Part 8

For, equally certain as it is that iron, though the best, is not the _only_ material of which tunnels can be constructed, is it, that unless this proposition is very differently treated by them to what it has hitherto been, will they drive the manufacturing of tunnels from their own line into another: and that, too, notwithstanding that opportunities are arising which, in addition to bringing them to their own doors, would give such facilities as relates to the transmission of the large stocks of iron which the uncertainty, and occasional long interruptions of the present method of conveyance, compel them to keep in London, as to do away with the necessity for keeping those stocks.

The Welch papers announce the plan of a railway which is to connect the iron districts and ports of that country with London. In this plan, Merthyr Tydvil, the centre of the South Wales iron manufacture, is stated to be 176 miles from London.

Now, even supposing that this railway, instead of costing the _many_ thousands per mile which it must cost, could be laid down for nothing, still, the circumstance of the _bare expenses_ of conveyance on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, amounting to 4¼_d._ per ton, per mile, exclusive of the charges necessary to pay one farthing of interest, or return on the capital sunk in laying that railway down—and for which 3¾_d._ per ton, per mile, is charged, in addition to the 4¼_d._ required to cover the _bare expenses_—the mere _expenses_ of railway conveyance, _exclusive_ of interest or return on the capital invested, being so great as this, it appears that, even were this railway laid from their own doors to the metropolis, the iron masters could not, including the charge to pay interest or return upon the money sunk in laying the railway down, get their material to London for less than 4_l._ 10_s._ per ton; which, on an article the selling price of which (pigs) in London is only about the same amount, is in effect a prohibition; especially with the expense of freight for coast conveyance, only 12_s._ per ton from South Wales to London.

But as the expense of carriage by a tunnel would be as much less than this over-sea freight, as that is less than railway conveyance; while, in addition to this superiority over both, a tunnel would save all the _risk_ as well as the delays and uncertainty of over-sea transmission, London and the iron districts might be brought within so few hours of each other, as to obviate the necessity of the iron masters keeping the heavy stocks of their article in London which they are now obliged to maintain, and the capital so locked up become, in consequence, liberated for other purposes: while, were the tunnel extended to Milford Haven, as it has been announced the railway would be, that port, as well as Swansea, might be brought within a few hours of London; and the advantages of its (perhaps) unequalled harbour, rendered fully available to the nation at large for commercial purposes, as well as to Government for our fleets.

This consideration merits the serious attention of the advocates of the Bristol Railway. Swansea and Milford Haven being _both_ more advantageously situated for all vessels from foreign ports that would make Bristol their port of delivery; and their harbours being (particularly the latter) incomparably superior to that of Bristol, a tunnel would, were it to be laid down between either of them and the metropolis, be the certain ruin of any _railway_ from Bristol to London. The mere _expenses_ of carriage on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway being 4½_d._ per ton per mile, and the _whole_ charge 8_d._, it is evident that, supposing the Bristol Railway were to cost only _half_ what the Liverpool and Manchester has cost (the “Capital, 3,000,000_l._” placed at the head of the prospectus of the Bristol Railway, allows 25,000_l._ per mile for each of the 120 miles the map accompanying said prospectus shews the line will be in length) the whole change for carriage along its line could not be less than 6_d._ per ton per mile: the aggregate of which, 3_l._, would be equal to what cargoes have been brought from the East Indies for; and more than equal to freights from the West Indies, Mediterranean, &c. &c.; so that only such cargoes or freights, as stress of weather drove into Bristol, would be sent to London by the railway; while, by a tunnel from Milford or Swansea, they might be sent so cheaply, as actually to command the trade which it is _supposed_ the Bristol Railway will command.

But to return from the long digression, into which the consideration of the question relative to the effect of the friction of the air, and the importance of the subject to the iron trade, has led me.

Supposing the possibility of the Liverpool and Manchester railway proving a failure, that company would have scarcely any more _saleable_ value in their possession, in exchange for the million and a quarter which it has already cost, and the million and a half which it _will_ cost them, than the (about) 5000 tons of iron which is in their rails. Their long, narrow, slip of ground, dear as it has been to them, would be worth nothing; while the labour of taking up the between two and three hundred thousand stone blocks (or bases) they have laid down to carry the rails, would be more than those blocks are worth. Also would the 450,000_l._ expended in levelling the line _and forming the road_, be utterly lost. {52} Whereas, had a tunnel been laid down, not only would the whole of the hundreds of thousands expended in levelling have been saved, but as not one-tenth of the labour would have been required to lay a tunnel down, compared with what the railway required, a large sum would have been saved for that also; while what _was_ laid out, being for _metal_, instead of labour, there would have been from ten to twenty times more saleable value in their hands, than they now have.

