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?

Perce

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" 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/OnlineCata...1/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

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:57:54 -0400, "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?

Perce


My landscaping timbers are 18 years old and still holding. I didn't
expect them to last this long. The rug juniper has spread and its
roots are holding the hillside from erosion, so the timbers are not
all that important.

Phisherman wrote:
....
My landscaping timbers are 18 years old and still holding. ...

That's old enough they were undoubtedly creosote or similarly treated
and a suitable species.

Most that is sold at the box stores and such these days isn't either...

--

On Jul 14, 8:33*am, dpb wrote:
Phisherman wrote:

...

My landscaping timbers are 18 years old and still holding. *...

That's old enough they were undoubtedly creosote or similarly treated
and a suitable species.

Most that is sold at the box stores and such these days isn't either...

--


In my experience, you can get 10 to 20 years with treated lumber used
for landscape applications. But that was with the old treatment.
With the new environmentally friendlier ones, I haven't seen any
indicators of how long they will last.

But, I would not use lumber for a retaining wall. Go to a supplier
of pavers and similar material. They have interlocking blocks that
will not only last many times longer than wood, but are also more
attractive. They come in a variety of shapes, colors, etc. Anchor
is one company here in NJ that you can probably find online to look at.

wrote:
....
In my experience, you can get 10 to 20 years with treated lumber used
for landscape applications. But that was with the old treatment.
With the new environmentally friendlier ones, I haven't seen any
indicators of how long they will last.
....

The new treated line posts here even in a dry area w/o much insect
problem aren't lasting even 10 years often where untreated bodark (osage
orange) or black locust are often 50 or more--I've a pasture that just
now is starting to need significant numbers of them replaced that was
last fenced in the late 20s or early 30s...

Ties in the feedlot which is a very hostile usage are about 40 now and
only replaced a dozen or so out of at least a couple hundred...

New treatments of any sort I've seen available at BORGS, etc., are
simply ineffective imo. We can still get creosote-treated line posts at
local farm supply, but they're being shipped in from Canada. I've not
seen them at any retail outlet; whether there's some restriction for
consumer use or relaxation for farm use I don't know...

--

In article ,
"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?

Perce

"Retaining wall" is one of my trigger phrases. Please understand that a
retaining wall and a decorative dividing wall are two different things.

If it's *really* a retaining wall, it doesn't matter if you build it out
of solid unobtainium - it will collapse when the dirt moves (and the
dirt *will* move) - unless it's built on an engineered foundation. Yep,
a genuine below-grade foundation. Maybe four feet deep, maybe twenty
feet deep and six feet thick. Depends totally on your individual
situation.

I'd suggest you hire a landscape architect before you do anything. He,
or she, will give you a realistic assessment of your current situation,
and a reasonable set of alternative approaches to dealing with whatever
is really happening there.

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 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 14, 1:25*pm, dpb wrote:
dpb wrote:
*...

I should add that most stuff like these posts I see at the Tractor
Supply or similar are various unspecified pine/larch/whatever where the
species is basically trash wood for anything else and generally unfit
for the purpose. *That's as important as the treatment, probably and
combined makes for a product that's simply not worth taking home and the
effort to put it in the ground even if it were given away...

--

IIRC, a large percentage of landscape timbers come from residue from
the plywood industry. Pine logs are peeled for veneer and the
remaining core is then sold as a landscape timber. As you said, trash.

Red

Red wrote:
....
IIRC, a large percentage of landscape timbers come from residue from
the plywood industry. Pine logs are peeled for veneer and the
remaining core is then sold as a landscape timber. As you said, trash.

Probably right although I hadn't made that connection...makes sense from
the supplier end economics even though it's an essentially worthless
product for the end user.

Only thing that would make me wonder is that absolutely no fir shows up
in these but perhaps there's a better market for those particular cores
that would be better post material as well. There's not even any yellow
pine; it's all just the really soft "white wood" spruce/larch/etc. that
has virtually no natural rot resistance so of course the first thought
is "let's make fence posts/landscape timbers out of it".

The Canadian imported creosote-treated is, otoh, actual small stuff that
still shows the branch, etc., (that is, they're not turned and therefore
totally symmetrically round, etc.) and are mostly fir. I'm pretty sure
they are salvage "twigs" that used to be simply left.

