Part 1

Transcribed from the 1833 George Wightman edition by David Price, email [email protected]

[Picture: Public domain book cover]

A LETTER TO THE KENSINGTON CANAL COMPANY, ON THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE PNEUMATIC RAILWAY FOR THE COMMON RAILWAY

BY WHICH THEY CONTEMPLATE EXTENDING THEIR LINE OF CONVEYANCE.

BY JOHN VALANCE.

* * * * *

* * * * *

PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE COMPANY.

* * * * *

* * * * *

LONDON: GEORGE WIGHTMAN, 24, PATERNOSTER ROW.

* * * * *

1833.

* * * * *

“Under circumstances of this sort, there can be no doubt that those microcosmic minds, which, habitually occupied in the consideration of what is little, are incapable of discerning what is great, and who already stigmatise the proposition as a romantic scheme, will, not unsparingly, distribute the epithets—absurd, ridiculous, chimerical. The commissioners must, nevertheless, have the hardihood to brave the sneers and sarcasms of men who, with too much pride to study, and too much wit to think, undervalue what they do not understand, and condemn what they cannot comprehend.”

_Report on the Practicability of the Erie and Hudson Canal_.

* * * * *

* * * * *

J. S. Hodson, Printer, Cross Street, Hatton Garden.

A LETTER, &c.

MY LORD AND GENTLEMEN,

THE contemplated addition of a railway to your line of conveyance, induces me to solicit the honour of your attention to a method of effecting your object, which may, perhaps, prove the cheapest and best you can adopt.

From the statements of the gentlemen who gave explanations on the subject at the meeting, your object appears to be, to effect some method of communication between your basin at Kensington, and some point of the Grand Junction Canal, and the proposed London and Birmingham Railway, which may enable you, either to take advantage of the Grand Junction Canal as a channel to convey and receive goods to and from, or of the proposed railway to Birmingham; so that you may be able to convey passengers to and from that railway, and to and from the western parts of town, should it be put into operation.

Your present line being a water line, I should, were it not for the intervention of the high ground which is between your basin and the Grand Junction Canal, recommend the extension of this water line; because an additional expenditure of 900_l._ or 1000_l._, to provide a couple of the gigs by which passengers are now conveyed at the rate of ten or twelve miles an hour along the Paisley and Ardrossan Canal, would then enable you to carry any number of passengers to and from the Birmingham Railway considerably faster, and many times cheaper, than omnibuses, &c. &c. would convey them to and from the town end of that railway.

But as the numerous locks, which the height of that ground renders necessary, would occasion the loss of all the time which the newly-discovered method of rapid conveyance on canals might save, the extension of your present line appears to be incompatible with your object of rendering such extension adapted to the rapid conveyance of passengers, as well as goods at the usual rate.

This impediment is not, however, the only circumstance which would make me pause in recommending the extension of your canal. It is publicly stated that the estimated expense of extending your canal the two and a half miles you contemplated was 150,000_l._; while this would not be the sole expense attending it.

Owing to there being no water to supply the waste of the numerous locks which you must construct, to raise barges to the height you wish to surmount, you would have, in addition to extending your canal, to be also at the expense of laying down large water-pipes all along it; and of erecting steam-engines, and pumps, to raise _up_ from the Thames, every drop of the water you would require to lower your barges _down_ to it. The first cost of doing this would be very considerable: since, in addition to the steam-engines, pumps, and two and a half miles of large pipe which you must lay down, you must also be at the expense of purchasing ground at the end of your proposed extension, for the site of, and excavating the earth to form, a large reservoir, for the water to be pumped up into to supply the locks.

Great, however, as would be the first cost of thus providing water to work the proposed extension of your canal, yet would this first cost be less important than the current expenses of it; since for every barge that passed through your canal, you would have to pump above two hundred tons of water, nearly 100 feet high: than which, nothing can be conceived more contrary to principles of economy; it being tantamount to having to lift a _whole_ hundred weight up, every time you extended your hand to put a _quarter_ of a hundred weight down. Were it necessary that those two hundred tons of water should be pumped _only_ when you _raised_ a barge _up_ with (or by means of) them, it would not be so vexatious.

But to be forced to pump two hundred tons _up_, in order to float the smallest load a barge carries {4a} _down_ your canal, would be so contrary to all principles of economical conveyance, as well as costly, that it becomes unavoidable to seek for some other means of transmission.

