THE NARROW-GAUGE QUESTION.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume 1, Issue 8, 23 November 1872, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE NARROW-GAUGE QUESTION.

o The following is the copy of a letter received through the agent-general from Mr. Warton W. Evans, C. E, of New York. It was laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly last night: — “ 47 Exchange-place New York, June 3, 1872. “ To the Right Hon. H. C. E. Childers, M.P., Agent General of the Colony of Victoria. “ Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of April 24, in reference to railway gauges to be established in Victoria, asking for information and advice on the subject. I also have to acknowledge the receipt of the papers you sent me, including Parliamentary reports, evidence, maps, and sections, all of which I have not yet had time to study and read with that care and attention I propose to give them; but 1 have read sufficient to know all the general features of the case. I now have the honor to submit to you the following remarks and conclusions in reference to the question of railway gauges, and, so far as I know, they coincide with the opinions of every leading railway engineer in the United States. “ I would premise by saying it is difficult for any engineer to write on such a subject without being accused of predjudice and not understanding the subject. I might also remark that it is more than singular to see men of undoubted cleverness and ability deliberately fasten a ‘ kink ’ on their brain, and then go to work with all the power tliev possess to fasten the same on the brains of the public. This narrow-gauge question is a “ kink,” which has by the persistency, energy, and preaching of its prophets and apostles, backed by the free use of the columns of the London Times and engineering papers, entangled rhe brains of many in the railway world, who without study or reflection became converts and earnest supporters of the doctrine. And why? Because they are told, and they eagerly believe, that they can get better results by much less expenditure. There are but few among us who would not abandon our old and tired bootmaker if we could be made to believe that a man next door could make us better boots for half the money. It is undoubtedly the chief province of the engineer to make the most out of the least. The introduction of the narrow gauge is an attempted step in this direction ; but will it stand investigation, and prove itself to be what it is claimed to be, namely, the best and the cheapest for all countries and under all circumstances —that it is equally safe at high speed and with equal capacity to do the work, that is done on the standard gauge ? I must confess to my unbelief and utter want of faith in the new doctrine.

“ It is now a generation since another dogma in reference to railway gauge was broached and laid before the public, and that, too, by one of the cleverest and most accomplished engineers the world ever saw, but it was in the opposite direction to gauge. It was to be the “ gauge of the future.” It was to carry people at incredible speed for a mere nothing, and with perfect safety. It called for a vast expenditure, but capitalists were ready to empty their pockets to insure safety, and more particularly big profits. It called for the “ war of gauges ” and Parliamentary investigation. It was the father and the mother of the great error made in India, where 5.000 miles of 51 ft. gauge have been built, at a ruinous expenditure. The same error was introduced into the Argentine Confederation and the Republic of Chili, where they now have four different gauges in use. We were anxious, that is, some of us in this country, to participate in the merits of wide gauge, so we “ pitched blind ” into 1,400 miles of wide gauge, and then stopped to open our eyes and catch a breath of reason and common sense.

“ If anyone at the present day wishes to know about wide gauge, its merits, cost, and profit, I would refer him to the stockholders of the ‘ Great Western’ of England and the history of that enterprise. To those of the present day who have a propensity to invest their money in railways, I would say—-

first, look into the life and works of George Stephenson, and the weight, cost, gauge, and capacity to carry of railways in his time; then into the general tendency of railway people throughout the world for the past 40 years to increase the weight, size, and capacity of rolling-stock, rails, sleepers, ballast, and everything on the standard gauge of 4ft. B|in., and then ask himself, can it be that all the railway world have been blind for 40 years, and have dived deeper and deeper into folly, to their own detriment? Can it be that George Stephenson, the great father of the railway system, had no mechanical instinct, and that the genius wc revered him for was all a myth ? I beg pardon for premising so much, You will expect me to give you something of the history of narrow gauge railways in this country, then some solid reasons for my belief in the merits of one gauge over another, and then speak of the difficulties of break of gauge. “As regards the history of narrow gauge railways in this country, it is easily told. There are but few being built, only one of any great length—the Denver and Rio Grande Railway, west of the Mississippi River, in a rough and almost uninhabited country. There is another called the Kansas City, Memphis, and Mobile Railway, which will be a railway of length, if ever built. Another called the Arkansas Central is also west of the Mississippi. There is not a single narrow gauge railway in the eastern, middle, or southern states of any importance, nor do I know of any that are likely to be built.

