Part 2
According to the section of that line, the height of the embankment it would be necessary to raise to give you a regular plane of ascent, would so effectually divide the grounds you passed through, as to prevent your bridging across such embankment for private roads, and compel you to “tunnel” under your own line, in order to admit of communication between the divided properties you would intersect; while, in the more level part, considerable expense for bridging across it for the same purpose might be necessary. And let you do the utmost that could be done, to inconvenience landowners and occupiers as little as possible, it is impossible to avoid giving them _real_ cause for objection on this ground, for the reasons pointed out in the following extract from a publication on the London and Birmingham Railway.
“Parts of estates and of fields will also be separated from each other, by immense gashes and mounds; over and under which expensive bridges, and long and wide tunnels, must either be constructed, or the value of the land must be still further deteriorated. Granting these to be constructed (and they too would be an expense as great as the other), they would not be an adequate compensation; for the passing and repassing of the numerous flocks and herds by them, would completely trample down and ruin the adjacent fields. There will also be cutting of the veins that contain water; the springs and ponds will in consequence be dried, and many of the sloping fields adjoining the line so deprived of water, that they will either become unfit for the purposes of pasturage, or the stock will have to be driven to a distance for a supply, at a considerable injury to its own value, and also at considerable expense.”
Now as the opposition which, for these reasons only, the landowners and occupiers made to the proposed London and Birmingham Railway last session, was the cause of the bill being thrown out by the Lords’ Committee; {10a} while, in addition to thus losing them their bill, this opposition of the landowners and occupiers also cost that company 50,000_l._ in parliamentary expenses, {10b} it may behove you to calculate seriously the consequences of similar opposition; parliamentary expenses being almost the same, whether a bill is for a railway of 100 miles, or of only one mile in length.
But this _surface_ expense of the road may still form its least expense. Among the evidence before the Lord’s Committee on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, stands the following item: “Maintainance of way 6,599_l._ 12_s._ 6_d._” This being for the six months ending on the 31st December last, it appears that the expense of keeping that railway in condition, notwithstanding that it has been opened only two years, was at the rate of 438_l._ per mile, per annum, for the last half of _last_ year; an amount, which, on your proposed line, would pay 5 per cent. on above 20,000_l._
In the last _general_ return made to Parliament, it was stated that the average expense of keeping the whole of the turnpike roads of England in repair, was 68_l._ 13_s._ 0_d._, per mile per annum. Therefore, it appears, that the expense of keeping the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in repair, is seven times as great as that of the average expense of repairing the turnpike roads of England.
For the first half of the present year, these expenses seem to have increased considerably in proportion. Since, notwithstanding that the number of passengers carried between the 1st of January and the 1st of July, 1832, is less by above 82,000 than during the preceding six months (being only 174,122 instead of 256,321), the repairs of the railway cost 7331_l._ in that period, which is at the rate of 488_l._ per mile, per annum.
On this and a corresponding subject, the Foreign Quarterly Review for October, 1832, in its observations on two French publications on railways, says, speaking of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway,
“The rails are not supported uniformly by laying on the surface of the road, but rest upon stone pillars, or sleepers, as they are called, placed at distances of a yard from each other; and as the great weights pass over them with considerable velocity, these sleepers are driven deeper into the ground; so that the rail-road soon becomes uneven, one rail having one direction, and the next a different one. Though these defects are not easily detected by the eye, yet they are very sensible upon close inspection with instruments; and still more so by the carriages that pass over them, as the wheels, on passing over a joining of two rails, receive a severe jolt, and also a change of direction. Driven first on one side of the road, then on the other, the carriage rocks like a ship at sea; whilst, at every swing, one wheel or the other strikes a rail with considerable violence.
“The damage sustained by the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, from these causes, is by no means trifling. On examining the last half yearly statement printed for the use of the subscribers, we find that the repairs of the railway cost 7331_l._ in six months; being more than 14,000_l._ per annum. {11} But the evil effects of this action are by no means confined to the railway itself, they are still more destructive to the engines that run upon it, as well as the carriages; as the former, from their delicate mechanism, receive the shocks with unmitigated violence; by which every bolt is shaken loose, and even the strongest parts of the machinery, are speedily torn to pieces.
