THE BATTLE OF THE GAUGES.

Press, Volume XVIII, Issue 2534, 15 June 1871, Page 3

THE BATTLE OF THE GAUGES.

j TO THE EDITOR OF4-HE PRESS. . &B,—l notice in your issue of the 13th a letter from Mr A. C. Gray, in answer to one of mine on the 7th. I see by the date of his letter that he wrote it on the Bth, so that at that time he could not have seen mine of the 9th and 13th. I believe he will be enabled to find an answer to all his questions in the last two letters, relative to that part of the railway system that I had under consideration. I purposely avoided entering into too many details in one letter,'as this would have been likely to confuse your readers, and besides the letter becomes too long to be generally Tead. After Mr Gray has considered my three letters I shall be only too glad to give him all the information in my power, relative to any question he may feel inclined to ask on the subject under consideration. But I should be glad if he would not ask too many questions in one letter, as I should be compelled to make my letter, in answer to his, too lengthy to induce your readers to wade through it. Might I suggest that our letters would be much more acceptable, and more easily understood by the public, if we were to avoid entering into too minnte details, such at least as would not practically affect the real points at issue. I am indebted to Mr Gray for taking up this question, as I am sure we both have the same object , in view, namely, to arrive at the system of railway communication best adapted to the traffic of Canterbury, and to parts of the adjacent provinces, and how to open out the greatest .amount of country with the means at our disposal. Mr Gray speaks of Mr Hemans, an engineer of high standing, having said that the narrow gauge -would be more suitable to the Irish traffic that the broad gauge. Perhaps he is right; but would he say that the narrow gauge is more suitable for the traffic on the Canterbury plains ? It is very likely that our traffic is more bulky than it is in Ireland. Mr Gray also mentions Mr Elsdon, engineer to the Melbourne company, being in favor of the 4ft. B£in. gauge for Victoria. But he does not say that he would be in favor of a 3ft. 6in. gauge on these plains, or that he would even : recommend a 4ft. B£in. in preference to a oft. 3in. gauge in ah agricultural district where the freights are bulky, and the formation of the lines very light, and the curves very easy. For instance, in Victoria the ballasting of the lines is a very serious item, while in, Canterbury, it is a mere bagatelle. - ■" ; I avoid citing extracts from Engineers' reports as to the requirements of other places, because in nine times out of ten the extract does not do justice to the author, and does not convey the same meaning as the author wishes to attach/ to his entire report. Yours, &c, Wμ. White.