XXVIII C. O. BURGE. 



required to do the same work as the 624 train miles of the 

 larger gauge. But this is assuming that each is travelling at the 

 same speed. On reference to the experience of working of exist- 

 ing 2 feet lines, the ordinary most economical speed of the train 

 might be taken at about one half of the standard gauge 

 economical speed, so that the train mileage, 1,106, must be 

 doubled in order that the same work may be done ; hence, if the 

 length were indefinite, 2,212 train miles of the 2 feet train would 

 be required to do the work of the 624 train miles of the 4 feet 

 8 J inch, line, but this would be only, strictly speaking, correct 

 where the length of the branch is sufficient to utilize the 

 speed of the standard gauge train. If a branch line, for 

 instance, with such a traffic as we have been dealing with, 

 is too short for a standard gauge train to be fully occupied 

 by one journey each way, travelling at its most economical 

 speed, and including shunting, it is evident that credit" 

 cannot be taken for its full double capacity of speed, which has 

 not been required to be used, while the speed of the corresponding 

 number of slower 2ft. trains might be sufficient for the same duty, 

 on such a short length. As some such short lines might be 

 necessary, without prospect of extension in the future, it would 

 be safer to take the general average of 2ft. train mileage at three 

 times that of the standard gauge for the same duty, say 1,872 

 train miles. 



We have not much information with regard to the locomotive 

 and maintenance expenses per train mile of 2ft. gauge lines. In 

 Mackay's book on " Light Railways " he gives 13d. as the average 

 of the four English lines on this gauge, including the old established 

 Festiniog railway, on which it is about 12d. That of French 2ft. 

 lines is lid., and the Prussian lines somewhat less. These items, 

 loco, and maintenance charges, on the standard gauge lines in 

 Australia, are over 75 per cent, greater than the corresponding 

 English standard gauge rates, owing to higher wages, &c, and, 

 as we may fairly suppose the same ratio to exist in the case of 

 the smaller line, 22d may be safely taken, as an average, here 

 for the 2ft. gauge similar expenses. Hence the cost of working, 



