1841 .J 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



311 



the wheels, together, I suppose, with the additional fliUiges, would 

 entirely prevent the engines being thrown oil' the line by an obstacle. 

 Now the indtpendaice of their rates of motion cannot facilitate the 

 prevention of such an accident. 



In his third head he tells us that his wheels should be of cast iron, 

 preferably to malleable iron. But why this preference ? It is uni- 

 versally agreed that malleable iron is superior to cast iron for all wheels 

 of the kind now in use. Why are tlie writer's wheels to be an excep- 

 tion ? Is it oil account of spreading? The writer himself says that 

 malleable iron wheels spread out only on the bare side. And, there- 

 fore, now that they are to be flanged on both sides, the spread will be 

 checked, therefore let us yet use malleable iron. There is no other 

 new circumstance requiring this change of metal. The jolts, strains, 

 and every thing else will be the same. Again, therefore, let us yet 

 use malleable iron. His preference for cast iron is of a kind with the 

 dislike of Dr. Pell versified in the immortal quartet so often quoted. 

 Again, he says that the wheels as they are double flanged will not re- 

 quire to be so strong as at present, because side jolts will be divided 

 between the opposite wheels. The consummation of lateral strains 

 and jolts would be both wheels rising on the rails, which case, there- 

 fore, we must consider in judging of the required strength. Admitting 

 the writer's assumption that both wheels share the strain equally, 

 (which however cannot always be, as in cases of variation of gauge, 

 which fact itself is an argument against his conclusion), it is clear, as 

 Telford has it, that the engine on being raised, is elevated on both 

 rails through the depth of flanges, and that therefore its centre of gra- 

 vity also rises through the mean depth of flanges. Now with the 

 single-flange wheels the engine would be raised only on one side, 

 through the depth of flange, and therefore its centre of gravity rises 

 through only one half this depth. It is clear again, then, that double 

 flanged wheels would have as tight work each as the single flange 

 wheel, and therefore would require to be as strong. What right has 

 he to deny this, who never proved the contrary? He again says that 

 the face of the wheels ought to be in outline a circular segment instead 

 of conical. Now the face of a wheel, as he views it, is not conical ; 

 it is a straight line inclined to tlie axis. He proceeds to mention by 

 wholesale the great saving in his plan. Particularly, he says, no at- 

 tention will be required in laying the rails to an angle in straight parts. 

 What although, there will be the same attention altogether in laying 

 them horizontally? At all events, he allows that the angular position 

 is required at curves. But under the fifth head, he says that railways 

 are all curves together; therefore he must conclude against himself 

 that the saving in straight parts is just nothing, since he supposes 

 there to be no straight parts at all. 



Again, he says that the inclination of the rails the same way on 

 curves instead of towards each other, as now set, will enable gravity 

 to act more forcibly. This can be only on the ground that the com- 

 parative virtual velocity in the direction of gravity is greater in the 

 first case than in the other. The writer has evidently not troubled 

 himself as to the truth of this gratuitous statement. It would be easy 

 to prove that the centre of gravity moves through equal depths for the 

 same horizontal movement, in both cases. And therefore is he entirely 

 wrong. 



Again, he says that the inclination of the rails to one another in pre- 

 sent plans causes great friction on the journals. How so? The pres- 

 sure on the journals must be the same. Nor is there any twisting or 

 other adverse action of the kind. 'In fact, the only sources of fric- 

 tion by this cause would be at the contact of wheels and rails, owing 

 to the wedge-like action of the conical wheels, which is utterly insig- 

 nificant. Again, each wheel cannot possibly press th.e other against 

 the rail, for their action is equal and opposile, and therefore nothing. 

 In his fourth head he has asserted all, proved nothing. How did he 

 know the exact saving of power he mentions? It is evident that his 

 improvement was never in operation. What right had he then, when 

 he knows nothing about it, to pronounce so decisively as he has done, 

 and that not only in this paragraph, but throughout the whole paper. 



His last notable and most ridiculous statement is set down in the 

 fifth head. He tells us that railway curves do all differ in intensity, 

 and they must therefore be of various radii. But this evideiitiv re- 

 quires wheels of various diameters to suit them, and to produce that 

 sweetly-gliding motion which he loves. This exigence is beautifully 

 provided for in conical wheels. Now he proposes to set his engine 

 running upon the flanges of the wheels forsooth when they enter 

 upon curves. By this exceedingly quack plan, the wheels are evi- 

 dently adapted to only one kind of cuive, and would therefore, on any 

 other curve, grub up the rails most sweetly indeed. 

