9

E.—s

evidence as he had. He was well able to judge correctly on the subject ho wrote on, as he had many years of experience in connection with railways, first in England, then in India ss chief on one of the most important lines of railway in the world, then for some years in the United States, and now in England again. Surely a man with such experience should carry some weight in his train when he expresses an opinion, and particularly when it is understood that he is an educated English gentleman, living in England, and not in any way connected with any American enterprise or industry. He simply wished, without fee or reward, to give to railway progress a few facts from his storehouse of experience and knowledge, the same as Fox, McDonnell, Colburn, and others had done before him in the elaborate and clever papers they wrote and read before the Institution of Civil Engineers of England, and for which they were so highly complimented. I have no knowledge of how my letter to Mr. Iliginbotham came lo get into print. It was a hurriedly-written private letter, written to prove one single point—namely, that American engines were not short-lived affairs, and, if that letter is lot a full and convincing proof of that fact, then I submit that figures are deceptive, and that there is no use in referring to them in discussion or argument. It was asserted by an English writer on political economy that any man who could make two spears of grass grow where only one had grown before was doing a benefit to all mankind. In the railway world it has been conceded that the true measure of railway economy is the cost of carrying a ton a mile, and that any one who can, by any device or system, produce this result, is adding something to the progress of the age in which he lives. The whole matter of railway progress and economy is wrapped up in this one item of cost of carrying a ton of goods a mile and a passenger a mile. It has often been asserted by " croakers " afflicted with weak thinking organs that the superiority of the English railway system is proved by the fact that the ratio of expenses to receipts in England is less than 50 per cent., while in America it is more than 50 per cent. Any railway investigator can readily see that, in a country where labour and materials are high priced, and where the railway tariff of charges is low as in America, the ratio of expenses to receipts must be higher than in England, where labour and materials are low priced and the tariff of charges high. We claim in America that we have solved the problem of cost of carrying on railways a ton of goods a mile more finely and obtained more satisfactory results than has ever been obtained in any other country in the world. I will give the figures of cost of carrying a ton a mile for a series of years on the Pennsylvania Railway, and if any one can match them with better figures on any railway in Engjand or Europe I will be delighted to see them : — Pennsylvania Railway. Goods Thajtic Cost in Cents peb Ton teb Mile.

