Railroad ties as Piers

Cyric30 · February 13, 2008, 08:46:39 AM

Hello All

I went buy and talked to a Relative of mine the other day and told him of my plans to build a house on a P&P foundation (he is in his 70s now and has done construction work most of his life so hes not new to this:)) i asked him if he new where i could get some 6x6 foundation grade posts, he sayed he was sure about that. then asked me why i dont use treated railroad ties instead (no codes here BW), i hadent thought of that yet, so i wanted to ask some of you guys what you though about it.?
he mentioned that he had seen houses done that way and as far as he new the would most likly outlive me before they rotted...so what do you think guys.?

MikeT · February 13, 2008, 09:33:27 AM

The creosote in the RR ties would be the thing that would concern me.

February 13, 2008, 09:35:41 AM

To expand on that concern, I found this site:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts85.html#bookmark05

glenn kangiser · February 13, 2008, 09:47:54 AM

One thing you might think of -- as I have used RR ties in different places is that if the sun hits them the creosote will turn to liquid and give off a lot of smell. I used creosote treated timbers in my garage and while not strong the smell is noticeable.

A miner friend said the could not use them in the mine due to off gassing being pretty bad.

A tenant who used to work for the RR said the fumes of burning creosote could kill you -- I don't know in what quantity. While it's not the worst chemical in the world it's not the best either.

Cyric30 · February 13, 2008, 10:03:48 AM

Ok Question

Is Creosote any worse or better than the chemicals in other Treated lumbers.? especially those treated especially for below grade use.?
From a Enviromental, Health & Longevity standpoint.??

February 13, 2008, 10:25:29 AM

I would defer to the smell test that Glenn eluded to. PT lumber does not have an odor that can detect.

I think of creosote as a known carcinogen. I think the new PT has chemicals but perhaps not to the toxicity of RR ties.

mt

glenn kangiser · February 13, 2008, 10:29:31 AM

Hard telling -- they don't usually tell us until after 20 or more years and multiple deaths and cancers.

They need the time to make their profit.

Cyric30 · February 13, 2008, 10:38:30 AM

Glenn, true o so true

Willy · February 13, 2008, 11:16:11 AM

The cost savings is realy not that much over .60 retention treated wood. With railroad ties they are used and normaly cracked, rotted in areas ect that is why they were removed. They also have been in use for a long time. If you could get new ones that would be a different story in my opinion. Mark

February 13, 2008, 01:08:08 PM

When I sold my old cabin and the new owner moved it off my lot, I had the old original telephone poles left to dispose of. They were about 40 years old and creosoted sometime before they were installed. They were buried maybe as much as 6 feet in the ground, worse case, only 2 or 3 ft best case..as far as getting them out of the ground. I was amazed at how good they looked when I got them out. They showed very little deteriorization even at the 6 ft deep penetration. Above grade, the cresote was pretty much gone but, I had NO termite damage and that was a big surprise.
The bad thing about cresote, when I was a kid, we put in some cresote fence posts for a cattle holding pen. I was yound and foolish and was working without a shirt on, leather gloves only. This was back when you could buy new cresote posts so they had a lot of fresh cresote on them. Well, I managed to get some of that fresh cresote on the inside of my arms and on my sides and chest. If you have ever had that happen, you know that is not a fun thing to do.
It slowly starts to burn you. And it will burn you bad. I had scars for many years but, they finally went away. I can't recall now what it was my dad washed me down with to help neutralize the cresote but, it didn't work very well and it taught me to keep away from cresote.
Okie Bob

Cyric30 · February 13, 2008, 04:16:33 PM

Ok nother Question.

.60 treated post with Tar around them up to 6 inch above grade, Safer than Creosote?

As you might have gathers i do not wish to replace theses :p

Redoverfarm · February 13, 2008, 04:42:34 PM

Think about it. If the railroad removed them it was for a reason.

They had already lived out their usefullness. If you are getting new ties then it might be a different story. I don't think you will have that much concentration or contamination where you are planning on putting them but I would stay away from used ties. Although they look perfectly good on the outside the inside is probably a different story. I don't think I would want to build my house on something that someone else has determined as unfit for use.

MountainDon · February 13, 2008, 06:07:00 PM

I'm not sure about tarring the PT timbers... I don't think it's necessary if the wood timber posts are treated to the in-ground or below ground level.

I also believe the wood will eventually end up saturated with water anyways... even more so because the tar will also slow down the passage of water from the wood to the ground. One way or another water will get into the wood. It may take a while but it will happen.

If you are interested in longevity why don't you consider either a concrete block pier, one block or greater above ground level, or poured concrete piers using Sonotubes? For certain they would outlive you and as long as you don't breath in any cement powder / silica while mixing there are no health issues.

ScottA · February 13, 2008, 07:31:34 PM

I've read that wraping a post with a band of copper at ground level will help keep it from rotting. The copper oxidation is toxic to wood eating organisms suposedly.

February 13, 2008, 08:14:06 PM

Probably some truth to that. After all ACQ (alkaline copper quaternary) is loaded with copper. But I'd trust the ACQ treated wood more than a band of copper metal.

ACQ: All ACQ types contain 2 active ingredients which may vary within the following limits: copper oxide (62%-71%), which is the primary fungicide and insecticide, and a quaternary ammonium compound (29%-38%), which provides additional fungicide and insect resistance properties.

* ACQ-A: Standardized by the American Wood-Preservers' Association (AWPA)1 in 1992 and deleted in 2000 due to a lack of use.
* ACQ-B: Standardized by the AWPA in 1992 and is primarily used for the treatment of western wood species such as Douglas fir because its ammonia carrier solution allows the ACQ to penetrate into these difficult-to-treat species. This formulation contains 66.7% copper oxide and 33.3% quat as didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC). ACQ-B treated wood has a dark greenish-brown color that fades to a lighter brown and may have a slight ammonia odor until dry.
* ACQ-C: Standardized by the AWPA in 2002, it contains 66.7% copper oxide and 33.3% quat as alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride (ADBAC). Ammonia and/or ethanolamine can be used as the carrying solution in this formulation. Wood treated with ACQ-C varies in color that ranges between that of type B and type D.
* ACQ-D: Most wood-treating plants in the US generally use the ACQ-D formulation except for much of the west coast. Standardized by the AWPA in 1995, ACQ-D contains 66.7% copper oxide and 33.3% quat as DDAC. Type D differs from type B in that it uses an ethanolamine carrier solution rather than ammonia. Wood treated with ACQ-D has a lighter greenish-brown color with little odor.