selector Cut the bottom half of a foot off of panty hose or nylons and use that to screen out good sized grit for an HO main line or secondary track. In order to extract the fines efficiently, you'll have to mimick the action you use when you massage your wife's foot. You DO do that......occasionally........don't you? If not, use the time to develop the skill. Could come in handy.
Cut the bottom half of a foot off of panty hose or nylons and use that to screen out good sized grit for an HO main line or secondary track. In order to extract the fines efficiently, you'll have to mimick the action you use when you massage your wife's foot. You DO do that......occasionally........don't you? If not, use the time to develop the skill. Could come in handy.
By half a foot, do you mean six inches or literally half the foot of the hosiery?
And for the record, the missus is far too ticklish to sit still for a foot rub, but I get the concept.
- Adam
When all else fails, wing it!
riogrande5761 I know there are some who like to DIY things in the hobby, but there often is a point of diminishing returns.
I know there are some who like to DIY things in the hobby, but there often is a point of diminishing returns.
That would definitely apply to me. I very much enjoy the DIY part of the hobby, because it also usually results in money saved. In my case, I've spent about as much on sifters as it would cost for 1 bottle of WS ballast, so the money breaks even. But you do have a point about diminishing returns.
Still, I have the tools and material, so now I just need to put in the time. I'll post a few photos of what I come up with. I did a test earlier that actually looked pretty good, after refining my rock size a bit, so I'm going to weather my track a bit and do it over, and see how it comes out.
7j43k Seems to me, if you have rock dust mixed in with your very fine rock, maybe it could be rinsed off. Carefully. Ed
Seems to me, if you have rock dust mixed in with your very fine rock, maybe it could be rinsed off.
Carefully.
Ed
That would probably work. Back in my geology lab days, you had to use a hydrometer test to find out how much silt and clay size particals were in a sample after running it through sieves.
https://www.certifiedmtp.com/200mm-sieve-stainless-frame-stainless-cloth-full-height/?gdffi=6d21fb26b716432f82f98876b649f0a9&gdfms=31D2B779FA244F1380BB7DC774EA5E41&gclid=CjwKCAjwmJbeBRBCEiwAAY4VVQ7kmKAD7oIQ5vftWXM0MKLc6zbom_lIhzrF-FZ31MOYYQDBvYAsyxoCZdEQAvD_BwE
Anyone wanting to make their own ballast would need to size it using seives to get the right grain size for your scale which would segregate out the larger sizes and capture the grain size you need while allowing the "too small" granules to fall through and be lost or disposed of or used for some other purpose.
But heck, after you invest in the equipment to size the rock for yourself, you could have bought enough already sized ballast and have money left over. Just sayin....
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
bearman Riogrande, the other thing I have heard is that rock maintains its color over time. WS ballast does not. But, I am not speaking from experience.
Riogrande, the other thing I have heard is that rock maintains its color over time. WS ballast does not. But, I am not speaking from experience.
Could be. Back when I was a geology major, if we wanted to see rock in a more unweathered state, we would break it open with a rock hammer. Rock does weather and it does alter it's appearance, but on a layout where it is out of the elements, it may very well keep it's color better than other materials which are subject to fading under lights.
While I have not messed with ballast nearly to the degree as others, I've seen how easy it is to wash away WS ballast because it is so much less dense. The cost of a bottle of Scenic Express ballast may only be a few dollars more but it is definitely easier to work with due to it's much greater density.
So while I'm sure some of our experienced layout builder here can get good results from the lighter density WS, I'm all for making my job easier and as we all know, ballasting is one of least popular layout jobs if you take a survey, so pick your poison.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
LonehawkMyself, I've tried both types and I do prefer natural rock as well, but I also don't see the point in wasting perfectly good ballast that I already paid for. Of course, it would probably make good enough hopper loads..
As it happens, I have several bags of Woodland Scenics cinder ballast I have had for years and never used. But here is my feelings on ballasting with it; being less dense it will potentially be more prone to shifting and therefore make ballasting even more "fun" and thats a job most loath. Sure, I get it that some of the real experienced people here have used WS with success. Lets just say, I prefer to use ballast that is easier to get fixed in place and real rock is certainly more forgiving.
That said, I don't plan to waste my several bags of WS cinders, I'll find some other use for them.
kasskabooseI think for the expense, I'd much prefer doing WS ballast.
Your choice but real rock ballast ain't that expensive. MBK has good sized 32 oz bottles of it for about $12. I've played with it on my last layout and being more dense it does lock in place better and will be much less prone to getting washed away when you soak it with a mat medium or some other liquid adhesive. It's just plain physics. Ask Dr. Science, he has a masters degree in science! (MS in Geology). Your choice and when/if you use WS and it starts washing away when you are dripping it with a liquid adhesive, then you'll understand why real rock ballast is easier to use.
Why not mix two different colors of ballast by sprinking some together? I wouldn't necessarily mix them. Another option is painting a periodic spot or streak of another shade of gray on the ballast.
