CHEAP RAILWAYS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 18, 27 May 1871, Page 16

CHEAP RAILWAYS.

[From the Independent, May 24.] Our recent remarks on the much-vexed question of narrow abroad gauge railways, led up to the following paradox—fortunate is the country whose -railways are yet to make ! From our exchanges yesterday, we see that the question of cheap railway construction is agitating the public mind in Victoria. The “ Argus,” of the 2nd inst., justly observes: —“ The question of economy in railway construction and working is of such vital importance that it is impossible to discuss it too fully or too frequently and again, “ We shall be much surprised if the question of gauge and cheap railway construction be not raised in Parliament at an early date. Every day that elapses before the matter is investigated, and some definite conclusion arrived at, involves a serious loss to the country.” Reverting to the subject on the 10th, our contemporary boldly proposes introducing the narrow gauge at once on lines now projected, and “ sees no sufficient reason for perpetuating a quite unnecessarily expensive system of railway construction,” and argues that the narrow guage can be made to extend itself gradually in the direction of Melbourne, as the line requires to be extensively repaired or re-made.” And this slow extension of the narrow gauge system will admit, of such a gradual substitution of narrower broad gauge rolling stock, that the process need not involve any but the most inconsiderable loss.” The “ Lyttelton Times,” of Saturday last, follows in the same suit:—“Victoria has tried the broad gauge, has con.structed ten times as many miles of railway as we have, and now admits that the system is too costly and expensive to work, even with her comparatively large traffic. Are we to shut our eyes and persist in continuing the same gauge because we have made twenty or thirty miles of it already ?” Fortunate

then is the country that has its railways yet to make ! No better illustration of the truth of this apparent paradox could be given than the remarks of the Hon. Julius Vogel, reprinted elsewhere, showing a keenness of observation, a mastery of detail, and an anxiety for the wise and economical administration of the Railway and Public Works Loan he doel not always get credit for. To continue our remarks on the superiority of the narrow to the wide gauge. The next point to discuss is the capacity of the narrow gauge railways for carrying traffic, as compared with the present broad gauges with their heavy rails. The Fairlie engine can take as heavy trains on the narrow gauge road as are now taken on the broad, and nearly twice as many trains (paying tons) as could be taken on the light broad gauge worked by ordinary locomotives. This fact has been practically proved by tests made by the Russian Government in February last, and referred to by Mr Fairlie in an interesting letter addressed to the “ Argus.’' The writer in the “ San Francisco News Letter,” from whom we formerly quoted, remarks The only question now remaining, namely, that of ascertaining whether the dimensions given for the waggon platform and loading heights and widths of cars, are consistent with the experience 'gained by practice. The following comparison between the Pullman ears on the 4 feet 8J inch gauge, and those propose for the 3 feet gauge, will be found interesting. Outside width of cars —The 4 feet 8-a inch gauge is 12 feet 6 inches high, or 2.65 times the gauge ; the 3 feet gauge is to be 8 feet 6 inches high, or 2.83 times the gauge. Speed of trains—The 4 feet 8| inch gauge trains move 50 miles an hour, or 0.885 mileß per inch of gauge ; the 3 feet gauge trains to 30 miles an hour, or 0.883 miles per inch of gauge. He then adds: “As I have said and written, I recommend a guage of 3 feet, because it gives the largest,floor era for goods, and passengers with the smallest deadweight a good angle of stability, and a capacity capable of carrying any traffic, either military equipment or merchandise, that can ever be brought on it. I do not look on the 3 feet gauge lines a 3 subsidiary ; their introduction would insure efficiency, economy, and low tariffs. They would, therefore/ become the principal lines in time.

