ern Railway, when working at the same speed, as 2,067 to 1,398, or as 67 per cent.; the load of the broad gauge in tons, to 45 tons, which would be the corresponding load for the narrow gauge; so that the narrow gauge engine has more power over the 42 tons it would have to draw than the broad gauge has over its average load of 67 tons, both exclusive of the weight of the engine and tender, the narrow gauge carriage in this supposition being supposed to contain 84.9 passengers, and the broad gauge only 47.2.

If, however, it were necessary, 224 first-class passengers might be placed in the seven broad gauge carriages, and, as it has before been said, 126 in the seven narrow gauge carriages: but it appears likely that this extent of accommodation would only be called for on such rare occasions, that the question of providing for it, except by assistant power, cannot be taken into consideration in the present comparison.

It is obvious, from the foregoing statement, that the narrow gauge engine of the class we have been considering has more power over the seven narrow gauge carriages, and a load of 126 passengers, than the broad gauge engine has over the seven broad gauge carriages, and the load of the same number of passengers; and that, therefore, if the Great Western had been a narrow instead of a broad gauge line, the South Western engines would have had the same command over the existing passenger traffic of the Great Western as its own engines now have with the present construction of that railway.

We must remark, however, that this calculation is for trains con

In

sisting exclusively of passengers and their personal luggage. the Great Western average trains of 67 tons there is an allowance of about 16 tons for passengers and luggage, including gentlemen's carriages. Allowing the same weight of luggage on the narrow gauge line, the train would still not exceed 50 tons, which is considerably within the power of the narrow gauge engine. For it appears, by the experiments that have been recently made on the Great Western Railway, the details of which are given in the appendix to the evidence, that the Great Western engine is capable of propelling 13 tons at a greater speed than the average speed of that line; and consequently, by the proportion above stated, the narrow gauge engine would be capable of propelling 55 tons at the same rate. We conclude, therefore, that the work would be performed at about the same expense for locomotive power.

That there may be cases in which not only the full power of a broad gauge engine is required, but even the assistance of a second engine, is quite certain, but such trains form the exception and not the rule in railway passenger traffic, and we doubt the soundness of a principle which involves a great expense in construction, for the sake of possessing capabilities so seldom called into action*.

*It appears that during the half-year ending June 30, 1845, the number of miles run by coupled and assisting engines for passenger-trains on the Great Western Railway, amounted to 11,628, and for goods trains to 51,155. The total number of miles run by the former trains being 761,483, and of the latter, 159,324.

It is proper to observe, that the foregoing comparison would have appeared to stand more in favour of the narrow gauge, had we taken for the engine of comparison one of those engines of whose increased capabilities some of the supporters of the narrow gauge system have informed us; but we have preferred the comparison afforded with the South Western engine from its being the one on which Mr. Gooch, of the Great Western Railway, superintended the recorded experiments hence our deductions are made from data furnished by the advocates of the broad gauge system, without drawing anything from the evidence on the other side; and as these deductions sufficiently demonstrate that there is no economy in the locomotive expenses for passenger-trains resulting from working a line on the broad gauge system, even on such lines as those which have at the present moment the most abundant passenger traffic, any analyzation of the evidence offered in support of the narrow gauge system appears to aus to be quite superfluous.

There is one point, however, stated in Mr. Gooch's comparative table, and repeated in his evidence, which appears so much at variance with the results we have obtained from other data, as to require explanation.

Mr. Gooch has asserted that the Great Western Company work their passenger-trains at half the expense per ton at which the London and Birmingham Company work their passenger-trains. The fact is, however, that Mr. Gooch's calculations refer to the gross and not to the net loads; and, therefore, the comparison is not applicable, so far as regards the

profits of these companies, and affords no proof of economy in working the passenger traffic on the Great Western system.

There can be no doubt, judging both from Mr. Brunel's evidence given to us, and from his report to the directors of the Great Western Railway Company, that he originally expected there would be on the Great Western Railway a demand for carrying great numbers of passengers at high velocities; but from his own evidence it appears that the only heavy passenger traffic upon that railway is between London and Reading, and between Bath and Bristol, being a total distance of about 50 miles,

out of 245.

