The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-17 00:00:00

No. 1. New Railway to be made—

Caledonian trunk line from C:lrlisle to point cf
diverg,unee at Carnwath
Point o! divergence t., rdinborch
Ditto to Wishaw and Coltne6s Railway l2
Castle Cary Branch lO
Dumfries Branch
Minor Junctions, &c.
---
Total of Caledonian
Clydesdale Junction

147 33

'IL Existing railway, forming part of the system
Miles. Chains,

Wishaw and Coltness line, and portion of
Monkland a7ld Kirkintilloch - 0
Garnkirk and Glasuow 8 20
-PoHoe and Govan (forming part of Clydescial,
line)

. 2 62

Total of Existing Railway ..

Total of Caledonian System 169 35

This system would afford a very complete railway
communication from Glasgow, Edinburgh, and the
North of Scotland, to all parts of Evigland, with the ex-
ception of the eastern portion, the communication with
which may be as:gland to b airs aly supplied by the
East Coact line. _ _

Tb" cympeting system proposes to attain the same
genera objects in the fallowing manner :-
1. By the proposed Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle
line, in connexion with the existing Glasgow and Ayre
line, giving a western line of communication from Glas-
gow to England.
2. By a line from Edinburgh to llawick, which the
nromoters offer to pledge themselves to continue to Car-
lisle, giving a communication from Edinburgh to tke
West of England and the manufacturing distrlcts.
3. By the Glasgow Junction Railway, intended to
connect by an unbroken communication the Edinburgh
and Glasgow, and railways north of the Clyde, with the
Glasgow and Ayr, and Glasgow,Dumfries, and Carlisle.
This system would consist of the following parts:—
I. New Railway to be made—

3111 c. Chains
Glasgow, Dumfries arid Carlisle, from Kil
marnock to Carlisle
Line from Carlisle by Hawick, to junction
with the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway, _ _ _

about
Glasgow Junction

- 86 0
1 30

178 46

IT. Existing Railways forming part of the system—
Portion of Glasgow and Ayr Railway, from Kil-
marnock to Glasgow
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway 46
Edinburgh and Dalke:th
It is quite clear that the traffic from Scotland to the
south would not be sufficient at present to support two
competing systems ; and that if the one be sanctioned,
the other, or so much of the other as directly competes
with it, must be rejected. In this point of view, the
Caledonian, and the Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle
lines, are absolutely inconsistent with each other ; nei-
ther could the Caledonian, and a trunk line from Edin-
burgh to Cat lisle, by way of Hawick, stand together,
although a line for the mere purposes of local accom-
modation between Edinburgh and ITawick, would not
interfere with the traffic of the Caledonian line, and would
not necessarily be inconsistent with it.
The Clydesdale line, although a material part of the
Caledonian system, has a local traffic of its own, and
would not necessarily be included in the rejection of that
system. So also the Glasgow 3 unction, although a part
of the system opposed to the Caledonian, might, if a suf-
ficient case of public advantage were otherwise esta-
blished to overrule the objections of a private and local
nature to which we have alluded, be sanctioned, notwith-
standing the rejection of the system of which it formed
a part.
Having thui explained the two competing systems,-we
proceed to investigate their comparative merits.
The leading public objects which it appears to us to be
important to keep in view are,-
1. The traffic of Glasgow (including the district of
which it is the centre) with Liverpool, Manchester, Lon-
don, and the rest of England.
2. The traffic of Seutland, north of the Forth and
Clyde, with same places.
3. The traffic of Edinburgh (and its district) with
Liverpool, Manchester, and the west of England (the
traffic ivith London and the east of England being as-
sumed to be sufficiently provided for by the East Coast

line.) .
4. The traffic of Edinburgh and the east of Scotland
with Dumfries and the south west.
5. The local accommodation of the southern counties
of Scotland nut already provided with railway commu-
nication by the Berwick line.
Assuming, for the sake of comparison, each system to
be carried out completely, the advantages would appear
to be divided.
For the first of the above objects, viz. the connexion
of Glasgow with England, the Caledonian system is pre-
ferable, as giving a shorter line by 23 miles.
In order to obtain this diminution of distance, the
Caledonian line, however, has to pass the range of hills
which runs across the south of Scotland at a higher
level than the Dumfries line, and to attain the requisite
elevation by gradients of great severity. It becomes
necessary, therefore to examine the nature of these gra-
dients more in detail, in order to ascertain how far the
ad.iantage of the Caledonian, as a trunk line, in actual
distance, may be neutralised by the character of its in-
clinations.
The principal ascent on the Caledonian line is on the
south-side of the range. From Beattock to the summit
of the Clyde pass, the ascent in 13 miles 77 chains is
760 feet, or at an average inclination of 1 in 97, which
is surmounted by the following gradients :
Miles. Chains.