Our Canterbury friends will be pleased to learn that he states L double line of 3 feet could be laid on the present formation of single 5 feet 6 inch way.. It may very reasonably be argued that if the gross weight of the train is maintained on the narrow as is now worked on the broad gauge, that the waggon frames and couplings, to stand the shocks of slid den pulling or shoving must be alike in weight to give equal strength independently of the gauge. This is so, of course ; that is, 300 tons train, bumping and shunting about, require to be as strong in the buffing and drawing on the one gauge as on the other. Theoretically this is correct, but practically it is as complete a fallacy as any of the other arguments upholding the broad gauge against the narrow gauge. In this case, again, the important and significant fact is lost sight of that the 300 tons now bumped and knocked about contain but about 40 to 50 tons of paying load, which could not only becarriedin a train on the 3 feet gauge, and in the same number of waggons as that composing the broad guage train, but asmany more tons besides, before exceeding its maximum capacity, at the same time the gross weight of the train would not reach one-half that of the broad gauge. It is very clear from this, that the strengths of the narrow gauge stock to withstand the bumping and pulling would only require to be less than half that of the broad gauge, whilst the same weight of paying load would still be carried. Moreover, the gross weight of the train being thus reduced to onehalf, the length of the train is also greatly reduced, because the narrow gauge waggons capabable of carrying twice the 40 to 50 paying tons would be only 15 feet long from out to out; whilst the waggons on the broad, carrying only the same load as the narrow, average about 26 feet long from out to out; therefore the length of the narrow gauge train performing the same average duty as the broad now does, not what it could do, but what it is actually called upon to do, would be about 40 per cent less, consequently all that fuss about greater length of siding and good shed accommodation being required for the narrow gauge is just as logical, but equally fallacious as the rest of the arguments brought forward by the supporters of the broad gauge. These conditions, inseparable from the narrow gauge, are really the most telling in its favor, and as they are founded on actual. facts resulting from the experience of railway practice, immeasurably exceed all theories. It would appear then, that, tried by the test of actual experience the narrow gauge carries the day; none but sticklers for professional “precedent or rule’ remain impervious to conviction. It is not wonderful then, that the engineer-in-chief of Victoria, and other engineers, fail fully to appreciate the difference between the two gauges. Their professional predecessors pooh-poohed Stevenson, and laughed at Brindley. The thing seems

too simple—too, easily apprehended by the unprofessional mind to satisfy their professional instincts. Engrossed more with the mechanical than the economical questions surrounding it, they fail to see that the difference it makes in a new country is so great as to amount to a question of railway or no railway. The narrow gauge having passed into law, New Zealand, by taking advantage of recent discoveries in railway construction, may be said, in the expressive words of the “ Argus,” to be entering upon a new era—“ the narrow gauge era, an era of renewed activity, when every village, almost every farmstead, may have its railway, and if such an era be now at band, it is mainly because the Fairlie engine, by its increased power, by its adaptation to the sharpest curves, by its economy in the rails, and by its freedom from oscillation, even upon rude roads, has rendered it possible.” In America, as the Hon. Mr Vogel tells us, railways are to be seen in every stage of completeness, and are thought no more of, if so much, as ordinary roads. Indeed, in some parts of New Zealand roads have actually cost far more than what a narrow gauge railway would have done. Until we get rid of the .idea that a railway means a new and strange kind of thing, the construction of which requires a great deal of skill, and labor, and money, and not a new style of road, the cost of whose maintenance is so much less, and whose toll age (in the shape of freight for goods and passengers) is so much more, than an ordinary turnpikes, that the difference in the cost of construction will be more than repaid in a very few years, we will always, under the influence of “ precedent and rule,” think it is something very considerable. Tn the phrase just quoted, the Colo nial Treasurer has pointed to a fruitful source of opposition to railway construction and general progress. Am rem tetigit . Those w!o have distinguished themselves os . colonists are° those who have mopt -earnestly contended against its benumbing in fluence. It was against all “ precedent and rule ” that a Macandrew, before gold was discovered, contrived and achieved so many great things for Otago ; and it was against all “ precedent and rule” that a Moorhouse began, with a population of 12,000, a railway with a tunnel costing £243,000: against “all precedent and rule” the bold financial policy of the Government was carried almost unanimously in the late Assembly, the effects of which, in a few years, upon the future of New Zealand, we venture to predict will also be beneficially great “ beyond all precedent and rule.” Mr Vogel’s letter is unavoidably crowded out of this issue.