NARROW GAUGE AS APPLIED TO BRANCH RAILWAYS IN N.S.W. XXIX. 



as regards these two departments, would be per mile, per 



annum : 



2ft. gauge 1872 train miles x 22d. = £171 12 



Standard gauge 624 train miles x 32d., as before = . . 83 4 



Difference in favour of standard gauge per mile per annum £88 6 



Though written a quarter of a century ago, the following 

 extract from a report of the Consulting Engineer to a main 5ft 

 6in. gauge Indian railway, when it was proposed to introduce a 

 narrower gauge, may be quoted as bearing, mutatis mutandis, on 

 this question. 



The existing gauge was fixed under Lord Dalhousie's administration, 

 after a most careful consideration of the relative bulk and weight of 

 each of the characteristic classes of Indian produce which must be con- 

 veyed along the lines of railway. From the record of two years' traffic 

 carried over the Bombay, Baroda, and Central Indian Bailway, in 1870 and 

 1871, consisting of forty-three classes of goods, of each of which the 

 proximate specific gravity was given, they found the range to be, for 

 Indian produce, from 224 cubic feet of bulk per ton of weight to 

 5 cubic feet of bulk per ton of weight ; and that the averages of the two 

 years' traffic were 75 cubic feet per ton in 1870, and 78 cubic feet per ton 

 in 1871, which, making a slight allowance for waste in waggon stowage 

 might be taken at a general average of 80 cubic feet per ton. This would 

 give an average space of 640 cubic feet for the stowage of eight tons in the 

 ordinary waggon on the 5£ft. gauge, the height of the load above the 

 platform not exceeding 5ft. and the centre of gravity of the gross load not 

 exceeding 5ft. above the rails. 



He admitted the fitness of a narrow gauge waggon in a Welsh mining 

 district, running with its eight ton load of minerals down an incline to the 

 nearest port, or to a station on the general railway line, each ton measuring 

 from 5 to 12 cubic feet, and the entire load being contained within 100 cubic 

 feet of waggon space. But how were they to pack their eight-ton load of 

 half-pressed Indian cotton, measuring 1,488 cubic feet, or eight tons of 

 Australian wool measuring 1,120 cubic feet? Were they to build it up to 

 20 feet or 30 feet high on a little waggon having only two or three feet 

 transversely between the wheels, and, therefore, only one half of its proper 

 stability ? 



The plea of economy has been advanced as the motive for making the 

 proposed disastrous change. While the 3|ft. gauge might answer for the 

 carriage of heavy minerals in special districts, the general commerce of every 

 populous country mainly consisted of articles of low or medium specific 



