But it is not with respect to a tunnel only, that the resistance of the air opposes an impediment: this resistance being found so serious an obstacle to the progress of the locomotive engines and their loads, that in all trials of, or experiments with them, the state and direction of the wind is noted and allowed for. In the “Account of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway,” published by the Treasurer of that Company (H. Booth, Esq.), he says: “Moreover, at great velocities, the resistance of the air must not be left out of the calculation. At ten miles per hour, it has been found by experiment, that the resistance of the atmosphere is about half a pound weight on a square foot of flat surface; at fifteen miles, the resistance is 1lb. per square foot; and at twenty miles, about 2lbs. per square foot: the increased resistance being, nearly, as the squares of the velocities.”[40]
The surface opposed to the air by a steam-coach, the engines of which its proprietor told me were equal to ten horses power, I found to be 30 square feet. That, opposed by another, the engines of which were said to be equal to twenty horses power, I found to be above 50 square feet: while, when carrying four outsides on the front of the roof, this coach exposed nearly 70 square feet to the action of the air. The surface opposed to the air by the large locomotive engines now used on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, I understand (when chimney, axle-tree, wheels, and every thing that cuts the air, is taken into account) to be about 40 feet square. Supposing it to be so, at 20 miles an hour, the air will oppose resistance equal to 80lbs. to the progress of the engine; which resistance having to be overcome at the rate of 1760 feet per minute, is equal to 4¼ horses power. At 40 miles an hour, this resistance would be 320lbs.; which resistance having to be overcome at the rate of 3526 feet per minute, would be equal to 34 horses power. At 80 miles an hour, the resistance of the air would be 1280lbs.; which resistance, having to be overcome at the rate of 7,040 feet per minute, would be equal to 270 horses power; while at 100, and 120 miles an hour, the power required would be, respectively, that of 528 and 912 horses.
Now, as the force required at 80 miles an hour, is afewtimes more than the whole power of those engines, and as Dr. Hutton found that giving the moving body the form of a cone, the height of which equalled the diameter of its base, diminished the resistance of the air only half, it may serve to shew that the statements of those who have given currency to the opinion that we may be conveyed atanyvelocity on railways, are promulgated by persons who pronounce upon questions without examining them: since, in addition to this resistance of theairto the locomotive engines themselves, would be its resistance to the tenders, and coaches or waggons they drew;and that, too, independent of, and additional to, the resistance opposed by therailwayfriction of the engines, tenders, and loads, behind them.
That something of this kind preventsveryhigh velocities from being attained on railways, is evident. At the locomotive engine competition on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway four years ago, velocities of from 35 to 40 miles an hour, were attained by engines which were not one-tenth the power of some of those now used; while, at the opening of that railway, three years ago, the engine by which the surgeon was brought to Mr. Huskisson, after his deplorable accident, went 15 miles in 25 minutes, which is at the rate of 36 miles an hour. Yet do not the so much more powerful locomotives now used on that road, go faster than this: a circumstance which may prove that the limit to the velocity of railway conveyance, will arise from a source not calculated on.
“But,” it may be observed, “this objection to the possibility of very high velocities on railways, is counterbalanced by the dilemma in which you place yourself, by supposing it to be possible that any such power as that of 29,196 horses, can, at one time, be made to operate on a tunnel; since, as relates to practical application, it would prove ‘an impossible quantity.’”
The inference I deny; and, when necessary, will disprove.[41]But the term I accept; and will avail myself of, to shew that it is equally “an impossible quantity” that even if a tunnel were ten times as long as one between Manchester and Liverpool, the friction of air which is caused to move in it, in consequence of exhaustion taking place at the opposite end, can ever oppose an impediment such as is here adverted to.
According to the opinion that the friction of the air would increase as the square of the velocity, the friction of the column of air, which, when moved by exhaustion at the rate of 20 miles an hour, in a tunnel eight feet diameter and a mile long, was 288lbs., would, when moved at the rate of 80 miles an hour, be 4608lbs.; which, on the whole area of the tunnel, would be equal to 1.3 inches of mercury. Therefore, supposing that at every mile of a tunnel extending from Liverpool to Manchester, barometer tubes were to be inserted, the bottoms (or basin ends) of which should be open to the atmosphere, and the tops open to the inside of the tunnel, the mercury in each successive tube would (reckoningtowardsthe end at which the exhaustion took place) rise 1.3 inches higher than that in the preceding.
Now as 1.3×23 gives 30, while 1.3×30 gives 39, it appears that at 23 miles from that end of the tunnel at which the atmosphere was admitted, and seven from that where the exhaustion took place, there would be such a vacuum as would raise mercury thewholeheight of the barometric column; while, at the end of the 30 miles there would be—or ratheroughtto be, according to this calculation—39 inches of mercury; or a vacuum and a third; which, in addition to its being “an impossible quantity,” places those who contend that the resistance of the friction of air which is caused to move through a tunnel by the pressure of the atmosphere in consequence of exhaustion taking place at the opposite end, increases according to the square of the velocity, in the dilemma of assuming that there is a certain place in a tunnel 30 miles long, where, notwithstanding that aman, a horse, or even an elephant, might walk as freely and unobstructedly along, as a mouse could through a rat-hole, that subtle, permeating, and all-pervading element which we breathe, would, like the stream of the Jordan when under the influence of the miracle by which the Israelites passed over that river, stop, stick fast, and be unable to move farther; a position, which necessarily throws us for an escape from this dilemma, on the conclusion that, though it is certain that the friction of air against the inside of the tunnel will be an impediment, and though it is probable that this impediment will be of some importance, yet must it be equally certain that it will not be the serious impediment which it issupposedit will prove: and it may therefore, safely be assumed, that the objection which presents an insuperable obstacle in the minds of the many who have condemned the method of operation by exhaustion which I propose (because they deemed it analogous to operating per plenum) becomes removed, and is found to be what all the other “insuperable objections” which have been arrayed against the proposition are found to be when grappled with; i.e. baseless and unreal: it being necessary only to put a valve at every half, or quarter of a mile, which should be opened by the carriages as they passed, to render the length of the column of air of the natural density, whichmustbe behind the carriages to drive them along, only a few hundred yards, and its friction consequently unimportant; said valves being (as can easily be done) so arranged, as to close themselves again the moment the carriage had arrived at, opened, and passed by, the next succeeding one.
But though I freely admit that the friction of the air against the inside of the tunnel may waste power to a degree which shall prove not unimportant, yet may it be doubted whether it will be more important than the waste of power occasioned by the present method of railway transmission by locomotive engines.
In the documents laid before the Lords’ Committees on the London and Birmingham Railway, by the Treasurer of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, on the 28th June, 1832, it is stated that the “number of trips of thirty miles” performed (or travelled) by the locomotive engines between Liverpool and Manchester, in the half year ending the 31st December, 1831, was “5392”: which, as the same document shews that thewholeamount of profitable weight conveyed over those 30 miles during that half year was less than 91,000 tons, gives an average of only 17 tons as the profitable weight carried each “trip.” The weight of the engines by which these loads were drawn it may be difficult to fix upon: though, as the locomotives now used on that railway, are, some of them, above six tons, others above eight, and others above ten tons in weight, it may, perhaps, be fair to take eight tons as the average weight. The weight of the tenders with fuel and water, appears to be rather a delicate subject. The weight of the tender of the Rocket, with its load of fuel and water, at the grand locomotive engine competition in October, 1829, was three-fourths that of the engine itself. There have since been many accounts of immense loads drawn on the railway, of which those by Dr. Lardner, in his “Lectures on the Steam Engine,” are considered as “by authority.” But though we find the weights of the engines, as well as of the loads, and various other particulars (even to the state of the wind) given, yet does it happen that the weights of the tenders, with their supplies of fuel and water, are “unascertained” and omitted, throughout. Under these circumstances, I can do no other than act on the best information I have obtained, and suppose the weight of the engines and tenders with their cargoes of fuel and water to be twelve tons for each “trip.”
