THE
QUESTION OF THE GAGES
COMMERCIALLY CONSIDERED
BY A PRACTICAL MAN.
L ON DO N :
PUBLISHED BY PELHAM RICHARDSON, CORNHILL;
W. STEPHENSON, 12 & 13, PARLIAMENT STREET, WESTMINSTER ;
AND TO BE HAD OF ALL BOOKSELLERS.
*=º
1846.
Price One Shilling.

To a 7, 1444
143544
27
Vºz ecºz. .
.-- º * *
Kº-Kºź.
£- 3.6 – “k f Transportation
§
:&.*.
Library
T. P.
2++
, () 5’
THE
QUESTION OF THE GAGES.
POLICY AND CONDUCT OF THE BROAD GA.G.E.
IT seems to be the peculiar tactics of the Broad Gage to allow
no one to think differently to themselves, and to accuse all that
do of conspiracy against them or corrupt motives. Hence in
all their appeals to Parliament or the public they avoid the
merits of the case and have recourse to supplication, just as
ladies, who finding themselves deficient in reason or strength,
defend themselves with tears. Either they meet with unusually
cruel treatment, or they are far too good for this wicked world.
We remember when the Board of Trade decided a question
between the Great Western and South Western, in favour of
the former, the Board was everything that was good: it was an
admirable institution, and the Great Western would always be
ready to bow to and abide by its decisions. Alas ! this favour-
able opinion lasted but a brief space. The report on the Lon-
don, Worcester, and Wolverhampton lines appeared, and all was
evaporated, leaving nothing but a residuum of hatred and vitu-
peration. That report, which turned the scale in favour of the
London and Birmingham, was denounced as “a nasty and a
dirty report,” and every engine which the skill and influence of
that Company could invoke was put in motion to upset and
reverse it. The mighty efforts they made succeeded. Lady
influence and gold are powerful advocates, and few things or
persons can withstand them.
Out of that affair grew the late Commission on the Gages
In the course of the Parliamentary Committee's inquiry into the
A 2
4.
merits of the rival scheme, the subject of an intermixture of the
gages, and its effects on the commerce of the country, was
naturally agitated. The importance of the matter was seen and
felt; but as the Committee could not adjudicate on such a sub-
ject, the House took it up, and recommended a commission to
inquire into the effects of a break of gage on the traffic of the
country, and to report whether it was desirable or not to have
one uniform gage throughout the nation. This object was
supported by members on all sides of the House, narrow and
broad gage men. That has been admitted by Earl Grey him-
self, then a member of the lower House, and a broad-gage
advocate. It is not therefore true, as represented by the broad
gage, that the commission is the child of the narrow gage.
Nay, up to the last moment the Great Western fondly
believed that the report would be in their favour; but why no
one knew, as out of forty-six witnesses examined, all were
against the present broad gage except four, and they were the
servants of the Great Western Company; namely, Mr. Saunders,
Mr. Brunel, Mr. D. Gooch, and Mr. Seymour Clarke. How-
ever, they hugged themselves with the hope that the Commis-
sioners could not but be in their favour; and it is said that Mr.
Saunders, the secretary, actually left the House ill, on the
announcement of the verdict against them.
Since then, dire resentment has taken possession of their
breasts; and so little decency has been observed in their denun-
ciations, that Mr. Russell, their chairman, has made an attack
on the Commissioners' integrity, which has distanced everything
of the kind hitherto met with among gentlemen, and calls for
some signal mark of the government displeasure, if they expect
gentlemen henceforward to accept of commissionerships under
them. In his speech, at the meeting of the South Wales Rail-
way, he said,
“We had not the shadow of a doubt that they (the Government) would reject
the unsound, unfair, violent, and impolitic recommendations of the report * * *. The
report was founded upon pretended, partial, local, and trivial inconveniences, which
had been either grossly magnified, or, perhaps he might say, created for the purpose.”
What Mr. Russell can mean by language like this, except
that the report is a tissue of falsehood, the Commissioners
unworthy and disreputable men, we cannot understand. If
5
that be his meaning, we think he is bound, as a gentleman, to
prove his charges, or the government are bound to take some
notice of the attack made on the individuals they had chosen to
carry out the object of the House of Commons, and the recom-
mendation of the Sovereign.
In the same way we hear that certain other parties in the
Great Western Company vow their vengeance against the Com-
missioners, and declare, that as they broke up the Board of.
Trade for their report, so they will do for the Commissioners for
this one.
We all admit the skill and tactics of the Great Western. No
one denies the irresistible persuasions they use; and it is pretty
well understood that they are, and have been from the moment
the report was out, most indefatigably canvassing members, and
all they can approach, male or female, to trip up a report which
makes the third against their gage. It therefore remains to be
seen whether the government have sufficient firmness, and our
public men of both Houses sufficient virtue, to resist the blan-
dishments of the Great Western Company and their agents,
and to carry out the objects of the report, or whether we are
to have the labours of this Commission, as those of Messrs.
Nicholas Wood and Hawkshawe, and of the Board of Trade,
sink under the peculiar and weighty influences of the Great
Western Company.
We shall see, we say, whether the threats of the Great
Western be mere bruta fulmina, or are backed by powers which
our Government and our senators are afraid to oppose, or are
incapable of resisting.
These, however, are not matters we intended to discuss. The
observations of the Great Western Company, which have been
published, on the Commissioners' report, and are the pioneers of
their army of attack, have been sufficiently replied to by other
hands. We shall therefore briefly advert to the question of
the gages as a question of commercial importance to the
country.
GREAT WESTERN GAGE, PER SE, A MATTER OF No MOMENT.
If the Great Western would confine themselves to a line
between Bristol and London, we do not think it would be a
6
matter of much consequence what gage they have. Another
line must and will be made into the western parts of England.
So large a space as lies between the Great Western and the
coast will not be allowed to be left unoccupied, and deprived of
railway communication. That new line must be on the narrow
gage for the purpose of communicating with the South-
western and the other narrow gage lines in its neighbourhood,
as well as with the northern lines, which when the Packet
Station is removed to Falmouth, will require a direct and un-
broken communication with that port. As Bristol and London
are large ports, a line directly between them would but little
interfere, and be but little interfered with by any other line; and
therefore, as we said, it is a matter of small consequence whe-
ther it be of this gage or that. It would certainly be better
that it should have the same gage as the rest of England,
but it is not so essential as it is with other lines. That was the
view of the Great Western engineer, in the first instance. He
saw that the Great Western, from its peculiar position between
two principal ports was nearly isolated, and left it a matter of
partial indifference whether the gage was one thing or another.
At the time, 1838, he reported to his Directors on the isolated
state of the Great Western line, it was not known or contem-
plated that the Bristol and Exeter would fall into the hands of
the Great Western, or that must have altered the views of the
engineer. If Falmouth become again a Packet Station, the
Bristol and Exeter must be a narrow gage line, as the Bristol
and Gloucester is becoming, or the main portion of that traffic it
would have from the northern lines will find another channel to
Falmouth. No doubt can exist on that point. It will there-
fore be to the interest of the Bristol and Exeter railway to keep
aloof from being pinned to the Great Western, and to lay down
the narrow gage even though it should retain the broad.
The Great Western by leasing new lines, making extensions,
and throwing out branches into other districts, have altered the
circumstances which induced Mr. Brunel to say that a different
gage from the other lines of the country was a matter of in-
difference. Their extensions to Exeter, Devonport, South-
Wales, and to Cirencester, Cheltenham, Worcester, and Wol-
verhampton, render the question of their gage one of importance
to the commercial interests of the country.
7
It is therefore to be considered;
First, whether a diversity of gage should exist; and,
Secondly, if it should not, what ought to be the gage of the
country under existing circumstances.
Let us take the first question,
BREAK OF GAGE AND EXPENSE OF I.T.
Now we lay it down as an axiom, that passengers and goods
should be transferred to their ultimate destination with the least
possible delay, and the least possible shifting of place and car-
riages. That cannot be, if persons are to be subject to inter-
ruptions and change of vehicles. We admit on certain branches
it is sometimes the case. But that is fast going out; and what
are called composite carriages are being used on most lines in
the north, where the traffic is not great, and there are changes
from the main line to branches or cross lines.
To gentlemen the nuisance of a change of carriage when
they have luggage to look after is bad enough ; but let us take
the case of ladies, who generally have plenty of travelling-gear,
and of invalids going to some watering-place for the benefit of
their health. Time with the two latter classes is not perhaps
of so much consequence, but it is everything to them to have
their luggage correctly transferred from the carriage they left
or the luggage-van, to that in which they are going. The lady,
perhaps, has half-a-dozen parcels, five of which are correctly
transhipped, but the sixth, the most necessary of all, is, in the
hurry and confusion of business, sent on with the train to a very
different place. A correspondence is the consequence between the
lady, or, probably, her solicitor and the Company. She demands
her missing luggage, or threatens proceedings at law. The
Company do their best to find it, and despatch letters and super-
intendants in all directions. All this, of course, cannot be done
without expense; for time and servants' labour with Companies,
as with other people, are money. Probably the articles are
found and restored to their owner, at a cost to the Company
exceeding the fare paid by the lady for travelling. But sup-
pose they are not found, an action is the consequence ; and the
hapless Company, with which lawyers have always a strong
liking to engage when there is a chance of success, are cast
8
with costs, generally not of the most moderate description.
These items make rather awkward negatives in the half-yearly
profits.
We have been as yet merely considering the inconvenience
to the Company, and have not cast a single thought on the dis-
comfort of the poor lady, or the hapless invalid. Encumbered
perhaps with children, they are turned out of their carriage in a
cold winter's night, and compelled to stand shivering in a cutting
wind on the exposed railway platform to look after their luggage.
With her children crying about her, and cold, perhaps wet, and
comfortless, her situation is not one of the pleasantest. But what
is the case of the poor invalid 2 Driven from the carriage she had
warmed by the expenditure of heat from her own body, she is
obliged to see that her luggage is safely changed,—and while
watching on the cold bleak platform, gets that final stroke to her
disorder she had left her home with the hopes of averting.
No one can indeed tell the disasters of a break of gage. If
it takes place we should not be surprised, in the year 1852,
to read many such paragraphs as the following in the daily
journals:—
“Died, after a short illness, occasioned by taking cold at the break of gege
at Rugby, Charlotte, the beloved wife of * * *, leaving a husband and numerous
family of young children to deplore her premature death.”
- Again,
“An eminent house in the city has lately lost several travellers who have
caught their deaths looking after their luggage and sample parcels at Rugby,
Gloucester, Wolverhampton, &c., where the breaks of gages occur.”
“So great has been the mortality of travellers for commercial houses owing to
the break of gage, that the insurance offices refuse to effect an insurance on gen-
tlemen of this profession travelling by railway, unless at an addition of twenty-
five years to their age.”
But the following would sadly grieve us:—
“On Wednesday, at Gloucester, from inflammation of the chest, after a short
illness of twenty-five hours, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Esq., engineer to the
Great Western Railway, and author of the broad gage. The deceased was super-
intending the transhipment of goods on the night of Tuesday, by some method he
had contrived of applying telescopes to axles, or axles to telescopes, when he was
seized with a shivering fit, the precursor of the illness which, in defiance of medical
aid, cut short his mortal career. We understand the coroner for the city has
insisted that as he died by a deed of his own, though he lived one hour beyond the
day, an inquest shall be held to try whether it was not an act of felo de se, or
equivalent thereto,”
9.
One writer in a letter addressed to Mr. Brunel, for adopting
a uniformity of gage, humorously observes,
“For my part, I would seek no more unbiassed testimony against the break of
gage at Gloucester, than what Mrs. Brunel herself would furnish in making the
journey at night. With two of her children, servants, and the usual amount of
family luggage, I beseech her to take an evening train, it need not be later than
seven o’clock, and make the experiment. She arrives at Gloucester in darkness,
the children are awakened, to be properly muffled up, in the transit from one car-
riage to the other; of course they are very fractious; they possibly catch cold,
from the sudden change of temperature: the servants are not in the best of
humour with their discomfort, and are far less handy than usual. Every corner
of the carriage has to be searched, for bonnets, stray gloves, handkerchiefs, smell-
ing bottles, sandwich-cases, carriage-basket, parasols, umbrellas, and unutterable
small parcels. With great difficulty and bustle the heavy luggage is huddled to-
gether and transferred. At last, after a delay of some twenty minutes, the party
is on its road to Bristol. “Where is the writing-case?’ in the hurry it has been
left behind in the other carriage, and in all probability fallen into the hands of
some accomplice of the late firm of Maynard and Garratt. What travellers now
endure from break of gage at Gloucester, is threatened everywhere. Because, if you
admit the principle, you cannot stop its extension.”
