Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1872-07-23
Pacific, Kansas Pacific and the Ger

"A 3. OUR MEANS OF CONSTRUCTING
STHE BROAD GAUGE AS COMPARED WITH
1.-THE NARROW GAUGE.-Railway of
L3ficials are so we'll advised on thi,
siquestion, that it is only necessary to
S4say that he obtaining of a sufficient
lamount Of money to construct 4
E1road on a cash basis is the only rea
sidifficulty to be overcome.
81 1t is a sef-evident fact that it i.
Every much easier to obtain $4,000
fdper mile than it is $4,000.
"A 1t cannot be denied that we have
y Numerous localities, North, East
II South and West, in which railway
dfacilities are imperatively demanded
|3nor will it be denied that in many in,
& stances it would be impossible to OBJ
3tain the means to construct them
dbroad- gauge; or, if able to do SO
R1that when done they would not com.
zimand sufficient business to sustain
ssthem.
& Their excessive cost, entirely dis
s#proportioned to their light business
would necessarily compel them to
Acharge high rates in order to pay
cooperating expenses and interest ac-
acount. and thus retard, rather than
u stimulate, development.
81 Your committee are unable to see
the propriety of thus unnecessarily
Htaxing the industries of the country,
respectfully when the requiring facili-
Cites may be obtained by the adop-
sstion of the narrow gauge at one-hali
Athe cost. thereby placing it within
Athe means Of the localities referred
|sthem not only to provide themselves
8 with railways, but with low rates.
.aAdmitting that SIC, 900 per mile will
4 accomplish the desired object, your
Escommittees are unable to see the
ECONOMY of investing $4,000 per
Emile. and thereby mourning the en-
ltaiIment of high rates for all time.
81 As to the narrow-gauge supplies,
ss3such as rail, locomotives, cars, &c,
1.-THE construction Of the Denver and
-ARio Grande, as well as that of many
aother roads from 20 to $50 miles in
Nlength, now fast being completed
sand even more rapidly than most
abroad gauge roads have been con-
Nstructsd, shows most conclusively
n skill, ingenuity and energy have
Mbeen equal to the emergency. In
Mconclusion upon this point, we beg
lleave TO remark that we are clearly
& of the opinion that an impartial and
Mthorough examination Of the subject
szcannot fail to convince the most
II skeptical of the great advantage in
FLAVOR of the narrow gauge, in first
f9cost, and the consequent money-sav-
sing results to be obtained in the
Amore rapid development of our re-
Ysourcos.
81 /. THE COMPARATIVE COST or OP.
* GRATING THE TWO GAUGES.
"a Your committee cannot fiDd that
Sit has ever been claimed by the
s broad gauge advocates that their sys-
4 tenn can DO operated for less than
Ntbe narrow in any case, while the
&,opinion and practice of all roads
Aprove that when the business ex-
ssceeds certain extent, it is cheaper
g to construct double track, the III.
Is terest on the same to be added to the
ssoperating expenses.
n Itshouid be born in mind that the
sgdoubIe track narrow gauge will not
cost az much az the broad gauge
Ia single track, hence the narrow can
&under all circumstances furnish CHEAP
Il er transportation than the broad.
"a In seeking to develop our resour-
Gees, we must not lose sight of the
intact that low rates of transportation
e will accomplish the desired end lmuch
more rapidly than high rates, which
Efrequently prevent, and in all cases
retard, development.
u In examining the question Of The
z eomparative cost of operating the
1.-TWO systems we will first show Tho
Indifference in the weight Of the roll
Wing stock and machinery, and then
Mtrace the effects produced 10 each
Escase to final result.
81 The narrow gauge coach, weigh
K12 900 pounds, carries when full 81
passengeis with dead weight Of
A12, 600, 80, --333 pounds per passenger
&while the broad. gauge coach, capaci
Ety Sc passengers, weighs an average
fof 10 tone, giving dead weight o.
.A38, 00056-67S pounds, differences
Aof 345 pounds per head in favor o
Athe narrow gauge.
"a But neither of these coaches sci
,Ndom run full, in which case the .ad
.wvantage will be still greater in fav-
,Eor of the narrow gauge.
% TO test the comparison still fur
lHther, we will suppose that we hav
Mthirty-eight passengers, two Eor
wthan ths small coach will accommo
Ndate, making it necessary to put o.
Ma second one.
81 In this case we will have two mar
,Erow gauge coaches, weighing "a 90
,apounds, or "a. 600 1854 pounds pc
Ipassenger, while by the broad gaug
1--we have $4,000, 3S-1,0OO pound
sMdead weight per passenger, or diff
Inference Of 500 pounds per head i
flavor of the narrow gauge.
Nd But let us apply still another test
1--WE still suppose that we have tw
rs narrow gauge car loads, Y passen
-Egers, or 10 more than can be accom-
n modated with one broad gauge coach
aneeessitating the use or a secon
2 Zone.
fu The account will then stand as 70
Hlows: Two narrow gauge coaches
NE passengers. "a, OOO72-333 pound
DHper passenger, while by the broa
dagauge it will be, two coaches &c, 600
pH72-1 055 pounds per passenger,
Edifference of 722 pounds per head, c
! IA total of $4,000 pounds, or &c tor
NJ saving in dead weight in favor {
a the narrow gauge in only two car
II The dead weight to a passengt
1, lon the New York roads Ia 1870 VIZ
: NJ 74S pounds exclusive of baggag
G Hwith an average of Is passenger