D.—l

XIX

and the locomotive expenses are considerably less on the narrow than on the broad gauge." Carrying Capacity. Honourable members need have no fear as to the carrying capacity of a 2 ft. gauge railway. The General Manager of the Tasmanian Hallways reports as follows regarding their light railway :— Thus we are able to negotiate grades of 1 in 25 in combination with curves of 14- 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, 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 similar lines on the Continent of Europe are in some cases accommodating a heavy traffic. The Caen to Luc-sur-Mer and Dives Railway, in France, carried 256,664 passengers in the eleven months ended the 30th November, 1894, and paid a dividend of 7| per cent, on the capital invested in its construction, and other light lines are carrying on a heavy traffic in both passengers and goods. Mr. Mackay, in " Light Railways " already referred to, states : — It is not found in practice, on lines of light traffic, that a greater number of vehicles are required on the narrow gauge to carry the same amount of traffic. The wagons scarcely ever carry their full weight, and this fact gives the light rolling-stock an advantage over the heavy 3tock in reducing 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, and slightly to the advantage of the narrow gauge.

Narrow Gauge not recommended for Easy Country. Having said so much in favour of narrow-gauge lines, I would point out that these lines have little to recommend them for easy country. Where the land is nearly level, so that the earthworks would be light under any circumstances, it would be but little more expensive to lay down light railways on a 3 ft. 6 in. gauge than upon a gauge of 2 ft. 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 and report upon the construction and maintenance of narrow-gauge railways. The following is an extract from their report:— That over ordinary country, where few physical difficulties exist, instead of adopting narrowgauge developing-lines in connection with the existing 3 ft. 6in. lines, it would be more advantageous to lay " light " lines of the normal (3 ft. 6 in.) gauge— i.e., using a lighter type of permanentway, adopting steeper gradients and sharper curves, and reducing the maximum rate of speed to, say, twelve miles an hour. Station-buildings, goods-sheds, cattle- and wagon-landings, and other accessories, might also be dispensed with. In such cases little or no additional rolling-stock would be required, and the capital cost of the line would be very little more than 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 lines should be constructed on the 2 ft. gauge, similar to 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 abandoned without great loss and removed and tried elsewhere.

Gauge. No. 1, 5ft. 6in. No. 2, 5ft. 6in. No. 3, No. 4, 8ft. 8§in. ; 3ft. 8fin. I Average number of passengers in a passenger-train Average distance travelled by a passenger in miles Average number of tons in a goods-train Average distance in miles hauled of a ton of goods Average number of vehicles in a passenger-train Average number of vehicles in a goods-train ... Average number of vehicles in a mixed train-: co , I goods-wagons 260 49 110 99 19 24 8 14 I 175 68 101 140 11 28 9. 13 248 35 97 127 13 32 12 11 I 255 54 100 242 L6 24 12 9 i