“The jolting they receive is very violent. We have stood on one of them for hours, watching the action of the springs, and have experienced, on our own bodies, every jolt of the railway. The effect produced is most sensibly perceived, where it is most sorely felt, in the revenue of the company; for even at this moment, when their engines are new, and in the best order, the expense incurred for their support and repairs, is 10,582_l._ in six months; or above 21,000_l._ per annum, making, with the maintenance of the road, 35,000_l._ of yearly expenditure; the greater part of which is occasioned by the imperfections we have been describing. This expense is easily accounted for, when we consider that the company have twenty-four engines; out of which there are seldom more than six fit for use; the others, undergoing the progress of thorough repair.”
Supposing this 10,582_l._ to be divided among the whole twenty-four locomotives which are kept to do the work, the expense of their repair is 882_l._ per engine, per annum.
But supposing it to be divided only by the number of those which _actually do the work_, this expense for repairs amounts to 3527_l._ per engine, per annum.
The Edinburgh Review for October, 1832, in some measure accounts for this enormity of expense, by saying, “It is said that in the engines used on the Liverpool Railroad, new grate-bars have been melted in a single trip; and the projector of a steam carriage has admitted that cylindrical grate-bars, an inch in diameter, could not last more than a week, when the carriage is in constant work.”
Now as you must have two locomotives (if not more) in constant work, the money expended in their repairs, and in those of your railway—supposing them to be equal to the similar expenses of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway: and any circumstances which should render them less remain yet to be made known—this money would, provided it could be saved, pay 5 per cent. on a capital of nearly 170,000_l._: an amount that may render a method, the repairs and current expenses of which, should be importantly less than this, not undeserving of your attention.
In addition to these reasons against a railway, it may be observed, that, supposing you were to lay down such a line of communication for the purpose of conveying passengers to the Birmingham Railway from the west end of London, it will be necessary, not merely that those passengers should be willing to be so conveyed by you, but also that they should be willing to pay, not only _you_ for carrying them to the Birmingham Railway, but also other persons for bringing them to your railway (which will be two miles and a half from Hyde Park corner), in order that they may, thereby, be conveyed to the Birmingham Railway: that is, they must pay you for carrying them thither, over the space of two miles and a half, and other persons for bringing them two miles and a half more from Hyde Park corner, in order that you may so carry them.
Now as the Birmingham Railway crosses the Edgeware Road only two miles and a half from the bottom of Oxford Street, it admits of rather more than doubt, whether, even if you were to lay a railway down, passengers for the Birmingham Railway would take the circuitous, five-mile course, of the Kensington Road, and of your line to it, when they could get thither, both for less money, and in less time by the two and a half miles course of the Edgeware Road.
Therefore, with a view, first, to obviate this objection, and render the course by your proposed line, quicker in point of time, as well as cheaper in point of expense, than the shorter course by the Edgeware Road; and, in consequence, cause passengers to the Birmingham Railway to give your line the preference: second, in order importantly to reduce the cost of the ground required for your proposed line: third, to remove the objections of the owners and occupiers of this ground to a railway being carried through their properties; and thereby save you the expense, as well as the danger of their parliamentary opposition: fourth, to avoid the opposition of, and the great parliamentary expense you would be put to by, the Grand Junction Canal Company: fifth, to furnish you with a cheaper (in point of current expenses as well as first cost), and better method of conveyance, than either canal or railroad will admit of: and, sixth, to possess you of a source of income additional to, and exclusive of, all that either canal or railway would bring in:—for these six reasons,
I solicit the honour of your attention to a method of conveyance, which I beg leave to introduce to your notice, by the following quotations:—
First, from the pamphlet of the gentleman who has informed the world, that what all engineers have hitherto pronounced an “impossibility”—rapid conveyance on canals that is—is now proved perfectly practicable by passengers being daily carried from Johnstone to Glasgow, along the Paisley and Ardrossan Canal at rates of ten or twelve miles an hour: {13} and, second, from Philip’s History of Inland Navigation in England.
Adverting to the aqueducts by which the Union Canal is carried over the various rivers in its course, Mr. Grahame says:—
“Each and all of these aqueduct bridges are higher than any on the Liverpool Railway.
“The Sankey viaduct bridge, which cost nearly as much as all the other railway bridges put together, consists of nine arches of fifty feet span; and is, at the highest point, sixty feet in height. The Avon aqueduct, on the Union Canal, consists of twelve arches, each fifty feet span; the greatest height eighty-five feet; and the average height seventy-four feet above the valley and river.”
Therefore, it appears, that to carry a wide and deep canal across rivers, is now a matter of as common occurrence, as to build a suspension bridge, or a chain pier. Yet mark how the first proposition for any thing of this kind was treated half a century ago.
