THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



.37 



other still remains to be altered. During- the whole of this operation, let me 

 repeat, the total traffic to Reading must travel on a single line, which, even ad- 

 mitting it to be possible, must necessarily cause a continued loss of traffic, with 

 great additional inconvenience and expense, and serious risk of accident, — all 

 so much in addition to the amount of sacrifice already calculated. 



jrjMDENHEAD BRIDGK. 



On this head it is unnecessary to say more than that the defective part of 

 the work has been condemned by me, and the contractor called upon to 

 replace it, which he is now doing. 



FEUM.VNENT WAV. 



The question of the construction of the permanent way appears to have been 

 thought a very unimportant one : three lines of the Report are devoted to it, 

 and these consist of the expression, in rather strong language, of an opinion 

 unfavourable to the mode in which thd attempt has been made ; but whether 

 the writer approves of the ultimate object sought to be attained — of the plan of 

 continuous support — or not, does not in any way appear. This is to be re- 

 gretted, as the writer has lately had some experience on this particular point, 

 and it was suppo.^ed might have been able to give some useful information 

 upon it. 



LOCOMOTIVES. 



The question of locomotive power is treated also very concisely ; nothing 

 whatever is stated, under this particular head, of the engines of the Great 

 Western Railnay. A few general principles are laid down, in almost all of 

 which I perfectly coacur, — viz., the necessity of proportioning the power of 

 the engines to the loads ; the advantage of keeping down the weight ; the 

 circumstance that the weight of the engine will depend on the average load to 

 be taken, and the nature of the gradients. The comparison between the 

 locomotive power supposed to be necessary on the Great Western and on the 

 Grand .Junction lines, is a powerful argument in favour of good gradients. On 

 the whole, these principles are precisely those on which I have founded my ar- 

 guments in the course of these observations, and I think they fully bear out 

 the views I have taken ; but the concluding observations of the Report appear 

 to mc to be the most strikingly erroneous views that I have yet had occasion 

 to call your attention to, and still arising from the same mistake — that of 

 omitting all consideration of increased profits to be derived from increased ac- 

 commodation or improved conveyance — objects at which I have aimed. 



In the last paragraph but one, after condemning, very properly, any great 

 increase in the <||st of a road for the sake of a system, it is asserted that 

 " good gradients will be rendered of non-effect, as to economy, if the speed be 

 greatly increased, for greater speed will entail greater cost, and bo tantamount 

 to steep gradients." 



It seems to mc, on the contrary, that the attainment of a greater speed at 

 the same cost is economical, just as it is to make a better and more saleable 

 article at the same price. And the next and last paragraph exposes still more 

 strongly this fallacious principle, and may be taken as a fair sample of the 

 theory of railway economy advanced in this Report. The words are — " And 

 though the same results may perhaps be obtained on railways of better gra- 

 dients, with more dead weights, than on railways of bad gradients, yet this 

 seems to be merely bringing down the good line to the standard of the bad ; 

 .^that is to say, if " more dead weights," or greater loads, are carried with 

 " the same results," or at the same cost, no advantage is gained ; so that, if 

 natural or artificial means enable you to carry greater loads, and, in fact, 

 perfonii more iroyk^ or, in other words, can'i/ on a t/rcater trade with the same 

 capital, you are not to avail yourself of these advantages to extend your busi- 

 ness, but merely to withdraw so much capital from a thriving concern. If 

 the sole object were to reduce the out-goings to the lowest possible scale, 

 without reference to the comparative receipts, such a maxim might be good, 

 If the construction of the railway, and the maintenance and working of it, 

 were a compulsory tax levied on the proprietors for the use of the public, 

 willinut benefn t) i!k.ii. then, indeed, t!i3 only advantage of good gradients 

 would be the diminution oi e;vcruu.i anU of expenditure of power. To the 

 beast of burden a good road is certainly of little consequence, if he is proper 

 tionably laden ; but his owner would be surprised at being told that he could 

 gain nothing by being able to carry more goods, because his horse would be 

 worked as much, and worn out as soon, as when he carried less. 



I shall now make a few observations on the remarks and the hypothetical 

 cases which I before referred to, and I thiiik, when I have called your attention 

 to them, you will agree with me that they ought not to pass entirely unno- 

 ticed. 



In p. 48 of the Report, the difference between the Great Western Railway 

 and other railways is compared to the difference between a canal for barges 

 and a canal for ships — a most exaggerated comparison, and one by no means 

 diminished in effect by the qualification introduced by the words which follow, 

 " though not to an equal degree." A .ship-canal is a totally different thing 

 from a barge-canal ; it is most costly, and if considered as a mere channel for 

 the conveyance of goods, is very ill adapted for the purpose. It is intended 

 Bolely for the transport of the ships to some inland port. The only change in- 

 troduced in the Great Western Railway is in the dimension of one of the 

 parts, not for the purpose of carrying larger individual cargoes, but for the 

 purpose of carrying the ordinary cargoes more advantageously. If a com- 

 parison be made with canals, it should be simply with the case of a canal 

 which, being intended for quick service, or fly-boats, is made rather wider, to 

 allow the boats more free passage through the water, and thereby diminish 

 tlie resistance. The comparison apparently is thought to require some apo- 

 logy, as it is said not to be extraordinary " should it appear that the locomo- 

 tives have twice the power of those on other lines ;" and " should it be 

 shown to be a parallel case to build a ship of '200 tons burthen, when 

 there is no probability pf ever obtaining a, cargo of half the weight," This : 



certainly is tantamount to the statement in a subsequent part of the Report, 

 that the engines have this excess of power, and that we have, in fact, pro- 

 vided for a traffic four times as extensive as we can hope to obtain ; yet, 

 after producing this impression, the subject is dropped, and no attempt 

 made in any part of the Report to prove it. 



