The new 36" gauge Procedural track, nice try but no medal!

narrowgauge

92 year oldTrainz veteran
I gave just become aware of the new 36" gauge procedural track and couldn't wait to try it out. Most disappointing.

Whoever designed it has just provided standard gauge track reduced to 36", without realising that narrow gauge tracks were used because they are cheaper and can handle smaller radius curves. As a rough guide, all dimensions should be related in the ratio of 56.5" to 36".

What I see as errors:-

Track segment length is too long, narrow gauge curves become a series of flat sections.

Guard rails, the crossing wings (frog) and the moving point blades disappear on a typical 36" gauge junction.

Anything made that is close to a narrow gauge junction shows a red error circle and does not work.

A cosmetic problem is that the sleepers/ties are too regular and too close together.

Did anybody in N3V do any research on this before they did any work on it? Did any narrow gauge user get asked to test it before release?

Thanks for trying, pity the result is not as good as it could have been.

I hope that when you make 24" gauge track (I hope you will), that will be made correctly.

Peter
 
You should have seen the first versions, rail cars floated about 2" above the rails.

There is a Swiss site that has some nice narrow gauge procedural tracks I think. (or maybe Swedish)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the tip, Norm.

Another point where the procedural track falls short. I believe that nowhere in the world would three foot lines have used tie-plates, they would have spiked the rail straight onto the tie.

Peter
 
Hi Peter
In this case the spline was produced as a 'stop gap' conversion of the existing 3ft gauge TS2009 track (the same conversion as the SG version of that track). It was meant to give the right gauge, with a look that blended with the SG track, but that's about it. It's quite possible that current 3ft gauge railways may use tie plates (I know Puffing Billy went over to this in the 80s, and went to a different profile 60lb/yd rail over time), but probably not in the style on that track.

Regards
Zec
 
Definitely Swedish, they have 600mm and 760mm narrow gauge tracks but I can't remember the links. Their track is labeled SWE.



 
Last edited:
Unfortunately for NG one cannot get a small enough junction radius due to the limitations imposed by the N3V coding. I did raise this point and Chris just suggested adding a spline point near the actual junction so that I had a large radius junction followed by a small radius track. Easier said than done especially with 2ft NG with its sharp curves.
 
Thanks for the tip, Norm.

Another point where the procedural track falls short. I believe that nowhere in the world would three foot lines have used tie-plates, they would have spiked the rail straight onto the tie.

Peter

24d5b6d821fa03189fcbf79bbababdb9.jpg


Perhaps they were just going for a different prototype.

Back before procedural track I made some 3' gauge stuff with fixed switches following this prototype. The switchstand I chose seems to have been used on the EBT's stub switches but not the moving point style. 90lb rail!

38fda004ea0d8bdde1b0746b1b6ec3d0.jpg
 
Last edited:
I gave just become aware of the new 36" gauge procedural track and couldn't wait to try it out. Most disappointing.

Whoever designed it has just provided standard gauge track reduced to 36", without realising that narrow gauge tracks were used because they are cheaper and can handle smaller radius curves. As a rough guide, all dimensions should be related in the ratio of 56.5" to 36".

What I see as errors:-

Track segment length is too long, narrow gauge curves become a series of flat sections.


Guard rails, the crossing wings (frog) and the moving point blades disappear on a typical 36" gauge junction.

Anything made that is close to a narrow gauge junction shows a red error circle and does not work.

A cosmetic problem is that the sleepers/ties are too regular and too close together.

Did anybody in N3V do any research on this before they did any work on it? Did any narrow gauge user get asked to test it before release?

Thanks for trying, pity the result is not as good as it could have been.

I hope that when you make 24" gauge track (I hope you will), that will be made correctly.

Peter
Peter, I checked the new proc track last night and I have to agree it has a few problems.

[EDIT removed comment]

"Guard rails, the crossing wings (frog) and the moving point blades disappear on a typical 36" gauge junction."

"Anything made that is close to a narrow gauge junction shows a red error circle and does not work."

