The last five sketches illustrate some of the methods which have been adopted when constructing railways through some of the most difficult mountain ranges. They show what has been done, and may serve as guides in working out the location of a line in some hitherto unexplored region.
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