I've been weathering my track in preparation for the ballast, and have consequently been staring at the foam roadbed intently. Is it just me, or does the roadbed seem too wide? I haven't got an exact spec handy as to prototypical roadbed widths, but it just seems that once ballasted, the roadbed will be the same width as a 4-lane highway?
I'm considering trimming the roadbed flush against the edge of the ties and letting the ballast naturally pile to create the sloped edges - thoughts?
I've been weathering my track in preparation for the ballast, and have consequently been staring at the foam roadbed intently. Is it just me, or does the roadbed seem too wide? I haven't got an exact spec handy as to prototypical roadbed widths, but it just seems that once ballasted, the roadbed will be the same width as a 4-lane highway?
I'm considering trimming the roadbed flush against the edge of the ties and letting the ballast naturally pile to create the sloped edges - thoughts?
Are you looking at the their HO scale roadbed? They have N scale as well and it isn't any wider than the standard N-SCale cork roadbed we've been using for years.
Irv
Hey Irv,
I'm sure it's the nscale stuff. On the way to work I stopped on a level crossing and looked at the track. The ballast started to taper away from the end of the ties about 1 foot from each side. When I look at the nscale stuff, it averages out to about 2 feet. Seems wide to me...
To be fair, I'm no modelling a heavily trafficked mainline, so a lesser ballast profile makes sense. I'm simply starting to wonder if the roadbed is wider then my prototype?
Michael, I am inclined to agree with you and it is something that has always been on my mind as well!
I have some N Scale Woodlands Scenics Track Bed (as they call it) and it is 1 3/16 inch wide. N Scale cork road bed is the same width when you place both halves together and the HO scale cork road bed (I bought some for a project that never worked out) is 1 7/8 inches wide when you place both halves together; it is also thicker. (I have no WS HO track bed to measure).
According to my calculation this makes the N scale road bed about a scale 17.75 feet wide (give or take a few inches). 1.333 * 160 = 213.28 / 12 = 17.77333
Is this typical prototype width?
The only reason this has been on my mind is that every time I look at layout photographs, no matter how excellent a job has been done on the scenery, the roadbed, with only a few exceptions here and there, seems too wide!
BrianC and Michael,
We all see the world through our own privately tinted glasses. What is TRUELY scale and what represents scale on our layouts may be two different things. If ballast was truly scale it would be a fine powder if barely discernible pieces... but ballast looks a little more ballast like when it is a little large for n-scale to "represent" what it actually is. what is my point? If the roadbed looks too wide to you, make it look right for your eyes even if it isn't scale!!
Oh yeah, and have fun doing it!! It is a hobby after all.
seanm, basically, your comments are absolutely correct. However they do not shed any light on the basic question being asked. Namely, what is the prototypical width of roadbed and does it vary by line and area?
Oh, and FWIW it's Bryan with a "Y"! Doesn't really matter, I answer to just about everything I'm called!
I've been using WS roadbed and it looked OK to me until you guys brought this up. I would have to say that it looks a bit narrower once you put grass, weeds and earth around it, and maybe add a little paint around the edges to help it blend in.
I agree with Sean that we're all doing things that are not strictly to scale. However, I now feel compelled to take a tape measure out to the nearest trackage and see what's what.
BrianC and Michael,
We all see the world through our own privately tinted glasses. /snip/ If the roadbed looks too wide to you, make it look right for your eyes even if it isn't scale!!
I think it is inevitable that I will be trimming the roadbed - I just cant seem to get past the fact it looks too wide.
Based on the dimensions listed on this website (I cannot speak to the credibility of the reference) http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRstddims.html it would seem that the 'average' ballast base width is 16' wide - roughly 2' narrower then the WS product. Considering that once the roadbed is ballasted you add additional width, it's safe to say that it is fairly easy to exceed the prototpyical width by at least 4'-8'.
So, there you have it. The eye's didn't lie.
BryanC.. Sorry about the spelling. Must be an ongoing problem for you. I like your spelling much better as a matter of fact.
You are correct, I did not address the actual question at hand... but I think if 7 of us went out and measured we would get at least 6 different measurements depending on the railroad, age, condition, weather... etc..etc.. There is darn near a prototpe for everything.
As the HP Riekoff (sp) slogan says "Enjoy like. Eat out more often!"
When I made the switch from HO to N, I had a few pieces of HO roadbed laying around. N scale track seemed to fit nicely on half a length of the HO stuff. I spent almost half the money for roadbed because each length of HO equals 2 lengths of N.
It is also a bit higher which allowed more room for layers of scenery and still get a nice beveled look for the ballast.
This is the NS line near my house.
SlidellN, first, that is a nice looking bit of track!
