24 f) 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[August, 



have Dniform gauges, there is at this time a stoppage when two com- 

 panies mppt. Passppgers from London to Livi-rpooi, whi'n they reach 

 Birmingham, have to shift themselves from the Birmingham Railway 

 to the Granri Junction, and get fresh tickets, thougli the two lines 

 liave both the same gauge. And surelv facility in travelling from 

 London to Liverpool is quite as important ai that in travelling from 

 Bristol to Birmingham. 



Of the mechanical superiority of one gauge over another we cannot 

 now speak ; Mr. Harding also omits to consider this part of the ques- 

 tion. This at least seems clear that the superiority of neither broad 

 nor narrow gauge is at present ixclusinly determined. With each 

 great rapidity mav be attained : the express trains travel with equally 

 great speed on each, and apparently with equal security — though per- 

 liaps lately the probability of accidents is rather against ttie broad 

 gauge system. 



Wr. Harding truly observes, that if an alteration of gauge be deter- 

 mined upon — it would be better to alter the broad gauge, for the total 

 length of railway on that principal is scarcely one-seventh of that 

 constructed to a narrow gauge. 



The Royal Commissioners now appointed to report on the subject 

 are men of science, and the highest standing. Not being engineers, 

 their decision will be unprejudiced, and it will probably be final also, 

 unless personal interests prevail in the parliamentary discussion. Our 

 own impression is that the superiority of neither gauge is at present 

 shown to be sufficiently great to warrant an alteration of exist- 

 ing railways; at the same time there are most conclusive reasons 

 for not extending the broad gauge system to nen railways which 

 are proposed to be connected with narrow gauge Imes. Of the 

 work before us, though we have not been quite convinced hy some 

 of its arguments, it must be acknowledged that it is ably, impartially, 

 and above all, systematically written. Of Mr. Hardmg's practical 

 knowledge, undeniable proofs are given throughout, we therefore have 

 not ventured to meet his arguments without some reflection on the 

 subject. 



The following table occurs in the work, and will be read with in- 

 terest. 



Cost of Locomotive Power, per Train per Mile, on various Railways. 



Narrow Gauge. 9. d. 



Edinburgh and Glasgow [average of Passengers and Goods Trains) U 



Grear Norlh of England ditto 7 



Hull and Selby (Passengers Trains only) » 



Grand Junction ditto 1 



Glasgow and Greenock dilto 8 



London and South Western, ditto 1 dj 



Birmingham and Gloucester, ditto 94 



London and Birmingham : — (Passengers Trains only) 



Engines with I'i-inch cylinders 1 3 



Kngines with 13-inch cylinders lOJ 



Manchester and Leeds (Passengers Trains only) 6 



Sheffield and Manchester ditto 6 



Brood Gauge. 

 Great Western (Passengers Trains only) 101 



The TVeslminiter Riv'ew, No, II., J^ol. 43. 



Only one article in this number concerns us, — it bears the title of 

 " Old and New London." With respect to " New London" 

 there is scarcely anything at all in the whole paper, except a 

 very hurried glance at general imjTOvements and the increas- 

 ing extent of the metropolis, condensed into a few lines, in which 

 we are told of "the palatial magnific-nce of Eaton and Belgrave 

 Squares," — very palatical truly ! more especially the Eaton one — an 

 insipid assemblage of mere spruce and prim houses just garnished 

 here and there with "slices of pilasters," wherebv wliat woud else 

 be respectable and decent dulness is converted into the very Brumma- 

 gem of architecture, so truly Pecksniflrian is the sort of gusto there 

 manifested. The wholesale admiration bestowed on those precious 

 specimens of " palatial magnificence" says more for the complaisance 

 than for the taste and discernment of the critic, who, had he been less 

 dizzied by them, might have discerned something infinitely more 

 palatial in what he has now overlooked altogether, viz., the fine range 

 uf Italian fafade, called Freeman's Place, opposite the east front of 

 the Royal Exchange ; which is so imposing in mass, and offers so su- 

 perior an example of well-proportioned_/£«es<ra//oK. Neither is men- 

 tion made of any other of the more recent additions to our metropo- 

 litan architecture, whether iudiviilual structures, such as the New 

 Hall and Library of Lincoln's Inn and the Conservative Club-house, 

 or street fayades, as in New Coventry and Cranbourne Streets ; for 

 not even the existence of any thing uf the kind is so much as indicated 

 in what nevertheless holds out the promise of some account of them, 

 as being among th." last and certainly not the least successful architec- 



tural attempts which " New London" has to boast of. Equally strange 

 is it that there is not a syllable in regard to the Roval Exchange now 

 that it is finished, althongh it was made the subject of such vervwarm 

 debate in the Westminster Review before the building was begun. 

