The weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1869-18??, 1870-10-26

Il
Uunder thishesd Mr.. R. FoFArRLIE, oh.
the ab.est Of English civil engineers, pub.
fishes on important article. in The Engines'
for Sept 90, In which he argues Will, great
force and clearTiess that every inch added
to the width OF gauge beyond what is alb.
Csolutely necessary for the traffic adds to the
cost of construction, increases the proportion
| of dead weight, increases the cost and danger
of working, and in consequence increase the
tariffsto the public, and by so much reduces
| the useful effect of railway" and that, take.
ing the average ofthe circumstances under
which railways are built, 1.-THE cost will be
found to vary nearly as the gauge" He
asserts that English railways have been
built infagrant violation OF these principles,
and illustrates his argument IN favor OF
narrower gauges by an analysis Of the bust
ness of London and Northwestern Rail-
way, the good management of which is
universally admitted" He shows that "if
the guage of this road were ieet instead
'of 4 feet 81 inches, its goods traffic could
be hauled at half the present cost, with
half the p.esent motive power, and in such
a way as to reduce the present tonnage by
one-half, andto remove the necessity for the
heavy expense that is how being incurred in
the construction of third line of rails"
The goods traffic on this road is esti-
mated at ten million tons per annum, re-
quiring seventy millions of tons of train
weight to haul it !; but in order to avoid all
risk of exaggeration. Mr.. Fairlie estimates
the dead weight; at forty million tons, and
the whole gross weight hauled by the engines
at fifty million tons, at an average speed OF
twenty-five miles an hour The average dis
stance traversed by each ton is about thirty
eight miles, at an average cost of I'D. per
ton. The cars employed average four tons
in weight, and carry one ton for every mile
run" g. essasT 1T 4ta1 1ia
1.-the speed in eae, case up to forty miles
per hour is Yasssmsd. a. seisg equal. Tha
cars for line of three feet gauge weigh
each one ton, and carry maximum load Of
three tons. Surprising that the same num-
Der of cars and trains were run on the mar
row rs on the broad gauge, it follows that
the average ine ton 'of merchandise now
carried could easily lie taken in car
weighing one ton insteadofl lour tons, and
that the gross load passing over the line for
one year would be only twenty million tons
instead of fifty million, while the same
amount of paying load would be carried in
either case. The haulage cost would he the
same whether the tons hauled consist of pay
ing or non paying loads, it follows that the
expense would be reduced to two fifths of
what it now is. This dnes not include the
enormous saving in wear and tear which
would arise from hauling twenty million
tons instead of fifty million. From the fore
going the fact is established that the feet
gauge can produce twenty-five millions net
out of gross tonnage of fifty millions,
while the 4 feet 81 inch gauge, to produce
the same result, would have to haul one
hundred and twenty five millions, and at a
cost increased in the same proportion "--
New York San. go 7'ii Il 1-y5 la11l