THE NARROW-GAUGE QUESTION.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume 1, Issue 9, 30 November 1872, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE NARROW-GAUGE QUESTION.

Continued from our last. I beg now to ask some questions, which are simple, and Can be understood by all having reasoning faculties and unprejudiced minds. “ 1. Will it cost any less for the surveys and location of a narrow-gauge line than for one on the standard gauge ?

“ 2. Will it cost any less for land, assuming in all cases that the land taken is a few feet more than the actual positive requirements at the time the railway is built ? “ 3. Will the ditches required for drainage be any less in size or cost on narrow gauge than on standard gauge ? “4. Will changing channels of streams or cutting off bends in rivers cost any less for narrow than for standard gauge ? “5. Will grubbing and clearing cost any less per acre for narrow than standard gauge? “6. Will fencing cost any less per mile for narrow than for standard gauge ?

“7. Does not and should not the width of carriages and waggons govern the width of cuttings more than the gauge of track ? / “8. Is there any reason why carriages and waggons of any appropriate width of body for narrow gauge cannot be built for and run on standard gauge ? “ 9. If so, is there any reason why the cuttings should be wider and cost any more for standard than for narrow gauge? “ 10. In embankments, is there any good reason why they should be any wider for standard than for narrow gauge beyond a vertical longitudinal slice placed in the centre 14|in. wide the difference between 3ft. Gin. and 4ft. 81in. This in an embankment of 50ft. high makes 1. 4-10 per cent, difference in quantity and cost, but only for so much as is 50ft. high ? “ 11. Where the line is a surface line, or very nearly so, will there be any difference in the cost of formation between the narrow and standard gauge ? “ 12. Will the waterways for bridges and culverts be any less in clear span for narrow than standard gauge ? “ 13. Will the foundations for bridges require to be any less deep for narrow than for standard gauge ? “ 14. If the rolling load is to be the same, would it be safe to build the bridges with less strength for narrow than for standard gauge ?

“ 15. If bridges are to be of same strength, will cost be any less for narrow than for standard gauge ? “ IG. Will there be any difference in the amount of ballast required between the narrow and standard gauge, except the difference in the width of the gauges —say 200 cubic yards per mile, at a cost of about £8 to £lO ? But where will this diff erencebe if there is no ballast ?

“ 17. If the engines are of equal power will they not, if of the same design and general character, be of equal weight and cost for both gauges ? “ 18. If engines of same weight are used on both gauges, will they not require the same amount of sleeper-bear-ing surface for one gauge as the other ? “ 19. If it requires 14,000 square feet of bearing surface of sleepers per mile for standard gauge, will it require less for narrow gauge ? I beg to put in an answer to this.—The bearing surface should be more for narrow gauge, for •with engines of same power and size of wheel, the elevation of centre of gravity in relation to gauge will be greater in narrow gauge than in standard gauge, and consequently the leverage will be greater, and cause greater disturbance of surface of track during lateral oscillations. “ 20. If the same number of cubic feet of timber is "used in one gauge as the other, will the sleepers for narrow gauge cost less than sleepers for standard. gauge ? " 21. If rails of iron or steel, of 401 b., 501 b., or 601 b. per yard are used, will they cost less per mile for narrow than tor standard gauge or any other gauge ? “22 I would ask the same question as to fish-plates, bolts, chairs, spikes, and screws ?

“ 23 Will switches and crossing-points, supposing each road requires the same number, cost less for narrow than for standard gauge ?

“ 24. Will it cost less for laying and finishing a mile of narrow gauge than a mile of standard gauge ? “ 25. Will it cost less per mile to sod or seed the slopes of narrow gauge than to do the same on standard gauge ? “ 2G. Will the telegraph lines (now required on all railways) cost less on narrow than on standard gauge ? “ 27. Can we make the station yards smaller for narrow than for standard gauge, the amount of business being the same ?

“ 28. Will any one sell land cheaper for narrow than for standard gauge ? “ 29. Will there be any less, smaller, or cheaper station buildings turntables, or water reservoirs or derricks, or tools for repairs, stationary engines, stores, or extras required for narrow than for standard gauge ?