“ There has been much talk about some short lines in Massachusetts, New Jersy, and Virginia! and some mineral lines will no doubt be built; but many projects for narrow gauge railways have been dropped, when their advocates —generally a set of speculating contractors, backed by uneducated engineers —found that they could not be built and worked for half the money, and still have the same capicity as a line built on the standard gauge (I call the 4ft. 84in. the standard gauge, the sft., 6ft., and 7ft. the wide gauge, the 2ft., 3ft., ind 3|ft. the narrow gauge) I hear that some railways in the west, projected to be narrow gauge, have passed into the hands of experienced engineers, who changed the gauge from 31ft. to the standard. The Texas Pacific Railway was projected to be 3ft. 6in. gauge by its engineer, General Buell. As this gentleman is more of a military than a railway engineer of experience, the president of the company submitted his report to Mr. Seymour, an engineer, of long experience, and late consulting engineer of the Central Pacific Railway. Mr Seymour upset every argument advanced by General Buell in favor of 3ft. 6in. gauge in a well-written pamphlet, a copy of which I will send you. Since then the Legislature of Texas has passed an act prohibiting this company from building their railway on any gauge but the standard of 4ft. B|in. If all Legislatures and Parliaments had been as sagacious years ago, much confusion and waste of money might have been prevented. I have never seen a narrow-gauge railway, except such as are used for a quarter or half a mile at iron or other manufacturing works, but I have an interest, as an engineer, in the construction and equipment of a 31ft. gauge railway in Costa Rica, one of 3ft. in Peru, and one of 3|ft. in Chili; so I have had some little experience in arranging the designs for engines and carriages and waggons for these railways, and now fully understand the difficulties of construction which appear to me to be greater the more I contemplate them, and particularly as regards-.- obtaining stability, safety, and speed.- I am building the bridges for the same rolling load as for other railways having the standard gauge. I am using the same size of turntables as for the standard gauge, for no one can tell how long, or how big and costly and ponderous, the engines put on narrow-gauge lines may be in a few years. lam not building engines as large or as costly as those I am building for various standard gauge railways, as I do not intend to require from them the same amount of work. These railways (two of which are Government works) are in moun- ■ tain regions, where grades of 1 in 20 ‘

and 1 in 25 are a necessity, also many curves of 200 ft. to 300 ft. radius. All three start from the sea coast, and are not intersected by railways of another gauge, and I might add, that all three are not liflely to be overburdened with heavy traffic. They are light railways, and will not be afflicted with the evils resulting from ‘ break of gauge.’ “ On one of these railways —the one in Peru —the American design of engine for overcoming steep inclines and sharp curves is to meet the so-called Eairlie engine on neutral ground. The railway world will hear of the results, and can judge of the respective merits. “As regards the merits and demerits of narrow gauge railways, I can hardly say anything that has not already been said and written. The advocates of narrow gauge have put forth many bold and taking assertions which they have been unable to substantiate by facts or in the minds and belief of experienced engineers not easily caught with ‘ chaff.’ The London Times was caught with this kind of ‘powder,’ and published long articles in the narrow gauge interest, styling it the ‘ gauge of the future.’ The public read the articles in wonder, and swallowed them as gospel. Mr. Greely, of the Tribune in this country—who, by the by, takes kindly to all new ideas—swallowed the Times' articles, published them with strong editorials, and induced the Yankee public, ever credulous, to gulp down the dose, and flatter themselves they had found a balm, a specific for all their railway complaints ; but these railway apostles and would-be economists did not blind for a moment George Bidder and John Hawkshaw, both past presidents of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and many more of the experienced and far-seeing eminent engineers of England, and I may add the same of the leading engineers of this country. They saw that the whole thing was an abominable fallacy, likely to lead to much ruinous expenditure, confusion, and evil—a regular Babel in the railway world.

