I was being absolutely correct I should be using chippings made from the *hard* sandstone rubbish found side by side with the Lancashire flagstone that is being supposedly quarried all around my little effort.
Actually and facetiousness aside that's all new to me and not something I'd considered before, many thanks.
And the other great thing, as Little Britain fans will tell you, is that it's actually very *low* in fat, so you can eat as much dust as you like (Anybody? No? Dust.....anybody? No? Dust....) ;-)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.