Mr. M'Connell, of the Birmingham and Gloucester Rail-
way, bears testimony that these inconveniences are no imaginary
cases. In his answer to question 597, he says, L
“There may happen, for instance, to be a sick person; we have invalids often
travelling, and it becomes matter of delay to the train.
“598. Invalids to or from Clifton 2–Yes, and parties going to Cheltenham; all
that is felt to be great inconvenience; in fact, many passengers travelling by the
train look upon it with a great deal of apprehension; sometimes they come in
parties, and it breaks up parties ; they get into seats together on one line, and
when they get on the other they find they cannot be together again, and the lug-
gage gets mislaid and sometimes mis-sent.
“599. What is the time usually expended in this transfer 2—We never can cal-
culate it less than a quarter of an hour; and in cases where there are gentlemen's
carriages to be shifted and horses it occupies considerably more; when horses are
to be taken out of one description of horse-box to go into another, there is gene-
rally considerable difficulty in getting them from the one into the other. It occu-
pies sometimes half an hour.”
And what is all this discomfort and danger to the healths of
individuals for ? To gratify the whim of Mr. Brunel in his
morbid ambition to do things differently to other people.
The break of gage is not less inconvenient to the goods'
traffic than to the passenger. Conscious of the delay, expense,
and danger of changing the trucks, Mr. Brunel proposes to have
10
shifting bodies. The preposterous notion of shifting bodies is
well exposed by Mr. Robert Stephenson, in his evidence before
the Commission, by Mr. Wyndham Harding, and others, even
some of Mr. Brunel's own men.
Mr. R. Stephenson being asked to go through the process of
shifting a train of carriages, answered,—
“We will imagine ourselves to be at Rugby, and the two lines are drawn up
parallel and opposite to each other. We commence by moving the leading box on
one line on to the wagon of the other line, which must be empty. We will sup-
pose on the other line a series of empty frames, if the train is 100 wagons long,
and each wagon four yards, that is 400 yards. This leading wagon, as soon as
it has got the transfer made, must be dragged away by horse or some other opera-
tion 400 yards along the line. Then the next frame requires to be brought up to
the next full box; the wagon requires, of course, to be moved precisely the same
distance minus the length of the wagon at the far end, and this operation has to
go on wagon by wagon. Supposing horse-power to be employed, it is quite
evident that, supposing the wagons to be taken singly, the horse has to go half a
mile, as near as possible. Therefore, supposing that to be done by a horse and
man, to transfer a train of wagons would require the horse and man to go over
fifty miles; that is quite clear, and the same will apply to the empty frames from
which they have been transhipped, making in all 100 miles. The other way of
doing it is by engine power; that, of course, would be the alternative, and would
be assumed to be the cheapest. To move 100 wagons by an engine, the train
must be moved only one wagon distance at a time; therefore the engine has to
start the train and stop it 200 times. Now, starting a train of wagons of coals
and stopping it again 200 times, would very soon destroy the frame of any wa-
gon that I ever saw in my life; there is no wagon sufficiently strong to withstand
that operation long. Therefore, if you employ engine power for the purpose of
saving the apparent impossibility of the horse and man doing it you then ruin the
wagon, you destroy their squareness, and the wagon ought to be as much taken
care of as the locomotive engine; its axles and wheels require to be kept precisely
true, at least they ought to be. They are not done so, I admit; but every day our
attention is directed more and more to that important matter of keeping the wagons
in perfect order. Therefore if you employed an engine, the mere operation
of stopping and starting the train 200 times would occupy a great length of time,
independently of the time occupied in lifting the goods. The lifting of the goods,
which is shown at Paddington, is a mere mechanical operation ; you might even
imagine it to be done by magic. Still the evil remains, and I object to anybody’s
attention being directed to the machine, because the machine has nothing to do
with it; the modus operandi would be such as to render it commercially impossible.
That is my firm opinion. The moving of the goods in the way I have described
would be a bar, I am quite sure, to the thing being carried out both in regard to
money and time, because you would destroy the wagons. The wagons that are
moved upon the line now would be all knocked to pieces in a week if they had
that operation to go through. I do not mean actually demolished; but their truth
and usefulness, upon which safety depends, would be destroyed. There is no pos-
sibility of getting over that, having to stop and start the train again 200 times.”
*
&
11
To obviate some of the difficulties, Mr. Brunel proposes to
have shifting bodies. That scheme is not new ; it has been
tried and failed before ; tried on the Liverpool and Man-
chester, on the Manchester and Bolton, on the Birmingham
and Gloucester, nay, under Mr. Brunel's nose, on the Great
Western itself Hear the fact from one of Mr. Brunel's own
people :
“Mr. Down says, “he had never had any work except on the broad gage ;’ that
he had seen the working of loose boxes for coals on that line, and “they found the
mode so troublesome that they have ABANDONED THEM ;’ that they have entirely
given them up, and that after about a year's experience of them.”
One fact they say is worth a hundred theories. Here are
facts upon facts, each rising above the other, and under Mr.
Brunel's very eyes, to exhibit the practical absurdity of his re-
invention of an old tale.
M. Arago, we think it was, who said, some years ago, he
could not conceive how two geologists could look each other in
the face without laughing. We certainly cannot imagine how
Mr. Brunel could tell the Commissioners, without blushing, that
there is scarcely any inconvenience in the break of gage, and do
as he had done in Sardinia. He certainly must have a wonder-
ful command of countenance.
Mr. Robert Stephenson says, that the wagons “upon the line
now would be all knocked to pieces in a week if they had that
operation to go through,” which Mr. Brunel proposes by his
mode of transhipment. Mr. M'Connell, superintendent of loco-
motives on the Birmingham and Bristol Railway, where the two
systems are in operation together, declares he can see no advan-
tage in safety of one gage over the other, and prefers the nar-
row gage. Messrs. Bidder, Rastrick, Bruyeres, Bury, Cubitt,
Laws, O'Brien, Mills, Chaplin and Horne, the eminent carriers,
Mr. Harding, Mr. Creed, Mr. Joseph Sanders, Mr. Nicholas
Wood, Mr. Peter Clarke, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Ellis, &c., de-
nounce a break of gage as a great and positive evil. But Mr.
Brunel, and all his colleagues and dependents, with Messrs.
Vignoles, W. Cubitt, and Braithwaite, cannot see much incon-
venience in it. It unfortunately happens that all these gentle-
men, with the exception, we believe, of Mr. Braithwaite, have
submitted to be inoculated with the Atmospheric twaddle, and
have given evidence that will stick to them through life like the
pittings of the small-pox.
12
Mr. Wyndham Harding, in speaking of Mr. Brunel's loose
boxes, says—“I have made models of shifting wagons, and tried
the thing in every possible way, but I always found that it pro-
duced a somewhat heavier or more expensive article.” No
doubt it did. It is obvious that the box or body being part and
parcel of the frame, strengthens it, or gives the greatest strength
with the least weight. Now the opinion of Mr. Harding is
worth something, since he has been engaged as manager on the
Bristol and Gloucester Railway, where the break of gage
actually occurs. Again, Mr. Creed says, that his Company, the
London and Birmingham, have so felt the inconvenience of a
change of gage to their travellers, that they have conveyed pas-
sengers in their carriages frequently at an additional charge to
the Company rather than expose them to the inconvenience of a
change of carriage. **
But says Mr. Brunel, if they are not satisfied with shifting bo-
dies he will take narrow gage trucks, load and all, and transport
them to their destination. Well, there could be no objection to
this, if it could be as easily done as said. Unfortunately, how-
ever, there is that very curious item interposes known to Rail-
way Companies under the name of expense. Trucks cannot be
lifted on trucks nor off them, nor brought back without labour,
and that labour costs money. The average weight of a narrow
gage wagon is 2% tons, and when fully loaded 5% tons. If that
could be taken without changing the gage, it would be 3 tons.
of paying to 2% tons of dead weight. But if Mr. Brunel lifts
it in his broad-gage truck, which weighs 5 tons, he will have
only 3 tons of paying load to 7% tons of dead weight. Pre-
suming he is fortunate enough to have a full load back, he will
not mend the matter; but if he has none he must bring the
empty truck back, and what is worse than all, he must have a
broad-gage truck to carry it, because a narrow-gage truck will
not run on the broad gage. He will then have 7% tons of
dead weight to return instead of 2% tons, without an ounce of
paying load.
Let us however just take a pounds-shillings-and-pence view
of the subject, which is after all what it must come to. For
the sake of argument, we will assume that the narrow gage
carry at 14, per ton per mile, and that the actual expense to
13
them is #d., which is leaving them a handsome profit of 25 per
cent. We think we hear some of them saying, “We wish we
could get it.” Be that as it may, we will presume they do.
Then the expense at which they can transport a gross ton,
•75 × 3 4, 50
including load and wagon, is By-- TT = '409d. ; and
for 10 miles the case would stand thus:—
d.
Receipts 1 × 3 × 10 = 30
Expenses 409 × 54 × 10 = 22:5
Profit ..................... 7.5
On the broad gage, the expense of haulage for a gross ton we
will put down at the same as on the narrow gage; but we may
hereafter have to show that it is greater. The gross load on
the broad gage, if the truck and all are taken, as Mr. Brunel pro-
poses, is for the 3 tons paying load 5% +5=10% tons. Then
the account stands for the 10 miles thus:
d.
Q
Receipts as before 30
Expenses 409 × 104 × 10 ... 42.95
Leaving a loss instead of a profit of ... 1295
This is the operation of Mr. Brunel's proposition of carrying
truck and all, saying nothing of the expense of lifting on and
off and the prospect of empty back carriages.
It is a very easy matter to talk of catching up trucks as kites
do chickens, and flying off with them; but unhappily it cannot
be done without expense, and that expense on the broad gage
would more than eat up all the profit. The broad gage may say
that is nothing to others. But it is to others and to the country
generally. The broad gage, as a link in our chain of railways,
cannot be unduly strained without affecting all the other links of
the chain. Nor would it be just towards the shareholders that
the Legislature permitted the managers of that Company to injure
its finances, for the sake of perpetuating a nuisance to the rest
of the nation. t
Mr. Brunel declared he could tranship goods at some inap-
preciably small fraction of a penny ; but hear what Mr. Horne
says his firm, Chaplin and Horne, actually do pay :
14
“4753. And, in addition to that, you have considerable losses?—We take the
losses in this way: supposing an article to be lost at the time of the transhipment,
the person who undertakes the duty becomes responsible; but when it gets to its
journey's end, we take it upon ourselves; we take his word that it was put in ;
but we pay is. 6d. per ton for everything transhipped. Supposing a truck contains
three tons and a half, if they all are to be transhipped, it might be done at a frac-
tion less; but it will be between ls, and ls. 6d. per ton, because we only pay for
the transhipment of part of a truck: for instance, supposing a truck is going to
Derby, if we have a portion of a load for Nottingham we declare that truck to
Leicester, because it will go there with two tons and a half in it; when it gets
to Leicester, we unload the truck and take out a ton, consequently we are only
liable to pay for two tons for 25 miles of ground, instead of paying for the two tons
the whole distance; then we have to take that out and put it into another truck,
for which we pay is. 6d.” ---
Can we suppose that these gentlemen, who know the value of
money as well as any men, would pay 18. or 1s. 6d. a ton, in
their large and extensive business, if it could be done for a
penny or less 2 To imagine such a thing would be an insult to
COIYUIQ OIl SellSé,
If the broad gage persist in keeping their gage, let them do so
with the least annoyance to other people. Let them confine
themselves to a simple line between the ports of Bristol and
London, and have no connection with other lines as their
engineer at first proposed.
To afford some idea of the inconvenience of a change of gage,
we will give the following abstract from the clearing-house:—
Clearing-House.
Number of vehicles going through the clearing-house in two
months, all of them loaded :
Carriages ..................... 10,000
Carriage-trucks............... 700
Horse-boxes.................. 1,700
Mails............ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 450
Goods-wagons ............... 30,000
Each of the above vehicles passes on the average the whole or
portions of three railways. Therefore, if continuity of gage did
not exist between these three railways, each of the above vehi-
cles would be exposed to two shiftings at breaks of gage. In
the face of these facts we are told that breaks of gage are of no
importance 1
15
The clearing-house was only established a few years ago, and
its use is every day becoming more apparent.
