The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-10-19
A Common-Sense View.

It would be absurd in any man to become
a mere partisan about gauges OF railroads
1t is impossible that we can become one
For the public good we desire the TRIUMPH
of everything that is best for mankind, am
our support can he given to nothing tina
has, in our opinion, any other object.
Railroads arc in their infancy-only SOME
forty years old in this country-and we baV'
much to learn about them. Undoubtedly
upon the question of gauge we have mucl
to learn. The width of 4 railway has di
rect bearing upon the vital questions OF
Cost of construction; cost OF operating
power Of traction, or draught, &c. The rail!
road world has rejected most positively tht
wide gauges of six and seven feet. Blu
without trial Of 4 narrower gauge the dc
cision seemed to be in favor Of the four-foot
Observation-Disclosures railway. Why
In half dozen years the experiment al test:
of narrower gauges have brought to light
astonishing results. And we are irre>lstioly
admonished that tue proper trial may lead
TO the conclusion that narrower track than
four feet eight aud half inches may De
better than that.
Take the threc-root gauge. We see incon
tcstbly that that gauge has these advantages
over the four-foot-eig ht-and.a-halt-inch: III
construction and equipment it costs one
third less; in operating aud repair it costs
ut least oue-third less. lis debt must bepro
portionally less. .,..s
In answer TO the question, Is its capacity as
great as that Of the broader four-foot-elght'
and.a .balt-inch railway? this appears the
ready reply: 1t is capable OF doing all the
business now done by any railway in this
country. And if so, what is the use OF
building a railway, the cost of whicn and
running expenses are at the least one-third
higher, 10 do no more ,oork?
That answer would seem to be conclusive.
But let not the reader forget the cOnsiderl-
tons of debt and the Interest thereupon, ana
the dividend upon stock in cheap railroad,
compared with the same things in Il railroad
costing so much more and doing no more du'
sineSs. These are the points.
There can be no mistake about the capa-
city of The narrow-gauge way. 1t has been
tested fully 10 England and elsewhere, and
in this country on the Denver Narrow-Gauge
road aud others. From official statements
we learn that the Festiuiog railroad, ia
Wales, which is only foot liz inches, SIN
gle track, transports annually 1888 tons OF
freight per mile, or nearly three times as
much Us the average of the roads in the
United States; and it is not employed 10 near
its full capacity.
We cannot resist the sober, common.sense
deduction from the facts that where cheap
railway will do all the business it is, with
the lights before US, folly to build one that
will cost one-third more and will require
one-third more than the narrow-gatlge or
cheap railway-to operate it.
That we may build cheap railways that
will do all we want them to do is great
gain to society. Even if we contemplate
the necessity OF double track the argument
gains force, for the comparative difference
in favor OF the narrow gauge is further III
creased by every additional expenditure.
The subject is exceedingly interesting. Ii
is well worthy the study of the people. If
we can have railroads for Il third or half the
cost of those we have heretofore built it is a
great blessing to the people. The expert
ment should be made in the Atlantic States,
and we have now a beautiful opportunity
for the trial. We have the highest expecta-
tons that it would prove infinitely beneti
to the people of Virginia and of this city.