RAILWAY GAUGES 
 
 -♦»»■ 
 
 SEYMOUR. 
 
 
A EEVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 THEORY OF NARROW GAUGES 
 
 AS APPLIED TO 
 
 mm TRUNK LINES OF RAILWAY 
 
 By SILAS SKYMOUR, 
 
 - - C." 
 
 GENKRAL CONSULTlNa ENOINKKH. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 D. VAN NOSTRAND, PUBLISHER, 
 
 33 MURKAY AMD .7 WaRRKX SJTKKKT 
 
 1871. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congres*, in the year 1871, by 
 
 SILAS SEYMOUR, 
 
 io the office of the Librarian of CongreM at Wasbingtun. 
 
RAILWAY GAUGES. 
 
 LETTER FBOU KB. HABSEALL 0. BOBEBTS. 
 
 Texas Pacific Railroad Company, 
 Office, corner "Warren and West Streets, 
 New York, Sept. 23, 1871. 
 
 Hon. Silas Seymour, 
 
 20 Nassau street^ Xeio York. 
 
 My Dear Sir, — I have the honor to send you here- 
 wi;.h, the report of our Chief Engineer, General Buell, on 
 the subject of narrow gauges, which is of deep interest to 
 me as the President of the Texas Pacific Railroad, a great 
 trunk line. 
 
 Before deciding so inoportant a matter as the adoption 
 of a gauge for our road, I feel the necessity of obtaining 
 all the information that can possibly be procured on this 
 subject ; and knowing your great experience whilst acting 
 as State Engineer of New York, as Chief Engineer of the 
 N. Y. and Erie Ruilroad, and other prosperous enter- 
 
4 RAILWAY GAUGES. 
 
 prises, ami as Consulting Engineer of the Union Pacific 
 llailroa«l, I am induced to solicit your written oi)inion, as 
 to whether a first-class raih'oad, of equal speed, comfort to 
 I)assengers, and capacity for freiglit, with tliose possessed 
 hy the gauges now in general use, can be built upon a 
 narrow gauge ; and if so, what gauge would you recom- 
 mend ? 
 
 J5y giving me your views, at your earliest convenience, 
 yuu will confer a great favor on, 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Marshall 0. Roberts. 
 
A REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NARROW GAUGE THEORY 
 
 ME. SEYMOUR'S REPLY. 
 
 Xo. 20 Nass-vc Sthkkt. 
 Nl-w York, Oct. IQth, 1871. 
 
 Dear Sir. — ITav'uisr recoivetl vour coiiimunicati«>n of the 
 23d ultimo, and the a:eouipanying re}>urt of your Chief 
 Engineer, during a somewhat protracted stay in Cana<la. I 
 have taken the Ubertv of deferrinff an answer until niv 
 return to mv olfice in this eitv. 
 
 I have read with some care the re[»ort of your Chief 
 Engineer, General G. P. Buell. in which he recommends 
 you to adopt a gauge of 3 ft. 6 inches in preference to 
 the 4 ft. 83 inch, or the 3 ft. gauge, for the Texas Pacific 
 Railroad, extending from the Mississippi A'alley to the 
 Pacific Ocean, a distance of about 1,500 miles. 
 
 The confidence and earnestness with which vour Chief 
 Engineer presents his views and urges his recommenda- 
 tions upon this important subject, show, beyond a doubt. 
 
O A REVIEW OF TOE NARBOW OAUOE THEORY. 
 
 that he is entirely honest in his convictions ; and they are 
 therefore entitled to full and fair consideration. 
 
 He admits, in his report, that your road will necessarily 
 come in competition with two other grand trunk lines to 
 the Pacific. And he claims that it " already has advan- 
 tage of the other routes in climate, distance, and economy 
 of construction." He also claims that *• the whole subject 
 hinges on the three points — speed (which is time), ca- 
 pacity, and economy:" and that these three points are 
 secured by the adoption of a gauge 1 foot 2h inches 
 narrower than the gauge of the two other grand com- 
 peting lines -, and which has been in general and success- 
 ful use throughout the civilized world, djring the past half 
 century. 
 
 The five following reasons are given for recommending 
 the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge, in preference to the one of 4 ft. 83 
 inches : — 
 
 ^^ First. — That in the construction of the road-bed, 
 etc., the difference will be 30 per cent, of cost of narrow 
 gauge. 
 
 '^Second. — That in the construction of the superstruc- 
 ture the difference will be 45 per cent, of cost of narrow 
 gauge. 
 
 " Third. — That, with proper construction of rolling 
 stock, a speed of 35 to 45 miles per hour can be attained 
 with perfect safety. 
 
 " Fourth. — ^That in the construction of rolling stock the 
 difference will be 50 to 55 per cent, of cost of narrow 
 gauge. 
 
A RETIEW OF TH£ NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 7 
 
 " Flflh — That in the loaded trains of mixed freights and 
 cars, on the 3 ft. G in. gauge, the percentage of dead weiirht 
 to load will be about jVir > while in the similar train on 
 the broad gauge road, the percentage of dead weight to 
 load is about jVo*" 
 
 I cannot concur with your Chief Engineer, either in the 
 premises which he assumes, or in the conclusions at which 
 he arrives. Although I will admit, that, assuming every- 
 thing else to be only equal, if either one of the reasons 
 which he gives can be satisfactorily proven true, he will 
 have gained his case. 
 
 The great difficulty, however, will be found to rest in 
 obtaining this satisfactory proof. Take, for example, the 
 construction of the road-bed. I should want to see two 
 parallel lines of equal length, and running over precisely 
 similar ground, constructed, one for the wide, and the other 
 for the narrow gauge, having equal margins for right of 
 way, drainage, slopes, bermes, etc.; and then the difference 
 in cost could be correctly ascertained. But. in the absence 
 of such a test, I cannot admit that there is anything like 
 the difference claimed for this one item, in favor of the 
 narrow gauge. 
 
 But as this test never has, and probably never will be 
 made, it only remains to show, by indirect or negative 
 demonstration, that the proposition cannot be true. 
 
 If I understand the proposition (which is stated some- 
 what ingeniously), it is, that if thenarro>- gauge road-bed 
 costs $10,000 per mile, the wide one will cost $13,000. 
 the difference being -j^, or about 23 per cent. 
 
 Perhaps I cannot illustrate my idea of the error better, 
 
 li 
 
8 A REVIEW OF THE XABBOW GAUGE THEOBY. 
 
 than by assuming an average mile of grading, masonry, 
 etc., to be fully completed, and ready for the superstruc- 
 ture of the wide gauge ; and then, by assuming that a 
 longitudinal section, extending the entire length, and one 
 foot two and a half inches in width, be taken out of the 
 centre, and the sides brought together so as to close up 
 the vacant space. We should then have a perfect road-bed 
 for the narrow gauge ; and the question to be determined 
 would be the relation which the longitudinal section, so 
 taken out, bears to the road-ljed as left complete for the 
 narrow gauge. 
 
 The side slopes of excavations and embankments, which 
 often contain more material than the prism, would, of 
 course, remain the same. The side drains, bermes, and 
 the wings, end walls, and coping of culverts, would also 
 remain the same. If truss-bridging occurs, the entire 
 masonry and superstructure of this would remain the same 
 for both gauges, for the reason that the width of bridges 
 required for passing cars of the widest gauge, has been 
 found none too great to allow of the requisite lateral bra- 
 cing to keep the bridge in perfect line and adjustment. 
 
 The road-bed for the wide gauge is generalh' fourteen 
 feet in width at grade, but I assume that twelve feet, in 
 good material, is quite ample. By taking out the longi- 
 tudinal section referred to, there would remain 10 ft. 92 
 inches for the narrow gauge road-bed ; but reducing this 
 width to ten feet, which, I presume, would be consid- 
 ered as equally ample, and the actual saving in the 
 prism would be only one-sixth, or about IG percent. 
 When we add to this reduced prism, the cost of the 
 
A REVIEW OF THE NAKBOW GAUGE THEORY. 9 
 
 other dementi!, which remain the same in ioth cases : 
 and consider that the shops, station-houses, platforms, 
 etc., etc.. would also remain substantially the same, the 
 actual percentage of saving in total cost would become so 
 small, as compared with the amount claimed by your En- 
 gineer, that his first reason for recommendii.g the adoption 
 of the narrow gauge loses nearly its entire force. 
 
 By the same process of reasoning, the second and fourth 
 reasons given b\' him, in which he claims that 4-3 per cent, 
 will be saved in cost of superstructure, and from 50 to 55 
 per cent, in cost of rolling stock, may be shown to be 
 equally erroneous. 
 
 The saving in cost of superstructure, the weight of rails 
 remaining the same, will be oi.\v the value of a section, 
 1 ft. 22 in. in length, cut from the centre of each t"c. 
 
 The requisite weiglit of iron rails is generally .> .apposed 
 to be governed by the weight resting upon each driver of 
 the engine: and as this weight creates the adhesion, and, 
 therefore, governs the power, it follows that, with the same 
 weight of train, it must be equal upon both gauges. If it 
 is claimed that the same amount of tonnage can be hauled 
 with greater economv. bv multiplvins trains, and usins: 
 lighter engines, then I maintain that the same principle can 
 be applied upon the wider gauge with equal economy : 
 and, therefore, that no greater weight of rails is required. 
 
 The savins in the cost of each car will be onlv the value 
 
 * • 
 
 of a longitudinal section of 1 ft. 22 in. taken from the 
 centre of the car, embracing only the top. bottom, and 
 two ends of the bodv, and the truck frames, and axles 
 below — and. perhaps, a still further trifling deduction on 
 
10 A RETIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORT. 
 
 account of the value of materials and labor claimed to be 
 saved in the construction of cars of the propose<^l diminu- 
 tive width ; but I claim that the additional number of cars 
 required to transport the same amount of tonnage, or 
 number of passengers, will make the cost quite as much, 
 if not more, for the narrow than for the wider gauge. 
 
 I claim also that the cost of locomotives, provided the 
 same amount of power is used, will be no greater for the 
 wide than for the narrow gauge. If there is any diflTer- 
 ence. it would certainly be in favor of the largest engine. 
 
 If these statements are correct, and I have no doubt 
 that they will be found substantially so, there can be no 
 more force in the second and fourth propositions sub- 
 mitted by your Chief Engineer, than there appears to be 
 in the first. 
 
 Having had some experience in the construction and 
 equipment of roads, with both the G ft. and 4 ft. 81 in. 
 gauges, the diflference in which is slightly greater than that 
 of the two gauges now under discussion, 1 am not pre- 
 pared to say, and do not claim that there is actually no 
 difference whatever in their first cost ; but I do say most 
 emphatically that this difference is very largely, although 
 probably inadvertently, overstated by the advocates of 
 this extreme narrow gauge theory. 
 