Second, the way the ballast falls away from the ends of the ties is exactly the look I'm going for - as I said, the WS roadbed doesn't allow for that due to the width.
As I'm not modelling a mainline, the thinner dimensions of the n scale roadbed suits well, but I can certainly appreciate how the height adds an appropriate dimension for your needs.
Thanks for the image.
SlideIIN,
I'm with Michael, that is fine looking track and scenery.
I really like that idea, both for the economy and for the extra height, which is snazzy on mainlines. It also could provide some vertical separation in yards between the main and yard tracks by mixing N and HO roadbed. Thanks!
Scott
You are correct Michael, the roadbed is too wide. Here is a AREA chart I got out of William W. Hay's book Railroad Engineering Second Edition, published by John Wiley and Sons, 1982. The chart is on page 394.
In this chart you can see the ballast extends only 6 inches past either end of the tie before sloping down at a 2:1 angle. The sub-ballast extends a further 18 inches minimum on either side of the ballast.
Now as to the question of what to do about the WS raodbed, I have an idea. Take a rotary cutter and run it along the tie ends holding it at an angle. Perhaps that would work?
I too, have wanted thinner, smaller roadbed as my road is a shortline. Have you thought of using other material for roadbed? I have wondered if Foamies sheets cut into strips would work. I have not looked into the price of this, but I suspect it would be cheaper than WS roadbed as well. I have yet to try it to see how well it would work.
I bought some bulletin board cork sheet that was about 1/16" thick and self adhesive on the back. My intent was to cut this into strips with a rotary cutter and use it as roadbed. Unfortunately, this material ended up being unsatisfactory for that purpose. The adhesive backing does not allow me to curve these strips smoothly, it wants to wrinkle. But since I already bought the roll of cork, I have decided to use this stuff for the roadbed on all my hidden trackage. I'll cut curves cookie-cutter style. It has the advantage of being just the right thickness that code 80 on the bulletin board cork and Atlas code 55 on Midwest cork roadbed join up quite evenly at the railhead!
Hope this helps
Heh... not only did I employ Woodland scenics foam roadbed under the track... but I also used it as a foundation for my macadam country roads.
And I would just add, that from a practical point of view, while the bed may a bit wide for scale (arguable, as many back woods lines in PA are very wide, albiet unkempt) it is a good way to gauge safe clearance on both sides. especialy if you like to model tight curvs and forestry right up to the track like I do.
I have seen several articles that described road bed that is made from corrugated cardboard. Talk about cheap! As I recall, someone on this forum talked about 'cutting cardboard for the roadbed'. I can not find the posting, but I will continue to look for it. In one article the author claimed the sound deadening was better than cork or WS foam roadbed.
May be worth a try.
Have fun.
Moose
Although this topic was originally about WS roadbed width, it seems have become more about roadbed per se'. Therefore . .
FWIW
For years I have made my own roadbed from thin cork sheet purchased at the local 'El Cheapo' (invariably Asian) shop, cut to the appropriate width, (which for me is (scale) 10ft wide (UK-N : 1:148) or 11 ft wide (US-N 1:160))
When the flex-track is put onto the roadbed, a very small bit of the roadbed shows beyond the sleeper (tie) ends, and this is just enough to make the ballast fall away from the sleepers in way which is typical of rural branch lines where the track-sets tended to be laid on top of the ballast rather than being 'buried' in it as was more common on main lines.
The cost is NZ 2.00, per packet of 10 sheets, which would probably be around USD 1.00. and from this you can cut some good lengths of roadbed cut as wide as is necessary for your own individual railway.
The drawback (if that is the correct term) is that the sheets are thin, but because I model a branch line and similar 'light' railways this is not a problem for me. It could of course be used in yards, as the ballast in these areas tends to be a bit thinner than what is found on 'mains.
As I said, FWIW - hope it helps.
Komata
"TVR - serving the Northern Taranaki . . . "
Until this post I had never paid any attention to the width of the roadbed. It was a non-issue for me.
I still don't see what the big deal is. But I'm not a rivet counter or a stickler for exact scale match in things like roadbed.
On my first 4/7 layout I used WS foam and some cork roadbed and if worked fine for me.
No offence intended but I just wonder if folks are getting a little up tight (wow shades of the 60's) i regarding roadbed. After all it will be ballasted. 
See ya
Ron
Now as to the question of what to do about the WS raodbed, I have an idea. Take a rotary cutter and run it along the tie ends holding it at an angle. Perhaps that would work?
Nah, that would be too much work. Just line up the track with one edge of the cork roadbed and cut the other edge off along the end of the track ties with a hobby knife before separating the cork strips. Then you keep the beveled edge intact but your cork roadbed will be the same width as your track ties. Of course, this is assuming you haven't laid your roadbed yet.