--

On Jul 15, 7:07Â*am, " wrote:
On Jul 15, 9:55�am, Reno 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

On Jul 16, 12:47Â*am, BobK207 wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:07Â*am, " wrote:





On Jul 15, 9:55�am, Reno 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" Â*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 Â*"every wall fails sooner or later" nonsense, Â*it
just isn't true.

cheers
Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

everyone I know who has a wall is either rebuilding it, just rebuilt
it, or its looking bad. perhaps its pittsburghs freezing weather?

currently i have 2 walls, the longer rock wall has been rebuilt 3
times since 1972. its starting to move again, its next move is hauled
out of here.

few will be willing to spend the bucks for a proper footer, and heavy
construction necessary for a long lasting wall. any wall with wood is
a waste of effort, heck even creosote timbers fail eventually.

I helped tear out a really well constucted 50 year old wall, with 5
foot deep footers it still failed.

we chipped the top of the footer off and let grass cover it.

I stand by all walls fail.

as a test how many older walls in your neighborhood still look good?

wrote:

few will be willing to spend the bucks for a proper footer, and heavy
construction necessary for a long lasting wall. any wall with wood is
a waste of effort, heck even creosote timbers fail eventually.

I helped tear out a really well constucted 50 year old wall, with 5
foot deep footers it still failed.

we chipped the top of the footer off and let grass cover it.

I stand by all walls fail.

as a test how many older walls in your neighborhood still look good?

Well, not in my neighborhood exactly...

* The "Wailing Wall" in Jerusalem is a little over 2,000 years old.
* The Great Wall of China is even older.

On Jul 16, 7:19Â*am, " wrote:
On Jul 16, 12:47Â*am, BobK207 wrote:



On Jul 15, 7:07Â*am, " wrote:

On Jul 15, 9:55�am, Reno 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" Â*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 Â*"every wall fails sooner or later" nonsense, Â*it
just isn't true.

cheers
Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

everyone I know who has a wall is either rebuilding it, just rebuilt
it, or its looking bad. perhaps its pittsburghs freezing weather?

currently i have 2 walls, the longer rock wall has been rebuilt 3
times since 1972. its starting to move again, its next move is hauled
out of here.

few will be willing to spend the bucks for a proper footer, and heavy
construction necessary for a long lasting wall. any wall with wood is
a waste of effort, heck even creosote timbers fail eventually.



we chipped the top of the footer off and let grass cover it.

I stand by all walls fail.

as a test how many older walls in your neighborhood still look good?

I stand by all walls fail.
as a test how many older walls in your neighborhood still look good?


I guess we should just close all the engineering schools (at least the
CE depts) & give up?

The side yard walls at my parent's home (1959) iare still fine...
built with rebar per my dad's spec. Very minimal by today's
standards but enough to kept it working.

The back yard wall "failed" after only a year....oops!
The builder graded 3' of dirt up against a simple 6" slump stone bock
wall.
It was replaced by an 8" fully grouted proper retaining wall & the
slump stone wall rebuilt as a facade......both still standing (1960)

As for other walls in the area, they're doing pretty good.

I helped tear out a really well constructed 50 year old wall, with 5
foot deep footers it still failed.

sounds like an oxymoron .... a "really well constructed 50 year old
wall" should not fail

It may have been constructed well but was it designed well?

but otoh what was the design life? If your car wears out after 15
years do you consider it a POS or did you get 5 more years than
expected?

It's all about design life & life cycle cost

Properly designed & constructed walls should easily serve out their
design life.


cheers
Bob
I

On Jul 16, 8:09*am, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:28:34 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:



wrote:

few will be willing to spend the bucks for a proper footer, and heavy
construction necessary for a long lasting wall. any wall with wood is
a waste of effort, heck even creosote timbers fail eventually.

I helped tear out a really well constucted 50 year old wall, with 5
foot deep footers it still failed.

we chipped the top of the footer off and let grass cover it.

I stand by all walls fail.

as a test how many older walls in your neighborhood still look good?

Well, not in my neighborhood exactly...

* The "Wailing Wall" in Jerusalem is a little over 2,000 years old.
* The Great Wall of China is even older.

Freeze/thaw cycles?

Freeze / thaw cycles are challenging to deal with but it is done all
the time.
I am not a freeze / thaw design expert but they do exist.

cheers
Bob

On Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 6:57:54 PM UTC-4, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
Our railroad-tie retaining walls are collapsing after who-knows-how-many
years (here
they last in practice?