Assuming it to be so, the weight of the moving power will be above two-thirds of the profitableweight conveyed; while, supposing the same proportion to obtain as to the 4000 tons just mentioned, the amount of the effect of the friction of the power by which they were conveyed at the rate of 20 miles an hour, would be twice and a half as much as the friction of the air would be in a tunnel when twice the tonnage was conveyed from Liverpool to Manchester in it, at the same rate; which, for equal quantities, is five times the friction while, as relates to the fuel consumed, it would beverymany more times than this, dearer.
There is one class, who, above all others, might derive benefit from properly considering what I thus submit, relative to the friction of the air.
When what was termed “the railway mania” was at its height, it was calculated that no body of men would be so much benefited by it as the iron trade; in proof of which the following statement was circulated:—
“We are authorised to state, that the rail-roads already projected, will require considerably more than two millions of tons of iron. Now, as iron has recently advanced from 7l.to 14l.per ton, it appears that the iron masters (by the way, the originators of, or principals in, many of these schemes) will receive from the subscribers twenty-eight millions sterling.”
“We are authorised to state, that the rail-roads already projected, will require considerably more than two millions of tons of iron. Now, as iron has recently advanced from 7l.to 14l.per ton, it appears that the iron masters (by the way, the originators of, or principals in, many of these schemes) will receive from the subscribers twenty-eight millions sterling.”
But, instead of the iron trade having been benefited by the principal portion of what is expended on railways being for their article, scarcely more than one-twentieth-part has been expended for iron; the remainder having gone for labour in “cutting and embanking,” &c. &c.
In the account in Mr. Treasurer Booth’s book, of the expenses of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, the line which, in the statement, runs “Iron rail account,” gives only 66,830l.as paid to the iron masters: the other hundreds, which make up the aggregate of 67,912l.there mentioned, being for “oak plugs, freights, und cartages;” which is little more than one-twentieth part of the whole that has been expended on this railway.
The rails of the London and Birmingham Railway are to be half as heavy again as those of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Yet does the expense of the “rails, chairs, keys, and pins,” in the estimate of that railway laid before Parliament, amount to only 212,940: one twelfth, that is, of the two millions and a half, which form the aggregate of the estimate there given in.
One of the inducements which railway advocates have held out to the landed proprietors of the Houses of Parliament, in order to lead them to support railway bills, has been the degree to which poor rates, &c. would be diminished, in consequence of the labourers there would be employed in digging out the earth for the cuttings and embankments, in the different parishes through which the lines of railway would run; and in the papers of the end of June and the beginning of July (1832) is averylong advertisement of the London and Birmingham Railway Company, one part of which states that “Thelanded interestwill be benefitted by the expenditure ofupwardsof two millions of the capital of the Company in labour.”
According to their own shewing, therefore, the expenditure for the benefit of the landed interest will be “upwardsof two millions,” while the cost of the iron rails, &c. will be only upwards of two hundred thousand pounds. And as both this, and other advertisements, and the evidence before Parliament, announce the extension of the railway from Birmingham to Liverpool, when this first half of it from London to Birmingham is done—which extension will be about the same length as this first half—the statements of the railway advocates themselves, give the iron masters to see, that the result of the time, trouble, and expense, which they (the iron masters) have devoted tobring forward railways, is, to put more than a shilling into the pockets of the agricultural interest (by the degree to which they will save parish rates, &c. &c.) for every farthing they put into the pockets of the iron masters themselves; all that is saved to country parishes, being actual gain to the agricultural interest; while the 12th or 16th paid to the iron trade is for value in iron; out of which the usual trade profit is all that the iron masters will gain. In other words, about four millions sterling will be paidforthe parishes between London and Liverpool, in the shape of wages for labourers, while only about four hundred thousand pounds will be paidtothe iron masters for the iron rails, &c.; out of which the iron masters will have to pay the wages of their men who smelt &c. the iron, and the royalties (or rent) for the ore, coal, &c. &c. used in making it.
The difference there is in the specific gravities of ore, coal, and limestone, in different places, will render any estimatenotcorrect for every place; though, generally speaking, I believe it may be received that the quantity of iron stone, coal, and lime stone, which it is necessary to raise to produce a ton of pig iron, will be about 6½ cubic yards.
In the evidence laid before the Lords’ Committees upon the London and Birmingham Railway, it is stated that the whole amount of “earth work” required for that railway, amounts to 22,779,431 cubic yards; of which a detailed statement is given in the minutes of evidence.
Dividing the twenty-three (nearly) millions of cubic yards of “earth work” which are to be excavated and embanked on the Birmingham Railway, by the number of cubic yards of ore, &c. which it is necessary to dig to make a ton of iron, will show, that if the wages which will be paid for levelling on that railway, were to be expended in digging iron ore, &c. the nation would be benefitted by having three millions and a half tons of iron more than it now possesses; while the labour expended on the railway will be not only worth nothing to the nation, but also worse; insomuch as it appears by the evidence before the Lords’ Committees that it will render 1250 acres of land, which are now cultivated and productive, sterile as a turnpike road.
It is supposed by Mr. Treasurer Booth, in his book on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, that three thousand miles of rail-road, will, eventually, be laid down in England.
Supposing these 3000 miles to require “earth work” (cuttings and embankments, i.e.) in the same proportion that the London and Birmingham Railway will do so, and also supposing that the wages which will be paid to the Irish, &c. labourers, who do the digging for this “earth work,” were, instead, to be paid to the workmen of the iron masters for raising ore, &c. &c. and converting it into iron, the nation would be richer by nearly one hundred million tons of iron, than it will be if these said wages are paid merely for “cutting and embanking” for railways.
Now though I do not mean to insinuate that this hundred million tons of metallic worth, would increase what is now termed the “monetary wealth” of the nation, yet, as surely as their ignorance (and consequent want) of iron, rendered Mexico and Peru such easy conquests to the iron of the Spaniards, as to make them most striking examples of the truth of Solon’s warning to Crœsus, “He who has more iron, will soon be master of all this gold,” so surely would the possession of this hundred million tons of iron, be enormously more advantageous to the nation, than the cuttings and embankments required for these 3000 miles of railway will be.
Although iron be not, at the present day, either with ourselves, or in any other part of the world, the symbol of value, medium of exchange, andmoney, which Lycurgus made it in Sparta, when that state was in her glory, yet has it, as a commodity which will obtain us the gold andsilver of Mexico and Peru in exchange for it, a value, which will procure us the amount of its worth in those metals, as certainly as any other commodity that we export. In whatever proportion, therefore, this hundred million tons of iron would procure us either the gold or silver, the corn and flour, the silks and cottons, the wines and wools, the tea and coffee, the sugar and spices, &c. &c. of other countries, would devoting the wages which will be expended in cutting and embanking for these 3000 miles of railway, to the raising and smelting of iron ore, be more valuable to the nation at large, than if so employed.
Nor is this all; since the substitute I propose for railways, would give us food for one hundred thousand people, which these railways will deprive us of.
The documents laid before the Lords’ Committees, state, that this Birmingham railway will cover and throw out of cultivation, 1250 acres of land. Supposing the proportion thrown out by the 3000 miles of railway to be the same, the whole amount will be 33,333 acres. Allowing these acres to produce three quarters of corn each, is no very excessive allowance.[45]And each individual of the kingdom being estimated to consume a quarter of corn every year, here is land that would produce bread for one hundred thousand people thrown out of cultivation by the railway system.
Now as, in addition to its being perfectlypracticablefor my tunnels to be buried underground, it would be decidedly best for themselves, and for the operation of the principle, that they should be so; and as ploughing, sowing, reaping, mowing, and all other operations of agriculture, may go on over them, as over any drain, or water-pipe, there is, in addition to themetallicdifference which my plan would make to the riches of the nation, the circumstance, that, besides providing this exchangeable metallic wealth, or exportable value, it would also provide us, every year, with food for one hundred thousand more people, than the railway system can provide for.
Themetallicpart of the question being, however, that which concerns the iron trade, I will keep to that.
One of my early views of this method of conveyance, was, that itmightprove important to the iron trade, from the much greater quantity of their production which it would consume, than railways require: and it has, for these seven years, been an object with me, to awaken the attention of the iron masters to (as I conceived) its importance to them, and to endeavour to convince them of the propriety of giving to a plan, which would consumetonsof their article, where railways consume only hundred weights, the same fostering and support which they gave to bringing forward railways.
