The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1871-08-10
NARROW GAUGE RAILROADS.

AS the discussion progresses concerning the
relative merit Of narrow guage over broad
gauge railroads, ii is curious to observe how
widely mathematicians may differ when deal
ing with the same class of facts making com,
putation upon like basis and astounding
themselves and the world with the marvellous
discrepancy of the results
The advocates of narrow guage assert
l. That in economy of construction ofroad
and rolling stock, the narrow gauge SURPRISES
the wide to the extent of costing only half as
much. hHa ~ 80. s 5rcG
2. That this reduction in cost is not Offset
by any reduction in carrying capacity.
8. That with the narrow gauge, lighter 10.
comotives, less costly cars, sharper curves,
and rails weighing only 80 pounds to the yard
the rate of paying TO non paying transporta-
ton viii be as to 5, while on wide gauge. of
the amount hauled, there are 80 tons non.
paying to one ton paying.
! 4. That narrow gauge can be constructed
Tor S., 600 per mile, while the average cost of
wide guage is not less than $50, 900.
5. That the broad gauge locomotive which
with it's tender weighs nearly fifty tons, will
be displaced in the narrow gauge by q loco
motive weighing seven tons, carrying it's own
fuel and water, dispensing with the tender,
and not crushing the rails as the forty or fifty
ton engine necessarily does and that this eight
ton locomotive on the narrow gauge will &C
cOmplish as much as the forty ton locomotive
on the broad
6 That in ght and cost of construction
of freight and passenger cars there will be the
same ratio of reduction, and equal CARRYING
capacity with the corresponding ten-ton cars
on broad gauge roads. .
| Z. That narrow gauge is the only true gauge
in principle, and that in time three-foot
gauge will be the standard of the world.
| The managers of broad gauge trunk lines
now in existence, and few civil engineers at
tached to these roads and unwilling. for once,
| mo- Ia h0Sr Min 1occ
all the subordinate propositions of the narrow
gauge advocates, but emPhatca1ly deny the
main one, upon whose truth the practical
value Of all the rest mainly depend-namely.
that reduction in carrying capacity does not
accompany reduction in cost. The broad
gauge engineers assert that decrease in ca,
pacIty is IN far greater ratio than decrease in
cost; and propose to show that all the esti-
mates made by the narrow gauge advocates
| to show the ratio of reduction in cost are
! grossly exaggerated. For instance, the
/ Queensland narrow gauge railways in Austria
liza cost S32, 900 per mile, the laborers receiy-
ing from 81 so to 81, rs day; one of the mar
row gauge roads in India, whose cost averaged
Sl9,OOO per mile, the land and portion of
the road-bed being furnished by Ethe British
government two Canadian railways. which
averaged S24, 500 per mile and narrow gauge
roads in Norway averaging $26, $50 per mile.
! The broad gauge defenders remind American
companies that to these figures, exorbitant
as they are in the countries named, must be
added in the United States the duties on iron
and the premium on gold ; and with these
added, the average cost per mile of narrow
gauge would be fully up to the figure the
narrow gauge men fxlas the average Der mile
of broad gauge, $4,000. This, however. is
too small if we include in the estimate The
average per mile of the Union Pacific. which
was 100000, and that of the Central Pacific
$llO, 000, making the general average nearly
$6O, OOO, thus showing about the same ratio al
ter all between the estimated cost of narrou
and broad gauge as is claimed by the narrow
guage advocates, and yindcating the advan
tages OF The narrow gauge, SO far as economy
in construction is concerned.
1t is denied that much lighter iron than
that now In use can be safely employed fol-
rail purposes and stability insured; or thai
greater safety is obtainable by narrow gauge
since, with wheels 90 inches in diameter for !
three foot gauge, speed OF 40 miles per hour
will require 672 revolutions per minute
While on broad gauge, wheels Of SO inch diam
eter accomplish the same speed by 4O7 reyo
lutions per minute. The reduction in cost NJ
passenger and freight cars is admitted on the
ground small house costs lessgthan larger
Or better one /; but it is also maintained that
the economy is of little practical ADVANTAGE
and that the best paying freight cannot be
transported In cars OF less magnitude than
those now employed on broad gauge
There is one admission, however. which the
broad gauge men make without reservation
that Earrow gauge road is better than nc
road at all, and that for all purposes OF feed
ing lines, three foot gauge will answer all
practical purposes, saving, certainly, many
thousands In the total cost ofroad and roIIiho
stock; Having admitted this, they viii
probably admit much more when the narrow
gauge roads now existing, or in process Of
construction, shall have definitely settled the
ration OF carrying capacity to width ofgauge