Philips, in his “History of Canal Navigation,” speaking of the _first_ proposition of the great father of canal navigation in England to carry a canal across a river, says:—
“When the first canal ever cut in England was completed as far as Barton, where the Irwell is navigable for large vessels, Mr. Brindsley proposed to carry it over that river, by an aqueduct thirty-nine feet above the surface of the water in the river.
“This, however, being considered as a wild and extravagant project, he desired (in order to justify his opinion towards his noble employer) that the opinion of another engineer might be taken; believing that he could easily convince an intelligent person of the practicability of the design. An engineer of eminence was accordingly called; who, being conducted to the place where it was intended that the aqueduct should be built, ridiculed the attempt; and, when the height and dimensions were communicated to him, he exclaimed, ‘I have heard of castles in the air, but never was shewn before, where any of them were to be erected.’
“This unfavourable verdict did not deter the duke from following the opinion of his own engineer. The aqueduct was immediately begun; and it was carried on with such rapidity and success, as astonished all those who, but a little before, thought it impossible; and within a twelvemonth did the crews of the vessels navigating the Irwell see the duke’s barges sailing over their heads, in the channel, upborne by this ‘castle in the air.’”
Now as the subject to which I solicit the honour of your attention, though equally practicable as the passages which I have quoted prove it to be to carry canals across rivers, will, at first sight, appear still more aerial than was this denounced “castle in the air” of the great introducer of canal navigation in England; and, as the engineers of the present day will pronounce it still more “absurd” and “impossible” than his proposition was considered to be, it behoves me to entreat, that you will vouchsafe a correspondingly increased portion of forbearance, to what I proceed to submit.
Many years ago, a circumstance which it is not necessary I should state, caused me to turn my attention to the best and cheapest means of conveying our persons and goods from one place to another.
After much consideration, a method of attaining these objects suggested itself, which admitted of a rate of conveyance so enormously rapid, and unprecedently cheap, as to be, at first sight, rejected as one of those utterly impracticable conceptions, which enter the imaginations of only poets and visionaries.
Reflection, however, convincing me, that this idea was, in point of fact, no more absurd than steam navigation, steam conveyance on land, and gas lighting were deemed twenty years ago, I took the same course with it which Fulton took with respect to steam navigation, which Winsor took with gas lighting, and which Trevithick and Vivian took as relates to locomotive engines—that is, I proceeded to put it in practice.
For proofs of the scale on, and success with which I did this, I beg to refer you to the following evidences of _fact_.
The first evidence I submit, is the copy of a circular which was sent to the principal inhabitants of Brighton, by a number of gentlemen, whose incredulity had been removed by witnessing and experiencing the operation of the method of conveyance I refer to.
“Brighton, May 5, 1827.
“SIR,
“The undersigned, having witnessed the operation of Mr. Vallance’s principle for conveying persons and goods by atmospheric pressure; and believing (if what we have seen on a scale of yards can be extended to miles {14a}) that it may be rendered very advantageous to the town of Brighton, beg to solicit your attendance, on Saturday the 12th May, at the Old Ship, at three o’clock.
“T. R. KEMP. {14b} PHILIP L. STOREY. DAVID SCOTT. {14c} THOMAS YATES, M.D. JOHN LAWRENCE. WILLIAM KING, M.D. JOHN LASHMAR. H. M. WAGNER. {14d} J. S. M. ANDERSON. {14e} JOHN GLAISYER. ISAAC BASS.”
Meetings, in consequence, took place, from the last of which emanated the following requisition to the High Constable, to convene a “Town Meeting” on the subject.
“To the High Constable of the Town of Brighton.
“SIR,
“We, whose names are undersigned, do hereby request that you will call a meeting of the inhabitants of the town of Brighton, for the purpose of taking into consideration the best means of rendering the method invented by Mr. Vallance, for the conveyance of passengers and goods by atmospheric pressure, beneficial to the town of Brighton.”
[Signed by about eighty of the inhabitants.]
In consequence of this requisition, the High Constable took the usual course of convening town meetings at Brighton, by advertisements in the newspapers, and by crying, and placarding the requisition all over the place, with the following addition at the foot of it:—
“In compliance with the above request, I do hereby call a meeting, to be holden at the Old Ship Tavern, Brighton, on Tuesday, 5th June, 1827, at eleven for twelve o’clock.
“E. H. CREASY, H. C.”
A “town meeting” accordingly took place; though, prior to stating the resolutions which were then passed, I solicit your attention to the following paragraph from the Brighton Herald of the 16th September previous; for the reason, that the explanation which it gives of the method alluded to, may serve to render more evident the justness of the decision to which the said “town meeting” came.
