J« 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[March, 



public, and not of private trading companies, we should merely have to 

 consider whether that uniformity of gauge which we deem to be so desirable 

 would be to dearly purchased by an alteration of one gauge to suit the other, 

 or of both to some fresh gauge which might be considered preferable to 

 either, if any such there be. . , . , 



But our position is diflFerent from this, since we have to consider not only 

 the relative length of the different systems, the comparative mechanical effi- 

 ciency of eacli, the general superiority of one above the other, their adapta- 

 tion to the wants of the country, and the possitiility as well as the policy of 

 a change, but also the pecuniary meaus of effecting it. We have further to 

 ook to the consequences of an iuterruption of the traffic during the progress 

 of an alteration. 



X)ouble Gauge Railways. — There is still another fiew of the question, and 

 that is, the expediency of having, on lines of railway, additional rails, 

 10 as to afford the facility of using engines and carriages on botli gauges. 



This expedient, in whatever form adopted, cannot be considered as free 

 from difficulties. If two rails, forming a narrow gauge way, arc placed be- 

 tween the two rails which form a broad gauge way, carriages of the different 

 gauges may run in the same train, without alteration even of their buffers, 

 which in the ordinary construction of the carriages correspond exactly on 

 the broad and narrow gauges. But the expense of such an insertion would 

 probably be not less than that of an entire change of gauge, including in the 

 latter, tiie change of engines and carrying stock ; and the complication 

 which it would introduce at the crossings might produce danger to rapid 

 trains, unless their speed were diminished at approaching such points. The 

 difficulty of packing the rails, if longitudinal sleeper* were used, would also 

 be much greater than if rails of only a single gauge were employed. If a 

 lingle rail were inserted eccentrically in a broad gauge way, so as to form, 

 in conjunction with one of the broad gauge rails, a narrow gauge way, the 

 expense of the insertion, and the danger of the crossings, as well as the 

 difficulty of packing the rails, would be somewhat diminished, but it would 

 be imprudent to run carriages of the dilfeient gauges in the same train, and 

 •I it would probably be the policy of the railway company to adopt for 

 their own stock of engines only one of the two gauges, and to interpose 

 those difiiculties which amount to a prohibition of the use of other com- 

 panies' engines, the inconveniences of a break of gauge would exist in 

 almost all their force at every junction of a branch railway on a different 

 gauge. 



We consider, therefore, that the general adoption of such a system ought 

 not to be permitted. 



We remark however, that the difficulties to which we have alluded may be 

 greatly diminished on any railway where the system of combiued gauges is 

 cordially taken up by the company ; and we think that great respect ought 

 to be paid to the rights which the companies may be supposed to possess in 

 the methods or systems which they have devised or adopted. At the same 

 time, we lay it down as the first principle, that inter-eomniunication of rail- 

 ways throughout the country ought, if possible, to be secured. If, to obtain 

 the last-mentioned object, it should be necessary to alter or make a change 

 in any existing railways, we think that it may be left as a matter of ulterior 

 consideration for the Legislature, whether in these limited instances the com- 

 bination of gauges may not be allowed. 



Whatever may be the course which at the present time circumstances will 

 permit, it will appear from the opinion we have expressed, that we 

 think, abstractedly equalization desirable ; and we shall therefore proceed 

 to consider what gauge would be the best in such a system of equali- 

 zation. 



We shall examine this part of the question under the following heads : — 

 1. Safety. — 2. Accomodation and convenience for passengers and goods. — 

 3. Speed. — i. Economy. 



I. Comparative Safety. 



We are of opinion that experience will, in this matter afford a better test by 

 which to compare the systems of the broad and narrow gauge than any 

 theory ; and we therefore have made inquiry into the nature of the acuidents 

 recorded in the official reports of the Board of Trade, as well as of such as 

 have happened since the last report was published. 



We find that railway accidents ariie from collisions, obstructions on the 

 load, points wrongly placed, slips in cuttings, subsidence of embankments, a 

 defective state of the permanent way, loss of gauge, broken or loose chairs, 

 fractures of wheels or axles, &c. ; and, lastly, from engines running off the 

 line from some other cause. 



|t- Of these several classes of accidents, all except the last are obviously inde- 

 pendent of the gauge ; and with reference to this last class, we have thought 

 it right to endeavour to determine whether the advocates of either gauge 

 could fairly claim, in regard to these accidents, a preference for their respec- 

 tive systems, on the score of greater security to the traveller. In these lists 

 we find only six accidents of the kind we are considering recorded from Oc- 

 tober, 1840, to May, 18-l.j, whereas there have been no less than seven 

 within the last seven months, and these are attributable to excessive speed, 

 the majority having happened to express trains. Of the whole number of 

 these accidents, three have occured on the broad gauge and 10 on the 

 narrow ; the former, however, differ in their character from the latter, the 

 carriages only, in the last two cases, having been off the line, whereas, in all 

 the 13 narrow gauge cases, the engines have run off, and the consequences 

 bare been more fatal. We must here observe, jhowevcr, that the extent of 



the narrow gauge lines is 1 ,901 mi'es, and that of the broad only 274 ; there- 

 fore the comparison would be unfavourable to the broad gauge if considered 

 merely with regard to their relative length ; but it must he borne in mind 

 that the general speed of the Great Western considerably exceeds that of 

 many of the narrow gauge lines, and that some consideration is on that ac- 

 count due to the broad gauge. 



