The Argus at KellyGang 1/8/1870 (2)
It is unquestionable that the gradients for 10 miles are very heavy, ranging as high as 1 in 36.5, while the ruling gradient on none of the existing lines is worse than 1 in 50. Under the present system, therefore, after a gallant effort to look the difficulty and expense of construction, working and maintenance, in the face, the scheme was being gradually abandoned as impracticable by a private company. A few bold spirits, however, were not to be deferred, and the Macpherson Government made some concessions. They promised to subsidise the company to the extent of £1 for every £4 paid up; to provide rolling stock at a cost to the company of £20,000; and to work the line for £12,800 per annum. They also undertook to refund the original outlay, together with 6 per cent, per annum - not including the subsidy in case Government should at any time after 12 months' notice purchase the line. Even then the question arose where the money for construction was to come from, as, clearly, it could not he raised from local sources. Just at this moment, Fairlie's system presented itself as a probable solution, if the present Government, would go a step further than the last.
The new principle comes to us not as a theory, nor an experiment, but as having undergone the most severe tests, and come out victorious. Mr Fairlie, in various trials before distinguished engineers and foreign agents, has with his new engines and carriages beaten everything that could be brought against him in carrying paying loads in proportion to dead weight, in ascending steep gradients, and in working incredible curves without reducing speed. A Fairlie engine drew a load of 200 tons up an incline of 1 in 85, while one of the common type could only take 73 tons 6 cwt. over the same ground. Another Fairlie engine, on a 4ft. 8½in. gauge, took 180 tons up a gradient of 1 in 35 for half a mile, followed by one of l in 38 for 6¾ miles. This is far beyond anything that would ever be required on the Beechworth branch, either in load or length of heavy gradient, and is, indeed, a performance, considering the proportion of paying to unpaying load, the greatest then on record. "Engineering," a high authority on the subject, says that one of Fairlie's smaller engines will take 90 passengers over a grade of 1 in 16.
The Railway Record says:- "The summing up of the case is, as regards economy, as follows:- The train usually employed to convey passengers averages about 70 tons dead weight, and would seat about 100 passengers of all classes. It has been proved that 90 passengers can be seated in the Fairlie steam-carriage with a dead weight of 14 tons only- the passengers having the same accommodation. This would leave 5 to 1 in favour of the new system, and, to move the 70-ton train, four times as much fuel and four times as much water will be carried and used per mile as are required for the 14-ton train. The wear and tear of the train, rails, and substructure would not only be reduced one fourth by the 14-ton train, but would also be reduced by the great diminution of the destructive weights usually placed on the wheels of the ordinary locomotive." Can any reasonable man doubt that if our branch line, for instance, would have paid 8 per cent., as was calculated, on an outlay of £150,000 under the old system, it must pay 12 or 14 per cent, on an outlay of £100,000 ?
But that sum, small as it is in comparison with the accruing advantages and the tempting nature of the investment, is still far beyond local resources. In fact, I have come to the conclusion, after long and carefully considering the subject, that if the Government itself does not carry out the undertaking, it can only be accomplished by a Government guarantee of interest on a loan. A fair opportunity for trying the latter method is now available. Mr Climie, the colonial agent of the Fairlie Engine and Steam Carriage Company, offers to construct the line, and hand it over in working order, and able to carry out its engagements, on a sufficient guarantee of 6 per cent. on the outlay. The first question is, has this part of the colony sufficient claims upon the country to render a consideration of this proposition instant politic? and next, whether the arguments which can be offered in its favour outweigh any that can be advanced against it? For years we have borne with patience our share of the burden inflicted on the colony by the railways constructed at a cost of over £40,000 a mile. To us this was a grievous weight, as the facilities offered to other mining districts of course militated against ours. Even a road was not given us, while other portions of Victoria were intersected by both roads and railways.
We have also to pay our share of the interest on the couple of millions being expended on gigantic but doubtful water schemes, while the £100,000 originally set down for us in the schedule to the bill has gone to remedy the blunders of Mr Christopherson. On the other hand, by Government guaranteeing to the Fairlie Company six per cent. on their outlay on this line, say £100,000, the country would gain the difference between the cost of both systems, namely, £50,000, and the Government would never be called upon for the subsidy of £30,000, which we may presume would be quite as acceptable in the Treasury. Then the conveyance of mails, judges, Crown prosecutors, policemen, lunatics, prisoners, and provisions, &c., to the public institutions over the 25 miles, almost impassable during four months in the year, by a railway instead of a dangerous road, is surely worth the attention of Government. Above all, the establishing of a system which would, un-questionably, enable the country to construct paying railways instead of unremunerative roads, must have its due weight. As to the argument that our case might form a bad precedent for other localities, I can only say that, if not successful, it might be held up as "a solemn warning," if successful as an example to be followed in all localities similarly circumstanced.
Apologising for the length of my letter, I
am, &c.,
JOHN COPE GARNETT.
Beechworth, July 30,
end
, .1. , .2. ,
| ! | The text has been retyped from a microfiche copy of the original. We have taken care to reproduce this document but areas of the original text may been damaged. |
