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]