And as the same circumstances would, in a similar case, apply to the Birmingham, and Bristol (and indeed to _all_) Railways, as well as to your line, it would, comparatively, be almost as much better, in this particular, to have a tunnel instead of a rail-road or canal, as it would be to hold specie instead of paper, during a run on the bank: though this advantage would be greatest in relation to a canal; the greater proportion of the expense of which, is for that _irrecoverable_ outlay, labour.

In point of the friction of the wheels would the carriages that moved in the tunnel be importantly superior to railway carriages.

Owing to circumstances which it is not necessary to discuss, the height of the wheels of the coaches and waggons on railways is confined to about three feet. Wheels of twice that diameter have been tried, but thrown aside in consequence of their liability to cause accidents by running off the rails: the only thing by which the wheels of all vehicles running on edge railways are kept on them, being a rim, which, projecting _one inch_ beyond the bearing part of the tire of the wheels, keeps them on the rails; as the brim of a hat will keep the body of it from rising on a table, over the edge of which said brim hangs.

In consequence of this, all carriages running on open railways are liable to accidents, such as those mentioned in the notes below, _many_ of which have occurred; though, owing to their having happened either in the excavations, on the levels, or on the low embankments, the dashings-to-pieces which _will_ take place when they occur on the high embankments have, hitherto, been avoided. {53a}

But as the carriages inside the tunnel _cannot_ get off the railway in it, as they do on common railways, while, owing to the constantly vertical position in which the wheels can be kept, they may be twice, or three times, as high as on common railways, so great a diminution in the power required to move any load will take place, as to admit of any weight being moved in the tunnel with less than half the power required to move it on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.

In point of repairs, too, would the tunnel be importantly cheaper than a railway. Supposing you were to have a railway, there would be, in every mile of it, above seven thousand stone blocks, or bases, to carry the rails; every one of which bases would be liable to sink, and disarrange the level of the line, as they are so constantly doing (vide page 11); while the rails themselves would be liable to bend, and break, between these bases. Sinkings of the bases, and bendings and breakings of the rails, &c. &c. being (like fractures of the harness and apparatus of stage-coaches, or the ropes of ships) matters of constant occurrence, there are, in the whole, and including _every_ liability to disarrangement and repair, above eighty thousand parts or places, in every mile of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, where adjustment or repair _may_ daily be required; while, were that railway to be made a quadruple one, by having two more lines of road (four more lines of rails, i.e.) laid down, these liabilities would increase to above one hundred and sixty thousand per mile; though, for the present, I refer only to fractures and loosenings of the chairs, &c. bendings and breakings of the rails, and sinkings, &c. of the bases, which are _now_ possible to the amount of above 40,000 per mile; whereas, in a tunnel, the corresponding disarrangements would be possible to the amount of only 1056 per mile: an advantage which time will prove to be of much greater importance than it may at first be considered; owing to the small expense of repair it will occasion. Supposing the London and Birmingham Railway were to have the “quadruple line” adverted to when the capital was raised to three millions, there would, in its whole length, be nearly twenty millions of parts or places where repair, or adjustment, _might_, daily, be necessary: a number which might well double the 488_l._ per mile, per annum, charged under the item “Maintainance of way,” in the half-yearly accounts of the Liverpool and Manchester Railroad.

But neither is this the last circumstance with respect to which a tunnel would be superior to a railway.

From the statements laid before Parliament, it appears that in the half-year ending the 31st December, 1831, “the number of trips of 30 miles” made on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was 5392. Now as the _whole_ weight carried during this half-year was _under_ 91,000 tons, it appears that the average _profitable_ weight (passengers, or merchandise) carried each trip, was _less_ than 17 tons.

The average weight of an engine and its tender, with fuel and water, being, I believe, not less than 12 tons, while there is the weight of the coaches and waggons additional to this, it would appear that for every ton which pays any thing, that is carried on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, they also carry a ton which pays nothing.

Now, owing to the manner in which the carriages that move in the tunnel can be constructed, and owing to there being no locomotive engines, and tenders carrying fuel and water, required to move them, this proportion of dead and unprofitable weight will be so much reduced, as for it not to amount to more than one-fifth of the similar weight on the railway.

The _whole_ expense of conveyance on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway during the six months ending the 31st December, 1831, was, it appears by the statement laid before the Lords’ Committees on the London and Birmingham Railway bill, fourpence farthing per ton, per mile; while the whole _charge_ for it was eightpence per ton, per mile. Coal being nearly ten times dearer here than it is there, there is no reason to suppose that what it might cost you for conveyance along a line of railway would be less than this; while it may be presumed that it would be so much more as, perhaps, and of itself, totally to counteract the advantages afforded by the shortness of your line, compared with the present route.

