Correspondence. Steam Tramways.

Abstract

Parsons. Minutes of Proceedings.2 The two engines that had been compared were, one a simple engine constructed by Wolf of Buckau, and the other manufactured by Messrs. Ruston, Proctor and Co. The result was that the gain in economy of the compound-engine amounted to 10 per cent. That was a very small advantage for a compound-engine, and he thought the extra complication which was introduced into a compound-engine as against a simple engine was greater than the resulting economy was worth. Mr. Lewis had given some valuable information with regard to the question mentioned in Mr. Shellshear's Paper of doing without a condenser, and allowing an engine to puff through the streets. It appeared that forty-eight persons had been injured and several killed in the streets of Sydney during the year, and this showed that the Board of Trade Regulations were necessary to protect the public from injury. Mr. Rapier mentioned that the economy of the hot-water engine over steam was 2gd. per mile. If that was subtracted from the working expenses, as shown in his Paper, there would remain only j d. per mile to pay the driver, and nothing for any other expenses, a d it would be very difficult to find a driver for $d. per mile. A hot-water engine therefore could hardly be worked a t as cheap a rate as Mr. Rapier had stated. Mr. Holt considered it would be a great advantage to reduce the number of parts in a tramway-engine, and make it more simple. He thought the Board of Trade had very wisely imposed the various restrictions. They were for the benefit of the public, and though Mr. Holt seemed to object to the automatic brake, he regarded it as a protection t o have one on an engine.