Treblinka II Narrow-Gauge Rail.

The metric that matters is the angle at the vanishing point, not "distance to the vanishing point". Please show me a picture of a standard gauge railway from what you believe to be from a similar perspective as this photograph:

Here's another image of a standard gauge railway:



Look at how it corresponds to the Sobibor railway, along with all the other photographs of standard gauge railways I've shown so far.



And how it's wider than this image of the Treblinka spur:




What he is saying is that the Treblinka spur only looks narrower because the picture of the Treblinka spur is taken from a much taller height than the Sobibor photo and all the other photos of known standard gauges. That's obviously bull-[excrement], as all these photographs are obviously taken from around standing height at similar angles, but if he believes his own bull-[excrement] then all he needs to do is show us a picture of a standard gauge rail from whatever he thinks the more similar angle would be and that fits the Treblinka spur. But he can't.

Here's another standard gauge railway:



Again- what he is saying is that the picture of the Treblinka spur was taken from a significantly greater height than this and all the other pictures of standard gauge railways that all consistently show a wider angle at the vanishing point than the Treblinka spur. 

And I'm not playing your silly game of showing you a picture that refutes your contentions, and you rejecting it for spurious reasons. Your method is too sensitive to viewing angles. The distances you think you are aligning are not equal if they are not coplanar. The odds that 2 pictures of 2 different tracks were taken at the exact same 3-D angle are not good. That you can rotate them in 3-D space and line them up isn't as interesting as you think it is.

Ok.  Let's go with what you did there.

The 2 tracks are in different planes because they were taken at a different angle (and let's just assume the optics resolution of the camera and film is identical for both pictures).  You are lining them up to what you think is a common vanishing point - and let's assume that you identified that point correctly.  But the one set of parallels is converging on that point in a different plane than the other.

Any distance you are observing in a common plane is a difference between the projection of the one plane on to the other.  You are not measuring differences in the physical thing but a projection of it on to another plane.

If your Treblinka picture had RR ties in it that were perpendicular to the rails - as in the other picture, you would see that the angles of those perpendiculars were different in your rotated picture and the other one.  The ties in the one picture would not be parallel to the ties in the other picture.  With that angle you should be able to determine the angle the one plane makes to the other.  And adjust your distances accordingly.

In short, the Treblinka rails are converging to that common vanishing point in a different plane.  Distances in the one plane are not of equal length to distances in the other plane.  One of them is converging to that vanishing point at a different rate.

You are pretending that those left rails that you lined up show the same distance.  But one is a projection onto the other.

And just with my naked eye, I can see that the lines you drew are significantly different than the rail lines there.    WTF, man!  Both the blue AND the purple lines are being drawn up in the 3rd dimension with what you did there!  And not even with any sense to it.  Are you playing a joke on me?  That's a serious question I'm asking here.  Are you joking?

And that leads me to another observation.

If the ties were spaced the same in the 2 rails, you'd expect that to be the case in your comparison - i.e. same number of ties for equal measures.

So when you compare one picture to another, if you don't get the same number of ties in the same pixel-distance, you are not comparing equal measures.

So if your vanishing point occurs after X ties in the one picture and Y ties in the other.  If you think you are comparing equal measures, X must equal Y (or off by one tops -given how they're laid out).

By the way, the angle of the projections of two parallel lines of equivalent width at the vanishing point is the same across different images if and only if the angle of view is the same between the images.

So the fact that I am measuring the same angle in various images of standard gauge railways is proof that the angle of view does not have to be precisely equal like you are claiming. That makes no sense whatsoever, neither does it make sense intuitively. You seirously think that if you take a picture of a railway, and then move the camera a few centimeters in any direction, that this is going to have an appreciable difference in the perspective of the photograph? No. If the angle of view is close enough, then the angle at the vanishing point is also close enough to draw conclusions about the relative width of the lines.

If you think the images of standard gauge railways I have used are at a significantly different perspective than the picture of the Treblinka spur, then I invite you to present an image of a known standard gauge railway that you believe is at a similar view. But I know you won't do that, because you cannot.