92 Floods on the River Bar won. 



data, the 120,000 cubic feet per second may be accepted for 

 the purpose of this paper. The mid-stream section, as 

 worked out by the author, is shown in the diagram by the 

 shaded blue line. 



21. The last series of calculations made were with a view to 

 show what levels another flood similar to that of 1852 

 would give under the existing condition of the river. The 

 result is shown by the dotted blue line, which immediately 

 above the railway embankment rises 2J feet above the flood 

 of 1880 ; that is, if a flood similar to that of 1852 were to 

 occur now, it would go over the top of the embankment 

 some distance south of the Waurn Ponds bridge, unless the 

 banks cut away as they did in 1880. It is not improbable 

 that the flood would rise still higher, since the increase at 

 and above C.S. No. 1, due to the stream being confined to 

 a portion of the river, is not (considering the section of the 

 actual flood of 1880) fully allowed for. The rise that 

 would be caused is not calculable owing to the direction 

 of the mid-stream being so complicated by the obstruc- 

 tions at the railway embankment. If this is the result 

 given by 120,000 cubic feet per second, it may be left to 

 those who are interested in the matter to decide what would 

 happen if the volume were 150,000 cubic feet per second, as 

 the exact levels given by the railway engineers would require. 



22. The deductions from the foregoing investigation are 

 instructive. The railway engineers asserted at the trial 

 that the provision, so far as length of waterway is con- 

 cerned, for the highest known flood is ample; but the author 

 can only suppose that they omitted to inquire into the 

 volume of water to be dealt with. Notwithstanding the 

 failure of the embankment across the Barwon, and the 

 damage caused by the late flood, not only to private pro- 

 perty, but also to the railway itself, the only modification 

 which it is understood the railway engineers now agree to 

 be necessary is to raise the embankment and bridges a few 

 feet. This is in consequence of the flood level having been 

 taken too low at first ; it is now said that an error of more 

 than 3 feet in the flood level of 1852 was made when 

 inquiries were instituted preparatory to the construction of 

 the railway. Considering all the facts of the case, it is 

 difficult to understand how simply increasing the headway 

 for floods will, without lengthening the waterway, remove 

 all danger. Another flood similar to that of 1880 would, 

 in the present condition of things, be only a shade less 





