Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1872-10-09
with the marrow gauge; thsy remark flat Il

10 V"y heSess0is W say, tHat the obtaining oI
a sufficient amount of money to build road
on cash basis is the only real difficulty to be
overcome. 1t is a self-evident fact that it is
| very much easier to obtain SIC, 900 per mile
than it is $50 900, and admitting that 10000
per mile will accomplish the desired object,
it is impossible to see the economy of invest
ing $4,000 per mile, and thereby incur the
entailment of high rates for all time.
~. As to the comparative cost of operating |
the two gauges, the Committee remark that
the practice of all roads prove when the bust |
ness exceeds certain extent that it is cheap.
er to construct double track, the interest in
the same to be added to the operating ex-
penses. Now the double track narrow gauge
will not cost as much as the broad gauge sim
gle track; hence the narrow can under all cir
cumstances furnish cheaper transportation
than the broad. In regard to the dead weight
carried per passenger by each gauge, the
| Committee make three computations based
on actual running of trains in 1870; the first
shows the dead weight of one car of Sc pass
engers on the broad gauge to be 679 lbs. to
each passenger, to 1873 lbs. on the narrow
gauge; the second showing proves that two
broad gauge cars containing ~ passengers
make dead weight of 1866 lbs. per .passen-
gers to 1913 lbs. per passenger in the same
number of narrow gauge cars the third COM
, putation is on this basis: The passenger cars
on the New York roads run about one.fourth
E full assuming that TIE broad gauge railways
: average the same number (l3) per car, the
] difference is 1000 lbs. per head for each pass
A enger in favor of the narrow gauge. A SIM
I liar result is found upon comparing the two
, gauges in reference to the economical trans
G portation of freight, and especially in refer
ence to way freight. As to the compara tive
strength of rolling stock, the Committee say
there can be no doubt but that all parts OF
the narrow gauge machinery and rolling stock
are relatively stronger and the shocks tC
# which they are exposed much lighter. TIC
n SUN up, the Committee declare the narrow
n gauge may be operated for about 25 per cent.
less than the broad gauge, and where the pro-
portion of expenses to gross receipts is 20 per
cent. the ratio of the narrow gauge expenses
: to receipts will be 52a per cent, and with
;. strict economy probably as low as 40. The
expenditure of power stands in the relation
u of about 45 to "a in freight and IL to 80 in
u passenger trafc.
V. Can narrow gauge locomotives be con-
structed of sufficient power and speed to an
swer the general requirements? The Com
5 mittee unhesitatingly answer yes, and give
Iasy x.s. t.,i, =,
q they are doing it daily, and any one who wish
Y es to investigate the question has only to WIS.,
e it the roads where they in use and wit
. ness their performance.
$ vi. Can the passenger coaches be made
safe, comfortable and popular with the trav-
, cling publicr In answer t. this HE Com
nittee of this Convention answer emphat.
cally in the affirmative
VII. Can freight cars be constructed of
convenient size for the transportation of cot
ton, live stock and general freights2 The
Denver and Rio Grande railroad officials give
: it as their unreserved opinion founded upon
actual experience, that they gain in every
> case whore the size OF the car comes in cues
ton, and that in no case is the extra room OF
I the broad gauge car equal to the loss in dead
Z, weight. A careful comparison shows 397 lbs
, of dead weight per head in favor Of the mar
! row gauge.
Will What saving in dead weight will the
narrow gauge effect? This question is also
answered infinitely by the committee by con-
parison of cotton trains at the South. The
difference is very materially in favor of the
new gauge.
IN. How will the saving in first cost and
dead weight affect the rates of freight and
traffic? There are GO, 900 miles of broad
gauge railway in the United States. These
have cost from $50, 900 to $50, 900 per mile;
estimating their average cost at $4,000 per
mile they represent $2,400, OO0,O 900; had we
originally adopted the narrow gauge at half
the cost of the broad, the expenditure would
have been l,200, O00, 900, leaving an equal
amount for investment in manufacturing or
other enterprises. Or with 90, 4OO, 900 inves.
ted in the narrow gauge, it would have given
US 240, 900 miles in active operation to-day,
1t does not need any argument to prove that
had our railways cost us only from $40, 900 to
500, 200 per mile, it would have cost less
to operate them and the general interests
would have been advanced in corresponding
| degree. Admitting the cost of trans portation
by the narrow gauge would be one-third less
than by the broad gauge, it would effect
saving to producers of 100000 per an
mum, or for period of twenty five years
500 ,000, 000,-a sum sufficient to build TO-
600 miles, of narrow gauge railway at &c.
900 per mile, or 5000 at $50. 900 per mile.
| n. Break of connections; in Great Britain
the cost of transferring freight is about
pence per ton; on the Canada frontier it is
about5 cts The average cost of Transporting
freight may be taken at l-2 cents per ton per
mile on the broad gauge ON the narrow
gauge it is 20 per cent. cheaper; one ton trans
ported 200 miles at l-2 cents would cost So
and saving Of 25 per cent. would be 70 cents,
so that an expense of 10 cents per ton may
be incurred in Transferring freioht and still