Retaining wall for RV pad.
Dan Listermann
floods, but I want a little extra insurance. I am going to make a raised
pad using railroad ties. All I need is about two feet high.It would be
easiest to fill in with gravel, but I am wondering if clean fill topped by
gravel would be better. I intend to make it about 16 feet wide and park the
RV in the middle until things seem to settle enough to move toward one side.
Any thoughts?
Ralph
You are planning to wrap the pad in ties, then fill, right? If you
rent a compactor and vibrate that gravel down.
Why not just drive the MH to high ground?
Advocate54
"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
news:387b6$49d0e511$4a53bf9f$22...@FUSE.NET...
If you are going to do all the work of creating an elevated pad, you should
use concrete blocks.
Jack Cassidy
"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
news:387b6$49d0e511$4a53bf9f$22...@FUSE.NET...
I wouldn't use clean fill and gravel. I would use either limerock or
pulverized concrete (road base) it is much more stable over time. Both are
used a lot here in Florida for driveways and roads and don't require great
amounts of maintenance. Don't put gravel over either one, just dump, level
with a blade and the longer it sits the harder it gets. you can even pave
over it if you want.
Jack Cassidy
Hunter Hampton
Hi Dan,
My first thought was do you plan to just leave it sitting there? If
so, wouldn't a trailer or fiver make more sense?
My second thought was railroad ties rot pretty fast.
Hunter
Elliot Richmond
wrote:
>I wouldn't use railroad ties...They rot and decompose, and rather quickly.
>If you are going to do all the work of creating an elevated pad, you should
>use concrete blocks.
Railroad ties when new are treated with a preservative such as
creosote (that black tarry goo). As railroad ties, they typically last
25 years or more. Then they are recycled. So the timbers that show up
in landscaping are often already several decades old. Still, I see
them widely used in landscaping and they seem to last a long time.
However, even the old ones continue to leach chemicals into the
ground, so it would not be a good idea to use them around, say, a
vegetable garden. I can't think of any reason, other than
environmental, why they would not work around a parking pad.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
Tom J
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:50:38 -0500, "Advocate54"
> <lla...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't use railroad ties...They rot and decompose, and rather
>> quickly. If you are going to do all the work of creating an
>> elevated
>> pad, you should use concrete blocks.
>
> Railroad ties when new are treated with a preservative such as
> creosote (that black tarry goo). As railroad ties, they typically
> last
> 25 years or more. Then they are recycled.
When they are on the railroad bed, they are not in contact with soil,
but sitting on , and surrounded by gravel. When in contact with soil,
they do decompose rather rapidly, or at least those I tried did.
Never again!!
Tom J
Dan Listermann
"Ralph" <n7...@callsign.net> wrote in message
news:432881b5-7444-4764...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The pad would be an elevation of a drive way that drops down about 6 feet.
The ties would be on either side of the drive and make a plateau before the
final drop.
"Why not just drive the MH to high ground?"
We have a space for that, but it is not a place where we would want to keep
it very long.
The compactor is a good idea, thanks.
Dan Listermann
"Jack Cassidy" <Jaca...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:49d1023e$0$17053$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
I have a parking lot made of pulverized concrete. It is as hard as the real
thing.
Dan Listermann
"Hunter Hampton" <airstrea...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:o012t4dpf7hmh7a10...@4ax.com...
We intend to take the motorhome on the road when we can.
>
> My second thought was railroad ties rot pretty fast.
If they did, they would be cheap and easy to replace.
William Boyd
distillate by-product of coal tar…. Coal-tar creosote is the most
widely used wood preservative in the United States. However, The
International Agency for Research on Cancer has determined that
creosote is probably carcinogenic to humans and the EPA has declared
it a "restricted use pesticide".
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/238256.html
If you are going two feet high, I would go with the concrete block wall,
but you really need a concrete footing for them.
--
BILL P.
&
DOG
JD
wrote:
>I wouldn't use railroad ties...They rot and decompose, and rather quickly.
>If you are going to do all the work of creating an elevated pad, you should
>use concrete blocks.
I used 'used' RR ties for a border in my yard. Some were more than 50
YO based on dates stamped on them by the RR Co. They showed NO signs
of deterioration at all.
--
"It is usually futile to try to talk facts and
analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of
moral superiority in their ignorance."
Dr Thomas Sowell.
$$$$$$$$$%%
Yours truly, Johnny Dollar!
D. Arlington
"Elliot Richmond" <xmric...@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in message
news:jd12t4lfdio7rd207...@4ax.com...
> However, even the old ones continue to leach chemicals into the
> ground, so it would not be a good idea to use them around, say, a
> vegetable garden. I can't think of any reason, other than
> environmental, why they would not work around a parking pad.
I wouldn't want them around children or pets either.
Frog Britches
roadbed to allow the water to drain away. That is the reason you see
machines loosening the gravel from time to time. The creosote will leach
out, even then, over time. In contact with damp soil they may not last
too long, especially at stress points, knots etc.
If this is on a river bank close to water table your pad may not be very
level for long if there is weight of fill or rv or whatever. If it is is
a flood way they won't let you build it, or at least they wouldn't use
to. One flood will/might take it out.
Bruce S
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:50:38 -0500, "Advocate54" <lla...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't use railroad ties...They rot and decompose, and rather
>> quickly. If you are going to do all the work of creating an elevated
>> pad, you should use concrete blocks.
>
> I used 'used' RR ties for a border in my yard. Some were more than 50
> YO based on dates stamped on them by the RR Co. They showed NO signs
> of deterioration at all.