I for one am glad this topic came up, because I hadn't given it that much thought. I agree that most layouts' ballast looks too wide though I never realized it until this topic put a finger on it for me. I am now planning on trimming my roadbed before I lay it to make it more narrow. I also like the idea of using HO roadbed both to save money and to make the ballast more narrow and steeper. Thanks for the tips!
Bronman Trains are like Legos... you can't have too many of them.
I still don't see what the big deal is. But I'm not a rivet counter or a stickler for exact scale match in things like roadbed.On my first 4/7 layout I used WS foam and some cork roadbed and if worked fine for me.
No offence intended but I just wonder if folks are getting a little up tight (wow shades of the 60's) i regarding roadbed. After all it will be ballasted.
See ya
Ron
Hey Ron, no offence taken!
My issue had nothing to do with prototype representation, it had to do with a struggle to get things to look 'just right' - much in the same way you might seek out the perfect 'sky blue' or 'grass green'. The look of the roadbed (once ballasted) bothered me. It looked huge and crude. I wondered if it was because the ballast was too course, or it I had been too liberal. It wasn't until I started looking at the 'real thing' that I began to realise that the roadbed was way too wide.
I'm not modelling a mainline railroad, so these gravel highways tend to stick out. Again, not rivit counting, just trying to refine the 'essence'.
I read and article by Pelle Soeberg where he described his method for installing roadbed. He elected to use cork sheet - leaving the edges square and just slightly wider then the track. When he applied ballast, he let the ballast 'fall' off the sides of the track to create a natural slope. Think I give this a try.
... The look of the roadbed (once ballasted) bothered me. It looked huge and crude. ...
Exactly what I was trying to say above!
I have used the "normal" N scale cork roadbed throughout my layout (with a couple of pieces of Unitrack thrown in) and have attempted to keep the ballast as close as possible to the roadbed.
Two things I do that I have found helps is to ballast before doing the immediately surrounding scenery and to place masking tape along the edge of the roadbed before ballasting. When the glue is about half dry I remove the tape. It does leave a little bit of a rough edge which I smooth out with my fingers. Now when I bring the scenery up to the edge I end up with a pretty smooth transition that looks quite reasonable!
Of course, if I am ever lucky enough to build another layout I have a number of alternate ideas for the roadbed now!
BTW, if you have some N scale cork roadbed you might consider using the back side of one half (i.e. upside down)! Flextrack is just ever so slightly wider (almost the same width) and with careful placement of the ballast you should be able to achieve the desired effect.
Here is a quick image of the 'new' roadbed. I trimmed down the sides using a utility knife and added some dry ballast.
I'm pleased with the effect.
I've added a few more images to my blog, as well as including an informal poll.
Thanks for all the feedback.
Michael,
This "looks right". I will be trimming all of my roadbed from now on.
It's details like this that really make the scenes look convincing. Putting our fingers on these little things is the challenge- thanks for bringing this to the group.
Did you paint the ballast? It blends with the track very nicely.
Cheers,
Scott
I have to agree Michael, it is looking really very good! I am anxious to see some adjacent scenery! I think that will really set it off!
Question: What are you using for ballast? It also looks really good but I don't recognize the color! (Sorry, I guess I should have said colour! )
I expanded my layout this summer and also thought the road bed was too wide. But sometimes we don't listen to ourselves and just plod ahead as I did. Even my wife made a comment about the width and I just brushed it off. But you're absolutely right, the trimmed road bed looks much better on your layout. Its too late for me but at least you caught it in time for yourself and to alert others that it commands attention before ballasting. Great call!
Did you paint the ballast? It blends with the track very nicely.
No, and I vacuumed the ballast up after I shot the photo - it is just gray... I did however weather the ties pretty extensively.
Question: What are you using for ballast? It also looks really good but I don't recognize the color! (Sorry, I guess I should have said colour!
The ballast is just WS fine gray. It is entirely possible that the colour is off in the photo. I'm really lazy and shoot terrible photos and fix them up in Photoshop later... So, between the 'colour' correction and the LCD monitor, you are going to likely get something slightly less then accurate....
MooseID wrote:
That was probably me, I use cardboard for everything including roadbed.I have seen several articles that described road bed that is made from corrugated cardboard. Talk about cheap! As I recall, someone on this forum talked about 'cutting cardboard for the roadbed'.
What I do is cut about 2 cm strips of the thick corrugated cardboard and glue it down with wood glue or white glue, put some heavy books on it and let it dry. Ballast it like you normally would. And suprisingly I never had it get soggy or sink down like I thought it would. Another good thing about it, it's easy to cut for turnouts and such.
Powered by Drupal - Modified by Todd Vaules
Joined: 2007-09-04