REPORT UPON THE EXPEDIENCY OF GRADING THE ROAD FOR A Worcester, December 20th, 1836. THOMAS B. WALES, Esq., PRESIDENT OF THE WESTERN RAIL ROAD CORPORATION. SIR, Your communication of the 12th November, calling upon the Engineers and Resident Engineer, for an opinion upon the expediency of constructing the First Division of the Western Rail Road for a single track was duly received. It was intended to postpone a reply to this communication until the Report for the January meeting of the Board was prepared, and to state in it, fully, the disadvantages, which we conceived would arise if the order of the Board of 4th October, directing the road to be graded for a single track were adhered to, but upon further reflection, we have considered it our duty to anticipate the period of the Directors' meeting, in order that sufficient time may be afforded for the members of the Board to consider the reasons, which we deem it proper to offer against the proposed width for The order specifies that the cuttings shall be from 14 to feet in width, and the embankments 12 feet at the sur e propose in the first instance to consider the subject pect of the cost alone, intimating, respectfully, at the ime, that in our opinion the question should be treatpendently of cost, upon the ground that the road e graded for a double track, even if it be not intended wn more than the single track-and this for the hich we shall assign in their place. The road being graded for a single track, the rails of course would be laid upon the middle of the bed, and not upon the side, as in the case of a bed for a double track; this being the case, we shall assume that the road bridges and stream bridges are to be of a width sufficient for two tracks, for the well known reason, that the expense of removing the wing walls, for the purpose of widening the abutments hereafter, would be greater than the cost of making them the full width in the first instance. The culverts we may make conformable with the width of the embankments, as they may be extended for a double track at any subsequent period without much additional expense. We shall further state that the maximum width authorized for the cuts (20 feet,) is barely sufficient to afford space for the ditches necessary to drain the road. Upon these premises, we proceed to exhibit the difference in cost between the double and single track. In level cutting, when the depth of the cutting (or filling) amounts to the width of the surface of the road, the areas of the sections of the slopes become equal to that of the bed. The cost in that case, therefore, of the bed and of the slopes will be equal. If the depth of cutting be greater than two thirds the width of the surface of the road bed, If the cutting be the ratio of expense is a decreasing one. less than, the converse is true. Take, for an example, two widths, say 15 and 30 feet, and depths of 10 and 20 feet, 30 15 here the depth is the surface width, and the slopes contain the same quantity of earth which the bed itself contains. Now take two other cases in which the widths shall be the same as in the former case, but the depths different, say widths, 15 and 30, and depths of 5 and 30, in this the depth in the first example, is less than is required for equal expense, and in the second it is more, and the ratios are 37.5 75 and 1350: 900; that is, in the first case the bed costs twice as much as the slopes, and in the second it is only the cost of the slopes, hence for heavy work, similar in character to that upon the first division, the ratio is in favor of the double track. We shall further premise, that twelve feet for the embankments (the width ordered) is too narrow for safety at all times, and too narrow to admit of being worked without great loss of time. We shall assume 16 feet as the least admissible width, even for the narrow track. Taking Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13, embracing about 4 miles of the road, we shall exhibit the gross amount of cutting and filling upon each, with the cost of the same at the prices at which the contracts are made-both for double and single track. Width track. Cutting. SECTION 10. Filling. Cost. Difference. 20 and 16. 33684.7 yds. 42729.7 yds. 9827.67 2798.18 26 and 26. 39209. 66 54895. 64 |12625.85 or 23 per cent. 20 and 16. 172755. yds |183641. yds. 89984.09|6945.91 26 and 26. 194400. " 215400. 66 96930.00 or 8 per cent.