ENGLISH v. FOREIGN RAILWAYS.
[To TH1 EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
read with interest but without sympathy Mr. Cooper's letter in the Spectator of June 29th. There will always be two opinions about Brunel's broad gauge. When railways were first projected such an enormous development of traffic was not anticipated, because the age of invention was just born, and it was not yet time to speak of " the wonder that would be." It is, therefore, unfair to blame Stephenson for the present gauge, which, after all, serves our purpose and is in all respects much less costly than the broader track. Mr. Cooper speaks of our " toy trains." So they are when com- pared with those of America, but the gauge does not make the difference, since the American gauge is substantially t'le same as our own. The great trains of America owe their existence to the paucity of overhead bridges, and these are high enough to allow the passage of monster engines. A broad gauge is not necessary, as witness the narrow-gauge lines of South Africa and other countries. Our cars could be widened considerably and still be safe. The great locomotive should come smile day if our railway management would look ahead. It can be done, although it may take a long time.—
Previous page
