Rather than use the commercial available HO scale ballast, some people say HO ballast is not to scale and you should use N-Scale ballast for HO, to get the real scale size. You probably wouldn't notice at normal table height view, but this would be most obvious in close up photos of track it would seem.
Anyone dealt with this?
N scale ballast may be closer to proper scale size grains for HO, but I think that once applied and glued down the grain detail tends to disappear and it looks liek a solid crust. The "medium" stuff commonly used for HO may be oversized compared to pieces or real ballast, but it has never appeared grossly outof scale to me and the slightly overize look makes it look more like rock packed in around the ties.
Just my opinion.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinkerJust my opinion.
That's my opinion too. I think sacrificing perfect scale in order to preserve the texture is a good idea.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
I usually use Woodland Scenics ballast. It's graded as fine, medium, large. I use fine on my HO layout. IMHO, anything smaller wouldn't look like ballast, just a coating on the roadbed.
Scale size ballast would be 0.008" (8 thousandths) of an inch. I don't think anyone makes ballast this small.
I have looked at ballast here and there, and have noticed that there seems to be a hefty variance in size, even along the same eight or ten feet of track. I have seen small pieces about an inch through, and others closer to three. I found the local beach sand looked reasonable, if mixed as 'stones'. I rinsed it and passed a magnet close to it when I had it spread thinly on a cookie sheet. It worked well IMO.
So, to place a figure in it for you, the grains you see average a bit less than 1 mm in cross-section, but some are at 1 mm and a bit over. As Randy stated, once it is all groomed, glued, and weathered, you'd have to have some large grains of ballast for it to stand out.
I will say that my memory of my one-time use of Walthers ground-up walnut shells left me feeling they were quite a bit too large, probably scaling at 6" in the real world.
I think the perception problem largely stems from the grading of Woodland Scenics ballast. I find their "medium" to be too large for HO in most cases. However, other brands and sources don't necessarily specify scale the same way.
I use Scenic Express #40 ballast, the size they recommend for HO, for most of my mainline and passing sidings. I considered #50, which Scenic Express mentions as being suitable for "fine scale" HO, but found it to be too fine to look right except on secondary tracks.
In the era I model, the WP used the same source for much of its mainline and siding ballast, but the main got the finer stuff screened out, and that was sometimes used on other tracks. Photos often show the same color on the main and adjacent sidings, but different sizes of material.
Before deciding on a ballast grade, make sure what brand you're using, and what look you're trying to achieve.
Rob Spangler
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
I compared a scan of Arizona Rock and Mineral ballast to a photo of the real thing (SP/UP mainline).
In HO.
It's a match.
Ed
I dislike the fine "N" scale ballast. It looks to much like paste once glued.
Some things just do not scale out well, ballast is one of them IMHO.
So, I use the "too large" HO scale stuff.
My ballast of choice? Highball Products HO scale custom blended (by me) mix.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
A piece of real ballast fits neatly into the palm of your hand, and the palm of an HO scale figure's hand is ... pretty darn small! And if you stand far enough away from ballasted track the visual impression is not of the individual rocks but of a slightly rough overall texture.
That is why I think tamping down the ballast before bonding it in place is so important. The HO ballast made of real rock seems to compress more realistically then the more rounded grains of the mid-sized Woodland Scenics ballast. Thus ballast of comparable size which is not rounded but truly stone-like in shape is in my view preferable
To me oversized ballast of either stone or (WS's) crushed nutshells becomes particularly distracting (to the naked eye or in photos) when loose grains sit on top of the ties or cling to the sides of the rail, generally in a very unnatural and odd looking way. I try to spend some time after ballasting getting rid of those vagrant grains of ballast for that reason.
I do grasp the wisdom of almost having to use "too large" ballast on the main so that you can have smaller ballast on sidings and in yards. Capturing the effect is a big part of realism, too. So again if you go with larger ballast, spend some time avoiding the worst visual consequences of having it stick in defiance of gravity to the side of the rail, or sit like a big Navy softball on top of a tie.
