Wright writes.....

[LNER4479]

Evening Tony,

 

Some comments, if I may, about ballast colour - or, more specifically - ballast staining in the steam age. Something I've yet to get right, but that doesn't stop me trying! I've amassed a number of photos and articles on the subject in my modelling 'scrapbook'.

 

First, I would like to take issue (if I may?) with your apparent assertion that trains going fast don't stain the track. I'm not sure that's true. I think there are lot of different effects going which can combine to stain / weather the track - it's not just about where engines stand.

 

The following photo has always been one of my favourites on the subject (all following photos are 'snipped' from my photo of a somewhat larger photo - hope that's OK in order to illustrate a point):

 

If you can tear your eyes away from the obvious centre of interest and consider what's going on bottom right. This is a train travelling at speed and owing to the extreme 'head on' viewpoint (with a touch of telephoto?) the (rather daring!) photographer has accentuated the vortex swirl close down at track level caused by the slipstream of the train as it speeds along. All manner of dirt, dust and detritus is being swept over the sleeper ends and ballast shoulder. Ahead of the train, the ballast is immaculate - this was another prize-winning length (according to the caption). Now imagine the effect of this on an 'orrible, wet, squally day...

 

The other effect going on is, I think, quite well-illustrated here. A very definite dark line along the sleeper ends - look how it continues across the pointwork in the distance. This isn't caused by engines standing; it's caused by engines moving! There's almost a shine to this dirt which makes me think that it is dominated by oil - dirty oil being flung from the motion as the loco travels along. Steam loco motion was typically encased in oil and, when you think about it, the faster it goes the more it becomes like a whirring catherine wheel, flinging it either up (where it clings to the underside of the running plate) or down (where it hits the sleeper ends and adjacent ballast)

 

Just to prove we're not ER or LMR biased, here's a WR shot with a similar effect apparent. The whole area from the rail to the sleeper ends is very definitely discoloured compared to the almost virgin white ballast on the 'shoulder'.

 

The only picture I could find anywhere you. This is (I think) taken from the bridge at Essendine, looking north so the A4 is heading down the hill. In this case, all tracks show a different level of staining. The up slow on the right has hardly any at all(!), whereas the down main is quite heavily stained. Whilst a few trains stopped here (as Little Bytham), many would be running through at a steady speed (40-50mph?) up the bank.

 

One thing I'd like to draw attention to is the levelled area between the ballast shoulders (ie the 'ten foot') on the right and left. Not too apparent here - but very noticeable I think on the first two photos - is how different in appearance this is. This latter area is not ballast at all but crushed cinders (or something similar), as a safe and level area for engineman, trackworkers - far easier to walk on than ballast! If I may dare offer some constructive criticism myself, I'm not sure your trackwork on LB really conveys this effect. If it was a prize-winning length, then there would be a very definite edge to the ballast shoulder, like the first photo.

 

Have you got any colour pictures you can post of the prototype Little Bytham c.1959 so we could have a look?

 

Finally (if you're still awake!), just to emphasise that track staining effects altered quite a bit with the coming of the diesels - they could spray oil everywhere! And, as you say, the advent of automated ballasting and the demise of the manual track gangs has altered the look completely.

 

Happy to bow to better knowledge if some of the above constitutes me putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Be interested in any further comments from those in the know.

Edited December 5, 2020 by LNER4479
tidy up

[cravensdmufan]

I do hope I haven't taken Tony's marvellous thread OT,  but I'm enjoying the comments about ballast – particularly the weathering of it.

 

Also, Tony makes a very good point about the size of the granules of model ballast. In the past I have always made the mistake of using manufacturer's labelled 00 scale ballast on my main lines – and as a result it looks clumsy and overscale (I'm too embarrassed to show photographic examples on here!). But now I'm in the process of rebuilding my layout and I shall make sure I use finer stuff, and will avoid crushed granite – thank you for the tip.

 

I have a curious fascination with the subject – I must also be one of a small minority of railway modellers that actually enjoys ballasting!