But it has not pleased the iron masters to see the case in the same light in which it presented itself to me.
It is well known to them, that in the year 1810 we had neither a steam-vessel nor a gas-work in the kingdom: the propositions to adopt both those important inventions beingthentermed and treated, just as this proposition of mine is now termed and treated, i.e. as “impossible, absurd, and madness to think of.” Yet have they seen that a sum of (roundly speaking) ten millions, has, since that period, been sunk in the construction of gas-works and steam-vessels.
With proofs such as these before them (and which have led to the consumption of so much of their production as gas-works and mains require), that, what they, a few years ago, deemed utterly impossible, may, nevertheless, be quite the reverse—it might have been supposed that the iron masters would not prove, either incredulous to, or bigoted against, the belief that a still more important extension of the use of their article was about to open to them.
But, to my great surprise, I have found, that of all unbelievers, the iron masters have proved the most unbelieving.
Other people doubted only because the want of knowledge on the subject, which they openly avowed, left them no alternative. But, in the iron masters, I have had “to contend with the pride of false knowledge.” The world at large said, “We cannot believe, because we cannot understand.” But the iron masters say, “We do not believe, becauseweknow better.”
On asking them how and why they “knew better,” I found that it was not, as some might suppose, from any doubt or difficulty as to the tunnel itself; which they admitted could be cast and laid down, of any size or dimensions that might be required. Neither was it from any doubt as to steam-engines or air-pumps being large and powerful enough to do what was necessary;—the tens of thousands of gallons of air ejected per minute, from the air-pumps which they use to blow the fires of their smelting-furnaces, and the hundreds of horses power they know steam-engines are made equal to, removing all question on these points.[46]But their incredulity arose from a difficulty which one of them had met with, in forcing air through a pipe; and of which they supposed me ignorant; but to which I had adverted, in a publication years before, in the following words:
“It is too well known, to be at all affected in point of veracity, by an inability to mention either the exact time or place, that the proprietor of an iron work in Wales had, some years ago, occasion to erect an additional furnace, at the distance (recollection states) of about three-quarters of a mile from his old ones. The blast apparatus of these old works being large enough to supply this new furnace in addition to the old ones, he conceived it would prove much cheaper, if, instead of having power and blast cylinders erected at the new work, he were to lay a pipe from the old ones, to convey to the new one the superfluous blast. This he accordingly did; and as soon as the pipe was completed, set the apparatus going, to ascertain the strength of the blast he could thus apply to the new furnace. To his great surprise, however, no blast was produced; a gentle current, which would hardly blow a candle out, being all that was perceptible. For a result so adverse to his expectation, he could account in no way but by supposing that, from accident or design, the pipe was stopped up. As the readiest way to ascertain whether it was so, he put a cat in at one end, and blocked it up, leaving her to find her way to the other.“Thus situated, puss had no alternative but that of seeking an exit at the other end: this she accordingly did, and, contrary to his expectations, soon made her appearance there. Convincedby this that the pipe was not stopped up, he concluded that the disappointment he had experienced arose from the friction of the air against it; and finding that he could in no way obviate this difficulty, he was obliged to abandon the design, and be at the additional expense of blast apparatus for his new furnace.“Now, had the proposition this treatise submits, been, that we should convey ourselves through a tunnel such as has been adverted to, by employing apparatus on the principle of blast furnaces, to blow us through, byforcingair in behind us, the circumstance which has just been stated would be fatal to that proposition. But when, instead of being blown through, by airforcedin behind us, it is proposed to cause the air which is behind the vehicle to operate to push it forward, in consequence of some being taken from before it, the case is widely different. Air which is forced to move in a pipe, in consequence of other air being driven into that pipe behind it, operates (in degree) as a wedge, and opposes to the power which moves it, resistance, arising from becoming, as it were, wedged against the pipe, through its whole length. But air which, instead of beingforcedto move by an impulse from behind, that, as it were, wedges it against even the very end of the pipe it enters at, isallowedto move, owing to some being taken out from before it instead of being forced in behind it, becomes affected as any thing from which a wedge iswithdrawnis affected; that is, freedom of motion is allowed, and its parts play so much more freely, that friction is diminished instead of increased. The impediment would prove, therefore, less important in this case than in the other, even were there no method of altogether obviating it; happily, however, the means of doing this are in our power. Between driving a vehicle through the proposed tunnel by forcing air in behind it, and according to the method which has been stated, there is this difference,—that in the former case the impulse can be given only from the end where the moving power operates; while, in the latter, arranging valves, which should be opened by the vehicle as it passed over them, would admit of that impulse being renewed at every hundred yards, could it be necessary to do it so frequently. Let the friction of the air against the pipe be what it may, therefore, a valve at every mile, or at every half or quarter of a mile, which (as may be done) should be opened by the vehicle as it passed along, and caused to remain open till it (the vehicle) had arrived at the next valve, would prevent any diminution of the velocity at which we might be conveyed, that would prove important.“This reasoning may be illustrated by a figure relating to an experiment. Air was forced through a pipe 56 feet long, at the rate of 20 miles an hour, under a pressure which is equal to 2.2 inches of water; and as it required a pressure which is equal to 0.6 inches of water to make air move at that rate through a hole in the side of a vessel, there was consequently 1.6 inches greater pressure at that end of the pipe at which the air entered, than at the end from whence it issued.“Now if the length of the pipe—the tenths of pressure at the entering—and those at the issuing end, be expressed by two lines approximating each other, as shewn below, it may be conceived how ‘air which is forced to move in a pipe in consequence of other air being driven into that pipe behind it, operates as a wedge; and opposes to the power which moves it, resistance, arising from becoming as it were wedged against the pipe, through its whole length.’”
“It is too well known, to be at all affected in point of veracity, by an inability to mention either the exact time or place, that the proprietor of an iron work in Wales had, some years ago, occasion to erect an additional furnace, at the distance (recollection states) of about three-quarters of a mile from his old ones. The blast apparatus of these old works being large enough to supply this new furnace in addition to the old ones, he conceived it would prove much cheaper, if, instead of having power and blast cylinders erected at the new work, he were to lay a pipe from the old ones, to convey to the new one the superfluous blast. This he accordingly did; and as soon as the pipe was completed, set the apparatus going, to ascertain the strength of the blast he could thus apply to the new furnace. To his great surprise, however, no blast was produced; a gentle current, which would hardly blow a candle out, being all that was perceptible. For a result so adverse to his expectation, he could account in no way but by supposing that, from accident or design, the pipe was stopped up. As the readiest way to ascertain whether it was so, he put a cat in at one end, and blocked it up, leaving her to find her way to the other.
“Thus situated, puss had no alternative but that of seeking an exit at the other end: this she accordingly did, and, contrary to his expectations, soon made her appearance there. Convincedby this that the pipe was not stopped up, he concluded that the disappointment he had experienced arose from the friction of the air against it; and finding that he could in no way obviate this difficulty, he was obliged to abandon the design, and be at the additional expense of blast apparatus for his new furnace.
“Now, had the proposition this treatise submits, been, that we should convey ourselves through a tunnel such as has been adverted to, by employing apparatus on the principle of blast furnaces, to blow us through, byforcingair in behind us, the circumstance which has just been stated would be fatal to that proposition. But when, instead of being blown through, by airforcedin behind us, it is proposed to cause the air which is behind the vehicle to operate to push it forward, in consequence of some being taken from before it, the case is widely different. Air which is forced to move in a pipe, in consequence of other air being driven into that pipe behind it, operates (in degree) as a wedge, and opposes to the power which moves it, resistance, arising from becoming, as it were, wedged against the pipe, through its whole length. But air which, instead of beingforcedto move by an impulse from behind, that, as it were, wedges it against even the very end of the pipe it enters at, isallowedto move, owing to some being taken out from before it instead of being forced in behind it, becomes affected as any thing from which a wedge iswithdrawnis affected; that is, freedom of motion is allowed, and its parts play so much more freely, that friction is diminished instead of increased. The impediment would prove, therefore, less important in this case than in the other, even were there no method of altogether obviating it; happily, however, the means of doing this are in our power. Between driving a vehicle through the proposed tunnel by forcing air in behind it, and according to the method which has been stated, there is this difference,—that in the former case the impulse can be given only from the end where the moving power operates; while, in the latter, arranging valves, which should be opened by the vehicle as it passed over them, would admit of that impulse being renewed at every hundred yards, could it be necessary to do it so frequently. Let the friction of the air against the pipe be what it may, therefore, a valve at every mile, or at every half or quarter of a mile, which (as may be done) should be opened by the vehicle as it passed along, and caused to remain open till it (the vehicle) had arrived at the next valve, would prevent any diminution of the velocity at which we might be conveyed, that would prove important.