On the remaining part of the line the passenger traffic, per train, is small.

If the convenience of the public would admit of the whole of the passenger traffic of this portion of the line being conveyed daily by two or three large trains, Mr. Brunel's views would have been perfectly correct in providing such powerful means; but experience has proved that the public require passenger trains to be run many times during the day; and with this frequency of trains, such numbers of passengers as Mr. Brunel has provided for cannot be expected, even on railways of the largest traffic, so that practically there is a waste both of power and of means. In the case of "goods traffic," the circumstances are not the same; railway conveyance for merchandize seems only to be required a few times in each day, and the trains are generally large. The "through" waggons have for the most part a full load, and the disproportion between the gross and the net weight is consequently

:

much less than in the passengertrains; still, however it appears from the evidence of Mr. Horne, and of other persons connected with the carrying trade, that on the London and Birmingham Railway it frequently happens that waggons are forwarded to a considerable distance to "road-side stations," containing not more than a ton of goods and there can be no doubt that this must happen on any long line of railway. The same also occurs in waggons coming in from branches along the trunk line, and in all such cases the heavy large waggon of the broad gauge must be disadvantageous; but although the evil is not so great with goods' waggons of the broad gauge as with their passenger carriages, still the loss by dead weight is greater with these than with smaller waggons, and we do not perceive any advantages in the broad gauge to counterbalance it; for where speed is not an object and this is the case with goods' trains-we believe, from the evidence we have received, that engines of nearly the same tractive power are to be found on many narrow gauge lines as those in use on the broad gauge.

Thus far we have considered the question with reference to the railways as they now exist, and composed in a great measure of trunk lines of considerable traffic; but the railways to be made in future will in some degree be branches or lines in districts having traffic of less magnitude than is to be provided for in the existing railways; and hence, if for the greater trunk lines a superiority were due to the broad gauge system, that superiority would be less for lines yet to be constructed of a smaller amount of traffic; and necessarily, if the preference were given to the narrow VOL. LXXXVIII.

gauge for the existing lines, that system would be still more entitled to the preference for the railways of smaller traffic to which we look forward.

We must here add, that towards the close of our inquiry Mr. Brunel requested, on the part of the broad gauge companies, to institute a set of experiments to test the power of their engines, and Mr. Bidder, on the part of the narrow gauge companies, undertook, in consequence of such application, to make corresponding experiments on the narrow gauge. After sanctioning these trials, and being present at the performance of them, a record of which will be found in the appendix, we may observe, without entering into a minute detail of the results or the discrepancies between the returns as furnished by the two parties themselves, that we consider them as confirming the statements and results given by Mr. Gooch, in his evidence; proving, as they do, that the broad gauge engines possess greater capabilities for speed with equal loads, and, generally speaking, of propelling greater loads with equal speed; and, moreover, that the working with such engines is economical where very high speeds are required, or where the loads to be conveyed are such as to require the full power of the engine. They confirm also the evidence given by Mr. Bidder as to the possibility of obtaining high evaporative power with long engines for the narrow gauge; but under somewhat peculiar circumstances. It appears, moreover, that the evaporation thus obtained does not produce a corresponding useful effect in the tractive power of the engine; a circumstance that would probably be differently explained by Mr. 2 G

Gooch and by Mr. Bidder; but, as we do not refer to the power of this description of engine in the deductions we have made, it is unnecessary for us to allude further to them.

After a full consideration of all the circumstances that have come before us, and of the deductions we have made from the evidence, we are led to conclude

1. That as regards the safety, accommodation, and convenience of the passengers, no decided preference is due to either gauge, but that, on the broad gauge, the motion is generally more easy at high velocities.

2. That, in respect of speed, we consider the advantages are with the broad gauge, but we think the public safety would be endangered in employing the greater capabilities of the broad gauge much beyond their present use, except on roads more consolidated and more substantially and perfectly formed, than those of the existing lines.

3. That, in the commercial case of the transport of goods, we believe the narrow gauge to possess the greater convenience, and to be the more suited to the general traffic of the country.

4. That the broad gauge involves the greater outlay, and that we have not been able to discover, either in the maintenance of way, in the cost of locomotive power, or in the other annual expenses, any adequate reduction to compensate for the additional first cost.