Perce

I recently made a trip to Los Angeles to see my daughter and her backyard was on about a 45 degree slope. It was torture to try to keep mowed and so she decided she wanted me to help her make stepped beds where she could use that land to grow her own vegetables, fruit trees and such. She'd already been to Home Depot and bought some of those cheap landscape timbers, the kind she thought were made of redwood but I assured her that they weren't. Anyhow, she had them stacked up on top of each other with a 3/8" rebar to hold them in place. I told her that I hated to hurt her feelings but that we'd have to tear out what she had done and start all over. She didn't really care since she was getting free labor.

So, we took down the first wall and I went to Home Depot and cut 10' sections of 5/8" rebar in half (5') and then drilled a hole with a new bit we had purchased at the end of each 8' long section of timber. Then I drove down to about 30" each of those rebars to hold them in place.

Next row I staggered the timbers so that I had a 4' section on each end with a 8' timber in the middles. This required that I drilled a new hole thru one end of each 4' section and on thru the first timbers thus glad I bought a drill bit that was about 24" long. Same thing with the next 8' long timber on the second row. Had to drill thru it and the timber up under it. Since there was already a rebar in the way I simply put the timber along beside the one that was already there and made a mark where to drill the existing rebar and did. When I was done all the way across there was 10 rebars for my 24' (3 timber) wall. We made it about 6 timbers tall and when we got them all on the rebars then I drove the rebars flush with the tops of the timbers and it's there for a good while. My only regret is I wish we would have used pressure treated landscape timbers instead of that stuff my daughter bought. In my experience, Yellow Wood sux but the kind of pressure treated lumber you can buy at Lowe's is great stuff. You can literally bury a piece of it for years and dig it up and clean it off and use it again. Only problem with their pressure treated is you need to put a proper sealer on it, otherwise it will start splintering and splitting and won't last too long because of that. Good luck!

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:46:57 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 6:57:54 PM UTC-4, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
Our railroad-tie retaining walls are collapsing after who-knows-how-many
years (here
they last in practice?

Perce

I recently made a trip to Los Angeles to see my daughter and her backyard was on about a 45 degree slope. It was torture to try to keep mowed and so she decided she wanted me to help her make stepped beds where she could use that land to grow her own vegetables, fruit trees and such. She'd already been to Home Depot and bought some of those cheap landscape timbers, the kind she thought were made of redwood but I assured her that they weren't. Anyhow, she had them stacked up on top of each other with a 3/8" rebar to hold them in place. I told her that I hated to hurt her feelings but that we'd have to tear out what she had done and start all over. She didn't really care since she was getting free labor.

So, we took down the first wall and I went to Home Depot and cut 10' sections of 5/8" rebar in half (5') and then drilled a hole with a new bit we had purchased at the end of each 8' long section of timber. Then I drove down to about 30" each of those rebars to hold them in place.

Next row I staggered the timbers so that I had a 4' section on each end with a 8' timber in the middles. This required that I drilled a new hole thru one end of each 4' section and on thru the first timbers thus glad I bought a drill bit that was about 24" long. Same thing with the next 8' long timber on the second row. Had to drill thru it and the timber up under it. Since there was already a rebar in the way I simply put the timber along beside the one that was already there and made a mark where to drill the existing rebar and did. When I was done all the way across there was 10 rebars for my 24' (3 timber) wall. We made it about 6 timbers tall and when we got them all on the rebars then I drove the rebars flush with the tops of the timbers and it's there for a good while. My only regret is I wish we would have used pressure treated landscape timbers instead of that stuff my daughter bought. In my experience, Yellow Wood sux but the kind of pressure treated lumber you can buy at Lowe's is great stuff. You can literally bury a piece of it for years and dig it up and clean it off and use it again. Only problem with their pressure treated is you need to put a proper sealer on it, otherwise it will start splintering and splitting and won't last too long because of that. Good luck!

Unfortunately, 8 years ago Mr. Cassidy was crushed by a truckload of timbers when the delivery truck tipped over on the steep slope of his yard. It was a real tragedy. 8-(

[8~{} Uncle Sad Monster

replying to hallerb, KC DIY wrote:
I stand by all walls fail.
Not very helpful. People post because they need a solution. Saying "all walls
fail" is a useless statement. Wood rots. Rock cracks and falls apart. Concrete
disintegrates. Steel rusts. Just because all these materials fail doesn't mean
we shouldn't examine materials and their treatment to obtain the best solution
possible. I came here to see if there is a way to hold off the inevitable. I
have a treated timber (creosote??) wall that is 25 years old. It is starting
to show signs of the treatment failing. What can I do to rejuvenate it and
maybe get a few more years before having to tear it out and rebuild.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/mainte...cy-318796-.htm