Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1873-06-19
MARROW GAUGE RAILWAYS.
A Comparison OF the stock OF Broad and Mar
row 6auge.

Oshkosh, Wis, says:
The difference in the cost of con-
struction in favor of narrow~gauge |
railways is conceded by their oppo>
nents, but there is still some contro-
versy as to how great that saving
may be, some engineers claiming
that by building the wide. gauge roll
ing stock, lighter than that now in
use, the weight per wheel can be re-
duced to about that of the narrow
gauge, allowing a corresponding re-
duction in the weight of the rails. so
that the difference in actual neces-
sary cost of permanent way would
more than compensate for the incon-
venience of transferring freight. 1t
is with this question of light broad
gauge rolling stock that | propose TO
deal in this article.
First as to cars. While it is true
that the weight per wheel of ordin-
airy eight wheeled cars loaded is on
ly two and half tons, or about the
same as the weight per driver of mar
row-gauge locomotives, still it should
be considered that if every wheel
in train, including engine and cars,
is humping the rails with a weight
of two and a half tons, the damage
to the rails is much greater than if
every wheel except the engine-driv-
ers sustained weight of only one
and half tons, and this is so we'll
understood by broad-gauge advocates
that they are suggesting plans for
reducing the weight of their cars.
They propose to shorten them 80
that the distance between trucks
shall be equal in both eases, by which
means they can reduce the weight
of their platforms to about that of
narrow gauge, and yet have the ad
vantoge Of their extra width. OF
course this involves a reduction in
the size of the stills and of the frame
generally in short, it is lighter
platform in the sense referred to.
But the larger portion of the weight
of a platform car is in the trucks, and
these will admit of little or no reduc-
ton. The wheels must remain as
they are. If you reduce their diam
eter you lower the draw head A
33>inch wheel weighs 500 pounds.
A 24>inch wheel weighs 300 pounds
This difference Of 200 pounds multi
piled by eight wheels gives 600
pounds in the wheels alone. The
axles cannot be reduced, their SIZE
depending on the gauge. The diff
ference between a 4i.inch axle 81
feet ong, and one 81 inches, ~ feet
long, is $50 pounds. This multiple
ed by toHr gives 600 pounds differ
ence in the weight Of the exles.
| The difference in the track frames
bolts and braces will be about 500
pounds more, or total difference, Of
1900 pounds in favor of the narrow
gauge car. Move consider that, when
all this is done with the broad gauge
car, its body is so much lighter than
those now in use that it will be un-
safe to put it in a train of the hcav-
| Ter cars, for the reason that the len k
ing ard conclusion will tear it to
pieces. 1t would be a sheep ar ong
wolves. Car builders and railway
companies know this so well that,
although the narrow gauge cars
have been in use for some years, aud
their advantage in the matter of
dead weight SO well known, yet they
have not begun to carry into prac-
| tice what is claimed theoretically, to
| be practicable.
But again We know that cars
are constructed on scientific princi-
pies; their points, as those of q
bridge, are proportional to the SER
vice they must perform. And en-
gineers will understand that larg-
er quantity, multiplied by a given
factor of safety, is geoMetrically in
creased over smaller quantity null
tiplied by the same factor. Now
this is precisely what occurs in the
case in hand, and to this fact is due
large part of the advantage of the
narrow-gauge cars 10 proportion Of
weight to capacity.
Let broad gauge advocates Ie-
member that the proportions of cars
are the same for the respective
gauges, narrow~gauge car being a
diminu i've representation of a broad
gauge car, and when they claim that
the length of their platforms can be
reduced that we can also reduce
proportionally the length of ours, so
that it is unnecessary to begin that
sort of theorizing. We have had TO
deal with facts as we find them. 1t
is unnecessary to theorize until rail-
road companies are ready to wipe
out Of existence the whole of their
present rolling stock.
As to locomotive the same is true.
but we will crafty the theorizers for
moment. They tell US they can
put the same boilers and cylinders
upon a wide-gauge and distribute
and distribute their weight over the
same number of drivers, and obtain
the same weight per wheel Mr..
Fairlie gives the difference in the
weight of frames; wheels and axles of
one of his engines, due to difference
in gauge alone, at two tons. If
broad and narrow-gauge engine are
to be built of equal weight this two
tons can be put upon the productive
and distributive parts, as the boiler,
cylinders, connecting rods, etc, of
the narrow-gauge engine, thereby
immensely increasing its power over
that of the broad. gauge engine. So
that the wide-gauge advocates are
forced to one of two conclusions
either that their engine must be less
powerful than ours, or that 1t
must be heavier, requiring larger
rail. Consider in addition that an
engine of twenty-five per cent. less
power is required in the narrow to
haul the same paying load as on the
hrOad.sauge, and we see another raa.