 When, in 1847, this matter was under discussion before 
 the Xew York & Erie Railroad Company, with reference 
 to the proposed change of gauge from 6 ft to 4 ft 8i 
 inches, I know that this item, of first cost of construction 
 and equipment, did not enter very largly into the argument ; 
 and my recollection is, that it was conceded by the respec- 
 
A REVIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 11 
 
 tire advocates of each gauge, that it could not be less than 
 five, nor more than ten, per cent, in favor of the narrow 
 gauge. 
 
 The third reason given by your Chief Enjrineer seems 
 to have verv little, if any, application to his argument in 
 favor of the narrow, as against the wide gauge. It ^eems 
 rather to be introduced for the purpose of showing, or 
 asserting, that a train upon the narrow gauge is capa- 
 ble of attaining as high a rate of speed as is reached 
 upon any first-class railroad. In putting this rate of speed 
 at ** 35 to 4o miles per hour with perfect safety. " I believe 
 him to be in error, because I do not think that such a rate 
 of speed can be adopted with perfect safety upon any road, 
 or with any gause. 
 
 With the track in perfect adjustment, and cars of pro- 
 portionate width and height, I see no reason why an engine 
 of sufficient power will not haul a train with as great 
 speed and safety upon a narrow, as upon a wide gauge. 
 Although I believe it is generally conceded that, in the 
 ordinary Condition of our roads and rolling stock, a wide 
 gauge is the safest for high rates of speed. 
 
 The fifth and last reason assi^jned by your Chief En- 
 gineer. is really the great argument generally advanced by 
 the advocates of the extreme narrow gauge theory. And 
 yet I firmly beheve it to be the weakest, and. if proper 
 tests could be applied, the most easily exploded, of any of 
 the arguments yet advanced in its favor. 
 
 But the great difficulty here, as in the other positions 
 assumed in favor of this theory, is to apply the proper test. 
 If we could have two parallel roads constructed, of equal 
 
 , / 
 
12 A RETIEW OF THE NARROW GXUdT THBOEI. 
 
 l^Dgths, gra<le3, and curves, but of •litfrineiLJt irauges; and 
 if we could have a given amount of pai.^S4^M^-er<K, and of the 
 saiii.? kinds of freight, to transport ryv^'rr each, within a 
 given tiin3, and could be allow^^l to« tinr ^xjjeriments, as 
 to th? most economical morle of ♦i*>iQt^ it, the problem 
 could verv soon be solved beyond a «|»i<e*tM*ia- 
 
 Or. if any main trunk line had been in<>iifJtrucled of the 
 gauge reeommended by your Chief Eci^aj-e^er, upon which 
 a mixed freight and passenger tratS«r h^d %>e^u carried on 
 during a series of years, the results* of \irtak'licouldbe com- 
 pared with those of any other simlLw line, having the 
 ordinar}' gauge, and doing the same amoKjuuiat and kind of 
 business, we might then be able to pr<>!T!une *4ome data upon 
 whioh to base an argument. 
 
 But as we have neither of these ex;Mflp]es before us, 
 every one is allowed to form hi* cwtim <)»piiiions from his 
 own stand-point; and to advocate thecsa isi ajjy manner, and 
 for any purpose he pleases, appareatij without any fear of 
 su:cessful contradiction. 
 
 It will be observed, however, thikii iht <eiitire argument 
 is merel}' speculative, and that it L* lbta*eri upon pure as- 
 sumptions, instead of upon fact.-* a:* uliey are known to 
 exist. 
 
 Your Chief Engineer assume, a.* Ms fifth and last 
 reason, that the percentage of di^l weight to load, 
 chargeable to the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge^, if 3V¥5 ^^^ that the 
 same item chargeable to the 4 ft, ^1 in- gauge, is y^^^, 
 making a difference of y^u in favtjr «>f tiie narrow gauge. 
 
 In another place he {lssume^i. tnat tlie percentage of 
 dead to Uve weight upon the 4 tt. Si ki- gauge, is 100 ; 
 
A REVIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 13 
 
 upon the 3 ft 6 in. gauge, 48; and upon the 3 ft. gauge, 
 5G. 
 
 lie also says : "In the above calculation I have used 
 for the 4 ft. 85 in. gauge, the box car now in uxe. For the 
 3 ft. 6 in. gauge, tho box car as presented in this i-e port. For 
 the 3 ft. gauge, the box car as constructed at the AVihning- 
 ton Car Works, /or the Denver and Uio Grande Railroad.'^ 
 I have italicised the portions of the above quotation to 
 which I wish to call particular attention; and will only 
 add the remark, that ''the box car now in use'^ has been 
 actually and thoroughly tested during many years, and 
 has been found to answer the purpose admirably well ; 
 ^^the box car as presented in this report," exists only in 
 theory and upon paper ; and ''the box car as constructed for 
 the Denver and Uio Grande Railroad," if really constructed, 
 has never been used suiHciently to test either its strength 
 or durability. 
 
 The terminal stations of the New York Central, and the 
 Erie railways, are within easy reach of your office. The 
 difference between their respective gauges is greater than 
 between the 3 ft. 6 in. and the 4 ft. 82 in. gauges. The 
 general character of their jDusiness is the same ; and it is 
 to be presumed that their rolling stock has been con- 
 structed, as to weight and dimensions, with due regard to 
 the width of their respective gauges. I would therefore 
 respectfully ask, whether it would not have been as well 
 for your Chief Engineer to have obtained from these 
 sources, some reliable data upon which to base his argu- 
 ments, instead of basing them so entirely upon mere as- 
 sumptions. 
 
li A BEYIEW OF THE 17ABR0W GAUGE THEORY. 
 
 But as he has not done so, and does not give any rea- 
 sons, either satisfactory or otherwise, for this apparent 
 discrepancy between dead and live weight upon the re- 
 spective gauges, I would respectfully ask him, why this 
 percentage is necessarily greater upon the 4 ft. 8* in. 
 gauge, and less upon the 3 ft. gauge, than it is upon the 
 3 ft. 6 in. gauge ? And will he, or any other of the many 
 advocates of this extreme narrow gauge theory, under- 
 take to demonstrate why a platform ten feet square, and 
 capable of upholding a given maximum weight, should 
 necessarily be of more than twice the weight and strength 
 of one, ten feet long and five feet wide, and capable of sus- 
 taining just one half of the same maximum weight ? And, 
 again, if an ordinary four-wheel truck, duly proportioned 
 to the size and weight of the respective loaded platforms, 
 were to be placed underneath each platform, why it should 
 necessarily require more than twice the power to move 
 the larger, that it does to move the smaller platform ? 
 
 These may be regarded as very trifling and unimpor- 
 tant questions. Yet, simple as they may appear, I am 
 very much mistaken if they do not reach, and effectually 
 undermine, the foundations of .this narrow gauge theory, 
 so far at least as it rests upon the great dead weight argu- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of any actual test, or other demonstra- 
 tion, I will venture the opinion that the larger platform, if 
 constructed only of equal proportionate strength, will be 
 found to be of less than twice the weight of the smaller 
 one ; and also, that less than twice the power will move 
 it. 
 
A BEVIEW OF THE NARBOW GAUGE THEORY. 15 
 
 If there be even a slight possibility that my opinion is 
 correct, then why not try, at least, this very simple and 
 cheap experiment at once, instead of expending millions of 
 dollars upon what must, at best, be regarded as a very 
 questionable theory? The trial may be made at almost 
 any time, upon any road, and with any gauge, by merely 
 making a proper allowance for the unnecessary length 
 and size of the axles underneath the smaller platform; and 
 the experimental platforms may be of any relative width 
 required to furnish the superficial area, or bearing surface 
 claimed for the respective gauges. 
 
 This simple test would, in my opinion, decide the whole 
 question, for the very simple reason, that these experi- 
 I mental platforms and trucks are the foundations which 
 sustain all the superincumbent weight, and transmit it di- 
 rectly to Ihe track underneath — whether this weight be in 
 the form of additional length of platform, or of the super- 
 structure of the car; or whether it be in the shape of pay- 
 ing freight and passengers. 
 
 I maintain, that the double truck flat, or platform car, 
 is only an extension of these end platforms, properly con- 
 nected together, and supported under the centre by a ten- 
 sion rod of iron ; and that the box car, and the passenger 
 and saloon coaches, are only these very platforms and 
 their extensions, sided up and covered over in a manner, 
 and with a finish appropriate to * their respective uses. 
 J And it is quite evident to my mind, that this superstruc- 
 ture above the platform, which encloses the space required 
 to protect the load, need be no heavier upon the wider 
 gauge, than the proportion justly due to the increased ton- 
 
 
16 A REVIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 
 
 nage,or number of passengers which it is designed to enclose 
 and protect. If doubts exist upon this point, however, tlic 
 matt or may be very easily settled by extending the scope 
 of the proposed experiment with the platforms, so as to 
 include fully completed box and passenger cars, of the 
 length, width, and height proposed for the respective 
 gauges. 
 
 But admitting, for the moment, that all the advantages 
 claimed for the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge are, or appear to be, justly 
 due to that gauge, I should still hold, that, with the ex- 
 ception of the slight percentage chargeable to the wider 
 gauge for additional cost of construction, all these advan- 
 tages can be realized with greater economy and safety, by 
 using the same character of rolling stock upon the 4 ft. 
 85 in. gauge. And that these advantages, if realized upon 
 the wider gauge, would far overbalance the additional cost 
 of construction. 
 
 It has been shown that the percentage chargeable to 
 the additional cost of construction for the wider gauge, is 
 very small, probably not exceeding 5 to 10 per cent. In 
 order to adapt the rolling stock, which your Chief Engi- 
 neer recommends, to the wider gauge, it would only require 
 the lengthening of each axle 1 ft. 2 2 inches. And the 
 weight of this extra length of axle, and its cost, I claim 
 to be the only items which, under this arrangement, can 
 justly be charged, either as extra dead weight, or extra 
 cost. 
 
 The advantages which I would claim for a road, thus 
 constructed and equipped, over the one recommended by 
 your Chief Engineer, would, in brief, be these : 
 
A REVIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 17 
 
 1 . If commercial advantages are to be gained by ex- 
 changing cars with connecting Hues, you would be hi a 
 condition to secure them. 
 
 2. A train, Hke a wagon, may be hauled much easier 
 with wlieels of large than small diameter. This width of 
 gauge allows of considerably larger wheels, under its 
 ordinary rolling stock, than are admissible upon the narrow 
 gauge ; but with this proposed reduced height of cars upon 
 the wider gauge, the wheels may be made so much larger, 
 that a very material saving will be etlected in power. 
 
