Chapter II: Part 2

In proof of the above statements, I beg to refer you to the Records and Official Authorities of Brighton.

And, as a summary of the other persons who have witnessed and experienced the effect of this method of conveyance, additional to the parties already mentioned, I beg to submit the following extracts from a Petition which I presented to Parliament on the subject.

“To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland in Parliament assembled; the humble Petition of John
Vallance, of Brighthelmstone, in the County of Sussex,’

“Sheweth,

“That your Petitioner hath invented a method of conveyance, by which
he can prove that persons may be carried from one place to another
very much faster, cheaper, and more safely, in reference to security
from personal danger, than can be done on turnpike roads, or
railways; and whereby be can also prove that goods may be conveyed
for less expense than by canal carriage.

“That to shew the public importance of this method of conveyance,
your Petitioner hath put it in operation, on a scale capable of
carrying twenty persons at once, over a space sufficient to
demonstrate its practicability; as hath been proved by His Grace the
Duke of Bedford, the Right Honourable the Earl of Lauderdale, the
Noble Baron Holland, and Lord William Russell; who, with several
other persons of distinction, at one and the same time, rode in, and
experienced the effect of it, on the 2nd December, 1826.

“That on the 16th May, 1827, a Committee of seven Gentlemen,
nominated at a Meeting of Inhabitants of Brighton, also rode in, and
experienced the operation of this method of conveyance.

“That His Grace the Duke of Rutland, the Right Honourable the Earl of
Egremont, one of the honourable members for Yorkshire, one of the
honourable members for Lewes, Professor Leslie, and many other
gentlemen, have since witnessed and experienced the effect of it.

“That it has also been seen by the Honourable Member for Dundalk, by
one of the Honourable Members for Essex, for London, for Southwark,
for Barnstable, for Callington, for Stafford, for Petersfield, for
Bedford, for Cambridge, for Bossiney, and for Weymouth; with other
noblemen and gentlemen too numerous to mention.

“That the whole of these noble and honourable gentleman whom your
petitioner hath mentioned, appeared to be, and it is your
Petitioner’s belief, _were_ convinced, that this method of conveyance
is equally practicable as steam navigation, gas lighting, or
locomotive steam-engines; notwithstanding that before they witnessed
and experienced the effect of it, they deemed it more absurd and
impossible than those now well known triumphs of art were considered
twenty years ago.

“That the tunnel and other works whereby your Petitioner hath
produced this conviction, combine the operation of the largest
pneumatic machinery in the world; the air pumps being capable of
exhausting above 50,000 cubic feet {20} of air in a minute; and of
conveying 100 tons weight over a space equal to the distance between
Manchester and Liverpool, in three hours;—while the tunnel is, in
point of calibre and strength, equal to the conveyance of the whole
1000 tons of goods daily passing between those places, at one time.

“Your Petitioner humbly begs leave further to represent, that the
information he hath obtained during five years which he hath devoted
to investigations relative to the practicability, cost, and
advantages, of putting this method of conveyance into operation
between our principal manufacturing towns, the outports, and the
metropolis, will enable him to prove that it may be done of cast
iron, for an expense which would not exceed what canals cost; while
he can also prove, that in addition to combining the trade of the
turnpike road with that of the canal, it would admit of goods being
carried for less than half what they can be carried for on canals;
and passengers in less than half the time, very much less than half
the expense, and far more safely with reference to security from
personal danger, than can be done on turnpike roads or railways; it
being alike impossible to be overturned, to be driven against any
thing, or to break down.”

The last evidence I adduce, is that of a Major of Engineers in the Russian service; whom the late Emperor Alexander, after he visited England, sent over to inspect and report upon our canals and railroads. This officer was directed by the Russian Ambassador to visit Brighton, expressly to inspect my plan; with reference to which he addressed to his government a report, of which he favoured me with the following copy:—

REPORT TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

“To His Royal Highness Prince Alexander, Duke of Wirtemburg, Chief of
the Corps of Engineers for the Inland Communications of Russia,
General of Cavalry, &c. &c.

