Gauge.—The gauge of a railway, or its width from inside to inside of rails, affects both its cost and efficiency. If the gauge be exceptionally wide, then the expenditure on works and rolling-stock will be proportionately heavy; and although theoretically the extra wide gauge may possess greater capabilities for accommodation and high-speed travelling, we may find in practice that the necessary requirements may be provided on a much more moderate gauge. On the other hand, if the gauge be exceptionally narrow, there will be diminished convenience both for passengers and merchandise, and a corresponding limit to the speed in transit.
In isolated districts, where passenger traffic is of secondary importance, and where the principal merchandise will be heavy without being bulky, such as mineral ores, slates, etc., a comparative narrow gauge may possibly suit the purpose. For main trunk lines, however, where a large, heavy, and fast passenger traffic will have to be worked, and where goods of all kinds, many of them bulky without being heavy, will have to be carried, an ample gauge must be selected to ensure convenience and safety. A liberal gauge permits the use of commodious rolling-stock without any great amount of lateral overhanging weight outside the wheels; whereas with a narrow gauge there is the tendency—if not the necessity—to use vehicles which
have too great a lateral overhang for proper stability, except at very moderate speeds.
The following list shows the gauges adopted in various countries:—
| ft. | ins. | ||
| England, Scotland, and Wales | 4 | 8½ | |
| Ireland | 5 | 3 | |
| United States | 4 | 8½, | with some lines 5 ft., 5 ft. 6 ins., and 6 ft. |
| Canada | 4 | 8½ | and 5 ft. 6 ins. |
| France | 4 | 8½ | |
| Belgium | 4 | 8½ | |
| Holland | 4 | 8½ | |
| Germany | 4 | 8½ | |
| Austria | 4 | 8½ | |
| Switzerland | 4 | 8½ | |
| Italy | 4 | 8½ | |
| Turkey | 4 | 8½ | |
| Hungary | 4 | 8½ | |
| Denmark | 4 | 8½ | |
| Norway | 4 | 8½ | and 3 ft. 6 ins. |
| Sweden | 4 | 8½ | |
| Mexico | 4 | 8½ | and 3 ft. |
| Egypt | 4 | 8½ | and 3 ft. 6 ins. |
| Peru | 4 | 8½ | |
| Nova Scotia | 4 | 8½ | and 5 ft. 6 ins. |
| New South Wales | 4 | 8½ | |
| Brazil | 4 | 8½, | 5 ft. 3 ins., and 5 ft. 6 ins. |
| Uruguay Republic | 4 | 8½ | |
| Russia | 5 | 0 | |
| South Australia | 5 | 3 | |
| New Zealand | 3 | 6 | |
| British India | 5 | 6 | and 1 metre. |
| Ceylon | 5 | 6 | |
| Spain | 5 | 6 | |
| Portugal | 5 | 6 | |
| Chili | 5 | 6 | |
| Argentine Republic | 5 | 6 | |
| Cape Colonies | 3 | 6 | |
| Japan | 3 | 6 |
After many years’ experience of actual working, the broad, 7 feet, gauge of the Great Western Railway has been abandoned for the 4 feet 8½ inch gauge. Doubtless this decision was the result of most careful deliberation, and was made upon convincing proof that the 4 feet 8½ inch gauge could fulfil all the advantages claimed for the wider gauge, whilst at the same time it possessed the merit of less cost of construction and working, and greater facilities for the exchange of traffic with other lines having the standard gauge. The facility of exchange, or through working of rolling-stock, is a leading element of successful railway working, and it is difficult to estimate what would be the amount of loss and delay if we had any great extent of break of gauge on the main trunk lines of our own country.
Although some countries have selected gauges of 5 feet and
5 feet 6 inches, it is interesting to note that the largest number have adopted the English standard gauge of 4 feet 8½ inches, and that the miles of line laid to this gauge far outnumber all the others. The fact that our own home lines, the principal Continental lines, and nearly all that vast network of railways in the United States of America, have been laid to the 4 feet 8½ inch gauge, testifies to the general opinion of its utility and efficiency; and we know that included in that list are the railways which carry the largest, heaviest, and fastest train service in the world.
It would be interesting to trace back, and, if possible, ascertain from whence the exact gauge of 4 feet 8½ inches was derived. No doubt, in the early days of the pioneer iron highways in England, the railways were made the same gauge as the tramroads which they superseded. But why was 4 feet 8½ inches the gauge of the tramroads? We may reasonably infer that the first four-wheeled waggons used on the early tramroads were in reality the same waggons which had been previously used on the common roads for the conveyance of coal and minerals to the ports for shipment, and that the waggons were merely transferred from the roughly paved or macadamised roads to the tramroads. Flanged wheels were then unknown, and the introduction of the tram-plates was at first simply designed to lessen the resistance to haulage. The gauge, or width between the wheels, of these waggons may have been the outcome of long experience as to the most suitable width for convenience of load, stability during transit, or for space occupied on the highway. The width may have been handed down from generation to generation, going back to the time when wheeled vehicles were first built in the country. Perhaps in the beginning the first vehicles may have been imported from Italy, or Greece—countries which in the earlier ages were the most advanced in matters of luxury and convenience.
When in Pompeii, a few years ago, the writer measured the spaces between a large number of the wheel-ruts which are worn deep into the paving-stones in many of the principal streets of that wonderful unearthed city. These paving-stones, very irregular in shape, and many of them 2 feet 6 inches long by 1 foot 6 inches wide, are carefully fitted together, and form a compact massive pavement from curbstone to curbstone. The wheel-tracks, which are in many places worn into the stones