The tendency of the railway system is to bring the clearing-
house system more and more into play. *
When men have a mind to find an excuse for an act, it is diffi-
cult to restrain them. Mr. Brunel urges the neceesity of keep-
ing up a diversity of gage, on the plea that it will be good for
competition. We should like to see some practical illustration
of his theory. Is it to be a competition generally or partially :
Is it to be confined to the north of their line only, that is, a
competition by their invading other districts, or generally : If
it is generally, then why do they so strenuously oppose the
extension of the South Western narrow gage into the west of
England 2 Why are they so jealous of a narrow-gage line
starting from London to Exeter ? It seems to us, that the
competition they want is to be all on their own side, but none
on other people's. They remind us of two boys fighting. One
of them was delighted while all went on as he wished, and he
could with impunity pummel his opponent; but the moment
blood was drawn from him, he cried out, “Oh ’tis n’t fair to
give bloody noses.”
Mr. Brunel's love of competition, we fear, is a mere feint, a
cloak for a particular object; that is, to find an excuse for new
undertakings, whereby the capital account of the Great Western
may be kept open and the true state of the financial position of
the Company kept out of sight.
RELATIVE ECONOMY OF THE GAGES.
It is extraordinary that after an experience of so many years
with the broad gage, its merits are unknown to all the world
except those who are getting the bread they eat by it. If it
had any merit above the old gage—any superiority over it—
surely it must have oozed out to others : it must have found
a corner in some men's minds out of the twenty-six millions in
the United Kingdom, in which it might have had a congenial
soil and taken root. But no; Mr. Brunel's broad road could,
before the Commissioners, find advocates only in those who, like
himself, are the officers and paid servants of the Company.
Not an engineer would venture aught in its favour; not one
16
mercantile man could be found so sing its praises. Is not this
a remarkable and an astounding fact? It is the more remark-
able as there are engineers whose price is by no means exor-
bitant.
As to convenience and economy for the transport of goods,
common sense would tell us that it is far better to have smaller
and more manageable wagons than those of the Great Western.
It may often happen that half a truck-load or less is going to a
place; and the consequence would be, that the less the truck
the greater the economy to the Company, and the less the ex-
pense if it be to a carrier. In confirmation of this view, the
report says,
“Messrs. Horne and Chaplin, and Mr. Hayward, who are largely interested,
and have great experience in the carrying trade, have expressed a strong opinion
that the smaller wagon is far the more convenient and economical.”
No doubt it is. They add, that the smaller wagon can be
more easily handled and taken along sharper curves than a broad
wagon. This is, indeed, one of the early admissions of Mr.
Brunel himself. He said that the broad gage was not suited to
the sharp curves of the north. The mechanical reason is, that
the broader the gage is, the larger is the ratio to the radius of the
curve which it has; and therefore friction and expense of haul-
age round curves are greater. “On the whole, therefore,” say
the reporters, “we consider that the narrow gage is the more
convenient for the merchandise of the country.”
On this point we do not think there can be two opinions. We
are only surprised how the question could ever be raised.
One fact which we think conclusive with regard to the gages,
is the enormous disproportion of dead to the paying weight on
the broad gage over the narrow.
To show what this is, we will take the facts given in the report
(p. 16). They are somewhat different from our experience, and
more in favour of the broad gage, but we will use them as we
find them. The data, with regard to the Great Western are
furnished by Mr. Daniel Gooch, the superintendent of locomo-
tives, who, judging from his evidence, is not disposed to say or
do anything prejudicial to the Great Western. He says, the
average gross weight of a Great Western passenger train is
67 tons, exclusive of engine and tender, which are 33 tons; and
17
the weight of one carriage and its passengers is 9% tons. The
Commissioners find from the returns the average number of
passengers to be 47.2 per train, whose weight with their luggage
they estimate at 5 tons; which is from 1 to 1% ton more than
our estimate. Hence—
The gross load on Great Western is:
tº Tons.
Carriages .......................... .......... 67
Engine and tender........................... 33
Total .................. 100
Net paying load......................... ... 5
On the London and Birmingham they find that the average
number of passengers per train is 849, which the Commissioners
estimate at 8 tons. Thus the load of the same number of car-
riages so filled would be 42 tons on the narrow gage.
Now the Commissioners make no mention of the weight of
the engine and tender on the narrow gage, because they seem to
think, that being the power it should form no part of the load.
We, however, consider that the engine and tender form a part of
the gross load and cause part of the expense of transport, and for
this reason, that a part of the power is expended on the pro-
pulsion of them. At least, we have never heard that engines
and tenders run without an expense of power. We therefore
include them; and to make it more favourable to the broad
gage, we reckon the engine and tender on the narrow gage at
25 tons. Thus, then, stands the account for the
Narrow gage trains :
Tons
Carriages e a s a e e º e º a e s s e s s e s s a s is s & B tº a tº e º 'º a tº dº º & 42
Engine and tender ........................ 25
Total ........................ 67
Net paying load ............ is ſº ſº e º ºs º º ſº º º & e º ſº 8
Or at 100 tons gross ....... * * * * * * * g s e º e s m e a t 12
Hence the London and Birmingham have 12 per cent, paying
load for 5 on the Great Western.
Or, if we take another view,
8 : 5 : : 67 : 42 tons,
B
18
the gross load on the narrow gage for 5 tons paying weight
instead of 100 on the broad.
Here we have increased or reduced the engine with the load,
to which some may object. It may also be objected to put the
London and Birmingham better loaded trains in the narrow gage
carriages generally. We will, therefore, put it in the most
favourable light possible for the broad gage; that is, by taking
their own load of passengers in a marrow gage train. The two
cases will then stand thus:
Broad gage. Narrow gage.
- Tons. - Tons.
Carriages ..... … ... 62 ...... 34
Paying load ............ 5 ...... 5
Engine and tender...... 33 ...... 25
Total ...... 100 ...... 64
So that the Great Western receive no more for 100 tons than
the narrow gage do for 64. In other words, they carry 57 per
cent. Imore dead weight for the same money than the narrow
gage. After this, can another word be said in favour of the
broad gage 2 Here is a fact drawn from experience, furnished
by the broad gage, and put in the most favourable light which
can be devised for that gage, and yet it shows, for the same
paying load on their own line, 57 per cent. Imore dead weight
than it would if it had been a narrow gage ' ' Therefore, to be
on a par, they should charge 57 per cent. more, or near seven-
pence on every shilling. That is to pay the mere extra expense
of haulage, and has nothing to do with the greater expense of
construction of line and cost of plant. -
In another view, where the narrow gage has 59 tons of dead
weight to take along, the broad has 95, or about 60 per cent.
IY) Ol’é, - - - -
We are rather surprised that this view of the question had not
struck the Commissioners; and we can only account for it on
the ground that they did not choose to enter into details, but
preferred to treat the matter on a broader and more general basis.
It cannot, however, be denied, that railways are strictly com-
mercial enterprises, and must be looked on as such in their
several relations and applications. Thus only can they be
19
regarded by their Proprietors and the country. In no other
light are they of any value to their Proprietary, nor in any other
can they be valuable to the public. The first question a com-
mercial man asks, on joining a railway, is, “How will it pay?”
The only thing the Legislature looks to, or ought to look to,
is, how far it will be serviceable to the public ; that is, how
much economy it will afford, with a given amount of conven-
ience. It is the true and proper light for a senator to regard
it in. Turn it and twist it how we may, round to the same
point it does come and must come ; namely, its pounds,
shillings, and pence value. To the public, taxed as we are,
economy of production, (of which economy of transport is
one great element,) is everything; it is the elixir of our
life as a nation, and the true philosopher's stone by which
our industry is to be turned into gold. Can there, then, be
a doubt which system of railway is preferable for the public
—the broad or the narrow gage—that line which taxes the
paying load with the carriage of 59, or that which, by necessity,
taxes the same identical load with 952 Who can hesitate for
one moment about it 2 How then could the Commissioners,
with these facts before them, come to any other conclusion than
they have ; namely, that no more lines should be made on that
costly gage; and that if possible the broad should be turned
into the narrow 2 For our part the matter is so obvious to us,
that we, perhaps, led away by the long time we have been con-
vinced of it, can hardly comprehend how a doubt could exist,
how a question could be raised upon a thing so palpable and
obvious. We cannot understand how the Great Western them-
selves, with the clever men they have among them, can persist
in a system that is taking perhaps hundreds of thousands a-year
from their dividend, and all but shutting them out from a con-
nection with the rest of the world. To us it seems sheer infatu-
ation. That they must eventually change their gage is certain ;
the sooner, therefore, they do it, the better for themselves, and
the more convenient for the country, •-
We wish we could persuade the Great Western Management
to look seriously into this, for we know what the result would
be. Their own good sense would lead them to adopt our sug-
gestions, change their gage without further delay, and do the
finest thing a management ever did for its constituency.
B 2
20
In a letter printed in another part of this pamphlet, written
by Mr. M'Connell, the Superintendant of Locomotives on the
Bristol and Birmingham Railway, it is stated that within the
last eight months six broad gage axles have broken on the
Bristol and Gloucester Railway, where the weekly run is 4,155
miles, while only five axles have broken on the Birmingham and
Gloucester narrow gage part in four years and three quarters
with a run of 7,030 miles a-week.
4155×2+3 7030×4; ; ; 1 : 14%
6 e 5
That is for every narrow gage axle which breaks, there are
143 broad gage axles, the distance run being the same. This
is a most conclusive fact against the strength of the broad gage
engines, the economy of the broad gage engines, and the safety
of the broad gage engines; or, which is the same, against the
economy and safety of the broad gage itself.
Hence:
I, OCOMOTIVE POWER OF THE GAGES.
In reviewing the question of the gages, there are some points
which appear to us to have been overlooked, or not sufficiently
attended to. One of these is with regard to the Great Western
engines.
It has generally been supposed that the broad gage will admit
of engines of very little greater weight than on the narrow, and
yet have equal or greater power. Nothing can be more falla-
cious. An engine on the broad gage of equal weight or even
something greater would be of considerably less power than on
the narrow, and much weaker. -
Let us suppose, in the first instance, that the boilers, cylinders,
framings, and wheels, are of the same sizes, then the whole dif-
ference would be in the axles, which being 50 per cent. longer,
to be equally strong, must have the squares of their weights as
the cubes of their lengths. That is, in a 50 per cent. wider
gage, the weights must be near 84 per cent. more. If the broad
gage wheels were of a larger diameter than those of the narrow,
the weight of the axles must again be increased exactly as those
diameters. The wheels too must be stouter, and, therefore, the
weight increased on that account. Not an atom of extra power
21
in the engine, or strength in the engine or carriages would be
gained by this increase of weight—the power and strength
would both be the same. The extra weight, therefore, would
be dead useless weight. r
Let us now suppose the boiler to be increased in proportion to
the gage, and let that increase be confined to the diameter
of the boiler. Then, by the laws of mechanics, the thickness of
that boiler to have equal strength, that is, to sustain an equal
pressure per square inch inside of it, must be increased in the
ratio of its diameter. Consequently, supposing the ends to be
equally increased in thickness, and the tubes to be increased in
number in the proportion of the area of the ends, the weight of
the boiler will be as the square of the gage, or 24 times heavier
on the broad than on the narrow. The fire-box will be, or ought
to be, augmented in the same proportion, and so must the fram-
ing, wheels, axles, &c., in a still greater proportion.
Now, then, with this 125 per cent. increase of weight, we have
not a particle more power to move a load than we have on the
narrow gage, unless the cylinders are increased in the same pro-
portion, and for this very obvious reason, namely—that the boilers
are, notwithstanding their increased thickness and weight, unable
to stand a greater internal pressure of steam.
This supposes the wheels of the same size on both gages. But
if the wheels were larger on the broad gage they would not be
able to move the same weight, but a weight which is less in pro-
portion as the diameters of the wheels are greater; for it is the
power that is transmitted to the circumference of the wheel that
determines the weight that can be moved.
Here we have a proof of the observation made, we believe, by
Mr. Harding, in the course of the evidence, namely—that he had
seen a narrow gage engine run away with a load which a Great
Western could not move. That is, indeed, the fault of the Great
Western engines; they cannot start well with the loads, and
some few years back they diminished the size of their driving
wheels, as we heard, to get over the difficulty.
