Dod. might have been made standard gauge for 15 per cent. more Mr. Wolleythan its original cost, making no allowance for the saving in rolling stock due to uniformity of gauge, or in transhipping-arrangements. In the earlier days of the line the saving in working-expenses would probably not have covered the whole of this 15 per cent., though the public would have benefited; but the time would come, if it had not already arrived, when the saving would more than cover it. The standard-gauge line once made, its permanent way could be increased in strength when the traffic demanded it, to enable more powerful engines to be used, and heavier trains to run at higher speed, the ultimate capacity being practically double that of a metregauge line. Either to convert metre-gauge line or to double it would cost considerably more than if it had been made originally as a light standard-gauge line. The AUTHOR, in reply, thought that Colonel Boughey was correct The Author. in saying that the original reason for the two gauges being adopted was that of expediency. His remarks on the transhipment question might be accepted as correct where the traffic was fairly light, but when it became heavy two remedies presented themselves. One was the alteration, to the gauge serving the port, of the entire narrowgauge system behind, which might sometimes have many times the length and importance of the gauge entering the port; the other alternative was the admission of the inland system of different gauge to the port, as an independent line. It appeared to the Author, as had been shown already, that the second alternative was the correct remedy to apply. Transhipment at the port itself, from a line at some distance from the quay-wall, had been successfully carried out in America and elsewhere by transporters, and the Author saw no insuperable objection against it in India. Mr. Brunton's statement that delay in adopting uniformity of gauge meant extra expense might certainly be true in one sense, but if it was possible to effect a change at a reasonable cost, and if it was justifiable on the score of traffic, when it could be shown that it would pay, and could be carried out in detail, his objection to the necessity for immediate action would seem to be met. Mr. Cardew, the Author thought, wrote without full knowledge of the case when he assumed that the Southern Shan line was to be on a 2-foot 6-inch gauge. As regarded his remark that certain portions of the Burma railways were of double track, 16 miles in a total of 12,000 miles was quite negligible. In speaking of the conversion of rolling stock, the Author depended on facts supported by the eminent locomotive engineers who had undertaken the conversion of the existing stock. In reply to Mr. Cardew's question, on which gauge the extra The Author. haulage was calculated the Author explained that it was the metre gauge. As the Author had expressly ruled out the 4-foot 83-inch gauge as the one to be adopted in any conversion, it was refreshing to find in Mr. Egerton an advocate who believed in it; but it was the cost which was the governing factor of conversion, and not the trouble or difficulty of converting rolling stock, permanent way and works, etc. The object of constructing the Cawnpore-Lucknow and other links on the metre gauge, which was so much deprecated by Mr. Egerton, was to allow goods and passengers to be carried from one system of metre gauge to another without break, and this was making the best use of the isolated systems of lines. Mr. Lart was incorrect in his views as to the need of rapid travelling in India. India, the Author was quite sure, was like every other country, and had progressive ideas of speed, comfort and safety, and the Railway Administrations would have to meet these needs for all classes. Whatever might be the merits of Mr. Molesworth's scheme for bringing the metre gauge into Calcutta, it was evident that when made it would have to embrace the whole of the metre-gauge system north of the Ganges and not one portion only. Mr. Preston's claim for favourable consideration of the 2-foot 6-inch lines, if confined to the hills, had some justification. The Author agreed that they should have no permanent place on the plains of India. But, as pointed out, these lines having been constructed under the Tramways Act, it was subsequently cheaper to increase their efficiency on the original width rather than to adopt a new gauge; hence their continued existence. Mr. Robertson was probably correct that 5 feet and 2 feet 6 inches represented the ideal gauges. The Author hoped that Mr. Robertson's caustic remarks on the speed of the 5-foot 6-inch gauge would in future be inappropriate. The criticisms of Mr. Shadbolt were allied to those of Mr. Egerton as far as his preference for the European gauge was concerned, and the Author found the same disregard to financial considerations which must govern the railway policy of India. Mr. Spring's conclusions were quite sound, as he based his arguments on the needs of the traffic of the country that had to be met by a limited purse. Mr. Sykes reasonably drew attention to the construction of light lines on the standard gauge being a necessary preliminary to uniformity, but he was inaccurate in calling the present system of independent development of two gauges ruinous. The surplus profit from the railway systems of India was a sufficient answer to this indictment. The Author referred Mr. Campbell Thomson to the reply to the oral discussion as to the elimination of certain railways in arriving at a fair basis of comparison. Mr. Wolley-Dod was correct in pointing out that the loading-gauges of the two The Author. gauges did not vary in the ratio of the distance apart of the rails, but his remark that to convert or double the metre gauge would cost more than if the 5-foot 6-inch gauge had been originally adopted was rather beside the point when dealing with the existing problem. The Correspondence, taken as a whole, seemed to the Author to lead to the general conclusion that the necessities of the country's trade would be the ruling factor in bringing about uniformity. 6 February, 1906. Sir ALEXANDER RICHARDSON BINNIE, President, in the Chair. It was announced that the Associate Members hereunder mentioned had been transferred to the class of The Candidates balloted for and duly clected were: as MAURICE MCCLEAN BIDder. HARRY STOWE COPPOCK, B.Sc. (Wales), BERNARD D'OLIER DARLEY, Stud. Inst. FREDERICK THOMAS ECROYD, Stud. WILLIAM PERCIVAL GAUVAIN, Stud. CHARLES HERBERT GEOrge. NOEL GILES, B.Sc. (Victoria), B. Eng. (Liverpool), Stud. Inst. C.E. JOHN HADDIN, Stud. Inst. C.E. JULIO BRANDÃO (Sobrinho). HARRY OSCAR JOHNSON. HENRY FORREST KERR, B. A.I. (Dublin). ERNEST EDWIN MANN, B.Sc. (Victoria), CHARLES HAMILTON MITCHELL, B. A.Sc. JAMES MUIRHEAD, B.Sc. (Glas.) WILLIAM HENRY STACEY, B.Sc. (Bir Associates. | CHARLES EDWARD HAWKINS. The discussion on the Paper "The Railway-Gauges of India," by Sir Frederick Upcott, occupied the evening. 13 February, 1906. Sir ALEXANDER B. W. KENNEDY, LL.D., F.R.S., Vice-President, in the Chair. The CHAIRMAN said he regretted to have to announce that the Council had heard of the death of their colleague, Mr. Charles Napier Bell, who had represented Australasia on the Council for some time, and whose services had not been less in that he had not been able to be present at the Council Meetings. The Council had passed the following resolution, which he was sure the members would endorse: "That the Council have learned with deep regret of the death of their colleague, Mr. Charles Napier Bell, and desire to offer their sincere condolences to his family." The discussion on Sir Frederick Upcott's Paper was continued and concluded. |