Hi,
After procrastinating for wayyyy tooo long, I'm close to putting in a rural highway on my HO layout. The setting is the generic southern midwest (inc. Texas), the main RR is the ATSF, the the time is the early 1950s.
The gravel roads from the various small industries will connect to this highway, and I will likely have it a slightly raised older black top. Of course, the question is width..........
From my research, 12 foot lanes were the norm for well traveled highways. So for a two lane highway, the width of the blacktop would be about 3 inches (24 HO feet give/take).
The thing is, 4 inches "looks better" but that translates to 16 foot wide lanes - which just never happened.
Given my locale/time/purpose, what do you think would be most appropriate?
Thank you,
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Today, in addition to the lane width, there is often a paved shoulder (although even today many older paved roads that have not been completely rebuilt, including some highways, do not have paved shoulders). Paved shoulders vary from 0 (none)) to 12 feet or more. There should be a min 1 foot wide gravel shoulder outside the pavement. Sometimes where there is room the gravel will be widened enough to provide a good surface for cars to pull off the pavement.
Today most roads have solid white edge lines between the travel lanes and the shoulder (even if there is no paved shoulder), but 1950's roads didn't have edge lines.
In the 1950's roads were less likely to have paved shoulders than today.
While 12 foot lanes are "standard" Many roads have 10' lanes (some less), and narower lanes were more common in the 1950's.
On Asphalt roads, the shoulder may be indistinguishable from the travel lane if the final pavement AC lift was done at the same time as the mainline paving. If shoulder was paved seperately there will usually be a visible line (a slight groove) between the mainline and the shoulder or the shoulder may be slightly lower (about an inch) and/or it may be a slightly different color.
Paved shoulders on concrete roads are usually asphalt.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
I'd go with the narrower (and more correct for your era) road. Once you put the vehicles on it, it'll look better. Trucks then and trucks now played a large part in determining lane widths, and '50s-era trucks won't look right on a road that's too wide. Since the correct-width road will require less layout real estate, you can include gravel shoulders and, where appropriate, drainage ditches, too - features often not modelled, but which will make your road look even more realistic.
Wayne
There's a lot of things that I'm a stickler about, but roads aren't one of them (trees are the other). They're totally something you can eyeball. Honestly, appropriately wide roads look too wide to my eyes. Just like an appropriately wide and tall tree looks entirely too big. I'd just go with whatever looks right in both overall road and lane size.
First off, three inches is way short of 24 HO scale feet.
Now, for an honest 12 foot lane two laner you have:
Giving a total paved width of close to 28 feet. According to my cockeyed calculator, that's 3.85 inches in HO scale.
In addition, Texas farm-to-market roads (county roads) usually had a macadam shoulder (usually brick red gravel surface) 6-8 feet wide. I remember them being that way when I was stationed in Austin as a two striper well over a half-century ago. Numbered state and Federal highways were equally well endowed.
Just my . Hope it helps.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - where most roads were two ruts in the mud)
tomikawaTT First off, three inches is way short of 24 HO scale feet. Now, for an honest 12 foot lane two laner you have: 8 inch center stripe. If double, add a foot. lanes, 144 inches per, times two. edge stripes, eight inches each. 6-8 inches of asphalt beyond the edge stripe on each edge. Giving a total paved width of close to 28 feet. According to my cockeyed calculator, that's 3.85 inches in HO scale. In addition, Texas farm-to-market roads (county roads) usually had a macadam shoulder (usually brick red gravel surface) 6-8 feet wide. I remember them being that way when I was stationed in Austin as a two striper well over a half-century ago. Numbered state and Federal highways were equally well endowed. Just my . Hope it helps. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - where most roads were two ruts in the mud)
Chuck, sounds like you've done your homework so I wouldn't dispute your figures. If prototype fidelity is important, I would go with those numbers. But I've found that road width is something we can fudge a little if need be since we really don't have to be too concerned with traffic safety. If I need to shoehorn a structure or some other element into a scene and I need to trim a quarter or half inch somewhere, road width is usually where I do it. Also, if the road is near the back edge of a scene running roughly parallel with the edge of the benchwork, I can really cheat and it isn't at all noticeable. I think I made one about 2.5 inches wide with nothing but a row of structures between it and the backdrop and it isn't at all noticeable. I don't think anyone is going to measure it.
I did a lot of resurch into late 1930's roads which led to other eras information. Rural roads in the early 30's tended to be around 10' as towards the end they were getting to a 12' norm per lane, come the late 40's and early 50's they were getting wider still for the paved roads but gravel tended to remain at around 12' per lane in the 50's.
Here is a 2010 thread on the subject of road width:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/179171/1964745.aspx
Rich
Alton Junction
Learned to drive in the late '50's. One paved road near my home was 18 ft wide with paved curves. Remember that some collective compression is common in model scenery building. So, a nine ft. wide lane would be both prototypical and appropriate compression.