“Your Royal Highness having commanded me to report upon all the
inventions of importance that have been brought forward in England of
late years, whether such were, or were not named in the instructions
I had the honour to receive from your Royal Highness in St.
Petersburgh in June 1824,1 beg leave most humbly to submit the
following particulars, relative to a proposed mode of conveyance;
differing from every existing system, as much as it will surpass them
in point of expedition and ultimate economy.

“In March, 1825, I was informed that a Mr. Vallance had invented a
method of conveyance, by which goods might be forwarded from place to
place ten times faster than can now be done; or equal to 100 miles
per hour. The apparent absurdity of the proposition, and the
undefined explanation then given, induced me to consider the scheme
as one of the nefarious and stock-jobbing bubbles of the day;
consequently I took no measures to become correctly informed on the
subject; particularly as I was about leaving London for an extensive
journey in the interior. Recent circumstances have, however, caused
me to entertain so different an opinion to that which I then held on
the subject, that I can now confidently submit to your Royal Highness
an account of a method of conveyance, which will, in my humble
opinion, within a few years, operate a change in the condition of the
whole civilized world; and which would be productive of the most
important benefits to the Russian Empire.

“The theory of this method is stated in the Treatise marked with the
letter A. The practice, I have experienced personally: having been
conveyed over a space sufficient to demonstrate the practicability of
the principle; and although that space was not sufficient to admit of
any such velocity being attained as is adverted to in the Treatise,
yet there is sufficient evidence of the velocity with which air may
be made to move, to satisfy any one, that on a line of proper length,
the only limit to the rate at which persons or goods may be conveyed,
will be that at which wheels will revolve. I will, however, first
advert to the general object of the Treatise, and then comment on
those parts of it which I conceive to require further illustration.

“Your Royal Highness will perceive, upon a perusal of the treatise,
that the general object of the author is to prove,

“1. That it is practicable to render air a means by which we may
cause a peculiar sort of wheel carriage to convey both passengers and
goods ten times faster than horses can draw any vehicle now in use.

“2. That this may be done with perfect safety and convenience.

“3. That we may, at one and the same time, move a weight exceeding
that of 100,000 infantry or 10,000 cavalry; and, consequently, that a
whole army may, in an hour, be transported over a space of 100 miles.

“4. That this method of transmission may be put in practice, for an
expense per mile, far less than what several canals have cost, as
will be apparent from the amounts of the several inland navigations
of the United Kingdom, stated in my Report of January last.

“5. That the expense of transport by it will be so many times less
than by any present method, that military as well as commercial
benefits will result from it of the most important nature; and

“6. That the stoppages, inconveniences, and delays, which would
otherwise arise from those who have charge of the exhausting
apparatus at each end of the line of transit, setting it in operation
at an improper time, may be prevented by the new mode of telegraphic
communication described in the last section of the Treatise, which,
being equally efficient during the most foggy weather and darkness,
as in day light and clear weather, will admit of instantaneous
communication between those who direct the operations at each end; so
that any thing which it may be necessary should be known at one end,
may be instantaneously communicated from the other, independent of
the method of conveyance itself; an arrangement, without which, the
operation of the principle would ever be attended with doubt, delay,
and danger.

“The vast importance which a method of transmission, combining the
advantages of tenfold expedition and cheapness, must be, to an empire
so extensive as that of Russia, I will not presume to point out to
your Royal Highness, but pass to those particulars which appear to me
to require further elucidation than the author’s object allowed of
his giving.

“The first thing is, the velocity at which the cause of motion, in
this method of transmission, viz. the air, would move us, provided we
could construct wheel carriages to go so fast. This velocity would,
if raised to its maximum, be between 900 and 1000 miles an hour. But
as saving nine-tenths the time now wasted in travelling post, would
render the saving of portions of the remaining tenth, very
unimportant, it will be unnecessary to trouble your Royal Highness
with proof that it might be possible to do so, in perhaps a large
proportion; and I therefore pass to the adduction of evidence, which
shows that _it is certainly in our power to save nine-tenths_.

