Report of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade on the London, Worcester, and Wolverhampton, | Page 5

with reference to the loss, delay, and misdirection of goods.
The principal Railway Companies north of Birmingham have also
made strong representations as to the obstacle thrown in the way of a
proper development of the traffic by the break of gauge; an obstacle
which, as regards coal, iron, salt, corn, and every description of heavy
goods, they consider as amounting to a virtual prohibition.

The question may be raised how far it is possible to obviate the
inconvenience of two different gauges by mechanical arrangements?
These arrangements may consist either--
1. Of contrivances for transferring the bodies of waggons from the
wheels and axles adapted for one gauge to those adapted for the other;
or--
2. The laying down of additional rails, so as to permit trains of either
gauge to run on without interruption.
With regard to the first, it is stated that the experiment has been
repeatedly tried on the Liverpool and Manchester, the Newcastle and
Darlington, the Leicester and Swannington, and other Railways, where
crossed by local coal Railways of a narrower gauge, and has never
succeeded. The practical difficulties also are obvious, of securing with
waggons constructed with moveable bodies, the rigidity and solidity
requisite for safety, and to prevent excessive wear and tear, and damage
to the articles conveyed. Even if we were to suppose, however, all
mechanical difficulties overcome, the serious objection would still
remain, that in addition to the expense of transfer, a large additional
stock would require to be kept by all Railway Companies, owners of
mines, and other parties who had occasion to send traffic sometimes in
the direction where the gauge was uninterrupted, and sometimes in the
direction where waggons of a special construction were required. This
consideration is the more important as, under the system of the
clearing- house, the whole stock of the narrow-gauge Railways of the
country may be considered as becoming more and more common
property, available wherever there may be a press of business, and for
as great distances as may be required, in order to avoid the
inconvenience of unloading.
The second arrangement, of laying down additional rails, may be
practicable under peculiar circumstances, and to a limited extent, but it
is open to great objections.
It is very doubtful how far the addition of a single rail only would be
consistent with safety, as in this case the centre of gravity of the

carriages of different gauge in the same train would not be in the same
straight line. If a complete double set of rails were laid down the
expense would be very considerable.
The complication of switches and crossings that would be necessary
would involve considerable additional risk and great expense. The
difficulty and expense of maintaining the permanent way, and of
keeping the double set of rails in proper adjustment, would be greatly
increased; and on the whole, the expense, inconvenience, and risk,
would probably be so great as to prevent the experiment from being
tried to any extent.
We cannot therefore consider the plan of laying down additional rails
as applicable, unless perhaps to a limited extent and under special
circumstances, such as enabling, for instance, mineral waggons
constructed for the narrow gauge to pass for a short distance and at a
slow speed over a wide-gauge Railway; with which view alone it is
proposed to lay down extra rails upon the Oxford, Worcester, and
Wolverhampton line, for a few miles south of Wolverhampton.
On the whole, therefore, we cannot consider any of the mechanical
arrangements which have been proposed for obviating the
inconvenience of a meeting of different gauges (even if we could
assume their practicability, which in the present state of experience we
should not be warranted in doing,) as anything better than partial and
imperfect palliatives of a great evil.
Assuming this to be the case, and assuming also, as we are compelled
to do, that an interruption of gauge must exist somewhere, the question
is reduced to this: to ascertain at what points such interruption should
be fixed in order to occasion the least inconvenience to the traffic and
commerce of the country. From the fact that nearly 2,000 miles of
Railway are already made or sanctioned on the narrow gauge, while not
more than 300 are sanctioned on the wide gauge, a disproportion which
will be still more largely increased by the new Railways now in
contemplation, an inference might be drawn in favour of confining the
gauge which is in such a decided minority within the narrowest
possible limits; and this inference might be strengthened by referring to

the obvious fact that the wide gauge has not realized those decided
advantages over the narrow gauge which were at one time anticipated.
The actual speed of trains upon the Great Western Railway, as shown
by the