 Towards the Houses of Parliament the writer is not partieularlv 

 complimentary, for he speaks of them as being on " the worst site that 

 could have been found in England for a similar edifice; a mistake 

 which has led to more money being sunk in the mud of the river to 

 secure a foundation for them, than would have purchased the fee sim- 

 ple of the whole mass of ruinous third and fourth rate tenements be- 

 tween Millbank and Buckingham Palace." Nor is the money sunk in 

 the mud the worst part of the matter, for the site is such that no 

 tolerably satisfactory view can ever be obtained of the principal or 

 river front. It is true the west side and other parts of the exterior 

 may ultimately make us amends for what we there lose in consequence 

 of its being to be seen — as far as will be to be seen at all — only in the 

 most tantalizing manner. But then to what purpose will it have been 

 to expend so much money in prodigally adorning the river front witli 

 exuberant and minute embellishment ? If little more than the general 

 masses and outlines can be made cut, it would surely have been quite 

 sufficient to have secured all the elfect that could be derived from 

 them, without squandering away money upon what will produce no 

 effect at all. We do not mean to say that no attention should have 

 been paid to architectural expression, or that the river front might just 

 as well have been left to look a bare and naked range of building — that 

 it ought to have been treated with the same admirable economy as ii 

 manifested in the sides and back side of the British Museum ; but in 

 our opinion it would have been sufficient to bestow on it just as much 

 finish and no more than what would tell at the distances and points 

 from which it can be seen.* Ceiling-painters and scene-painters do 

 not work up their productions like easel pieces, but judiciously cal- 

 culate their effect from the intended distance; so, also, ought the 

 architect to do, where circumstances render it impossible that his 

 building should be closely inspected and its details examined. How- 

 ever, excess in the way of over-finishing is by no means a common 

 fault; far more occasion is there to warn against the opposite one — 

 that of neglecting to make what cannot be shut out of view consistent 

 in character and of a piece with what is meant not only to be seen but 

 to be admired also. For the river front of the Palace of Westminster 

 elaborate detail was assuredly quite out of the question, and no better 

 than wasteful, because purposeless, expenditure. Captivated by the 

 beauty of its design, no one — not even the architect himself — seems 

 to have given a thought as to how it would show itself in execution, 

 erected upon an inaccessible site, with no more than a narrow strip of 

 terrace between it and the river,so that, even should that terrace ever 

 be thrown open to the public (which is exceedingly doubtful), the 

 building can be seen only very much foreshortened both in horizontal 

 and vertical direction ; viewed from the bridge it can be seen only 

 obliquely and by being looked down upon, and seen from the opposite 

 shore of the river its features are lost in shadow and mass. However 

 luminous the merits of that east elevation might be upon paper, if the 

 light was afterwards to be concealed under a bushel, it mattered little 

 whether it was bright or dim. 



These remarks, we should observe, are not suggested by what is 

 said in the Westminster, for that animadverts only upon the site of the 

 Houses, and not upon the no sight which we shall get of the river 

 front. The real gist of the article in the Review is at tlie end, protesting 

 against the line of approach from Pimlico to the Abbey adopted by 

 the Commissioners, and strongly advocating the one recommended by 

 the Metropolitan Improvement Society, which would lead in a direct 

 course from the Palace to the Victoria Tower along the south aide of 

 the Abbey, which would thus be thrown open to view. Both lines are 

 shown in a plan, where they are distinguished by different colours ; and 

 there can be no doubt that the one recommended by the "Society" 

 ought to obtain the preference, yet it is not therefore the less likely to 

 be scornfully rejected, and hurriedly got rid of, even should a feint be 

 made of taking it into consideration. 



>* The rest of the Reviews are postponed for want of space to next r 



* Among the faults captiously alleged against the Royal Exchange, it was objected by 

 one writer who spoke ol it that the capitals of the columns were ut rude workmanship, a 

 point upon which he could speak contidently, having examined some ot them when ihey 

 were lying upon the ground! Had they been intended to remain theie, or to be 

 put up on a level with the eye, their want uf greater finish would undoubtedly have been 

 a defect, but not at the height where they are now seen. So, too, in the upper parts and 

 parapets of Gothic buildiags, what shows from below like delicate tilagree and net work 

 will be found on ascending to the top of the roof to be very rude and coarse in execution. 