1 in 200
1 in 100
1 in 80
1 in 75

4 5
1 70
2 40
5 42

On the rest of the line the gradients, though in parts
rather severe, are not of an extraordinary character,
having nothing steeper than I in 100.
On the Dumfries line, the steepest gradient is 1 in
100 ; but at this inclination there is a continued plane
of four miles ; and fee. 16 miles together, in rising
from Kilmarnock to the summit, the average inclination
is 1 in 154. Upon both lines the curves are un-
exceptionable.
The question of gradients enters so materially into
a comparison of these lines, that we think it right to
subjoin the follosvine passaz,se from one of our previous
rations, in which our views upon the subject are fully
stated :
" GRADIENTS.—As thequestion ofgradients and curves
enters as an important element into the consideration of
these and many other scheme., it may be well that we
should here state the views by which we have been
goaded in forming a judgment.
" Disearding all merely theoretical considerations, we
have epproached the subject in a practical point of view,
referring to the actual experience of existing railways
as the sole test of what is admissible ie regard-to future
ones.
" And first in regard to gradients.
"'The improvements that have taken place in the con-
struction of the locomotive engine have greatly enlarged
the standard of its capabilities. Not many years ago.
anything :t•eper than 1 in 200 was looked upon as a de-
cidedly objectionable feature in a line. and enormous
expense was incurred in avoiding gradients of steeper
Inclination.
"'The difference of expense in construction between
s line whit first-class gradients, as it was called, i. e.
none steeper than 1 in 200, and one with second class
gradients ranging up to 1 in 100, was frequently not less
than 10,0001., or even 30,000!. per mile. The London
and Birmingham Great Western and Brighton linos, for
instance, averaging above 50,0001. per mile, while the
Grand Junction and London and South Western did not
exceed from 20,0001. to 25,0004,, Experience has fully
proved that no saving either in time or economy of work-
ing, has been attained at all commensurate to this (nor-
mem additional outlay of capital. Indeed, in many
Cases, cheaply-constructed lines have been worked at an
eval (r It expenditure fur loctenetive power, and at
as high an average velocity as lines constructed at twice,
the expense.
• " This is so universal'y admitted, that such gradients
as were formerly thought objectionable are now adopted
every day as a matter of course, and as the caiiabilities
of the locomotive have been enlarged, gradients of a ,
class which would have been considered a few years ago
al!og, Cher impracticable, have come into general use.
" It is important to ascertein, by reference to actual
priiciice, the results which have been a'ready arrived at,
and which must be taken as starting points to guide us
in the consideration of any new scheme.
" The Lijltey incline, on the Birmingham and Glou-
cester Reila ay, is a conclusive proof that a gradient
.of 1 in 371 for a. length of 2 miles 3 chains may be
worked by the aid of an engine constructed for the pur-
pose. without serious inconvenience to an extensive
traffic IL is also proof that such an incline may be
descended without danger by the force of gravity, regu-
hied by the action of breaks.
" The Sutton incline of 1 in 88, on the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway, is surmounted by the ordinary
trains of tLat railway, whose traffic is of a very heavy
description, with a single locomotive engine.
" On the Newcastle and Carlisle line, an incline of 1
in 106 for 4 miles consecutively, is surmounted by the
ordinary trains without difficulty or delay.
" The use of a stationary engine for eseending the in-
cline on the Manchester and Leeds Railway, from the
'Victoria station, which is 1 in 59 for 1,000; arils; and 1
in 49 for 640 yards, has been in a great measure discon-
tinued, the ordinary engines being found capable of
taking up it heavy passenger
.and goods trains of not
less than 80 tons weight.
" On the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, stationers
power has likewise been discontinued, the locomotive
engine being found a more efficient and economical
substitute on the Glasgow incline of I in 42 for 11
miles ; and recently the locomotive engine has beeii
• equally substituted for stationary power upon the in-
clined plane of the London and Birmingham Railway,
from the Euston-square terminus to Camden-town,
s parts of which are at l in 66 and I in 75.
e • " Many other facts of a similar nature might be
quoted, but the above seem quite sufficient to establish
the general proposition,—
" I. That gradients of from 1 in 50 to 1 in 100, are
perfectly practicable to the ordinary locomotive engine,-:
with moderate loads.
",2. That gradients up to •1 in 37i or higher, may
he'Sirmounted by heavy trains, with the- aid of an as-
' ilatiirit engine of peculiar construction.
application of these facts requires much discri-
on. Nothing can be more fallacious than a mere
1 7: •

~~

3, -am*
a,vl
reiF"