In addition to the advantages which I have stated a tunnel would hold out to the Company I have the honour to address, there would be one of a peculiar nature. It is generally understood, and appears from evidence to be the fact, that a considerable portion of the income of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company has arisen from persons who have visited and paid for riding over their line, solely from curiosity; while it is well known that the income derived from visitors to their tunnel, by the Thames Tunnel Company, is considerable; the average annual amount having been 1200_l._ per annum.

The curiosity excited by the public relative to the tunnel I constructed at Brighton, surprised me. Thousands manifested a desire to see it: hundreds applied to be permitted to do so; and when they found I would not let them, offered guinea after guinea to be allowed to gratify their curiosity, under the idea that mercenary motives gave rise to the orders I left that _no one_ should be admitted; while many of the very highest rank (including _every_ class of our nobility) made personal application to me to oblige them with a sight of it.

As I could convey persons in your tunnel (supposing you were to have one) most safely at the rate of a mile in a minute, and as a velocity of that kind being attained near the metropolis, by a method so novel as this, would induce very many thousands to visit and ride through it for curiosity, it may be expected that a considerable part of what it would cost to lay a tunnel down would be returned from this source; enough (in the end) I am bold to say, to pay for the cost of the iron whereof it would be constructed.

The Thames Tunnel, supposing it never should be completed, will for years bring in the 1200_l._ per annum, which is the average of what has been received from people visiting it; and I am fully satisfied that proper measures would, in the end, bring in, from this source alone, perhaps, more than would cover the coat of the iron, of which the tunnel I propose to you would be constructed.

In the prospectus of the Greenwich Railway Company is the following paragraph:—“Moreover, when it is considered that the population of London, Westminster, and the Borough, is about one million and a half, and that the population of the surrounding towns and villages, within a circuit of from forty to fifty miles round the Capital, amounts to nearly double that number; and that, in short, the number of persons visiting London during each year, make up a total exceeding five millions of persons, it is not unreasonable to expect that, through mere curiosity alone, two millions of persons will gratify the same, when it can be accomplished at a low price, suppose only one shilling, to go and return,—yet if so, that item alone would produce 100,000_l._”

Now, as supposing that the curiosity excited by my _novel_ proposition, will produce only one quarter of what the Greenwich Railroad Company calculate may come into their pockets from the same source, will, I think, be allowing sufficient pre-eminence to the _superior_ curiosity which an old method of conveyance _must_ excite, I trust that my idea, that the cost of the iron composing the tunnel may be repaid from this source, will be considered a not immoderate one.

In the Thames Tunnel there is nothing but the bare arch to see; while in this there would be the tunnel itself, the largest air-pumps, &c. &c. in the world, and a ride to and fro at the rate of sixty, or more, miles an hour.

Nor would the objection which, it may be imagined, must arise from the want of daylight in the tunnel, prove an objection in point of fact. So trifling is the degree of exhaustion and pressure required to move a load of 100 tons, that, but that the advantages which would arise, as relates to cheapness of site, and evasion of opposition on the part of the land-owners and occupiers, from carrying the tunnel under ground, prevent it, I could window light the tunnel throughout its whole, length: that which I constructed at Brighton having light admitted into it through windows of common thin glass; strong plate-glass not being required. Indeed, so far as relates to possibility, the upper half of the tunnel might be one continued window (like the top of a green-house), throughout its whole length. But as, even if this was done, artificial light _must_ be had for sixteen hours out of the twenty-four in the winter; as the tunnel might be gas-lighted throughout its whole length; or as, instead of thus wasting light unnecessarily, each carriage might carry lights before and behind, the objection that the tunnel being underground would render it dark as midnight, is no more a serious objection than it would be, were the Thames tunnel finished, that it would be better to cross the river by London Bridge, than through that tunnel, because on the bridge you would have _natural_, while in the tunnel you must have artificial light.

It is true that there could be no “view of the country” by this method of conveyance. But, as the object of it is the perfection of travelling, in the three particulars of safety, expedition, and economy; as even the comparatively low rates attained on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway prevent objects that are by the road-side being distinctly seen, owing to the velocity with which the passengers are whirled by them; and as the much greater velocity at which conveyance may be effected in the tunnel, would render any attempt to look on what was _passed_ productive of the effects experienced by a child who looks on the ground while leaning out of the window of a coach, no _real_ loss, as relates to “seeing the country,” would result from transmission taking place inside the tunnel instead of outside it: though, even if it should, it might be submitted to, when economy of both time and money, and complete obviation of the dangers attendant on breaking down, being overturned, run away with, or driven against any thing, became the equivalents.