In the ne.xt paragraph (page 48) there is a remark that "it is one 

 thing to design that which is pleasing in outline and grand in dimensions, 

 and it is altogether another thing to design that which, under all the circum- 

 stances, shall best answer the end in view, one of those ends being a return 

 for the capital invested.'' 



I must deny altogether that such a distinction necessarily exists." To 

 make that large for the sake of appearance which ought to be small, is un- 

 questionably, very different from studying the right size and adopting it ; but 

 I think that when a work is evidently well adapted to the object for which it is 

 intended, it is generally satisfactory to the eye ; and that then there is rarely 

 any difficulty in making it "pleasing in outline;" the distinction exists only 

 with those who, like a bad architect, commence by designing the exterior of a 

 building, and then make the interior arrangements subservient. 



At the end of p. 48, a case is put which is strictly applicable, and which is 

 solved in a manner to assist the subsequent arguments ; but the solution 

 seems to me to have no other merit, certainly not that of correctness. 



It is supposed (what is indeed the actual case) that it is desired " to give 

 the greatest impetus to the trade, and the greatest advantage to the town of 

 Bristol ;" and the way to do this is said to be, as if incontrovertible, " to con- 

 nect it with the metropolis by a road on which parties could be carried for 

 the smallest sum, and at a velocity not inferior to that at which they can be 

 carried in any other direction." This is the first time I ever heard that to 

 win the race it was sufficient to be not behind your competitor. If such were 

 the rule in trade, why was the Liverpool and Manchester railway made? The 

 means of communication were not merely not inferior to, but probably su- 

 perior to any in England. Why were railways introduced at all, and the 

 capital embarked in the general means of transit so enormously increased by 

 the addition of lotally new works ? Stage coaches and canals left all towns 

 exactly in the same position which is here said to ensure the greatest impetus 

 to their trade. Besides, are there no points of inferiority in the case of the 

 port of Bristol which have to be compensated for, in consequence of the su- 

 perior local advantages of other ports ? Bristol has, for some reason or other, 

 fallen far behind Liverpool. Will it be of no advantage to the trade of this 

 port, and thereby to the revenue of this railway, that it should have superior 

 facilities of communication with London ? Whether Liverpool continues at 

 eleven-hours' or is reduced to eight-hours' distance from London, it may be 

 said by some to be still a day's journey, while Bristol will be brought within 

 four hours, or four and a half hours' distance ; and if this is reduced to three 

 hours, which is undoubtedly practicable, letters and orders may be transmitted 

 and replied to during the business hours of the day ; and precisely the same 

 change introduced into the transactions of business that was effected by the 

 Liverpool and Manchester railway, and a great increase in the trade of the 

 place, and in the traffic of the railway must necessarily follow. 



This doctrine of the all-sufficiency of a railway, without reference to its 

 quality, and the inutility of attempting to influence the amount of traffic by 

 increasing the advantages, appears, under diftcrent forms, in other parts, and I 

 shall not again refer to it, but shall proceed to another part of the Report. 



The adoption of a different gauge is compared, at p. 50, to the construction 

 of a canal " in a country of canals, with locks of such a character as would 

 totally shut out the boats of all the canals that surrounded it." Now, in the 

 first place, as I have shown, the west of England is not a country of railways ; 

 and, in the next place, there is no similarity in the mode of conducting the 

 carrying department of a railway and a canal. A barge, with its master and 

 his family living on board, may go, and does occasionally go, without incon- 

 venience, far out of the usual beat. Railway carriages and waggons must 

 belong to the particular line on which they run ; and, except in such cases as 

 the Grand Junction and Birmingham railways which form in fact one line, 

 although they happen to be made by two companies, it will never pay to trust 

 them in the hands of others. 



On the subject of the wide gauge, the opinions of Mr. Booth, of the Liver- 

 pool and Manchester railway, (which had been previously expressed in a letter 

 to the Irish Commissioners,) and of Mr. G. Smith, of the Leeds and Selby 

 railway, are quoted in favour of the 4 feet 8 inch guage, and their answer in 

 the negative, given apparently to the direct question whether they thought 

 there was any want of safety, or danger of overturning, on their own railways. 

 The case is purely hypothetical. I never heard of the danger of overturning 

 being advanced as an objection to the narrow gauge, although I have seen such 

 a thing happen ; and whether the objection be real or imaginary is the question 

 to be decided by such a reference ? At any rate the directors of the Great 

 ^V'cstern Railway were quite competent to select the referees for its decision. 



I have the pleasure of being personally acquainted with both these gentle- 

 men, and entertain the greatest respect for them, but I should never have 

 thought of asking them such a question. If before building the Great 

 Western steam-ship we had written to some of the highly respected and 

 talented gentlemen who command the New York liners, and asked them if 

 they considered there was any danger or inconvenience in the use of sails, and 

 whether they should prefer steam, I think we might have anticipated their 

 answers. 



I shall here close my observations with the expression of ray regret, that the 

 manner in which the important questions at issue have been treated in the 

 Report has of itself prevented the discussion leading to any very satisfactory or 

 useful conclusion. It has been almost impossible to do more than to show 

 that, whatever may be the state of the case, the views taken in the Keport, aa^ 



