170 
president’s ADDRESS — SECTION IT. 
Because mistakes have been made in the past by constructing as 
“light lines” railways that soon became quasi main lines, unequal to 
the strain of traffic put upon them, or because, from some public or 
political influence, a “light” line that would have served all needed 
requirements, is ruined by working it under speeds and conditions 
for which it was never designed, in order to serve a comparatively 
insignificant and unproductive passenger traffic ; therefore it has been 
the fashion to condemn these light pioneer lines, without too much or 
any thought on the matter. 
The only traffic of consequence to be anticipated from a pioneer 
line run into virgin country, or for a feeder line to tap agricultural 
settlements hitherto out of reach of communication, is a goods traffic, 
the actual or prospective passenger traffic being likely to form but a 
small proportion of any returns to revenue. But hitherto in this class 
of lines the undue consideration given to the few passengers has been 
the cause of a vast amount of unnecessary outlay in first cost or 
subsequent alteration. 
I would therefore advocate the construction of the class of lines 
I am dealing with as essentially “ goods” lines, working them at slow 
speed, and designing them to afford the fullest facilities for collecting 
and encouraging the utmost amount of traffic, untrammelled by the 
expense and restrictions inseparable from the working of ordinary lines 
where passengers are concerned, and are numerous enough to justify 
the same, thus creating real “feeders” and not “ suckers,” owing to 
costly capital outlay and working expended on them. The whole of 
the works should be as inexpensive as possible, not by the use of 
inferior materials or labour, but by limiting the extent to the require- 
ments of a traffic not exceeding a speed of from eight to ten miles 
per hour as a maximum, and by the introduction of sharper grades 
and curves to reduce first cost, for these would not so much 
affect prejudicially the working of small volumes of traffic, and 
on a well-designed line need leave hut a small amount of recon- 
struction at sonm distant day when the traffic has grown sufficiently 
to justify it. 
One important question — that of gauge — at once suggests itself 
in any consideration of cheaper railways, and I would say without 
hesitation that, given fairly easy ordinary country, the gauge should 
not differ from that of the system to be joined ; but in dealing with 
the problem of cheap transit over a broken and mountainous country, 
to reach the maiu system, it may, I think, be perfectly admissible to 
adopt a reduced width of gauge, in order to reduce capital cost and 
encourage or develop a traffic — the ready non-possumus of some of my 
railway friends notwithstanding. Any inconvenience, connected with 
transfer of traffic at the junction, can be easily and cheaply overcome 
with suitable mechanical appliances, and in a satisfactory manner, 
while the cost of transfer need cot exceed Id. to l-J-d. per ton as a 
junction charge. 
One requisite for a cheap line is an exhaustive survey — to give 
the very best location for the design in view, a greatly liniited first 
cost, future facility for improvement to the standard of other lines, 
extended facilities for short turn-outs and sidings to works, manu- 
factories, or farms. 