 

I've a feeling something got stuck in my head some 35 years ago when attending an interview for the BR(WR) Regional Civil Engineer's department, albeit for a clerical position. When the C.E. was giving me an introduction to the workings of his department he stated, proudly, “if the foundations and permanent way isn't right, then the whole railway isn't right”!

Edited December 5, 2020 by cravensdmufan
To correct word transposition

[Northmoor]

This is why I love this thread and RMWeb in general - people who want to get track weathering right just as much as a loco with the right number.  One thought: the brown staining either side of the running rail is probably brake dust which clings to everything, but like oil from the motion, will generally fall around the wheels and not the middle of the sleepers.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

Evening Tony,

 

Some comments, if I may, about ballast colour - or, more specifically - ballast staining in the steam age. Something I've yet to get right, but that doesn't stop me trying! I've amassed a number of photos and articles on the subject in my modelling 'scrapbook'.

 

First, I would like to take issue (if I may?) with your apparent assertion that trains going fast don't stain the track. I'm not sure that's true. I think that are are lot of different effects going which can combine to stain / weather the track - it's not just about where engines stand.

 

The following photo has always been one of my favourites on the subject (all following photos are 'snipped' from my photo of a somewhat larger photo - hope that's OK in order to illustrate a point):

 

If you can tear your eyes away from the obvious centre of interest and consider what's going on bottom right. This is a train travelling at speed and owing to the extreme 'head on' viewpoint (with a touch of telephoto?) the (rather daring!) photographer has accentuated the vortex swirl close down at track level caused by the slipstream of the train as it speeds along. All manner of dirt, dust and detritus is being swept over the sleeper ends and ballast shoulder. Ahead of the train, the ballast is immaculate - this was another prize-winning length (according to the caption). Now imagine the effect of this on an 'orrible, wet, squally day...

 

The other effect going on is, I think, quite well-illustrated here. A very definite dark line along the sleeper ends - look how it continues across the pointwork in the distance. This isn't caused by engines standing; it's caused by engines moving! There's almost a shine to this dirt which makes me think that it is dominated by oil - dirty oil being flung from the motion as the loco travels along. Steam loco motion was typically encased in oil and, when you think about it, the faster it goes the more it becomes like a whirring catherine wheel, flinging it either up (where it clings to the underside of the running plate) or down (where it hits the sleeper ends and adjacent ballast)

 

Just to prove we're not ER or LMR biased, here's a WR shot with a similar effect apparent. The whole area from the rail to the sleeper ends is very definitely discoloured compared to the almost virgin white ballast on the 'shoulder'.

 

The only picture I could find anywhere you. This is (I think) taken from the bridge at Essendine, looking north so the A4 is heading down the hill. In this case, all tracks show a different level of staining. The up slow on the right has hardly any at all(!), whereas the down main is quite heavily stained. Whilst a few trains stopped here (as Little Bytham), many would be running through at a steady speed (40-50mph?) up the bank.

 

One thing I'd like to draw attention to is the levelled area between the ballast shoulders (ie the 'ten foot') on the right and left. Not too apparent here - but very noticeable I think on the first two photos - is how different in appearance this is. This latter area is not ballast at all but crushed cinders (or something similar), as a safe and level area for engineman, trackworkers - far easier to walk on than ballast! If I may dare offer some constructive criticism myself, I'm not sure your trackwork on LB really conveys this effect. If it was a prize-winning length, then there would be a very definite edge to the ballast shoulder, like the first photo.

 

Have you got any colour pictures you can post of the prototype Little Bytham c.1959 so we could have a look?

 

Finally (if you're still awake!), just to emphasise that track staining effects altered quite a bit with the coming of the diesels - they could spray oil everywhere! And, as you say, the advent of automated ballasting and the demise of the manual track gangs has altered the look completely.

 

Happy to bow to better knowledge if some of the above constitutes me putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Be interested in any further comments from those in the know.

All valid points, Graham,

 

I agree that the ballast shoulder isn't as pronounced on LB's main lines as it might be (Norman's 'thin' ballasting technique).