No. 1 Center and edge stripes are 4" wide, an 8" wide stripe can be used if the DOT wants to discourage passing.
Also the pavement is still 12' wide they do not add for striping. the stripes narrow the lane to something less the 12' wide.
Berms on secondary roads are an iffy thing which may or may not even exist.
On Interstate Highways the standard berm is 10' on the right side and 4' on the left side, usually of asphalt that is a lower quality of pavement not suited for high speed driving.
Rick J (Ex-Ohio DOT Employee)
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
Most roads have 12 to 14 foot wide lanes, measured from the centers of the lines. Add to that a 8-12 foot shoulder on each side.
From you description of "rural highway", I would suggest 12 or 13 foot lanes (14 foot lanes are usually used on the 4 lane expressways) and 6-8 foot paved shoulders, plus another foot of gravel. If the road goes along the edge of a drop off or long hill, a guardrail would be used and the shoulder could be narrowed or eliminated entirely (see may Pennsylvania roads).
The total width of this road would be about 5 inches of pavement, which may be more than you are looking for since you said that 4" looked about right. That would translate to two 12 foot lanes and two 3 foot shoulders.
I would suggest getting some paper and making mock-ups of the lane widths and shoulders. Be careful that you do not skimp on your lane width. Many model railroads end up looking toy-like because of unrealistically narrow roads.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
Check the road with the widest vehicle you plan to use. Does it look okay?
Then its wide enough .
Jim
Soo Line fan Check the road with the widest vehicle you plan to use. Does it look okay? Then its wide enough .
That was going to be my suggestion as well. Are you using all period perfect, exact HO scale vehicles, or are you using generic Matchbox type cars ? If you are using true to scale HO vehicles, the roads can be considerably narrower and still look correct as opposed to a Matchbox car that barely fits (if at all) on a scale width lane.
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
Probably not applicable to the Op's question but here is a video of historic photos showing construction of the Bankhead Highway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAkck19NFE0 between Waterford and Mineral Wells Texas.
Abandoned portions of the origional road still exist.
I Googled "Historic Texas Highways" lots of links each with a photo or two, most of the Bankhead Highway. Very few dated.
I don't know when Texas addopted yellow centerlines. However,I assume photos with yellow centerlines are mid sixties or later, since that is when yellow centerlines and white edge lines were adopted as the national standard.
It can take years to ugrade to a new standard. I know of one County road in California that still had a white centerline and no edgelines in the early 1990's.
Saw one picture of a bypassed portion of the Bankhead Highway near Mineral Wells. It ts two lanes wide (looks to be about 20 feet pavement total). Gravel shoulders not visible. They are overgrown by grass. Pavement is light gray, almost white, centerline very worn appears to be black. Possible black is correct. Historically some states did use black paint on light colored pavement, white on dark pavement.
Hi!
Thank you all for your thoughts on the subject. Obviously, there are a lot of options and leeway in getting an old highway "correct". I did a couple of mock ups with HO vehicles (all are CMW or HO kit built) and I'm likely going to end up with a 3 1/2 inch wide blacktop (really a very dark grey) with the gravel shoulders I recall from my youth. I'll likely put in a center stripe of sorts, and appropriate signage.
Thanks all for your input!
It has been mentioned a couple of times that true to scale roads don't look right. I believe that this is because everything except the railroad equipment on our layouts has been "selectively compressed". Our mountains aren't high enough, our trees aren't tall enough, our factories could only hold a few boxcars worth of goods. This is why, in comparison to everything else that's not a train, scale width roads don't look right. Forget what is "correct to scale" - just go with what looks good.
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.
Carl425,
Very good point! We do tend to overdo our RR stuff and underdo everything else.
I know you've already decided on a width. Just thought I'd show mine.
Here is my Highway 66. The pavement is 3.25 inches wide.
Hey, that is really nice! I hope mine comes out half as good as that!
Hello everyone, might be a little late, but I am modeling the NYC in the 50s and for my country highway I too use 3 1/2 in streets (sheet plastic) and I paint it grimy black and I think it looks good for a fairly new road. If you google 1948 MUTCD, you will get many articles on road regulations and stripes, and what not.
-Alex
My Layout Photos- http://s1293.photobucket.com/user/ajwarshal/library/
Well, my last post on this subject said I was going to go with a 3 1/2 inch wide black top road. I did some mock ups and it looked ok...........
Today I played with the mock ups again and realized that 4 inches was significantly better if I have larger vehicles (i.e. trucks of all kinds) on the road.
Four inches translates to 29 feet, definitely wider than the normal 24 foot wide highways of "back then", but it just looks better.
Maybe its because I get a better view of the trucks if one is along side another, or maybe it is just an illusion of being more correct.
Anyhow, I wanted to get back to you all as way too many times on this forum folks ask for help and never respond....
ENJOY !!!!