LIGHT RAILWAYS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10627, 16 December 1897, Page 6

LIGHT RAILWAYS.

SOME INTERESTING PARTICULARS. [Br MLKGBAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington, Wednesday. The following interesting notes in reference to the question of light railways are appended to the Public Works Statement The main objection to railways of this character is the break of gauge. The Tasmanian light railway, as I have stated already, is constructed on a two-feet gauge, the normal gauge of the Tasmanian railway being the same as our own, viz., 3 feeb 6 inches, There is, therefore, a break of gauge between the same as our own, viz., between the light line and the normal one with which it connects. A break of gauge is always a disadvantage, and should be avoided wherever this can be done ab a moderate cost. The disadvantage in actual practico is not however, so great as might at first thought be imagined. THE TASMANIAN VIEW. The General Manager of the Tasmanian Railways, who has had praotical experience of this" matter, writes as follows" The principal opponents to the construction of the narrow-gauge lines are railway men who have had little or no experience in working them, and who make a bogey of the break of gauge. No railway manager would, of choice, agree to a break of gauge, but under certain conditions it becomes a necessity, such a condition, for instance, as where the construction of a broad gauge railway would be an impossibility on accounb of the cost, when, in fact, it becomes a question of narrow gauge railway or no railway. I think the time is close ab hand when wo shall see country hitherto unoccupied in many parts of Australasia opened up by narrow gauge railways, as although every railway manager would do his utmost to avoid a break" of gauge, the Australasian colonists cannot afford to throw away, as they have done in the past, millions of pounds upon unprofitable railways—that is railways which do nob pay interest on their enormous capital cost. BREAK OF GAUGE, The principal drawback connected with a break of gauge is the cost of transhipping goods from one gauge to the other. The disadvantage in the case of passengers is trifling, as changes from one train to another have frequently to be made, even when only one gauge exists. The cost of transhipment is nob, howevor, a very heavy item of expenditure. In Tasmania it averages 3d per ton on the goods transferred. In South Australia, where they also have an experience of working two gauges, viz., 5 feet 3 inches and 3 feet 6 inches, they have three transhipping stations, viz., Terowia, Hanley Bridge, and Wolseley, and the cost of transhipment at theso stations averages 3d, sd, and 3d per ton respectively. In India the cost averaged Id, and in France 2d per ton, bub in both these countries labour is cheaper than in New Zealand. Transhipments aro also now largely avoided by the use of what are known as transportation cars. In transferring freight from the broad to the narrow gauge on this system, the broad gauge wagon is simply run on to twospecially-cohstructed trucks, each being half its weight, and is thus conveyed bodily over the narrow gauge line, while the transfer from the narrow to the broad gauge is effected by lifting the bodies of tho narrowgauge trucks off their wheels without disturbing their contents, and transferring them on to broad-gauge platform waggons. This system is in operation on some lines on the Continent of Europe, and works satisfactorily. Ib is also proposed to adopt the system on one ab least of the newlyauthorised light lines in England. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways in Victoria liavo given very careful and exhaustive consideration to this matter during the last three years, and has finally recommended the construction of one or two lines on the two-feeb gauge. The following is an extract from their report for 1895 " The objections, moreover, to a break of gauge are much mora strongly pressed by those who have not had practical experience of the working of two gauges. Mr. Mais, tho late Engineer-in-Chief of South Australia, where the gauge is broken at three different places, gave the following evidence on this point:—' Although you think tho break of gauge a difficulty, ib is nob insuperable?— No. YV hero the traffic is very limited I do nob think it is worth considering'"; and in a memorandum forwarded by him to the committee he adds: "I am not an advocate for any particular gauge, but I have a distinct aversion to any break of gauge which materially affects the traffic of the main standard line, because the inconvenience and expense of transfer grows with the development of traffic; but if the question at issue is that owing to the cost of construction of branches from the main lines being so great as to be almost prohibitive, and some means of transit must be afforded in order to develop the country, in that event I would lay down secondary lines on a narrowor gauge, and put up with the break of gauge inconvenience which would result. The decision arrived at by the recent congress of railway authorities at Brussels and St. Petersburg on tbo gauge question was that ib was nob advisable to fix any definite gauge, bub ib was best to leave that question an entirely open one for decision, as soon as the local conditions in each case were ascertained." On the whole, therefore, although opposed jto a break of gauge, if we can reasonably avoid ib, I do nob look upon this evil as .at all sufficient to deter us from constructing narrow gauge railways, on investigation it turns out that a very geeat saving can be made in both first cost and maintenance, with comparatively little attendant inconvenience, and that such railways can be worked with reasonable safety. I, however, agree with the Premier's remarks in the Fnancial Statement, that there should be no break of gauge in respect of presenb authorised lines.

