1840.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



63 



REMARKS ON RAILWAYS, 



WITH REFERENCE TO THE POWER, &C. TO BE EMPLOYED UPON THEM. 



( Conlimted from page <j.) 



Having in tlip last number of the journal disposed of railways 

 unfavourable to lucoiuotive engines, we will proceed to examine level 

 railways, with reference to the power to be emijloyed on them, as in 

 the former case. I will take an example lest it be said I make the 

 case suit the ]irinciple, instead of making the rule apply to the case. 



Tlie Sheffield and Rotherham Railway has been completed about 

 eighteen months; it will elucidate my views as well as any other, and 

 because I am better accjuainted with it than those at a distance, I will 

 therefore take it as our example. As truth is what I wish to elicit 

 by these remarks, perhaps it will be the clearest way to say at the 

 commencement what I intend to prove ; by so doing your readers will 

 be enabled to judge how the arguments which I bring forward bear 

 on the case. 



It is that in the example we have taken, and in any similar one, we 

 can have a cheaper, more efficient and belter railway by having endless 

 ropes, and stationary engines, than by locomotives. 



To prove this, it will he necessary to go into calculations; but to 

 make them as short as possiljle, I will only give the results, reserving 

 to myself the opportunity of giving them at full length, should any of 

 your readers deny their correctness. First, as to " cost of the rail- 

 way." It is said the Sheffield and Rotherham Railway has cost 

 already £110,000, about £80,000 of which would go for constructing 

 the railway, vi/., embankments, excavations, cS-'C, and for permanent 

 rails. It will not, I think, be disputed that the embankments and 

 excavations on this comparatively level country have been made at a 

 cost of at least £33,00:.) more than they would have done had fixed 

 engines been the moving power; and as some of the engines upon 

 this railway weigh 16 tons, we may safely take oft' £7,000 from the 

 first cost of the rails and chairs, making, with the sum first mentioned, 

 £40,000 or the railway, would have cost £40,000 less than it has done 

 had fixed engines been the power contemplated. The interest of this 

 sum, at 5 per cent., is £2,000 per annum. So much for the cost of the 

 railway. 



We will now go to the second part of our subject, viz., " more effi- 

 cient." An engine and tender will weigh about 20 tons; suppose we 

 call the engine oO horse power, we shall have, at 30 miles per hour, a 

 power of 121 X 50 = (525 lbs., which will take, on a level railway, 

 nearly 56 tons, 20 of which is taken up by the engine and tender, 

 leaving 3G only conveyed by an engine of 50 horse power at 30 miles 

 per hour. 



To convey 3G tons by the stationary system, it will require a rope 

 3J inches circumference ; 2 miles of it would weigh about 4,000 lbs. 

 Messrs. Walker and Rastric take the friction of the rope to be ^^ part 

 of its weight; I see no reason to vary from their estimate; but as 

 Messrs. Robert Stephenson and Joseph Locke, whose bias would be 

 against stationary engines, take it as -Jj of the weight. I will, in 

 deference to the opinion of these latter gentlemen, take it to be -jV, 

 which is about half way between the one and the other ; Vj of 4,G00 lbs, 

 is 305 lbs. The friction of the train is 403 lbs., together 709 lbs. which 

 divided by 124, the power of a horse at 3o miles per hour r= 5G horse 

 power, or G horse power more than the locomotive. But the locomo- 

 tive would have to get its steam up before working, and there would 

 be fuel in the fire-box when it had arrived at the end of its journey; 

 I shall take it working 5 minutes before and 5 minutes after, which 

 will make, with the 15 minutes in performing the journey, 25 minutes, 

 or what is about the same thing, 83 horse power for 15 minutes. 



Though the stationary system requires an engine 56 horse power, 

 yet, as tiie 72 trains per day, 36 tons at a time would only occupy, in 

 the two miles worked by each engine 24 minutes per hour, it would 

 only be needful to have them 3G horse power. The distance from 

 Sheffield to Rotherham, G miles, is divided into 6 stages, requiring 

 an engine at every other stage ; but as it would be more convenient to 

 have one at each end, it will require 4 engines. These 4 engines are 

 employed the whole of the 12 hours, without any intermission, in 

 pumping water out of one reservoir into another fixed 40 or 60 feet 

 above it; the water in the upper reservoir is allowed to I'un over a 

 water wheel as it is wanted to move the trains, which, as before 

 stated, is about 24 minutes in every GO, by which the 3G horse power 

 engine becomes increased to 90 horse power, or there will be as much 

 water pumped in the GO minutes by the 3G horse power engine as 

 would supply a water wheel of 90 horse power, if there vpere no 

 waste ; but the loss from this cause, and from friction, will be 33 per 

 cent., which will reduce the engine to GO horse power, or 4 more than 

 is required ; it appears, then, we only require engine power of 144 



horses. It is hardly likely that 3 trips per hour each way, for 12 

 hours, would be made by fewer than 6 locomotive engines kept ready 

 all the time, which would be equal to 300 horse power than twice as 

 much as the stationary, and certainly more than four times the ex- 

 pense in fuel, and by using coke instead of coals, and being high pres- 

 sure instead of condensing engines. 