I didn't see a problem like this with any of the junctions I made using the track. In the past I fooled around with the new proc track and made some 36" ng track with it. I never saw a problem like this either. The 3 rail dualgauge track I made did have problems with a missing blade, 2 missing frogs and many guard rails but 2 blades, a frog and set of guard rails were produced for one of the gauges. Both gauges switched properly even though the visuals were not correct. I use 2 spline in my 3 rail dg track so that's not surprising.

I only tried making a few turnouts in Surveyor with the new stuff from the DLS. I usually make my ng turnouts based on prototype dimensions for #5, 6, 7, 8, 10 including some half numbers and custom ones as required. Last night I was just eyeballing it for a quick test so there might be some crow in my diet down the road. Some of the extra features of the track were slow to appear for some reason. Also I didn't run the new track in driver yet.

[EDIT] I went back and took a closer look and dl'd the correct ng track this time (<kuid2:523:1172:3> Auran Track TS2009 36in - Procedural). I was able to force the turnout into the a fairly sharp radius with the red circle appearing indicating improper formation. But most the time all the pieces were there. The blades were quite distorted in some cases - very long and thin. The turnouts are made following algorithms in the code so there are limitations on what can be produced. I corrected the blade problem by reducing the point of switch to point of frog distance. However I would not use any of those TOs - they were too sharp imo.

IIRC when the procedural TOs were in development (over 2 years ago so this is nothing new) N3V had access to various standards for turnout construction. Probably all were sg but that shouldn't preclude correct construction of ng TOs since gauge is included as part of the real life design process. I have a copy of a TO construction spreadsheet that includes making prototype sg and 36" ng TO's. IIRC the ng are checked against those on the D&RGW [EDIT: For the record the spreadsheet had standards used by D&RGW but for sg turnouts. The ng data used to generate turnout dimensions is based on Walter F. Rench's book, "Practical Trackwork Switch Stands, Switches, Frogs, Crossings and Slip Switches", General Publishing, New York, 1926. Provides data for 2', 2'-6", 3', meter and 3'-6" turnouts including separate categories for mainline, mining and industrial usage.] If I get some time I may go back and generate a full set and dmp the vector data into a trk file to see what they look like using this procedural track.


"A cosmetic problem is that the sleepers/ties are too regular and too close together."

On this one I can't agree with you at all. If anything for my use the tie length is too short, it should be 6-7'. Of course not all NG RR's followed the same standards for their track. I model the East Broad Top RR, a 36" NG coal hauler in the Appalachians Mountains of South Central Pennsylvania. Check out the following pic taken at the wye in Robertsdale, PA on Broad Top Mt.

rcs_59.jpg

Typical EBT track - 36"ng with regular, even and closely spaced ties (from www.spikesys.com/ebt collection of EBT pics). This is the kind of ng track I model. So obviously we'll have to disagree on that one Pete.

Please check out this - link - to a few more pictures that include some good shots of the track at various locations along the EBT's main line and yards from early 1950's. To me it looks very regular, even and closely spaced. The Easty's big mikes that arrived 1918-1920 time frame and loaded steel hoppers were pretty rough on the track. They didn't skimp on it. That's why they didn't encounter major problems when they hauled sg rail cars on 36" ng trucks. One of the pics on the page linked to above shows a sg gondola on ng trucks near the coaling station at the Rockhill yard.

Regards,
Bob Pearson
 
Last edited:
Zec

You made this point
It was meant to give the right gauge, with a look that blended with the SG track, but that's about it. It's quite possible that current 3ft gauge railways may use tie plates

The problem here is that in the majority of cases where we use 36" gauge we are modeling 'old' railways, not railways that have survived into the current era and modernised themselves. The previous image with heavy rail, shown as an example of 36" track with tie plates also showed that the modern spring clip rail fixer was used which makes that a modern 36" conversion. I think that particular type of rail fixing came in sometime during the last 40 years.