“30. Will the locomotives of same weight, power, and material cost less for narrow than for wide gauge ? As this is a question that people generally cannot well answer, I will state that they cannot be built for a less sum, and that when very great power and speed is required, such as we are using on the standard gauge every day, they cannot be built at any price and have the required stability, for there are mechanical difficulties in connexion with narrow gauge engines that cannot be overcome when great speed and power are required, and this fact is as well known to the engineers of England as it is known here. To put wheels of Gft. diameter, or cylinders of 20in. x 24in., or boilers with 200, 2in. fines in a 3ft. gauge engine, would be simply ridiculous. The above dimensions have often been much exceeded in engines to run on standard gauges. “31. Is there any sane person who can show any good reason why a railway car (or waggon, as it is called in England) can be built for a narrow gauge railway to carry 2} times its own weight, and the same cannot be done for waggons to run on the standard gauge? As this matter of the ratio of dead to live weight in favor of narrow gauge has so often been stated, and so persistently forced upon public notice, and as I began to fear I was not sane on the subject, as I could not see the thing, although it was in plain English and big print in The Times, I went to various engineers and waggon builders to propound to them this problem relative to live and dead weight. I went to my friends and found them just as insane as I was; they could not see or believe that there was any good reason. They say that the same wheel will be of the same weight, and carry as much if run on narrow as on any other gauge ; that the side-sills of ear of same size will bear the same, if of same wood and distance between supports ; that if the axles are longer it must be recollected the floor of the waggon is wider for standard gauge and will carry more ; the springs, breaks, buffers, couplings, bearings, pedestals, bolts, &c., if of same size and material, will weigh no more, cost no more, and be no less efficient if used in a car or waggon on standard gauge than if used in a car on the narrow gauge. “ 32. Is there any good reason why a 22in. wheel will not run on the standard gauge as well as on the narrow gauge under same circumstances of load and speed ? “ 33. Is there not a very good reason why the 36in. and 42in. wheels in general use in England on standard gauge cannot be used with propriety or safety on the narrow gauge ? “ 34. Can it be that all the railway world, the people of countries widely separated in distance, language, and ways of doing things, have gone wrong, and committed the same error steadily through more than the third of a century, in. increasing the size, and weight, and power of engines, cars, and rails, sleepers, and everything belonging to railways ? Are we all idiots ? “ 35. Will there be any less sidings, or sidings less in length, required for a narrow than for a standard gauge railway ? “ 36. Will there be less break power required coming down a steep incline on a narrow than on a standard gauge, or less number of men to handle the breaks ? “37. With cars on the two gauges

of appropriate width for each gauge, will not the train on standard gauge, carrying the same load, be much the shortest train, with less wheels and less rolling frictions ?

“ 38. If the train on the narrow gauge is much the longest, with more wheels under it, will not the flange frictions on very sharp curves be much greater than in the short train on the standard gauge ? The angle at which the flanges strike the outer rail being the same in both cases, this angle is governed by distance of axles apart and not by the gauge. “ 39. Is a long train as easily handled as a short train ?

“ 40. Will a narrow-gauge railway require any less officers and employes than a standard gauge railway, and can they be procured for less pay and salaries ?

“ 41. Can narrow-gauge cars carry horses and cattle as easily and comfortably as standard gauge cars ? “42. Has a passenger in a first-class narrow-gauge car the same room to stand in, sit in, and sleep in, and the same comforts as he finds in a standard gauge car ? “ 43. Will the Parliamentary and legal expenses and taxes be any less on a narrow than on a standard gauge railwav ?

