Rivermead Central

[Masbury]

Hello Martin,

I have read with interest that you were not planning to ballast your railway (post 233, dated 16 January, 2025). To my mind this is a good decision!
Gilbert Thomas did in fact try some experimental ballasting, and the results may be seen in the photographs in Plate V, opposite page 64 in 'Paddington to Seagood'. Elsewhere (ibid., pages 115 - 116), Mr Thomas writes:

'Some day, we promise ourselves, we will ballast the track! A little temporary and experimental ballasting of one section was, indeed, carried out some years ago. It may be seen in the photograph of the "country" station, and[,] though it was not so neatly finished as the permanent thing would be, the illustration will sufficiently show the improved appearance which ballasting produces. Nevertheless, the ballasting of a complicated system is a big (and sticky!) job, and so far we have shirked it'.

It would seem that Gilbert Thomas did not proceed any further with the idea, and perhaps this was just as well. And, as you say, it does look as though ballast was not applied to the Sherwood Section (a line which no-one would call unrailwaylike!). For Gauge 0, ballast would need to be very finely graded, and, if laid 'loose', would be likely to spread everywhere. If glued with PVA or with a similar fixative, the ballast would make it difficult and messy to lift and/or to alter the track itself. Personally I feel that on a vintage layout the unadorned track, such as 'Lowko' or small scale permanent way, has an appeal of its own.

John

 

[40057]

Hello Martin,

I have read with interest that you were not planning to ballast your railway (post 233, dated 16 January, 2025). To my mind this is a good decision!
Gilbert Thomas did in fact try some experimental ballasting, and the results may be seen in the photographs in Plate V, opposite page 64 in 'Paddington to Seagood'. Elsewhere (ibid., pages 115 - 116), Mr Thomas writes:

'Some day, we promise ourselves, we will ballast the track! A little temporary and experimental ballasting of one section was, indeed, carried out some years ago. It may be seen in the photograph of the "country" station, and[,] though it was not so neatly finished as the permanent thing would be, the illustration will sufficiently show the improved appearance which ballasting produces. Nevertheless, the ballasting of a complicated system is a big (and sticky!) job, and so far we have shirked it'.

It would seem that Gilbert Thomas did not proceed any further with the idea, and perhaps this was just as well. And, as you say, it does look as though ballast was not applied to the Sherwood Section (a line which no-one would call unrailwaylike!). For Gauge 0, ballast would need to be very finely graded, and, if laid 'loose', would be likely to spread everywhere. If glued with PVA or with a similar fixative, the ballast would make it difficult and messy to lift and/or to alter the track itself. Personally I feel that on a vintage layout the unadorned track, such as 'Lowko' or small scale permanent way, has an appeal of its own.

John

Hi John

There has never been any intention to ballast the layout. Hence, I have painted the base-boards, fixed the track battens with black or countersunk slotted screws — all on the assumption of full visibility.

As you say, the vintage track has an appeal of its own. Many period layouts were not ballasted. So I see no need to add ballast. Practically, it would be a lot of work. Gluing ballast in place would damage the track panels and make alterations or lifting for repairs a nightmare. Loose ballast would be a source of fines to get stuck in oil and damage motors.

So general ballasting is out.

I have considered some limited applications of ballast where, for example, having the ground level nearly three scale feet below the rail top would make posed scenes (e.g. unloading a wagon) look daft. I have thought of a way of adding removable ballast. The material I would use is shown in post #154. The idea is piece of card or thin plywood the width of the gap between the sleepers and the the same length as the sleepers. Cover this in the fruit stone ballast, glued in place and painted. Then slide the card/plywood ballast insert between adjacent sleepers. No need to fix it down.

I do intend to try this idea.

There is no question of doing the whole layout. Unthinkable.

Martin

 

[Roger Pound]

As someone who has found ballasting a real drag in the past - it is next only to wiring in my least favourite aspects of railway modelling - I would agree for all the reasons stated in post #1082 above for not ballasting BL track and also applaud the fact that it is one less unwelcome task to tackle! In any case, I would contend that adding ballast would spoil the effect you are trying to create with Rivermead Central of reflkecting a Basset Lowke system as originally supplied those many years ago.

Roger

 

[Masbury]

Hello Martin,

Thank you. I am pleased that you and I - and Roger - are on the same wavelength here - and you have a plan to deal with the 'special case' described in post #154. I have also today remembered 'Birkonian's Model Railway', which was described in two articles which appeared in the Model Railway News, I believe in 1947. This was a wonderfully and wildly ambitious '0' gauge railway which included representations of Euston, Stafford, Chester, and, yet further, Holyhead and Elvanfoot (the latter in the Upper Clyde Valley). None of this ensemble was ballasted, and I seem to recall that the author commented that in reality the absence of ballast was not so evident as it appeared to be in the photographs which accompanied the articles. Bravo battened track!

 

[40057]

Hello Martin,

Thank you. I am pleased that you and I - and Roger - are on the same wavelength here - and you have a plan to deal with the 'special case' described in post #154. I have also today remembered 'Birkonian's Model Railway', which was described in two articles which appeared in the Model Railway News, I believe in 1947. This was a wonderfully and wildly ambitious '0' gauge railway which included representations of Euston, Stafford, Chester, and, yet further, Holyhead and Elvanfoot (the latter in the Upper Clyde Valley). None of this ensemble was ballasted, and I seem to recall that the author commented that in reality the absence of ballast was not so evident as it appeared to be in the photographs which accompanied the articles. Bravo battened track!

I find it very interesting how perceptions of realism and purpose have changed amongst model railway builders. Euston to Holyhead and Scotland. Absurd foreshortening. Presumably not one siding or station platform anywhere near scale length. Yet a realism in that the model railway replicates the central purpose of the real thing. It goes from ‘A’ to ‘B’. Trains can be worked. Now we have layouts of minute accuracy that portray one or two sidings. It looks very real, but you can’t run ‘The Irish Mail’.

The assumption that a model railway portrayed a route or line, or at least went from somewhere to somewhere else, was clearly quite usual pre-WW2. I can’t recall the exact wording, but when Bassett-Lowke added GNR pattern somersault signals to its tinplate range, the catalogue suggested ‘a model every model railway owner will want to have on the GN section of his model railway.’

How many modern layouts have a GN section?

Martin