Dave Nelson
In a scale as small as HO, sometimes scale items disapear.
I'm sure the size of the stones on real railroads varies, so that may need to be taken into consideration as well.
For myself, in pictures of the roadbed, there is between 3 and 4 stones between each tie. This equates to the WS Medium that I use on my layout.
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
Using a digital caliper, the average WS Medium Ballast scales out to 2"-3", and some are larger. Fine ballast is about 1-2". Either could be used for HO scale. My club prefers fine ballast, so that is what I use. I have been looking into the Arizona rock and Mineral Ballasts. Also it needs to be noted that when comparing types of HO scale track, different ballast sizes need to be considered. Atlas HO code 100 ties are 13" scale inches wide. Code 83 8". The spacing is about the same. Using a smaller ballast distracts seems to cause the eye to not see the extra wide code 100 tie. If you use blended ballast colors, you tend to end up with texture you can see in the smaller size vice using all one color. I sprinkle in some fine cinder ballast with my fine blended gray ballast.
I've seen real ballast in many different sizes. I remember many years ago walking along the former Chessie System track in northwest Columbus, OH and was suprised at the size of the white rock ballast between the ties. I think the WS medium light gray ballast would be a good approximation of the look. Most ballast I see is much smaller than that but I still think the WS fine ballast is as small as I would go for HO ballast. Anything smaller would look more like compacted sand to my eye.
On a related note, I just finished a small beach scene using real play sand which I bought at Loew's. It's a very fine grain sand but still way too big. I found that once it was cemented down it looks very convincing to me. I think sometimes modelers get way to hung up on having everything to exact scale.
Ballast size is subjective. As mentioned experimentation is a good idea. Even if not to scale I like seeing the texture of the ballast from my normal viewing height of about 2 ft.
Mixed Arizona Rock & Mineral HO Mainline ballast 50/50 with their HO scale ballast for my mainline. Used the HO scale ballast for the yard and spurs, along with rock powders and slight and select applications of the 50/50 mix, Mainline, and n-scale.
Also did a lot of tamping as Dave Nelson mentioned, and took pains to keep the "soft balls" off the top of the ties.
Regards, Peter
I think some missed the "photo" aspect I mentioned when looking at ballast.
That's the way everyone here communicates visually their layout, i.e. "photos", and realism is what most MRRoaders are seeking, IMO.
Trackwork, ballast and surrounding track scenery details is the bottom line foundation of a realistic MRR layout, I think, especially at the close up "photo scale".
If you just view the layout at tabletop eye level, then it would'nt matter that much if the ballast is oversize and not to scale.
.005 to .008 was mentioned to be the correct scale size of HO ballast rocks.
I guess it's time to buy a machinsts caliper or micrometer that measures in thousandths an inch.
Another thing I notice is the ballast between rails is sometimes sparce in some HO photos. Other photos show dense tightly packed ballast between rails. I think on the real trains there is more ballast between the rails from tie to tie, (not on the outside slope),and not holes of sparcely distributed ballast. Again this is only at the close up photo level.
Big Boy Forever.005 to .008 was mentioned to be the correct scale size of HO ballast rocks.
That would be WAY too small. Just do the math. Even if you assume a small 2" rock, divide by 87 and you get .023.
carl425 Big Boy Forever .005 to .008 was mentioned to be the correct scale size of HO ballast rocks. That would be WAY too small. Just do the math. Even if you assume a small 2" rock, divide by 87 and you get .023.
Big Boy Forever .005 to .008 was mentioned to be the correct scale size of HO ballast rocks.
Read the posts above on HO scale ballast by:
"SouthPenn"
and
"jrbernier"
Big Boy Forever Read the posts above on HO scale ballast by: "SouthPenn" and "jrbernier"
I read the posts and don't understand how they came up with those numbers. My calculator says 2"/87 = .023".
Personally, I think this is something that needs to "look" right, and not necessarily "scale" right. I tried the fine and N scale ballast, but to my eyes, it looked like the track was ballasted with sand ! This is WS Medium - which looks good to MY eyes ....