hank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John West Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Interesting at least to me to compare the track
> in
> > Rio Grande days and the new ballasted track.
> From
> > what I have been told, the DRGW's bare tie ends
> > are how you wanted dirt ballast to look, since
> the
> > dirt was more more or less impervious and the
> > slope allowed water to drain to either side.
> With
> > crushed rock ballast the water can drain
> through
> > the rock so you cover the tie ends to help hold
> > the track in place. Or something like that.
> But
> > certainly a dramatic difference.
>
> I've heard, and seen photos that seem to prove it,
> that on a lot of roads it was common to leave the
> ends of the ties uncovered even with crushed rock
> up into the 1950's. Heavier loads and CWR putting
> more stress on led to the modern practice.
> hank
I don't know or care much about track, but I understand that now days, it is a Federal defect to not have the ties buried to "full crib", i.e. buried to flush with the tie's top surface on all four sides.