Such a load as the engine could start with, it would take along
with greater speed than on the narrow gage, on account of a
more abundant supply of steam.
If we suppose the diameter of the cylinders to be increased as
22
the breadth of the gage, the dead pull of the engine would be as
the square of the gage, and the gross load which the engine could
take, including itself, would be also as the square of the gage.
That load, in consequence of the proportional dimensions of the
boiler, it should be able to take at the same speed. It must,
however, be observed, that to accomplish this under all circum-
stances it must have 2% times the weight on the driving wheels,
and the rails, sleepers, chairs, &c., must be 2+ times as strong,
and the wear and tear of the road, being in proportion to the
weight of the engine, will also be 2+ times as much, as well as
the fuel.
But we are here arguing as if the traffic was inexhaustible,
and any load could be had which engines can be made to draw.
That, however, happens not to be the case. Generally speaking,
engines on the narrow gage can take twice the load they do take,
that is, twice the load they can get. To reason, therefore, on an
unlimited load is reasoning against experience. We must take
things as we find them, and not those which imagination may
Create.
We have not gone into the question of the weight of the car-
riages to be of equal strength on the broad gage. For that would
be throwing away argument, since it is clear that the engines on
the narrow gage are already more powerful than they are wanted,
rather than less, as far as passengers are concerned. If, however,
we did, we should find, all things considered, that the weight of
the carriages should be in proportion to that of the engines, to be
similar and have equal strength. That, indeed, is proved by Mr.
Gooch's table given in the course of his evidence. If his car-
riages were 26% feet long, they would be above eight tons, by
his own showing. And what would they carry 7 Not 24 times
the number of passengers, but about two times the number. So
that, was the full advantage of the gage taken, here would be a
loss in the paying load; for so injudiciously was the broad gage
laid out that the carriages could only take 4% passengers in
breadth, being just half as wide again as the narrow. If the
engineer had thought of his passengers, he would have made the
gage either 64 feet to carry 4, or 8 feet to carry 5 abreast. His
7 feet is the loss of half a passenger in each row, and therefore a
loss of paying weight and an increase of the cost of transport.
Asºº 23
An element, however, is to be taken into account which has
been overlooked; namely, the resistance of the atmosphere. With
an engine and carriages 50 per cent. wider, supposing them of
the same height, the resistance will be 50 per cent. more; and
when it is considered that that resistance on a light narrow gage
train sometimes amounts to three or four times the load, it is
not a matter of trifling importance.
But, after all, recurrence to the every-day working of trains is
the best criterion whereby to judge of the fitness of this thing or
that for the trade of the country. It has been shown by us (p. 18)
that the broad gage has 60 per cent. more dead weight to carry
for the same paying load. That is their average practice. Can
it, then, be supposed that they can compete with the narrow
gage in economy 2 Never, certainly. Yet Mr. Gooch told the
Commissioners that they hauled for 15 that which cost the
narrow gage 29. That must, however, be by an arithmetic quite
peculiar to himself.
On the subject of expense, Mr. Creed, not from figments of
the imagination, but from the published documents of the two
Companies, the London and Birmingham and Great Western,
after investigating and dissecting them, comes to the conclusion
(quest. 4971) that “the relative cost” of transport on both lines
“is the same, however the amount may be stated.” That is, he
means, per train. If, then, we allow 60 per cent. more dead
weight on the broad gage, it is clear the cost of transport of
goods is materially higher on the broad than on the narrow
gage.
One very good practical commentary on the extravagance and
waste of the broad gage is afforded by the broad gage people
themselves. The narrow gage give their first-class passengers
24 feet seats (the omnibus plan is 13 feet) and carry three abreast.
The broad gage, with 50 per cent. wider gage, carrry only four
abreast, or 33 per cent. more. This is a proof by themselves
that their gage is practically an error, or contrived without due
thought. But we have a still better commentary than . that in
the Author of the gage. Speaking of the Sardinian territory,
where railways have yet to be made, some questions are put to
Mr. Brunel, who is the engineer, beginning with 3990, the
answers to which are well worth the reader's attention :
24,
“Is the question of gage an open question, then 2–Yes; except as far as I may
have decided it.
“How is it decided for that particular line?—I recommended 4ft. 83in.
“Are you likely to come into connection with the Milan and Venice line —To
join at Milan, I hope. * # -k I thought it likely that the connection
between the two railways would be facilitated by our offering to adopt the same
gage.”
The reader will observe that there is no railway actually in
operation, but only a part, between Padua and Venice. The rest
is constructing. Yet he (Mr. Brunel) decided the gage for it,
and gave our English gage, 4 feet 8% inches. And in the end he
says, this was done to facilitate a connection with other lines of
another country. How is it he never took the same view of the
impolicy of a break of gage here in one and the same country?
Mr. Brunel was also engineer to the Taff Vale, a Welsh
railway, and 4-ft. 8%-in. gage.
Mr. Robert Stephenson says that the present gage was
adopted by his father, because he found it to be the gage on
the railways about Newcastle. We could have wished the odd
half-inch had been elsewhere before it had been introduced, or
that another half had been added.
In the present gage, the question has been mooted, whether
they have room enough for the machinery 2 By the simplifica-
tions recently introduced—that is, the getting rid of a parcel of
useless cranks, and working the pumps and valves from the
same eccentrics, it is affirmed, they can get in 16-in. cylinders.
But a 16-in. cylinder contains above 200 square inches of area,
which with 80 lbs. of steam per inch, gives a pressure of no less
than 16,000 lbs. per cylinder, or 7-14 tons. With a 2-ft.
stroke, as they appear now to be introducing, and 6-ft. wheels,
that gives 2:38 tons, at the circumference of the wheel for each
cylinder, and 4.76 tons for the two cylinders. This, at one-
ninth part for the slipping friction, corresponds to an engine
of 42.84 tons, or nearly double the weight of the present Great
Western engines with all the wheels coupled. Such an engine
at 8 lbs. to the ton, on a level, would move 1,333 tons; and if it
could supply steam sufficient would draw the load along. But
a half or a third of that, we presume, is quite enough. How
then, can the broad gage say, there is not power enough on the
narrow gage 2 What is wanting on either gage is not dead
25
pulling power, but the generation of ample steam, to render
that dead power available for locomotion.
Now, Mr. Bidder says, that some of their engines will evapo-
rate “at the rate of 200 cubic feet per hour,” which is as nearly
as possible the amount (196) given by Mr. Gooch for the
Great Western engines. We can indeed see no reason why
is should not be so. The amount of evaporating power, other
things alike, depends on the size of the fire-box and the tube
surface area; and what the narrow gage wants in breadth it can
make up in length. It may be asked, cannot the broad gage
increase their length too ! We answer, No; and for this reason,
that the friction and danger of running off the line increase very
fast as the ratio of the breadth of the gage to the radii of the
curves described increases. Considerations of economy and
safety, therefore, limit them; their carriages and engines are,
indeed, already too long for their gage. We have ourselves
seen an engine on a sharp curve on the narrow gage, unable,
with all its steam up, to move itself; and what then would it
be on the broad gage? There is in fact no doubt whatever
that the broad gage is not in a position to take advantage of its
greater breadth. If it attempted it, it would be at the expense
of much more valuable properties.
Referring to the advantages of the broad gage, the following
questions to Mr. Robert Stephenson, and his answers, show his
opinion:
“So that, in adopting the 4-ft. 83-inches of gage, other considerations must
have led you to adopt it, not the junction with other lines. What were those con-
siderations?—I felt that 4-ft. 83-inches were fully adequate for any purpose to
which a railway could be applied; and believing, also, that the narrower the gage
the less was the resistance, I conceived that that would prove safe and economical,
and that there was no ground or reason for deviating from it.
“With your personal knowledge of the Great Western Railway, and your still
greater experience of railways on the narrow gage, do you imagine that the Great
Western has, by reason of its gage, any advantage over the railways laid down on
the narrow gage P—I am not aware of any advantage whatever that it has. It has,
I think, several disadvantages. The first, of course, is in the additional expense
of construction. It requires embankments and cuttings 4 feet wider, in conse-
quence of the gage, in order to give drainage to the railway, than the narrow gage;
the one being taken in round numbers to be 5 feet and the other 7 feet.
Their tunnels are, of course, necessarily increased beyond what is sufficient for
the narrow gage. The narrow gage tunnels are 24 feet wide, that is, 6 feet
between the rails, and 4 feet between the rail and the wall of the tunnel ; that
26
makes 24 feet. Now, of course, to give the same space between the rails, and the
same space between the outside rail and the wall, it requires the wide gage tunnel
to be 4 feet wider. The distance between the rails on the Great Western is
precisely the same, I believe, as on the London and Birmingham—six feet.
“Their turn-tables are more expensive?—The turn-tables are so cumbrous that
they cannot use them, which, I think, is one great defect of the wide gage; they
are so large and so expensive, and occupy so much room, that they are obliged to
adopt the sliding-frame system, which, I think, has arisen from the adoption of
the wide gage.
“As you are of opinion that the Great Western gage has no advantage over the
narrow gage, but, on the contrary, has great disadvantages as compared with the
narrow gage; I will ask you, whether you think a uniformity of gage all over this
country is of importance?—Whilst I think the Great Western has obtained no
advantages by the wide gage, I think its introduction has involved the country in
very great inconvenience.”
MISCELLANEOUS OPINIONS OF THE GAGES.
Mr. Stephenson's eaſposé of Mr. Brunel's contrivance for
changing the goods at a break of the gage sets it in a most
ridiculous and preposterous light, as before shown.
Mr. Stephenson estimates, that, had the London and Bir-
mingham been made on the broad gage, the increase of expense
would have been £3,000 a mile more. The effect of this we shall
presently exhibit.
Mr. Locke does not think if he had to begin to lay out rail-
ways, that he should adopt either of the present gages, yet he
thinks they can travel 50 miles an hour on the narrow, which
he conceives quite as fast with safety as any road he has rode
on will bear. We agree with him in that.
Mr. Vignoles is an advocate for a 6-feet gage. Mr. Bruyeres
thinks the narrow gage equal to all the requirements of the
traffic. So does Mr. Bury, but he is enamoured of a rather
wider gage.
Mr. Benjamin and Mr. William Cubitt are for a wider gage,
but not the Great Western gage.
It is a curious fact that Mr. Vignoles and Mr. William Cubitt
are both for a 6-feet gage; the one fixed on by the editor of the
Railway Magazine, years ago, when the question of gages was
agitated, but before any experience on the broad gage was had.
We account for it thus, that their intellects have been kept
stationary ever since, and obfuscated and damaged by the atmo-
spheric nonsense.
Captain Laws thinks the narrow gage, in the size of its
wagons, &c., has a decided advantage over the broad. He con-
demns the broad gage plant as totally unfit for the curves of the
coal districts.
Mr. Braithwaite thinks the economy of the narrow gage much
greater than the broad. <!
Mr. Gray we have spoken of before. He is a clever fellow,
but got rather loose in his brasses on some subjects, and wants
re-fitting.
Referring to Daniel Gooch's statement, that the broad gage
worked at half the expense of the narrow, Mr. Bidder observes,
“I do not believe it,” which looks very much like saying,
“Daniel, thou hast fibbed.” Speaking of safety, Mr. Bidder
calculates that a narrow gage carriage could run round a curve
of half a mile radius at 130 miles an hour, and a broad gage at
150 without capsizing. A rather less speed would be as fast as
most of us would like to venture. -
Mr. Wyndham Harding sums up the matter between the gages
in very few words:
“Are you disposed to admit such material advantages to the broad gage in any
respect as to think it desirable, for the sake of uniformity, to adopt the broad gage
upon the narrow gage lines, supposing it to be practicable?—I have endeavoured
to look at the thing without prejudice, and I confess I cannot see the advantages
of the broad gage as respects any description of traffic. Indeed, if I were offered
two railways to-morrow, equally well constructed for the same district of country,
ceteris paribus in fact, the one a broad gage and the other a narrow, I should take
the narrow gage, as better adapted to the general purposes to which railways are
applicable. I think that the broad gage has entirely failed to carry out the antici-
pations of its projectors. I think if you refer to the passages which I have looked
out, in which Mr. Brunel states the ideas which he had in view when he established
the broad gage, it will be seen that in every particular those views have not been
verified.”
