The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1876-02-24
[For the Highland News.

lFor the Highland News.
Narrow Gauge VS.. Broad
| Gauge Their Relative
Merits Compared.
The interest the public has manifested
in the last few years, in the economies of
a NdrrOW Gauge for railroads, suggests
dispassionate consideration of its merits in
regard to the standard or common glnga;
of its advantages, if it has any, and under
what condition of circumstances.
1t is claimed by its advocates, that the
narrow gauge may be constructed fer near
half the cost of the standard gauge, and
may be operated at half the ex-
pense for given effect; that the road-bed
may be constructed for one-half, in the re-
duction of its width, aud less,ning the
cuts aud fills, by hs1ibifty of alignment in
the sharpening of its curvstures, and in
creasiDg the steepness of its grades; that
the superstructure may be reduced one
haif by lessening the dimensions sf the
cross-ties, their length from 8 to s+sset,
and their sqasre from Z to Ginchss, by re-
ducing the weight, and thereby tke pro-
portionate cost, of the rails from say Gu lbs.
to so or 80 lbs. per yard; that in the same
ratio the equipments, locomotives, and fix
lures, costs less than the common gauge;
and that in operating the road the propor-
ton of dead soeigat is greatly reduced in
proportion to the freight, in this, that on
the common gauge the weight of the car is
equal to its freight, and on the narrow
gauge is equal to but halt its freight: in
other words, substituting car of four
tons weight, carrying eight tons of freight,
Gas is claimed for three-foot gauge) for
car of ten tons weight, carrying ten tons of
freight, on common gauge.
These are the assumptions, in geasral, in
favor of what is termed the modern or g.
foot, over the standard gauge, of feet,
81 or 10inches. Praeticilly, it is asserted
that the nGrrouc ggu7e will transport pass
engers and freight, as cheaply, and as safe
ly, aui at rates less ia proportion to the
cost of constructing the two gauges.
The enquiry is suggested: Are these as
sumptions correct? Are the inferences in
accordance with the principles of mechan-
| les?
Curves and grades are not fixed quanti-
ties in any grade. But, from experience,
it has been found economy to reduce them,
even at increased cost of construction.
The lateral friction, from the tangential
force of the engine and train, is in ratio
of the sharpness of the curve, accelerated
by its velocity. Practically, the conditions
of curvature are determined, chiefly, by
| the length of the train; short trains admit
ting sharper curvature; long trains demand
ing cqrvatures of greater expansion; and
the length of trains, being proportioned to
the tonnage, is determined by the tractive
power of the engine adapted to given
gauge. The question of higher grades, as
an element in the reduction of cost of con-
struction, finds its solution in plain prin-
ciple of mechanics, that the ratio of freight
is inversely as the steepaess of the grades,
the motive power being the same.
Then, the saving in the cost of the road
bed of the narrow gauge, is, in the earth
works, a longitudinal section of the width
of the difference of the gauges, (say COY
inchesl and the depth of the cuts and fills
and in the masonry and bridges, is in the
proportion of the reduction of the width. |
Any other reduction of the cost in the road
bed, except at theincreased cost of traction,
is Il fallacy. There can be no fixed data
for determining the comparative saving in
the cost of the road-bed, but upon the |
principle laid down, under ordinary topo-
graphical conditions, it would approximate
to one ninth or oRe-teHta of that of the COM |
mon gauge.
OF THE REDUCED COST OF sUPERsFRucrURE. |
The cross-ties of the narrow, as compared |
with the standard gsuge, in cubic contents
or broad measure would be in the ratio of |
five TO nine, or saving of four-ninths.
1LO Vi Tue EkiLo 10 uSboElnl1Su Dg I
the weight of the engine aud train re-
duction of the weight of the rails, therefore,
implies a lighter engine, less locomo-
tive power, cars of less weight. and there
fore less clpacity. If reduced to 35 lbs. |
from 60 lbs. per yard, which is about half the
strength, under the most economic f1rm of I
rail for that weight, reduction OF the
weight of the locomotive, by the laws of
the strength of iron, must be in cores
ponding ratio. But an engine of half the
ordinary weight exerts but half the power,
and, by sequence, its powers of traction are
but one-half; that is, the tonnage which is
the measure of its capacity, is blt one
half. Besides, the operating expense, save
the motive power, which is proportional, |
are the same for a train of i3-ton engine
as for a train of 26-ton engine, the usual |
weight for first-class standard gauge
But it is claimed in behalf of the narrow
gauge, that in operating the road, of the /
total amount of tonnage the proportion of |
dead Deight to the fright is greatly re-
duced. Is this specification sustained by |
the laws of mechanics, or by experience? |
It is asserted that whereas car of ten |
tons freight for the common gauge weighs |
ten tons, car of eight tons freight for a /
narrow gauge weighs but four tons. Now, |
this reduction of relative weight of car can
be obtained only by substituting four
wheels, for the pair of four-wheel trucks,
to car. Therefore, there would be but
! four bearings on the rails for twelve tons
of car and freight, as against eight bear
ings for the twenty tons of Car and freight.
or three tons on each point of bearing or
wheel, in the narrow gauge, to tpo and a
hGlf tons on each point of bearing on the
rail in the common gauge car. Yet it is
alleged that with this increase of from two
and half to three tons of weight on each
bearing point, the weight of the rail can be
reduced nearly one-half! To say the least
of it, this is an absurdity. If, however,
this reduction in the weight of the car can
be available in the operation of the narrow
gauge, it is equally 80 in the operation of
! the commOn oauoe Bnt II is a mechanic