It must be recollected that the through traffic of this railway 19 all carried over the Alleghany Mountains, on gradients of 1 in 55, and many curves of less than 1,000 feet radius. The fallacy of the argument in reference to the ratio of expenses to receipts proving anything is shown when I state the facts that, in 1859, the expenses of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada were 2 per cent, more than the entire receipts, and that in the same year the ratio of expenses to receipts on the Panama Railway were only 23 per cent., and that the same for 22 years, from the year it was finished to the last year I got the statistics, 1873, the average was 32^ per cent., and this, too, with enormous expenses for labour and materials ; but the tariff of charges was still more enormous. Mr. Maxwell commences his letter by saying that there is but little information in Mr. Brereton's or Mr. Evans's letters that conveys any practical intelligence to a professional man, that they contain vague generalizations that are calculated to mislead an unprofessional man, and that the subject is taken up as if it was new. I submit that papers that are full of facts and few of opinions are of servieo to all professional men, and cSnnot mislead any unprofessional man who is a reasoning creature and has a brain above that of a " non-compos." Mr. Maxwell complains that we do not give all the data of each engine, train, and road. Such data would swell an ordinary letter to the size of a book. As Mr. Maxwell calls for some more explicit data, I will give some in another part of this letter, as I am desirous to give the truth, simple and full. Mr. Robert Stephenson once said to mo at his own table in London, when I was offering some theory at a point in discussion, "Don't give us theory ; give us facts: we have got past the age of theory." I admitted the strength of his argument, and have vividly recollected his bringing me up with a " round-turn " ever since. I will give Mr. Maxwell some facts to ponder over, but first let me correct some of his mistakes that arc calculated to mislead the professional man, as well as tlie unprofessional man. Mr. Maxwell says that the American engines cost £2,800 each. These engines cost on board ship, witli tender, §8,500 each ; equal to £1,717. With insurance, freight, commissions, and a liberal allowance for cost of landing and erecting in New Zealand added, I make these engines to cost £1,998 each. I sold the bills on London to pay for them, and got one pound sterling for each $4.94!. I also engaged the freight, so lam giving facts that are within my knowledge. There is a very wide difference between £2,800 and £1,998. How Mr. Maxwell came to make this big error, I leave to him to explain; but, having made such an error, I should like to ask if there is not a possibility of his having made an error in the other direction when he put down the engine he used in his comparison as costing about £2,700. I wonder what limit in sterling figures Mr. Maxwell gives to the word " about." It appears to bo about £802, or say 40 per cent, of the whole, in the case of the American engines. Mr. Maxwell makes reference lo an American engine on the Iquiquo Railway, in Peru, and calls it the "Evans' engine," saying it was too costly to work, and that the road was worked by Fairlie engines. I beg to say, in answer, that 1 never had anything to do with the engine he calls the " Evans' engine." I did not design, order, inspebt, or receive it. I would here add that, in that particular ease, it mattered not if the engine was good or poor, it was doomed before it left here. Mr. Fairlie had won the affections of the "Brothers Montero," the owners of the Iquiquc Railway, and by some "hocus-pocus" had made them believe that the engine ho called his was something wonderful, and destined to regenerate the railway world. The Monteros wore " innocents," and allowed their money-bags to flow freely into the pockets of Pairlie. Their faith was supreme, but their moneybags had a bottom. Fairlio put his faithful henchman, a Mr. Clemenson, on the road as locomotive superintendent, and from that day until the Monteros were nearly ruined and had to transfer their interests to an English company there was nothing believed in, " cracked-up," or allowed on that railway but the so-called " Eaiiiio engine." Before Mr. Eairlie and his man Clemenson were known on that railway, the Monteros, thinking that one railway was the same as any other railway, and an engine an engine—the same as one goose is like another goose —bought, as they would barrows or bars, two ready-made locomotives of Stephenson and Co. Finding they could not run their sharp curves, as they wore useless they then bought two " Mogul engines " I had built for mountain railways in Peru. For one whole year, and up to the advent of Fairlie and Clemenson, these two engines did the entire work of that railway, and almost without repairs, for they had no shops or tools. Mr. Clemenson soon remedied this state of affairs. There was not much time lost in burning the flues of these engines, and then they were run out by the sea-side to allow the spray of salt-water to finish the job. I must do Mr. Clemonson the justice to say that, before ho was kindly relieved of all authority on that railway, ho had not only ruined all the American engines, but all the so-called Fairlie engines also. A merchant in Lima said the Fairlie engines were the best ho ever heard of, because they ruined the rails, they ruined themselves, and the more they got tile more they wanted, and the more they ordered the more his commissions were. Mr. Maxwell is in error in saying that the Iquique Railway is worked by Fairlie engines. When that railway passed into the hands of some English merchants there was hardly a Fairlie engine on the road fit to run. The new company ordered a new set of engines of another type. An eminent German railway manager says he has no engines on his lines that cost as little for repairs as the Fail-lies, for he takes good care never to use them. When I found that there was such a hue-and-cry set up against the American engines on the Iquique Railway in Peru, and such a blast of " music in the air " about the wonderful performance of the Fairlie engines on that railway, I made an offer to Mr. Fairlie, through the editor of Engineering, that I would give him the price of a Fairlie engine if he could produce authentic data that any one of his engines ou that road ever did, on any single 2-E. 5.

Years Cost 1866. 1-82 1867. 1868. 1-54 1-25 1869. l'20 1870. 1-00 1871. 0-87 1872. 0-88G 1873. 0-857 1874. 0-719 1875. 0-616 1876. 0-582 1877. 0552 1878. 0-483