“44. Will not a break of gauge, occasioning a change of cargo from one set of cars to another, create endless confusion and annoyance, besides extra expense, damage to goods and additional risk of accidents ? If anyone doubts this, let him read the reports of Robert Stephenson and other eminent engineers in England on the subject; or let him start out in this country and gather evidence as he goes west and south, first on a 6ft. gauge, then on a 4ft. B|in. gauge, then on a 4ft. lOin. gauge, and then on a sft. gauge. I will answer for it, he will come home disgusted with the want of uniformity in gauge now existing in this country, and possibly to be made worse by the introduction of various narrow gauges. If this seeker after knowledge is a merchant, and happens to see the cargo of a train unloaded from one gauge and loaded on to another, with the usual damage and loss of time, he will on his return seek to find some line with uniform gauge by which to send his goods to the west. With uniform gauge over a system of various lines of railway intersecting and connecting with each other, there will be much less rolling stock required, also less station tracks, and station accommodation ; engines and engine drivers will be idle less time, goods will be delivered earlier and in better condition. It is probable, putting it at a low estimate, that a change of goods in quantity will cost in time a day, or in distance more than 100 miles run, in addition to damage and amount paid for the transfer ; two sets of cars have to be furnished, and both have to lie idle during the transfer. I beg pardon for saying so much on this point, but it is a vital point. A partner of the late Mr. Brassey, writing to me a short time since, says ‘ Break of gauge, after once being adopted, is the vital point, and one that every country has seen or will see the sad policy of.’ An engineer of note writing to me recently from London says, —‘ I have just seen a Russian engineer who has the same opinion of the double-bogie engine and narrow-gauge that you have, and thinks they will have no more of them in Russia.’ If I may be allowed to offer advice I would most earnestly urge you not to adopt any system calling for a break of gauge. If you are inclined to make a change and repair the error of having adopted a gauge of sft. 3in., decide to adopt the standard gauge of 4ft. Sjin. If a fine is required in a district now sparsely populated and with small traffic, build it at first with economy, using sharp curves, and undulating the gradients, make cuts and embankments narrow, put down a light rail and sleeper and no ballast, equip it •with light rolling stock, use the bogie system of American carriages and engines (but not the double bogie engine), use the American cast-iron chilled wheel, as a great economy. All these things can be made in England as well as here, and much cheaper. You can, as circumstances call for it, ballast the road, flatten the curves, and improve

the gradients, lay down heavier rails, and put on them heavier and more powerful engines, and improved carriages and waggons, without interrupting travel or traffic. We have followed this system for many years, and find it the only system that would insure success. Our railway system and its success have been the result of our necessities. We had not as long purses as they have in England. We were forced to forego the luxury of extravagance, and long since discovered that if we followed England in railway expenditure we would all become, bankrupt. The best proof I can give of the success and merits of the American railway system is that while our country is sparsely populated, as compared with England, while some of our railways run into unhabited regions, while we carry a ton of goods per mile and a passenger per mile for less than the same service is performed for in England (and this, too, at a time when we pay double for the three chief items of railway expenditure, namely, labour, fuel, and iron), we make a much larger return on the total amount invested than is done in England. We are indebted to England for many clever and useful inventions connected with railways and the mechanical arts. We watch with anxious care all new European discoveries and inventions, and give them a fair trial, but it has appeared to me that with many of your railway men, builders, and manufacturers, the reverse is the case. It only requires to be known that a thing is of American origin to insure its being condemned, and this is more particularly the case with railway plant than with anything else. I will mention some cases in point. The bell and cord running through a train—the best, cheapest, and most reliable means that is or can be invented for passengers to communicate with the guard or engineman —is not allowed to be introduced into England, although something of the kind has been long needed. Again, the American journal boxes and oil lubrication were tried by Mr.' M.M. Connell on the London and NorthWestern Railway in 1852, and the result found to be that a set of six American boxes cost l|d. per day, while a set of six Normanville boxes cost 9d. per day, and yet this system of lubrication of railway journal boxes has been used but little in England. I might add that one of the leading mechanical engineers of England told me that on his return to England some years since from the charge of motive power of Grand Trunk Railway in Canada, where he saw the merits of the American chilled cast-iron disc wheel, he went to Mr. Locke, then president of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and told him of them, and proposed to him to introduce them into England, as a great railway economy. Nothing resulted from this, and I am now satisfied there is not an engineer in England who will advise their introduction for fear an accident might occur, and the coroner would say, ‘lt is your fault; you are the criminal. Why not leave well enough alone ?’— no matter what well enough may cost. I have the satisfaction to know that these wheels (made of pure Salisbury charcoal iron, the ‘ tread’ being chilled so that no cold chisel will cut them), which I put under the whole rollingstock of the Southern Railway of Chili in 1857, were all in use in 1867, not one being broken, worn out, or taken from a car. The whole of the carriages and waggons of the railways of the United States are mounted on these wheels, they being found preferable, independent of cost, to any other. “ I find in the Parliamentary evidence and documents you have kindly sent me some points showing that the American railway system is not well understood by the engineers in Australia, and as there are some matters connected with railway construction in America that I would like to explain and comment on, I propose to attach to this paper a supplement touching those matters. “With sentiments of esteem, I remain, dear sir, your obedient servant, “ W. W. Evans.”