“From the examination I have given to the construction, and what I
have experienced as to the effect of the cylinder, or large tube, in
which I was conveyed, according to this principle of transmission, I
am convinced that exhaustion, to a degree which should give fifteen
inches of mercury, may be effected—that is, half a vacuum; and as
this would give an initial velocity of between 200 and 300 miles an
hour, there is no reason to doubt but that a rate of motion equal to
100 miles an hour may be attained, provided wheels can revolve so
fast without igniting. The operations of nature frequently impart to
air a velocity of above 100 miles an hour; and in the process of
fusing iron, it is artificially caused to move at rates varying from
200 to nearly 700 miles an hour. At the lower rate of 100 miles an
hour, it must therefore be fully practicable to make it move.

“The second thing I advert to, is, the quantity in which air may be
exhausted, or taken out of a cylinder, or line of large pipe, such as
is adverted to. The blast cylinders used instead of bellows, for
fusing iron, are all air pumps, and it is requisite only to arrange
the valves properly, to render them condensing or exhausting pumps at
pleasure. Many of these pumps are large enough to exhaust 10,000
cubic feet of air per minute. Assuming the area of the cylinder to
be 100 square feet, {22a} and the velocity at which we are to be
conveyed to be 100 miles an hour, the combined operation of
eighty-eight of these pumps would be required. But the one referred
to in page 18, will take out 22,000 cubic feet per minute; therefore,
only forty such pumps as that would be required to exhaust air from
the cylinder at the rate of 100 miles an hour—a number, the operation
of which there will be no difficulty in combining.

“The pressure requisite to cause air to move at the rate of 100 miles
an hour, appears, by all experiments that have been made on the
subject, to be less than half a pound per square inch. Calculating
from this datum the power requisite to move a column of air equal to
the area of the cylinder, at the rate of 100 miles an hour, would be
that of 1900 horses. {22b}

“A steam engine of fifty horses’ power would, therefore, be required
to each air pump, to cause the air to move at the rate of 100 miles
an hour, independent both of the load to be moved, and of the
friction of the air against the inside of the cylinder. With
reference to the first of these—the load to be moved—it is to be
observed, that, owing to the principle combining the operation of by
far the best railway I have ever seen, or, indeed, can conceive, with
carriage wheels six times as high as those used on the patent single
line railway, friction is diminished to a degree which will admit of
the same power moving a considerably greater weight than on that
railway. It will, therefore, be quite safe to calculate only on the
same effect being produced; and, according to this the extra power
requisite to move 100 tons at the rate of 100 miles an hour, would be
only 200 horses. With reference to the friction of the air against
the inside of the cylinder, as referred to at pages 68 to 74, several
times the power will be required; so that, were there no other means
of power and exhaustion than steam engines and air pumps, objection
might arise in point of expense. But, by what is stated at pages 50
and 51, it appears that neither air pumps nor steam engines would be
indispensably necessary; and although Mr. Vallance does not at
present deem it prudent to give full explanation on this particular,
he informs me, that whenever it may be requisite, he is prepared to
prove that every purpose of exhaustion may be effected without other
apparatus than what he can construct out of rough hewn trunks of
trees; so that the question may be considered free from any
objections which the necessity for costly machinery would give rise
to in Russia.

“Thirdly, that a vehicle capable of carrying both passengers and
goods, can be so adapted to the inside of the cylinder as to be moved
in it by the air when operated upon by the air pump, I can vouch,
from having seen and experienced it; and as the rate at which this
vehicle moves, is exactly commensurate with that at which the pumps
exhaust air from the cylinder, it follows, that, at whatever rate air
can be pumped out of the cylinder, the vehicle will be carried
forward, provided that velocity does not exceed the rate at which
wheels can revolve on their axes without ignition: with reference to
which, it is to be observed,

