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.