“This reasoning may be illustrated by a figure relating to an experiment. Air was forced through a pipe 56 feet long, at the rate of 20 miles an hour, under a pressure which is equal to 2.2 inches of water; and as it required a pressure which is equal to 0.6 inches of water to make air move at that rate through a hole in the side of a vessel, there was consequently 1.6 inches greater pressure at that end of the pipe at which the air entered, than at the end from whence it issued.
“Now if the length of the pipe—the tenths of pressure at the entering—and those at the issuing end, be expressed by two lines approximating each other, as shewn below, it may be conceived how ‘air which is forced to move in a pipe in consequence of other air being driven into that pipe behind it, operates as a wedge; and opposes to the power which moves it, resistance, arising from becoming as it were wedged against the pipe, through its whole length.’”
Two lines illustrating the above point
“Since the length of these two lines bears the same proportion in hundredths of an inch to 56 feet, as the spaces between the ends of them bear (in tenths of an inch) to 2.2 inches of water, and0.6 inches of water;[48a]and if we conceive that forcing air to move in this way, is, in some degree, analogous to drawing an elastic endless rope, the size of which should be equal to the larger end of the pipe, through it, and out at the smaller end, we may form some idea of the degree to which power would be absorbed in operating by a plenum. And not only this; since, reversing the operation, and supposing the rope to be drawn from the smaller to the larger end, will also give us some idea of the effect of operating by exhaustion, or vacuum; and enable us to conceive that ‘air which is allowed to move, owing to some being taken out from before it, instead of being forced in behind it, becomes affected, as any thing from which a wedge is withdrawn is affected; that is, freedom of motion is allowed, and its parts play so much more freely, that friction is diminished instead of increased.’”
“Since the length of these two lines bears the same proportion in hundredths of an inch to 56 feet, as the spaces between the ends of them bear (in tenths of an inch) to 2.2 inches of water, and0.6 inches of water;[48a]and if we conceive that forcing air to move in this way, is, in some degree, analogous to drawing an elastic endless rope, the size of which should be equal to the larger end of the pipe, through it, and out at the smaller end, we may form some idea of the degree to which power would be absorbed in operating by a plenum. And not only this; since, reversing the operation, and supposing the rope to be drawn from the smaller to the larger end, will also give us some idea of the effect of operating by exhaustion, or vacuum; and enable us to conceive that ‘air which is allowed to move, owing to some being taken out from before it, instead of being forced in behind it, becomes affected, as any thing from which a wedge is withdrawn is affected; that is, freedom of motion is allowed, and its parts play so much more freely, that friction is diminished instead of increased.’”
Unconvinced, however, by arguments of this kind, the iron masters persist in maintaining what I propose to be impossible, because one of them found that theexactly reverseprocess is so. In other words, they act just as those “impossibleists” did, who, in their ignorance that high steam would admit of the vacuum, air-pump, ponderous condensing chest, and ton of cold water per horse power per hour, which are inseparable from low-pressure engines, being dispensed with in high-pressure engines, pronounced it to be utterly impossible ever to make steam-engines capable of running upon roads, because such engines could neither carry the ponderous apparatus inseparable from the condenser, nor the immense quantity of cold water required to produce the vacuum which, alone, renders low-pressure engines efficient.
In vain did I point out to them, not only that I had not overlooked their objection, but that my earliest views of the subject, had adverted to, and expressly guarded against it. It was of no use: for no “Demetrius” or other “craftsman” of that day ever vociferated, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” more perseveringly, than the principal iron masters of the present day have exclaimed in honour of the idol “Impossible,” whom it pleased them to set up and worship, in opposition to the (as they deemed it) heresy I presumed to attempt to teach them.
Had they done me the honour toproveme heretical, and that theirs was thetruefaith, I should have been importantly benefitted, as well as convinced: insomuch as it would have prevented me from devoting at least seven additional years of time, and all the means in my power during that period, to the subject. But when they would not trouble themselves toexamine, and condemned, solely because they proclaimed “impossible,” a method of operation, which I not only didnotadvocate, but which my publications proved I had long and openly disclaimed, I could not but feel, first, the truth of Dr. Robertson’s observation, “As in Genoa ignorance had opposed and disappointed Columbus, in Lisbon he had to combat with prejudice, an enemy no less formidable;” and, secondly, that just as the reasoning of the pilot who was chosen to execute the treachery planned against Columbus, failed, because he had courage only to go half-way, so did the reasoning of these gentlemen fail, because they have done onlyhalfwhat is necessary to disprove the practicability of what I propose.[48b]
In publications, besides that just quoted, I have not only stated my conviction that the method of operation which the iron masters condemn would be impracticable, but also have endeavoured to analyse the question, and showwhyit would be so. But as I do not, like them, stop there, and (in effect) say that it must ever be impossible to discover a “North-West Passage,” or reach theNorthPole, because Captain Cook could not get within 30° of the South Pole, these gentlemen are pleased to act the part of “Alexander the coppersmith,” against me, rather than to give themselves the trouble of examining whether the part of another Alexander might not prove more honourable, as well as more advantageous to them.
The quotation given a few pages back, states that the price of iron was raised from 7l.to 14l.in 1825, in consequence of what was then called “the railway mania.” But, so far from maintaining this price, the following extract from a Memorial, which was agreed to at a meeting of the Staffordshire Iron Trade, held at Dudley, on the 4th October, 1831, shews, that in six years the price of iron had fallen lower than ever before was known.
“Memorial to the Right Honourable Earl Grey, First Lord of His Majesty’s Treasury.“We, the undersigned Iron Masters, of the Staffordshire Iron and Coal district, think it our duty respectfully to represent to His Majesty’s Government the following facts:“1. That for the last five years, eversince what is called the panic of1825, we have found, with very slight intermissions, a continually increasing depression in the prices of the products of industry, and more particularly in Pig Iron and Bar Iron, which have fallen respectively from upwards of 8l.per tonto under 3l.per ton, and from 15l.per tonto under 5l.per ton.“2. Against this alarming and long-continued depression, we have used every possible effort in our power to make head. We have practised all manner of economy, and have had recourse to every possible improvement in the working of our mines and manufactories.Our workmen’s wageshave, in many instances, been greatly reduced, and such reduction has been attended with, andeffected by,very great suffering and distress:—but the royalties, rents, contracts, and other engagements, under which we hold our respective works and mines, have scarcely been reduced at all, nor can we get them effectually reduced,because the law enforces their payment in full.“3. The prices of the products of our industry having thus fallen within the range of the fixed charges and expenses which the law compels us to discharge, the just and necessary profits of our respective trades have ceased to exist: and in many cases a positive loss attends them.“4. Under these circumstances, we have long hesitated in determining what line of conduct our interest and our duties require us to adopt:—If we should abandon our respective trades, our large and expensive outlays in machinery and erections must be sacrificed, at an enormous loss to ourselves, and our honest and meritorious workmen must be thrown in thousands upon parishes, already too much impoverished by their present burdens, to support them:—and if we should continue our respective trades, we see nothing but the prospect of increasing distress, and certain ruin to all around us.”
“Memorial to the Right Honourable Earl Grey, First Lord of His Majesty’s Treasury.