We think the second part of our proposition " more official" — is 

 clearly made out. There remains now the third, viz., " a better rail- 

 way ;" this will be more difficult to prove, it is such a comprehensive 

 term ; but we don't fear being able to do so. 



If we can travel as fast, or faster, at a smaller expense, injure the 

 rails less, be less liable to accidents, either to the machinery or rails, 

 have no more stoppages from the machinery getting out of order, and 

 have such stoppages as do occur, shorter, and sooner remeilied. If 

 we can insure all these at about half the annual expense in repairs, are 

 we not justified in saying we could have a better railway, I will begin 

 with " speed;" in wet weather, on the Sheffield and Rotherham Rail- 

 way, it is the practice to put sand on the rails, where there happens 

 to be a slight inclination, to make the wheels bite, and so much are 

 the wdieels in the habit of slipping on all railways, that Mr. William 

 Vickers, a merchant in Sheffield, who has a good knowledge of me- 

 chanics, and is pretty well accjuainted with the working of railways, 

 has been induced to take out a patent for the plan of connecting all 

 the wheels together by means of a belt or strap. If they slip they 

 must lose speed, and injure the rails at the same time. With 

 regard to the speed of the stationary ))lan, it depends upon the speed 

 of the engine, and is only limited by the slrength of the materials of 

 which the rope, pulleys, engines>&c. are constructed ; and were there no 

 such thing as resistance of the atmosphere there would be hardly any 

 limit to it. Then comes the relative expense at which this can be 

 done. If we increase the speed of the locomotive, the engine and 

 tender will form a much larger proportion of its load than at present, 

 because it will require a greater quantity of fuel and water on account 

 of the increased power of the engine. The engine would have to be 

 made stronger and heavier to take the same load. The rails, chairs, 

 and every tiling connected with them would cost more in repairs, be- 

 cause of the increased speed and weight of the engine, and the engine 

 itself would be sooner worn out. While, on the stationary plan, the 

 only difference would be an increase in the power of the engines, 

 greater strength, of rope and pulleys, and an additional wear in the 

 two latter, the rails, chairs, &c. remaining the same. 



I find I am getting unnecessarily into the minuliee of the subject. All 

 these things are imjiovtant, no doubt, but will, be wearisome to your 

 readers to go through. I will therefore confine myself to tlie compara- 

 tive safety and annual expense of the two systems. The greater the 

 weight in motion, the less it will be influenced or impeded by obstruc- 

 tions, and this will i-ender it more liable to get off the rails at the 

 curves, and make it more difficult to stop. It appears that locomotive 

 trains will always have 20 tons more weight, as already stated, than 

 the stationary system, the conclusion is obvious. The large wheels of 

 the locomotive engine would have a tendency to run oft" the rails, the 

 ropes of the stationary plan would tend to keep the carriages on. The 

 engine and train being independent of any other, would be in danger 

 of coming in contact with other trains, unless those trains were at a 

 considerable distance, and every collision without great care would 

 throw carriages in the train of one or both of them off the rails, and 

 occasion great delay to say the least of it. The stationary plan might 

 have a hundred trains, a hundred yards of each other, and they would 

 never approach nearer, this needs no conunent. In comparing the 

 annual expense of the two, it will not be necessary to ascertain the 

 expence of each, but only where they difter, to estimate the amount of 

 each. The locomotive engines cost about £1,300 each, and if Ihey 

 are fully worked will cost £300 per annum in repairs, or if half- 

 worked £150. (Let Demetrius and the Craftsmen deny this if they 

 can.) We will take them to be half-worked, there would then require 

 5 engines and one spare engine, making 6 engines in constant work, 

 so that the cost per annum vi'ould be 6X 150=:£900 for repairs. 

 The engines will last not more than nine or ten years. We will take 

 them at 13 per cent, on G engines, which will be £1,014; the fuel we 

 will estimate at U per ton per mile, including waste at each end, we 

 shall have to reckon 50 tons moved in this case and not 3G, but as the 

 coke and water is consuming, I have reckoned 50 tons, 72 times 6 miles 

 for 312 days, which amounts to 6,739,200 tons conveyed one mile, 

 U lb. per ton on this will be 3,760 tons of coke, which is I4s. per ton, 

 the amount of this will be per anmmi £2,G32. I shall take the engine- 

 men, firemen, &c., to be the same in both systems, therefore need not 

 take them into account ; the expence, then, of the locomotive system 

 from these three items will be £4,54 G yearly. 



The stationary plan has 4 engines ot 36 horse power each, on the 

 same principle as those in Cornwall, viz., work with 50 lbs, steam, and 