That which first struck you as applicable to your object, was a rail-way; since, by means of it, passengers may be conveyed as well as goods; so that, should any circumstance connected with the London and Birmingham Railway ever render it desirable, you might, then, convey passengers along your line. But though this could certainly be done, yet would the attainment of that certainty be attended with an expense, which might prove greater than the value of the purchase.

The avoidance of ascents which are at all abrupt, is now stated to be of such consequence as relates to the diminution of the daily expenses of railways, and so important with respect to what locomotive engines can do upon them, that it is current as the dictum of the principal engineer of the London and Birmingham Railway, that it is better to lay down six miles of railway to avoid (by going round it) a rise of 174 feet in one mile (an ascent of about an inch in a yard, that is) than to carry one mile of railway over said rise. And the junior engineer to that railway stated before the Lords’ Committee, that for a locomotive engine to get over a rise of fifty feet in height, was “nearly equal to going four miles round.”

The fuel consumed being the principal item of expense in locomotive engines, and the price of fuel with you being nearly ten times greater than on the Liverpool and Manchester line, {4b} the attainment of the desideratum of as regular an ascent as can be procured, becomes, according to this doctrine, more important as relates to your line, than it would be where fuel was cheaper, in proportion to the dearness of that fuel. A regular plane of ascent may, therefore, be considered indispensable to the proper operation of any railway you might lay down

Were you to do the utmost that could be done towards obtaining this regular plane of ascent, between your proposed points of departure and arrival, by cutting and embanking so as to make your line one continuous inclined plane, it would still be so remote from a level, as to rise at the rate of one foot of perpendicular height for 154 feet of horizontal distance; which would make the power required to draw any load along your line nearly twice as great as that which would be requisite to draw the same load on a level; while it would also present a sharper rise than some railways where stationary engines are the only moving power employed, owing to locomotives being considered unfit for railways so inclined.

Supposing your line, which must have the same number of rails that the Birmingham Railroad is to have (two lines of _way_ that is) to be no wider than that railway is to be in the narrowest part, the amount of embanking necessary to render your plane of ascent regular to this degree would not be so little as one million of cubic yards.

In the evidence before the Lords’ Committee on the London and Birmingham Railway it is stated, that on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway there are about three millions of cubic yards of cuttings and embankments. It being known that the money paid by that Company for this purpose has exceeded two hundred thousand pounds, it may be presumed that the expense of one third of that amount of cutting and embanking on your line would not be less than about 70,000_l._; while, as the nature of the ground your line must pass through, would render the proportion of embankments much greater than that of excavations, this amount of 70,000_l._ would be added to, by your being actually compelled to purchase the earth _itself_ which would be required for those embankments, as well as to pay for the labour of digging and conveying it to where you wanted it.

Long lines of work being done for much less expense _per mile_ than short ones; the London and Birmingham Railway being a very long line (112½ miles); the engineers of that railway having the very highest reputation as railway engineers; and the estimates laid before Parliament by those gentlemen for that railway, being the best authority it is possible to refer to as relates to the probable cost of a railway—I shall, for these reasons, and in order to prevent your supposing that my own opinion affects my statement, advert to the anticipated expense of that railway _per mile_ as a measure of the cost of yours.

Deducting the estimated expense of cutting and embanking, from the _general_ estimate of the London and Birmingham Railway, the average estimated expense of the _other_ work of the _two_ lines of way now proposed for that road (instead of the _four_ lines of which it was to consist) is 20,631_l._ per mile. {5}

And as it is not evident why your _short_ line should be done for _less comparative_ expense than this long one (while it is to be presumed that it would cost much more), it may be assumed that the actual expense of attempting to make a railway, on which the tractive force required for any load would be nearly twice as great as on a level, along the line you propose, would not be so little as 100,000_l._

And, supposing that you should be willing to adopt the less favourable method of railway transmission—i.e. levels and steep inclined planes, with fixed engines on the summits—still might not expense be very greatly reduced?

The original estimate of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was 400,000_l._, about 12,000_l._ per mile that is; with respect to which the Quarterly Review for March 1825 says: “The estimate for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway we have understood to be taken at 12,000_l._ per mile. But that road is meant to be executed on a magnificent scale; to be sixty-six feet wide; {6} the rails to be laid down in the best possible manner; and the purchase of land at the extremities must be paid for at an enormous price. This estimate also includes the cost of engines, waggons, and warehouses.”

