hurried across from one train to the other, when there is a chance of the luggage being misplaced.  Gentlemen’s carriages and horses have to be changed, a process uniting time and risk.  Valuable parcels have to be handed out in the confusion, and handed in.

“The result is a delay, with the Mail-trains, for instance, of half an hour sometimes, just sufficient if the coming-in train is after time, to miss the Manchester or other train from Birmingham, or the Exeter or Bath train from Bristol; annoyance to the passengers, who are anxious about their parcels and luggage; risk, and expense, as a large body of porters have to be maintained, who are not fully employed, in order that no more time than is necessary should be lost in the change of trains.

“With regard to goods, the inconvenience attending the change is far more serious.

“Up to this day a great number of waggons laden with goods of all descriptions have been lying at Gloucester, which we have been unable to remove in spite of every exertion.  We keep an establishment of clerks and porters to superintend and effect the transhipment, but, in the hurry of business, mistakes occur; goods destined for Hull are perhaps put into the Manchester truck; boxes are bruised, packing torn, furniture and brittle articles damaged.  There is the chance of mistake in the re-invoicing of goods; the other day, for instance, a bale for Bristol was laid hold of by a carrier at Gloucester and taken to Brecon, a claim for some 30l. being instantly made upon us.

“In short, all the inconvenience, delay, and expense attending an unloading and reloading of goods have to be encountered, and there is nothing the senders of goods so much dread as this.  The expense involved is very considerable: there is the expense of porterage, which varies from 3d. to 6d. per ton: the expense of clerks employed in inspecting and invoicing the goods, the expense of shunting the waggons, the waste of premises, the additional carrying stock it obliges the Companies on each gauge to maintain, and, above all, the loss of trade which is sure to result from the delay and risk attending the change, and the advantage which uninterrupted communications, whether by Water or Railway, are sure to have over you in competition.

“Much of this expense and delay, it may be said, can be obviated by better arrangements and more care; by ample station accommodation, by abundant

carrying stock.  No doubt some of it may be prevented, but this is only another name for expense.  The care, too, which is required must not be confined to the Railways immediately affected, but must commence on a Railway a long way off.  The goods from Leeds for Bristol, for instance, must be duly placed together at Leeds, packed in such a manner as will enable you at Gloucester to get at them in the best manner.  They must be forwarded from Leeds, and again from Birmingham, in such quantities as will be convenient at Gloucester.  The arrangements, in short, by which our interests at Gloucester will be best consulted, will have to be made by another Company, often not interested in the matter, and whose convenience may suggest another course.  You cannot, therefore, look forward to remedying many of the difficulties attending on change of gauge, which are of this nature.”

To the above summary of the practical inconveniences mentioned, we have only to add, that the numerous representations addressed to us by the principal carrying and commercial interests which have been concerned in the traffic affected by the change of gauge at Gloucester, have fully borne out the statement of the evils experienced, more especially 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