 3. Having a greater base of track in proportion to the 
 height and width of your cars, the irregularities in the 
 track would be less apparent ; and you could certainly 
 make as fast time with greater safety, or faster time with 
 equal safety than you could upon the narrower gauge. 
 
 4. The height and width of train being less than that 
 in general use upon the wider gauge, the atmospheric 
 resistance would also be proportionately less ; and you 
 could make faster time with the tiame amount of power 
 than is made upon the ordinary 4 ft. 82 in. railroads. 
 
 6. You would relieve the entire question, or at least 
 the wider gauge portion of it, from the enormous load 
 of extra dead weight which it has heretofore been com- 
 pelled by its adversaries to carry, because under this ar- 
 rangement it would evidentl}' be reduced to merely the 
 weight due to the extra length of axles. 
 
 6. If time and experience should happen to demonstrate 
 jthat your Chief Engineer is wrong in his present convic- 
 
 1 / 
 
18 A REVIEW OF THE NARBOW GAUGE THEORY. 
 
 tions upon this subject, you could correct the mistake 
 hereafter at much less expense than you could if the 
 grading, masonry, superstructure, rolling stock, kc, were 
 all adapted to the narrow gauge. 
 
 If other reasons were wanting, I believe that those 
 already given would fully justify the expenditure of the 
 very small percentage of additional cost ; and also the 
 hauling of the very small additional amount of dead iceight 
 whicli would be fairly chargeable to this arrangement. 
 
 I have not deemed it important to notice particularly 
 that portion of your Chief Engineer's report in which he 
 compares the 3 ft. G in. with the 3 ft. gauge ; neither 
 have I paid any attention to his statements, figures, and 
 illustrations, respecting the size, weight, and proportions 
 of engines, cars, iron rails, &c., or to the centre of gravity, 
 angle of stability', and laws of equilibrium, &c., &c.. for 
 the reason that I prefer that the advooate?^ of all these 
 extreme narrow gauge theories upon different gauges, 
 should settle these details among themselves : and. also, 
 for the further reason, that, if my conclusions are right, 
 and theirs are wrong, in relation to the general principles 
 which lie at the foundations of the entire narrow gauge 
 theory, then these details are, comparatively speaking, of 
 very little consequence. 
 
 I will venture the remark, however, in passing, that, if 
 the comparisons which your Chief Engineer institutes be- 
 tween the 3 ft. 6 in. and the 3 ft. gauges are well founded, 
 they would not only go very far towards weakeubig 
 his argument against the 4 ft. 82 in. gauge ; but they 
 would, if carried sufficiently far, be in great apparent 
 
A REVIEW or THE NAEEOW GAUGE THEORY. 19 
 
 danger of «lc.stroyiMji the prestige claimed for the little 
 Festiniog road in Wales. 
 
 Your Chief Engineer ha? omitte<l to urge one argument 
 in favor of narrow gauge railroads, which is generallv 
 urged with great pertinacity by the advocates of that 
 theor}'. althuugli he fully endorses the principle. I refer 
 to the advantage claimed for passing through curves. He 
 savs: "I concede the 3 ft. gaui^e has an advantage in turninjr 
 acute curves ; but this is no argument; for, whatever niiglit 
 be the gauge of the track, I sliould locate tlio line of ruad 
 as straight as pojsible, at the same time giving the cpios- 
 tion of economv due consideration." 
 
 Xow. I respectfully submit, that, if the narrow gauge 
 has the advantage claimed for it in this respect, it is a vevy 
 .strong argiuiient in its favor, for the reason that the 
 maximum load which can l>e hauled over any railroad 
 with a given amount of power, is. with the present ar- 
 rangement of machinery, governed as much by the increased 
 resistance upon its curves, as by the increased relati\ e 
 resistance upon its grades. And. therefore, if this resist- 
 ance upon curves is less upon the narrow than it is upon 
 tlie wider jrauire. it certainlv is entitled to the full benefit 
 of the argument. 
 
 But I believe this argument, like most of the others 
 advanced in support of the narrow gauge theory, to be 
 entirely- fallacious. 
 
 There are two kinds of resistances which a curve im- 
 poses upon an engine and train while passing through it. 
 that are not encountered upon a straight line. One of 
 these is the impingement of the flange of the wheel upon 
 
 I . I 
 
20 A nEVIEW OF THE XAKROW GAUGE THEORY. 
 
 tho oiitor rail, while overcoming the direct, or tangential 
 tendency of the train : and the other, is the sliding of the 
 wheels upon one rail, a distance equal to the difference in 
 the lengths of the two rails throughout the curve. 
 
 The resistance due to the impingement of the flange 
 against the rail, is greatest upon curves of the smallest 
 radii, and naturallv diminishes as the radius increases, for 
 the reason that tlie angle of impingement becomes less. 
 Now, with a centre line of given radius, it is evident that 
 the farther the outer rail of the curve is removed from this 
 centre line, the greater will be the radius of the curve of 
 tlic rail upon wiiich this resistance occurs; and hence, 
 the wider tiie gauge, the less will be the resistance. 
 
 The amount of extra power required, at any one time, 
 to overcome the resistance caused by the sliding of the 
 wheels which sustain one half tlie load, may be regarded 
 as the same upon one gauge as the other ; although the 
 length of time during which, with a given rate of speed, 
 this extra power must be exercised, is in proportion to the 
 difference in length of the outer and inner rails of the 
 curve ; and this difference will, of course, be slightly in 
 favor of the narrower gauge. 
 
 During the discussion of the gauge question beforo the 
 Erie Company, the opinion of Mr. Robert Stephenson, as 
 given before the Parliamentary Commission, was quoted 
 by the advocates of the narrow gauge, to jn'ove that the 
 resistance was greatest upon curves of the wide gauge. 
 
 The following question was put to Mr. Stephenson by 
 the Gauge Commissioners : " Is the lateral friction greater 
 with one gauge than with the other ? " 
 
A REVIEW OF TUK NARHOW GAVGE THEOKY. 21 
 
 Answer, by Mr. R. Sloplieii.sou : " Any lateral friction 
 that arises must be greater ; for it arises from tlie angle of 
 the wheel ajrainst the line, aiul it must be greater with the 
 wide than with the narrow gauge.*' 
 
 This propositiiju was answered, and its error demon- 
 strated so efVeetuallv, bv Mr. S. S. Tost, who was then 
 acting as Engineer and Superintendent of the Eastern 
 Division of tlie road, that I shall take the liberty of ap- 
 pendivig his argument for your information. 
 
 I have thus ^iven vou. at some lemrth. mv views in 
 relation to the .'oeommendations of General Buell. your 
 Chief Engineer, as contained in his report : and I fear 
 that these views, in some instances, may have been ex- 
 pressed more franklv, and with irreater candor, than mav 
 prove to be entirely agreeable, either to yourself, or to 
 him. 
 
 I was educated, as you are aware, in the Broad Gauge 
 I^chool. having spent the early portion of my professional 
 life upon what is now the Erie Railway, and its branches 
 and extensions, of which Comi)anv vou were at that lime 
 an active and prominent Director. You can. therefore, 
 make such allowances as you may think proper, for early 
 prejudices, in what I have said or may say upon this sub- 
 ject. I am not conscious, however, of entertaining a feeling 
 either of prejudice or of interest in the matter, my only 
 desire being, if possible, to arrive at the truth. 
 
 You have done me the honor to ask for my written 
 opinion: "as to whether a tirst-class railroad, of equal 
 speed, comfort to passengers, and capacity for freight, with 
 
22 A RETIEW OF THE NAREOW GAUGE THEORY. 
 
 those possessed by the gauges now in general use, ean be 
 built upon a narrow gauge ; and if so, what gauge would 
 vou recommend ? " 
 
 In discussing a question of this importance it should be 
 borne in mind, that the general adoption of the 4 ft. 82 in. 
 gauge, both in this country and in Europe, is not the re- 
 sult of accident, or the want of careful study and investi- 
 gation. 
 
 Wlien Mr. George Stephenson first conceived the great 
 idea of adapting locomotive steam power to purposes of 
 railroad transportation, it is true that the controlling idea 
 of his practical mind was. not so much the establishment 
 of the most useful and economical gauge, as it was the 
 substitution of steam for horse power ; but the roads, and 
 the wagons upon and to which this new motive power 
 was to be applied, had already been constructed of the 4 
 ft. 82 in. gauge ; and a long experience had shown them 
 to be the best and most economical that could be devised 
 for the use of horse power. Mr. Stephenson found no 
 difficulty in adapting his machiuer\'^ and power to that 
 gauge ; and he therefore adopted and advocated it during 
 his long and eventful life. It therefore very soon became 
 the ruling gauge of England ; and, as the first locomotives 
 that were used in the United States, were manufactured in 
 England, it very naturalh' became the ruUng gauge in 
 this country. 
 
 At a subsequent period, the subject of gauges un- 
 derwent a most searching investigation in England, by a 
 Parliamentary Commission, liefore which Mr. Brunei and 
 other distinguished engineers advocated a gauge of much 
 
A RETIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 23 
 
 frreater wMth. while Mr. Stephenson and others adhered 
 to the original gaiige of 4 ft. 85 in. : and this gauge was 
 finally approved by the Commission. 
 
 At a still later day the question of gauges was thorough- 
 ly dis^jussed hv some of the best enjrineerinfr talent in this 
 country, before the Xew York and Erie Railroad Com- 
 pany : and that Company, being composed of som? of the 
 most practical and enlightened men in this city, after hear- 
 ing the most exhaustive reports and arguments upon the 
 subject, decided to adhere to the gauge of ft., which hal 
 previously been adopted. 
 
 At another time the Legislatures of New Jersey and 
 Ohio passe<i laws establishing the gauge of railroads, in 
 their ivspective States, at 4 ft. 10 in., for the purpose, it 
 is believed, of preventing an interchange of rolling stock 
 between their own roads, and those of adjoinina: States. 
 This restriction, however, if not repealed, has been in a 
 great measure superseded by the very questionable, if not 
 dangerous device, of the h^oad-tread or compromise wheel, 
 which allows the same car to run over both the 4 ft. 82 in. 
 and the 4 ft. 10 in. sauces. 
 
 In many of the Southern States, and also in Canada, 
 gauges of 5 and 02 ft. have been adopted to a great ex- 
 tent, and used successfully durincr manv vears. 
 
