N3V: Why are there no U.S. standard gauge procedural tracks available in TRS19?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MSGSapper

Trainz route developer
It is unbelievable to me that after all the years we still don't have a single modern procedural U.S. track which North American users can use on our routes. Almost everything that is available either uses UK "bull head" track or the wrong type fasteners or a combination of the two.

I am in the process of upgrading all 14 of my U.S. based routes on the DLS to fully TRS19 standards, which is challenging enough, but have yet to be able to find a decent U.S. procedural track I can use. The closest I have been able to find are the following, which are not procedural tracks, but show as build 4.6:

<kuid2:506034:575635:2> UA track wooden #7-R65-2000 gray
<kuid2:506034:535051:2> UA track concrete #4-R65-2000 no ballast
<kuid2:506034:957523:3> UA track concrete #1-R65-2000 gray
<kuid2:506034:535049:2> UA track concrete #2-R65-2000 brown
<kuid2:506034:575634:2> UA track wooden #6-R65-2000 brown
<kuid2:506034:535050:2> UA track concrete #3-R65-2000 brown dirt
<kuid2:506034:535052:2> UA track concrete #4-R65 rails only

<kuid2:506034:4357297:5> JR US track #3-132 (narrow ballast)
<kuid2:506034:578257:9> JR US track #1-132 (narrow ballast)
<kuid2:506034:582678:5> JR US track #1-132 (wide ballast)
<kuid2:506034:578260:11> JR US track #1-132 rust (narrow ballast)
<kuid2:506034:578523:7> JR US track #1-100 new (narrow ballast)
<kuid2:506034:4357296:5> JR US track #2-132 (narrow ballast)
<kuid2:506034:4357298:5> JR US track #4-132 (narrow ballast)

For those who don’t know, the difference between “Bull Head” and “Flat Bottom” is spelled out below:


Rail-Cross-Section-Information.jpg



Details on modern U.S. tracks can be seen at the following locations:

Gauge: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-gauge_railway
Ties: Dark creosoted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_tie
Fastener: Rail spike with baseplate above the tie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_fastening_system
Rail type: Flat Bottom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_profile

As a route designer I am tired of being forced for many years now to use non-U.S. procedural rail on my U.S. routes. Many of your customers are from the United States, such as myself. Isn’t it time we had our own correct procedural rail type?

Bob
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see what N3V comes up with, or others do because I've run into the same issue. I too use the same track as you do and even modified some of the rusty track for my sidings to make it a bit more interesting by adding in permanent poor riding condition, and replaced the ballast with dirt instead of actual ballast.

But in general I find the Pro-track to be too elsewhere in the world with incorrect tie (sleeper) spacing, trackplates and screws instead of spikes, and the rail overall being thin for our mainline use.
 
JCitron said:
It would be interesting to see what N3V comes up with, or others do because I've run into the same issue. I too use the same track as you do and even modified some of the rusty track for my sidings to make it a bit more interesting by adding in permanent poor riding condition, and replaced the ballast with dirt instead of actual ballast.

But in general I find the Pro-track to be too elsewhere in the world with incorrect tie (sleeper) spacing, trackplates and screws instead of spikes, and the rail overall being thin for our mainline use.
Click to expand...

You would think, given how much we are paying in the United States for TRS19, compared to previous versions, that there would be at least one build 4.6 procedural modern U.S. track for us to use.....

Bob
 
Probably need kick US creators into action? as most of the Procedural track, maybe all of it? is from Europe, UK and Australian creators who put bluntly are probably not interested in creating US track ;o)

UK uses Flat bottom rail by the way and has done for years, started around the 1950s. You will only find Bullhead on maybe a few heritage lines and long disused sidings or in Trainz historical routes.
 
There was very little US style procedural track in TANE.

Elsoko's track is really good in TANE. My version with rail color from JR track.

tane_coal_country2.jpg


Turns green in TRS2019 unless the shaders are on low.

2019_now.jpg


US procedural track is scarce. Most have a "leapy" LOD situation where the track has assets jumping in as one travels along or moire problems.

Harold
 
clam1952 said:
Probably need kick US creators into action? as most of the Procedural track, maybe all of it? is from Europe, UK and Australian creators who put bluntly are probably not interested in creating US track ;o)

UK uses Flat bottom rail by the way and has done for years, started around the 1950s. You will only find Bullhead on maybe a few heritage lines and long disused sidings or in Trainz historical routes.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the "Flat Bottom" now being used in the UK, while "bull head" is now considered obsolete based on the article extract I provided, but for some strange reason the TRS19 procedural track appears to be all "Bull head". Take a close look at the track end cross sections and you will see what I mean.....