“NEW MODE OF CONVEYANCE.
“Our readers may remember that about two years ago, we discussed, somewhat at large, a principle of motion, by which, it was stated, we might be conveyed from one place to another ten times as fast as we now travel; that is, one hundred miles an hour instead of ten. It is unnecessary to say that expedition such as this, appeared so utterly beyond what was conceived to be within the bounds of possibility, that the theory was consigned to the oblivion it seemed to merit; and the author of it classed among those for whom, in the opinion of the world, St. Luke’s is the only fitting residence.
“General, however, as this opinion was, we have, during the past week, witnessed that which most importantly counteracts it as relates to ourselves; and could the doubts which the world at large entertain on the subject, have been concentered in a number of individuals, small enough to have both seen and felt what was experienced by us, we see not how the whole world could have avoided entertaining the opinion, that it is as certainly in our power to cause ourselves to be conveyed from one place to another at the rate of 100 miles an hour, by combining the operation of the necessary apparatus, as it is to cause ourselves to be conveyed at the rate of ten miles an hour, by adapting wood and iron so as to form the combination of apparatus commonly designated a stage coach; and that too, with a degree of safety and convenience at which stage coaches can never arrive.
“It may be recollected that the principle, or theory alluded to, was, that by properly combining the operation of steam-engines and air-pumps, such as are daily used for certain large manufacturing processes, we might create a kind of artificial wind; which wind, if made to blow in a previously constructed channel, would draw, or drive, a properly constructed carriage, at any rate not greatly exceeding what has been adverted to. Since, as in manufacturing processes, air is daily caused to move at rates varying from 200 to nearly 700 miles an hour, a proper combination of the same apparatus must certainly enable us to cause it to move at the lower rate of 100 miles an hour; and, as the current of a river will carry a vessel down at nearly the rate at which itself moves in its channel, so would this current of air carry us along with a velocity nearly equal to its own.
“This, in brief, is the theory. What we have witnessed of the practice is as follows. It being impossible to give motion to the whole atmosphere, as nature does when she causes a wind, we were first shown into a construction which formed a channel, within which the motion of air could be so directed as to cause it to blow full against any object placed inside such channel.
“This channel (which is, in fact, a very large tunnel), did not, in this instance, connect any two distant towns: it being of a length sufficient only to illustrate the principle; but it was self-evident that it (or another) might be extended to any length required. On the bottom of this channel (or tunnel) was a railway, on which ran a carriage. This carriage had a circular end, composed of thin boards. This circular end was as large as the tunnel, excepting about an inch all round, and was fixed to the carriage, so as to stand across the tunnel; as the sail of a ship stands across the line of her length. Consequently, if motion were given to the air within the tunnel, it would press, or blow, full against this end of the carriage, and tend to push the carriage forward; as the sails of a vessel going right before the wind are pressed against by the atmosphere at large. Each end of this tunnel was so connected to large air-pumps, that air could be drawn from one end of it, while the atmosphere was at the same time permitted to enter freely at the other.
“After examining the construction of the apparatus sufficiently to give us to understand as above, we got into the carriage; and, on the air-pumps being set in motion, we were moved along the railway from one end of the tunnel to the other. When we arrived there the motion of the carriage was reversed, and we were moved back again.
“We continued riding in this way, until we became so convinced that the invisible and intangible medium we breathe, might be rendered a safe and most expeditious means of getting from one place to another, as to be tired of riding.
“Further investigation gave us to perceive that the carriage might be stopped, and its motion reversed at pleasure; that so trivial was the degree of exhaustion (or vacuum) necessary to enable the atmosphere to drive the carriage forward, as the air-pumps drew the air from before it, that though we were exposed to this “vacuum” (as it is called) at every other turn of the carriage, yet did we experience no inconvenience from it. In fact, our feelings gave us no intimation on the subject, and we were wholly ignorant of it until it was pointed out to us. We were satisfied that persons or goods might be taken up, or set down, in any place through which the tunnel ran, or whose trade or population were at all important. And, as we were also convinced that it would be impossible to be overturned, it was out of our power to resist the belief that we had witnessed the operation of a principle by which we may be conveyed more safely, more cheaply, and many times more expeditiously, than we now travel.
“We cannot expect to carry to the minds of those who have not witnessed the operation of this principle, the conviction felt by us who have. But of this we are satisfied, that whoever sees it, will, with us, be satisfied, that we can render the principle practically effective, whenever we choose to be at the expense of doing so.