Most unwisely, however, as well as untruly, the advocates of railways attempt to deny, that the original estimate for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was so low as this, or that it included the “cost of engines, waggons, and warehouses;” in order to show that the actual cost of the railways now contemplated will not exceed _their_ estimated expense, as the actual cost of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway has exceeded that estimate. For the facts of the case I appeal to the original prospectus of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, dated October 29, 1824; the 5th paragraph of which document is as follows:—

“The ground has been surveyed by eminent engineers, and the estimated expense of a railroad upon the most improved construction, _including the charge for locomotive engines to be employed upon the line_, _and other contingencies_, is 400,000_l._ which sum it is proposed to raise in 4000 shares of 100_l._ each.”

It cannot, therefore, but be contrary to good sense as well as fact, for the advocates of railways to attempt to deny evidence of this nature.

The first line of the credit side of the account given in to the Lords’ Committee on the proposed London and Birmingham Railway, by the Treasurer of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, on the 24th June last, stands thus: “By amount expended (up to the 31st December, 1831) in completion of the ways and works, 992,054_l._ 3_s._ 6_d._”: while the same document says, “By the additional number of locomotive engines and carriages that will be required for the increased number of departures, and especially by the outlay of capital for the construction of the new tunnel, and the unavoidable cost of warming, lighting, and working the same, the Company will incur an increased annual expenditure, which will be very inadequately compensated by the saving of the charge for omnibuses.” Now, as exclusive of this “additional number of locomotive engines and carriages that will be required,” the expense of making this tunnel is estimated at 130,000_l._—while, if the degree to which the actual cost of the railway itself exceeded its estimated expense, be taken as a rule, the actual cost of this tunnel may be nearer 400,000_l._ than 130,000_l._—and, as the following extract from the pamphlet entitled “Remarks on the Birmingham and London Railroad, by Investigator,” shews that an important item has been omitted, the _whole_ expense of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, up to the 31st December, 1831, will, it appears, exceed 1,200,000_l._ which is above 40,000_l._ per mile.

“There is a most important item entirely omitted in the treasurer’s account. Nearly 740,000_l._ were expended previous to May, 1830, all of which has now been expended for nearly one year, and different portions of it in different years, the first six years ago; not one shilling has yet been returned back again; and, therefore, the amount must be increased by the interest on the successive sums expended.

“We shall not fatigue our readers with the details; but the following abstract is very near the truth:—

£. £. _s._ _d._ Interest of 20,397 7,034 0 0 Ditto 20,397 5,629 0 0 Ditto 100,000 21,212 0 0 Ditto 181,061 28,868 0 0 Ditto 199,240 20,925 0 0 Ditto 739,165 11,823 0 0 Total (underrated) 95,491 0 0

“Omitting the odd hundreds, as we wish to be under, rather than to exceed the truth, there must, therefore, be 95,000_l._ allowed for interest.”

Supposing, therefore, that you were to diminish the expense of levelling, by adopting the system of steep inclined planes, with stationary engines on the summits of them, to drag the loads up by means of ropes, &c., according to the usual course of the stationary engine system, expense might not be very greatly reduced. Since it appears, from the accounts laid before Parliament, that, deducting the money paid for cutting and embanking on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, as well as the 130,000_l._ of additional expenditure, which I have just mentioned, the actual cost of that railway, _exclusive of cuttings and embankments_, has really been so high as to amount, very nearly, to 29,000_l._ per mile.

Even, therefore, if there were not a single yard of cutting and embanking to be done on your line, the estimated expense of the London and Birmingham, and the _actual_ cost of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, bid you prepare yourselves for an outlay of not less than 20,000_l._ per mile; while the money actually paid on the latter, may well make you anticipate that it would be nearer 30,000_l._ per mile; and this, as has just been stated, _exclusive_ of the expense of cuttings and embankments.

There are persons who will deny this. But instead of occupying your time by entering on any discussion of the question here, I will merely refer you to the paragraph quoted on the last page from the _original_ prospectus of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, and to the following passage from the _second_ prospectus issued by that company on the 26th December, 1825, when the capital was raised to 510,000_l._ instead of 400,000_l._,—that is, to 17,000_l._ per mile, instead of 12,000_l._

“A very prominent objection taken by the opponents of the bill, was founded on the errors in the section and levels, as exhibited before Parliament. These errors, the Committee at once acknowledged and regretted; and, to avoid all chance of similar complaint in future, they have engaged the professional services of _most eminent engineers_, aided by assistants of undoubted talents and activity; whose combined efforts justify the fullest assurance, not only of the correctness of the plans and sections, but that the whole line will be laid and arranged with that skill and conformity with the rules of mechanical science, which will equally challenge approbation, whether considered as a national undertaking of great public utility, or as a magnificent specimen of art.”