BROAD V. NARROW GAUGE. The principal advantage in the narrow gauge line is doubtless its cheapness. This does nob result merely from the rails being a little closer together than on the broad gauge lines, and from the slight saving in widths of cuttings and embankments thereby rendered possible, bub chiefly from the increased inflexibility of the narrow gauge. The uarrower the gauge tho sharper the turns that can be made, and sharp turns enable us to go round points that we should otherwise have to cut or tunnel through, and to traverse the heads of gullies on the solid instead of crossing them on expensive bridges and viaducts. The Tasmanian _ narrow gauge railway, for example, is costing only £2000 a mile, whereas the general manager states that it) is doubtful if ib could have been constructed for £10,000 a mile as a 3ft. 6in. railway. I am aware that some strong •pponents of narrow gauge have stated that whatever can bo»done with a two-feet line can also be done with a 3ft. "6in. one, but I think the weight of evidence is againßt this view, and the existing practice is certainly against it, as wherever we go we almost invariably find that sharp curves are associated with narrow gauge. In New Zealand, for example, with a 3 feet 6 inch gauge, onr minimum curves are 5 chains radius on branch and mountain lines, and 7J and 10 chains on important main lines, bub on the Tasmanian 2 feet line 1J chain curves are freely used, and on the Darjeeling line in India—also 2 feet gauge —there are curves of under 1 chain in radius. With curves such as these it is possible to go round almost everything, and tunnels and heavy breast cuttings and large embankments are almost entirely done away with, and the length of bridging is reduced to a minimum, and consequently a large saving in first cost results. SAVING IS INTEREST. ' A saving in first costs means also a saving in interest. The General Manager of the Tasmanian Railway has dealt with this point very- well in connection • with the Tasmanian light railway thus" The cost of the line, including surveys, con. struction and equipment, is approximately £2000 per mile. , ' In further.'justification of the adoption of the class of line I have de-, cribed this evening I may say, that we are constructing and equipping nearly 20 miles l of railway at a cost of about £40,000, and it is doubtful if a ; line of, our ordinary, or 3 feet 6 inch, gauge; could bo i constructed through, the same country at a cost of £10,000 per mile; or,'i say, £200,000. The interest at 3J per cent, on £40,000 is £1500 per. annum. The,interest on £200,000 (which would be the cost) of a 3 feeb 6 inch

I gauge line), at 3| per cent., would be £7000 per annum, . showing a saving in interest in favour of the 2-feob gauge line, of £5600 per annum. This difference in interest on the cost of the two lines ab compound interest would, in less than seven years, be more than the total outlay in construction and equipping the 2-feeb gauge railway; in other words, by constructing the line on the principles we have adopted, its total cost is defrayed by what would be the interest on a 3 feet 6 inch gauge line during the first seven years of its existence." SAVING IN COST OF MAINTENANCE, The cost of working and maintaining a narrow gauge railway is also less than in the case of broad gauge lines. In Mr. Mackay's book, " Light Railways," which hon. members will find in the library, the cost of maintenance of lines of three different gauges in India is given as follows per train mile Five feet six inches, 8d; 3 feet 3 inches, 6'3d; 2 feet 6 inches, s'9d; and per mile, £137, £67, and £41. The standing committee on railways in Victoria in its report for 1895 quotes a letter to the London Times, written by Mr. Everard R. Calthrop, late Assistant Locomotive Superintendent on the Great Indian Peninsula Railways, from which the following is an extract" The next and most important result which the table makes clear is that the 2 feet 6 inch gauge running through poor districts, with a passenger traffic of less than a-fourth that of the standard gauge, and with goods traffic only one-twentieth that of the standard gauge, producing together an average revenue of only Rs 98 (equal to £5 8s) per mile per week, is not merely able to survive, but can actually show a greater per centage of net profits on total capital outlay than the standard gauge running through the pick of the country, and that by all its volume of arterial traffic, This