Toronto and Nipissing Railway - Choice of Narrow Gauge, Promotion and Financing

Choice of Narrow Gauge, Promotion and Financing

A charismatic Scots-born Toronto wharfinger and trader, George Laidlaw took up the challenge. He was a business associate of the powerful Gooderham and Worts Distillery interests, and other Toronto bankers and merchants. Laidlaw advertised in newspapers in London, England for suggestions as to how railways might be built more cheaply in Canada. He received a reply from Carl Abraham Pihl, first managing engineer of Norway's Railway Construction Bureau. Pihl had worked on the construction, under Robert Stephenson, of the first Norwegian trunk railway the Hovedbanen from Christiania (today Oslo) to Eidsvoll which opened in 1854 where the same issues of overbuilding a line in a small farming and fishing economy, had led to an unaffordable railway. He now advocated the use of the narrow gauge of 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) with all major construction in wood, which system he had developed since the early 1860s. Pihl's ideas had been noticed in Britain where the smaller Ffestiniog Railway was also proving a success. After a visit to Norway the 3 ft 6 in gauge was taken up by Sir Charles Fox and Sons, the firm founded by the eminent engineer and constructor of the Crystal Palace at the Great Exhibition of 1851. Fox had a very influential consulting practice throughout the former British Empire and Colonies and was instrumental in gaining acceptance for the 3 ft 6in (Cape or Colonial) gauge in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. It has been suggested that the name 'Cape' is derived from the initials of Carl Abraham Pihl.

The choice of the narrow gauge led to vigorous challenges in London, England and Canada. Zerah Colburn the editor of the London technical journal Engineering used its columns to violently criticise the advice of Douglas Fox, the elder son of Sir Charles Fox, to the promoters, and this was taken up by the Hamilton Spectator which supported that town's claim to be the hub, (rather than Toronto) of railway traffic for western Ontario. Abraham Fitzgibbon the Chief Engineer of the Queensland Railways came to the aid of the promoters with a speech in Toronto. The main opposition to the narrow gauge came from the Wellington Grey and Bruce Railway in the West and the Port Whitby and Port Perry Railway in the East. Both lines were proposing to build competing lines on the 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) 'Provincial' gauge, and claimed that the choice of the narrow gauge was a ruse to ensure that all the traffic of the districts would be exclusively trans-shipped at Toronto, rather than Hamilton and Whitby. The opposition narrowly failed to defeat the narrow gauge, and Provincial Charters were granted to the Toronto and Nipissing Railway, and the Toronto, Grey and Bruce Railway, on March 4, 1868.

George Laidlaw sought to raise money to finance the construction of the narrow gauge railways by the following means, in order of preference:

• Bonuses approved by vote of taxpayers from each township and county on the route of the line
• Provincial government grants per mile of track built, under the "Aid to Railways Act"
• Sale of Stock
• Sale of Bonds
• Loans

Laidlaw and other directors fanned out through the townships speaking at taxpayer meetings in support of bonuses for the railways. His messianic style at these meetings often generated so much enthusiasm that motions were immediately approved to grant large sums in support of the lines. On the morrow the local politicians often had second and more sober thoughts and sought to control the process themselves, trying to dictate where and when the money would be spent, and on what. Long drawn out campaigns ensued with businessmen and progressive farmers whose lots would be near the line advocating large unconditional grants, and those in more distant locations opposing the free bonuses of tax money. Generally the response of the settlers, anxious to expand opportunities for trade and travel, was generous. But, when strongly opposed, Laidlaw's combative and insulting responses could generate such opposition that townships delayed contributing money for years, or refused entirely.

Contrary to the hopes of the promoters, the proceeds from bonuses, grants, and stock sales fell short of paying for construction of the roadbed and structures. This deficit, and the cost of purchasing iron and equipment, had to be made up by issuing bonds whose guaranteed interest payments were a heavy burden on the income of the T&NR, and ultimately were to prove fatal to its prospects. Gooderham and Worts had a vital interest in maintaining supplies of firewood for fuel, and grain for its production processes, and for several years it was loans and other support from the Distillery Company which kept the T&NR afloat.

The Nipissing Act of Parliament was vague, and even the promoters were uncertain for some time as to the exact scope of the proposed railway. The T&NR Prospectus of April 1869 speaks of an 85-mile (137 km) ‘first section’ to Coboconk, with a branch of 10 miles (16 km) to the town of Lindsay. Such a branch was never built by the T&NR, although the connection was eventually made by the Whitby, Port Perry, and Lindsay Railway via a junction at Blackwater. The first objectives were the towns of Markham and Stouffville in York County, and Uxbridge in Ontario County. These could be reached on a direct line through the well established villages of Scarborough Township. Once at Uxbridge (55 km or 34 mi), Laidlaw’s next objective was Lake Nipissing (300 km or 190 mi) and a junction with the future Pacific Railway. The provisional mainline terminus of the T&NR, on the way to Lake Nipissing, was to be Coboconk.

On the lower and longer settled part of the line, as far as Uxbridge, municipal bonuses were generally given freely and generously, but beyond that place townships were sometimes less enthusiastic; Whitchurch, Reach, and Mariposa accounted for 11 miles (18 km) of line but giving nothing. Further north some remote townships such as Bexley responded handsomely. The T&NR's main opponents were the Northern Railway of Canada in the West and the Port Whitby and Port Perry Railway in the east. Neither seriously blocked its territorial advance but were instrumental in persuading some townships not to vote bonuses.

Surveys of a line beyond Coboconk, and as far as Minden, Ontario, were made but it was never found economic to blast a way through such rough uninhabited territory, and the line never did go to Lake Nipissing.

The lack of communications in that part of east County York lying between the line of the Northern Railway of Canada through Newmarket, and the Toronto and Nipissing Railway through Uxbridge convinced local politicians that a cheap narrow gauge line connecting with the T&NR at Stouffville, and running north to Lake Simcoe near Sutton would enhance the agricultural and forest trade in the area and tap the Lake Simcoe steamer traffic. The 26 mile 3 ft 6 in gauge line was promoted as the Lake Simcoe Junction Railway.