262 DISCUSSION. 
effective engine to meet the requirements set forth in the paper. 
Mr. Middleton thought that narrow gauge proposals should be . 
considered with regard to extensions, where it was a question of 
narrow gauge or nothing. This is a frequent argument, but 
rested on false premises in this case. Mr. Middleton had not had * 
the opportunity of hearing the author open the discussion, when 
he was enabled to show that where change of gauge occurred, the 
ultimate cheapness, on which this argument rested, did not exist. 
Mr. Firth objected to any line which main line engines could 
not run over without danger, and also to the proposed omission of 
platforms. These were admittedly defects, but a mechanical 
device might easily be contrived to prevent a heavy engine going 
on the branch, and if they were to have cheap lines they must do 
without many conveniences, of which platforms were one. They 
were rarely used in America. 
Mr. Thow thought fencing should not be omitted when there 
were night trains, but such branches as were now in view were not 
likely to be used at night. Should the traffic become so important 
as to necessitate night trains, the light railway would become a 
heavy one, when this and other things would be added. 
Mr. Burge was glad to have the high authority of the Engineer- 
in-Chief for Railways, Mr. Deane, generally in accord with the 
principles advocated in this paper, with the important exception 
of the sleeper spacing,—but it must not be forgotten that this is 
based entirely on the limitation of the axle weight to eight tons, 
and, as regards support, was surely justified by long experience 
in the Cape, where, even in main lines, the same weight was 
supported by the same area as now proposed. He thanked the 
Society for the close attention they had given to this paper, and 
for the valuable additions they had made to it in the discussion 
now closed. 
