NARROW GAUGE LINES.

Waipa Post, Volume XIX, Issue 1055, 15 February 1921, Page 2

NARROW GAUGE LINES.

(To the Editor). Sir, —In-view of the various articles that have recently appeared in your columns more or less unfavourable to narrow gauge feeder lines as advocated toy those who have had extensive experience with such systems, may I cratfe space to place before your numerous and interested 1 readers the evidence of men whose positions in the world of transportation are unimpeachable. At the outset, may I remark that until you are able to back up your arguments against light railways by facts I fear that the intelligent reader will not readily accept superficial and faulty deductions. First let me quote the remarks of the General Manager of Railways, Tasmania:—

“The principal opponents to the construction of these 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 account of the cost; when, in fact, it becomes a question of a narrow gauge, railway or no railway. I think the time is close at hand when we shall see country hitherto unoccupied in many parts of Australasia opened up by narrow gauge railways, as, although every manager would do his utmost to avoid a break of gauge, 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 not pay interest on their enormous capital cost. “Thus, we are able to negotiate grades of 1 in 25 in combination with curves of 11 chains ladius, with a paying load of 40 tons per train. Therefore, supposing the traffic 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 100,000 tons per annum, and this could be doubled by increasing the number of trains. “The cost of the line, including surveys, construction, and equipment is, approximately, £2,000 per mile. In further justification of the adoption of the class of line I may say that we are constructing and equipping nearly twenty miles of railway at a cost of about £40,000, and it is doubtful if a line of our ordinary or 3ft. 6i'n. gauge could be constructed through the same country at a cost of £IO,OOO per mile, or say £200,000. The in'erest at 31 per cent on £40,000 is £I4OO per annum; the interest on £200,000 which would be the cost of a 3ft. 6in. g'auge line) at 31 per cent, would be £7,000 per annum; showing a saving in interest in favour of the 2ft. gauge line of £5,600 per annum. This difference 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. 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 3ft. 6in. gauge line during the first seven years of its existence.’ The evidence of the late Sir Evarard R. Calthrop of the Great Peninsula Railways is also illuminating and gives readers further insight into railway economics:— “The traffic to be carried in any dis-

trict through which it is contemplated to build a new railway is the same whether the proposed line is carried out on the 2ft. or standard gauge, but it is shown that 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 line in India should be built on

the standard gauge or not at all, is proved to be mere madness. “ The facts set 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 .ts 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 not only starve but would lose money to the end of the chapter. The late Sir Evarard R. Calthrop is the author of a well known engineer-

ing work “Pioneer Irrigation and Light Railways.” A reference to this work is recommended for those desirous of gaining more than a smattering of the important subject of narrow gauge feeder lines. The enclosed details of pre-war costs, etc., of the various 2ft. gauge systems in Tasmania are interesting and I think they constitute a sufficient reply to your articles without any further comment, except perhaps to observe that the final reference in your leading article of 20th January hardly goes far enough. It would be of greater advantage to the farming community if all proposed schemes under the “Local Railways Act, 1914,” were first reviewed by a legally-onstituted body of independent railway engineers and representative farmers so that the question of economical development might be thoroughly investigated. After all the man who foots the bill is the farmer, and once he learns that mile for mile with the standard gauge of this country, a 2ft. gauge feeder line can develop from two to four times more area of country for the same cost he will have struck a note in railway economics that is beyond home spun theories and is moreover a fact. —I 'am, etc.,

H. D. DANSEY, M.C., Captain

17 Shortland Street. Auckland, February 10th. P.'S. —Particular reference to the proposed railway between Pirongia and Te Awamutu is held over for a future letter.