This gentleman thinks Mr. Brunel laid down his broad gage
on an erroneous theory, by neglecting or by being ignorant of
the resistance of the atmosphere. Mr. Harding is probably
right ; this was an error common to Mr. Brunel and many
other engineers at the time. The editor of the Railway Ma-
gazine was the first who recognised the great influence of the
atmosphere, and published it in the third number of the first
volume of his “Railway Magazine” for 1836, and he was laughed
at for his pains.
28
Captain Huish, though once coquetting with the broad gage,
is a strong advocate for the narrow. He thinks the powers of
the narrow have not at all been fully developed, and that the
public would be surprised if the narrow did all they could.
Mr. Horne and Mr. Chaplin, the great carriers, are strenuous
advocates for the narrow gage, from practical experience.
Other gentlemen have given very good evidence on this
subject.
The following are a few of the Questions and Answers, out of
a large multitude, respecting the break of gage and other points.
We do not present them as the strongest that have been given,
but as a few samples from men of long experience and prac-
tically engaged on railways.
Captain Laws, R.N.
“1693. Have you any reason to believe that the narrow gage has any advan-
tage over the broad for goods traffic 2–I think the narrow gage has decided
advantages over the broad for goods traffic, inasmuch as you must have very large
and unwieldy carriages on the broad gage, or they must be carriages that would
be subject to a very unequal motion on the broad gage as compared with the
Ilal"I’OW One.
“1694. You are of opinion that a broad-gage carriage is unsuited to a country
of great undulation or tortuous lines?—I think more especially in coal traffic.
Whenever you get into a coal country, you get into a country that is a good deal
broken, and you must have sharper curves to go round to get the wagons into
the coal-pits than could be adopted upon the broad gage. The proof is, that the
collieries often make their own gage 3-ft., for the purpose of getting the wagons
round curves which a wide gage could not encounter. And in Scotland you find
some of the colliery lines 4-ft. gage.”
Mr. Creed.
“4930. Supposing at the present moment you were intrusted with establishing
a system of railways in a fresh country, where it was open to you to adopt any
gage you thought fit, should you be disposed to adopt the 4-ft. 83-in. gage, or
Something like that dimension, or a gage of 7-ft. 2–As far as my experience and
observation go, I should certainly not be disposed to adopt the wide gage of 7-ft.
“4931. Do you think that the want of uniformity of gage is an evil in this
country 2—I should say, decidedly it is.
“4932. Do you think it is an evil to that extent that some great expense might
be fairly applied to remedy it by changing the gage, either of one part or the
other ?—I think it would be very desirable that the larger gage should be adapted
to the smaller, if possible.
“4933. You do not think the converse of that proposition is so desirable 2–No;
because, in the first place, I am not a convert to the advantages of the wide gage;
29
and in the next place, the proportion of the narrow gage to the wide gage is as
8 to 1.”
“5008. You state that in a fresh country you would not like to take a 7-ft. gage :
have you any distinct objection to that gage, or is it merely that you are satisfied
with what you have 2—The objection is, that there would be an increased cost
without (as far as our experience shows) any commensurate benefit. That is in fact
the great ground of objection.”
Mr. Hudson.
“6362. You think you get enough breadth for the traffic of the country 2—Yes,
quite so; we have, on the York and North Midland, carried from 700 to 800 tons
with one engine.”
“6366. And you are of opinion that great rivalry of speed between two railways
on the broad and narrow gage may lead to disastrous consequences?—Certainly.
I think there is also great convenience with the narrow gage in working the traffic,
by our carriages moving from point to point, or trucks of goods moving from the
different points on the line. I saw an instance of the inconvenience, when I was
at Bristol the other day, of the wide gage. Our trucks will hold generally from
four to six tons, never exceeding six. One horse will turn and move that truck
with perfect ease. The trucks on the Great Western, I inquired particularly the
weight of them, are 13 tons, and that becomes exceedingly inconvenient for one
horse to move ; it was distressing to me to see them move them, and there would
be great difficulty in attaching a lead horse to that horse. That was a practical
illustration that, unless you could gain something by the broad gage, the present
gage was wisely chosen.
“6367. Have you at all contemplated the inconveniences that are likely to arise
from a break of gage 2—I think the public scarcely overrate the inconvenience.
With reference to goods, it is exceedingly expensive and injurious. For instance,
suppose the case was to occur that we had a change of gage between Manchester
and Hull, and we had to move the packs from truck to truck, if it was to be done
by that system, (and if not, any other system would be expensive,) I believe the
effect of it would be that very few packs would come upon the line, for it is a great
point for the shipper to have his goods moved as little as possible; every move-
ment of a ton of goods is a derangement of the packing, and is looked upon by
the exporter as an inconvenience.”
Mr. Ellis.
“5772. If a mode of transfer by mechanical apparatus should be established
at Rugby by the Great Western Company, and the expense of that should fall
upon them, what objection should you have to that?—I do not know exactly what
their plans are ; one is, I believe, to lift the boxes from one gage to the other. I
have this great objection to that ; it would require an entirely fresh plant in our
collieries for that part of our trade. Those boxes would not be fit to go anywhere
else; it is a very expensive matter to provide wagons for a colliery. There is the
Claycross Colliery, that company have a plant of wagons which cost 35,000l., and
they are not at all adequate to the trade. Now take such a time as this, when we
are exceedingly busy in the Leicestershire coal trade. Suppose we have sent a
train to Rugby with a lot of these boxes, and that we have removed them on to
30
Mr. Brunel's platform, and they come back to our colliery, and we want to load
them for an entirely different district; they are of no use to us for that purpose: if
we happen to have no trucks but those, the coal must be stacked till we have some
from somewhere else. I can foresee nothing but interminable trouble and cost, and
inconvenience and confusion of all sorts. Then if you are to carry the broad gage
to the collieries, the confusion and cost are beyond all calculation. We have all
the Small roads to the collieries made upon the narrow gage, and we have all our
turn-tables upon the narrow gage. We have miles of rails laid down upon some of
the collieries. Isold the Claycross Colliery a mile and a half of rails the other day
from the Leicester and Swannington, to put down in addition to the present rails,
merely for the by-rails to the colliery, old 35lb. rails that we have taken out as
too light. If the whole thing is to be changed, all those must be swept away. All
our roads must be pulled up; in fact, you cannot imagine the cost and difficulty
that would arise from it.”
“5777. Of course it is in a great measure a commercial question, and the broad
gage advocates assert that they can carry at much less per ton per mile than you
can upon the narrow gage 2–I am not at all of that opinion. I think they have
very considerable disadvantages; what the advantages are I do not know. But
the very circumstance of their being obliged to haul those immense trucks, whether
they are loaded or not, is a great disadvantage, there is such an immense amount
of dead weight.
“5778. You mean in the return trains?—Yes, and in the half-loaded trucks.”
“5807. Is that system likely to be so extended that any interlacing of the broad
gage would be very pernicious 2—I have a perfect horror of it as a railway
director.” -
From these few extracts one may gather the opinions of prac-
tical men respecting the broad gage and the break of gage.
Indeed nothing could be more mischievous in a commercial
country like this. In the case of stage coaches, there was a time
when the coach itself used to be changed two or three times in
the journey from Bristol to London, and we know not how
many between London and Newcastle. That system was so
annoying to the public, and indeed to the coach proprietors, that
it was soon altered, and one coach ran through the whole dis-
tance. If the nuisance and annoyance were so great with one
vehicle and nine or ten passengers, what must it be with a
whole railway train, and perhaps 200 or 300 passengers?
SAFETY.
Many imagine, because the base of the broad gage is
wider, there is greater safety in the engines and carriages.
Theoretically that is true, but practically it is not. In a report
on four and six-wheel engines, Mr. Herapath went into this
31
subject, and demonstrated that on the narrow gage an engine
may run round a curve of 10 chains radius at any rate less than
125 miles an hour, without overturning. Mr. Bidder has since
computed the same thing; but by taking the centre of gravity
of the carriages, which is higher, he has brought out about the
same velocity on a curve, we believe, of half a mile radius. But
the safety of carriages and engines running round sharper curves
than were ever contemplated on railways, and at very high
speeds, was experimentally exhibited in France some few years
since. Practically, therefore, either gage is perfectly safe, at
much higher velocities than have been or ever will be gone.
The same might be said of engines running off or riding over
the rails. There is no practical danger in either gage, if the
road be good and, the wheels true; but in Mr. Herapath's
report, above mentioned, the balance of safety is proved to be
much in favour of the narrow gage.
It is a curious fact, that though many of the witnesses speak
of their preference for a wider than the present gage had they
to begin railways again, all condemn the 7-ft. gage as much too
wide. There certainly is no reason why the exact 4-ft. 83-in.
should be the best and only true gage; and it is very possible
that had railways, with our present experience, to be com-
menced, we should either have a 4%-ft. or a 5-ft. It is not at
all unlikely it might be the former. The broader the gage, no
doubt, the more room there is for the machinery; but the ques-
tion is, whether a 4-ft. gage is not amply large enough for as
powerful engines as we should want to use ? In passenger traffic
it is certainly not advisable for safety to carry too many at a time:
should an accident happen, the more there is the more exten-
sively fatal the accident becomes, not merely on account of the
numbers, but on account of the greater momentum of the
moving mass. The extent of mischief would, on the average, be
perhaps not far different from the square of the numbers carried;
for the numbers injured would be in proportion to the violence
of the concussion, which would again be as the mass of the train.
Therefore the numbers injured would probably be as the square
of the mass of the train : but the fatality of the accidents or
violence to individuals would also be as the force of the concus-
sion or the mass carried. It is therefore probable that the
32
numbers injured would be as the square of the numbers carried,
and the intensity of mischief of each as the numbers carried.
If this be so, it is the strongest argument we can have against
more powerful, or the broad gage, engines. The public safety
requires that too many should not be carried at a time; and that
is the more imperative to be observed, the higher the speeds.
Besides it is a fact which cannot be denied, that the higher the
speeds the greater the percussive effects on the material of the
engine and carriages, and consequently the more danger there
is of fractures and breakages. Presuming the road to be in
good order, there is no chance of running off at any practicable
speed ; but the chances of breakages and accidents are, however,
very much increased. We are therefore no favourers of incon-
siderate increase of speed, nor by any means of carrying large
numbers at high speeds. Indeed, so impressed are we with the
fearful results that may happen some day with those constant
accelerations of speed, that we should be glad to see the
Government step in and say, unless a special one, no train shall
exceed a rate of forty-five or forty-eight miles an hour while
travelling. Against racing omnibuses and cabs stringent laws
are provided, and why should railways be exempted ? Racing
cannot well happen on the same railway; but that hot-headed
rivalry now going on between different lines amounts to precisely
the same, and with casualties far more dreadful to contemplate
than could happen between a dozen cabs or omnibuses.
COMFORT OF THE PASSENGERS.
One thing, the comfort of the passengers, has been entirely
overlooked. Every one who has travelled by the old stage
coaches must be aware of the objection that was made to sitting
three abreast. It was always uncomfortable and disliked. All
were anxious to get a corner in which they could cosily sit and
see what was going on, and the country they were passing through.
So it is with railways. Parties who can afford it would prefer a
higher fare with two seats abreast to a lower with three. Of
course when the abreast sittings are increased the objection is
stronger. Hence the Great Western four abreast is much less liked
than the narrow three. Now, one of the first things a company
should attend to is obviously the comfort and wishes of their cus-
33
tomers. It is so in all trades and professions, and railways are
not an exception. - -
But, with comfort, some regard must be had to economy. The
two must be judiciously blended, or there will be another outcry.
The public is fond of good things and of indulgence, but is
always averse “to paying too dearly for its whistle.” In the old
stage-coaches there was about 5ft. when three sat abreast, and
under four when two; that is 1 ft. 8in. in the former case, and
2ft. to each person in the latter. Our narrow gage lines, so far
from diminishing the comforts, have added 8in. to the sitting of
each person, making the room 2ft. 4 in. for each person, or nearly
double the space allowed in the present omnibuses. The room,
therefore, in the narrow gage carriages is much more than ample,
and could well afford to be reduced two or three inches each
person, if it was not for the sake of affording full scope to the
machinery. The broad gage consequently, if it allows some 3ft.
to each individual, is a waste of space. It is more than is wanted;
it is too much. We could not have a better condemnation of
this waste of space than by the broad gage conduct in the second
class carriages. That gage is almost exactly 50 per cent. wider
than the narrow gage; and in the second class carriages they carry
six abreast instead of four in the narrow, which is precisely in
the ratio of the gages. In the first class, however, they carry
only four abreast to three in the narrow. Their number should
be four and a half, but their engineer finds some difficulty in
managing half a person, and therefore they are obliged to lose
the space of eight halves or four persons in a carriage. The
natural inference, consequently is, that the gage is too wide ; and
that is still further admitted by their not occupying it for their
machinery.