Therefore, esteeming the importance of the highest speed on express trains for the accommodation of a comparatively small number of persons, however desirable that may be to them, as of far less moment than affording increased

convenience to the general commercial traffic of the country, we are inclined to consider the narrow gauge as that which should be preferred for general convenience ; and, therefore, if it were imperative to produce uniformity, we should recommend that uniformity to be produced by an alteration of the broad to the narrow gauge, more especially when we take into consideration that the extent of the former at present in work is only 274 miles, while that of the latter is not less than 1,901 miles, and that the alteration of the former to the latter, even if of equal length, would be the less costly as well the less difficult operation.

We are desirous, however, of guarding ourselves from being supposed to express an opinion that the dimension of 4 ft. 8 in. is in all respects the most suited for the general objects of the country. Some of the engineers who have been examined by us have given it as their opinion, that 5 ft. would be the best dimension for a railway gauge; others have suggested 5 ft. 3 in., 5 ft. 6 in., and even 6 ft., but none have recommended so great a breadth as 7 ft., except those who are more particularly interested in the broad gauge lines. Again, some engineers of eminence contend that a gauge of 4 ft. 8 in. gives ample space for the machinery of the engine and all the railway requirements, and would recommend no change to be made in the gauge.

We may observe, in reference to this part of the question, that the Eastern Counties railway was originally constructed on a gauge of 5 feet, and has since been converted into a gauge of 4 ft. 8 in., to avoid a break of gauge; and we have been informed that some lines

in Scotland, originally on the gauge of 5 ft. 3 in., are about to be altered to 4 ft. 8 in. for the

same reason.

Whatever might be the preferable course were the question now to be discussed of the gauge for an entire system of railways, where none previously existed to clash with the decision, yet, under the present state of things, we see no sufficient reason to suggest or recommend the adoption of any gauge intermediate between the narrow gauge of 4 ft. 8 in. and the broad gauge of 7 ft., and we are peculiarly struck by the circumstance, that almost all the Continental railways have been formed upon the 4 ft. 8 in. gauge, the greater number having been undertaken after a long experience of both the broad and the narrow gauge in this country; nor must the fact be lost sight of, that some of these railways have been constructed as well as planned by English engineers, and amongst that number we find Mr. Brunel, the original projector of the broad gauge. Mr. Brunel was also the engineer of the Merthyr Tydvil and Cardiff line, which is on the 4 ft. 8 in. gauge; and we think that the motives which led to his adoption of the narrow gauge in that instance would equally apply to many English lines.

We are sensible of the importance, in ordinary circumstances, of leaving commercial enterprise as well as the genius of scientific men unfettered; we therefore feel that the restriction of the gauge is a measure that should not be lightly entertained; and we are willing to admit, were it not for the great evil that must inevitably be experienced when lines of unequal gauges come into contact, that

and

varying gradients, curves, traffic might justify some difference in the breadth of gauge. This appears to be the view which Mr. Brunel originally took of the subject; for the Great Western proper is a line of unusually good gradients, on which a larger passenger traffic was anticipated, and, as it touched but slightly on any mineral district, it embraced all the conveniences and advantages of the broad gauge system, and was comparatively free from the influence of those defects on which we have commented; but such a breadth of gauge, however suitable and applicable it may have originally been considered to its particular district, appears wholly inapplicable, or at least very ill suited to the requirements of many of our northern and midland lines.

In reference to the branches already in connection with the Great Western railway, we may observe, that the greatest average train on the Oxford branch, for two weeks in July and October, was only 48 tons; on the Cheltenham branch, it did not exceed 46; between Bristol and Exeter, 53; and between Swindon and Bristol it was under 60 tons. With such a limited traffic the power of the broad gauge engines seems beyond the requirements of these districts.

We find from an estimate furnished to us, and the general grounds of which we see no reason to dispute, that the expense of altering the existing broad gauge to narrow gauge lines, including the alteration or substitution of locomotives and carrying stock, would not much exceed 1,000,000l. ; yet we neither feel that we can recommend the Legislature to sanction such an expense from the public monies, nor do we think that the