“Fourthly, that the number of revolutions made by a carriage wheel
depends on the size of that wheel, as well as on the motion of the
vehicle. The fore wheels of the coaches which travel with the
greatest expedition, revolve, on an average, about 100 times in a
minute. One of the peculiar advantages of the method Mr. Vallance
proposes, is, that it admits of the wheels of the vehicles which move
in the cylinder being several times larger than the wheels of
carriages which run on roads; owing to their being always kept in an
exactly perpendicular position, and consequently free from the strain
thrown on the spokes of a common carriage wheel, by the deflections
from the perpendicular, which the nature of and obstructions upon
roads continually occasion. Owing to this, the wheels of the
vehicles which move in the proposed cylinder may be from ten to
twelve feet in diameter; or nearly four times as large as the fore
wheels of a coach. The same number of revolutions, therefore, which
the fore wheel of a coach makes in an hour, would move the vehicle in
the cylinder forty miles; and twice and a half that number of
revolutions would give 100 miles an hour. Now if a common coach
wheel which moves under the disadvantages of being constantly exposed
to all the clogging and impediments arising from the dust and dirt of
the road, can revolve for hours together at the rate of 100 times a
minute, without being greased, excepting at the end of its journey of
perhaps one hundred miles, it may fairly be presumed, that a wheel
which would be not only free from all dust and dirt, but also moving
in a reservoir of oil would revolve 250 times a minute without
heating, even had we no such evidence as that referred to in page 36.
But when that is taken into the consideration, all anxiety with
reference to the effect a velocity of 100 miles an hour would have on
the axes of the wheels, may be dismissed.

“Fifthly, nor is it necessary that any anxiety should be entertained,
as to the effect such a velocity would have on respiration; for in
addition to what is urged on this matter at pages 28, 29, and 35, I
have to state that, though I was purposely exposed to the ‘vacuum’ as
it is termed, many times during my examination of, and riding in the
cylinder, yet I did not experience the least inconvenience from it.
Indeed, I should not have been aware of it, had my attention not been
directed to it; the degree of exhaustion necessary to move a
carriage, not being much more than the ten-thousandth part of a
vacuum: a diminution of density, which would not lower the barometer
so much as the two-hundredth part of an inch.

“Sixthly, a degree of exhaustion, or vacuum, which is not sufficient
visibly to affect the barometer, being enough to move the carriage
with persons in it, so as for them to experience the effect, and
fully comprehend the operation of the principle, it becomes evident
that the idea at first entertained of a perfect vacuum being
indispensable, is most erroneous; and the objections which at first
present themselves to us, relative to the difficulty of constructing
the cylinder—of making the joints air tight, and of so adapting the
ends of the vehicle to the cylinder, as should prevent the passage of
any important quantity of air, without occasioning great friction,
are all seen to exist only in imagination. In the cylinder which Mr.
Vallance has in operation at Brighton, there is a space of above an
inch in width, purposely left all round between the cylinder and the
end of the carriage which forms the piston, against which the air
presses to drive the carriage along; yet does not the air which
rushes through this crevice (though it is in the whole equal to an
aperture of two square feet), prevent the operation of the principle:
its sole effect being a loss of a proportion of the power employed to
drive the air pumps; a loss which Mr. Vallance intentionally submits
to, for the sake of proving that a very large portion of air may rush
by the piston end of the carriage, without preventing the effect of
the principle.—Vide pages 30 and 31.

“Seventhly, nor will the degree to which it may be necessary to
exhaust, or, as it may in other words be termed, the degree of
‘vacuum’ required, to move even a very great weight, interpose any
insuperable difficulty. In the cylinder at Brighton, a party,
consisting of his Grace the Duke of Bedford, the Earl of Lauderdale,
Lord Holland, Lord W. Russell, Lady W. Russell, and another lady and
gentleman, were all at the same time experiencing the operation of
the principle, on the day I was last at Brighton, with a degree of
exhaustion not exceeding two drachms per square inch; a proportion of
vacuum which would lower the barometer about one-hundredth of an
inch. Practice therefore proves, as well as the arguments in pages
47 and 48, that a very trivial degree of exhaustion will be
sufficient to move a considerable load; and as it will be perfectly
practicable to exhaust to a degree, that should render a barometer
exposed to the vacuum inside the cylinder, several, if not many
inches lower than one would stand exposed to the atmosphere, I do not
think the amount stated in page 37 more than it may be possible to
move at one time. And with reference to weights of 50 or 100 tons,
such as locomotive engines draw at once, there will certainly be no
difficulty at all, let the velocity they are moved at be what it may.