INTERMEDIATE G AG. E.
A question has been mooted by some, whether an intermedi-
ate gage between the two would not be preferable 2 Were we
asked the question theoretically, probably we should answer,
“Yes;” but if practically and commercially, with the facts before
us, we should feel bound to say, “No.” How, with the three
following facts, could we do otherwise ?
1st. Railways are strictly and rigidly commercial enterprises,
and thus only are valuable to individuals and to the nation.
C
34
2nd. On 5 tons paying load there are on the narrow gage 59,
and on the broad (50 per cent. wider) 95 Tons of DEAD NoN-
PAYING. W. EIGHT.
3rd. This dead weight, which is a tax upon the paying, in-
creases faster than the breadth of the gage; for where the one is
50 per cent. the other is 60.
Prudence, therefore, would direct us to diminish, not to
increase the gage, if we made any alteration. We are, however,
disposed to let things remain as they are, and for the very reason
on which we prefer the narrow to the broad; namely, economy.
EVILS OF A WIDER, GAGE TO THE PUBLIC,
The evil of too wide a gage tells two ways; that is, against
the Company and the public—against the Company, by the un-
necessary dead weight which the engine has to draw; and against
the public, by curtailing the Company's profits, and preventing
them from reducing their fares. It is obviously to the interest of
the public that railways should be made as cheaply as possible,
and worked as cheaply as possible; for then their profits on a
given amount of receipts would be a maximum, and their ability
to meet reduction also a maximum. The broad gage does not
afford that, and therefore that gage is not the one the public
should have.
What is the true gage to express the greatest amount of work
at a given expense, it is impossible to say. We may however
gather from the following facts, that the narrower in reason the
gage is, the safer and more economically it works.
§ 1. For the gages to work under precisely the same circum-
stances, the lengths of the carriages and the radii of the curves
should have the same ratio as the breadth of the gage.
§ 2. That it is well known that the friction, and of course the
expense of working, a given engine or carriage on any gage is
greater as the radius of the curve is less. Therefore from the
circumstances in § 1 a broad gage engine or carriage has more
friction, and is more expensive to work round a given curve
than a narrow one.
§ 3. The same must be true of the wear and tear, which is
increased in proportion to the strain and friction,
35
§ 4. The power to draw loads being diminished as the friction
is increased, and it being impossible to have a road without
curves, the efficiency of engines is much more diminished on the
broad than on the narrow gage, and of course the waste of power
is much greater on the former than on the latter.
$ 5. Whatever disposition an engine or carriage has to run
off the line on a curve is by § 1 increased the wider the gage is.
View it therefore how we will, a wider gage causes more wear
and tear, more friction, more waste of power, and greater ex-
pense, and more increases the elements of danger.
Hence we should, if we could, choose a narrower gage than we
have, rather than a wider.
§ 6. The broad gage is not only more expensive in working,
but is more costly in construction. Mr. R. Stephenson, as
we have before said, estimates that the London and Birmingham
would have cost £3,000 a mile more on the broad than on the
narrow gage.
To satisfy this excess of expense without diminishing the
dividend would require 5.7 per cent. more of traffic. So that if
there were two lines having equal traffic, one on the broad gage,
and one on the narrow, 5.7 per cent. of the traffic would be sunk
and lost on the broad gage. That supposes that the cost of the
narrow gage lines would be £53,000 a mile; but if the cost be
only £20,000 a mile, and there be the same difference of £3,000,
15 per cent. would be sunk. In other words, a line with 15 per
cent. less traffic would pay equally as well if it was made on the
narrow gage as the greater traffic on the broad.
The conclusion then is that a wider gage than the present, if
it was equal to the narrow in safety, if it was even more comfort-
able to travellers, is against the public interests, and should con-
sequently not be entertained. But when we have shown that
the present gage cannot be increased without diminishing its
safety, without augmenting the cost of construction, the ex-
pense of transport, the waste of power, and the discomfort of
passengers, who with any propriety could advocate a wider gage 2
THE RECENT GAGE EXPERIMENTS.
When the evidence before the Commission went against the
broad gage interest, notwithstanding the statements by Daniel
C 2
36
Gooch, it is affirmed that the broad gage proposed by way of chal-
lenge a trial of the engines on the two gages, either to ward off
the blow expected in the Commissioners' report, or from fancied
superiority they thought they should exhibit in the power of
their engines. If it was the former, it was an unwise move, as,
do what they please, the Commissioners, as in duty bound, were
forced to tell the truth, without which their report would be
worse than valueless. If it was the latter, they have made a sad
mistake, as we shall presently show from the figures and facts.
Indeed so much have they failed in this matter, that they remind.
us of the man mentioned in the Scriptures, who having looked
into the glass, went his way forgetting what manner of man he
WaS. \
These experiments we cannot but condemn as really trifling,
and having little or no relation to the way in which the every-
day business of railways is carried on, nor as affording any test
of the merits of the two gages. *
A great deal has been said about the evaporating power of the
engines. Upon that certainly depends their capabilities for high
speeds. It is however a most uncertain element even in the
same engine, and depends on the quality of the coke, the con-
dition the engine is in, and its speed. Generally speaking, an
engine evaporates faster in a given time the higher the velocity ;
but the actual quantity is always very uncertain. Here are a
few examples from the experiments of Dr. Lardner and Mr.
Nicholas Wood, on the Great Western Railway:-
Cubic feet per hour. Per cent.
Names of the engine. Maximum. Minimum. Diff.
North Star . e 200-9 1:36-5 47
AEolus ſº Q 130.9 98.5 33
Venus e * > 1]. I - I 96.9 15
Apollo º o 129-5 94.2 38
Ixion fe © 145-6 110.3 32
Mr. Bidder has shown that the per cent, advantage of the Great
Western engine over the narrow gage is only 10 per cent.
evaporating power in the experiments tried. But seeing the
immense differences in the same engines as exhibited above,
amounting in one instance to near 50, and in another to near 40
37
per cent, or 4 and 5 times the differences observed in the expe-
riments before the Commission, of what earthly value can such
isolated experiments be, even as a test of the power of the
engines?
It appears by the analysis of Mr. Bidder, in his report on the
experiments to Mr. Creed, that admitting the engines have an
advantage in point of evaporating power, that is purchased at a
considerably greater expense of fuel, so much, he says, as 25 per
cent. greater: that is, to do 10 per cent. more work it costs
them 25 per cent. more fuel.
The experiments as published are the following:—
“Broad Gage Engine—Ixion.
Weight in running order, 22% tons.
7-ft. wheel, 15% in. cylinders, 20 in. stroke.
1. Took 80 tons from London to Didcot, 52 miles, at an ave-
rage speed of 47.5 miles per hour. Head wind.
2. And 60 tons, at an average speed to Didcot of 52.9 miles
per hour. No wind.
Narrow Gage Engine, A.
Weight, 20 tons.
6-ft. driving wheels, 15-in. cylinder, 21-in. stroke.
Outside cylinders; driving wheels next to firebox.
3. Took 80 tons from York to Darlington, 42 miles, at an
average speed of 44.3 miles per hour. Side wind. There being
a strong side wind on the previous day only 35 miles per hour
were accomplished, showing the retarding effect of a side wind.
4. And 50 tons from York to Darlington, at 48.6 miles per
hour, Side wind. *
5. A good engine, 6 wheels coupled, 4-ft. 8-in. wheels, cylin-
der 15-in., stroke 24-in.
Weight in running order, 20 tons (about).
Took 400 tons from Darlington to York, at an average speed
of 19 miles per hour. Day calm.
In every case the consumption of coke was in favour of the
narrow gage engines, but the precise quantities are not yet got
Out.
In Experiment 1, on the broad gage, the wind was head wind.
With Experiment 3, on the narrow gage, the wind was much
more of a side wind than in Experiment 1, on the broad gage.
38
The velocity of the wind not very different in these two cases.
In Experiment 2, on the broad gage, there was not a breath
of wind. The rails were wet, but in fair order.
In Experiment 4, on the narrow gage, there was the same
side wind as in Experiment 3, on the narrow gage.
The York and Darlington line is exceedingly exposed to the
wind. The distance of level between York and Darlington, 42
miles, is about the same as between London and Didcot, and the
intermediate gradients are decidedly worse; for instance, they
have 14-ft, per mile on a curve of a mile radius, and 12 and 9
feet per mile for long distances.
There is nothing more than 4-ft. a mile on the Great Western
section, and the curves are very easy.
Railways, as we have frequently observed, must be looked at
as inventions for the benefit of commerce—inventions in which
the public have a great and growing interest. Now the value
of an invention to commerce is either to do the same work more
economically, or to afford some considerable advantages. Con-
sequently, if two schemes are contrived to do the same thing,
that one which does it with the less expenditure of money is
the one to be preferred, provided all other things are alike.
This is exactly the view to take of the question of the gages,
considered as gages.
Let us, then, see how the matter actually stands. The broad
gage was established for the express purpose of having more
powerful engines, and of taking greater loads at higher speeds.
We all know the enormous expense which the engineer went to
in obtaining the best levels and least curvatures, for the purpose
of carrying out these objects. We should be, perhaps, quite
safe in saying two to three millions of money were sunk in the
mere question of gradients and corresponding curves. The
broad gage is 7-ft.; the narrow, as in contradistinction it is
called, is 4-ft. 8%in. : the broad gage, therefore, is 50 per cent.
wider than the narrow. If full advantage is to be derived from
the breadth of the gage, it is evident that the diameter of the
boilers should be as the breadth. That is, supposing the engines
to be of the same length, the capacity of the boiler should be
as the square of the gage; or as 4 to 9, or 1 to 24 : but a
broader gage will enable one to have a longer boiler, in fact,
39
longer in the same proportion. Therefore the capacity of the
boilers on the broad and narrow gages should be as the cube of
3 to the cube of 2; that is, as 27 to 8, or as 10 to 3 in round
numbers. By so much should the power of the engines be
greater on the one gage than on the other. *
Such ought to be the advantages of the broad gage, if it really
has the merit it should have. The engines, at the least, ought
to be 24 times more powerful; but it would not be unreasonable
to expect that they should be more than 3 and 1-3rd times more
powerful. We shall presently find that their power is scarcely,
if any, greater, though taken under the advantages of special
experiments.
There is, however, a great difficulty in comparing the engines,
in consequence of the Great Western being a line with such
incomparably easy curves and gradients. The line that has been
selected for the narrow gage trial is the Great North of England
—a very good but a very exposed line, and possessing gradients
far inferior to those on the Great Western. For example, there
are on the Great North of England gradients of 14 and 11%ft.
a mile, ascending and descending, and one of these on a curve;
while the Great Western has no gradient exceeding 4-ft. a mile,
and no curve but of a very large radius. If, therefore, the
experiments are fairly compared, these disadvantageous gradients
and curves on the Great North of England should be taken
into the account. So commercially should the relative cost of
the two lines form an item. For if millions have been spent to
attain a certain advantage in working, the cost at which that
advantage is purchased is a part of the expense of the invention
to which it belongs, and cannot be accounted as nothing. The
cost of the Great Western is £53,000 a mile, of the Great
North of England under £25,000, or not half the amount.
Doubtless the character for gradients of the Great North of
England is very good as compared with other lines, but far
inferior to the Great Western. Nine, 11+, and 14-ft. a mile
gradients are good; but it will be observed that the least of
these (9) is twice, and the greater (14) above 3} times, steeper
than the 4-ft. a mile on the Great Western. Besides, in the
length (45 miles) of the Great North of England, the rise at
Darlington, above York, is 129-ft.; but in 45 miles on the
40°.
Great Western towards Didcot the rise is only 91-ft., and in
the whole run (55 miles) it is only 116-ft. This difference of
levels might be considered as giving an advantage to the Great
North of England in the return; and so it would, but unfortu-
nately in that return the worst gradient on the whole line (that
of 14-ft. a mile) must be ascended, and that gradient, to make
it still worse, happens on a curve. Though the Great North
of England is a very good line, it is therefore greatly inferior to
the Great Western. Take it whichever way we will, it cer-
tainly is not fair to compare maximum efforts on two lines, one
of which has gradients of three and a-half times the amount of the
other: for it is very obvious that a load which could be taken
with facility up the one could not be taken at all on the other.
