LIGHT RAILWAYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2287, 30 December 1897, Page 19

LIGHT RAILWAYS.

The -Hod. Mr Hall-Jones, Minister for Public Works, submitted the following remarks on light railways as an appendix to his Public Works Statement:— The main objection to railways of this character is the break of gauge. The Tasmanian light railway is constructed en a 2ft gauge, tbe normal gauge of the Tasmanian railways beipg the same as our own — viz., 3ft 6in, There is, therefore, a break of gauge 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 at a moderate cost. The disadvantage in actual practice is not, however, so great as might at first thought be imagined. The general manager of the Tasznani.in railways (Mr Back), who has had practical experience of this matter, writes as follows: — "The principal opponents to the construction of these narrow-gauge lines are railway men who have had little or no experience in working them, who make a bogey of the break of gauge. No railway man sgfr would of choice agree to a break of gauge, but under ■ certain conditions it becomes a necessity— such a condition ac, for instance, where the construction of a broad-gauge railway would be an impossibility on account of the 'cost, when, in fact, it becomes a ' que*tion of a . narrow-gauge railway or no railway. I think tbe time is close at hind whenwe«hall see cou:<try hitherto unoccupi; d , in many;p»rts of Australia opened np by means of narrcw-gauge railways, as, although every railway manager would do his utmost to avoid " a break of gauge, the Au&tndtsian colonists cannot afford to throw away, as they have done ' in thep'ast, millions of pounds upon unprofitable • railways — that ie, rail ways which do not pay interest on their enormous capital cost." The .principal disadvantage connected with a break of gauge is the coot 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 transphipment i« not, however, a very heavy item of expenditure. In Tasmania it averages '3d per ton on the goods transhipped-. In South Australia (where they algo have an experience of working two gauges — viz., sft 3in and 3ffc 6in) they have three transhippiug stations — viz., Terowie, Hamley Bridge, and Wolseley — and the cost of transhipment at these stations averages 3} d, 5d (sic), and 3d per ton respectively. Iv India the cost averages Id, and in France 2d per ton, but in both these countries labour is cheaper than in New Zealand. Transhipments are also now largely avoided by tbe use of what are known as transportation cars in transferring freight from tha broad to the narrow gauge. On this system the broad-gauge waggon is simply run on to two specially constructed tiuckn, each bearing half its weight, and is thus conveyed bodily over the narrow-gauge line, while the transfer from the narrow to the broad gauge is tffected by lifting the bodies of the narrow-gauge trucks off their wheels without disturbing their contents, and transferring . Ihem on .to broad-gauge platform waggons. ;' This system is in operation on come line) on the Continent of Europe, and works satisfactorily. It is >aliro proposed to adopt the cystem on one at least of tlie newly-authorised . light lines in England. Tha Parliamentary ' Standing Committee on Railways in Victoria have given very careful and exhaustive con- ' &:deratioh to this nmtter during the last three ' years, and have finally recommended the construction of on« or two lines on the 2ffc gaug*. Tfce following is an extract from their report . for 1895:— r The objections, moreover, to a break of gauge are much more strongly vires^ed by those who have not had practical experience of tbe working of twe gauges. Mr Mais (late engineer-in-chief of South Australia, where the gauge is broken , at three diffurent places) guve the following evidence on this point :— '* Although you think the break of Range a difficulty, it is not in~nperable. No. "Where the traffic is very light Ido not think it is worth considering." And in a memorandum forwarded by him to the csmmitteo lie adds : " I am not an advocate for any particular gauge, but I havd a distinct aversion to any break of gauge which materially affects the traffic of tbe main standard line, because the inconvenience and expense of transfer grow ■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 so mean" of transit must be afforded ia order to develop the country, in that event I would lay down secondaiy lines on a narrow gauge, and put up ■with tbe brcak-of-gauge inconvenience which would result." The decision arrived at by the recent congress of railway authorities at Brussels and St. Petersburg on the gauge question w\b " that it was not advisable to fit any definite g*uge, but it was better to leave th« ques'ion an entirely open one for decision as soon as the local conditions in each case were atcrr- ,- 'taifled." "

On the- whole, therefore, although opposed to • .a break of gauge, if we cm reasonably avoid it, ' Ido not look upon this evil as at all sufficient to i deter us from constructing- n*rrow-g*rjge railways if, on investigation, it turns out that a very great 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 Financial Statement that there should be no break of gauge in respect to present unauthorised lines.

