Chapter I: Part 1

[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.

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.

“It stands now, exactly as the steam-engine stood, when Watt had
completed the first one he made: that is, certain in its effect,
provided we will be at the charge of combining the necessary
apparatus. We have steam-engines and air-pumps amply large enough
for the purpose. So far from there being any insuperable difficulty
in the construction of the tunnel, there are parties ready to
contract for, and guarantee the execution of it, as relates to being
air-tight; and, although we should begin by going only at the rate of
ten, fifteen, or twenty miles an hour, yet have we no doubt that, in
the time necessary to instruct us how to manage the carriage under
higher velocities (as sailors get the “trim” of a new ship), we
should be able to go several (and we see not why _ten_) times faster
than we now travel. The chief, if not the only, difficulty to
surmount in this, as in most scientific improvements in their origin,
is public incredulity. This difficulty was felt and experienced, at
the outset, in respect to the construction of steam-engines; in
cutting canals; in laying down rail-roads; in rendering steam-engines
locomotive on them; and superior to the tempest and the wave, at sea.

“But as the same spirit of perseverance which enabled us to overcome
these past difficulties, will cause us to triumph over those before
us with reference to this principle of motion, we are satisfied, that
it is necessary only to go on, and prosper.”—_Brighton Herald_,
16_th_ _September_, 1826.

This quotation from the Brighton Herald serving to convey an idea of the method of operation, I may return to the “Town Meeting”: with reference to which the Brighton Gazette of the 7th June, 1827, states:—

“A town meeting, which we never saw surpassed in respectability, and
seldom more numerous, was held at the Old Ship Assembly Rooms, on
Tuesday last, at the requisition of nearly eighty of our most
respectable inhabitants, 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. The High Constable was in the
chair.”

The _course_ of the business not being important, I beg to refer you to the columns of the Brighton Gazette for it, and state only the _result_; which will be found _officially_ advertised in all the Brighton papers of that week, to the following effect:—

“TOWN OF BRIGHTON.

“At a numerous and highly respectable Meeting of the Inhabitants and
Visitors of the Town of Brighton, held at the Old Ship Tavern, on
Tuesday, the 5th day of June, 1827, 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:

“The High Constable in the chair.

“A Committee having been appointed at a former General Meeting of the
Inhabitants, to investigate the merits of the measure now under
consideration, and their Report having been read to this Meeting,
expressing a decided approbation of the undertaking—

“Resolved, unanimously, that the Report be sanctioned and adopted by
this Meeting.

“Resolved, that in the opinion of this Meeting the method of
transmission proposed by Mr. Vallance would be productive of the most
important advantages to the Town of Brighton; and that the
application of it, either as it relates to the transit of goods from
Shoreham Harbour, or to the conveyance of passengers between Brighton
and the Metropolis, is entitled to the most cordial support of the
Town.

“Resolved, that the thanks of this Meeting be given to Mr. Vallance
for bringing his important invention before the Inhabitants of the
Town.

“Resolved, that the proceedings of this day be advertised in the
Brighton papers.

“E. H. CREASY, Chairman.

“Resolved, that the thanks of this Meeting be given to the Chairman
for his impartial conduct in the Chair.”

* * * * *

“Report of the Committee appointed at a Meeting of Inhabitants of
Brighton, held at the Old Ship, on Saturday, May 19, 1827:

“In pursuance of a Resolution passed at a Meeting held here, on
Saturday, the 12th instant, your Committee have inspected Mr.
Vallance’s apparatus for the conveyance of passengers and goods by
atmospheric pressure; and can bear testimony to the success of it;
having been repeatedly conveyed through the cylinder {18} laid down
by that gentleman in Devonshire Place.

“Your Committee are of opinion, that, in the event of such a method
of conveyance being established from one town to another where much
traffic exists, the advantages would be incalculable, both as regards
the ready transit, and saving of time and expense to the traveller
and merchant, as compared with the ordinary mode of conveyance. Your
Committee are informed that 75,000 tons of materials are annually
imported into Brighton coastways, the greater part of which is landed
at Shoreham, and from thence brought into Brighton, at a land
carriage varying from 5_s._ to 8_s._ 4_d._ per ton: and your
Committee having been assured by Mr. Vallance, that by his principle
of conveyance, the carriage of all goods from Shoreham might be
reduced to a sum not exceeding 3_s._ per ton, and yet a net annual
profit of ten per cent. be returned on the sum expended, are of
opinion that if such a communication were established between
Brighton and Shoreham, it would materially benefit the inhabitants of
both towns; and your Committee feel confident it would receive the
most cordial and general support.

“Your Committee beg further to report, that the opinions of some of
the highest scientific authorities upon the principle of Mr.
Vallance’s proposition, have been submitted to them; and they have
the satisfaction to state, that these authorities concur in the
practicability of the measure to the fullest extent; and the
illustration of it which your Committee have examined, appears to be
on a scale of sufficient magnitude to demonstrate the truth of such
opinions. Should it, therefore, be adopted between the town of
Brighton and London, it is impossible to calculate the important and
beneficial changes to which it may lead.

“Your Committee, in conclusion, think that a successful mode of
transit by Mr. Vallance’s apparatus, would be attended with the most
important advantages to this great mercantile nation, and deem it
entitled, not only to the attentive consideration of the inhabitants
of Brighton in particular, but the community at large.

“Your Committee, therefore, recommend, that a requisition be
addressed to the High Constable, to convene a Meeting of the
Inhabitants of Brighton, to take into consideration the best means of
furthering so important an object.

“(Signed by the Committee).”