The only true mode of comparison is by the average of every-
day work over a long period. However, we will for the present
waive this point, and just glance at the facts dctailed before.
The experiments there given are—
Great Western Engine, 22% tons.
Miles per Tons. Measure
hour. of work.
52.9 × 60 – 317°40 no wind.
47.5 × 80 – 380:00 head wind.
Both these experiments were from London to Didcot, up-hill,
but with no gradient exceeding 4-ft. a mile. In the first ex-
periment the rails were wet, but in good order. We need not
remark, that a thoroughly wet and a dry rail are nearly the same.
The slightly wet or greasy rail is the evil.
On the narrow gage the two following experiments were
made :-
Narrow gage engine, 20 tons.
Velocity. Load. Measure of work.
44'3 × 80 = 354'40 side wind.
48°6 × 50 = 243-00 ditto.
These experiments were up-hill from York to Darlington.
To each of these measures of work we must add one-eighth
of itself, because the Great Western engine is one-eighth heavier
than the narrow gage. That will make the measure of the work
stand thus—
- 398-7 and 279.0 on the narrow gage.
against 3800 and 317°4 on the broad gage,
41
Here the experiments are one in favour of one, and the other
of the other; and nothing decisive can be said in favour of
either. But if we consider that in both of the narrow gage
experiments they had a side wind—that worst of all winds for
a train, in consequence of its driving the flanges against the
rails—while the wind in the broad gage, as if it had designed to
favour them, was in one instance a head wind, and in the other
a perfect calm, we must admit that both the experiments were
decidedly in favour of the narrow gage, without taking into
account the disadvantage of the narrow gage gradients and
CUITVeS,
This is the conclusion merely on the question of the engines,
and has nothing whatever to do with the gages—the principle
which the broad gage party wished to make the object and
foundation of inquiry. If, then, we merely multiply the narrow
gage results by 2%, to bring them to an equality with their
competitors on the principle of the gages, we shall have—
897° 1 and 627.7
against 380 and 317.4
Here the effect is incomparably in favour of the narrow gage,
notwithstanding the disadvantages of gradients, curves, and
exposed situation of the narrow gage line. Had we multiplied
the experiments by 10-3rds, the results would have been still
WOI’Se,
There is another experiment on each of the lines with much
heavier weights, namely, from Didcot to London, and from
Darlington to London. But here is the gradient to be encoun-
tered on the narrow gage line of 14-ft. a mile on a curve. With
these loads, which approach to the maximum power of the
engines, the effect ought to be much worse; for had the narrow
gage load come up nearly to the full power of the engine, it
would have happened that she could not mount the gradients
at all with the load—a fact which marks the inutility of these
experiments, and their uselessness as measures of the merits of
the two gages. However, we will take these experiments, and
treat them as trials on the principle of the gages. The first is
an attested one on the narrow gage. The engine drew 400 tons
19 miles an hour, which gives as a measure of the work 7,600.
Increase this by 1-8th, to have the effect of an equal weight in
42
the engines, and it becomes 8,550, which again multiplied by
2} to bring it to an equality of gage, gives 19,237, as the
measure of the work done. This, as we said, was an attested
experiment. Against this the broad gage say—but it is merely
an ea parte statement—that they drew from Didcot to London—
all, we believe, down hill except an easy gradient of 2 or 4-ft.
a mile—440 tons 24% miles an hour. This would give for the
measure of the work 10,780, or a little better than one-half,
reduced to the same standard of gage on the Great North of
England line.
Another experiment, inferior to this, is reported to have been
made since ; but as it is alleged some accident happened, we
shall not notice it.
So far therefore these experiments, examined in their naked
truth, are all in favour of the narrow gage. But as we have
over and over repeated, results of this sort are perfectly useless
in calculating the commercial relations of the two gages. It is
the every-day work that is done which should be the test. We
should examine what is the paying load these rivals can carry,
and do carry; and at what cost to their Companies. In this lie
the public and the private interest, and the public and private
utility of the two systems. If the Great Western are obliged
to consume 40lbs. of coke per mile to carry their gross load, as
it is said they do, and the narrow gage perhaps 30, that alone
answers the question of greater cost. But if, in addition to this,
the broad gage has to carry a dead weight in carriages, as 7% to
4% on the narrow gage, and as 4% to 3 in trucks and wagons;
and if we consider that the dead weight is usually ten to twenty
times the paying load, there surely can be no question which is
commercially the more useful system.
To illustrate this, let us take a gross load, say 100 tons, on
the Great Western, out of which the paying load will seldom
exceed 5 tons. Suppose, however, it to be 25 tons, then the
dead weight will be 75 tons. Now, if this dead weight be
reduced in the ratio of only 7 to 5, it will give a dead weight on the
narrow gage of 53% tons, which leaves a paying load of 46% tons
to 25 on the broad gage. Were therefore the expenses of draft
in both cases the same, the narrow gage would be able to take
46% tons at the same cost at which the broad gage could take
25; that is, at very little exceeding one-half the cost.
43
But the expense of haulage is not all. The expenses of
porters and horses, when they use them, are increased exactly in
proportion to the increased dead weight of their trucks and
carriages to be moved. For example, if the dead weights of the
carriages and trucks are as 7 to 5, it will take at every station
and point on the line 7 men on the broad to 5 on the narrow
gage to do the business of shifting the trucks, carriages, &c.,
and that for about one-half the paying load, or 25 tons to 46%.
Now if it take the same expense to haul 25 tons on the broad
gage that it does to haul 46% on the narrow, and a staff besides
of 7 men to 5 be wanted to answer the requirements of the load
throughout the line, it is clear that the narrow gage can carry
much cheaper, and still with much greater profit to themselves
than the broad; and is therefore more advantageous to the public
now, and will be much more so hereafter, should the Govern-
ment take the railways into its own hands.
We say, hence, that looking at the matter commercially—
which is the only true point in which it should be looked at—
the broad gage is most undesirable for the public interests, as
well as for their own Proprietors. Do we want a proof of this
as regards the Proprietors ? Look at the accounts and the
dividends. It has been publicly shown, and not denied, from
their own figures, that honestly they could not pay above 4 per
cent. out of their earnings. Indeed, as friends to the pro-
prietary, we should advise the Great Western at once to order
their engineer to change the gage to the narrow, and if he
would not do it to get another. That change, we feel persuaded,
must be made eventually, and the sooner it is set about the
better for their own sakes, and the public's too.
ENGINEERING ERR.O.R.S ON THE GREAT WIESTERN RAILWAY,
Among engineers the Great Western Railway is considered
to be a series of mistakes. Out of all the points of difference
from other railways with which the Great Western engineer
set out, and on which he plumed himself, there is but one
which he himself has not acknowledged to be a failure.
1st. He drove piles into the ground, upon which he proposed
to support and steady his wooden framing when the ground
44.
should sink beneath it. Scarcely was the portion of his line
from London to Maidenhead opened, ere the voice of the public
and the clamour of his own shareholders compelled him to cut
the piles off and disengage the longitudinals from them.
Instead of being steadier, as he had contemplated, the line was
found to be so dangerously cranky and toppling that people
were actually afraid to ride on it.
His second error was the belief repeatedly proclaimed by him,
that longitudinal bearings would enable him to use rails of a
much lighter description. The line was consequently laid down
with 42 lb. rails; but the rolling out and splitting of the rails
very soon proved that such light rails were utterly unfit to bear
the massive weights of the Great Western engines. The line
has since been relaid with much heavier rails, that is 75 lbs.
Nay, it was soon found that the weak rail retarded the speed of
the trains, by bending and plying under the engines. See
Gooch's evidence, quest. 3326. He says:
“There is no doubt that there is a great difference between the speed of the
train on the light part of the road and on the other parts; on the 42 lb. rail we
found the speed was not so great as on the 75; the weak rail is a break” (to the
train.)
Had the engineer have thought for one moment, he must
have seen that the light rail would bend under their ponderous
engines, and always cause the wheels of the engines and car-
riages to be in dells and working against ascents, or as Mr.
Gooch says, “the weak rails” would act as “a break.”
His third error was in the very flat gradients. There can be
no doubt that the better the gradients, the larger the loads that
can be taken. But in passenger trains the engine is never
loaded to more than a fourth or a third of its tractive power, and
therefore good gradients are not of that consequence. The
error however to which we allude is one of a graver magnitude.
The Great Western engineer, in his eagerness to attain good
gradients, actually overlooked the proper drainage of his line.
So that after two or three millions of money extra had been
spent to attain his excellent gradients, he found in wet weather
he could not drain the railway, and that the upper works were
in danger of rapid destruction from the stagnant water.
A fourth error was, laying the lime on longitudinal instead of
45
cross sleepers. Wood being a non-conductor of heat, it is
found that the rail, which radiates and absorbs heat fast, being
by the longitudinal sleepers kept from a communication with
the earth, is unable in the winter to receive heat from the
earth as it radiates its own, and in the summer is equally unable
to communicate the excess it receives from the sun. So that
the contraction of the rail in winter and its expansion in sum-
mer are much greater on the Great Western than on lines
having merely cross sleepers. Hence the strain and distortion
of the Great Western road is greater and the expense of keep-
ing up the way larger than would be if the rails were on cross
sleepers. That however is not the only or the major evil. The
very property we have been describing of radiation and absorp-
tion of heat causes the rail on longitudinal bearings to take the
hoar-frost earlier and part with it later than when laid on cross
sleepers; and by becoming more intensely cold to be longer
slippery and more severely so.
All these errors have been established by experience, and
most if not all of them admitted either openly or in his subse-
quent practice by the Great Western engineer.
His fifth error—the excessive breadth of the gage—is obvious
to all practical men; but the commercial error of it is kept from
the world by the close system of accounts pursued by the parties
in power on the Great Western. It is perfectly certain, if the
facts could be known, that this would prove a more fatal mis-
take for the shareholders than all the others put together.
A sixth error might be added respecting the friction of the
wheels. Mr. Brunel said, by having larger wheels he should
lessen the friction of the carriage. On common roads, where
the rolling friction of the wheels forms the principal part of the
friction of the carriage, that is true; but on railways, where it
makes a most insignificant part, it is not so. Our engineer, not
discriminating between the friction of the axle, which is con-
stant under equal weights and lubrications, and the rolling
friction of the wheel, which on a railway if the road is rigid is
nearly inappreciable, fell into the error about the higher wheels.
We however now never hear anything of the advantage of his
higher wheels, and may hence put it down among his admitted
€FI’OI’S,
46
It is greatly to be lamented that so many and such grievous
errors have been committed in a noble work, the main trunk
line to the West of England; but the fact of them should be a
caution to our Government, how they permit the farther con-
tinuance of a system, founded from the very first in mistaken
motions, and want of information on scientific principles. Haste
and lack of thought are probably faults of the engineer, but it is
due to him to say that there is no reason to believe he perversely
violated any of the laws of nature; his errors are probably rather
to be attributed to the head than to the heart; to that deficiency
of information and experience which are essential to success,
when men depart from a beaten track.
REMARKS ON THE GREAT WIESTERN EVIDENCE.
By some strange fatality there seems to be a very curious web
of inconsistency and error, or by what other name soever it may
be called, in the evidence of the advocates of the broad gage.
As the decision should be based on the evidence, it may be worth
while to point out a few of them.
The two principal parties in this matter are Mr. Brunel, the en-
gineer, and Mr. Daniel Gooch, the superintendant of locomotives.
The latter is the man of all work, the fore horse in the team, and
his story is that on which the broad gage grounded their hopes
of success. He it was who was to lay the foundation and build
the superstructure, leaving the master merely to ornament and
cover it in.
This being the case, we shall confine ourselves to these gentle-
men, and contrast a few points of the evidence of each individual
with himself; then the evidence of the two with each other; and
lastly with the evidence of third parties.
Mr. Daniel Gooch compared with himself.
“3458. Then there is another import-
ant point which will affect the cost of the
Great Western, which is, that we get a
greater speed at a less sacrifice of power.
