When considering the cost of construction and working of a narrow-gauge railway as compared with one of the standard gauge, there are certain items which are common to both, and in which the narrow gauge could not be expected to obtain any advantage over the standard gauge. There would not be any saving in getting up the scheme in the first instance; Nor in the Parliamentary expenses; Nor in the engineering or carrying out of the works; Nor in the station accommodation, waiting-rooms, and offices; Nor in the signals and interlocking arrangements; Nor in the telegraph; Nor in the working staff and train men; Nor in the maintenance of the permanent way, as the same number of men would be required for the inspection and packing of the road, perhaps more. Little or no saving could be expected in the bridges under the railway, as these must be made to the prescribed widths and heights, irrespective of the gauge of the railways. Little, if any, saving could be made in river or stream bridges, as the 42 same amount of waterway would have to be provided in each case. The same remark applies to culverts and drains. There would, on the other hand, be a small saving in the quantity of land to be acquired to the extent of a narrow strip or zone, represented by the difference in width between the narrow and standard gauges. There would also be the same small proportionate saving in the embankments and cuttings to the extent of the difference in gauge. Also a saving in the overline bridges and road approaches in consequence of less width and height of the opening through those bridges. And a saving in the rails, sleepers, and ballast of the permanent way, to the extent consistent with efficiency. That some saving may be effected in these is undoubted, but it is necessary to exercise caution, and not rush to the opposite extreme by making the parts too light. A rail should be made not only strong enough to carry well the engines that have to pass over it, but it should also be heavy enough to stand the wear of several years. Narrow-gauge engines must be heavy in conformity with the loads they have to haul. The same amount of power must be exerted to haul a hundred tons on a given gradient, whether the gauge be narrow or broad. In some cases of narrow-gauge railways the original rails, which weighed only 45 lbs. per yard, have since been replaced with others weighing 60 and 65 lbs. per yard. The light 45 lb. rails were evidently not found to be sufficiently heavy to keep the road to proper line and level. The result of our everyday practice seems to prove that there is not only an advantage, but an economy, in adopting rails of a heavy section, and experience would therefore indicate that even for a narrow-gauge railway it may not be expedient to adopt rails weighing less than 65 lbs. per yard.