“We, the undersigned Iron Masters, of the Staffordshire Iron and Coal district, think it our duty respectfully to represent to His Majesty’s Government the following facts:
“1. That for the last five years, eversince what is called the panic of1825, we have found, with very slight intermissions, a continually increasing depression in the prices of the products of industry, and more particularly in Pig Iron and Bar Iron, which have fallen respectively from upwards of 8l.per tonto under 3l.per ton, and from 15l.per tonto under 5l.per ton.
“2. Against this alarming and long-continued depression, we have used every possible effort in our power to make head. We have practised all manner of economy, and have had recourse to every possible improvement in the working of our mines and manufactories.Our workmen’s wageshave, in many instances, been greatly reduced, and such reduction has been attended with, andeffected by,very great suffering and distress:—but the royalties, rents, contracts, and other engagements, under which we hold our respective works and mines, have scarcely been reduced at all, nor can we get them effectually reduced,because the law enforces their payment in full.
“3. The prices of the products of our industry having thus fallen within the range of the fixed charges and expenses which the law compels us to discharge, the just and necessary profits of our respective trades have ceased to exist: and in many cases a positive loss attends them.
“4. Under these circumstances, we have long hesitated in determining what line of conduct our interest and our duties require us to adopt:—If we should abandon our respective trades, our large and expensive outlays in machinery and erections must be sacrificed, at an enormous loss to ourselves, and our honest and meritorious workmen must be thrown in thousands upon parishes, already too much impoverished by their present burdens, to support them:—and if we should continue our respective trades, we see nothing but the prospect of increasing distress, and certain ruin to all around us.”
The remaining part of this “Memorial” touching on politics, need not be quoted here.
If the iron of the 3000 miles of railway which Mr. Treasurer Booth, in his book on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway supposes may eventually be laid down in England, should be of the same weight which I understand that of the Birmingham Railway is to be, the whole quantity consumed will be about 800,000 tons. Supposing an equal application of the system here advocated, and that only ten times as much iron should be used in the tunnels as is used in the railways, eight millions of tons, instead of eight hundred thousand, will be the aggregate consumption.
Now as iron, though unquestionably the best, is neither the only, nor thecheapestmaterial of which tunnels can be constructed, it may not, possibly, be unpardonably presumptuous in me to submit to the iron masters, that if they persist in doing, by this proposition, as the Genoese did by that of Columbus, they will also lose an opportunity, which would, to them, prove equally important, as would have been that of Columbus to Genoa.
Ihaveasked, and Istillask of them only one thing: a full, andfairinvestigation. By the result of that I am content to abide; though I must, in common justice stipulate, that this investigation shall be entered on in a different spirit to what it has hitherto been my lot to meet with. “There is always a proneness” says Washington Irving, “to consider a man under examination as a kind of delinquent, or impostor, whose faults and errors are to be detected and exposed.” Most truly can I say that I have “always” experienced the effects of this “proneness” in reference to this subject: and that the object of those who deemed my proposition worthy throwing away a fragment of their time upon, was infinitely less to ascertain its truth and justice, than to display their own penetration and wit, in discovering and turning to ridicule, every part which admitted (as they thought) of being sneered at and made the subject of a jest.
Had it been my good fortune to have met with but one candid examinant of influence, I had been spared years of trouble and anxiety. But my proposition being deemed deserving only ofcontempt, candid examination has no more been vouchsafed me, than to the wanderings of a lunatic.
Should, however, the iron masters, instead of granting me this candid investigation, continue, “in the pride of half knowledge,” (as Dr. Wells terms it) to condemn what I propose, because they have found that a something has failed, which is as different from it, as would be, saying that it is impossible we can ever get to the North Pole, because Captain Cook could not get within 30° of theSouth, I venture to commit myself to the prediction that they will repent it, as bitterly as Genoa repented her rejection of Columbus’s proposition, to discover, and possess her of America.
“They inconsiderately rejected his proposal, as the dream of a chimerical projector,” says Dr. Robertson, of the Genoese, “and lost, for ever, the opportunity of restoring their commonwealth to its ancient splendour.”
“They inconsiderately rejected his proposal, as the dream of a chimerical projector,” says Dr. Robertson, of the Genoese, “and lost, for ever, the opportunity of restoring their commonwealth to its ancient splendour.”
For, equally certain as it is that iron, though the best, is not theonlymaterial of which tunnels can be constructed, is it, that unless this proposition is very differently treated by them to what it has hitherto been, will they drive the manufacturing of tunnels from their own line into another: and that, too, notwithstanding that opportunities are arising which, in addition to bringing them to their own doors, would give such facilities as relates to the transmission of the large stocks of iron which the uncertainty, and occasional long interruptions of the present method of conveyance, compel them to keep in London, as to do away with the necessity for keeping those stocks.
The Welch papers announce the plan of a railway which is to connect the iron districts and ports of that country with London. In this plan, Merthyr Tydvil, the centre of the South Wales iron manufacture, is stated to be 176 miles from London.
Now, even supposing that this railway, instead of costing themanythousands per mile which it must cost, could be laid down for nothing, still, the circumstance of thebare expensesof conveyance on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, amounting to 4¼d.per ton, per mile, exclusive of the charges necessary to pay one farthing of interest, or return on the capital sunk in laying that railway down—and for which 3¾d.per ton, per mile, is charged, in addition to the 4¼d.required to cover thebare expenses—the mereexpensesof railway conveyance,exclusiveof interest or return on the capital invested, being so great as this, it appears that, even were this railway laid from their own doors to the metropolis, the iron masters could not, including the charge to pay interest or return upon the money sunk in laying the railway down, get their material to London for less than 4l.10s.per ton; which, on an article the selling price of which (pigs) in London is only about the same amount, is in effect a prohibition; especially with the expense of freight for coast conveyance, only 12s.per ton from South Wales to London.
But as the expense of carriage by a tunnel would be as much less than this over-sea freight, as that is less than railway conveyance; while, in addition to this superiority over both, a tunnel would save all theriskas well as the delays and uncertainty of over-sea transmission, London and the iron districts might be brought within so few hours of each other, as to obviate the necessity of the iron masters keeping the heavy stocks of their article in London which they are now obliged to maintain, and the capital so locked up become, in consequence, liberated for other purposes: while, were the tunnel extended to Milford Haven, as it has been announced the railway would be, that port, as well as Swansea, might be brought within a few hours of London; and the advantagesof its (perhaps) unequalled harbour, rendered fully available to the nation at large for commercial purposes, as well as to Government for our fleets.
This consideration merits the serious attention of the advocates of the Bristol Railway. Swansea and Milford Haven beingbothmore advantageously situated for all vessels from foreign ports that would make Bristol their port of delivery; and their harbours being (particularly the latter) incomparably superior to that of Bristol, a tunnel would, were it to be laid down between either of them and the metropolis, be the certain ruin of anyrailwayfrom Bristol to London. The mereexpensesof carriage on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway being 4½d.per ton per mile, and thewholecharge 8d., it is evident that, supposing the Bristol Railway were to cost onlyhalfwhat the Liverpool and Manchester has cost (the “Capital, 3,000,000l.” placed at the head of the prospectus of the Bristol Railway, allows 25,000l.per mile for each of the 120 miles the map accompanying said prospectus shews the line will be in length) the whole change for carriage along its line could not be less than 6d.per ton per mile: the aggregate of which, 3l., would be equal to what cargoes have been brought from the East Indies for; and more than equal to freights from the West Indies, Mediterranean, &c. &c.; so that only such cargoes or freights, as stress of weather drove into Bristol, would be sent to London by the railway; while, by a tunnel from Milford or Swansea, they might be sent so cheaply, as actually to command the trade which it issupposedthe Bristol Railway will command.
But to return from the long digression, into which the consideration of the question relative to the effect of the friction of the air, and the importance of the subject to the iron trade, has led me.
