The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1872.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3572, 28 June 1872, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1872.

Though the question of railway gauge has been settled in New Zealand, it is possible that we may derive valuable and not uninteresting information by studying the reports which the AgentGeneral of Victoria, in London, has collected from various reliable sources. In a former article, we gave a brief summary of Captain Tyler’s remarks on the subject, more especially with the view of showing what conclusions be had arrived at about the alleged evils and inconveniences of break of gauge. Captain Tyler enjoyed an excellent opportunity of studying this branch of the question while on a visit to Canada, and his deliberate opinion was, that the inconveniences incidental to break of gauge had been greatly exaggerated. Ho showed how the difficulty had been met and practically overcome, on a largo scale, and the impression conveyed by his observations is calculated to modify, if it does not entirely dispel, the apprehensions of those in this province who were or are inclined to think that we shall eventually incur considerable expense and a great deal of annoyance from the change of gauge. The report sent in by Mr Pihl, Bn-gineer-in-chief of Norwegian railways, is in some respects more important, and it is certainly not less interesting, than Captain Tyler’s. He speaks from an actual experience of about twenty years, in the construction and working of railways on the narrow gauge, and concludes his report by stating his firm conviction to be that a gauge of 3ft. 6in. is not only sufficient to satisfy a fully developed colonial traffic, but is also peculiarly adapted for the requirements of the very smallest traffic deserving railway accommodation. Further, he says that the inconveniences arising from break of gauge—on a plan which he suggests for the Victorian railways—will be of no material importance, compared with the advantages accruing from the greater and more rapid extension of the railway net, which this new'and cheaper system is capable of promoting. These are Mr Pihl’s deliberate convictions, and it may be as well to inquire on what they are based. In the first place, he lays great stress on the question of cost. When he was directed to report upon the means of effecting railway communication between two towns in the northern part of Norway, be soon came to the conclusion that the construction of a line of the usual class would, commercially speaking, be a mistake, not only because the first outlay would be very heavy, but because the traffic must be comparatively small. After due consideration and investigation, he reported to his Government in favour of the narrow gauge, and ultimately the construction of two lines, in the aggregate fifty-six miles, was authorised. The cost of construction was £3270 per mile on the one, and £5315 on the other.

The Norwegian railway system, Mr Fihl observes, is based upon strict economical views, and all the works of construction are, in principle, carried out in the same spirit. But, though rigid economy is everywhere insisted upon, stability is nowhere sacrificed. After the lines mentioned above were finished, and practically and thoroughly tested—certainly with the most satisfactory results, Mr Pihl remarks—the Norwegian Government adopted the narrow gauge as the standard of the country. This appears to have been done with great deliberation, and only after the fullest possible investigation. Careful inquiry, and ample experience, have confirmed Mr Pihl’s original belief that this system affords the greatest amount of efficiency at the smallest cost, and he refers with some pride to the fact that it is now accepted by numbers of eminent engineers in all parts of the world. He points out that the cost of a railway does not, as has been too often represented, depend upon the width of gauge. The gauge alone cannot make a cheap railway, and he looks upon it simply as the basis upon to which to operate, so as “ to combine the proper proportions of “ parts with economy, in order to get a “ harmonious whole in the construction." The language is here somewhat involved, but the meaning is pretty clear

notwithstanding. It appears that Mr Pihl had been asked whether he would recommend a nairower gauge than 3ft 6in, for he gives his reasons at some length against such a proposal. There would, he says, be inferiority in point of stability, space, andcarrying capacity, and the saving in cost of construction would be trifling. From calculations mode on actual surveys, he has found that in a flat, and easy country, the saving in earthworks for a 3ft gauge—or six inches less than the gauge now adopted in Norway—amounts to only two or three per cent in ordinary situations; in hilly or mountainous country to five or seven per cent; and in very difficult cases to seven or eight per cent. This is equivalent to about £l6, £7B, and £l9O per mile on sums of £550, £I3OO, and £2400, and is not worth considering. With regard to the inconveniences arising from break of gauge, Mr Pihl is of opinion that they have been greatly exaggerated, and that they are, in point of fact, “ a monster of fancy without corresponding reality.” The expenses of transhipment, he says, have often been put at from threepence to fourpence per ton, but according to authentic statements, they amount—on a Swedish railway—to an average of one eighth of a penny. The expense incurred in this direction will of course depend to a great extent on the kind of goods and the price of labour, but Mr Pihl believes that under any circumstances it ought to fall much short of threepence to fourpence a ton, if judicious and economical arrangements are made The conclusion to which a perusal of this and other reports leads is, that New Zealand has acted wisely in adopting the narrow gauge, and that Canterbury has no reason to be alarmed about the so-called evils and expense attending a break in the system.