Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-06-19
from the Montpelier Watchman.l
Montpelier 81 Rutland Railroad
RUTLAND. June 6. Is

RUTLAND, June q, 1873.
MeSsrS. Editors Your letter in rela-
ton to the proposed railroad between
Montpelier and Rutland, and asking for
such information as | possess concerning
the various routes which have been pro-
posed, and also the sentiment of the
people of Rutland on the subject, is be-
fore me.
I reply, have to say that am not
sufficiently acquainted with that portion
of the route between Montpelier and
Rochester to enable me to form an opin-
ion of its feasibility.
From Rochester to Rutland, several
routes have been suggested, but it is my
belief that only one of them is in any
wise feasible, and that is the route from
Rochester to Stockbridge, thence to
Pittsfield, and thence to North Sher-
burne, where it would strike the route
already surveyed for a railroad from
Rutland to Woodstock, and from North
Sherburne to the summit of the noun
tain, and thence ON through Chittenden
and Mendon to Rutland. That is, form
ing a junction with the Rutland and
Woodstock route at North Sherburne,
and carry the line across the mountain
by the same route established for the
Rutland & Woodstock railroad.
This has been my opinion of the mat
ter from the start, and | believe it is the
universal opinion of the people of Rut-
land who have examined the subject.
1t is generally known that already a sur
vey of the Rutland & Woodstock route
has been made. I am not at liberty to
give the details of that survey, but will
tho oroIa From,
Sherburne to the Summit is sixty-three
coed eighty-six feet per mile. The av-
erage grade from Rutland to the Sum-
nit is sixty-seven feet per mile, and with
a single exception, it does not exceed
ninety feet per mile. At one point
it reaches one hundred and three feet
per mile, for distance less than one
third of a mile.
A very cursory examination of the
country will show that at North Sher-
burne, the Queechee valley from Wood
stock, and the valley to Rochester
through Stockbridge and Pittsfeld meet,
and at that point | would make june
ton of the two routes, and carry tht ,
line thence across the mountain to Rut
land as one and the same line.
| am aware that the usual conflict of
opinion prevails among those INTEREST," ID
along the proposed route, and the pre- s.
ent enterprise does not seem to emf oy
any immunity from this evil, which JIas
attended its predecessors.
Whether this is attributable to selfish
motives and interests, or to want of
knowledge of the subject, is imnlaterial
at this juncture The evil exists, and
until it shall be removed and all unite on
one common route, we need not expect
the enterprise to prosper, much less tri-
umph.
1t was regarded few years ago, when
looking for a route for the Rutland and
Woodstock railroad, fortunate circum-
stance that one route could be found :;
but in the case of the Montpelier and
Rutland railroad, the difficulty seems to
be multiplicity of routes, and the ques-
ton is, how to dispose of those not
needed.
The route that have indicated is a
practicable one, and | still think that
after the ':skirnlishing" on the ''Goshen.
route" and the "West Rochester route"
shall have been carried far enough, all
parties will finally settle upon it, carry
the Montpelier and Rutland road to
North Sherburne, form junction with
the Rutland and Woodstock line, and
thence across the mountain to Rutland.
| am aware that an opinion has Oh
tanned among the people on the east side
of the mountain along the Montpelier
and Rutland route, that Rutland, being
faVorably disposed toward the Rutland
and Woodstock railroad is hostile to-
ward the Montpelier and Rutland enter
prise; but this is an erroneous opinion.
Rutland is in favor of both roads,
and instead of regarding one as preiudi-
Cial to the other, she thinks that each
may contribute to the success of the
other; certainly so far as the building of
the roads is concerned. And'in this way
Rutlands interest becomes identified
with both, without prejudice to either,
and doubt not that she will be ready to
contribute her share of assistance toward
the building of both.
Objection has been made to the plan
of forming junction with the Rutland
81 Woodstock road at North Sherburn, e
on the ground that one is to be mar
row, and the other common guage
road; but there seems no good reason
why the narrow guage may not as well
terminate at North Sherburne as at Rut-
land.
am well aware that this hastily
written letter but lily answers your in
quiries, but l shall be glad to state my
views more fully at some future time,
and to give you such further informa-
ton on the subject as possess.
Very respectfully,