The primary causes of engines getting off the rails appear to he over 

 driving, a defective road, a bad joint, or a badly balanced engine. If, in con- 

 sequence of heavy rains or other unfavourable circumstances, any part of the 

 road becomes unsound, the engine sinks on one side as it passes along such 

 part of the rail, suddenly rises again, and is thus thrown into a rocking and 

 lateral oscillatory motion, with more or less of violence according to the 

 rate of speed, and a very similar effect it produced in passing at high speeds 

 from one curve to another of different cunature. A succession of strains i» 

 thus thrown upon the rails, and if, before tlie rocking subsides, the wheel 

 meets with a defective rail or chair, which yields to the impulse, the engine 

 and train are thrown off as a necessary consequence ; but, as far as we can 

 see, such carnalities arc equally likely to happen on either gauge, other cir- 

 cumstances being similar. 



It has indeed been stated by some of the witnesses whom we have ex- 

 amined, that the broad gauge is more liable to such accidents, from the cir- 

 cumstance that the length of the engine, or rather the distance between the 

 fore and bind axle, is less in proportion to its breadth than in the narrow 

 gauge engines, and that therefore the broad gauge engine is liable to be 

 thrown more obliquely across the lines, and in case of meeting with an open 

 or defective joint, more liable to quit the rail; hut we cannot admit the va- 

 lidity of this objection against the broad gauge lines. It may be that the 

 proportion between the length and breadth of the engine has some influence 

 on its motion, and that the motion is somewhat less steady where the dif- 

 ference between the length and breadth is considerably diminished; but 

 practical facts scarcely lead to the conclusion that the safety of the trains is 

 endangered by the present proportion of the broad gauge engines ; for it 

 appears that on the London and Birmingham Railway, where the engines 

 hitherto employed have been, generally, short four-wheeled engines, the 

 distance from axle to axle not exceeding 7 feet, or 7 feet G inches, no such 

 accident as we are considering has been reported ; and we are informed by 

 Mr. Bruyeres, the superintendent of that line, that no such accident has ever 

 occurred. The same remark applied to some other narrow gauge lines; and 

 if, as has been stated, exemption from these accidents has resulted from the 

 close fixing of the engine and tender adopted on this line, the same system 

 might be adopted on any other line, whether on the broad or narrow gauge. 

 An evil may also sometimes arise in six-wheeled engines, by the centre of 

 gravity of the engine being brought too much over the driving wheels, and 

 the springs being so adjusted for the sake of the adhesion of the wheels to 

 the rails, that the front wheels would have little or no weight to support, 

 and would be thus in a condition, by any irrpgularity in the road or other 

 obstruction, to be more easily lifted off the rails. But here again, if this 

 fault in the construction or adjustment has been anywliere committed, it is a 

 fault or defect wholly unconnected with the breadth of gauge. 



Another cause of unsteady or irregular motion, dangerous to the safety of 

 the train has been stated to be the great overhanging weight beyond the 

 axles of some engines of recent construction, and of the weight of the outside 

 cylinder beyond the axle bearings. So far a& this construction is concerned, 

 it certainly appertains to narrow gauge lines only ; Init at the same time we 

 must remark, that it is not essential to their working. 



Upon the whole, therefore, after the most careful consideration of this 

 part of the subject, we feel bound to report, that as regards the safety of the 

 passenger no preference is due, with well proportioned engines, to either 

 gauge, except perhaps at very high velocities, where we tliink a preference 

 would be due to the broad gauge. On this part of the suKji-ct we would 

 beg to point to the nature of the evidence of Mr. Nicholas Wood. 

 Relative Accomoflation for Passengers .lod Goods. 



• Passengers. — The first-class carriages of the broad gauge are intended to 

 carry eight passengers in each compartment, and the compartments are 

 sometimes subdivided by a partition and inside door. On the narrow gauge 

 lines the first-class carriages are usually eonstructtd to carry only six pas- 

 sengers in each compartment; and we find that about the same widtli is 

 allowed for each passenger on both gauges. Some of the original mail 

 carriages were adapted for four passengers, and we believe that the public 

 had a preference for these carriages over butli the other descriptions. 



Until lately the broad gauge carriages were altogether more comraodioiis 

 than thuso of the narrow gauge, but recently carrii^es have been introduced 

 on several of the narrow gauge lines nearly as lofty as those on the broad 

 gauge, and equally commodious ; in short, we now see no essential difference 

 as regards accommodation and convenience to individual passengers in the 

 first-class carriages of the two gauges. 



In the second-class carriages on the broad gauge, six-persons sit side by 

 side, each carriage being capable of holding 72 passengers. On the narrow 

 gauge generally, only four passengers sit side by side, the total number iu 

 each carriage being i2 ; in this respect we are inclined to consider the latter 

 are more comfortably accommodated. 



With reference to the case of the carriage, and the smoothness of the 

 motion, we have had very contradictory evidence, and it must be admitted 

 that great difference is experienced on the same line at different times, 

 depending upon the state of the road, the springs of the carriage, the number- 



