Real Ballasting - Photos

Stephen Rainsbury · November 30, 2019, 12:56

These are from the Sittingbourne and Kemsley Light Railway this morning just before the Santa Special ran over them. I am going to have to rethink my approach to model track laying. ;D

I love this crossing, I would not have been happy of my model looked like that.. it just goes to show.

Graeme Dunbar · November 30, 2019, 15:07

I'm in two minds over making models look run down. Yes there is wear and tear and lack of investment. Trains and the surroundings won't stay looking like they were when first built, but some of them never existed long enough to look completely decrepit.

It is hard to tell precisely from grainy old film, but footage of "last days" often show worn but tidy places:

Leek and Manifold (1904-1934)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU5JdLg-Oao

Southwold (1879–1929)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygtjCLh4YBs

Unless they were thrown together really badly in the first place I'm fairly sure railways would still look reasonably presentable after 30 years of use. I'm sure there are a plenty of buildings and roads around today that have not had major refurbishments in the last 30 years and are still serviceable.

Likewise with vegetation. There is a limit to how much plants grow in 30 or 50 years. Things are likely just to be looking "established" and no longer like a newly build housing estate.

Stephen Rainsbury · November 30, 2019, 15:43

The line above was laid in 1905 for transporting material from the Thames to the paper Mill then paper from the factory to the main line in Sittingbourne, plus shuttling workers. It was passed to the preservation Society in 1969 who have run it since.
It has a great atmosphere and the important bits are well looked after, and in many respect that is the atmosphere I want for my layout, so I think I am about to save a fortune on ballast chips :-)

clayliner · November 30, 2019, 18:46

I think you're right, Stephen - on many lines the ballast was barely discernible. That's not to say there never was any, but with time it became overgrown and clogged with mud, clay and whatever, and was never going to get cleaned. Provided trains ran (more or less) okay with not too many derailments there was no incentive to make track look pretty.

You're also correct that the wobbly track was very much the 'look' of many n-g lines, and indeed part of their charm, but the problem with trying to replicate it in an 009 layout is that it will probably create endless problems with poor contact, stalling and derailments. Best avoided, I suspect!

David.

Turin 60 · November 30, 2019, 19:26

I must admit I've not seen track like that since the 70's at Leighton Buzzard, perhaps I've been living a very sheltered life :P,.It makes a change however from the nearly main line standard that is to be seen on many preserved lines these days.

John Bruce.

Hobby · December 01, 2019, 09:03

Depends what you are trying to model. Early preservation era certainly threw that sort of stuff up, but it's also worth remembering that the Real Life stock has fully compensated suspension and will have worked at quite slow speeds (especially with paying public on board!)... Personally I try to vary the ballast, some parts old, some new and some in between. But i won't sacrifice running qualities for "realism" so nice though they look they are not something I would model except for the grass in between the rails! Stephen, if you really want to model more "decrpit" track have you thought of using radio control? Then pickups don't matter!

Stephen Rainsbury · December 01, 2019, 12:03

Quote from: Hobby on December 01, 2019, 09:03
if you really want to model more "decrpit" track have you thought of using radio control? Then pickups don't matter!

No I haven't, my last R/C project was a Robot Wars contestant, so my receivers are bigger than my locos. :laugh: I do need to look into it though.

B.Meldon · December 02, 2019, 09:39

I have seen the S&KLR looking a lot more overgrown that this. There are times in the summer months when in places you can not see the rails!
However it is ballasted track, it is just that you can not see the ballast!

Brian Meldon

Stephen Rainsbury · December 02, 2019, 12:55

Quote from: B.Meldon on December 02, 2019, 09:39
I have seen the S&KLR looking a lot more overgrown that this. There are times in the summer months when in places you can not see the rails!

That would be a modelling challenge, one of my refurbished locos jumps the track when it goes over a shadow.

B.Meldon · December 02, 2019, 13:14

Quote from: Stephen Rainsbury on December 02, 2019, 12:55
Quote from: B.Meldon on December 02, 2019, 09:39
I have seen the S&KLR looking a lot more overgrown that this. There are times in the summer months when in places you can not see the rails!
That would be a modelling challenge, one of my refurbished locos jumps the track when it goes over a shadow.

Yes indeed 009 track has to be spot on with no kinks at the joints, no dips or steps in the rails. It is far more critical than with 00. It just has to be spot on or you get problems.
This is good narrow gauge track! You should see the photos of some of the industrial systems that previoulsy existed here in the UK.
Yes it is imposiable to model poor track in 009 even with radio control things will still come off on poor track.

Brian Meldon

Graeme Dunbar · December 02, 2019, 14:13

One possible approach is to make the track look worse than it actually is - actually level and no kinks but with the appearance of neglect. Even this needs care. There have been reports of static grass strands getting caught in loco gearing and loose ballast in the wrong place can cause havoc. Ballast and debris up to the rail tops needs to be applied with as much care as the neatest of track running embedded in streets. The longest of the weeds can be sited at the ends of sidings where locomotives rarely go.

Something that is relatively easy to do is avoid the look that some serious modern earth moving gear had been brought in and flattened the whole site before the railway was built. Ups and downs in the surrounding ground, washed out ballast, drainage ditches where only absolutely necessary, and then clogged up, hints at patches of track which were in a very sorry state before it had to be fixed and so on to indicate what state the track is in.

paul ludlow · December 02, 2019, 20:38

Can I suggest trying to find some pictures of Mr Wilkes wonderful coleford (think that's what it's called) or even buying his book (advert in 009 news). He has the amazing talent of being able to lay perfect running, diabolical looking track

Stephen Rainsbury · December 02, 2019, 21:59

Quote from: paul ludlow on December 02, 2019, 20:38
Can I suggest trying to find some pictures of Mr Wilkes wonderful coleford (think that's what it's called) or even buying his book (advert in 009 news). He has the amazing talent of being able to lay perfect running, diabolical looking track

I found a YouTube video of that a few weeks ago and noticed the the distance between sleepers on that seem to be three times greater that Peco mainline, and I agree it does look very good. I didn't know there was a book though, so thanks for pointing it out.

clayliner · December 02, 2019, 22:54

John Wilkes specialises in 'non-standard' track work!

If you really want some decrepit track, maybe a disused branch or siding to get the look without worries about running?

David.

Stephen Rainsbury · December 03, 2019, 23:15

Quote from: clayliner on December 02, 2019, 22:54
If you really want some decrepit track, maybe a disused branch or siding to get the look without worries about running?

I though the videos of the locos battling through that were superb, and I would love to replicate that but maybe it is going to be harder that I though. Maybe use green scatter rather than static grass.