is a remarkable result bub ib is an incontestable fact, and one which ib behoves the Indian Office and English financiers to note and lay to heart. Tho traffic to bo carried in any district through which ib is contemplated to build a now railway is the same whether the proposed lino is carried out on tho 2 feet 6 inch or the standard gauge, but it is shown thab the amount of capital over which profits are to be spread may make all the difference between bankruptcy and perdition on the one hand and success and vigorous development on the other. To insist, regardless alike of natural conditions and of the aspect of any project from the commercial and business standpoint, as many would-be advisers of the Government of India do, that every lino in India should be built on the standard gauge or nob ab all, is proved to be mere madness. The facts seb forth in the foregoing table show further that the principle underlying the question of gauge is that a railway like any other machine is, comparatively speaking, economical only when working at its full power, and in the recognition of this principle lies the whole art and mystery of the financial success which has attended the working of narrow gauge feeder lines in India in districts where a standard gauge would nob only starve, bub would lose money to the end of the chapter." Further, in the same report, the Committee, on « review of the whole question, states blab " nearly all the witnesses are at one on the point that if you save a large volume of traffic, the broad gauge can deal with it at a lower cost than the narrow gauge, bub looking ab the traffic on our branches as shown in the returns furnished by tho department ib will be seen that the gauge is a very much larger load per train than is forthcoming. The evidence obtained is, in the opinion of tho committee, conclusive thab a small traffic, such as will be available on most future branch lines, can be dealt with more economically with tho narrow gauge properly managed than with the broad gauge. The statement of Sir Alexander Rendell, consulting engineer to the Government of India, has already been quoted, that the cosb of transport per ton and per passenger mile are materially higher on the Bombay Baroda broad gauge than on the Rajputana narrow gauge, although the latter is worked under great disadvantages as compared with the.former, Tho returns for the whole of the Indian railways for 1890 sent to the committee show that the maintenance and the locomotive oxponses are considerably less on the narrow than on the broad gauge." CARRYING CAPACITY, Hon. members need have no fear as to tho carrying capacity of a 2 feet gauge railway. The general manager of the Tasmanian railways reports as follows regarding their light railway Thus wo are able to negotiate grades of 1 in 25 in combination with curves of 1J chains radius with a paying load of 40 tons per train, therefore, supposing the traffic grows sufficiently to run four full trains each way daily, tho carrying capacity of tho line with four daily trains in each direction will be 100,000 tons per annum, and this' could be doubled by increasing tho number of trains, The similar lines on the Continent of Europe aro in some cases accommodating a heavy traffic. The Caen to Luc-Sur-iler and Dives railway in France carried 256,664 passengers in the eleven months ended the 30ch November, 1894, and paid a dividend of 7i per cent, on the capital invested in its construction, and other light lines aro carrying on a heavy traffic, in both passengers and goods." Mr. Mackay, in "Light Railways," alroady referred to, says it is nob found in practice on lines of lighb traffic thab a greater number of vehicles aro required on the narrow gauge to carry the same amount of traffic. The waggons scarcely ever carry their full weight, and this fact gives the lighb rolling stock an advantage over the heavy stock in reducing working expenses. Comparing the standard gauge lines, Ben« gal-Nagpur (No. 1) and the Indian-Midland (No. 2) with the narrow gauge lines, Bengal-North-western (No. 3) and Rajpu-tana-Mahva (No. 4) in India, wo find that the number of vohicles in trains with practically the same amount of traffic differs only in a small degree, which may be attributable to local conditions, and slightly to the advantage of the narrow gauge. Average number of passengers in a passenger train Gauge No. 1, 5 feet 6 inches, 260; No. 2, 5 feeb 6 inches, 175; No. 3, 3 feet 3| inches, 248; No. 4, 