Clarke.] Report on Steam Cultivation. 317 



the headland, because the resting engine takes up a new position 

 fi'hile the other is pulling. The single engine has to move forward 

 at every bout when the implement has come to that end. This 

 cannot be done while the plough is in motion ; and as moving 

 forward before the plough starts puts the slack-rope in the plough- 

 man's way, the usual plan is to set the plough in for a yard or two, 

 stop it, put the road-gear in action, travel the engine forward, and 

 then again start the plough on its journey out. Considering the 

 loss of time, as well as occasional stoppages, and the slackening 

 of speed in approaching the anchorage, we may fairly say that in 

 farmer's practice the single engine takes half a minute, while the 

 double engines take only a quarter of a minute in " turning at 

 the ends." If we allow three minutes for each journey of the 

 implement, the single engine is seen to waste one-seventh of 

 the day, and the two engines only one-fourteenth of the day, " at 

 the ends ;" that is, the double engines compress nearly one day's 

 more work into a week. About every third day the single engine 

 wastes say three hours in removal for half a mile distance ; the 

 double engines waste only half an hour in effecting the same 

 shift ; thus gaining 2^ hours twice a week, or another half a day 

 in the week. The result is that, assuming the plough to move 

 in both cases at the same pace, two engines will accomplish in 

 f) days the same amount of work that one engine will do in 

 1^ days ; or, in other words, they will get over 75 acres, while 

 the single engine is doing only 60 acres. 



Perhaps we shall not be far from the truth if we take this as a 

 fair comparison between a 14-horse engine and anchorage " set," 

 and a "double set "of two 12-horse engines; with either of the "sets" 

 the implement would probably be hauled at about the same pace, yet 

 the " double" would accomplish in the same time one-fourth more 

 work than the "single" tackle. With the "two" engines the 

 prime cost, and therefore the interest and depreciation per day, 

 would be one-fourth more — thus amounting to only the same 

 charge per acre as with the single engine. But there would be a 

 saving in working expenses ; because the coal burned and the 

 wages paid per day are about equal in the two cases, making 

 the " double engine " performance one-fifth cheaper in coal and 

 labour per acre. 



We are not surprised, then, to find that no purchaser of a 

 " double " set has yet been known to go back to the " single" set 

 of steam-ploughing tackle, though there are many instances of 

 "single" sets being relinquished for "double "ones — an exchange 

 by no means confined to men who contemplate letting out their 

 machinery. (See farms Nos. G9 and 82.) Of course, the sum of 

 money required will prevent the occupier of a small farm from 



