The real TR-55 please...
The real TR-55 please...
(OP)
Beware, I downloaded the TR-55 .pdf from http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/runoff/documentation/Tr55.htm this morning. Procede with caution if using it blindly...Just glancing at the HSGs (Appendix A), I found 61 soils listed in my hardcopy that aren't in there (for example, Berks is not in the .pdf); I also found 24 soils they listed in the .pdf which are not in my hardcopy (Waterford is not in my hardcopy). My hardcopy is the original bound issue from NTIS in June 1986, with an identical preface as the .pdf. Either they revised it and didn't enter a new revision date, or this .pdf is not an exact (nor, in the case of the App. A, even close) facsimile.
Has anyone compared any other sections of these two TR-55s? Would the real TR-55 please stand up...
Has anyone compared any other sections of these two TR-55s? Would the real TR-55 please stand up...
Talk To Other Members
RE: The real TR-55 please...
I haven't compared it versions available from other sources but hope the NRCS version is the most authoritative.
good luck
RE: The real TR-55 please...
It is the .pdf which has different text in the Appendix...and the link above leads to the NRCS webpage, which is where I downloaded it from. Both my hardcopy and the .pdf are from the NRCS (the hardcopy is distributed through NTIS). I sent an email similar to mine above to a Mr. Dan Moore, with H&H at NRCS. Here is his reply, verbatim.
"I don't know why the new appendix did not list all the soils, but you are not the first to point this out. It is definitely a pain in the butt. But the fact is that the information from either source is valid and may be used.
dan"
RE: The real TR-55 please...
Thanks for the information. Been using TR-55 for years too and usually rely on the County Soils Report descriptions of the soils rather than the lists included in the appendix. Most of my work is in three or four local Counties and, over 34 years, I've gained a "feel" for which soils do or don't drain well.
good luck