 The original charter of the Union Pacific Railroad Com- 
 pany, provided that the President of the United States 
 should decide upon the width of gauge for that road. 
 Being then in the employ of the Government, at Wash- 
 ington. I was requested by the Secretary of the Interior 
 to recommend a gauge to be adopted by the President. 
 I accordingly recommended the 5 ft. gauge, which was 
 
24 A REVIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 
 
 approved. Congress, however, changed it afterwards, hv 
 special re:?olution, to 4 ft. 82 in.; the argument urged in 
 favor of the change being, that all eastward connecting 
 railroads were of that gauge ; and it would therefore 
 be fatal to the enterprise, to make a break of gauge at the 
 Misvsouri River. 
 
 In view of all these fiiets, it must be conceded that a 
 great deal of thought, investigation, experience and legis- 
 ation have already been bestowed upon the subject : but 
 in no instance, so far as n)y knowledge extends, has the 
 idea Vjeen seriously entertained or advocated, of reducing 
 the <rau<re of main trunk lines of railwav. below the limit 
 of 4 ft. 82 in., until the present agitation of the subject has 
 given prominence to that idea. 
 
 And now, if this theory of extreme narrow irauges for 
 all classes of railroads, shall prove to be well founde<l. it 
 certainly becomes us to look about, and see whether the 
 same radical error has not crept into our other metho'is of 
 locomotion, transportation, and the various applications of 
 natural and mechanical power. Whether our heavy draft 
 horses, and clumsy carts and wagons, could not profitably 
 be exchanged for a greater number of the more diminu- 
 tive Shetland pony, with carriages to fit ; or. perhaps, for 
 something approacaing still nearer to our single tracked 
 wheelbarrow or velocipede. Whether our State canals 
 should not have been made narrower instead of wider. 
 Whether the streets in the lower portion of our city 
 should not be diminished instead of enlarged in width. 
 Whether our steamers and sailing vessels should not have 
 retained their original dimensions, instead of growing to 
 
A BETIEW OF THE NABROW GAUGE THEORY. 25 
 
 their present enormous proportions. AVhether five hotels 
 had not better be constructed, with accommodations for 
 one hundred people each, instead of one single hotel with 
 accommodations for five hundred people. And whether 
 twenty stationary engines of five-horse power each, had 
 not better be employed to do the work of one single en- 
 gine of a hundred-horse power. 
 
 It is certainly important that these vital principles should 
 be thoroughly examined ; and if it shall be found that 
 we have been living, during the past half century, under a 
 radical mistake or illusion, it is hifrli time that the mi?i;ike 
 should be corrected, and the illusion dispelled. 
 
 It is quite evident, to my own mind, that this entire 
 subject of railwav irauires. lias become too much confused 
 and h»efogged bv technical phrases, scientific terms, and 
 gUttering generalities. "When stripped of these, it iKi-comes 
 simply a question of sound judgment, and good sirong 
 common sense. 
 
 Everv iiitellifrent fiirmer un«lerstands that a load of hav 
 will tip over easier than a load of stone, simply because it 
 is more top-heavy: but if you put your " centre of gravity," 
 "angle of stability." and *' laws of equilibrium"" at him, 
 he will become confused at once. 
 
 Every intelligent teamster, or carter, know.< that he can 
 haul a given quantity of tonnage a given distance, cheaper, 
 if not quicker, by using a good, strong, double team with 
 one suitable wagon : instead of by hauling, with the same 
 team, two wagons of half the capacity each, one behind 
 the other : or instead of dividing his team, and attaching 
 one horse sepjiraudy to each of the smaller wai.ous: simply 
 
 I 
 
26 A BEVIEW OF THE NARROW GWCtK TmBCffil. 
 
 because, in the case of the two smaller wtis^m^, one be- 
 hind the other, he has twice the number o-facsk^ to grease, 
 and their friction to overcome ; and at Itea^lt one half of 
 his load Ls too far behind his team to l)e haiaikd easily; 
 and in the case of two single horses hite!i«^'l ittc* two smaller 
 wagon*, he not only has twice the nnirih^r of axles or 
 journal-, but he has an extra driver to piaT ; but if you 
 should put the great dead weight and extma power argu- 
 mentir at him with all their force, iQn to Wixf Ite would not 
 understand a word vou might sav. 
 
 And .still, the great principles which un-lieT^'e and should 
 govern the construction and management ^o^ railroads, are 
 simply these, or others equally practical Im tlteir applica- 
 tion, and nothing more. 
 
 Applying these principles, as well a.<5 T a'^'m able, to the 
 specific question of gauges now under eO'n:*S''S^ra1ion ; and 
 availing myself of a somewhat exten*Ietl anD-'i varied ex- 
 perience, both in the construction and lamsuiagenient of 
 railroa-U. I am forced to the conclusion, tlmi a first-class 
 railroad cannot be constructed and operair..^S with a gauge 
 narrower tlian 4 ft. 83 in . that wilU if 4(njTjg a large 
 and miscelltmeous business, combine alS ibe elements 
 specific] in tlie interrogatory contained m y^mr letter — to 
 wit. *' equfd speed, comfort to passenger?. amHi capacity for 
 freight '* — with as much facility ami eecHMMnj a-s the same 
 elements can be combined upon the 4 ft. 81 btj- or even a 
 broader gauge. 
 
 The .*ubject, as presented to my minifL lii?.*i naturally 
 divided itself ijito the following general prwpr.^agtioiis : 
 
 \st. Comparative cost of construction. 
 
A REVIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 27 
 
 2d. Comparative facility and economy in packing or 
 loading. 
 
 3tf. Comparative economy in hauling. 
 
 4^/i. Comparative advantages of a gauge common to 
 connecting lines. 
 
 As to the first proposition, I am prepared to admit that 
 the advantages are slightly in favor of the narrow gauge, 
 hut to nothing like the extent claimed hy the advocates of 
 the extreme narrow gauge theory. 
 
 As to the second proposition, I claim that the 
 advantages are so greatly in favor of the wider gauge, that 
 they very far outweigh the additional cost of construction. 
 
 I believe that the width of rolling stock, adapted to 
 the 4 ft. 8 J- in. gauge, can, if proper study and care are 
 used in details, be constructed cheaper and of less weiglit, 
 in proportion to its comfort and capacity, than rolling 
 stock of the same relative width, strength, durability, 
 comfort, and capacity can be constructed, and run with 
 equal speed, economy, and safety upon a narrower gauge. 
 
 Tlie comparisons that are constantly being made by 
 the advocates of the extreme narrow gauge theory, be- 
 tween the weight and capacity of the rolling stock re- 
 quired for their favorite gauges, and that now in general 
 use upon the wider gauge railways, both in this country 
 and in Europe, is exceedingly unjust tovranls the 
 broader gauge; for the reason that the extreme nihiinium 
 of cost and weight has been studied and appro[)riated 
 for their own gauges ; and every incli of space is assumed 
 as being occupied during the entire trip with Ike or pay- 
 
28 A RETIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 
 
 ing weight ; while, for the wider gauges, they adopt for 
 the eoniparisoii, a miscellaneous outfit, made up without 
 strict regard to these elements of cost and weight, and 
 used promiscuously for way and through business — some- 
 times full, sometimes partially loaded, and sometimes en- 
 tirely empty, according to the nature of the traffic, or the 
 circumstances which control the business of the road. 
 
 They seem to imagine that all these contingencies 
 would be avoided upon the narrower gauge, even if it 
 were doing the same kind of business. 
 
 But let the test, whicli I have suggested in another place, 
 be fairly applied to this question, and I am perfectly con- 
 tent to abide the result. 
 
 I am prepared to admit, that a great deal of unnecessary 
 and non-paying weight, as well as useless and injurious 
 friction, are constantly being hauled over our railroads. 
 And I trust that the ventilation which this subject is now 
 undergoing, will have a tendency to correct this particular 
 evil, even if nothing better shall result from it. I might 
 illustrate this proposition by referring to the enormous 
 and unnecessary weight of some of our passenger, 
 drawing-room, and sleeping cars, in proportion to the 
 number of passengers which they .accommodate. Many 
 of these are nearly as heavy as the engine that hauls 
 them ; and they are often obliged to be coupled as near 
 the engine as possible, in order to be moved at all. 
 
 I cannot admit, however, that this evil is in any degree 
 chargeable to the width of track. It results entirely from 
 the excessively hroad gauge of the managers of some of 
 our railways ; and of the caterers to the public taste, who 
 are allowed to come between the public, and the stock- 
 
A RETIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 29 
 
 holders who construct the road, and furnish the power to 
 haul these cars ; and this evil would be as likely to occur 
 upon one gauge as another. 
 
 As to the third proposition, with reference to the com- 
 parative cost and application of locomotive power upon 
 railways of different gauges, I will respectfully refer you, 
 for actual results upon the 6 ft. gauge, to the appended 
 extract from General McCallum's Report, upon the New 
 York and Erie Railroad ; and for actual results upon the 
 4 ft. 85 in. gauge, to a communication which has been 
 kindly furnished me by Mr. H. Stanley Goodwin, Assistant 
 General Superintendent of the Lehigh Valley Railroad, 
 which will also be found in the Appendix. But, for the 
 narrow gauges, I can, unfortunately, refer you only to 
 theoreiical and assumed results ; and I do not regard these 
 as being sufficiently reliable, either to warrant a comparison 
 with known results upon the broader gauges, or to justify 
 any conclusions that might result from such a comparison. 
 
 From General McCallum's Report it appears : 
 
 1. That an engine of 66,050 lbs. total weight, and 
 having 40,050 lbs. weight upon the driving wheels, hauled 
 a train consisting of 100 loaded cars, weighing 3,423,150 
 lbs., over a mile of road, on an ascent of 6.14 ft., and a 
 curve of 5,730 ft. radius, in lU minutes. 
 
 2. That the same engine hauled a train of 22 loaded 
 cars, weighing 753,082 lbs., over a mile of road, on an 
 ascent of 00| ft., and a curve of 1,146 ft. radius, in 6^ 
 minutes. 
 
 3. That the same engine hauled a train of 25 loaded 
 cars, weighing 870,250 lbs., over one mile of road, on an 
 
80 A REVIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 
 
 ascent of 52 ft., and a curve of 1,14G ft. radius, in 9 
 minutes. 
 
 4. That the same engine hauled a train of 23 headed 
 cars, weighing 800,330 lbs., over one mile of road, on an 
 ascent of 60 ft., and a curve of 1.G37 ft. radius, in 5 
 
 minutes. 
 
 5. That the same engine hauled a train of 24 loaded 
 cars, weighing 821,544 lbs., over one mile of road on an 
 ascent of CO ft., without curvature, in 5^ minutes. 
 
 G. That the same engine took the same train up the 
 next mile, on a grade of 58 ft., and through a curve of 
 05'' per 100 ft., in 82 minutes. 
 