Great work on those who use real rock for ballast. I think for the expense, I'd much prefer doing WS ballast. Make sure you take the time to put down ballast, so it's not taken for granite.
As always, very useful input, Wayne. I'd have never thought of using spatter screens. I've been using wire and nylon window screen, (the plastic coating on the nylon makes it a slightly finer mesh) and a fine mesh tea strainer.
The problem seems to come in, like you had, where I can choose between either losing the finer particles with the dust, or having it mixed in with the slightly-too-coarse grit that stays in the strainer. I'll still use the tea strainer to get the fine dust out, but yeah, that oughta work. And I'll try getting a bag of the limestone screenings and see how that works as well.
Come to think of it, limestone is very porous, and light in color. I bet I could color it fairly easily...
While much of my layout was ballasted with Woodland Scenic's ballast, a friend gave me a quantity of real limestone, which he had screened from a load of gravel for his driveway. There were four grades: extra coarse, coarse, fine, and dust, with fine being the most useful for regular mainline ballast.When I ran out of that, I picked up a couple of 50lb. bags of limestone screenings from my local lumberyard, but despite running the material through several different decreasing mesh-sizes of screening, couldn't get to the same "fine" size - the fines went through the finest mesh with the "dust".
I asked my friend what he had used, and learned that those "spatter guards" for frying pans offer a perfectly-sized mesh to catch the useable fine ballast, and yet still let the "dust" pass through.
I'll be using the dust, along with some really fine dirt-dust, and some ground foam to ballast a couple of fairly long industrial sidings.
I've found the WS ballast easier to groom, while the real rock does tend to lock together in the same manner as real ballast, making it more difficult to spread evenly. Both work equally well once in place, though.
Wayne
riogrande5761 it makes me cringe every time!
it makes me cringe every time!
Agreed, but worth it for the purpose.
riogrande5761 But you know dwarves are masters of rock and stone so Gimli naturally prefers it. If he had a model RR he would shun walnut shell ballast and say phooey!
But you know dwarves are masters of rock and stone so Gimli naturally prefers it. If he had a model RR he would shun walnut shell ballast and say phooey!
Indeed he would.
Myself, I've tried both types and I do prefer natural rock as well, but I also don't see the point in wasting perfectly good ballast that I already paid for. Of course, it would probably make good enough hopper loads....
I only "get" that pun because some people actually talk that way and it makes me cringe every time!
riogrande5761 Plus Gimli prefers rock over walnut shells! Hah hah.
Plus Gimli prefers rock over walnut shells! Hah hah.
Did you "Axe" him yourself, or did Legolas tell you?
But I have looked at some photos, and like I mentioned, some looked similar, some did not, so I guess I can call that "plausible" as far as color. I just wanted to throw it out on the forum here because I was planning on doing something similar with the engine yard on my main layout when I build, and I wanted to see if it would be worth processing more or just stop with enough for my little practice ISL.
And I did think some of it was too big, but I wasn't sure because the WS ballast I have is old and is mixed fine/medium. I'm going to re-sift the homemade stuff and see if that helps. Otherwise I'll try to get an intermediate size sifter.
7j43k I like the homemade better. Each piece has the more angular look of real ballast. BUT. Some pieces are way too big. THEY gotta go.
I like the homemade better. Each piece has the more angular look of real ballast. BUT. Some pieces are way too big. THEY gotta go.
For home-made you would need a good source for ideal size and color and angularity ballast, AND a set of seives to get the right grain size for a layout. Great if you need "yet" another project, but IMO, it's easier and faster and not really that expensive to just buy ballast from a company like Scenic Express - real rock ballast is easier to work with than the crushed walnut shell ballast like Woodland Scenic's uses.
The color may be a bit darker than I would choose, but it's believable to me. If some lighter colored rock were put in, along with better filtering, it might just be perfect.
Look at real life photo's on the internet for "plausible" and also photo's of RR's which you may be emulating, even if you are freelancing.
In my case, the RR I model used a lot of cinders so I'm going with a ballast which looks like that.
Long story short, I'm freelancing a small switching layout from spare parts while I save up and acquire materials for my main layout, and also to practice the skills I will need to build it.
I read about making your own ballast from road gravel and figured I'd try.
" target=""> The track on the right is the "homemade" ballast, with WS ballast on the left, which will be my mainline ballast. So, does the homemade ballast look plausible as a yard or cinder-type ballast? Some photos I've seen look close, others not so much. And I'm not modeling a particular prototype, just a general industrial-type area circa 1935, hence the "plausible" requirement. Thanks!
The track on the right is the "homemade" ballast, with WS ballast on the left, which will be my mainline ballast. So, does the homemade ballast look plausible as a yard or cinder-type ballast? Some photos I've seen look close, others not so much. And I'm not modeling a particular prototype, just a general industrial-type area circa 1935, hence the "plausible" requirement.
Thanks!