Supposing the possibility of the Liverpool and Manchester railway proving a failure, that company would have scarcely any moresaleablevalue in their possession, in exchange for the million and a quarter which it has already cost, and the million and a half which itwillcost them, than the (about) 5000 tons of iron which is in their rails. Their long, narrow, slip of ground, dear as it has been to them, would be worth nothing; while the labour of taking up the between two and three hundred thousand stone blocks (or bases) they have laid down to carry the rails, would be more than those blocks are worth. Also would the 450,000l.expended in levelling the lineand forming the road, be utterly lost.[52]Whereas, had a tunnel been laid down, not only would the whole of the hundreds of thousands expended in levelling have been saved, but as not one-tenth of the labour would have been required to lay a tunnel down, compared with what the railway required, a large sum would have been saved for that also; while whatwaslaid out, being formetal, instead of labour, there would have been from ten to twenty times more saleable value in their hands, than they now have.
And as the same circumstances would, in a similar case, apply to the Birmingham, and Bristol (and indeed toall) Railways, as well as to your line, it would, comparatively, be almost as much better, in this particular, to have a tunnel instead of a rail-road or canal, as it would be to hold specie instead of paper, during a run on the bank: though this advantage would be greatest in relation to a canal; the greater proportion of the expense of which, is for thatirrecoverableoutlay, labour.
In point of the friction of the wheels would the carriages that moved in the tunnel be importantly superior to railway carriages.
Owing to circumstances which it is not necessary to discuss, the height of the wheels of the coaches and waggons on railways is confined to about three feet. Wheels of twice that diameter have been tried, but thrown aside in consequence of their liability to cause accidents by running off the rails: the only thing by which the wheels of all vehicles running on edge railways are kept on them, being a rim, which, projectingone inchbeyond the bearing part of the tire of the wheels, keeps them on the rails; as the brim of a hat will keep the body of it from rising on a table, over the edge of which said brim hangs.
In consequence of this, all carriages running on open railways are liable to accidents, such as those mentioned in the notes below,manyof which have occurred; though, owing to their having happened either in the excavations, on the levels, or on the low embankments, the dashings-to-pieces whichwilltake place when they occur on the high embankments have, hitherto, been avoided.[53a]
But as the carriages inside the tunnelcannotget off the railway in it, as they do on common railways, while, owing to the constantly vertical position in which the wheels can be kept, they may be twice, or three times, as high as on common railways, so great a diminution in the power required to move any load will take place, as to admit of any weight being moved in the tunnel with less than half the power required to move it on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.
In point of repairs, too, would the tunnel be importantly cheaper than a railway. Supposing you were to have a railway, there would be, in every mile of it, above seven thousand stone blocks, or bases, to carry the rails; every one of which bases would be liable to sink, and disarrange thelevel of the line, as they are so constantly doing (vide page11); while the rails themselves would be liable to bend, and break, between these bases. Sinkings of the bases, and bendings and breakings of the rails, &c. &c. being (like fractures of the harness and apparatus of stage-coaches, or the ropes of ships) matters of constant occurrence, there are, in the whole, and includingeveryliability to disarrangement and repair, above eighty thousand parts or places, in every mile of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, where adjustment or repairmaydaily be required; while, were that railway to be made a quadruple one, by having two more lines of road (four more lines of rails, i.e.) laid down, these liabilities would increase to above one hundred and sixty thousand per mile; though, for the present, I refer only to fractures and loosenings of the chairs, &c. bendings and breakings of the rails, and sinkings, &c. of the bases, which arenowpossible to the amount of above 40,000 per mile; whereas, in a tunnel, the corresponding disarrangements would be possible to the amount of only 1056 per mile: an advantage which time will prove to be of much greater importance than it may at first be considered; owing to the small expense of repair it will occasion. Supposing the London and Birmingham Railway were to have the “quadruple line” adverted to when the capital was raised to three millions, there would, in its whole length, be nearly twenty millions of parts or places where repair, or adjustment,might, daily, be necessary: a number which might well double the 488l.per mile, per annum, charged under the item “Maintainance of way,” in the half-yearly accounts of the Liverpool and Manchester Railroad.
But neither is this the last circumstance with respect to which a tunnel would be superior to a railway.
From the statements laid before Parliament, it appears that in the half-year ending the 31st December, 1831, “the number of trips of 30 miles” made on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was 5392. Now as thewholeweight carried during this half-year wasunder91,000 tons, it appears that the averageprofitableweight (passengers, or merchandise) carried each trip, waslessthan 17 tons.
The average weight of an engine and its tender, with fuel and water, being, I believe, not less than 12 tons, while there is the weight of the coaches and waggons additional to this, it would appear that for every ton which pays any thing, that is carried on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, they also carry a ton which pays nothing.
Now, owing to the manner in which the carriages that move in the tunnel can be constructed, and owing to there being no locomotive engines, and tenders carrying fuel and water, required to move them, this proportion of dead and unprofitable weight will be so much reduced, as for it not to amount to more than one-fifth of the similar weight on the railway.
Thewholeexpense of conveyance on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway during the six months ending the 31st December, 1831, was, it appears by the statement laid before the Lords’ Committees on the London and Birmingham Railway bill, fourpence farthing per ton, per mile; while the wholechargefor it was eightpence per ton, per mile. Coal being nearly ten times dearer here than it is there, there is no reason to suppose that what it might cost you for conveyance along a line of railway would be less than this; while it may be presumed that it would be so much more as, perhaps, and of itself, totally to counteract the advantages afforded by the shortness of your line, compared with the present route.
In addition to the advantages which I have stated a tunnel would hold out to the Company Ihave the honour to address, there would be one of a peculiar nature. It is generally understood, and appears from evidence to be the fact, that a considerable portion of the income of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company has arisen from persons who have visited and paid for riding over their line, solely from curiosity; while it is well known that the income derived from visitors to their tunnel, by the Thames Tunnel Company, is considerable; the average annual amount having been 1200l.per annum.
The curiosity excited by the public relative to the tunnel I constructed at Brighton, surprised me. Thousands manifested a desire to see it: hundreds applied to be permitted to do so; and when they found I would not let them, offered guinea after guinea to be allowed to gratify their curiosity, under the idea that mercenary motives gave rise to the orders I left thatno oneshould be admitted; while many of the very highest rank (includingeveryclass of our nobility) made personal application to me to oblige them with a sight of it.
As I could convey persons in your tunnel (supposing you were to have one) most safely at the rate of a mile in a minute, and as a velocity of that kind being attained near the metropolis, by a method so novel as this, would induce very many thousands to visit and ride through it for curiosity, it may be expected that a considerable part of what it would cost to lay a tunnel down would be returned from this source; enough (in the end) I am bold to say, to pay for the cost of the iron whereof it would be constructed.
The Thames Tunnel, supposing it never should be completed, will for years bring in the 1200l.per annum, which is the average of what has been received from people visiting it; and I am fully satisfied that proper measures would, in the end, bring in, from this source alone, perhaps, more than would cover the coat of the iron, of which the tunnel I propose to you would be constructed.
In the prospectus of the Greenwich Railway Company is the following paragraph:—“Moreover, when it is considered that the population of London, Westminster, and the Borough, is about one million and a half, and that the population of the surrounding towns and villages, within a circuit of from forty to fifty miles round the Capital, amounts to nearly double that number; and that, in short, the number of persons visiting London during each year, make up a total exceeding five millions of persons, it is not unreasonable to expect that, through mere curiosity alone, two millions of persons will gratify the same, when it can be accomplished at a low price, suppose only one shilling, to go and return,—yet if so, that item alone would produce 100,000l.”
Now, as supposing that the curiosity excited by mynovelproposition, will produce only one quarter of what the Greenwich Railroad Company calculate may come into their pockets from the same source, will, I think, be allowing sufficient pre-eminence to thesuperiorcuriosity which an old method of conveyancemustexcite, I trust that my idea, that the cost of the iron composing the tunnel may be repaid from this source, will be considered a not immoderate one.
In the Thames Tunnel there is nothing but the bare arch to see; while in this there would be the tunnel itself, the largest air-pumps, &c. &c. in the world, and a ride to and fro at the rate of sixty, or more, miles an hour.
