THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



line, will probably pay them quite as well as 30s. will pay the London 

 and Birmingham Company for carrying a passenger 111 miles on their 

 line. 



But in advising you not to proceed in constructing your line on the larger 

 scale, it is necessary to take a review of the consequences. 



You are, to a certain extent, committed to it in a pecuniary sense. This 

 amount can be ascertained and contrasted with the saving to be effected by 

 contracting the dimensions, if there be a saving; if there be no saving as to 

 first cost, in making the alteration, yet as I believe there would be a material 

 saving in the expenses afterwards, and other advantages of greater magnitude 

 still, such as the avoiding the introduction of an expensive system into dis- 

 tricts which can ill afford it, the consequent re-action from which would be 

 felt by our own line, I feel bound to recommend you to make the alteration. 



That which will go to the debit of making the alteration will be as fol- 

 lov.'s : — ■ 



22 Miles of road to be taken up and re-laid, the 



same materials being used, £1,500 per mile.... XSS.OOO 



14 Locomotives and tenders received 



(adaptedforwidegauge)£l,980each, £27,720 

 7 Engines and tenders, constructing, 



say same price 13,800 



42 First-class carriages at £544 22,848 



40 Second-class carriages at £351 14,040 



118 Trucks and wagons at £106 12,508 



90,976 



£123,976 

 On the rails I do not consider there would be any loss, for though I think 



them too light, yet they will be much less objectionable in this respect on the 



narrower way. 

 That which will go to tlie credit of making the alteration will be as 



follows : — 



£1,000 per mile to be saved on 100 miles of permanent 



way yet to be laid £100,000 



£400 each less upon 60 engines and tenders yet to be ob- 

 tained to make full stock 24,000 



£200 per mile less on earthwork, &c. yet to be completed, 



say 60 miles 12,000 



Say 20 per cent, on tunnelling yet to be done, by the nar- 

 rower gauge, requiring 4 feet less width, say 2,000 

 yards, at £10 20,000 



£156,000 



It is useless to push this enquiry further. Tt is clear that evsn considering 

 the question as if your present stock of engines, carriages, &c. would be 

 valueless if you alter the gauge ; and contrasting this loss with the saving 

 that would be effected by adopting the narrower gauge, supposing that in 

 prosecuting the 7 feet gauge you were only m future to do that which is 

 barely necessary, still, taking such a view of it, the advantage in a pecuniary 

 sense is decidedly in favour of an alteration of the gauge. 



But if the comparison were made on the supposition that in carrying out 

 your system as to gauge, you were to continue the large dimensions you have 

 begun with, the pecuniary advantages in favour of reducing the gauge would 

 be very much greater. 



Further, there is no necessity for considering all your present-stock of 

 engines and carriages as valueless ; for supposing you should decide upon 

 altering the gauge, it could be done as follows. 



It would be necessary in the first place to curtail the dimensions of all the 

 works yet remaining to be done, and to proceed with taking up one of the 

 lines between London and Maidenhead and to relay it to the narrower gauge. 

 In the mean time your present traffic in passengers could be carried on very 

 well on one line. On the railway between Antwerp and Brussels, greater 

 numbers nre canied on a single line of way. This would of course afford 

 employment for your present stock of engines and carriages for probably a 

 year and a half, and would therefore go to diminish the sacrifice that ulti- 

 mately would h^ve to be made ; that sacrifice would be still further diminished, 

 by the value of such part of the carriages, trucks, and engines, as could be 

 applied in the construction of others for the narrower gauge. 



Of course the traffic would have to be transferred to the line of narrower 

 gauge before the second seven feet way between London and Maidenhead 

 could be taken up ; it might then be relaid to the narrower gauge, and could 

 be got ready by the time that an extended portion of your line should be pre- 

 pared for opening. 



Having come to a conclusion that so great an increase of guage as to 7 feet 

 is to be avoided ; the question will arise, is 4 feet 8i inch exactly the thing? 

 No one, perhaps, will pretend to say that it is so precisely, or that an inch or 

 two in addition could make much difference as to cost. Of course the ob- 

 jections to increasing the width of way, on the score of expense, become less 

 as the increase to be made is diminished ; the main reason in my view for 

 abiding by the 4 feet 84 inch guage io this country is, that it has been greatly 

 adopted, and that there are no very substantial grounds for altering it. 1 have 

 never heard any one, whose opinion I should esteem of great value from their 

 experier.ce of the working of locomotives on railways, wish for more than a 

 lew inches of additional width, five or six inches at the utmost ; and even as 

 to this increase, just in proportion as the parties had had much to do with the 

 working of the locomotives on railways, so in the same proportion did they 

 esteem even it to be of minor importance. 



Perhaps, if railways were just commencing in this country, an addition of 

 a few inches, five or six inches at the most, might be made ; but the advan- 

 tage to be gained by making it now, in my opinion, would in no manner com- 

 pensate the evil that will arise from a variety of gauges in the same country. 



