Size/grade of HO ballast?

[RobertInOntario]

I recently asked about this topic here (<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=257">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=257</a><!-- l -->) but now have a similar/related question ....

I've recently been having some success mixing different grades of ballast. I purchased a container of pink/beige coarse HO Woodland Scenics ballast and mixed it with my fine gray WS ballast and started applying it. I was immediately pleased with the results. I really liked how the coarse bits mixed in and stood out with the fine gray ballast -- I thought it looked very realistic.

Then I suddenly ran out of the fine grey ballast so I bought some medium grey ballast and mixed that with the coarse beige ballast. The mix was about 60-70% grey and 30-40 coarse beige. I realize that the best way to be authentic is not to be consistent as the colours and size/weight mix of ballast can change a lot even within one stretch of track.

As I said, I've been pleased with the results but just remembered one thing. A staff person at a LHS -- who is very experienced with scenery -- said he didn't like using HO ballast for HO layouts because the ballast in general was too large. He recommended using N scale ballast on HO layouts. Has anyone else found this or could comment on this?

Thanks,
Rob

[Russ Bellinis]

If you look at prototype ballast, I think most of the rock is probably about 3-5 inches in diameter. I ho scale, 3.5mm=1 foot. 3.5mm is just slightly bigger than 1/8 inch. If the ballast you are looking at has pieces 1/8 of an inch in diameter, that would be the equivalent of rocks 12 inches in diameter. If the rock is bigger than 1/16 inch in diameter in any direction it is oversize for ho.

[RobertInOntario]

If you look at prototype ballast, I think most of the rock is probably about 3-5 inches in diameter. I ho scale, 3.5mm=1 foot. 3.5mm is just slightly bigger than 1/8 inch. If the ballast you are looking at has pieces 1/8 of an inch in diameter, that would be the equivalent of rocks 12 inches in diameter. If the rock is bigger than 1/16 inch in diameter in any direction it is oversize for ho.

Thanks for these comparisons, Russ. I think my coarse ballast is only about 1.5 mm in diameter so I think I should be OK. I'll check it more carefully later. Rob

[Drew]

I always use a fine grade of ballast, whether I’m modeling in HO or N scale…

I think it comes from my days of modeling in N scale…The smaller the scale, the more of a challenge it becomes to keep things from appearing oversized…So I’ve always tried to err on the side of too small, rather than too large…

I think in HO scale you can get away with some of the larger grades of ballast, but I don’t think I’d use anything larger than a med. Grade, particularly if you’re using some of the finer scale track (code 83 or code 70 rail)

[nachoman]

Please post pics - I'd like to see how it looks :mrgreen:

I think ballast is one of those things that looks better if it is slightly oversized. Just like rivets. I think it is because our brains know it is there, and if we can't see it, it somehow looks "wrong". In other works, we know ballast is made up of individual rocks, but if we used scale sized ballast, things would look to smooth and somehow "wrong". I would never use anything larger than WS "medium" for HO. Blending medium and fine has given me the most success - the best of both worlds.

[Sumpter250]

Nachoman makes a good point. There's a fine line between "scale", and "realistic". In most all "detail", it should be as close to scale as possible, while still being visible.
Think of it this way, in almost all cases, (in HO) you are viewing the scene from over three hundred feet away (four actual feet), so, unless you are going to be taking macro photographs of the scene, the details will have to be slightly larger than scale to be perceived by the eye, in a way that agrees with what the brain is expecting, which is a view somewhat closer than three hundred feet.
If you ever have a chance to see a matte painting, used in motion pictures to change the background, you will see that "detail" is a case of overstated/understated, and almost never exact. Impressionistic. your eye is on the foreground, so it's not focussed on the background. You only sense the presence of background. Still photography, however, does not perceive, it records. in this case, scale accuracy is required, because the eye can look at all the detail.

[RobertInOntario]

Please post pics - I'd like to see how it looks :mrgreen:

I think ballast is one of those things that looks better if it is slightly oversized. Just like rivets. I think it is because our brains know it is there, and if we can't see it, it somehow looks "wrong". In other works, we know ballast is made up of individual rocks, but if we used scale sized ballast, things would look to smooth and somehow "wrong". I would never use anything larger than WS "medium" for HO. Blending medium and fine has given me the most success - the best of both worlds.

Thanks -- I'll try to post some pix over the next few days. Rob

[RobertInOntario]

Nachoman makes a good point. There's a fine line between "scale", and "realistic". In most all "detail", it should be as close to scale as possible, while still being visible.
Think of it this way, in almost all cases, (in HO) you are viewing the scene from over three hundred feet away (four actual feet), so, unless you are going to be taking macro photographs of the scene, the details will have to be slightly larger than scale to be perceived by the eye, in a way that agrees with what the brain is expecting, which is a view somewhat closer than three hundred feet.
If you ever have a chance to see a matte painting, used in motion pictures to change the background, you will see that "detail" is a case of overstated/understated, and almost never exact. Impressionistic. your eye is on the foreground, so it's not focussed on the background. You only sense the presence of background. Still photography, however, does not perceive, it records. in this case, scale accuracy is required, because the eye can look at all the detail.

I think that's why I like my recent results -- it's a little over-scale and therefore makes it clear to the eye that it's ballast.

[LynnB]

I agree with the lhs dude , through my experience I also found Ho ballast a bit out of scale but at the same time ok.

[BR60103]

When I was doing N scale I had some very fine ballast. When I applied it, I might just as well have used plaster as it seemed to have no texture at all.
When I was young and broke I used the material that washed off our shingles and landed in the eavestrough (for HO). That was probably too big even for O, but it satisfied me.

[foulrift]

I like the idea of blending medium and fine ballast. I have about 1/2 bottle of WS medium mixed gray ballast and a full bottle of the fine mixed gray.What would be a good proportion for mixing? Thanks-Bob

[LynnB]

I'm going to back peddle on my previous statement, I just used fine ballast on my new section and although it was easy to spread the finish seels too smooth.

[RobertInOntario]

I'm going to back peddle on my previous statement, I just used fine ballast on my new section and although it was easy to spread the finish seels too smooth.

I pretty much agree with this now. I recently saw an HO layout (at the above-mentioned LHS) and had a good look at the ballast which was N scale -- it certainly did appear overly smooth and fine. I think my mix of coarse and medium/fine HO ballast looks better. I still plan to post pics after I've used a bit more of it. Thanks, Rob

[RobertInOntario]

I like the idea of blending medium and fine ballast. I have about 1/2 bottle of WS medium mixed gray ballast and a full bottle of the fine mixed gray.What would be a good proportion for mixing? Thanks-Bob

Hi Bob,

So far, I'm finding that roughly a 70-30 mix looks good. That is, a 60-70% medium and 30-40% coarse. Perhaps you could start with that but that's only a suggestion.

Keep us posted.

Rob

[BR60103]

You might experiment on some hidden track to see what looks good. CN locally seems to have a mixture -- bigger chunks in the middle and fine at the edges but that was in a station.
I think that it may be laid as large chunks and get broken down over the years. I think ballast is one of those features that need to look right rather than be scale.