Looking at early photos of railways in the 1880s and 90s I often see generous ballasting between the rails.. often up and over the ties... but little or no ballasting to either side of the track. What would be the reason for that? Was ballasting on either side considered wasteful?. or.. was this simply a temporary money saving measure..i.e. full ballasting to come later? Or maybe the civil engineers hadn't yet figured how to effectively deal with drainage along the right of way. Looking at early photos it looks as if ballasting to the sides only became commonplace around 1900. I also see some little used lines around here that have no ballasting at all.. The ties and track sans ballast sitting completely above ground.
Bump to see if it gets replies from the knowledgeable.
I have seen that effect in early photos. The ballast seems to be dirt or sand and the ends of the ties are nearly completely exposed. I don't know of any intended purpose for that. It may be that the poorer quality ballast was more like soil and washed down and away from the tie ends easier than from between the ties. It also may have been due to just skimping on ballast for the intital track construction, to be improved later as business picked up.
Ballast? We don't need no stinkin' ballast!
I suspect the reason you don't see much, if any, ballast in some photos is because there wasn't any. Ties on the ground, rails on top of that. Eventually, the ties undoubtedly simply sink into the dirt.
I've read that one function of the bunker of ballast at the end of the ties is to hold lateral alignment. I believe this is a necessity with CWR, less so with stick rail. We discussed this not long ago in another thread.
I would opine that in the early days of the railroads, when equipment was relatively light, ballast didn't serve the same weight distribution function as it does now, either.
These days, the ballast is trimmed by mechanical devices, generally right to the top of the ties. In the days of section gangs, I'm told the practice was to have about half of the tie exposed above the ballast. I'm sure there were section foremen who insisted that their ballast be "just so," not a rock out of place.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Yes, ballast was primitive on early track. Typically, it was poor ballast material such as sand or cinders. But what I assume Ulrich is asking about is photos which show ballast between the ties right flush to the tie tops, but then dropping clean off at the ends of the ties. So ballast completely covers the tie sides right to the tie tops; but leaves the tie ends completely exposed.
EuclidSo ballast completely covers the tie sides right to the tie tops; but leaves the tie ends completely exposed.
As noted, this would likely be in part a function of CWR.
tree68 Euclid So ballast completely covers the tie sides right to the tie tops; but leaves the tie ends completely exposed. As noted, this would likely be in part a function of CWR.
Euclid So ballast completely covers the tie sides right to the tie tops; but leaves the tie ends completely exposed.
I am talking about stick rail track in the 1800s not having ballast built up around the tie ends. I assume that is what Ulrich is asking about.
Later stick rail track generally throughout the 1900s, had ballast built up to within an inch or two from the tie tops all around the tie, including the ends.
Live and learn from your mistakes.
In the earliest times rail was afixed to stone holder. As each 'improvement' is placed in service its failure points become known and then 'fixed' in the next improvement until we get to the track structure we now have, and Lord only knows what the next 'fix' for todays track will be as we already know of the weather issues that create 'sun kinks' and 'pull-aparts' are something that need fixed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidLater stick rail track generally throughout the 1900s, had ballast built up to within an inch or two from the tie tops all around the tie, including the ends.
I would opine that improved rail joint technology might have increased the possibility of sun kinks. Too, speeds and car weights had increased, resulting in a need for more stability in the railbed.
Another possibility does lead back to rdamon's comment about initial cost. Succeeding additions of ballast, which would raise the track, would also require widening the ballast base in order to maintain the required slope.
A local landmark in my old hometown in MI was built in 1888. "The Arch" carries what is now the CSX Saginaw Sub over the Huron River in Milford. A comparison of old pictures to the present shows that the track is now several feet higher.
Ponder:
(1) that 35,45,54,60,66 # rail, in 30 and 33 Ft. lengths, wasn't very tall to start with, about half of today's lighter weight rail. (perception/ contrast issue with what everybody sees today)
(2) loading fines/ grit/ clinker/cinders and dumping them from conventional cross hoppers was an adventure.
(3) prior to the 1890's, treated ties were almost unheard of. ties only lasted 5-7 years
(4) What ballast regulators? Flangers were rare. All shovel and rake work was concentrated in station and yard areas. Even with relatively cheap labor, shaping ballast was low on the track department priority list.
(5) Ballast fines were hell on ties, especially untreated ones. While the ballast might help with surfacing, the lack of drainage sped up decay of the ties, especially those that were not hardwood. A lot of the problems with "ballast pockets" started with the initial use of ballast at the beginning of the learning curve. Wellington and Camp both brought this up.
From Railway Property - A Theatise on the Construction and Maintenance of Railways by John B. Jervis 1861
B1 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
B2 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
B3 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
B4 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
B5 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
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.
Thanks for the great replies. D Schmitt.. thanks for the article..
As the article posted by DSchmitt above (thanks!) points out, maybe those early photos are during or just after the basic construction, and are not of the 'finished product'. I can't think of any other good reason.
Otherwise, leaving the ballast that way would be highly undesireable because it would lead to "center-binding" of the ties. That's when the tie is mainly supported in the middle, and not so much at the ends - kind of like a see-saw. Any significant load on the ties from the rails at each end will break the tie in the middle, at the point of support. After that, the tie's not worth much for either holding gauge or maintaining the track surface, especially the cross-level.
- PDN.
Even if the ties are not breaking, being center bound can result in wide guage under the train. That is no longer the case, of course, when checked on the ground since the ties have rebounded. It caused some puzzlement when the track evaluation car's exception reports could not be verified, until the reason was identified. A major ballast program is in order, maybe with undercutting.
FRA's gauge restraint car certainly can find it. (had seen that first hand when it first came out and before the Class 1's adopted the technology)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.