Nor would the objection which, it may be imagined, must arise from the want of daylight in the tunnel, prove an objection in point of fact. So trifling is the degree of exhaustion and pressure required to move a load of 100 tons, that, but that the advantages which would arise, as relates to cheapness of site, and evasion of opposition on the part of the land-owners and occupiers, fromcarrying the tunnel under ground, prevent it, I could window light the tunnel throughout its whole, length: that which I constructed at Brighton having light admitted into it through windows of common thin glass; strong plate-glass not being required. Indeed, so far as relates to possibility, the upper half of the tunnel might be one continued window (like the top of a green-house), throughout its whole length. But as, even if this was done, artificial lightmustbe had for sixteen hours out of the twenty-four in the winter; as the tunnel might be gas-lighted throughout its whole length; or as, instead of thus wasting light unnecessarily, each carriage might carry lights before and behind, the objection that the tunnel being underground would render it dark as midnight, is no more a serious objection than it would be, were the Thames tunnel finished, that it would be better to cross the river by London Bridge, than through that tunnel, because on the bridge you would havenatural, while in the tunnel you must have artificial light.
It is true that there could be no “view of the country” by this method of conveyance. But, as the object of it is the perfection of travelling, in the three particulars of safety, expedition, and economy; as even the comparatively low rates attained on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway prevent objects that are by the road-side being distinctly seen, owing to the velocity with which the passengers are whirled by them; and as the much greater velocity at which conveyance may be effected in the tunnel, would render any attempt to look on what waspassedproductive of the effects experienced by a child who looks on the ground while leaning out of the window of a coach, norealloss, as relates to “seeing the country,” would result from transmission taking place inside the tunnel instead of outside it: though, even if it should, it might be submitted to, when economy of both time and money, and complete obviation of the dangers attendant on breaking down, being overturned, run away with, or driven against any thing, became the equivalents.
Have we occasion to travel to Edinburgh by the mail, we unrepiningly submit to the inconvenience of passing two nights (32 hours in mid winter) not only in total darkness, but also “cabinned, cribbed, confined” to a degree which prevents us even from “changing a leg,” except by previous arrangement with our opposite fellow-passenger. But when it is proposed that we shall go in vehicles which, in addition to being as large and commodious as the cabins of many steam-vessels, will be as much shorter a time in going, as they are larger and more convenient than the inside of mail-coaches, and in which the most brilliant light may be enjoyed, we proclaim it to be “impossible” to consent to go by such vehicles, because they would move inside a tunnel: not considering that this very circumstance, of beinginsidesaid tunnel, would as certainly secure us from being overturned, driven against any thing, run away with, breaking down, or any other of the dangers to which turnpike-road travelling is liable, as it would give us the ease, comfort, and accommodations of the cabin of a steam-vessel, instead of the privations and endurances experienced in mail-coaches.
And as the valves which have been adverted to as fixed at every quarter, or half, or whole mile, would, in point of effect, be doors, by means of which exit from the tunnel could be effected, the bugbear of being “shut up in a tunnel many miles long, with no place to get out of it, if any thing should happen,” need not be seriously replied to.
Such are some of the benefits which laying down a tunnel, instead of a railway would procure you. But the most important of all is yet to be mentioned.
As it does not follow that, because you may think proper to lay a railway down, the publicwill think proper to use it, it becomes vital to your interest, that some inducement which shall lead them to use it, and cause them to prefer the more circuitous route to the Birmingham Railway by your line, to the more direct one by the Edgeware Road, should be laid before them. This inducement will be furnished by the tunnel which I propose to your adoption.
The carriages which would go in said tunnel, may be rendered so superior in point of size, of the room they will give to each passenger, of comfort, and of general accommodation, as to be more like the cabin of a steam-vessel, rather than any thing else I can compare them to.
In one of those I used in the tunnel I constructed at Brighton, above twenty people have sat with a table between them, covered with provisions, plates, dishes, &c. &c. which provisions were consumed according to the usual course of a dinner table: so that accommodations (even to that of a sofa for each person) which could not be thought of in coach or omnibus travelling,mightbe given to passengers.
Owing also to the size and construction of these carriages admitting of my using the air for springs, their motion would be soft and (as relates to the avoidance of all jolting) air-balloon-like, to a degree which you cannot conceive; and which no railway carriage, far less any common road vehicle, could compare with.
In point of safety, too, would they be incomparably superior; since, instead of being liable to break down, to be driven against any thing, to be run away with, or to be overturned, &c. &c. these accidents would be so impossible, that absolute immunity from danger, and certain security to life and limb, would be consequent on this method of conveyance; while the rate of transit under which this safety would be secured, being so great as to admit of the journey being effected in as few minutes as you thought proper, your route might be rendered as much shorter as you pleased in point of time, than the route by the Edgeware road could be rendered. The expense of the power too, by which your passengers would be conveyed, being above twenty times cheaper than coaches or omnibuses could convey them along the Edgeware Road, you would have a still greater advantage in this particular. It remains, therefore, only to point out how the public may be caused to take your circuitous line, in preference to the nearer route by the Edgeware Road.
In order to effect this, and to save the public from having to go from Hyde Park Corner to your line, as must be done were you to lay a railway down, I propose bringing your line to Hyde Park Corner, by extending the tunnel; branching it eastward from your basin, either through Kensington and Knightsbridge, under the turnpike road; or (in order to avoid all interference with, or opposition from, the Turnpike Commissioners) along the shorter line across the vacant grounds to the south of the road, at the back of Kensington and Knightsbridge; across (though beneath, and indeed underground all the way) Earl’s Court Lane, Gloucester Road, Grove Lane, the Brompton Road, and Sloane Street, to the vacant ground on the North and East of Wilton Crescent.
I am not, at present, prepared to point out either the best route, or the best spot for the termination towards Hyde Park Corner; having investigated only so for as to satisfy myself that such a course is practicable.
You will, at first, be startled at, and disposed to object to this extension, because you will suppose that it involves the outlay which would be required for two additional miles of tunnel, without bringing in any more return than would be received from passengers to the Birmingham Railway. This conception, however, is an erroneous one.
Were a method of conveyance in operation, by which the inhabitants of the west end of Kensington, of Earl’s Court, of North End, of Walham Green, of Brook Green, of Hammersmith, of Turnham Green, of Chiswick, &c. &c. could be carried (more safely than by coaches) from your basin to Hyde Park Corner in two or three minutes, instead of the twenty minutes or nearly half an hour which it now takes to get over that ground, they would so prefer your method of conveyance, as to render the additional outlay required for said two extra miles of tunnel, the most remunerating portion of your whole line; while, in addition to enabling you thus to convey passengers, said branch would enable you also to deliver coals, and other goods at Hyde Park Corner from your canal, for an expense of less than a penny per ton carriage from your canal thither; so that you would rival the Grosvenor Canal, and add importantly to the tonnage trade of your own canal by it.
Should the Birmingham and Bristol Railways be completed, this branch would also enable you to convey goods, as well as passengers, to and from them, and to and from the western parts of town, more cheaply than could any how else be done; an accommodation which laying down your railway could not give. And as Icouldso construct these two extra miles of tunnel, as to render their cost—the cost of the tunnel itself, i.e.—not more than about five thousand pounds per mile, the expense of this branch would not prove any ruinous addition to your contemplated outlay.
Therefore, for these reasons, I recommend you to prevent its being necessary that people should pay omnibus (or other) proprietors, to carry them from Hyde Park Corner to your basin at Kensington, in order that you maythenconvey them to the Birmingham (or Bristol) Railway, by extending your line towards Hyde Park Corner, in the manner I have pointed out.
Your case, brought into a focus, is as follows. You have expended a large sum in opening a line of conveyance which, owing to its not being carried far enough at first, does not combine all the advantages your situation admits of. You are, naturally, desirous that it should do this. If you open a communication for goods with the Grand Junction Canal, by extending your own canal, you will do this in degree. You have, therefore, for some years, contemplated carrying your canal up the height between your basin and the Grand Junction Canal. But the enormous expense of this has prevented you from doing it.
Being now informed that your object may be better effected by a railway, you entertain that idea; and as, were you to lay a railway down, passengers, as well as goods, might be conveyed by it, you are desirous of, if possible, bringing the “passenger trade,” between the Birmingham Railway and the west end of London, to your line.
