Whats the best size of ballast to use ?

[Kallaroonian]

I have been experimenting with this subject using some WS grey blend, brown and dark brown ballasts in sizes fine and medium.

 

It seems that the ECML actually has ballast that is closer to brown than grey in colour and that the ballast size appears larger in the current day than it does in photos from the 60's.

 

I tried experimenting with some brown only ballast but I only have pictures of this in a 21st century resolution so I can't post them here. Suffice to say it just didn't look right. I've been advised that the original ballast was more or less grey but went a rust brown colour as a result of the wear and tear from high speed running.

 

This is a mix of grey blend in the ratio 1:1 medium and fine :

 

 

This is a mix of grey blend medium, grey blend fine and brown fine in the ratio 1:1:1 :

 

 

This is a mix of grey blend medium, grey blend fine and dark brown fine in the ratio 1:1:1 :

 

 

 

I think the overall size ratio of 2 :1 fine:medium ie 66% fine and 33% medium works OK.

 

In terms of colour I think the mix containing dark brown works the best to take the edge off the "brightness" of the grey and I intend to use this mix suitably weathered with a rusty / oily / muddy brown paint. I was going to use model mates but apparently they are flammable and it causes some shipping problems

 

rgds

[Keith George]

I have made use of grey bird grit for ballast, it seems about the same size as the proprietary stuff sold for n gauge.[i use it on oo] With a light colour wash I am happy with it. Also as a bird keeper it is on hand and very cheap.

 

Regards, Keith

Edited October 2, 2012 by Keith George

[ess1uk]

Following this with interest as I'm experimenting with ballast recently, see my layout for the results on the test track.

[darren01]

Hi

Have you looked at the C+L range of ballast,have used it on my new layout,looks a lot better (IMO) than the woodland stuff and yes yard are made from ash ballast.Here a photo of some point work i have done too show ou what the ballast looks like (C+L)

Darren

Edited October 1, 2012 by darren01

[marc smith]

Looking good Darren!

Very neat trackwork & ballasting there sir....

[McC]

I find the woodlands scenics stuff a bit hard to work with tbh, much prefer the Gaugemaster granite

[ikcdab]

Interesting topic. But how much do I buy? How many kg of ballast is required for smp oo track...sleepers are roughly 1mm deep...

Is there a ballast ready reckoner anywhere???

[ikcdab]

Coming back to this. I have 30m of track.  The trackbed is 40mm wide and sleepers 1mm thick. That gives 120 cubic cm of ballast. However, 50% of the track is sleepers, so 60 cubic cm. Add a bit extra for pointwork etc, so say 100 cubic cm which is only 0.1l.

Doesn't sound much,  are my calcs correct?

[Dungrange]

I think your calculations are out by a factor of ten.  30 m of track is 3,000 cm.   3,000 * 4 * 0.1 = 1,200 cubic centimetres.  The rest of your assumptions seem okay, but you haven't specifically allowed anything for the ballast shoulder.  That is, if your track is on say 3 mm thick cork, then you may have more than 1 mm depth in the part that forms the shoulder, although that may be included in the extra you have allowed for point-work.  There is also the issue of wastage.  If you carefully vacuum up any ballast that doesn't stick and then reuse that you'll use less than if you let that fall to the floor to be swept up.  You perhaps need to allow something like 50% extra for wastage, so in my opinion you probably need to buy something like 1 - 1.5 litres of ballast for your layout.

 

It's perhaps also worth highlighting that the quantity of ballast you may need will also vary a bit by era.  If you're trying to create an era where the ballast was below the tops of the sleepers, then you will obviously use less than if you are trying to recreate the more modern scenario, where the tops of the sleepers may be covered in ballast.  Then there is the question of whether you are ballasting within the six foot?

 

I'm not aware of any ready reckoner anywhere, probably because there are so many variables.  The approach you have taken seems to be the most logical.

[ikcdab]

Good spot, not sure how I made that obvious error!

Thanks