 

I'm not sure I asserted that where locos stand would be the only place for the ballast to be stained. Unfortunately I don't have any colour pictures of LB in the '50s which I can publish (the copyright is not mine), so most images have been black and white. What I did decipher is that the staining is far more pronounced on the Down lines at the platform ends. Think about it - it's uphill, and starting locos might have a propensity to slip, showering oil everywhere.

 

Your wonderful picture of the A4 at Essendine (taken prior to 1957 - the loco has a single chimney?) shows the effect of Stoke Bank. Down trains would be piling it on to climb to Stoke. A similar effect can be detected on any overbridges on Stoke Bank (or Shap). The Down side always is more stained.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[grob1234]

2 hours ago, CF MRC said:

I fully concur, Tony, re: ballast colours. When you look at aerial photos, mainline track ballast is often very pale, with some contrast to the slightly less pale sleepers. Unless these are very new, they then weather down quickly. Local areas where engines stopped next to signals would obviously stain and goods yards were clearly not maintained to the same standard.
 

On CF we use exceptionally fine ballast; it is so easy to be over scale in 2mm scale and that also applies to things such as roads and greenery.  

(Photo Barry Norman, courtesy MRJ). 
 

However, someone has also said that our track is too clean, amongst other things...

 

Tim

 

You’re not referring to the letter in the MRJ are you Tim?!

 

I have yet to see CF but the sheer scale of it alone makes it a winner in my book, let alone all the other superlatives I could throw at it!

 

What ballast might you recommend for N? I’m just curious as I’m struggling to choose one solely by looking online....

[Tony Wright]

I'm continually astonished at the generosity of RMweb members.

 

Yesterday, a parcel arrived from 'Beechnut'. It contained this.................

 

 

It's a Millholme Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 (the bunker is still in the box). 'I don't want anything for it, do with it what you want and see what you can raise for CRUK' was all that was asked. 

 

So, what to do? It's built in EM Gauge and doesn't really go. I think what I'll do is complete it (still in EM) and make it work for use on Retford (if my work reaches the required standard, though I know it'll suit Sandra). 

 

Does anyone make a valve gear fret for a 'Flying Pig'? Comet? 

 

Once finished, I'll then make a personal contribution to CRUK.

 

Thanks ever so much, Brendan. 

[PMP]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm continually astonished at the generosity of RMweb members.

 

Yesterday, a parcel arrived from 'Beechnut'. It contained this.................

 

 

It's a Millholme Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 (the bunker is still in the box). 'I don't want anything for it, do with it what you want and see what you can raise for CRUK' was all that was asked. 

 

So, what to do? It's built in EM Gauge and doesn't really go. I think what I'll do is complete it (still in EM) and make it work for use on Retford (if my work reaches the required standard, though I know it'll suit Sandra). 

 

Does anyone make a valve gear fret for a 'Flying Pig'? Comet? 

 

Once finished, I'll then make a personal contribution to CRUK.

 

Thanks ever so much, Brendan. 

Brassmasters are worth a look

http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/bachmann_ivatt_4mt_260.htm

[ROY@34F]

25 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

All valid points, Graham,

 

I agree that the ballast shoulder isn't as pronounced on LB's main lines as it might be (Norman's 'thin' ballasting technique).

 

I'm not sure I asserted that where locos stand would be the only place for the ballast to be stained. Unfortunately I don't have any colour pictures of LB in the '50s which I can publish (the copyright is not mine), so most images have been black and white. What I did decipher is that the staining is far more pronounced on the Down lines at the platform ends. Think about it - it's uphill, and starting locos might have a propensity to slip, showering oil everywhere.

 

Your wonderful picture of the A4 at Essendine (taken prior to 1957 - the loco has a single chimney?) shows the effect of Stoke Bank. Down trains would be piling it on to climb to Stoke. A similar effect can be detected on any overbridges on Stoke Bank (or Shap). The Down side always is more stained.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony ,

  All valid points by Graham as you say . I also think due to to speed and the resulting disturbance of oil and muck being deposited on the track shows up more in the facing direction of either main lines . This shows up on Graham's photo from the Essendine bridge I think . The slow roads aren't affected quite so much to this effect as traffic is slower. You may be able to see in some photos the difference in colour when looking in the direction of travel and then the other way . You could almost do with an airbrush spraying some oily / brake dusty weathering forward while attached to the front of a wagon going in the correct direction . 

