Interest on £1,800 at 4 per cent. £72
Driver and boy, who would keep the rolling stock and line in £100
order
Fuel, oil, stores, and sundries, at 5s. per day £25
Renewal of permanent way and rolling stock at 15 years life £80
on £1,200
Cost of moving 6,000 tons one mile £277
This is equal to about 11d. per ton. Now the same haulage by horses and
carts in Great Britain would usually cost about 1s. 3d. per ton, and in
this case there is the advantage of being able to haul, if necessary, in
other directions if required, which would somewhat reduce the financial
advantage of the railway, but still leave it a distinct superiority.
It is probable that a traffic of 5,000 tons annually over a mile of line
is the smallest amount that would repay the construction of a narrow
gauge railway, for the estimate has been based upon the narrowest line
which can profitably be employed. If the line were longer, the balance in
its favour would be greater. This would also be the case if the traffic
were greater, and with the maximum amount which the line, using only one,
but a larger engine, could accommodate, say 40,000 tons, the concern
would be very profitable, for the extra charge for renewals would not be
heavy, and the cost per ton carried would be reduced to about 5d. or 6d.
No allowance has been made for way leaves or purchase of land. Should
there be outlay under these heads, the cost of transport would be
increased accordingly.
In concluding these comparisons, in which it may be thought that the
railway is shown in a less attractive light than might have been expected
from an enthusiast, I may explain that I am no advocate of ill considered
schemes, planned without proper knowledge, cheaply constructed, and
carelessly worked. My figures represent thoroughly sound and serviceable
plant, kept in good repair. If it is not worth while to go to such
expense, then it is not worth while to construct a railway at all. I have
been fortunate enough to work my line for twenty years without the
slightest injury to a single person of the many thousands that have been
carried as invited guests for pleasure, as visitors interested in my
experiments, or as workmen on the premises. None of the rolling stock has
sustained more than the most trivial damage; and derailments, beyond an
occasional mishap in shunting, are unknown. The working of the Eaton line
has been equally satisfactory. This immunity from accident I attribute
entirely to proper care having been taken to construct every part, not
only of the best materials and workmanship, but also with a careful eye
to the fitness of each detail for the purpose it has to serve.
That there are many openings for lines of 2 ft. gauge and under, is
beyond dispute. But while, already, this mode of transport is largely
made use of abroad and in our colonies, a deeply rooted prejudice has
hitherto prevented it from gaining a footing in England and Scotland.
Admirable articles pointing out the advantages of light railways have
appeared from time to time in the daily press with little or no effect.
It is one of the strangest anomalies in the progress of civilisation in
this country that Great Britain almost wholly refused till lately to
countenance such lines. The reasons for this obstinacy are not readily
discoverable. Probably the innate conservatism of every Englishman—for
there exists here no such thing as liberalism out of the region of
politics—has been the principal factor in determining this course of
inaction.
Even now that the Light Railway Act has passed, there is little or no
movement in the direction of making small lines such as I refer to, and
not much in respect of larger ones. Whether, in the future, private
individuals will, in their own interest and in that of their neighbours
and dependents, lay out money in this way, it is impossible to foresee.
But undoubtedly there are many openings for such installations,
particularly on large estates, where the possession of the land gives the
owner a free hand.
X.
APPENDIX
A
THE following letter, which appeared in _The Times_ two years ago, is
here reprinted as bearing on various points connected with narrow-gauge
railways. Special attention is directed to what is advanced under the
third head.
LIGHT RAILWAYS.
_TO THE EDITOR OF_ “_THE TIMES_.”
Sir,—The movement in favour of secondary railways has evoked from your
numerous correspondents widely divergent views. This want of accord is
more apparent than real, and it would facilitate the proceedings of the
approaching conference {46} if conflicting opinions could be partially
reconciled beforehand.
The causes to which these differences are due may be summarized under
three heads:—
1. The absence of a defined terminology of the distinctive kinds of
railways.
2. The failure to appreciate that a scheme which is good for one locality
is not of necessity the best for all.
3. The apparently meagre acquaintance on the part of those who state
their views with the practical working of any but the standard railways
of the country.