BROAD V. NARROW GAUGE. The principal advantage in a narrow-gauge ' line is doubtless its cheapness. This does not result merely from the rails being laid a little closer together than on the broad-gauge lines, and from the slight saving in width of cuttings and embankments thereby rendered possible, but chiefly from the increased flexibility of the narrow gauge and the sharper tbe turns that can be made ; and sharper turns enable us to go round points that we should otherwise 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 it could have been constructed for £10,000 a mile as a 3ft 6in railway. I am aware that some 6troog opponent) of narrow-gauge lines have stated that whatever can be dona wirti a 2ft line can also be done with & 3ft 6in one, but I think the •weight of evidence is against this view. Existing practice is certainly against it, as wherever we go we almost invariably find that sharp curves are associated with narrow-gauge lines. In New Zealand, for example, with a 3ft Gin . gauge, our minimum curves are five chains radius on branch and mountain lines and eeven aud a-half and 10 chains on important main lines. But on the Tasmanian 2ft line one and a-half chain carves are freely used, and on the Darjeeling line in India (also 2ft gauge) • there are curves of under' one chain radius. With curves such as these it is possible to go round almost everything, and tunnels, heavy Jareast cuttings, and large embankments are almost entirely dope away with, while tbe length of bridging is reduced to a minimum,

and consequently & large saving on flrgfc cost results.

SAYING IN INTEBEST,

A saving in first cost means also a saving in interest. The general manager of the Tasmanian railways haa illustrated this point very well in connection with the Tasmanian light railway. Thus the cost of the line (including surveys, construction, and equipment) is approximately £2000 per mile. In further justification of the adoption of the class of line I have described this eveniDg, I may say that we are constructing and equipping nearly 20 miles of railway at a cost of about £40,000, and it is doubtful if a Hue of our ordinary or 3ft 6in gsuge could be construc l ed through the same country at a cost of £10,000 per mile, or, say, £200,000. The interest at 3£- per cent, on £40,000 is £1400 per annum ; lihe interest on' £200,000 (which would be the coat of a 3ft 6in gauge line) at 3£ per cent would be £7000 per annum, showing a saving in interest in favour of the 2ft gauge line of £5600 per annum. This diffrence in interest on the cost of the two lines at compound interest would in less than seven years be more than the total outlay in constructing and equipping the 2ft g*uge railway. In other words, by constructing the line on the principle I have alvocate'd itj total cost would be defrayed in the first; seven years of its construction by what would be the^difference in interest on it and on a 3 'I 6'n gauge line, to «ay nothing of the faviDg iv the ccsb of maintenance. The cost of making and maintaining aji arrow- gauge railway is also less than in the case of broad'gauge lines. In Mr M Kay's book on "Light Railways '* the cost of maintenance of lines of three different gauges in India is given as follows :— Per train mile— sft 6in, 8d ; 3ft 3in, 6 3d ; 2't 6in, 5 9i ; and per mile respectively, £137, £67, and £41. The Standing Comtnitfc-e on Railways iv Victoria in their report for 1895 quota a letter to the London Time*, written by Mr Everard R. CaHhrop (late assistant locomotive superintendent on the Ore it Indian Peninsula Railway), from which the following is an extract: —

The next and most important result, which the table makes clear, is that the 2ft 6in gauge running through poor district", with a passenger traffic of less than one-fourth that of the standard gauge and with goods traffic only one-twentieth that of the standat'd gauge, producing together an average revenue of equal to £5 8a per mile per week, is not merely able to survive, but c*n actually show a greater percentage of net profits on total capital outlay than the standard gauge running through the pick of country and backed by all ils volume of arterial traffic. This is a remarkable result, but it is an incontestable fart, and one which it behoves the India Office and English financiers to note and lay to heart. The traffic to be carried in any district through which it is contemplated to huild a new railway is the same, whether the proposed line is carried; out on the 2ft 6in or the standard gauge, but it is shown that the amount of oapi'al over which profits are to be spread may wake all the difference httween bankruptcy and perdition on the bne hand and success and vigorous development on the other. To insist— regardleis alike of natural conditions and of the aspeotof any project from the commercial and business standpoint, as many would-be advi->era of the Government of India do — that every line in India should be built on the standard gauge or not at all is proved to be mere madness. The facts set forth m tjie foregoing table *how, further, that the principle underlying the question of gauge is that a rail■way, like any other machine, is, comparatively speaking, econormcal only when working at its full power. And in the recognition of this principle lies the whole heart aud mystery of the financial success which has'attended the woikitig of narrow-gauge feeder lines in lii'lia in districts where a standard 1 gauge would rf"~t only statve-. but would lose money to the end of the chapter. Jfurbher on in the same report the committee, on a review of the whole question, state that

Nearly all the witnesses are atone on the point thtt, if you have a laige volume of traffic, the broad gauge can deal with it at a lower coat than the narrow gauge, but looking at the traffic on our branches, as shown in the returns furnished by the department, it will be seen that the gauge is equal to a very much larger load per train than is forthcoming. The evidence obtained i.», in the opinion of the committee, conclusive that a small t-affic. such as will be available on most future branch lines, can be dealt with more economically with the narrow gauge, properly managed, than with the broad gauge.

The statement of Sir Alexander Rendel (con r sulting'engineer to the Government of India) has already beeu quoted til it the costs of transport psr ton and per passenger mile are materially higher en the Bombay-B iroda broad gauge than on the Rajputana narrow gauge, although the latter is worked uuder gre.it disadvantages as coniD»red with, the former. The returns for the whole of the Indian railways for 18.00 sent to the committee show that the maintenance and the locomotive expenses are considerably less on the narrow than on the broad gauge carrying capacity.