Owing, however, to the distance of your line from the west end of Town; and to the Edgeware Road, offering a shorter and cheaper communication from the Birmingham Railway to that part of the metropolis, your laying down a railway, will, for the reasons I have pointed out, certainly prove a losing speculation.
As the method I propose would be most importantly cheaper than a railway, in point of first cost, and still more importantly cheaper in point of current expenses, I venture to offer it to your notice. And as it would obviate the objection which your distance from Hyde Park Corner would occasion, supposing you were to have a railway, I presume to recommend it to your consideration, as more worthy notice than any thing else you can have laid before you; for the reasons, that it will, in the first place, be much cheaper in point of first cost than any other method of conveyanceyou can lay down: second, because it will be still more economical in point of current expenses: third, because, in addition to being incomparably safer, as relates to life and limb, than any other method of conveyance, it will be so much more expeditious as to render your circuitous route quicker,in point of time, than the shorter route by the Edgeware Road, as well as cheaper, in point of charge: and, fourth, because it will be productive of an important profit, additional to, and exclusive of, what a railway will bring in; and which will return no inconsiderable proportion of what it costs to lay it down.
Were the statements I have given relative to the cost and expenses of a railway, from my own estimates only, they might be doubted by you. In order, however, to avoid this, I have been careful to quote only the “evidence,” which was laid before Parliament, and other documents; which leave no doubt that the first cost and current expenses will be, at least,equalto what I have stated, though they by no means prove that they will not bemore.
Indeed, it appears susceptible of proof that they will be more. Mr. Grahame, in his “Letter to the Traders and Carriers on the Navigations, connecting Liverpool and Manchester,” relative to that railway, says, “I pledge myself, however, to prove (in case the fact be denied by the Directors) that the aggregate expenditure of the half year, ending on the 31st December, 1832, bears a higher proportion to the income of that period than the expenses ofanypreceding half-year bear to the income of the same.”
Mr. Graham also says, “The Railway Corporation keep two separate accounts of expenditure, “ordinary” and “extraordinary.” The “ordinary expenditure” is paid from the annual returns received from working the railway; and the “extraordinary” is paid by borrowing money, or a creation and sale of shares; which is termed “adding to the capital account.” The ordinary expenditure, only, affects the dividend; and it is the interest of every one concerned to makethatexpenditure appear as low as possible; and, whenever the outlays are commingled, or doubtful, to throw the burden on the obnoxious shoulder. This “extraordinary outlay,” or, as it is termed, “outlay on the railway and works,” or “Capital Account,” has been as great since the railway was opened, as during the period when it was forming. The amount thus laid out in the first fifteen months after the opening of the railway, amounted to nearly 200,000l.The outlay on this account in 1832 is not stated; but the interest on borrowed money paid in that year, is given as 10,522l.10s.6d., while the interest paid in 1831 was only 5647l.7s.6d.”
Railway advocates may dispute this; butthatI shall not heed. Should they, however,disproveit, I shall not be able to deny that I am liable to the censure due to him who investigates in the spirit of a partisan, rather than in that of a candid examinant.
It may be objected, in answer to the advantages which I have stated would result from your substituting this Pneumatic Railway for the common railway you contemplate, that you have never heard of it before, except in the way of ridicule and contempt; while not only have the engineers of the day condemned it, but also do even some of yourselves entertain doubts as to the sanity of the man who can propose such a thing to you.
In allusion to objectors of this latter description, the M. D. who did me the honour to propose the first Resolution at the “Town Meeting” at Brighton, said, in the course of his speech on the occasion, that “Mr. Vallance had had to contend with the greatest difficulties; such as were enough to appal any man: he had been derided and ridiculed: his system had been treated asvisionary, theoretical, and fantastic: he had been called a wild projector—nay, some had even gone so far as to say that he was mad. If so, he (Dr. Yates) must say, with Polonius, ‘there was method in his madness.’ And to such insinuations he (Dr. Y.) would reply, in the words of Hamlet, there was that which ‘sense and sanity scarce could be delivered of.’”
With my defence against insinuations of this kind thus provided, I may turn to the more serious objections of the engineers whom you may consult: who, I am well aware, will treat the proposition only as Brindsley’s proposal to carry the canal over the Irwell was treated by the engineers of his day.
Were this any thing new, I might feel it. But when we have it on record that the professed engineers of the period have done the same byeveryproposition that has been brought forward, until its being established by others, caused them to see that money might be made by imitating, instead of continuing to decry the inventor, their exclamations of “impossible,” “absurd,” and “madness to think of,” may well be disregarded.
Had Telford, or Stevenson, or Rennie, or Brunel, or any other first-rate man, originated the proposition, then, indeed, they might have had some faith in it! But for an unknown nobody to do such a thing, is of itself enough to prove that itcannotbe worth attention.
To these gentlemen I reply, by asking them—to whom are we indebted for the steam-engine in its application to steam-vessels, and locomotive purposes, as well as a first mover for machinery? Savary, its first inventor, was a miner. Newcomen and Beighton, its first improvers, were, one of them a country blacksmith, and the other a plumber, while its grand improver, the great Watt, was a mathematical-instrument maker. To whom are we indebted for our canals—for our nationally-important cotton machinery—for the public application of the gas-light principle—for the system of railway transmission—for the hydrostatic press—and the other manifold improvements, which have raised us to the station we fill? Is it to men, who, at the periods when these improvements were first devised, were of high name, and established reputation as civil engineers? Hear what one whose situation enabled him to decide, says on the subject:—
“What has been the means of raising our native country to that eminence in civilization which renders her the admiration of the world? Her improvements in the arts and sciences.“From whom have those improvements chiefly sprung? From men who have emerged from the humbler walks of life.“What was Sir Richard Arkwright; a man to whose genius this country is indebted for very much of its commercial prosperity; to whose improvements in the machinery for spinning cotton, we are indebted for being enabled to keep the cotton trade chiefly confined to ourselves. What, I say, was the great Arkwright? A barber. Yet do we owe our proud superiority in this department of our national greatness to the unassisted efforts of Dick the barber.“Who was Ferguson? A simple peasant; a man, who, wrapped in his plaid, passed the winter nights on the ground in contemplating the heavens; and who, by arranging his string of beads on the cold heath, at length completed a map of the stars, and raised himself to the knowledge of our late sovereign.“Who was Dr. Herschel, the discoverer of so many important astronomical facts? A boy who played the pipe and tabor in a foreign regimental band. Who was the great Watt? A mathematical instrument maker.“Who was Smeaton, the builder of the Eddystone lighthouse, and the first engineer of his day? An attorney.“Who was the great Brindsley, whose canals have given such an accession of power to our commerce, by the facilities of internal communication? A country millwright.“Nicholson was a cabin boy: and Ramadge, the best maker of reflecting telescopes in the world, was a cutler.”
“What has been the means of raising our native country to that eminence in civilization which renders her the admiration of the world? Her improvements in the arts and sciences.
“From whom have those improvements chiefly sprung? From men who have emerged from the humbler walks of life.
“What was Sir Richard Arkwright; a man to whose genius this country is indebted for very much of its commercial prosperity; to whose improvements in the machinery for spinning cotton, we are indebted for being enabled to keep the cotton trade chiefly confined to ourselves. What, I say, was the great Arkwright? A barber. Yet do we owe our proud superiority in this department of our national greatness to the unassisted efforts of Dick the barber.
“Who was Ferguson? A simple peasant; a man, who, wrapped in his plaid, passed the winter nights on the ground in contemplating the heavens; and who, by arranging his string of beads on the cold heath, at length completed a map of the stars, and raised himself to the knowledge of our late sovereign.
“Who was Dr. Herschel, the discoverer of so many important astronomical facts? A boy who played the pipe and tabor in a foreign regimental band. Who was the great Watt? A mathematical instrument maker.
“Who was Smeaton, the builder of the Eddystone lighthouse, and the first engineer of his day? An attorney.
“Who was the great Brindsley, whose canals have given such an accession of power to our commerce, by the facilities of internal communication? A country millwright.
“Nicholson was a cabin boy: and Ramadge, the best maker of reflecting telescopes in the world, was a cutler.”