That's true, but you will see a lot less wood rot in the desert than you
will where ever Listerman is parked by the river.
Bruce
nothermark
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
1. What about the molded concrete version of the rr tie I see along
the highways. They are kind of like a big concrete Lincoln log.
As I think about it what are the local retaining walls made of.
Whatever the highway department uses is probably available and
reasonable.
2. Depending on what is available bank run gravel with a lot of stone
in it may be the cheapest answer and will work. Around here its a
tossup between that and crushed stone but the quarries are nearby. If
you do crushed stone put mostly as big as you can handle then top with
finer stuff.
3. Build a crib, line it with filter cloth then fill with whatever
and tamp.
Calif Bill
"Tom J" <tom...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FLWdnSSfOojLk0zU...@earthlink.com...
I have a railroad tie retaining wall about 2 rails high. going to replace
this summer. They are in contact with the dirt and were here when I moved
in 30 years ago. They are now rotten in the center of a couple of them, but
I would not agree they decompose quickly.
Tom J
I guess it depends on where you live?? I live in the SE where we get
rain almost weekly most years, so things stay wet/damp all year & wood
rots.
Tom J
William Boyd
Columbus MS. Moss Tie, was closed down by EPA just after it was sold to
a major oil company. A cleanup project was launched that nearly bankrupt
the oil company.
Here is some information you should review.
http://www.gardensimply.com/articles/mainten/ma24.shtml
JD
<bmcke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>
>I have a railroad tie retaining wall about 2 rails high. going to replace
>this summer. They are in contact with the dirt and were here when I moved
>in 30 years ago. They are now rotten in the center of a couple of them, but
>I would not agree they decompose quickly.
>
The only problem we had with the 220 we used for border/retaining
purposes was they were home to a large number of scorpions. Yuchhh.
We were unaware of their attractiveness. In fact the pest control
guys never mentioned it. Hmmm, I wunner y?
<G>
JD
wrote:
>I wouldn't want them around children or pets either.
How the hell did I survive my childhood? I played in the streets. I
ran around in fields with cattle, sheep, hogs, etc. and that green
-brown slimy stuff we got on our hands and feet wasn't fairy dust.
Our house was painted/slathered with lead based paint. I had a bottle
of, shudder, MERCURY and rubbed it on pennies so's we could try to
pass them for dimes.
We fought with our school chums and our folks stayed out of it. The
occasional split lip was forgotten when we put our arms around each
other and continued playing baseball.
When outside we never wore a shirt. From 50 deg up to 110 deg, bare
backed and out from 7AM to 7PM. I never heard of sun screen. And
don't use it now. When I registered for the draft in 1957, the lady
looked at me and asked, "Are you white?"
We got by without cell phones and knew to be home by supper time.
(defined as 10 minutes after Dad got home from work).
TV channels were on from 3PM 'til 10:30 (after the news). The only
shows we watched were Lucy, YourShow of Shows and wrestling. Yukon
Eric was my fave. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mss3L0M8b2U
OH, "Your Hit Parade" I was in love with Judy Collins.
And I LOVE the smell of creosote.
William Boyd
Our life expectantly increases with environment improvements.
The mainstream view on the future of longevity, such as the US Census
Bureau, is that life expectancy in the United States will be in the mid
80s by 2050 (up from 77.85 in 2006) and will top out eventually in the
low 90s, barring major scientific advances that can change the rate of
human aging itself, as opposed to merely treating the effects of aging
as is done today. The Census Bureau also predicted that the United
States would have 5.3 million people aged over 100 in 2100.[citation
needed] The United Nations has also made projections far out into the
future, up to 2300, where it projects that in 2300 life expectancies in
most developed countries will be between 100 and 106 years, and still
rising, though more and more slowly than before. However, these
projections also show that life expectancies in poor countries will
still be less than in rich countries in 2300, in some cases by as much
as 20 years, and the UN itself mentioned that gaps in life expectancy so
far in the future will likely not exist, especially since the exchange
of technology between rich and poor countries and the industrialization
and development of poor countries will cause their life expectancies to
fully converge with those of rich countries long before that point,
similarly to how life expectancies between rich and poor countries have
already been converging over the last 60 years as better medicine,
technology, and living conditions became accessible to many people in
poor countries. The UN has warned that these projections are uncertain,
and caution that any change or advancement in medical technology could
invalidate their projections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity
Then as the time passes we tend to increase life expectancy.
I think because we provide a safer environment.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
JD
I have seen the results of our 'increased' longevity. My late MIL
lived to be 97. The last 20 years she was curled into a fetal
position, unable to talk or take care of herself. She was a complete
veg. and I doubt she had any real brain function. We couldn't tell,
nor could her caregivers.
The Nursing Home costs were in excess of $3000/mo. and that is money
she wanted to give to her kids/grandkids on her death. I am almost
certain she would much rather have been left to die than the painful
end she actually had.
If we are to lengthen lifespan, lets add a decade between 29 and 30.
Robert Bonomi
"better" is a matter of personal taste. <grin>
If you can find it, limestone chips ("*unwashed*, 3/4" and smaller") is far
better than gravel for the surface treatment. Given some time, it will pack
down into a surface nearly as hard/solid as concrete. And as _durable_.
Ideally, you'd do several inches of rock on the top, several inches of sand
below that, and the bottom 6-8 inches really "doesn't matter", earth fill is
fine.
*don't* fill the whole thing at once -- put in a few inches of dirt, run a
compactor over it, add some more, and repeat as needed. Then add the sand,
and compact it. then add the limestone.