 I am, vour's, respectfully, 



D. C. 

 Glasgow, July 9, 1841. 



QUESTIONS FOR THE OPINION OF THE EDITOR. 



Sir— I shall feel obliged if you will inform me if I could sustain a 

 charge in a court of law under the following circumstances. In the 

 early part of the year I was applied to, amongst other tradesmen in 

 the parish, to tender for certain alterations and additions required to 

 a building, in the erection of schools, and iu due course I was informed 

 that my tender was accepted, and that a delay of a week would most 

 likely take place, but from that time to this, a period of sis months 

 and upwards, I heard nothing of the matter until a day or two 

 since, when I received a letter (certainly a polite letter), statino- cir- 

 cumstances prevented the design from being carried into eflfecl, and 

 that they were sorry I could not have an opportunity of carrying my 

 contract into effect. 



Do you not think. Sir, I should be fully justified in charging two 

 per cent on the amount of my tender, .as some judgment was necessary 

 and much time taken up in making the estimate. 



I am. Sir, 



Yuur obedient servant, 

 ^>ig- 9. T. O. M. 



In all cases when our opinion is required, we should be furnished 

 with full particulars; for instance, in the above case, a copy of the 

 advertisement should have been forwarded. Taking for granted that 

 there is nothing very special in the wording of the advertisement, and 

 that there was nothing pers(3nally objectionable to the tradesman 

 making the tender as to his general way of doing business in point of 

 construction, or for want of pecuniary means to fulfil liis contract, we 

 are then of opinion that a claim could be legally substantiated against 

 the parties advertising. 



We have some recollection of a case being fried about six months 

 since, either in the Sherifts' or Secondaries' Court in London, of a 

 builder suing a person for tlie trifling sum of about 3/. for his loss of 

 time in making an estimate of some works; after receiving the tender, 

 the defendant declined employing the plaintiff; without showing any 

 reasonable excuse ; in this case the plaintitf recovered the sum sued for. 

 Our impression is that there are ether cases which might be cited; 

 probably, before our next number appears, some of our readers will 

 be able to furnish us with some information regarding this question, 

 which is one of very great importance, not only to the builder, but 

 also to the profession. — Editor. 



Sir — I thank you for your reply respecting the legal arrangement 

 of chimney flues, and from which I gather that the termination at top, 

 if of different materials from the stack, may be of any size that one 

 pleases ; but suppose I choose to have nothing resembling a chimney- 

 pot, is it your opinion that the law will forbid such a contraction for 

 the last two or three feet of the brick or stone, as is now effected by 

 the addition of the cement or pottery abominations ? 



I am. Sir, 



Jlug. 10. Your obedient servant, 



A subscriber. 



If the chimney be built as our correspondent suggests, it will be 

 necessary, in our opinion, to construct it with an aperture not less than 

 14 in. by 9 or 12 inches diameter, agreeably to the Act. We hope 

 that the legislature will see the iiecessity for altering the clause in the 

 act before it comes into operation ; the Architects' institute or Society 

 should interfere and obtain a repeal or modification of the objectionable 

 clause before the act comes into operation. — Editor. 



Sir — I have lately had an opporturdty of seeing the Illustrations of 

 Ancient Halls by Nash. Now it struck me at the time, that though 

 they were certainly very pleasing to the eye, how much more useful, 

 simple but correct outline elevations and plans would have been to the 

 architect and other?, as it would be the means not only of preserving 

 a true delineation of the subject, but would also be the means of fur- 

 nishing numerous d.ita in erecting similar edifices, which I know lo be 

 useful to all. Now as many very beautiful specimens still exist in 

 this part of the country, I have it in contemplation to bring out a work 

 of this kind. The only question is, whether architects will patronize 

 it as they ought to do, as I am sure plans, elevations, &c., of such 

 buildings must be very acceptable to them. If you will be kind 

 enough to give your opinion in your next number, I shall feel greatly 

 obliged. 



A Subscriber. 



Such a work as our correspondent describes has already been com- 

 menced, but not proceeded with. We think a work got up at a 

 moderate price, suitable for the architect, might stand a chance of 

 meeting with support, but we are afraid to recommend the publishing 