 It appears from Mr. Goodwin's letter : 
 
 1. Tliat the engines in ordinary use upon the Lehigh 
 Valley road, are of two kinds : 1st, the ordinary 10 wheel 
 engine, weighing from 7G,400 lbs. to 78,000 lbs. with fire 
 and steam, of which from 61, GOO to 63,000 lbs. weight is 
 on the G drivers, and the remainder upon the leading 
 truck; 2d, the other kind of engines called "Consolida- 
 tion," weigh 8G,000 lbs. with fire and steam, of which 
 7G,000 is on 8 drivers of 4 ft. diameter. 
 
 2. That the average weight of freight cars, in general 
 use upon that road, is 3yV tons each, and that the aver- 
 age useful load which the; carry is 5y^y tons each, mak- 
 ing 8y y tons of car and load.* 
 
 3. That the heaviest traffic upon that road is upon 46 
 miles, where the grade is either level, or descending at the 
 
 • Please note here the discrepancy between facts and assumptions. 
 
A REVIEW OF THE NAKBOW GAUGE THEORY. 31 
 
 rate of 20 ft. per mile, and that upon this portion there 
 are many curves of 955 ft. radius. 
 
 4, That upon this portion, an engine can haul down, 
 with the same ease, the number of loaded cars that the 
 same engine will haul up empty. 
 
 5. That this number averages in good weatlicr, 150 cars, 
 hauled with the 10 wheel engines, and in some cases has 
 reached 200. 
 
 G. That the " Consolidation" engines have hauled 250 
 cars over the same road, '• and could probably exceed 300 
 before reaching the engines* capacity.'' 
 
 7. That upon 12 miles of another portion of the road 
 there is a grade of 96 ft. per mile, with curves of 955 ft. 
 radius. Up this grade the 1 wheel engines haul 22 loaded 
 cars, weighing 194 tons ; and the "Consolidation " engines 
 haul 33 loaded cars, weighing 290 tons. 
 
 8. That upon an ascending grade of 146 ft. per mile 
 for 2 miles in length, the 1'^ -heel engines haul 37 empty 
 cars, weighing 122 tons, ana ihe "Consolidation'' engines 
 haul 55 empty cars, weighing 182 tons. 
 
 The foregoing synopsis of general results contains, per- 
 haps, all the information upon this point that is required 
 for the purpose of instituting a comparison between the 
 relative cost of power upon the G ft. and the 4 ft. 82 in. 
 gauges respectively ; and also to deduce a result which 
 would logically follow, upon a comparison between the 4 
 ft. 82 in. gauge, and the narrower gauges. 
 
 But I will leave the labor of such a comparison to be 
 performed by the advocates of the extreme narrow gauge 
 
82 ▲ REVItW OF THE NARROW QAUGE THEORY. 
 
 theory, an«l close what I have to say upon this branch of 
 the subject with the single remark, that until this is satis- 
 factorily done ; or until such other practical tests are ap- 
 plied to the narrow gauges as will demonstrate, beyond a 
 question, their superiority in this, as well as in the other 
 respects referred to. they should not expect, with so much 
 apparent confidence; that their favorite system will so soon 
 supersede the one which has been in use so long and so 
 successfully. 
 
 As to the fourth proposition, with reference to con- 
 tinuous gauges, it l»eing more of a commercial than an 
 engineering question. I would not speak with so much 
 eonlideuce. although I should, at the present time, and 
 under all the circumstances, probably recommend the 
 4 ft. 82 in. gauge, as the standard gauge of the countr}'. 
 I have never been an advocate, however, of continuous 
 gauges upon main trunk connecting lines of railway, 
 merely for the purpose of avoiding the necessity of chang- 
 ing cars, and breaking bulk, 
 
 I believe that the great damage and inconvenience 
 growing out of an interchange of cars upon thousands of 
 miles of connecting, and in many instances hostile or com- 
 peting lines, very often overbalance any good, or real 
 saving to the stockholders, that may result from it ; al- 
 though, like all other rules, it probably has its exceptions. 
 If the truth could be ascertained, I have no doubt 
 that the present mania for harmonizing gauges, and con- 
 solidating lines, is more the result of a desire, on the part 
 of ambitious managers, to overreach competing lines, by 
 the establishment of agencies and other influences very 
 far in advance of them, than any saving in the actual cost 
 
A REVIEW or THE NAUKOW GAUGE THEOItY. 33 
 
 of transportation, that, as a general rule, can l>e sliowu to 
 result tVoiH it. 
 
 Iiiasuuich. however. a.s tlie opinion of a practical railway 
 manager of high reputation. an«l of a much larger cxjuTi- 
 ence in such matters than my own. should have n)uch 
 greater weight than any that I wouM venture to advance, 
 I will append an extract from a veryal»le and comprehen- 
 sive report made in 1856, to the Xew York and Erie Kail- 
 road Coni])anv. bv General D. C ^[cCallunl. then (leneral 
 Superintendent of that road, and afterwards, during the 
 late re hellion, the General Manager of all the military 
 railroads in the United States : and as the same rei)ort 
 contains, in the same connection, important facts and argu- 
 ments hearing upon the subject now under consideration, 
 relative to the application of pov.er : the comi)arative 
 economy of transportation upon dillerent gauges, and the 
 relation which the width of gauge sh<nild Ijear to the 
 amount of business to l>e done. I will also take the hltertv 
 of embodying these in the extract, for your information. 
 
 Having expressed an opinion so decidedly against wJ. 
 gauges of a width less than 4 ft. 82 inches, it will probably 
 be regarded as supererogatory for me to furnish an 
 answer to the concluding part of your question, to wit. 
 " and if so. what jraujie would vou recommend ?"' 
 
 I trust, however, that I may be permilLed to state 
 the reasons which influenced me in recommending the 
 gauge of the Union Pacific Railroad and its branches, to 
 be established at five feet. 
 
 I believed then, and new Ijelieve, that experience has 
 demonstrated that the width of rolling stock in general 
 use upon the 4ft. 82 in. gauge, is none too wide to afford 
 
84 A REVIEW or THE XARROW GACGE THEOIIY. 
 
 the iiores^ary arnl proper comfort to passeiij:^ors, an«l 
 stowjit^c capacity for the average ruling chisses of IVeiglit 
 that are generally otTcrel for transportation on the main 
 trunk lines of railroa«l in tliis country. I also believe that 
 the gauge of 4 ft, 82 in. has been fotuul somewhat too 
 narrow to allord the requisite base for this wi<lth of rolling 
 stock, to insure a full measure of economy and safety, par- 
 ticularly if run at high rates of speed over our somewhat 
 imperfect and uneven railroad tracks. 
 
 This disproportion between the widths of gauge and 
 rolling stock, has undoubtedly]grown out of an elfort on the 
 part of the 4 ft. 8.^ in. gauge managers, to reach, as nearly 
 as possible, the width of freight and passenger cars used 
 upon the wider gauges of 02 and G feet, and thus afford (ap- 
 j)roxiniately at lea.st) the .same "comfort to passengers 
 and capacity for freight" that are claimed for these wider 
 gauges. In doing this, I think they have slightly over- 
 reached the verge of safety, if not of strict economy ; 
 and, therefore, a gauge of live feet placed under the .same 
 rolling stock, wcnild. to some extent, correct this error. 
 Inasmuch, therefore, as I then believed that the great 
 pioneer line, extending from the Missouri River to the 
 Pacific Ocean, would, for many years at least, have no 
 competitor ; and that it could, therefore, very well afford 
 to run and control its own rolling stock ; and that other 
 Pacific lines, when built, would, in all probability, follow its 
 example, I had no hesitation in recommending the 5 ft. 
 gauge. 
 
 The foregoing may bo regarded as only a demonstration, 
 based upon general principles, of the fallacy of the extreme 
 
A REVIEW OF THE NARROW GAUGE THEORY. 35 
 
 narrow gauge theory, as applio«l to all main tnmk lines of 
 railway in this country. 
 
 AVhen these principles are applied parti«Milarly to the 
 proposed Texas Pacific Railroad. 1 think thn* will hi 
 Ibuud to possess peculiar force. 
 
 Your road, when completed, will necessarily come into 
 direct competition, for the great trans-continental traffi"^. 
 with the Central, Union, and Kansas Pacific Railroads, 
 which are already constructed ; and whi<^h. with their 
 numerous connections eastward of the Missouri River, form 
 continuous lines from the Pacific Coast, at San Franci>co. 
 to the great commercial ports upon the Atlantic sea- 
 board. 
 
 The Xorthern Pacific Railway is now uinler construc- 
 tion, from Puget Sound, upon the Pacific, to our great 
 inland Lakes, and thence by numerous connecting lines to 
 the Atlantic coast. And it will therefore very soon be- 
 come another formidable comi»etitor for this immense 
 trafiic. 
 
 The Canada Pacific Railroad will also, in all probabiUty, 
 very soon be constructed, and tV)rm a continuous line from 
 Puget Sound, to the head of deep ocean steam navigation 
 upon the St. Lawrence River at Quebec; thus forming an- 
 other competitor for the traffic across the continent. 
 
 These great competing lines will all have an unbroken 
 gauge of 4 ft. 82 in. throughout their entire length, from 
 Ocean to Ocean. 
 
 I would, therefore, regard the commercial argument in 
 favor of an unbrokeu gauge, of at least equal width, for 
 the Texas Pacific Railroad, extending as it will from San 
 Diego on the Pacific, to the Mississippi River, and thence 
 
36 A REVIEW OF THE SABBOW GAUGE THEORY. 
 
 with its connections, eastward to the Athmtic Ocean, as 
 lieing entirely unanswerable — not upon the ground that it 
 can be defended upon strictly scientific and abstract prin- 
 ciples : but for the more practical reason, that this theory 
 of fundirig gauges, as well as stocks, has become the 
 popular and settled policy of the country, with reference 
 tu our great competing lines of railway ; and as such, is 
 looked upon with f^ivor. not only by those who furnish 
 capital to construct these lines, but by those who provide 
 business for them after construction. 
 
 If. therefore, the construction of your road should be 
 imdertaken ujion an inferior gauge: and one that would 
 necessarily form a break with all its railroad connections 
 eait of the Mississippi River. I should very much fear that 
 capitalists would hesitate to furnish the means required 
 for its construction: and that, if constructed, the travelling 
 public, as well as the heavy freighting interests of the 
 countrv. would discriminate larjrelv asfainst it. 
 
