693 



REVIEW OF REVIEWS. 



September 1, 191S. 



XIV.-A UNIFORM GAUGE FOR AUSTRALIA. 



The report of the Uniform Gauge 

 Conference, held at Melbourne in De- 

 cember, 19 1 2, and in April of this year, 

 has been severely criticised both here 

 and at home. Nowhere have its findings 

 been so pulled to pieces, its estimates 

 been so questioned, and its shortcom- 

 ings been so clearly shown as in En- 

 gineering, London. 



This journal is always authoritative in 

 railway matters, and the lucid, well- 

 argued article it publishes on the report 

 is bound to have great weight. It has 

 already been much commented on. The 

 writer points out that a conference con- 

 stituted as this one was would hardK' 

 bring in an unbiassed report. " The mem- 

 bers comprising it were civil engineers, 

 responsible for the permanent way and 

 structure of the railways, but they were 

 also Government servants, and each one, 

 out of loyalty to his Government, could 

 scarcely fail to lean slightly to his Gov- 

 ernment's views. To be finally settled, 

 the question must be lifted high out of 

 the reach of all such matters. The de- 

 cision must come from a commission 

 with a much wider purview. It should 

 embrace, or it should at least be in a 

 position to get evidence from, experts in 

 the railway management of the long dis- 

 tance and heavy lines of the United 

 States, and of the broad-gauge lines in 

 such countries as India and the Argen- 

 tine, and perhaps also of the narrow- 

 gauge system of South Africa, in order 

 that it might be realised to what degree 

 economic development is possible. From 

 such a commission there might be ex- 

 pected a broad and comprehensive judg- 

 ment." 



The report dismisses the whole ques- 

 tion of gauge, from operating and 

 economic standpoints, in a quarter of a 

 page. Those responsible for it merely 

 say that the only two gauges discussed 

 were the 5 ft. 3 in. and the 4 ft. 8 in., 

 without giving their reasons for elimi- 

 nating all the other gauges. More sur- 

 prising still is the fact that no mention 

 is made of the "loading gauge " (the 

 permissible height and width of the roll- 

 ing-stock.) This, says Engineering, is 



simply extraordinary, since Mr. Deane, 

 the chairman, has always championed 

 the 4 ft. 8i in. gauge, on the ground 

 that it sufficed in America. In America 

 the loading gauge is not nearly so 

 limited as in Australia, and, there- 

 fore, if it is decided to make a 4 ft. 

 8.7 in. gauge standard, the onl\' conclu- 

 sion one can come to is that it will never 

 be necessar)- to work even the 4 ft. 81, in. 

 gauge to its full capacity in Australia. 



Yet " even now New South Wales is 

 being forced to undertake extensive 

 duplication, and it would be a distinct 

 advantage to bring the loading gauge up 

 to the American standard, so as to have 

 something in reserve for the future. It 

 would cost ver)- little more to go the 

 whole length and adopt the 5 ft. 3 in. 

 gauge, with a liberal loading gauge, 

 and so have done with it. The wide 

 gauge is advocated on the grounds that 

 the ph}'sical conditions of Australia 

 ' make for ' long haul, with definitely 

 marked periodic flow in certam direc- 

 tions, and that traffic of this nature is 

 most economically handled in maximum 

 train loads." 



" There is no question in the minds of 

 designers of rolling-stock as to which 

 is preferable. Opinion in countries 

 where the standard gauge has reached 

 the limits of develoj^ment is one of re- 

 gret that the day has passed when the 

 adoption of a wider gauge might have 

 been feasible. Those countries m which 

 conditions of long haul obtain, but 

 which early adopted a wider gauge, can 

 look forward, in confidence, to economic 

 oj^eration for long years to come. Only 

 in Australia is a miserable present al- 

 lowed to carry more weight than the 

 nation's future." 



The figures of the cost of conversion 

 given in the report certainly require con- 

 siderable explanation. To convert all 

 lines (5 ft. 3 in. and 3 ft. 6 in.) to 

 4 ft. 8i in. gauge, is estimated to cost 

 iJ"37, 1 46,000. To convert all lines (4 ft. 

 8} in. and 3 ft. 6 in.) to 5 ft. 3 in. 

 gauge, ;{!^ 5 1,659,000. The itemised costs 

 are thus set forth : — 