Impressed with the importance of having other opinions on this subject than 

 my own, I addressed a letter to two of the largest manufacturers of locomotives 

 in this country, requesting from them to know what in their opinion were 

 the practical disadvantages o( the 4 feet 8§ inches guage as affecting the 

 manufacturer. 



The opinions of both these parties in my view are peculiarly valuable, for 

 they were not only amongst (he earliest locomotive manufacturers, but have 

 also had much more experience as to the working of their engines on railways 

 than any other manufacturers I know ; and without this latter kind of ex- 

 perience, manufacturers are, to a certain extent, only theorists, as to the 

 question in hand. 



Their answers an; below. 



•■ Liverpool, Sept. iQtli, 1838. 



" Dear' Sir, — In reply to your letter of tlie 27th inst. referring to the question of the 

 right guage, which at this time is so much agitated, 



I beg to state that though we do not hiboiir absolutely under great difficulties, iu 

 consequence of the want of breadth, yet there is no doubt au addition to the present 

 width (4 feet 8^in ) of a few iuchcs would enable us to make a more perfect engine. 

 The ad(Ution of 6 inches would be ample, and I consider any thing beyond that would 

 tend to iucrease the difficulties beyond what we now experience, rather than othenyise. 



" Yom*s truly, 

 (Signed) '" Edwakd Burv. 



'' John Hawkshaw, Esq." 



" Londou, Oct. 1, 1838. 

 " Mr. Johu Hawkshaw. 

 " Sir, — lire extent of inconvenience we experience in the construction of locomotive 

 engines of moderate power {say 14 inch cylinders) for a gauge of 4 feet 8| inches, is 

 very small iuileed. In our early eugines au addiduual width of 3 or 4 iuches would 

 have facilitated the arrangement of the workiug *^car and eccentrics; but tlus has 

 since been simplified, and our latest arrangement of those parts leaves scarcely this 

 small increase of width to be wished for. 



" The construction of eugiues for Russia for a six feet gauge, leads us to believe 

 that a considerable increase of expense is attendant upon increased \ridth ; more 

 especially if the power of tlie engine is considered to bear any relation to the width of 

 the gauge. If the power or dimensions of the engine be kept the same, the additional 

 expense consequent upon au increase of gauge will uot be very considerable. 

 '* We are, Sir, &c., 

 (Signed) " Robert Stecuenson & Co." 



With respect to Mr. Bury, it may be observed, that if any manufacturer in 

 England has felt inconvenience from the 4 ft. 8 j in. guage, he must have done 

 so ; for, from the peculiar construction of his engines, it is a principle with 

 him to use inside bearings only, which necessarily leave less room for the 

 working gear than when outside bearings are used. 



BRIDGE AT MAIDENHEAD. 



I have carefully inspected this bridge, and find that at the crown of the 

 eastern arch, and for 12 or 14 feet on each side of it, there is a separation 

 between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rings of whole bricks, counting from the soffit 

 of the arch ; these separjitions generally are about half au inch wide ; and 

 extend tliree or four yards each way from the crown of the arch ; the dislo- 

 cation appears to be less towards the interior, for on making a hole quite 

 through the brickwork in the centre of the arch, it was found that there was a 

 separation only between the 2nd and 3rd ring of whole bricks, hut this se- 

 paiiition was about an inch in width. 



There is nothing anywhere that I could perceive like crushing of the bricks, 

 or disloca'ion indirection of the thrust. 



I think it probable, therefore, that if a few iron holts were ]iut thiough the 

 arch, so as to prevent any further separation, and the crown of the arch loaded 

 with additioni'Ll weight, that the bridge might stand, and perhaps be quite 

 strong enough for anything that ever may be required of it. But I cannot 

 say that I should advise such an experiment to be made on such a structure, 

 especially as putting its stability beyond all question will not be a very serious 

 matter. 



1 should recommend, therefore, that from 25 to 30 feet of the crown of the 

 eastern arch be taken out, (the precise quantity will be seen as the arch is 

 opened), and replaced with stone, the facing of the elevation may still be of 

 brick, so as not to destroy the appearance of the bridge. The stone will give 

 greater weight to the crown of the arch, which I think is wanted; and I should 

 also recommend an additional weight to he placed on the crown of the western 

 aich; a couple of courses of 8 or 9 inch landings would do; for I find 

 difficulty in accounting for the appearances presented, otherwise than on the 

 supposition that the haunches of the arches have had more than their full 

 share of load ; and at all events, I am of opinion that some additional weight 

 on the crown of both arches will be of service, and will add to the general 

 stability of the structure. 



PERMANENT WAY. 



The mode adopted in laying the rails, is, I think, attempting to do that in a 

 difficult and expensive manner, which may be done at least as well in a 

 simpler and more economical manner. 



LOCOMOTIVE POWER. 



Beyond what may have been said on this subject generally in the preceding 

 parts of this report, the length to which it has already extended forbids ray 

 saying much more. Generally, I should say, that the power of your engines 

 should be proportioned to your loads. 



Employing engines capable of drawing 200 tons to drag loads averaging 50 

 tons, will be very much like fastening eight horses to a post-chaise. 



