The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1879-12-18
The E. & W. r. r.
CONTINUED from last week.


Before going into any figures as
to the probable cost, (of course the
actual cost cannot be arrived at un
ii survey has been made and the
actual route decided upon, l will
state q few facts in regard to
narrow gauge railroads gathered
from authentic sources in my pos
session, showing the great advan
tage they have over the broad gauge
under certain circumstances, as be
fore referred to. My reasons for
doing so are, that during the last
week / have heard numerous oh
jecLions against narrow gauge rail-
ways; the principal ones are as fol-
lows, viz: That they are unsafe;
are not capable Of hauling a paying
load, and that the difference in cost
between the two gauges would not
compensate for the trouble of
transshipment. Now, as regards
the first objection, compare care
fully the serious accidents entAiling
the loss of human life on the mar
row, as compared to the broad
guage and you will be convinced at
once; in fact, there has been no Sc
rious accidents Oh any narrow
gauge railroad since their first in
production into this country in 1871.
If there has heen, have failed TO
hear of it, while we hear of fright
full accidents taking place every few
days on the broad gauge, and the
most of these accidents are owing
to the fact that the bridges, tres
ties, &c, are not capable OF sup
porting the weight and shock of
the heavy rolling stock used upon
them and generally run at q high
rate of speed:
Now as regards their carrying ca
pacity, / will merely give you an
extract from the first annual report
of the Denver and Rio Grande r.
R. Narrow Gauge:)
With concentrated or heavy
freight, the advantage realized has
been 35 per cent. That is to say,
50 100 more freight has been car
ried regularly on the narrow gauge
rolling stock, with the same total
weight of cars and load, as on the
broad gauge. For instance, take
train of Is loaded cars, (Which
weigh when empty 81 tons each, }
arriving at Denver on the sbroad
gauge and their contents trans
ferred to the D. d. r. G. r. K. The
same freight is placed IN 20 narrow
gauge cars, the empty weight of
which is less than tons each, the
comparison will stand as follows:
Is wide gauge cars, 81 tons each.
paying load, 10 tons each; total
dead weight, 136 tons; total weight
of cars and load 296 tons.
20 narrow gauge cars, less than 3
tons each; paying load, 8 tons
each; total dead weight, go tons;
total weight of cars and load, 220
tons; saving in total weight. rs
tons, which is equivalent to 56
tons additional freight, which the
narrow gauge train could take with
out any increase of weight over the
broad gauge. In other words 80
per cent. more, so that you see a
narrow gauge car could carry 81
tons any distance, as cheap as the
broad gauge car could be carried
empty. As an example of differ
ence in cost, l will take these two
roads for instance, viz: Extension
to X. P. R. r. (broad gauge) and
Denver d Bio Grsnde R. R., (nar-
row Gauge.) The former cost per
mile, com plete, $23,5OO while the
latter only cost $I3,50o per mile
complete, and through a great deal
rougher country. 1t. being the first
or initial narrow gauge in the U. S,
it probably cost more IN proportion
than it would at the present time.
/ hope there has been enough said
to prove to any one the advantages
to be gained by adopting the mar
row gauge for this proposed route.
The following is an approximate es-
innate in detail Of the cost of that
part of the road lying between Pu-
laski and Fayetteville, supposed dis
lance thirty miles; the other end of
the route / think can be built for
considerably less in proportion, as
there is, / understand, more level
country to run through, and the
same amount of rolling stock would
answer for the present