“Eighthly, under the trivial degree of exhaustion which will thus,
generally speaking, be necessary, your Royal Highness will perceive,
that rendering the cylinder sufficiently air-tight for the purpose,
will be far less difficult than it is at first supposed. Indeed, I
see so many different ways of doing it, that I am satisfied it would
not, in practice, prove more difficult, nor indeed so difficult, as
causing some canals I have seen, to retain the water let into
them.—Vide p. 45.

“Ninthly, nor will there be any difficulty in regulating the motion
of, and stopping the vehicle. The shortest way of rendering this
evident to your Royal Highness, will be to suppose the end of the
carriage which, when in motion, stands across the cylinder, at a
right angle with its course, to be capable of turning on a pivot; so
that it may be moved one quarter of a circle, and placed in a line
with the course of the cylinder: or edge to wind, like a sail when it
shivers. The consequence of this would be, that as the air would
pass by without pressing against it, the power which moved the
carriage forward would be taken off; and as the wheel could at the
same time be dragged by a friction lever, while other levers caused
friction against the side of the cylinder, the progress of the
carriage could be commanded and stopped at pleasure. This method of
removing the effect of the pressure of the air against the carriage,
not being that which would be made use of in practice, my reason for
adverting to it, is solely to enable your Royal Highness to perceive,
that a very simple arrangement will admit of its being done. For the
same reason, I only state, that to the axis of each carriage, would
be connected clock work, which would shew the person who has charge
of the carriage how far he has gone, and where he is, to a yard; so
that there will be no uncertainty as to when and where to prepare for
stopping, by gradually diminishing the motion of the carriage. There
will be every facility for perfect vision, as at each end of every
carriage will be fixed a portable gas light.

“Tenthly, this principle possesses an advantage over common roads, as
well as rail-roads and canals, which will, under all circumstances,
be generally, and, in some cases, highly important. This advantage
is, that the cause of motion (the atmospheric pressure) will act
vertically as well as horizontally; and that in consequence of it,
the filling up of hollows, and also deep cutting, as for canals and
rail-roads, is unnecessary. Not that it would be advisable to select
hilly ground; though perfectly possible to go over any, the most
abrupt rises, even were they nearly perpendicular. But that any rise
or fall over which a carriage road can be cut, would be quite level
enough for the operation of the principle.

“Eleventhly, I now mention the expense per mile, which I think will
not, in Russia, exceed 10,000_l._ The calculations on which this
opinion is founded, I do not here submit to your Royal Highness; but
at such time as may be necessary they will be ready for transmission.

“Twelfthly, the expense of transit, or carriage, by this principle.
Assuming that the combined effect of the improved railway in the
cylinder, and the six-fold diameter of the wheels, should not render
any given power capable of moving more than on the single-line
railway (vide my Report of August, 1825), one horse would move twenty
tons; but independent of the effect which the wheels, being six times
larger, would have in diminishing friction, the expense of
transmission would be diminished many times, from the following
circumstances:—On the single-line railway, the power employed is that
of horses; and, considering the construction of that railway, and the
height the rail must be in some situations above the ground, I do not
conceive that locomotive engines can be ever used upon it.
Horse-power is twenty-four times as dear as elementary power,
employed in the way the Treatise points out. Assuming, therefore,
that the friction of the rarified air against the inside of the
cylinder, as stated at pages 68 and 74, should increase the power
required ten times, still would the expense of carriage be less than
by the single line railway, while we should attain the important
advantage of being able to transmit 10,000 tons, at any rate between
what railways now transmit at, and 100 miles per hour, for an expense
which, as relates to power, would be only the twenty-fifth part of a
farthing per ton per mile.