Narrow gauge was used because of prime cost. Light rail, smaller and shorter ties and with smaller radius curves, and reduced width of cuttings, tunnels and embankments, all reflecting in the capital cost of a new line. The ability to bend to a smaller radius than a standard gauge line was a significant a factor. The physics of shorter axles, shorter wheelbases with smaller wheels made the tighter curves possible.

I believe that early US main line railways also used spiked-to-tie methods.

I'll get off my hobbyhorse now.

Peter
 
I believe that early US main line railways also used spiked-to-tie methods.

Yes, I think somewhere around the turn of the (last) century, it began to be cheaper to use the additional iron instead of paying the tie replacement cost more frequently. Some old standard-gauge shortlines didn't upgrade and had rails spiked directly to the ties into the 1950s.
 
Yes, I think somewhere around the turn of the (last) century, it began to be cheaper to use the additional iron instead of paying the tie replacement cost more frequently. Some old standard-gauge shortlines didn't upgrade and had rails spiked directly to the ties into the 1950s.

I noticed the same with some older photos I looked at as well.

What I have noticed more importantly is the lack of ballast in the tracks. Unlike today, even the Boston and Maine used no rock ballast until WWII when they received funds from the USRA to upgrade their mainlines. Then from that point on, it was granite ballast quarried locally in New England. Up to that time the tracks were ballasted lightly with old cinders, or in the case of infrequently used sidings, nothing at all. What's interesting is there are still signs of this cinder base even today on former ROWs.
 
Aren't we a fussy lot? Any and all procedural track welcome to bring things up to TANE standard particularly when shared as freeware, though sadly it seems I will now be abstaining from route building unless I can find a way of rolling SP2 back to SP1 HF4.

On a positive note there is some metre gauge (called metrica I think) Protrack on the DLS.
 
Vern

Aren't we a fussy lot?

Strange thing to say. If you wore oily denims and muddy boots into one of the more ritzy hotels and get escorted out would you also say "Aren't they a fussy lot?"

N3V pride themselves on the quality of their product, and I believe they are entitled to, however, now they have created a 'mockup' of narrow gauge track and we can't complain about it! I 've seen complaints on this forum more worthy of being labelled as "Fussy" If I made a traincar and fitted locomotive bogies on it you would be fussy.

If they had researched the prototype or even just asked about it, they would have been what aware of what we see when we look at historical era track.

Have you spent any time looking at 100+ year old narrow gauge railroads? Perhaps if you immerse yourself in that area, you might agree with our point of view.

I have no doubt that they will produce a more lifelike version, it is just a pity they wasted their time on this track.

PeterPM
 
The East Broad Top is an anomaly in North American narrow gauge railroads most were long gone by the 1920's.

ng_graph.jpg

Most of the mileage on that chart after 1900 was the Colorado system.

Most American narrow gauge doesn't have tie plates.

The SWE track is really good:

durango1.jpg


Harold
 
Thanks for the tip, Norm.

I believe that nowhere in the world would three foot lines have used tie-plates, they would have spiked the rail straight onto the tie.

Peter

Not in the UK, we used 'Tie-Plates' (known as 'Fish-Plates' on this side of the pond), your belief is incorrect. :p
 
N3V pride themselves on the quality of their product, and I believe they are entitled to, however, now they have created a 'mockup' of narrow gauge track and we can't complain about it!

Perhaps I misunderstood, is this an "official" N3V asset then, not something a third party creator has put together?
 
Vern

This is an N3V branded item. Zec posted this early in this thread.

Hi Peter
In this case the spline was produced as a 'stop gap' conversion of the existing 3ft gauge TS2009 track (the same conversion as the SG version of that track). It was meant to give the right gauge, with a look that blended with the SG track, but that's about it. It's quite possible that current 3ft gauge railways may use tie plates (I know Puffing Billy went over to this in the 80s, and went to a different profile 60lb/yd rail over time), but probably not in the style on that track.

If it had been a new creators first attempt at a track, I would not have posted any comments. I would have PM'd the originator.

PeterPM
 
Back
Top