Hon. members need have no fear as to the carrying capacity of a 2ffc gauge railway. Tbe general manager of the Tasmanian railways reports as follows regarding their railway :—: —

Thus we are able to negotiate grades of 1 iv 25 in combination with curves of 1 J chains radius, with a paying load of 40 tons per train. Therefore, supposing the tr.iffic grows sufficiently to run four full trains each way daily, the carrying capacity of the line with four daily trains in each direction will -be lQO.OOi) tons per annum. And this could be doubled by increasing the number of trains.

Similar lines on the Continent of Europe are, in fotne cases, accommodating a heavy tram's. The C*en to Luc Surmer and D.'yes railway, iv France, Cirried 258r664 passengers in the 11 months ended the 30th November, 1894, and paid a dividend of 7£ per cent, on the capital invf sted in its construction. Other ligli*; lines are carrying on a heavy traffic in both passengers and goode. Mr Mackay, in "Light Railways," already referred to, states that it is not found in practice on lines of light traffic that a gerater number of vehicles are required on the narrow gauge to carry the same amount of traffic. The waggons scarcely ever carry their full weight. And this fact gives thelight rolling stock an advantage over the heavy stock in reducicg working expenses. Comparing the standard gauge lines, Bengal- Nagpur (No. 1) and Indian Midland (No. 2), with the metre gauge lines, Bengal North Western (No. 3) and Rajputana Malwa, (No. 4;, in India, we find that the number of vehicles in a train, with practically the same amount of traffic, differs only in a small degree, which may be attributable to local conditions, aud is slightly to the advantage of the narrow gauge. The narrow gauge is not recommended for easy country where the land is nearly level, bo th»t the earthworks would be light under any circumstances. It would be bub little more expensive to lay down light railways on a 3fb 6in gauge than upon a gauge of 2ft. The Government of Cape Colony in 1895 appointed a commission, consisting of the engineer-in-chief, the assistant locomotive superintendent of the Midland system, and the traffic manager of the same system, to proceed to Europe and inquire fully into aud report upon the consttuctfoa and' maintenance of narrowgauge railways. The following is an extract from their report : —

That over ordinary country, where few physical difficulties exist, instead of adopting the narrowgauge developing lines in connection with the existing 3ft 6in lines, it would be more advantageous to lay " light" lines of the normal (3ft 6in) gauge — $,«.. using a lighter type of permanent way,

adopting steeper gradinga and sharper curves, reducing the maximum rate of speed to, say, 12 miles an hour. Station buildings, goods sbed3, and waggon landings and other accessories might also be dispensed with in siich'cases. Little or no additional rolling stock would be required, and the capital cost of the lines would be very little more thsm that of the narrow gauge. 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 Hne3 should be constructed on the 2ft guage, similar to the the Decauville system, and that the work should be of such a character that, in the event of the lines not being a success, they could be abaudoned without loss and removed aud tried elsewhere.

STABILITY OF TRAINS.

| In consideriug the question of narrow-gauge railways for a rather windy country like Naw Zealand, very careful attention must be given to the matter oE the stability of the rolliDg stock under wind pressure on such lines. Tais applies more particularly to passenger cars and covered goods vans, and appears to be the most serious objection to constructing railways of so narrow a gauge ai 2fb where there is likely to be a large passenger traffic. The pasienger cars on some of the 2f't gauge Fieach lines could bo blown over wih about half the wind presaure that would overturn the saloon cars at pieient in use on the New Zealand railways. These Freuch c»rsTreigh about 3i tons, and the ratio of a full passenger load to the weight of the cars is 4 to 9, while for the present New Zsaland saloon cars it is 1 to 8. Cars as • light as the French type would be unsafe for a 2ft gauge line through most, if no?; all, the distances in New Zealand -where such lines are likely to be constructed. The rolling stock sould, however, be constructed to carry as much permanent loaning as would make the cars as safe under wind pressure as the cars now in use on our 3ft Gin lines. This can easily be done, and at the same time the ratio of a full passenger load to the we'ght of the car be kept quite as high as for our existing cars. Thin, of course, would mean that part of the advantages claimed for narrow-gauge Hues — namely, a greater possible paying load per ton of rolling B lock run — would have to be sacrificed ; but any mch possible advantage must clearly give place to the assured safety of the travelling public. In some of the countries of Europe where narrowgauge railways are in me it has beeu found necessary to stop by legislative enactments the running of trains on such lines during high winds. In the Duchy of Mecklenburg, for example, a regulation exists forbidding the running of trains on the Ferdiaaudshof Friedland 2ft gauge railway when the velocity of (he wind exceeds nine miles an hour. New Zealauders, unlike the Germans, would not, I fear, be content to wait for calm weather to' travel in; bub the loading of the can, as suggested above, would obviate the necessity for any such vexatious restriction.