* The average of the difference in cost, as above, is about 15 per cent. We shall assume to as the additional cost of grading the road for a double track throughout the division. The total difference upon this hypothesis, for the 19 miles will be about 75,000 dollars; upon the supposition also of all the excavations being earth, and earth and loose rock, in the proportions estimated in the four above named sections. In the case of a rock cut, there being but an inconsiderable slope to be given to the sides, the expense of the cuts would be nearly in the ratio of the widths, or 26: 20, say 23 per cent. In consequence of some modifications made in the grades of the line across the summit, the amount of cutting and filling as stated in the above table is less than the quantity furnished by the final computations upon the established line. This does not affect the principle, however. The comparative results are all which we are desirous of presenting to your notice at this time. The contractors in their proposals for executing the work, have made a difference in favor of the double track, of from one to four cents per yard for earth, from 2 to 10 cents for loose rock, and from 5 to 30 cents for solid rock. It remains to us now to state such objections to the width (as at present ordered) as appear to us obvious. They may be thus summarily enumerated. 1. The difficulty and disadvantage of working any amount of force either in the cuts, or upon the embankments, particularly the latter, 12 feet in width not allowing sufficient space for the carts to turn or pass each other without liability to accident, the carts being 6 feet at the axles, and the embankment but 12 feet, the consequence in the manner referred to is obvious. We may add in this place the proof of this by stating that even now, the carts upon the only embankment which is carried out, have been precipitated some half dozen times while turning or passing each other. 2. The embankments being constructed, and in places rising from 20 to 60 feet in height, with a surface width of 12 feet only, what might we expect their condition to be at the end of a season-affected as they must be by the action of the frost, and washed into gullies by heavy rains? They might, by the effect of single storm, be rendered impassable. 3. In the event of an accident to a train of cars upon an embankment, by which they should be thrown off the rails, some space is necessary to work, in order to replace them upon the track; and while this may probably be done if they are not broken, what is the alternative if they are, say a wheel?—there is no room upon either side of the track for them to remain for another train to pass, but must effectually stop the passage of every thing, until they can be removed from the bank, by being lowered perhaps may be equally or into a swamp or ravine, from which it more difficult to get them again upon firm ground. and 4. It has been said that if these difficulties occur, the narrow bed is proved to be too inconvenient, that the track may, at any subsequent period, be widened, and at a less expense, even, than in making it sufficiently wide for a The great difficulty, and double track in the first instance. we might say impracticability of this proceeding, is too evident to any one having the least knowledge of the matter, to require an answer. We might take for an example the rock cut on the Worcester Rail Road, and ask, in increasing the width of the track at that place, what might and probably would be the effect of a single blast? It requires but little reflection to answer, that the road might, at any moment be rendered impassable, and in such a manner, that all the force within the control of man could not remove the obstacle in 24 hours. The road being graded for a single track, the rails of course would be laid in the middle of the graded surface; the whole would of necessity have to be taken up before the second track could be laid, and therefore the case is very different from that in which the road is prepared for two tracks in the first instance. 5. The difficulty of forming a new embankment against an old one, (such as would be required in the widening of the road bed,) is not to be overlooked. A writer upon this subject says, "It may be proper to advise that new banks ought not to be placed upon steep ground without considerable care in first forming it into levels, like steps, to prevent the slipping of the new part, as happened near Bradford on the Kennet and Avon canal; after all the care that was taken, great lengths of the canal slid down into the Avon river below." From the foregoing statements, the conclusions which we arrive at are these: First, That it appears to us that sound policy would dictate the propriety of grading the road sufficiently wide for two tracks, even upon the supposition that but one is to be laid down. In fact the width usually assumed for two tracks, is scarcely more than is requisite for one, to insure proper drainage, and to clear the road bed of snow. Second. If it should be deemed expedient by the Board to adhere to the resolution of the 4th October, directing the road to be graded for a single track, we would state the necessity of extending the width of the embankments to 16 feet upon all parts of the road: that upon the 12th and 13th Sections, embracing the summit, and where both cutting and filling are heavier than upon any other portion of the line, the road be graded for two tracks, the cuts to be widened for an opportunity to drain the bed thoroughly, |