Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1879-08-08


gid eloquence (on paper with which the faith
er and son started out month ago The
whole matter SINNERS down to the very re-
markable and consistent statement that tho
Reformer makes no charges yet against any
body and that it only wants an "investiga-
ton, which somebody else must pay for.
For ourselves, we have no desire to do more
this week than point out few of the in
stances in which the young man of the Re
former seeks to cover his own discontinue by
attempting to throw dust in the eyes of the
public.
And first, in regard to the matter of Eau
thorities" in railroad building The young
man speaks learnedly of ''all the authorities
that we know of, including Appleton's and
Johnson's cyclopwdias, in a way which makes
it patent that he knows nothing of any author
ity in railroad construction, beyond the few
general statements which are found in the two
cyclop@dias named. The remark just quoted
is made by the Reformer with reference to
our plain and fair question of last week
rs it not n fact that rail weighing 80
pounds TO the yard, of good iron. is said by
the best authorities to be heavy enough for
the rolling stock and equipment of three
foot road to pass upon and over economi-
cally?"
For ourselves, we should never think of
quoting either Appleton or johnson as stand
ard or accepted authorities in railroad build
ing, for the reason, if for no other, that,
should we do so, we should get well laughed
at by railroad men for our ignorance But,
since both the editor of the Reformer and his
father regard these cyclopadins as authority,
let US see what they do in reality say on the
rail question, and on some other points The
editor of the Reformer says that they say
not as regards our question quoted above
Our copies of these works, and they are the
latest editions, say no such thing On the
contrary, johnson says specifically that 'the
form and proportion Of the rail are found to
be OF more consequence than the weight
The heavy S0-pound iron rail wears out much
faster than neutrality-suspicious. GO-pound
rail- and the proper weight of a steel rail is
about 80 pounds to the yard" johnson gives
no special information whatever regarding the
construction of narrow-gauge roads and it is
unnecessary to say that the figures here quot
ed, relative to the proper weight of rails, re-
fer to the broad or standard gauge Appleton.
Ill quoting the claims made for the narrow
gauge system, based on Mr. Fairlie's expert
ence with the celebrated Festiniog Wales
railway, says: 80 That n saving in first con-
structon, equal in many cases to 33 per cent,
can be made by the adoption of the marrow
gauge, which allows greater curvature, mar
hanEc lnh - i
ties; !" also, and still more to the point ''The
rails weigh from "a to 80 lbs per lineal yard "
-Four pages back of this, in speaking of the
standard gauge, this same authority" says
mo advantage was found in the very heavy
rails Speaking of certain experiments), and
the tendency has since been to return to
lighter rails of 81 to c. lbs. to the yard.
Rails of A. lbs. have worn under the
heaviest traffic for 20 years as those laid in
1887 on the Reading railroad, while others of
nearly double the weight have given out on
other roads in one, two or three years, the
Inference being throughout that the quality
and shape of the rail are of far greater con
sequence than the mere weight. Not a word
Is said about a rail of 30 lbs to the yard not
being heavy enough for narrow gauge road.
Does this look as though the young man of
the Reformer meant to tell the truth, and the
whole truth, about his authorities? If well
made iron rail of 40 lbs. to the yard will last
20 years under the heaviest traffic" on a
road like the Reading, is not one of 80 lbs
likely to be found satisfactory on three-foot
local unexpectedly when the principles of
traction peculiar to narrow gauge locomotives
and the manner of distribution of the load
upon the rails, are taken into account:
As the elder Davenport also accepts Apple
ton as a supreme authority in railroad con-
struction, let us refer him to the remarks
quoted above in regard to the narrower
banks" and Fighter rails" which are allowable
on narrow-gauge roads, and which that gem
tleman probably overlooked when he wrote
on this subject two weeks ago Still further,
as Mr.. Davenport regards it as a piece of
swindling and rascality because chestnut oak
and tamarack ties were not imported for use
on the new road and as he avows that hem
lock ties are not used by any frst-class road
in this country, let us refer him once more to
his favorite authority" Vol. XIV, page 70,
LIST, I'd and Sd lines at top of second column
where it is stated without qualification that
| (for ties) ''HemIOck is better than chestnut,
and both these are extensively used in the
| United States" On this latter point we re-
| greet to say that we do not agree with Mr.
Davenport's authority, but this is undoubt-
eddy owing to our Ignorance" in railroad
matters 1t is the kind of 'honesty" which
we have here pointed out in the quotation of
authorities" which has become ''nauseating''
to us, as it has to all intelligent people.
In the same article in which the Reformer
calls for authorities" in railroad construction,
he once more demands the publication of tho
contract with Harris Bros. d Co. and with the
Vermont Valley railroad company, the infer
ence being from the manner of the demand
that there is something dark or hidden about
these contracts which the management of the
road would prefer to keep secret. Let us say
to the young man that the contract with the
Valley road is on file at the town clerks Of
fee in this village, where he can study it at
his leisure, and where, for aught we know he
can obtain complete copy for publication.
The contract with Harris Bros a Co., is in
the hands of the executive committee, and
we have no doubt that the Reformer will find
it open to any responsible person who has q
reasonable excuse for wishing or demanding
to know its exact provisions.
We are charitable enough to suppose that
the Reformer was simply mistaken, and not
wifully untruthful when it said last week
that 'THE PHGNII, after its editor had made
made tour of inspection over the line fouI
or five weeks ago, stated that $50, 900 had
been expended on the. grading, road bed
bridging, etc, and that that covered two
thirds of the expense" We made no such
statement at the time referred to, nor have
We ever, according to the best of our knowl,
edge and belief, made such a statement. Five
! weeks ago We drove over the whole line of the