 Thankinix vou for the confidence which vou have mani- 
 tested in my opinion, upon a subject of this magnitude : 
 and hoping that the views herein expressed may aid you 
 to some extent, in arriving at a correct conclusion upon a 
 matter so important to the ultimate success of the great 
 enterprise which you have in hand, 
 
 I have the honor to remain. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Silas Seymour. 
 To Marshall 0. Roberts. Esq., 
 
 P reside Jit of the Texus Pacific Riilroad Company, 
 
 New York. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 ^1 Paper contrihufed hj Mr. S. S. Post. Ciril Eagiiu^r. 'm 
 relation to the comparafice resistance ujjon raihray 
 curves of different gauges : 
 
 On a railroad having two tracks, it is presumed tnat 
 the centre line lietween the tracks is the centre of location: 
 and that the centre line will remain the same, whether a 
 wide or a narrow gauge of track he adopted. 
 
 It is supposed, also, that the width necessary between 
 tracks will in either case be the same : then one line of 
 rails in each trac/v will be connnon to both gauges: and. 
 upon a curve, one will be the inner rail of one track, and 
 the other the outer rait of the other track. 
 
 The tendenc}* of a locomotive, upon entering a curve, 
 is to pursue a direct, or tangential course: and this ten- 
 dencv is overcome bv the resistance of the outer rail nci'mg 
 against the flange of the leadinir wheel. 
 
 This impinging upon the rail does not take place on a 
 straight road, where the line of motion is parallel with 
 the lines of the rails. In passing through a curve, there- 
 fore, it must be caused by the line of motion forming an 
 angle with the hue of the outer rail, the resistance of 
 
38 APPENDIX. 
 
 which, to the flange of the wheel, constantly changes the 
 direction of the line of motion. 
 
 It is evident that this resistance will be more or lecs«. 
 as the angle is greater or smaller; and that the angle Ls 
 greater as the radius of curvature of the outer rail is less. 
 It is also evident that the radius of the outer rail of th2 
 inner tracic will be the same, let the width of that track be 
 what it mav: and that anv difterent resistance of the curves, 
 in consequence of the difference of gauges, can take place 
 only at the outer rails of the outer tracks. 
 
 Let it be supposed that the radius of the centre line 
 of a railwav curve is 1.000 feet, and that the tracks are 6 
 feet apart: and let it be required to determine the resist- 
 ance of the outer rail to the flange of the leading wheel 
 of a locomotive engine, upon a track 6 feet wide, and also 
 upon a track 4 ft. 8i inches wide. 
 
 Then the radius of the curve of the outer rail of the 
 Cft. track will be 1.009 ft., and of the 4 ft. 8^ inch track 
 1.007 ft. 8 J inches, or 1.007^^ ^t. very nearly. The gauge of 
 the wheels, or distance between the flanges, where they 
 touch the rails, is usually about \ of an inch, say j-f.^y of 
 a foot, less than the gauge of the rails, and the average 
 distance at which the flanges run from either rail, when 
 upon a straight line, will not difler much from y^^ of a 
 foot. 
 
 Let. therefore, the flange of the wheel enter the curve 
 at the distance of j^ of a foot from the rail, and continue 
 in the same direction, until it touches the curve, then this 
 point of contact will be at the extremity of an arc, of 
 which .03 will be the versed sine ; and the distance moved 
 
APPENDIX. 30 
 
 bv the wheel, after entering the curve, will be the sin^ of 
 the same arc. 
 
 C 
 
 { 
 
 low X 2 - .03) X .03 )^ = TiVtr-oV feet 
 
 will be the distance moved on the wide jraujie: and 
 
 1U07.7X2 — .03) .03 ) - = 1^^^ feet 
 
 the distance moved on the narrow gauge, after entering 
 the curve, before the impinging action will conmience. 
 
 yow. 'i[,\,%' = .0077113 is the natimd sine of the 
 angle of resistance upon the outer rail of the ickhr track; 
 and tTTV-^- = .0077156 is the natural sine of the ande of 
 resistance upon the outer rail of the narrow track, at the 
 points where the flanges begin to impinge. 
 
 The first angle is therefore 0^^ 20' 30U4" : and the 
 Other is 0^ 26" 311? •!" : makincr tlie angle of resistance 4i4 
 of a second less, upon the wide tlian upon the narrow 
 track. 
 
 Assuming the adhesion of the wheels to the iron rails to 
 l»e equal to i of the whole weight of and upon the truck 
 of an engine or car, then the force of 3.y\^^W^ ^'^'^- P^^ 
 ton (2.0001bs.), will be required to overcome the resistance 
 on the wide track; and 3. j*>/^,^~\,V lbs. per ton on the nar- 
 row track : making a difference of jj^f f o ^^^- P^^ ^^^"• 
 which, although scarcely appreciable, is in tavor of the 
 wide gauge. 
 
 The above calculation does not, of course, take into ac- 
 count the cenlrifugid force of the engine or train ; but the 
 fiower required to resist or overcome this force is inversely 
 05 the radius of curvature, the weight and velocity being the 
 
40 APPENDIS. 
 
 same. For F = '" X-^^ represents the ccntiiliigal force, 
 
 when ir is put for tlie weight, g the gruvLtjr, k d*e v-elocity, 
 R the radius, and F tlie force. 
 
 It will be seen at once, on inspection *>tr lh^ f<»ruiula, 
 that Z' i> diminished as It is increased. A^Min^liijjg. Ijow- 
 ever. that the centrifugal force is as niu<-:h m l3ie i^a^e of 
 the idle as the narroiu gauge, still this tV>i:<,Te i*^ ret^isted 
 and overcome by the same means ; and tfcje jx^wer re- 
 quired L? in focor of the wide trad', in pre<:iLr*^'ll5 iLe same 
 proportion, as for overcoming the other rvi;*irXaijce, as 
 above stated. 
 
 Hen«:-e it appears that Mr. Stephea^oa'* amrsver to 
 Question 241 is entirely erroneous. 
 
 Extrad from a report made hj General D, C Mk.Callum, 
 General Superintendent, to the Xe^c Y'^rk tiud Erie 
 Roilroad Company, dated March 25, 1>-St5 : — 
 
 EXPETtlMENTS FOR DETERMINING EFFECT OF G^iMiTS AND 
 
 CURVATURE. 
 
 Experiments were made in September lat*tt. with the 
 view of determining the relative power refjatm^i upon the 
 several Divisions of the road for the trark*|i»o»niitjon of 
 heavy freight, by ascertaining the maximu.rjjj ]f*a.d any 
 given engine can haul over those portions of eac^ Division 
 which limit the load. 
 
 For this purpose, a single locomotive en^sM; was run 
 
APPENDIX. 41 
 
 the entire distance from Dunkirk to Piormont, witli trains 
 varying to suit the ruling grades of the respective Divisions. 
 As these experiments were not intended to set at rest 
 questions of a purely scientific character, the accuracy ne- 
 cessary to that end was not observed. It is believed, liow- 
 ever, that they have been made with sufficient care to de- 
 termine the practical objects more immediately in view; 
 and show the capacity of the road and its machinery to be 
 adequate to the movement of an immense tonnage, and at 
 a less cost per ton, for a large traffic, than can be attained 
 on any road of less gauge, and of equal grades and cur- 
 vature. 
 
 The engine selected for this purpose was of the follow- 
 ing proportions : — Total weight, 66,050 lbs. ; "Wciglit on 
 driving wdieels, 40,050 lbs. : Cylinders, 17 in. diameter ; 
 Length of stroke, 24 in. : Driving wheels, 5 ft. diameter; 
 Maximum pressure of steam on cylinders without slipping 
 the wheels, 140 lbs. ; or, deducting the atmospheric pres- 
 sure, 125y\j-lbs. effective pressure per square inch. 
 
 The traction of the engine, that is its power applied at 
 the circumference of the wheels and by which it is impelled, 
 neglecting its friction, may be stated thus : 
 
 125A X 17 X 17 X 2-1 _ j,^^ 
 
 This is tlie total resistance, consisting, principally, of 
 the friction of the engine and tender, of the cars, the gravity 
 of the train on ascending grades, and the resistance of 
 curves, which this engine, under an effective pressure of 
 125yV lbs. per square inch upon its pistons, can overcome. 
 
 The engine and teud-r were moved with slightly accele- 
 
42 APPENDIX. 
 
 rated motion, on a level, under an effective pressure of 3 
 lbs. Their friction, therefore, without any load attached, 
 is : 
 
 3XiIX 11X1^ = 347 lbs. 
 60 
 
 It has been customary to estimate the friction of cars, 
 with wheels of 30 in. and journals of 3 in. diameter, at 
 about 7 lbs. per ton , or, 8 lbs. per ton for wheels 33 in. 
 and journals '61 in. diameter — the dimensions of those in 
 use on this road ; but the experiments made, show con- 
 clusively that the friction of the loaded cars did not exceed 
 43 to 5 lbs. per ton. 
 
 It has also been usual to estimate the additional fric- 
 tion of the engine, in consequence of its load, at one pound 
 per ton of its load on a level. This item will of course 
 be reduced as the friction of the cars is reduced. 
 
 After a careful examination and comparison of the 
 loads niov^ed upon the ruling grades and curves of various 
 sections of the road, it is assumed that the friction of the 
 cars is 4^ lbs. per ton of 2,000 lbs.; the resistance of 
 curves I lb. per ton per degree of curvature per 100 ft. ; 
 and the additional friction of the engine 3 lb. per ton of 
 load on a level and straight line, or its equivalent. 
 
 The weight of the engine on its drivers being 40,050 
 lbs., and the traction 14,485 lbs., the adhesion was, there- 
 fore, fJJI J ^^^/ij^, or not less than 36 per cent, of the 
 insistant weight. This has heretofore been variously es- 
 timated at from 122 to 25 per cent. 
 
 The tender, with its complement of wood and water, 
 weighed 40,240 lbs. 
 
APPENDIX. 43 
 
 A train consisting of 100 loaded cars, weighing 3,423,- 
 150 lbs., making the total weight of engine, tender and 
 cars, 3,529,440 lbs., or 1,765 tons, very nearly, was taken 
 over a mile of road, on an ascent of 6.14 ft., and a curve 
 of l^or 5,730 ft. radius, in Hi minutes. The preceding 
 mile being on an uniform grade of 6 ft., ascending also, 
 no advantage could have been taken of momentum pre- 
 viously acquired by the train. 
 
 The resistances overcome in this case are estimated as 
 follows : 
 
 347 lbs. 
 
 7,702 " 
 
 4,104 " 
 
 882 " 
 
 1,410 " 
 
 Friction of engine and tender, - . . - 
 " cars l,711xVijV tons at 4i lbs., - 
 
 ^ .. , . , , . 3,529,440 X 6.14 
 (jravity of engine and train __ 
 
 Resistance of curve 1,7G5 X | lb., - - - 
 
 Additional friction, i ("^^t— + l,711vWu) 1.^ 
 
 Total resistances, 14,445 lbs. 
 
 or 40 lbs. less than the estimated traction. 
 