“But even were the friction of the rarefied air against the inside of
the cylinder to increase the power required ten times, as I have
supposed, it is not imperative that the expense of transmission must
be increased in a similar degree. Owing to its being well-known and
universally received, steam is the first mover, or power, Mr.
Vallance has referred to. The researches of men of science in
England have, however, been for some years directed to means of
rendering the gases first movers, instead of steam, under the hope of
obtaining an agent, which should serve as a mechanical first mover,
without fuel. From the year 1820, the attention of Mr. Vallance has
been directed to this subject, with a view of rendering the method of
conveyance the Treatise refers to perfect, in the particular of
cheapness of transmission; and about two years ago he obtained a
patent for a first mover, which will give ten times the power of
steam, without any expense for fuel; the principle of which is stated
in the Tract, marked letter B, which I have obtained from him, for
the perusal of your Royal Highness. The power therein referred to,
proposed to be used instead of steam, would so greatly reduce the
expense of transmission, that the cost of power would be ten times
less than by the single line rail-road.

“It will also be equally superior in point of safety and security
from accidents, as it is in point of economy and expedition: it
being, as stated in page 81, absolutely impossible to be overturned.

“Thus combining expedition exceeding that of posting, with economy
equal to that of canal transmission, it must appear that this
principle is most importantly advantageous to an empire so vast in
its extent as that of Russia, and, consequently, fully authorizes me
most strongly to recommend that the Government should immediately
contract with Mr. Vallance, to send a practical illustration of the
principle, such as he has in operation at Brighton, which, being
capable of carrying your Royal Highness, the Members of the Council,
and Generals of the Arrondissements, over a space sufficient to
demonstrate the practicability of the proposition, will place within
command a reply to all objections from ignorant or interested
persons.

“It has been deemed essentially important to the welfare of Russia to
promote internal communication by canals, and immense sums have been
expended in cutting them; but owing to the long duration of winter,
they are useless during half the year; and so slow is the rate of
transmission by them, that, even when in full operation, they can
hardly serve to convey goods from one part of the empire to the
other, before winter locks them up again. Railways also, owing to
the period the snow lays on the ground, and the continual drifting of
it which takes place, would be available scarcely more than half the
year. But the principle here adverted to, being liable to
interruption from neither frost nor snow, and equally effective by
night as by day, offers a means of rendering the extremities of the
empire contiguous to each other; and will do this at a much less
charge than can ever be done by canals, or any other mode of
conveyance.

“The vast importance of this principle to Russia, both in a military
and commercial point of view, it is unnecessary for me to state to
your Royal Highness; but I consider the manifold advantages it
presents sufficiently demonstrated, to prompt me to recommend its
speedy adoption from St. Petersburgh to Tsarsko-selo, the river
Volga, Moscow, and the Black Sea.

“WILLIAM COULING, K. V. &c.

“London, Dec. 21, 1826.”

With these evidences that I do not presume to request your attention relative to a mere theory, I trust I may be permitted to hope, that the following observations relative to effecting a communication between your canal at Kensington and the point of termination you propose, may be deemed not wholly undeserving attention.

Were you to purchase land for either a canal or a railway, the width required would not be less than sixty or seventy feet, while in some parts it would be much more on account of the cuttings and embankments. {26}

Supposing the method which I submit to you were to be adopted, a width of only eight feet would be necessary, even were the tunnel to be carried, as a canal or railway must be, along the surface of the ground; so that my proposition has, to recommend it, this first feature, that only one-eighth of the ground would be wanted that must be required for either a canal or railway; while this recommendation would be attended with the additional advantage, that, instead of the tunnel rendering the lands through which it would pass, open, and liable to the depredations of the bargemen and drivers, as canals or railways do, it would, owing to communication going on _inside_ the tunnel, leave them still as private, untrenched upon, and uninvaded, as a water or gas pipe would do.

In order, however, still more to obviate objections as to the course, and additionally to reduce expense as to the nature of the ground required for the line of communication which I suggest, I propose carrying the tunnel _under_ ground, in lieu of upon it; while, instead of taking its course across fields and cultivated grounds—as a canal or railway must do—I propose taking it along the line of (though buried underneath) certain bye-roads and (to coin a word) uncultivatible grounds lying between your basin and the Grand Junction Canal, and the line of the London and Birmingham Railway; by doing which, I anticipate that very great expense, and still more important opposition, will be avoided; while, as the farm-roads and tracks, along and underneath which I propose to carry the tunnel, would be so importantly improved by it, as to be rendered almost equal to turnpike roads, the execution of the work would be an actual benefit, instead of an injury to the land under which it was carried.

