THE SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REPORT BOOK

Daniel Gooch was an avid reader of any and all engineering developments which passed his way, and of those many ideas with which he had close association; but until the recent emergence of this latest document, the most tangible evidence of this characteristically thorough approach to his chosen profession took the form of a handwritten `Pocket Book', which now resides in the archives of the National Railway Museum at York having miraculously survived the century or more since it was completed. This unique and priceless document, available for scrutiny by prior arrangement with the NRM, is of the modest physical size which befits its nature and is packed full of immaculate drawings and observations emanating from this remarkable man. It is alleged that Gooch rarely if ever went on his travels without his pocket book. The newly discovered document is very much in the same tradition at 100 thoroughness as the book at the NRM.

The book itself is of the old fashioned `foolscap' size which, together with the nature of its contents, clearly suggests that it was seen more as a record than as a "travelling companion" and its contents are clearly the work of two different people. Most of the first part, comprising 76 pages, was undoubtedly compiled by the same hand which prepared many pages of the NRM pocket book. Its characteristic is that of immaculate copperplate handwriting combined with fine engineering draughtsmanship of those aspects which seemed (presumably to Gooch) worthy of permanent record. There is no direct evidence pointing to the exact identity of the person responsible for compiling this part of the work (the same comment is true for the NRM document by the way) but a very probable candidate is Edward Snell, who took over as Gooch's chief draughtsman when Thomas Crampton left the GWR to seek his fortune elsewhere. Snell is known to have excelled in copperplate handwriting and since he was also assistant to Gooch, the inference is fairly clear cut.
The first part of the book addresses the "Comparative Merits of the Broad and Narrow Guage" (sic), the title page being dated 1845 and signed by Gooch. The analysis is divided into fourteen sections (indexed on the contents page) and the nature of the narrative (mostly in the first person singular) strongly infers that it was either dictated by Gooch or written in draft by him for subsequent transcription. In the middle of the `Snell' section, there are three pages in Gooch's own hand (pp 41-3) which form an integral part of the dissertation but no reason can be offered for this change of hand save for speculating a possible need for urgency in completion. This section embraces all the drawings and line diagrams contained in the whole document.

The second part of the document - consisting of 102 pages and clearly a rather more personal statement - is undoubtedly the work of Gooch himself and consists of his own personal observations following the report of the Gauge Commissioners in 1846. It is entitled "The Gauge Question" (this time `gauge' is spelt properly) and carries a subscription: Practically considered from the evidence given before the Gauge Commissioners to determine the best future gauge of railways." Written in his own handwriting during the same year as the report of the Commissoners (and signed in full), an interesting human touch to this account (indicative of the fact that Gooch may have been writing `from the heart' and in some haste - ie without prior assessment of how much space he might have needed) is the fact that the final 32 pages appear out of sequence, being placed ahead of the main part of the narrative and immediately after page 76 of the first, more technical, part of the document.

No matter how swiftly it may have been written, the whole narrative reveals Gooch to have been a more than thoughtful man who, in spite of a lack of formal education in the modern sense, had a fine command of English and was well able to articulate his views in writing. Although there are subsequent annotations and corrections in Gooch's hand, page after page of the account reveal no alterations whatsoever - clear evidence of a fine and lucid mind at work.

In retrospect, it is more than unfortunate that his views never seem to have been published in full in the form which they appear in this document, though some of them appear in part in the printed documents accompanying the manuscript book. The sheer length and complexity of his observations indicate that he gave much time and thought to the issues involved, while his comments undoubtedly form a very important element of the historical `archive' of the evolution of our railways. And his style was very persuasive viz:

"With these advantages I think clearly proved by the evidence
and facts given before the Commissoners it is not likely the
Public will long submit to have Narrow Gauge forced upon
them."

... or alternatively in his closing exhortation:

"Let the voice of the Public therefore agree with me and the
Broad Gauge will triumphantly spread to every corner of the
Country carrying with it vast advantages."

Although subsequent events proved him over-sanguine, the so-called `Battle of the Gauges' was an important argument in the early development of railways on a world wide basis and, as has already been recorded in context of Gooch and the model, his pre-GWR training and overall attitude was unquestionably influenced by his involvement with broad gauge engines for overseas (e.g. USA and Russia). It is no surprise, therefore, that his views were generally regarded as being of global significance at that time and it is indeed fortunate that they have survived for posterity in a form of presentation of whose authenticity and authority there can be no doubt. It is clear from the way in which it was put together and in which it has survived (i.e. beautifully bound in permanent form) that Gooch himself regarded it as an important element of his work while its continued existence in such fine condition must be regarded as a most fortuitous circumstance.