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

I have to say that given how hard N3V has been working on TANE for the last two or three years it is not surprising that they could not devote substantial time to working on any one asset. I'm thankful that we got what we got. Better good enough than not at all.
 
Blackwatch.

Not in the UK, we used 'Tie-Plates' (known as 'Fish-Plates' on this side of the pond), your belief is incorrect

My belief is that all narrow gauge railways used Fish Plates which the dictionary defines as RAIL JOINERS. Flat steel plates clamped on both sides of a rail joint. Continuous welded rail was a pipe dream in those days.

For your information, Tie Plates are basically flat metal plates with two holes punched in them to support the flat bottomed rail on wooden ties (American for sleeper). In the early narrow gauge days, the rail was spiked directly to the ties, not a very efficient process requiring frequent attention which is why Tie Plates were adopted.

Peter
 
Vern

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



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

In that case I stand down from my earlier soapbox!
 
In the UK we call tie-plates "Base-plates". They are used with flat bottom rail on the F&WHR narrow gauge line, often in conjunction with spring clip fasteners although the current ones being installed simply use screws to hold both rail and base plate to the sleeper. One of the advantages of using the baseplates is that the rail head can be inclined inward.

In the old days the FR used fully chaired bullhead track (one of only a small number of NG lines to do so) whilst the WHR used flatbottom spiked straight to the sleepers (much more common on lightly laid or cheaply built lines). Other lines (such as the Talyllyn) used chaired flat bottom track but this was much less common.

One day I would quite like to make some FR style Bullhead pro track, mainly just to see if I can, but it would probably be of fairly limited use.
 
In the early narrow gauge days, the rail was spiked directly to the ties, not a very efficient process requiring frequent attention which is why Tie Plates were adopted.

Peter

But that's NOT what you said in the post I quoted previously, you stated you didn't believe that anywhere in the world would use 'tie-plates', now you're saying they did.

Make your mind up. :eek:
 
Sailordan,

Look at your image, you will notice that the rail is secured by square headed screws holding the rail down by flange clips. Again a more modern style and not pertinent to the discussion. The rail also looks to be much heavier than that used on the early railroads. Note that- "early Railroads'' Dig back into the early days of American transportation and you will find evidence of rough wooden ties and spikes. I know of a railway that still uses FB rail and spikes, no plates, no screws just rail on wood.

In the days of rail hauled timber getting, 3ft gauge was common in the States, just the rail, just a rough tie and four spikes and quite often, no ballast.

I don't know why you are so intent on trying to prove me wrong. N3V have produced a 36" gauge rail that is not 'narrow gauge', it is 36" gauge High Speed/Heavy Rail which is not the prototype for the rail we need.

I give N3V full marks for effort and maybe 10 out of a 100 marks for the product. If people like it, good, the choice is up to the user who has no idea what it is supposed to represent.

You will notice that I switch between Railroad and Railway, when I write about US lines, I speak American, being an Australian (one time Briton), I have a foot in both camps.

PeterPM
 
Look at your image, you will notice that the rail is secured by square headed screws holding the rail down by flange clips. Again a more modern style and not pertinent to the discussion. The rail also looks to be much heavier than that used on the early railroads. Note that- "early Railroads'' Dig back into the early days of American transportation and you will find evidence of rough wooden ties and spikes.
This is what you said: "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." It appears that you now want to qualify this with "before <some unspecified date>" and "where they were using rail less than <some unspecified weight>" and "only in <some unspecified> locations". If you have any more similar qualifications you ought to spell them out now. But, as stated, it is demonstrably not the case. I don't know why you assume that the track you are using was designed for the stringent conditions you are now specifying, rather than for one of the actual examples that have been posted here.
 
Blackwatch

which is why Tie Plates were adopted.

That comment related to the reason why later railroads in, general, started using tie plates when they experienced rapid tie wear, not that they were developed for, and used by, narrow gauge railroads. You have to understand that narrow gauge systems developed because only 4 components per tie were needed and they were ones that a competent blacksmith could produce. Couple that with light rail and sparse or no ballast and you have low capital investment. Add to that the fact that narrow gauge rolling stock can handle tighter curves and you will have what is normally referred to in US context as narrow gauge where, I believe, many light rail lines were developed for both passenger and freight haulage.

It is puzzling how there is this strange compulsion to nitpick and 'shoot the messenger'

PeterPM
 
This might get enjoyable!

SailorDan, I noticed that you didn't specify the location and date of your offering either, just as the same data was omitted from the previous image. Seems though we are all at fault.

I will be more specific. I believe the greater majority of US narrow gauge lines built before the 1930's were built on a minimum cost basis and died out before being converted to the standard gauge rail practice of that era. Many timber lines would fall into that category.

"US narrow gauge lines built before the 1930's" were a common inspiration for many early routes. That was one of the appealing aspects of Trainz. In those days, the "Narrow Gauge Gazette" flourished, I know it kept me inspired and informed, as it did for many modellers at that time. Modellers who were feeling the cost pinch of shop bought parts, discovered Trainz, and rejoiced in the freedom to make what they wanted with routes as large as they wanted. It is a shame that very few have remained to enjoy the latest offspring of the early Trainz, although I guess they would have responded to the new track as I have done.

PeterPM
 
In the early days railroads such as the B&O and Cumberland Valley RR ran on wooden rails and I imagine they would have nailed the rails directly to the ties, possibly through the rails. :D

So far I haven't found such rails in Trainz.
 
