Landscaping timbers -- life expectancy?

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
> Our railroad-tie retaining walls are collapsing after who-knows-how-many
> years (here when we bought the house).
>
> Other than buying replacement used railroad ties (most of which look
> pretty bad already), I see two options:
>
> 1. a block wall. Should last a long time, but labor intensive to build.
>
> 2. a wall made not of railroad ties but of 6"x6"x8' landscaping timbers
> (thus almost the same size as the RR ties they are replacing). The ones
> I see advertised at present are described as "treated for non-structural
> use" and have a 1-year warranty. Anybody used such things? How well do
> they last in practice?

Don't know for the specific ones you're talking about, but depends on
what they're made of (type of timber) and treatment. IME, most of the
landscape treatments now are basically worthless and if they're just
whitewood the 1-yr "warranty" is telling.

Decent ties will last another 20 years otoh...but they're much more
expensive.

--

On 07/13/08 07:04 pm dpb wrote:

>> Our railroad-tie retaining walls are collapsing after
>> who-knows-how-many years (here when we bought the house).
>>
>> Other than buying replacement used railroad ties (most of which look
>> pretty bad already), I see two options:
>>
>> 1. a block wall. Should last a long time, but labor intensive to build.
>>
>> 2. a wall made not of railroad ties but of 6"x6"x8' landscaping
>> timbers (thus almost the same size as the RR ties they are replacing).
>> The ones I see advertised at present are described as "treated for
>> non-structural use" and have a 1-year warranty. Anybody used such
>> things? How well do they last in practice?

> Don't know for the specific ones you're talking about, but depends on
> what they're made of (type of timber) and treatment. IME, most of the
> landscape treatments now are basically worthless and if they're just
> whitewood the 1-yr "warranty" is telling.
>
> Decent ties will last another 20 years otoh...but they're much more
> expensive.


"Decent" is no doubt the crucial term: the used ties currently
advertised here are one-third the price of the landscape timbers -- at
Menards (Midwest chain).

Perce

On Jul 13, 4:10 pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/13/08 07:04 pm dpb wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Our railroad-tie retaining walls are collapsing after
> >> who-knows-how-many years (here when we bought the house).
>
> >> Other than buying replacement used railroad ties (most of which look
> >> pretty bad already), I see two options:
>
> >> 1. a block wall. Should last a long time, but labor intensive to build.
>
> >> 2. a wall made not of railroad ties but of 6"x6"x8' landscaping
> >> timbers (thus almost the same size as the RR ties they are replacing).
> >> The ones I see advertised at present are described as "treated for
> >> non-structural use" and have a 1-year warranty. Anybody used such
> >> things? How well do they last in practice?
> > Don't know for the specific ones you're talking about, but depends on
> > what they're made of (type of timber) and treatment.  IME, most of the
> > landscape treatments now are basically worthless and if they're just
> > whitewood the 1-yr "warranty" is telling.
>
> > Decent ties will last another 20 years otoh...but they're much more
> > expensive.
>
> "Decent" is no doubt the crucial term: the used ties currently
> advertised here are one-third the price of the landscape timbers -- at
> Menards (Midwest chain).
>
> Perce


About 30 years ago my brother in law worked for a company that bought
& sold raliroad ties.

"used" ties vary a lot in condition but there is a classification
system

this link is a pretty good one

http://www.akrailroad.com/OnlineCatalog/Products/RailroadTies/tabid/61/Default.aspx

the best used ties are "re-lays", that is, ones good enough for
railroad reuse. They will be expensive.

If you cut the ties, the cut ends might expose untreated wood. If you
want the ties to last you'll have to treat these cut ends. The best
way is to stand ties on end in a container such that the end grain
will wick up the treatment.

If you're thinking about using ties, go to a supplier that deals in
ties as normal part of their business.....buying from a retail outlet
would be a poor second choice.

Per DPB comments, "landscape timbers" are prety much worthless. If
you're thinking about using treated timber, there are specs for
"ground contact" treatment levels & if my memory serves me, the
treatment retention levels are 3x or 4x+ the treatment level of the
crap that passes for treated timber at Home Depot.

cheers
Bob

The other posters all made good points but the question of tiebacks has not
been addressed. Almost all retaining walls need some sort of tieback into
the soil being supported to prevent the wall from collapsing outwards.
Tiebacks are labour intensive to install. Will this make the project more
than you had in mind or change the material being considered?

Perhaps you should Google "retaining walls" to learn more about all of the
issues. Material is actually the least of the concerns. If the wall is more
than a few feet high or close to expensive things it could also be a safety
issue and the building inspection department will get involved.

On Jul 15, 9:55�am, Reno <[email protected]> wrote:
> The other posters all made good points but the question of tiebacks has not
> been addressed. Almost all retaining walls need some sort of tieback into
> the soil being supported to prevent the wall from collapsing outwards.
> Tiebacks are labour intensive to install. Will this make the project more
> than you had in mind or change the material being considered?
>
> Perhaps you should Google "retaining walls" to learn more about all of the
> issues. Material is actually the least of the concerns. If the wall is more
> than a few feet high or close to expensive things it could also be a safety
> issue and the building inspection department will get involved.

the best wall is no wall, slope the grade to the angle of natural
repose, and plant ground cover.

every wall fails sooner or later.

except mine that i removed:)

On Jul 15, 7:07 am, "hall...@aol.com" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 9:55�am, Reno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The other posters all made good points but the question of tiebacks has not
> > been addressed. Almost all retaining walls need some sort of tieback into
> > the soil being supported to prevent the wall from collapsing outwards.
> > Tiebacks are labour intensive to install. Will this make the project more
> > than you had in mind or change the material being considered?
>
> > Perhaps you should Google "retaining walls" to learn more about all of the
> > issues. Material is actually the least of the concerns. If the wall is more
> > than a few feet high or close to expensive things it could also be a safety
> > issue and the building inspection department will get involved.
>
> the best wall is no wall, slope the grade to the angle of natural
> repose, and plant ground cover.
>
> every wall fails sooner or later.
>
> except mine that i removed:)

HB-

Why do you continue to post this nonsense about walls?

"every wall fails sooner or later."

I suppose this might be true if you consider "later" in terms of
"geologic time"

or code minimum designed walls subjected to high ground accelerations
(earthquakes) or high winds

but going beyond the code minimums will give you a pretty high
probably of the wall outlasting the owner or builder.

I personally have been involved in the design & construction of a few
walls (some even before I knew how to design them)

none of them have "failed".....yeah I've seen a lot of walls that have
failed but probably 100x as many that have not.

My "seat of pants walls" are over 40 years old & still standing (one
is a retaining wall)

my designed walls will last much longer,

The "wall / fence" that I took down & replaced did indeed "fail" at
least according to my standards ...
Poor design, stucco over wood frame on a heavy concrete foundation,
termites destroyed the wood framing but the stucco held up.

When I finally had torn down it was 78 years old and I really could
have probably repaired / rebuilt it to last another 50.
But instead I chose to replace it with this wall

8" block with #5's @24" on a 14" x 34" deep footing, #5's top &
bottom; all cells grouted with 3000psi min

so I guess this wall will fail, but I doubt anyone on this newsgroup
will live to see it happen
maybe my grandchildren might but I doubt it

So please stop this "every wall fails sooner or later" nonsense, it
just isn't true.

cheers
Bob