 A train of 22 cars, weighing 753,082 lbs. or 376^Vi7 
 tons, and with engine and tender weighing 859,372 lbs,, 
 or 429-jyy^^ tons, was taken up a mile of GO5 feet ascend- 
 ing grade, through a curve of 5° or 1,146 feet radius, in 
 Ga minutes. 
 
 Friction of engine and tender, 347 lbs. 
 
 " cars 376^ tons at 4^ lbs. - - - 1,094 " 
 
 n -i t • J i • 859,372 X 60-5 ,, 
 
 Gravity of engine and train, . — — - y,o47 
 
 Resistance of curve 429/5^^ X 2^, - - - - 1.074 " 
 Additional friction, i (^^^-^i^* _|. 376^ ) I.40I " 
 
 Total resistance, • 14,363 lbs. 
 
44 ATPENDIX. 
 
 or 122 11).^. less than the maximum traction, or power of 
 the engine under an ellective steam pressure of 125fybs. 
 per square inch. 
 
 On a mile of 52 feet ascending grade and a curve of 5" 
 per 100 i'eat, or 1,140 feet radius, a train of 25 loaded 
 cars, weighing 870,250 lbs. or 435| tons, and with engine 
 and tender 976,540 lbs. or 488jyy tons, was taken up in 
 9 minutes. 
 
 Friction of engine and tender, 347 lbs. 
 
 cars 4351 at 4^ lbs., 1,958 " 
 
 97fi 540 V 52 
 
 Gravity of engine and train, — ' 7 -^ - - 9,618 " 
 
 5,280 
 
 Resistance of curve 488f^V X 2|, - - - - 1,220 " 
 
 (9 fil8 _1_ I 090 \ 
 
 '- ' '"" -j- 4351 1 1,422 " 
 
 Total, 14,505 lbs. 
 
 being an over estimate of resistances, or an under esti- 
 mate of traction of 80 lbs. 
 
 On a mile of 60 feet ascending grade, through 2,900 
 feet of curve oh^ or 1,037 feet radius, a train of 23 loaded 
 cars, weighing 800,330 lbs. or 400yV-V tons, and, inclu- 
 ding engine and tender, a total weight of 906,620 lb- or 
 "^^^fVo tons, was taken up in 5 minutes. 
 
 Friction of engine and tender, 347 lbs. 
 
 " cars, 400^ tons at 4| lbs., - - - 1,800 " 
 
 (jiavity of engine and train, — —:^~ — - - 10 302 " 
 
 5,2oU 
 
 Resistance of curve, 453yV?r X 1^ . _ . . 793 « 
 
 Additional friction, | ^^-^±1^ ^ 4OO, ) - 1,433 " 
 
 Total, - 14,675 lbs. 
 
 or 190 lbs. over estimate of resistance. 
 
ArrENDix. 46 
 
 A train of 24 cars, wcigliiug 821.544 lbs. or 41 O^',;,,^, 
 tons, total weight, ineliuliiig engine, 927,834 lbs. or 
 •IG^iViuT tons, was taken up a mile of GO feet grade, 
 ^vithout curvature, in bh minutes. 
 
 Friction of engine and tender, 347 lbs. 
 
 cars, 410/^ X ^^ 1,848 " 
 
 ^ ., 927.834 X CO 
 
 Gravity, —^^- 10,543 " 
 
 Additional friction, 4^ I ■; -4-410/^1 - - 1,377 " 
 Total, ~14,G75 lbs. 
 
 Resistance less than traction 370 lbs. 
 
 Tiie same train was taken the liext mile on a grade of 
 58 feet, through a curve of 05= per 100 feet, for 1,500 
 feet, in Sh minutes. 
 
 Friction of engine and tender, . - - _ _ 34.7 Ujg. 
 
 cars, 410/a X ^^. 'i-MS " 
 
 Gravity, »?^||p 10.132 " 
 
 Resistance of curve, 4G3^^^y X If. - - - - 812 " 
 
 -'—- — 410t\,U 1,428" 
 
 Total, ~i4,l327nibs. 
 
 or over estimates of resistances of 142 lbs. 
 
 The average of these six experiments shows an esti- 
 mated resistance of 14,465 lbs., or 20 lbs. less than the 
 traction or computed maximum power of the engine witli 
 the steam gauge indicating 140 lbs. pressure. 
 
 The ultimate power of a well proportioned engine, may 
 be most easily and correctly determined from the weight 
 on its driving wheels. From the experiments made, we 
 are able to deduce practical rules for ascertaining the 
 
46 APPENDIX. 
 
 gross weight of ears and useful load whieh an engine 
 should take behind its tender. 
 
 COMPARISON OF GAUGES. 
 
 Inasmuch as the results of these experiments are some- 
 what extraordinary in ♦Iieir character, it may be claimed 
 that the resistances assumed are too small ; but then it 
 must also be admitted that the adhesion was greater than 
 has been stated, and it must be conceded that practically, 
 an additional adhesion of not less than ten to fifteen per 
 cent, has been attained on this road by the skill of engi- 
 neers in applying the steam and managing their engines 
 with heavy loads. On the other hand, if it be denied that 
 the adhesion was as great as stated, then it must follow 
 that the friction of the cars and other resistances have 
 been over estimated. Whilst these experiments furnish 
 valuable data for the }»urposes for which they were more 
 j^articularly made, they have already shown the great ad- 
 vantages which are derived from the six feet gauge in the 
 transaction of a h^.aiy freight traffic, particularly upon roads 
 having unfavorable grades and curvature. 
 
 Porniit me to state here, that it is not my purpose at 
 present to provoke a discussion as to the relative merits 
 of the broad and narrow gauge, as that question, so far as 
 this road is concerned, has been fully settled. I may be 
 excused, however, for alluding to the subject in connection 
 with these experiments, as a large number of our promi- 
 nent ^^tockholders, and others whose opinions are entitled 
 to consideration, still believe that the adoption of the 
 wide gauge has proved seriously detrimental to the inter- 
 
APPENDIX 47 
 
 estsof tlie Company. It is gratifying thercroro to be able 
 to ilispel these cloiibt!«, by pointing to the experiments 
 referred to as proof of the fact, that what was originally 
 claimeil for the G ft. gauge, has been fully confirmed by 
 practical experience. 
 
 Soon after the completion of th? road to Otisville, the 
 question of location having been disposed of, tlie Company 
 were in a condition to i)laoe a large portion, west of that 
 point, under contract ; but about that time grave doubts 
 were entertained and suggested, as to whether the broad 
 gauge preWously adoptcl. or the narrow gauge in common 
 use in other parts of the State, was the best adapted to the 
 business of the road. Before determining this question, 
 the Board of Directors deemed it expedient to examine 
 the arguments of the advocates of each: and with this view 
 passed a resolution calling upon their Chief Engineer, Con- 
 sulting Engineer, and Superintendent, for re[>orts, giving 
 their opinions in regard to ihe relative merits of the G 
 ft., and 4 ft. 8.V in. gauges. A diversity of oi)inion on this 
 subject existing amongst these gentlemen, a lively discus- 
 sion was provoked, and each, in his zeal to fortify himself 
 in the position assumed, strengthened it by appending to 
 his report the arguments and opinions of individuals of the 
 most eminent practical and scientific attainments in this 
 coimtry and in England. The evidence given before the 
 Commissioners appointed by the British Parliament to 
 investigate the subject of gauges, was freely used in this 
 discussion, and such a mass of information elicited as to 
 place the Board in possession of all the prominent argu- 
 ments for and agamst both. 
 
48 AITEXLEt. 
 
 Aftor iiKituro dt'libcration, ainl a full ami impartial in- 
 vestiu^jitioii of the subject, the Boanl of Directors passed a 
 resolution a»loi)ting tlie rt. gauge: ami. after i)ractically 
 tesliiiij: its iricrits, it cannot fail to be gratifying to itsarlvo- 
 cates to find tlieir jurlgnient confirmed by a demonstration 
 of its decided superiority, for the business of this road, 
 over the narrow jrau^ire that was recommended in its 
 stead. 
 
 It may not be improper in this place to allude to argu- 
 ments that were prominently used in opposition to the 
 intro luf'tion of the broad gauge, the fallacy of which I 
 tliink tho exi)orience of this road has fully proved. 
 
 Whilst admitting that a gauge of G ft. woi:M enable 
 the introduction of engines of much greater capacity than 
 could be obtained by the adoption of a gauge of 4 ft. 8V 
 in., it was claimeil that the latter would admit the use of 
 engines of a capacity sufficient to haul as many ears as 
 were considered profitable to connect in a single train; as 
 mucli greater strength would be requirerlin the drawheads 
 and couplings in order to make the additional power 
 avail.ible. It has been found by experience that there is 
 no dilliculty in giving all the strength required, and that a 
 load e(^ual to the most powerful engine upon the road, 
 rarely produces the result apprehended. 
 
 It was also said tliat umfonaibj of gauges was necessary 
 to the economical transportation of freight; and that a 
 departure from the unifomii^v hitherto preserved would 
 involve additional expenditure in loading and uuloadin<^ 
 freight, between all connecting roads having different 
 gauges, as they would, from this cause, be precluded from 
 
ArPENDlX. 
 
 49 
 
 interohanpn^ oars ; the «lisj)arity limit iiif; tlioir use to the 
 particiihir road to which earli was adapted. 
 
 Plausible as this argimieut may at first sight appear, it is, 
 nevertheless, iii point of fact, not true as to the ecouom{'''tl 
 eflects claimed: as the cost of transferrinir freight from the 
 cars of one roa<l to those of another with which it <N)nnect.s. 
 is less than that of hauling the " emi)ty returned cars" 
 hack — rendered necessary in cases where the freight is 
 sent ea.st — the preponderance of trade IxMug largely in 
 that direction. It may he said, the " dead weight" 
 hauled would be the same whether the load was con- 
 veyed in cars belonging to this or some other road : 
 but such is not the case, as the cars belonging to this road 
 may bo used hi transporting local freights on their return, 
 between intermediate stations, so as to be partially loaded 
 at least ; whilst in the other case, the cars must be 
 promptl}- returned to their owners for use. 
 