Have we occasion to travel to Edinburgh by the mail, we unrepiningly submit to the inconvenience of passing two nights (32 hours in mid winter) not only in total darkness, but also “cabinned, cribbed, confined” to a degree which prevents us even from “changing a leg,” except by previous arrangement with our opposite fellow-passenger. But when it is proposed that we shall go in vehicles which, in addition to being as large and commodious as the cabins of many steam-vessels, will be as much shorter a time in going, as they are larger and more convenient than the inside of mail-coaches, and in which the most brilliant light may be enjoyed, we proclaim it to be “impossible” to consent to go by such vehicles, because they would move inside a tunnel: not considering that this very circumstance, of being _inside_ said tunnel, would as certainly secure us from being overturned, driven against any thing, run away with, breaking down, or any other of the dangers to which turnpike-road travelling is liable, as it would give us the ease, comfort, and accommodations of the cabin of a steam-vessel, instead of the privations and endurances experienced in mail-coaches.

And as the valves which have been adverted to as fixed at every quarter, or half, or whole mile, would, in point of effect, be doors, by means of which exit from the tunnel could be effected, the bugbear of being “shut up in a tunnel many miles long, with no place to get out of it, if any thing should happen,” need not be seriously replied to.

Such are some of the benefits which laying down a tunnel, instead of a railway would procure you. But the most important of all is yet to be mentioned.

As it does not follow that, because you may think proper to lay a railway down, the public will think proper to use it, it becomes vital to your interest, that some inducement which shall lead them to use it, and cause them to prefer the more circuitous route to the Birmingham Railway by your line, to the more direct one by the Edgeware Road, should be laid before them. This inducement will be furnished by the tunnel which I propose to your adoption.

The carriages which would go in said tunnel, may be rendered so superior in point of size, of the room they will give to each passenger, of comfort, and of general accommodation, as to be more like the cabin of a steam-vessel, rather than any thing else I can compare them to.

In one of those I used in the tunnel I constructed at Brighton, above twenty people have sat with a table between them, covered with provisions, plates, dishes, &c. &c. which provisions were consumed according to the usual course of a dinner table: so that accommodations (even to that of a sofa for each person) which could not be thought of in coach or omnibus travelling, _might_ be given to passengers.

Owing also to the size and construction of these carriages admitting of my using the air for springs, their motion would be soft and (as relates to the avoidance of all jolting) air-balloon-like, to a degree which you cannot conceive; and which no railway carriage, far less any common road vehicle, could compare with.

In point of safety, too, would they be incomparably superior; since, instead of being liable to break down, to be driven against any thing, to be run away with, or to be overturned, &c. &c. these accidents would be so impossible, that absolute immunity from danger, and certain security to life and limb, would be consequent on this method of conveyance; while the rate of transit under which this safety would be secured, being so great as to admit of the journey being effected in as few minutes as you thought proper, your route might be rendered as much shorter as you pleased in point of time, than the route by the Edgeware road could be rendered. The expense of the power too, by which your passengers would be conveyed, being above twenty times cheaper than coaches or omnibuses could convey them along the Edgeware Road, you would have a still greater advantage in this particular. It remains, therefore, only to point out how the public may be caused to take your circuitous line, in preference to the nearer route by the Edgeware Road.

In order to effect this, and to save the public from having to go from Hyde Park Corner to your line, as must be done were you to lay a railway down, I propose bringing your line to Hyde Park Corner, by extending the tunnel; branching it eastward from your basin, either through Kensington and Knightsbridge, under the turnpike road; or (in order to avoid all interference with, or opposition from, the Turnpike Commissioners) along the shorter line across the vacant grounds to the south of the road, at the back of Kensington and Knightsbridge; across (though beneath, and indeed underground all the way) Earl’s Court Lane, Gloucester Road, Grove Lane, the Brompton Road, and Sloane Street, to the vacant ground on the North and East of Wilton Crescent.

I am not, at present, prepared to point out either the best route, or the best spot for the termination towards Hyde Park Corner; having investigated only so for as to satisfy myself that such a course is practicable.

You will, at first, be startled at, and disposed to object to this extension, because you will suppose that it involves the outlay which would be required for two additional miles of tunnel, without bringing in any more return than would be received from passengers to the Birmingham Railway. This conception, however, is an erroneous one.