The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-02-01
.pRow GAUGE RAILROADS.

I, view of the fact that the question
sb.tber the Wheeling and Lake Erie r..
hall be a narrow or standard. gauge
rosd we have been looking up again the
advantages claimed for the latter system.
H. r.odoing, we have had occasion to refer
TO pamphlet published on the subject
by Messrs. RICHARD B. OSBORNE, of Del
aware, and CHARLES 7. MANNING, OF
baltimore, both engineers of experience
and acknowledged ability.
This pamphlet Is quite lengthy, and
of course its contents could not be con-
densed INTO an editorial, but the chief
pojpts of interest made in it and proven
BY actual experience and figures are:
First--that road of the gauge of three
feet one hurdred miles long, can be bnilt
at a sarulg over the cost of the 4 foot 81
inch road of sum of money, which II
compounded at per cent, will in ten
wear, repay all but about So, 200 per mile
of the whole road. Second-lhe
increase of paying freight, on such
road, with a grade of 40 feet per mile
over standard gauge, there being trans
ported over each road the same average
weigh, ot trains) amounts to about S25S,
$50 per annum.
Third-On narrow guage road, sharp
curves can be traversed more readily, and
with much less wear and tear of both
r.ils and rolling stock, and by reason of
this. engineers are enabled to get better
location, IN sections ot country of diff
cult topo graphical features.
Fourth The uu.il vi II narrow guage
costs II per cent less than of standard
road
Fihh-The speed usually adopted on
railroads of the standard guage in the
United Ststes can be adhered to with
equal stability to the rails and rolling
stock on the narrow guage.
SiIth-The expenses of operating the
narrow gusge are 20 per cent less than
ON the other, and
Seventh-The net revenues of the 4
foot s! inch road average about 7per cent,
while those OF the foot road promises
surely 10 average 20 per cent per annum,
thus demonstrating that freight can be
transported at much less cost on the mar
row than on the standard gauge.
These are the chicfpoints ofimportance
10 6e considered in deciding this question.
As we have stated. we have not
space nor time to elaborate on
the figures or arguments used in
arriving al them, but the source from
which they are derived is of sufficient
digAity to warrant them as correct.
There are doubtless many points to be
stated to the advantage Of the standard
gsugs roads, but if these above
cited, are not sufficient to prove
that the smaller gauge is better under
all circumstances, they certainly seem to
be enough to show that on roads not ex'
pscted to be great trunk lines, or which
are somewhat embarrassed for means, the
narrow guage is decidedly advantageous.
Thi chict argument indeed, advanced
for the 4 foot 81 inch road is that such
being the usual gauge, the difficulty and
expense in making connections, or ship
ping freight Will arise. This can be OBJ,
waited however, in future when
these roads become more general;
but it is claimed that even this additions!
expense is largely counterbalanced by
the savings realized in the first cost OF
construction. We simply present these
views without comment, but feeling con-
tdent that all our citizens, even those
more strongly advocating the broad road
had much rather have a narrow guage
lhan no road at all over the line Of the
Wheeling and Lake Erie.