Maine 2-footers track nailed directly to the ties:

Railroad_Station%2C_Phillips%2C_ME.jpg
 
Many narrow-gauge (and older standard gauge) used stub switches also. I'm kinda waiting to upgrade my track to procedural until that gets implemented.
 
Blackwatch



You have to understand that narrow gauge systems developed because only 4 components per tie were needed and they were ones that a competent blacksmith could produce. Couple that with light rail and sparse or no ballast and you have low capital investment. Add to that the fact that narrow gauge rolling stock can handle tighter curves and you will have what is normally referred to in US context as narrow gauge where, I believe, many light rail lines were developed for both passenger and freight haulage.

PeterPM

I understand the above very well, the British were laying such tracks back in 1914 -18, it was how we got supplies across the battlefields of Flanders & the Somme.
 
SailorDan, I noticed that you didn't specify the location and date of your offering either, just as the same data was omitted from the previous image. Seems though we are all at fault.
Uh? Did you actually look at that page? I gave the latitude and longitude so you could access it in Google Earth, the page clearly states the location as "MOD Munitions depot at Eastriggs near Gretna Green" and the rail as "25 miles of 2ft 35lb per yard narrow gauge railway line" and "Installed between 1990-2007". I don't know how much more specific it is possible to be.
 
Speaking of sleepers, which is used interchangeably here. I saw a sign at the local garden supply store for railroad sleepers for sale.

But anyway why wood sleepers came to be until pretty recently when concrete and composites have appeared on the scene. It seems that wood is a bit more forgiving to environmental changes than let's say granite. This issue was found out the hard way back around 1830-31 or so by the Boston and Lowell Railroad. Other early railroads, including the Andover and Wilmington, who had to connect to the B&L for access to Boston, as well as the Boston and Providence, used wood ties. Ah! The B&L had to one up them, or so they thought. The B&L wanted to build the best railroad they could between the very fast-growing industrial city of Lowell Massachusetts and the Boston. Using iron rails, locomotives, wagons, and carriages made in England, they sourced local granite for sleepers. The granite sleepers, along with imported iron rails had been used on the very early Quincy Granite Quarry Railroad with some success over the short distances the trains were used. The granite too was chosen because the engineers feared the wooden ties would sink into the dirt and mud.

The B&L, after sourcing their materials, built a quick straight and smooth ROW directly up from Boston to Lowell. This 36 mile route was built initially as a single track and barely has a grade to it, and still is one of the fastest commuter routes on our system today. The route opened up with much fanfare in 1835, and the travel time then, being about 53 minutes, is about the same as today with all stations stops being in roughly the same locations then as now.

The problem was as pretty as the granite was, it turned out to be too rigid and the locomotives were shaken apart by the bumps. After the frost heaves had their way, the smooth quick ride became more of a roller coaster with bumps, and instead of being known for fast service, the route became a tourist attraction as a thrill ride. Hold on to your hats, ladies and gents!

After much to-do, the line was rebuilt with wooden sleepers, and double-tracked at the same time. What's interesting is recently some old granite sleepers and iron rails were discovered during some modern track maintenance, and others sleepers found their way as foundation supports for a local house in Wilmington, MA. I don't know if these rails and blocks were preserved, but it's pretty interesting to have found that 186 years later.
 
Last edited:
SailorDan

Yes, I missed that however it was a pointless post. Look at the distance and the date

"25 miles of 2ft 35lb per yard narrow gauge railway line" and "Installed between 1990-2007"

This in no way related to the broader matter of historic narrow gauge railways.



Couldn't resist editing this in.

Blackwatch.

You said this

the British were laying such tracks back in 1914 -18, it was how we got supplies across the battlefields of Flanders & the Somme.

So were the French and the Americans and I doubt that there was a tie plate anywhere. What is the point of your comment.

This discussion is becoming a silly waste of time, I suggest we stop it right here.

Peter
 
Last edited:
This in no way related to the broader matter of historic narrow gauge railways.
That's correct, because I was not commenting on the broader matter of historic narrow gauge railways. I was commenting on your statement "I believe that nowhere in the world would three foot lines have used tie-plates" and the presumption that the track that you are criticizing ought to have been built on that incorrect belief. The actual situation is that there is variety in narrow gauge track, and the one you are using is a modern variety.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't resist editing this in.

Blackwatch.

You said this

"
I understand the above very well, the British were laying such tracks back in 1914 -18, it was how we got supplies across the battlefields of Flanders & the Somme."

So were the French and the Americans and I doubt that there was a tie plate anywhere. What is the point of your comment.

This discussion is becoming a silly waste of time, I suggest we stop it right here.

Peter

The point of my comment is in answer to your attempt to make it look as if I didn't know about 'narrow gauge', don't be such a pompous ass, you know exactly what you are doing, that's why you quoted me totally out of context (so I've added the bit you missed out in red). For others to read without having to go back, here is what I posted the above point in answer to :-

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by narrowgauge

Blackwatch



You have to understand that narrow gauge systems developed because only 4 components per tie were needed and they were ones that a competent blacksmith could produce. Couple that with light rail and sparse or no ballast and you have low capital investment. Add to that the fact that narrow gauge rolling stock can handle tighter curves and you will have what is normally referred to in US context as narrow gauge where, I believe, many light rail lines were developed for both passenger and freight haulage.
 
Last edited:
Guys, we get it!
You're all experts!

Now put your Egos on the floor, put your hands on the back of your head, and take two steps back.
You've now started hurling abuse at each other, and as well as not setting a good example for the kids, you're all starting to look a little silly!

Smiley.
 
Back
Top