These are cards, [producing the same,
showing the power exerted by our en-
gines at various speeds. In this indi-
“3469. How do you compute the
pressure of steam in the cylinder?—I
have taken the quantity of water eva-
porated, calculated from the area of the
fire-box surface. I find there is a certain
number of feet in the fire-box surface,
by measurement ; I take two cubic feet
47
cator card there is shown the power of
the engine at a slow speed, and in this
[referring to another] there is the power
at a speed of 20 miles an hour.
“8459. Was this taken, by the indi-
cator?—By the indicator applied to the
cylinder.
“3460. As you were moving?—As
we were moving.”
of water to each square foot of surface
there ; then I see the size of my cylinder
and the diameter of my wheel, from
which I am able to compute the quantity
of steam required for sixty miles; and
knowing the quantity of water, I have
the pressure of the steam that can be
passed through that cylinder, and then
the load.”
“3472. That is matter of calculation,
then, upon that assumed evaporation ; it
is not the result of the indicator experi-
ment, or any other experiment upon the
actual pressure in the cylinder 2—No.;
you find, upon the White Horse of Kent,
I have taken the experiment of the
actual consumption of water; the actual
power of evaporation. If you once get
the quantity of water, you can arrive at
anything else without any doubt.”
So Mr. Gooch, after exhibiting to the Commissioners a card
purporting to show the pressure of the steam in the cylinder, is
obliged to acknowledge it has not been obtained by any experi-
ment, but is the mere result of calculation
Mr. Daniel Gooch compared with another.
MR. DANIEL GOOCHI,
“You will find that the consumption
of water, or the power of the boiler in
evaporating water, is directly as the size
of the fire-box, without reference to the
tube surface.”
AIR. EDWARD WOODS.
“I made some experiments a few years
ago upon the relative value of tube surface
and fire-bor surface, and I found that one
square foot of fire-bor surface was exactly
equal to seven feet of tube surface in eva-
porating power.”
Here Mr. Gooch has made an assertion directly contrary to
the fact.
porated the water.
He said it was the fire-box, not the tubes, which eva-
Had this come from one who had nothing to
do with engines it might have passed, but how a person who is
superintendent of locomotives could have made a statement so
palpably wrong, so decidedly at variance with all facts and expe-
rience, and why he did so, we leave to others to determine. It
is sufficient for us to have called attention to the character of this
extraordinary evidence. The instances we have noticed are not
48
the whole; there are many of the same genus. We need hardly
observe that Mr. Woods speaks from experiments he made, and
which have long since been published.
We shall now contrast Mr. Gooch and Mr. Brunel. They are
both, it will be remembered, on one side—both servants of the
broad gage, and both, it would seem, determined, if bold state-
ments will do it, that their cause shall not fail.
Extract from Mr. Brunel's answer to Extract from Mr. Gooch's answer to
Question 4073. Question 3317.
“The cost of a carriage on the wide COST OF CARRIAGES.
GAGE is not more expensive than on the 1st Class. 2nd Class.
NARRow.” Great Western. . $713 #481
London and Bir-
mingham & Gnd.
Junction . . 400 240
Dover and Brighton 315 250
South Western. . 380 250
Midland . • . 406 290
For the truth and character of the engineer's statements we
refer to the figures of his deputy. Comment would be quite
out of the question. We shall, however, just give another ex-
ample of the engineer's care or veracity. See Quest. 4080.
MR. BRUNEL. ACTUAL WEIGHT OF CARRIAGES.
“In fact the gage does not, of ne- London and Birmingham.
cessity, involve a greater dead weight? FIRST CLASS.
—It involves some, but a very trifling Tons. Cwt. Qrs.
increase in the dead weight. If you 4 6 3
take a narrow-gage wagon, cut it in two 3 15 2
in the middle, and widen it by putting in a
piece between, that wagon will be perfectly
jit to run upon the broad gage. I say
that deliberately, knowing that it is fre-
quently assumed that the dimensions of the
SECOND CLASS.
4 8 2
Great Western Birmingham and
Gloucester Line.
parts must be increased, because the gage FIRST CLASS.
ãs increased. Now not only a theoretical Tons. Cwt, Qrs.
investigation, but the result of all one's 8 2 2
eaperience proves that it is not so; that
the awle need not be of larger dimen-
sions; that the strain upon it is not
greater on the wide gage than on the narrow gage; that the transoms of the wagon
need not be perceptibly stronger; and that the flooring of the wagon need not
be a bit heavier; and those are the only parts that you do touch in making a longitu-
dinal section of the wagon.”
SECOND CLASS.
8 3 O
tº
49
The reader has here the facts before him, and he will not want
any observation from us to make up his mind and form his own
opinion of the course that has been followed to endeavour to
procure a decision in favour of the broad gage. We have by no
means exhausted the subject, but it is of too painful and unplea-
sant a nature to be further pursued.
To this we may very properly append the following letter,
addressed to the Editor of Herapath's Railway Journal of May
9th, from Mr. M'Connell, Superintendent of Locomotives on
the Bristol and Birmingham Railway, which has both gages—
one on one portion of it and the other on the other.
“Bristol and Gloucester Railway, (Locomotive Department,)
Bromsgrove, May 4th, 1846.
“MR. EDITOR,-On examining the minutes of evidence taken before the Com-
missioners appointed to inquire into the gage of railways, I observe it is stated by
Mr. Gooch, in answer to question 2235:
“‘Was not the weight of the axle increased in proportion to its length 2—We
do not find that our axles are much greater than the narrow gage in diameter;
we have 4-in. to 4}-in. axles.’
“And, again, to question 2236 :
“‘Are we not to infer, then, that yours are too weak, or that those of the nar-
row gage are too strong?—We very seldom find ours too weak; we have very
seldom indeed had ours to break, and it is a common thing on the narrow-gage lines
for their axles to break.’
“Now, Sir, I beg to say that, so far as my experience goes in working both gages
the narrow is the safest in this respect as well as others, inasmuch as on the
Bristol and Gloucester broad-gage line, 37% miles in length, with ten trains in
each direction daily, making a weekly mileage of 4155, I find that we have had
six axles broken since the 6th of September last, a period of eight months—four of
these axles were crank axles of the passenger train engines, which cost on an
average 100l. each, and two were wagon axles—while on the Birmingham and
Gloucester line, 53 miles in length, with eleven trains in each direction daily,
making a weekly mileage, including short trains, of 7030 miles. I find during a
period of four years and nine months we have had only five axles broken, show-
ing, what is manifest to me, that the tendency to strain and break the axle (a con-
stant cause of accident on railways) is much greater on the broad gage than the
narrow. The frequency of these breakages on the Bristol and Gloucester, a short
line, proves that the broad gage is not suited to the sharp curves which prevail on
that line, which, it is worthy of remark, was laid out for the narrow gage, and it
was only after the works were in progress that the broad gage was ordered to be
laid. I therefore draw the conclusion from this, that if the broad gage was
attempted to be laid upon the track of the narrow-gage railways, on all or any of
the existing lines, the same danger would arise from the torsion of axles and the
violent oscillations of the carriages round the curves which is found to take place
on the Bristol and Gloucester line, where broad gage has been substituted for
Inżllºr OW.
“J. E. M*CONNELL.”
50
It will be seen by this letter, that with 4155 miles a-week
run, six broad-gage axles have broken in two-thirds of a year,
while with 7030 miles a-week run, five marrow-gage axles have
broken in four years and three quarters. Therefore the miles
run by a broad-gage axle before it breaks are to the miles run
by a narrow-gage axle as:
4155 × 3. . 7030 × 4} . .
–E– —s— ..
That is, 14% times as many broad-gage axles break running
over a given distance as narrow gage. This is rather an extra-
ordinary fact—a telling fact—a fact of conclusive condemnation
for the broad-gage economy and safety to passengers.
A computation of the absolute mileage run, for one fractured
axle on each gage, as deduced from the above data by the Editor
of Herapath's Railway Journal, affords the following curious
*
1 : 14} &
results:—
MILES RUN.
BROAD GA.G.E. N ARROW GAGE.
Broken axles 1 in 24,007 1 in 347,282
or about 42 broken axles on the broad and nearly 3 on the
narrow, for every million of miles run.
We presume, in deciding on the merits of the two gages, the
Government will not overlook this most important fact. If such
be the character of the broad gage, that when laid down upon a
line designed for the narrow gage, the breakages of axles are
14% times more numerous than upon the narrow, it is a clear
case that the public safety would be seriously compromised by
its extension and continuance. The partizans of the broad
gage may say, such accidents have not happened on the Great
Western Railway. That is no answer at all, for besides matters
being kept so closely on that line that misfortunes unat-
tended with injury to passengers seldom creep out, the line
itself by its curves, and the peculiar character of the country, is
more favourably circumstanced for the broad gage than probably
any other line in England would be found to be. It is sufficient
for us, if it be true—and who can doubt it, coming as it does
under Mr. M'Connell's name, the Resident Superintendent of
the broad and narrow gage portions of the same line?—that the
51
actual fractures of the axles and liability to accident are Four-
TEEN and a HALF TIMEs more numerous on the BRoAD than on
the NARRow gage. The striking features of the case are, that
these facts come not from lines in different parts of the country,
carrying different loads, and worked under different circum-
stances; but from the same line, carrying the same loads, one
portion of which line designed for the narrow being laid down
with the broad gage.
Sir Robert Peel, and ye Rulers of the land, who have to
decide on the question of the gages—who are the Guardians of
the public safety—pray look to these facts, and if you can then
conscientiously countenance or recommend the extension or con-
tinuance of a system one ThousAND THREE HUNDRED and
FIFTY per cent. MoRE DANGEROUs, you must do it; we cannot
help it. We have done our part in bringing the facts before
you. If you doubt them, we give you our authority: inquire
and examine into the facts, but pray do not take on yourselves
so awful a responsibility as to neglect to attend to them. We
believe you mean rightly and honestly,–but the public will judge
of you not by your intentions, but by your deeds; and we do
not want to put it in its power hereafter to say: Twenty-nine
fatal accidents have happened this year, twenty-seven of which
may be fairly attributable to the unwise measures of Sir Robert
Peel and his colleagues, in 1846.
SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS,
In our observations on the Locomotive Power of the two gages, we
omitted one most important fact, to which we beg here briefly to
advert. -
It is often imagined that the power of the engine depends on the
diameter of the cylinder, when the size of the driving-wheels, the
pressure of the steam, and the capacity of the boiler to generate steam
are the same. Hence it is inferred that the broad gage, by affording
space for cylinders of larger diameter, must necessarily give more pow-
erful engines. This is a mistake. The power given out at the circum-
ference of the driving-wheels—which is the place at which the power is
estimated—whether it be as a dead pull or as a dynamical effect, is
52
proportioned to the capacity of the cylinder. This is a principle of
mechanics, long known under the name of the “Principle of Virtual
Velocities.”
It follows then, that by giving a greater length to the cylinder, that
is, by making the length inversely proportional to the square of the
diameter, the same dynamical effect is produced; that is, the engine is
of equal power, or can take the same load at the same velocity. Hence
if we can make up, by the length of the narrow-gage cylinders, their
defect of diameter, we get engines of equal power to those on the broad
gage. Now that we can do ; for since the broad gage cannot have
engines of equal length with those which may be used on the narrow,
unless at an increased risk of running off the line—that is, at the
expense of safety—and unless at a much greater expense of friction—
that is, of a diminished power, increased wear and tear, and conse-
quently increased working expenses—it is plain that the broad gage
has no advantage in point of power of engines. Nay, from the greater
friction and less safety, they labour under a positive disadvantage.
We here suppose that we are speaking of lines of the ordinary run,
that is, where those unavoidable evils, curves, exist. If we could have
mathematically straight lines, or, in other words, if nature would be
pleased to sweep off all our hills, and fill up all our valleys, then the
broad gage would undoubtedly admit of engines of greater power; but
while we have hills and dales, and are obliged to have curves, the
broad gage cannot, if the other gage chose to put them on, surpass the
narrow, if indeed it could equal it, in power of locomotives.
It has appeared to us necessary to explain this point, because many
really honest and able engineers consider breadth of gage synonymous
with capability of obtaining power. That it is not so, is certain. It
may be perhaps asked, How is it the broad gage has more powerful
engines 7 We answer, For a similar reason to that by which the
London and Birmingham Company, with the greatest amount of traffic,
have the weakest engines of any company, namely, because they have
never considered they wanted them, and because the object of the
Great Western engineer has always been an ad captandum display,
without perhaps considering the cost.