6g: 



REVIEW OF REVIEWS. 



bcptembcr I, IJIS. 



in 1897 by an amount (^15,059,000) 

 which is only £^22,00^ less than the 

 total sum spent on the railways during 

 the years that have elapsed ! 



The total cost of railway construc- 

 tion in New South Wales is only 

 ;;^ 5 3, 5 00,000. But to convert to the 

 wider gauge is to cost more that a third 

 of the total outlay, although rails, 

 sleepers, embankments, bridges, stations, 

 culverts and rolling stock do not have 

 to be paid for ! The cost of construc- 

 tion now is much less than it used to be, 

 which makes these figures all the more 

 extraordinary. 



In 1897 the estimated cost of con- 

 verting the railways in New South 

 Wales to 5 ft. 3 in. was £\2y^ per mile 

 of track, now it is ^^3170. In 1897 the 

 estimated cost of converting the Vic- 

 torian 5 ft. 3 in, gauge to 4 ft. 8| in. was 

 £6^6 per mile of track, now it is ;^i,i8o. 

 Had the figures of 1897 still stood good 

 proportionately the cost of conversion 

 would now be : New South Wales, 

 ;£"7,782,324, and Victoria, ;^3,487,120 re- 

 spectively. In the present report con- 

 version in Victoria is estimated to cost 

 i^6,i 17,000, almost a million pounds 

 more than twice what it would have 

 done on the old basis, but the present 

 estimated cost of conversion in New 

 South Wales, ;^i 9,3 19,000, is four mil- 

 lion pounds more than twice what it 

 would have been on the old basis. 



One ma\- well ask why this extraordi- 

 nary discrepancy. It certainly gives the 

 strongest ground for the suggestion 

 made in many quarters that the figures 

 for New South Wales, to quote En- 

 gineering, are inflated, so that if the 

 State were forced to convert to the 5 ft. 

 3 in. gauge the indemnity which might 

 come to assist it in the work would 

 cover large renewals instead of a simple 

 conversion. It is well known that exten- 

 sive and costly renewals are long over- 

 due on the New South Wales railways. 



It is of the very highest importance to 

 Australia that the best gauge is selected. 

 The one which will ultimately prove of 

 the greatest service. In this matter pre- 

 sent expediency should give way to 

 future usefulness. A mistake now 

 might seriously cramp the whole trade 



of the Commonwealth some generations 

 hence. In America, despite a far more 

 liberal loading gauge than obtains here, 

 it is generally admitted that it would 

 have been much better to have had a 

 wider gauge laid down. Let us not, with- 

 out the gravest enquiry-, permit ourselves 

 to be committed to a policy, those who 

 come after us would bitterly regret. 

 One argument used in favour of the 



4 ft. 8i in. gauge is that rolling-stock 

 can be obtained for it at short notice 

 from England or America, whereas the 



5 ft. 3 in. ty}5e must be speciall)- ordered. 

 The whole policy of Australian States- 

 manship is to produce all the rolling- 

 stock required for Australian raiKva)s 

 in Australia. We cannot export, as we 

 would be hopelessly beaten in price in 

 the open market, but we can produce for 

 ourselves, and it makes no difference 

 whether in that case the gauge is 4 ft. 

 8^ in. or 5 ft. 3 in. The suggested sud- 

 den demand for increased rolling-stock 

 is in case of war, but that is surely an 

 absurd position to take up. To get in 

 supplies from home or elsewhere we must 

 have command of the sea, and if we 

 have command of the sea no invading 

 army could hope to succeed. If we lose 

 conmiand of the sea we cannot imjiort 

 rolling-stock, but our foe could do so. 

 In that case the fact that he would not 

 be able to obtain immediate supplies of 

 rolling-stock to fit a gauge of 5 ft. 3 in. 

 would seem to indicate that from a stra- 

 tegic point of view the wider gauge was 

 advisable. 



The new Interstate Commission will 

 probably have to decide finally in the 

 matter. It has no technical knowledge, 

 however, so it would seem to be imj:)era- 

 tive that a commission of special enquiry 

 should be appointed at once, in order 

 10 get the facts the interstate body 

 would need. This commission should 

 be entirely impartial, its members unin- 

 fluenced by State prejudices or local 

 politics, and amongst them should be 

 those who are familiar with the working 

 of railroads outside Australia. 



The Interstate Commissioners could 

 not possibly arrive at a decision on such 

 an unsatisfactory report as that pro- 

 duced bv the recent conference. 