 This system of interchange of cars, so fiir as short roarls 
 are concerned, is undoubtedly beneficial : but if applied in 
 connection with long roads, the benefits will be found to 
 l)e derived at the expense of the latter, as in the settle- 
 ments between the two, the payments for ** mileage'" for 
 the use of cars will invariably be in favor of the short 
 lines. The long roads by this system are frequently 
 compelled to pay the hire of rolling stock of inferior con- 
 struction (their own. perhaps, in the mean time standing 
 idle), and also to expend large sums to keep such cars in 
 repairs ; as they are not unfrequently sent from one road 
 to another in such a dilapidated condition as to involve 
 the necessity of switching them out of the train before 
 
50 
 
 APPESDE. 
 
 reaeliin<r their destination, mnking it often necessary to 
 reship goods at points where it is not only inconvenient 
 but expensive to do so. This has been the experience of 
 this road, and our accounts show that it has cost this 
 Conipanv nearly double the amount per mile run. for the 
 repairs of cars belonging to other lines, that has been ex- 
 pended on their own. Tiiese objections have been foun<l 
 so serious in their character, that it has been deemed ne- 
 cessary to almost entirely discontinue the system of mU'r- 
 change, although the lateral roads connecting with this 
 were constructed, of the same width of gauge, with that 
 particular object iu view. 
 
 Whatever advantages may be claimed for the system, in 
 its ai»idication to .<hort roads forming the same line, or to 
 lateral roads connecting with main trunks, I have nt) 
 doubt it can be clearly shown that companies owning the 
 latter, have nothing to gain, but much to lose, by such an 
 arran-^ement : and I contidentlv believe that the experience 
 of railroad managers irenerallv. will bear me out in the 
 remark, that a road five hundred miles in length, with a 
 gauge that does not correspond with that of any indepen- 
 dent line with which it connects, enjoys in this particular, 
 an enviable position. 
 
 An accurate account of the cost of loading and unload- 
 ing has been kept at the Dunkirk station, from which it 
 appears the expense is about seven cents a ton. certainly a 
 much les"^ sum than the cost of hauling the extra dead 
 weight, repairs of cars, and wear and tear of machiner\', 
 involved by the interchange of cars. 
 
 I will al.<o allude to another argument used in opposi- 
 
.VrPENDK. 
 
 51 
 
 tiou to the introduction of the broad gauge. \'iz., the sup- 
 posed greater resistance otTered by its curvature. 
 
 It* we analyze the resistance opposed to the passage of a 
 train througli a curve, two species of friction, besides those 
 existing on a straight track, will be found. One is caused 
 bv the necessitv for the wheels on one rail to slide throufrh 
 a portion or the whole of a distance equal to the difterence 
 in the lenirths of the inner and the outer rails. The other 
 is causetl bv the inipinLrini; of the flanges of the wheels 
 against the outer rails, in overcoming the tangential ten- 
 dency of the trains. 
 
 The ditlerence in the lengths of the inner t?nd the outer 
 rails, for a degree of curvature, is. for a track of 6 ft. 
 gauge. yVVoV. <-^l * f<^»<^»^- ^iitl for a track of 4 ft. 8^ in. gauge, 
 Tom Su ^^ ^ ^•^*^^- iiii^king a ditlerence between the two 
 guages of J ,; J4o^ of a toot, or less than ^^^ of an inch in one 
 hundred feet, throujrh which additional distance one foilf 
 the weigiit of the train is supposed to slide. 
 
 Xow. if we suppose locomotives, or cars, or trains of 
 ecpial weight, to traverse curves of equal radii, it is quite 
 immaterial as to what width the irauire of the track mav 
 he : for the same weights will in any ciy^e be impo.<ied upon 
 either rail, whether far a[)art or near to each other : and 
 each ton of weiirht will slide as easily throush a distance 
 of one hundred feet in one case as in another. 
 
 The power that can shde or overcome the friction of 
 one ton. or any number of tons_ on the surface of the rails, 
 for one hundred teet. if continued to be exerted, will con- 
 tinue to overcome the same degree of friction for ^V of an 
 inch not only, but for an indefinite distance ; therefore the 
 
52 APPENDIX. 
 
 pmcer of a locomotice is not dhninisheih in this particular, 
 b*/ f?te width of the tnicl\ 
 
 In locating a railroad, tlie engineer traces a line called 
 the * centre line of location." (See illustration.) Thi.s 
 line i.s. also, usually made either the •• centre line "of a 
 siu'de track, or the centre line between two tracks. The 
 "centre line*' would not be varied by the adoption of 
 either a wide or a narrow track. 
 
 It is obviou.< that, upou a curved track, with a centre 
 hue of tix'-d radius, the wider the ftauire the greater will 
 be the radius of curvature of the outside rail, and con.^- 
 quently, the nearer to a straight line will a given length 
 of that rail approach. 
 
 A chord line of i;iven len2;th will coincide more nearlv 
 to an arc of the larger ciu've, and niuke a sun\ller angle 
 with it. than with a curve of less radius. The wheels of a 
 ti'u<.-k occupy the position of this chord, with reference to 
 the outside rail. 
 
 The an^le. therefore, at which the flanfre of a wheel, on 
 entering and passing through a curve, will impinge upon 
 the outer rail, being less on a wide than on a narrow 
 track, it follows that the momtntary resistance, from this 
 cause, is least on the wida track, though it may be slightly 
 increased in duration. 
 
 In concluding my remarks upou this subject, permit 
 me here to state, that although the gauge of this road is 
 all thatcoidd be desired for the extent and character of its 
 business, it does not follow that its general adoption would 
 be either wi.<e or economical, as it is with railroads as 
 
p 
 B 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 P 
 
 5" 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 p 
 •-* 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 ti 
 
 O 
 
 © 
 
 Q 
 
 < 
 p 
 
 ;: 
 •-* 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 {3 
 
 Q 
 p 
 
 (R 
 X 
 
APPENDIX. 68 
 
 with all other modes of transportation, the magnitude of 
 the arrangements should be in proportion to the amount 
 and nature of the business required to be done. 
 
 Whilst the wisdom of this State, in the furtherance of 
 the enlargement of the Erie Canal, cannot be questioned, 
 the extension of a like policy to unimportant branches 
 would be deemed absurd ; the first having been found 
 too small for its business, whilst the latter are undoubt- 
 edly quite as large as can ever be required. The same 
 reasoning applies with equal force to railroads ; for whilst 
 upon some roads a gauge of ft. may be found more 
 economical in the transaction of a heavy hnshiess, a gauge 
 of 4 ft. 8^ in. may be much more suitable for the business 
 of others ; indeed it is questionable whether, for a road 
 doing a very U(jht fjusiness, even the latter may not be 
 found too wide for economical transportation. 
 
 The question to be decided, therefore, in determining 
 the proper width of gauge to be adopted on any given 
 line of railway, is not whether a gauge of 6 ft. possesses 
 greater capacity than a gauge of 4 ft. 85 in., but ratlier 
 what width of gauge is the best adapted to admit of such 
 a construction of machinery as will most profitably over- 
 come the resistances of the line, and that will meet the 
 nature and extent of traffic, present and prospective. 
 
54 ATPENDIX. 
 
 Letter received from H. Stanley Goodwin. Esq., Assistant 
 General Superintendent of the LeJtif/h V<dley RailrowZ, 
 in relfftion to the ehnraeter of power, loads hauled, and 
 cars used, upon that road : 
 
 Lkiikui y.\ij-KV Raimjoai) Company, 
 
 OlTlCE OF TUE SUPKUINTKNDKNT AND EnoINEEK, 
 
 Bethlehem, Pa., J(il<tj 15, 1871. 
 8. Sevmoir, H>sq., 
 
 N'o. 20 yassau Street, 
 New York. 
 
 DiiAii Sir, — Yoiii- i'avor of the 10th ni.st. is duly received 
 and noted, askhig certain questions which I will endeavor 
 to answer. 
 
 The road engines most in use by us are of two kinds : 
 lirsl. the ordinary 10-wheel engine, weighing from 76,400 
 Ihs. to 78.000 lbs., with lire and steam, of which from 01,- 
 600 to 63,000 lbs. weight is on the drivers, and the re- 
 mainder upon the leading truck. 
 
 Some of these engines havT drivers 4 ft. in diameter, 
 and cylinders 17 X 24: ; others, drivers 4^ ft., and cylinders 
 
 IS X '2-- 
 
 The other kind of engines, called '' Consolidation,'' and 
 built by ourselves, and by M. Baird Si, Co. from our origi- 
 nal design, weigh 86,000 lbs. with fire and steam, of which 
 76,000 lbs. on drivers ; 8 drivers, 4 ft. diameter ; cylin- 
 ders 20 X '^4. 
 
 That portion of our road over which our heaviest traf- 
 fic passes is between Mauch Chunk and Easton, a distance 
 of 46 miles. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 55 
 
 On this the grade descends in f^xvor of the trade, vary- 
 ing from to 20. ft. per mile, with many. curves of 0° or 
 955 ft. radius. 
 
 The grade on this portion of the road is such that an 
 engine can haul down with tlie same ease the numher of 
 loaded coal cars, woigliing an average of 8,*^,, tons, that 
 the same engine can haul up empty, weighing an average 
 of 3 j*y- tons. 
 
 In summer, and in good weather, we haul with one of 
 the 10-wheel engines 150 cars down, weighing 1,320 tons, 
 and the same number up empty, weighing 510 tons. 
 
 We do not consider this the ultimate capacity of the 
 engines, but as nearly so as it is safe, prudent, and econo- 
 mical to go. We have at times, by chance or design, 
 taken as many as 200 cars both up and down. 
 
 We do not run the "Consolidation" engines on this 
 part of the road, or if we do, we do not give them more 
 than 200 cars, and seldom so many, althougli we have 
 taken with them as many as 250, and could probably ex- 
 ceed 300 before reaching the engine's capacity. 
 
 We have at one place 12 miles of grade, averaging 96 
 ft. per mile against the trade, with curves of 6". Up this 
 grade we haul with 10-wheel engines 22 loaded cars, 
 weighing 8.8x22=194 tons, and with "Consolidations," 
 33 loaded cars, weighing 8.8X33=290 tons. 
 
 On a grade of 14G ft. per mile for 2 miles, we haul with 
 10-wheel engines 37 empty cars = 122 tons, and with 
 " Consolidations " 55 cars = 182. tons. 
 
 We have also grades of 40, 60, and 132 ft. per mile, 
 but perhaps the above instances will be sufficient for your 
 purpose. 
 
56 ArrFNDTX. 
 
 Wo sliaJl he .ijla.l to j^ivo you any further information 
 you <losiro ; and if you ^-hould wisli to observe for yourself 
 the" \V()l•ki!l,^• of our road and enguies, we shall be happy 
 to furnish you every I'aeility. 
 
 Vory truly yours, 
 
 II. Stanley Goodwin, 
 Assist. Genl. Superintmdtnt.