ABSTRACT
Under cycle rail loading ballast is constantly degrading and thus requires periodical recovery. The commonly used method of rail track recovery – ballast tamping – possesses numerous shortcomings, which lead to high costs of track maintenance. Stoneblowing was suggested as an alternative technique of track level adjustment, free of tamping disadvantages. Unfortunately, application of this prospective technique still remains limited. This paper is focused on comparative study of tamping and stoneblowing techniques conducted by means of 1g physical modelling of recovered ballast. The difference in contamination levels and transverse resistance of railway track panel after different surfacing procedures. Conducted laboratory tests demonstrate that ballast, adjusted by stoneblowing, showed better mechanical characteristics in comparison to ballast adjusted by tamping.
