Trainz Classics vs. TRS 2006


New member
I have both systems installed on separate drives on a Dell Dimension 9000 computer that is equipped with 2GB Ram, and an nVidia 8800GTX video card.

As an experiment to compare frame rates I constructed a simple one baseboard layout on each as follows:

Route A - single track, (MP Track Wood), textures - (None);

Route B - single track with full length siding ( MP Track Wood), textures -(Ballast New), (AJS Grass 06).

Test Results: Direct X ,Default Settings

TRS 2006 - Loco NYC F7A

Route A -Jet Log 59.8 fps over 92.3 secs

Route B -Jet Log 59.83 fps over 83.3 secs

Trainz Classics - Loco NYC FL9

Route A - Jet Log 423.9 fps over 99 secs

Route B - Jet Log 423.6 fps over 81 secs

Albeit not a very sophisticated test but the difference in framerates per second was interesting, although the large variance seemed unrealistic.

Any thoughts?

P.S. Pardon the layout of this post. A typist I am not.
Hi Happyj

This is interesting for two reasons.

Firstly, I have both 06 & TC and whilst 06 runs "satisfactorily", TC doesn't run the NY route at all (the trams are no problem though).

Secondly, in another thread, someone upgraded thier NVidea card for a much better one and noticed no difference at al!!

I will try something similar to what you have done just for my own peace of mind. (I already appreciate that my machine is below spec for TC and am looking to upgrade in the near future)

Hi Happyj

Well my results were:

Test A = 38.534333fps over 59.168015sec
Test B = 38.968012fps over 75.215538sec

Test A = 23.510487fps over 54.188583sec
Test B = 22.748489fps over 52.662838sec

Don't let this detract from what you are questioning, but the one big thing I noticed was that TC loads 3000, yes 3000 times quicker than when I nearly slung it through the window the first time!!

I would say my results are a fair reflection of what I should get as I am at least 256K under spec in Ram, and my video card leaves a lot to be desired!, but Christmas is coming.

You, on the other hand, have a generally good machine and it would require someone with a 8800 to do a similar test to say that 450+fps is believable!

Last edited:

I agree that Trainz Classics loads much faster than TRS 2006. I was surprised at the large difference in frame rates and am wondering if anyone else has had similar experience between the two systems.

I would post my test results, but the desciptions of the test routes are lacking as they don't list length of track(s) or signaling. Perhaps you could mail me your test routes in a CMP.

And no, John, I am not interested in the bat files.

My computer has Intel D875PBZ motherboard, Intel 3.2GB Pentium 4 CPU with HyperThreading, 3GB of system memory, GeForce 7800 GS AGP card, Sound Blaster Audigy ZS card, and Windows XP Home Edition. I ran my NYCTA subway system on TRS2006 and TC, running the "N" train from Stillwell Avenue to Astoria Blvd non-stop. Here are the results from jetlog.txt files:

TC 62.141877fps over 777.977783sec
TRS2006 56.588449fps over 883.554871sec

TC is faster than TRS2006 by 5.5 fps.
The main reason I created my own routes as I have been unsuccessful in downloading and getting any TRS 2006 layouts to run in Trainz Classics. These layouts are simply one baseboard with no signalling or other frills etc.
The results from my earlier testing prompted me to transfer the "built-in assets" from TRS 2006 to TC. This installed many of the built in layouts,one of which was Tidewater Point Rail,a long time favorite of mine.

This provided a further opportunity to compare performance between TRS 2006 and TC on a full blown proven layout. Utilising the same locomotive only and keeping speed, views close as possible the same, the following resulted:

Trainz Classics,Tidewater Point Rail - jet log 117.59 fps over 1074 secs;

TRS 2006, Tidewater Point Rail - jet log 59.32 fps over 101 sec.

I don't know what if anything this proves , but does suggest TC may have some improvements over TRS 2006.