What do you reckon ?

 

Regardes Roy .

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

One thought: the brown staining either side of the running rail is probably brake dust which clings to everything, but like oil from the motion, will generally fall around the wheels and not the middle of the sleepers.

Do you think that brake dust would be more noticeable in areas where trains are more likely to be braking? That WR picture is actually of a train pulling away from a station (Beaconsfield on the GW/GC joint) so unlikely to be braking? Or do you reckon that brake dust just generally got blown around everywhere? Possibly lingering on bogies then falling off later?

I have a theory that brake dust is a more dominant effect on the modern railway - particularly where electric traction is dominant - as there's less oil and water (condensed steam) mixed in with it - what do you think?

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Evening Tony,

 

Some comments, if I may, about ballast colour - or, more specifically - ballast staining in the steam age. Something I've yet to get right, but that doesn't stop me trying! I've amassed a number of photos and articles on the subject in my modelling 'scrapbook'.

 

First, I would like to take issue (if I may?) with your apparent assertion that trains going fast don't stain the track. I'm not sure that's true. I think that are are lot of different effects going which can combine to stain / weather the track - it's not just about where engines stand.

 

The following photo has always been one of my favourites on the subject (all following photos are 'snipped' from my photo of a somewhat larger photo - hope that's OK in order to illustrate a point):

 

If you can tear your eyes away from the obvious centre of interest and consider what's going on bottom right. This is a train travelling at speed and owing to the extreme 'head on' viewpoint (with a touch of telephoto?) the (rather daring!) photographer has accentuated the vortex swirl close down at track level caused by the slipstream of the train as it speeds along. All manner of dirt, dust and detritus is being swept over the sleeper ends and ballast shoulder. Ahead of the train, the ballast is immaculate - this was another prize-winning length (according to the caption). Now imagine the effect of this on an 'orrible, wet, squally day...

 

The other effect going on is, I think, quite well-illustrated here. A very definite dark line along the sleeper ends - look how it continues across the pointwork in the distance. This isn't caused by engines standing; it's caused by engines moving! There's almost a shine to this dirt which makes me think that it is dominated by oil - dirty oil being flung from the motion as the loco travels along. Steam loco motion was typically encased in oil and, when you think about it, the faster it goes the more it becomes like a whirring catherine wheel, flinging it either up (where it clings to the underside of the running plate) or down (where it hits the sleeper ends and adjacent ballast)

 

Just to prove we're not ER or LMR biased, here's a WR shot with a similar effect apparent. The whole area from the rail to the sleeper ends is very definitely discoloured compared to the almost virgin white ballast on the 'shoulder'.

 

The only picture I could find anywhere you. This is (I think) taken from the bridge at Essendine, looking north so the A4 is heading down the hill. In this case, all tracks show a different level of staining. The up slow on the right has hardly any at all(!), whereas the down main is quite heavily stained. Whilst a few trains stopped here (as Little Bytham), many would be running through at a steady speed (40-50mph?) up the bank.

 

One thing I'd like to draw attention to is the levelled area between the ballast shoulders (ie the 'ten foot') on the right and left. Not too apparent here - but very noticeable I think on the first two photos - is how different in appearance this is. This latter area is not ballast at all but crushed cinders (or something similar), as a safe and level area for engineman, trackworkers - far easier to walk on than ballast! If I may dare offer some constructive criticism myself, I'm not sure your trackwork on LB really conveys this effect. If it was a prize-winning length, then there would be a very definite edge to the ballast shoulder, like the first photo.

 

Have you got any colour pictures you can post of the prototype Little Bytham c.1959 so we could have a look?

 

Finally (if you're still awake!), just to emphasise that track staining effects altered quite a bit with the coming of the diesels - they could spray oil everywhere! And, as you say, the advent of automated ballasting and the demise of the manual track gangs has altered the look completely.

 

Happy to bow to better knowledge if some of the above constitutes me putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Be interested in any further comments from those in the know.