Yet, notwithstanding the “undoubted talent” of those “most eminent engineers,” and their “assistants,” whom the Committee had thus “engaged,” the actual cost of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, has _more_ than doubled the sum which the “undoubted talent” of those engineers and their assistants estimated it would cost, on the _second_ survey of the line.

The objections, therefore, of those who will say that I overrate the expense of a railway, may not be more consistent with fact, than the _under_ estimate of these “most eminent engineers,” and their “assistants of undoubted talents and activity:” while if, after being a _second_ time surveyed and estimated, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway cost a million and a quarter, instead of the half million to which the revised and reconsidered estimates of these “most eminent engineers” and their “assistants of undoubted talent and activity,” raised it, it becomes a simple rule of three question to estimate how much the London and Birmingham Railway will cost, above the two and a half millions, which it is now stated will complete the double line that is to be laid down, instead of the quadruple line which was stated to cost three millions. Of the four sums which this railway has been estimated to cost (one and a half millions; two millions; three millions; and two and a half millions; vide note on page 5), nobody can tell which will be right; though there are those who have publicly stated (and staked their critical accuracy on its correctness), that the whole four added together, will not be much more than enough.

It is true, that by having three _very_ sharp _indeed_ inclined planes, of eight or ten feet perpendicular ascent each an almost perfect level might, without very great expense for cutting and embanking, be obtained for four-fifths of your line to the Grand Junction Canal; while, by availing myself of an ascending power possessed by locomotive engines, which has (to my very great surprise) hitherto been overlooked, not only by railway engineers in general, but also by the inventors and improvers of locomotive engines, {8} I could get your engines and their loads up these ascents without any difficulty. But as the rise, during the sixty feet (nearly), of ascent, which must be surmounted in the remaining fifth of your line to the Grand Junction Canal, must be at the rate of one in forty-seven; as the power required to get the loads you must be prepared to send up that ascent, at the rate you must also be prepared to _raise_ them, will, including the friction, &c., of the ropes, render it necessary that the stationary engines should, each of them, be, roundly speaking, 150 horses power—in consequence of these things, and owing to the delay and danger attendant on the steep inclined plane and stationary engine system, as well as for the following reasons, this conjoint method of levels and steep inclined planes, and of locomotive and stationary engines, might be little better for you than making one continuous inclined plane of your line; so as to admit of locomotives running over the whole of it; and, consequently, not needing stationary engines at all.

Notwithstanding the efficacy of steep inclined planes with stationary engines on the summits, where they are absolutely unavoidable, yet are they so objectionable where it is any how possible to avoid them, that the engineers of the London and Birmingham Railway have recommended cuttings and embankments to the amount of twenty-three millions of cubic yards (nearly) in order to avoid them; while evidence makes it appear, that the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company prefer keeping extra locomotives waiting at the foot of their inclined planes, to draw the trains up, rather than use the stationary engines, which, it has been stated, they fixed at the top of those ascents for that purpose.

But these general objections against steep inclined planes and stationary engines, are not the only ones which would operate to the rejection of this method on your proposed line.

To connect it with the London and Birmingham Railway, it must either be carried over the Grand Junction Canal, or the London and Birmingham Railway must be brought across that canal to come to it; and as it may be divined that Mahomet must go to the mountain, rather than that the mountain should come to Mahomet, it may be concluded that your crossing the canal is unavoidable; especially when it is considered that bringing the Birmingham Railway over to the south side of the canal, would render necessary a _second_ crossing of it, in order to take that railway back to the north side again. And as, exclusive of the expense of the wide bridge, you must provide to carry your line of railway across the canal, it would cause, first, a second break, or variation, in your method of draught, by compelling you, after taking the loads from the locomotive engines which brought them from your basin to the foot of the ascent, and getting them up that ascent by means of the stationary engines, either to have other stationary engines adjoining the Birmingham line, to get the loads from the canal to that line, or else to transfer them for that purpose from the stationary engines, to locomotives again; while, secondly, and in addition to this, there would be the objection and opposition of the Grand Junction Company, to the large stationary engines and buildings which you must erect close to their canal to be overcome, it would appear that a method which should avoid the, perhaps, fatal objections, and certainly most enormously expensive Parliamentary opposition of the Grand Junction Company to the proposed extension of your line, would be a desideratum.

In addition to this, there must be the breadth of land required for a railway; which, looking at the width necessary for the embankments, would, considering the value of the ground through which your line must run, render the surface purchase (comparatively) equally expensive as the cutting.

Mere expense of purchase, might not, however, be the principal objection to a railway along the line you contemplate.