3 feeb 3§ inches, 255. Average distanco travelled by a passenger in miles, 49, 68, 35, 54; average number of miles in a goods train, 110, 101, 97,100 average distance in miles hauled of a ton of goods, 99, 140, 127, 242; average number of vehicles in passenger train, 19,11,13,16; average number of vehicles in a goods train, 24,28, 32, 24; average number of vehicles in a mixed train, coaches 8, 9, 12, 12; goods waggons, 14, 13, 11, 9, A narrow gauge is not recommended for easy country, where the land is nearly level, so that the earthworks would be lighb under any circumetances. It would be bub little more l expensive to lay down lighb railways on a 3 feet 6 inches gauge than upon a gauge of 2 feet. Government of Caps Colony in 1895 ' appointed a Commission consisting of tho engineer-in-chief, assistant locomotive superintendent of tho Midland System, and the traffic manager of the same system, to proceed to Europe to enquire fully into and report upon the construction and the maintenance of narrow gauge railways. The following is an extract from their reporb :— "Tlmt over ordinary country, where physical difficulties exist, instead of adopting narrow gauge developing lines in connection with the existing 3 feet 6-inch lines, it would bo more advantageous to lay 'light' lines of the normal (3 feet 6 inch) gauge, using a lighter typo of [permanent way, adopting steeper gradients and sharper curves, and reducing the maximum rate of speed to, say, 12 miles an hour. Station building, goods' shed, cattle and waggons' landings and other accessories might also be dispensed with. In such cases little or no additional rolling stock would be required, and the capital cosb of the line would bo very little more than that of the narrow gauge; I that the constructing of narrow gauge: lines over mountainous and| difficult places might prove useful and economical, and for this reason should be tried as an experiment; that these experimental lines should'be constructed on the two-foob gauge,' similar to the Decandille system, and that the work should be of such a character that in tbe event of the lines nob being a success they could be abandoned without great loss, and. removed and tried elsewhere." • " - ' STABILITY OF TRAINS ON NARROW GAUGE. ,P, lines. In considering the question of narrow gauge railways for a rather windy country like New Zealand very careful attention must be given to tho matter of the stability, of the rolling stock under.wind pressure 'on such lines. This applies 'more particularly to passenger cats and covered goods vane,

and appears to be the most serious objection to the constructing of railways of so narrow a. gauge as '2 feet where there is likely to be large passenger traffic., The passenger cars on some 2 feet French lines could be .blown over with about half the wind pressure that : would overturn the saloon cars at present in use on the New Zealand railways. These French cars weigh about 3} tons, and the ratio of full passenger load to weight of cars is 4> to 9, while for' the present New Zealand saloon : oars ib is < 1 to 8. ' Cars 'as light as the French type will be unsafe for 2 feot gauge lines, through most, if nob all, the districts in New Zealand where suoh lines are ' likely to be constructed. The rolling stock could, however, be constructed to carry as much permanent loading as would make the cars as safe under wind pressure as the cars now in use on our 3 feet 6 inch lines. This can easily be done, and at the same time the ratio of full passenger load to weight of car be kept quite as high as for our existing oars. This, of course, would mean that part of the advantages claimed for narrow gauge lines, viz., greater possible paying load per ton of rolling stock run, would have to be sacrificed, but any such possible advantage must clearly give place to the assured safety of the travelling public. In some centres of Europe, where narrow gauge railways are in use, it has been found necessary to stop by legislative enactment the running of trains on such lines during high winds. In the Duchy of Mecklonburg, for example, a regulation exists forbidding the running of trains on the Ferdinandshof to Friedland 2 feet gauge railway when the velocity of the wind exceeds nine miles an hour. New Zealanders, unlike the Germans, would not, I fear, be content to wait for calm weather to travel in, bub the loading of the cars as suggested above would obviate the necessity for, any such vexatious restrictions.