Lovely stuff Graham. Two points of particular interest to me:

 

Photo 2  - a beautiful shot of the colour and texture of the cess and wideway between the tracks. Mentally filed.

 

Photo 4  - is it an optical illusion or are some of the sleepers on the Up Slow shorter than normal?

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

I have a theory that brake dust is a more dominant effect on the modern railway - particularly where electric traction is dominant - as there's less oil and water (condensed steam) mixed in with it - what do you think?

Not sure. With modern brake materials (i.e. not cast-iron blocks) there is a lot less of that sort of dust around. I would suggest that some of the brown stains come from people doing what you are requested not to do in the station...

Edited December 6, 2020 by St Enodoc

[MarkC]

This discussion on ballast and discolouration has been absolutely fascinating. Wonderful stuff. Thanks to all who have contributed.

 

I can't help but think, though, that you could produce a superb model with these subtle (and, lets be honest, some not so subtle) assorted hues and accumulations of grot, take it to an Exhibition & then wait for Mr Smartypants to rock up and announce to anyone in earshot "Pity about the colour of the track & ballast - you'd never see that sort of thing in real life...". At that point you smile nicely & produce the photographs you have prepared for such an encounter... 

 

Mark

[CF MRC]

13 hours ago, grob1234 said:

What ballast might you recommend for N? I’m just curious as I’m struggling to choose one solely by looking online....

We originally used a pale grey foundry sand. When that ran out I have used the finest grey dust available from companies such as GreenScenes - there are others. You can always make ballast darker, very difficult to make it lighter. For goods yards this is mixed with pumice. For the cess we use pumice again, but this is sprayed a dark grey to contrast (see the excellent pictures in this recent thread). Pumice powder is a very useful texturing material for 2mm scale: we use it on our roads/gutters, applied with dilute PVA, to represent dirt and grime. 
 

The track itself is sprayed grey brown from the top and red-oxide from the side. This tends to ‘fix’ flexible track and lighten the sleepers, although such track is a relatively recent 2mm scale phenomenon, of course PCB track is already stable. All the track is laid in a fairly thick layer of slow setting PVA with ballast added at that time (as also by Norman Solomon) and then topped up where required, when set. 
Picture Barry Norman, courtesy MRJ. 

Hope that helps. 
 

Tim

Edited December 6, 2020 by CF MRC
Add picture

[thegreenhowards]

I’m interested in this discussion on ballast. One issue which doesn’t quite make sense to me comes from Graham’s picture  of the A4 at Essendine. If the staining around the tracks is delivered by oil from the motion, then, given that most (many?) locos on Stoke Bank had three cylinders, why isn’t there a line down the middle from the central motion? 
 

Andy

[CF MRC]

More bearings to loose oil on the outside, even on a Gresley three cylinder engine?  Graham’s observation re ballast staining is very interesting; I think that brake dust would contribute a lot to the staining. 
 

Tim

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, MarkC said:

This discussion on ballast and discolouration has been absolutely fascinating. Wonderful stuff. Thanks to all who have contributed.

 

I can't help but think, though, that you could produce a superb model with these subtle (and, lets be honest, some not so subtle) assorted hues and accumulations of grot, take it to an Exhibition & then wait for Mr Smartypants to rock up and announce to anyone in earshot "Pity about the colour of the track & ballast - you'd never see that sort of thing in real life...". At that point you smile nicely & produce the photographs you have prepared for such an encounter... 

 

Mark

Good morning Mark,

 

Ah yes, the smart ar$e.

 

It used to happen a fair bit when WMRC exhibited Stoke Summit. One distinctive signalling feature was the Up distant; less than one hundred yards from the tunnel mouth and nowhere near far enough away from Stoke's Up home splitter at top line speed. One guy at Wells (who claimed to be a signalman) said it was nonsense - even dangerous. 