Under the first head, some confusion has arisen in consequence of the
application of the term “light railway” now to lines of the standard
gauge only, and again to narrow-gauge lines also. Similarly with other
expressions. It may be pointed out that the term “light railway” is
properly applicable and should be confined to a line of standard gauge,
of which the entire construction is lighter, cheaper, and simpler than is
obligatory where weighty engines, heavy traffic, and high speeds are
dealt with. Any line of less than the standard, gauge is correctly
described as a “narrow-gauge railway,” and such lines, when not of a
permanent character, come under the title, simply, of “portable
railways,” for these are invaribly of less than the normal width. The
term “tramway” should be restricted to its modern meaning of a line laid
in the metalled or paved surface of a road or street. Finally, the not
unfamiliar appellation of “secondary railways” might be fitly adopted as
generally descriptive of all lines not amenable to the standard railway
regulations of the Board of Trade. It would be well that the conference
should pronounce on these points.
In regard to the second head, needless controversy is engendered by
attempting to assume that, because a light railway is right here,
therefore a narrow-gauge railway is wrong there, or vice versa. In
estimating the transport requirements of any particular locality, if
connection is to be made with the railway system, the applicability of a
light railway, as above defined, should first be considered. By its
adoption the use of existing rolling-stock is secured, transhipment is
avoided, and the line can be subsequently and without difficulty
transformed, if necessary, into a railway of standard
construction—advantages for which much may be sacrificed. But as it would
be almost invariably essential to build a light railway of sufficient
strength to carry the 15 tons gross weight of a standard coal wagon, the
permanent way would be of a somewhat costly character, and, in the case
of severe gradients, considerable difficulty would arise in providing
suitable locomotive power.
Where the impediments in the way of a light railway branch are
insuperable, or where the proposed line has no connexion with the railway
system, the advantages of a narrow-gauge railway may properly be
weighed—such as the smaller width occupied, the sharper curves
admissible, the lighter, cheaper, and more easily-handled permanent way
and rolling-stock, the absence of much of the unsightliness of a line of
standard gauge, the ease with which, in the ease of gauges under 2 ft.,
the rails can be laid among and into existing buildings, and, lastly, the
convenience of being able to load and unload small wagons at the exact
point required without the intervention of carts or barrows.
In regard to the third head, it may be noticed as a curious fact, that
the strong and commendable predilections of English engineers for the
standard gauge, whenever obtainable, appear to lead them, where
circumstances compel the adoption of a narrower one, to advocate as
little reduction as possible. Now, the general result of foreign
experience goes strongly to show that narrow gauges exceeding 30 in.
approximate so closely to a full-size line as to forfeit, to a
considerable extent, the advantages of either system. This attitude is
probably due to ignorance of what can be done on the narrowest gauges,
for, in spite of the fact that many hundreds of miles of lines of less
than 2 ft. gauge are at work abroad, our professional advisers persist in
regarding such railways as mere toys. Yet a line of 15 in. gauge has been
at work in this country for twenty years, on which thousands of
passengers have been carried without a single accident, as many as 120 in
one train, over gradients as steep as 1 in 20, the goods traffic being
worked in all weathers up a long gradient of 1 in 11 without difficulty.
{48}
It would be well that our railway engineers should inform themselves more
fully on the subject, as otherwise their valuable assistance, which would
insure that narrow-gauge railways were constructed in a solid and
reliable manner, will be thrust on one side by the requirements of the
times, and the work will be wholly in the hands of the many manufacturers
of narrow-gauge plant, whose designs, being chiefly of what is known as
the portable class, are, for the most part, ill adapted for permanent
locomotive traffic. If so, it is likely that, in the push that may very
possibly be presently made for secondary railways, the results will not
be so satisfactory as would be the case if the work were carried out
under the direction of professional advisers.
Under the same head, attention may be directed to the fact that it is
entirely unnecessary to urge the adoption of a standard narrow gauge. The
circumstances of each case will decide the most suitable gauge, and it is
only where there is a possibility, as in the North Wales district, of a
wide ramification of connected narrow-gauge lines that the adoption of a
particular standard is of any importance.