Bob
 
hminky said:
There was very little US style procedural track in TANE.

Elsoko's track is really good in TANE. My version with rail color from JR track.

<snips>

Turns green in TRS2019 unless the shaders are on low.
Click to expand...

As has been mentioned in other threads, "turning green" indicates a faulty or missing texture.
 
hminky said:
That was resolved in TANE with an update of the mesh. Long ago I fixed the texture.txt file for TANE.

Harold
Click to expand...

Based on your post I tried the <kuid2:368725:49059:1> Protrack NSWGR dirty stone, mid-life timber, baseplated, fpl and it doesn't look too bad, but the ties/sleepers do turn green in TRS19 and the rails are rather thin. You said you fixed the "green" issue. Can you provide the details and specifics on how you did that in the texture.txt file?

Bob
 
Last edited:
MSGSapper said:
Based on your post I tried the <kuid2:368725:49059:1> Protrack NSWGR dirty stone, mid-life timber, baseplated, fpl and it doesn't look too bad, but the ties/sleepers do turn green in TRS19 and the rails are rather thin. You said you fixed the "green" issue. Can you provide the details and specifics on how you did that in the texture.txt file?

Bob
Click to expand...
The green condition can't be fixed in TRS2019. Even with the Shaders on low the ties are shiny.

I use LRW track in TRS2019. It has weird clips but looks like US track from a distance.

<kuid:101839:21014> LRW Track, Wood, Flatbottom, Brown Ballast

trs19_64.jpg


That is close as you will get. The track isn't PBR and it has a matching non-PBR texture.

Harold
 
Last edited:
Surprised JR haven't updated some of their built in track to procedural standards and there's also the TUME stuff which would also need a bit of a texture update to kill the dusty look. Some of the SAM procedural track could just about pass for US style where the darker ballast masks the European sleeper spacing etc.

That said, I can only see one Russian procedural track and that is one by TSM, which ironically seems to be standard rather than wide gauge. That might be worth a look as a substitute for US track, particularly routes where the track is old and a bit worn.
 
I think all the comments to this point have proven my case. There is no build 4.6 procedural modern track that is to U.S. standard gauge standards and appearance. All of the ones below build 4.6 I have looked at simply don't come up to par for one reason or another, and often have issues.

Seeing how the heart of every route is it's without a doubt it's railroad track, I ask N3V once again; why is there no modern U.S. standard gauge track provided in TRS19 by you as a standard built-in content item for all your U.S. based customers?

In addition bull head track, which has been obsolete for some years, is not an acceptable substitute for any flat bottom track.

Bob
 
Vern said:
Surprised JR haven't updated some of their built in track to procedural standards and there's also the TUME stuff which would also need a bit of a texture update to kill the dusty look.
Click to expand...
A couple of us were working on new procedural track. I think one of the three of us may have even built some with trs19 parallax & PBR in mind.

None of it has been released yet of course...
 
As far as i know there no US 3ft narrow gauge procedural track without ballast that I can use for my route either ( I drop the track into a separate track bed on a fill under the rail as it looks more authentic) .
 
dangavel said:
As far as i know there no US 3ft narrow gauge procedural track without ballast that I can use for my route either ( I drop the track into a separate track bed on a fill under the rail as it looks more authentic) .
Click to expand...

There is this track:

http://www.banbyggarna.se/stl/scenery/track/page1.html

rollins_ng10.jpg


rollins_ng11.jpg


The 1067cm is close enough for 3ft. Available with and without ballast.

Can be reskinned easily, the SWE track as light SG with new color.

1887_mbc7.jpg


Harold
 
Last edited:
MSGSapper said:
I think all the comments to this point have proven my case. There is no build 4.6 procedural modern track that is to U.S. standard gauge standards and appearance. All of the ones below build 4.6 I have looked at simply don't come up to par for one reason or another, and often have issues.

Bob
Click to expand...

I am using DMT Pro Track in my Routes. It is currently build 4.2. To me it looks great in TRS19, and is a flat bottom rail with spring ties. Have you had a look at them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Are you looking for high quality U.S. Standard Gauge PBR track?
Replies
9
Views
680
Thai1On
T
K
Protrack North America 136RE
Replies
9
Views
2K
kuangdan11
K
H
Unable to bulk replace regular track with procedural track in TRS19
Replies
4
Views
967
JCitron
J
M
My TRS19 U.S. Standard Gauge Procedural Track Project
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
29K
kuangdan11
K
M
My experience upgrading my existing T:ANE route to TRS19 standards
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
MSGSapper
M
Back
Top