 

Ah, and this is where those who model actual prototypes have the supreme advantage. Evidence! I always carried a folder of prototype pictures, and, thus, shoved the evidence under this clot's nose. 'I don't believe it!'. Considering he was a signalman, I was surprised he hadn't worked out that it was Stoke's inner distant. The outer distant (a colour light, near High Dyke 'box) was the other side of Stoke Tunnel, well within safety limits. Not only that, the inner distant was kept 'on' if a train were to take the Up slow. I explained all this, but he seemed bamboozled. It takes all sorts.

 

All sorts which included the fool who suggested (in a very loud voice) that where the Down slow joined the Down fast (to run through the twin track tunnel) there should be a splitting signal (the Down slow/Down fast conjunction was protected by a trap point and sand drag). 'So, we'd signal an illegal move then?' I asked him. 'Yes, I know what I'm talking about!'. Whenever I hear those immortal words, I make my exit..................

 

One day I'll write a book about exhibiting!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[ScRSG]

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

One day I'll write a book about exhibiting!

 

Now there's a good idea!

 

Chas

[CF MRC]

A classic exhibition conversation was someone adamant that we had too many arches on the Chiltern Green viaduct.  
 

Tim

[t-b-g]

40 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’m interested in this discussion on ballast. One issue which doesn’t quite make sense to me comes from Graham’s picture  of the A4 at Essendine. If the staining around the tracks is delivered by oil from the motion, then, given that most (many?) locos on Stoke Bank had three cylinders, why isn’t there a line down the middle from the central motion? 
 

Andy

 

On Gresley locos, which were the majority, there were very few oiling points between the frames as they had two sets of valve gear for the three cylinders. So that may partly explain the lack of too much dribble down the centre.

 

Of course carriages have various ways of contributing to such things but we won't go into too much detail!

 

I would say that very few layouts have truly convincing ballast.

 

To many, it is a chore to be done as quickly and easily as possible to get it out of the way to leave time for interesting stuff. It doesn't get a lot of care and attention. I am as guilty as many others in that respect!

 

The variations in colour in real ballast are very subtle and the individual stones are not all exactly the same colour.

 

The best examples I have seen on models are those where various different colours of ballast have been blended before they are laid and the amounts of different colours in the blending varied slightly from place to place.

 

I find that any time ballast has been laid and then painted loses that variation in colour. Even if some patches are painted darker, the variation between stones is lost.

 

The layouts I have seen with convincing ballast have had the track painted first, then varied ballast added afterwards.

Edited December 6, 2020 by t-b-g
Spelling

[APOLLO]

Model a snow scene and ballast / foliage / you name it colour is irrelevant !!

 

Many moons ago at Wigan was a quite wonderful North Eastern layout, set in the snow in a darkened night setting - can't remember the name. Signal and many other lights twinkling everywhere (as North eastern had complex signaling arrangements). At one side was an interesting small display showing how they made the snow, ice etc. 

 

I might try a simple snow scene one day on a small portable layout. As to smart a***s, I keep my trap shut, eyes and ears open -  heard & seen a few !!!!!!!

 

Brit15

Edited December 6, 2020 by APOLLO
typo

[Darryl Tooley]

9 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Many moons ago at Wigan was a quite wonderful North Eastern layout, set in the snow in a darkened night setting - can't remember the name.

Hudson Lane?

 

 

D

[john new]

Just a thought with regard to the ballast edge stains, is not also likely that if anything leaked out of, or vibrated off, wagons it would most likely be from cracks in the doors, edges of flat wagons and drips from the widest part of any tank wagons thus also ending up near the rails.

[great central]

57 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

More bearings to loose oil on the outside, even on a Gresley three cylinder engine?  Graham’s observation re ballast staining is very interesting; I think that brake dust would contribute a lot to the staining. 
 

Tim

 

It's not only locos that have bearings on the outside, all the rolling stock has too! 

Oil from wagon axleboxes would be a more likely source of the staining I would expect owing to the generally slower progress of freight trains. 

Also water from injector overflows and such 

[CF MRC]

Worth bearing in mind (ouch) that most railway lubrication at this time was total loss. Possible exception would be the original SR pacifics, but I believe they were pretty incontinent. 
 

Tim

[APOLLO]

Don't forget the "Bangers and mash" in the four foot now and again !!!

 

Brit15