“A gauge of Ift. Hi in., 2ft., 2ft. 3in., 2ft. 6in., 2ft. 9in., 3ft. 3in., 3ft. 3sin., 3ft. 6in., and some more in addition to what we have, is offered to us as a regular ‘panacea’ for our railway wounds—our foolishness in expending on many of our railways vast sums that may have been saved, and building railways where they were not required. We are called upon not only to entirely ignore the experience of the last 40 years, not only to build all future railways on the narrow gauge, but to tear up all our present railways, and make them narrow gauge. “ I am told by a gentleman in Melbourne that the great apostle of narrow gauge has published in the papers of that city that the Americans were not only building thousands of miles of narrow gauge railways, but had decided to change their entire system to narrow gauge —-namely, the ‘ Fairlie gauge.’ This will be stunning news for the Yankees. Just imagine,tearing up the tracks of over 60,000 miles of railway, now in operation in this country, and changing the plans of about 30,000 miles more in the course of construction, almost all of which are being built on the ‘ standard gauge. What a harvest this -would be for day-labourers and engine and . car builders. The harvest might be extended and made more fruitful (of ruin) with as much reason and common sense by reducing the size and capacity of all our steamboats, omnibuses, canals, water-powers, factories, rivers, and, I may as well add, Niagara Falls. -. When we conclude to do all these things, in connection with adopting narrow gauge, it will be appropriate” to close all the schools and college®, and tell the professors that their work is done, perfection has been obtained, and they need bother their brains no longer in the matter of progress and education.

“ I cannot find much in the Parliamentary evidence you have sent me to encourage the narrow gauge advocates, for I find that while the railways in Victoria of sft. 3in. gauge are being worked for 41 to 45 per cent, of the receipts, the railways in Queensland, of 3ft. 6in. gauge, are worked —one, the Southern 40 miles long, at 85| per cent, of the receipts, the other, the Northern. 160 miles long, at 214 per cent, of the receipts ■ It was proposed to remedy

this ruinous state of affairs by the introduction of the double-bogie engines. Three were’sent out: one only was tried. It distorted the track, and disabled itself on its first day’s work. “ I beg leave to to state that when George Stephenson adopted, and by so doing established the standard gauge of 4ft. Biin. ’ fielollowed the rulings of common sejfcp, as Ins groat mechanical instinct do in everything he attempted. There were narrow gauges in those duys-; as well as 4ft. B|in., but that or something very near to it had been established, I suppose for centuries, for high-way and road purposes, as the most convenient, useful, and best for all workwhere carriages, waggons, carts, Ac, were'used. In this country the gauge for carriages and waggons on highways has been fixed by statute. In some states it is about the same as the standard railway gauge. _ In talking with some of the most experienced railway engineers of this country about railway gauges, they say the chief points the narrow-gauge advocates, are as yet matters of assertion and experiment as to cost, safety and capacity, not backed up by facts that will stand calm and unprejudiced reasoning. That narrow gauge railways might be introduced in some places, under peculiar circumstances, with propriety, lam willing to admit. These places and circumstances are mountainous countries, where many sharp curves are required, where the population is poor and sparse, and likely to continue so; where the business is small, and the future apparently smaller; where speed is a matter not required or sought for, and where railways of standard gauge will not intersect or connect with them. These narrow gauge railways are a propriety also in mines, where the workings are limited in size. But to adopt narrow gauge for such a country as Australia —a country which we here are led to believe will become one of the richest most _ powerful, and well settled countries of the world—appears to be an absurdity. A great many clever and conscientious men, but men of no great experience in railway construction and economy, believe in the merits of narrow gauge, and why ? Because they have been told they can be built and worked at less cost, and that there is a great economy to grow out of it. They believe this because they wish to —they try to believe it.

“ Let us examine some of the leading points in this matter, and try to find out where the economy lies in building and working two railways of different gauges, each having the same kind of business to do, running the same number of trains per day, each train of same tonnage, and run at same speed. To make it as favorable to narrow gauge as possible, let both roads be located where heavy inclines and sharp curves are required, and where there is a fair but not enormous business. It should be understood that on many lines the two rails of a railway are a very considerable portion of the whole expenditure (exclusive of rolling stock)—in some cases one half of the whole. It should also be understood that on many lines there is no ballast. This is not, as put dowm in the evidence you sent me, confined entirely to American and Russian lines, but is the case with lines built and owned by Englishmen. The Central Argentine Railway is a ease of the kind. It runs for 247 miles over the Pampas, in rich alluvial deposit, where there is no ballast. This line is nearly straight from end to end. The ‘ Arica and Tacua ’ Railway of Peru, belonging to an English company in London, and built under mv direction, has no ballast, and does not require any, as the formation is sandy, and every day in the year bright, sunny, and warm ; no rain, ice, or frost to encounter as disturbing causes. To be continued.