In addition to these things, the line I propose would save five per cent. on the whole cost; owing to its being in that proportion shorter than the line pointed out on the plan for the railway which was laid before the meeting.

The course I propose is as follows. 1st. Along the road on the east of your basin, to the turnpike road; in which length I should sink it so as to go under the turnpike. 2nd. Diagonally across the turnpike to the bottom of Addison Road; up and underneath which it would be continued to the Uxbridge Road. 3rd. Under that road, and the farm yard and ground opposite Addison Road, to the Green lane which runs upwards by the side of Morland Hall; where would be the only _cultivated_ ground (and that only two or three furlongs) which it might be necessary to purchase.

From this point it would go under the track to Notting Barn Farm; and from thence under that farm yard up the track to the bridge now crossing the Grand Junction Canal; where I propose obviating any opposition of the Grand Junction company, by fixing the bridge which must be thrown across to carry the tunnel, _close_ to that bridge; so that there would still be, as it were, but one bridge for their barges to pass under.

From this point it might be carried under the short piece of road leading to the Harrow Road; and thence, under and across that road, up (though under) Kilburn Lane, to the line of the London and Birmingham Railway.

There being only between three and four furlongs, which are cultivatible throughout this route; and as the tunnel (being carried under them) would be no impediment to the usual operations of agriculture (unless some repair should, by chance, be necessary, while the crops were on the ground) the expense of the ground line, would, comparatively, be not worth speaking of; instead of proving the costly matter it would be, as relates to a canal or railway.

And the foundation which the width of the “lengths” of the tunnel would give for the railway inside it, being thirty times greater than those of the bases on which the rails of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway are laid (_those_ bases too, being of an extra and unusual size) the tunnel would be less likely to need repair as relates to its foundation, than the Liverpool and Manchester Railway is, by thirty times. Indeed, owing to the less weight there will be on each “length” of the tunnel, in comparison with that thrown on the railway bases, the probability of repair proving necessary will be less than this.

The stone blocks, or bases, which carry the rails of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway are two feet square. The weight of the large locomotive engines on that railway, is above ten tons; more than half of which, being thrown on two of the wheels, each block has three tons weight on it when those wheels pass over it. The pressure on every square inch of the foundations of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, is, consequently, above four times as much as on the boilers of Boulton and Watt’s steam-engines; from which result the sinkings, “drivings into the ground,” and the twenty-fold more expensive repairs than were originally calculated on, alluded to in the extract from the Foreign Quarterly Review, given at page 11.

Now as the construction of the carriages which would go in the tunnel, would prevent more than three tons being thrown on a “length” of the tunnel; and as each of these “lengths” would expose a base of 120 square feet to the ground, the pressure on each square inch of the foundation of the tunnel, would not be one-thirtieth of what it is on the bases of the Manchester and Liverpool Railway; which, taken in conjunction with the superior bases exposed by the tunnel, would, perhaps, render the probability of sinking less than one hundredth. It may, therefore, be presumed that after the tunnel was once fairly set in its place, it never would be necessary to disturb the ground over it.

Neither will the height to be surmounted by your extension, prove an at all serious impediment to the effect of the principle which the tunnel will enable us to put in operation.

As the pressure of the atmosphere, acting in all directions, admits of a tunnel being effective even were it fixed vertically, all gradations of ascent, fall, necessarily, within in its range; with varieties of effect, increasing in proportion as their angles approach the horizon. In consequence of this, the height to be surmounted in the course of your extension, is merely an impediment of degree; while the following circumstance will render that degree comparatively unimportant.

Few things are better known than that a Stage Coachman, when he approaches a rise of the road, pushes his horses to a gallop; because “the swing of the coach” (as he expresses it) “carries his cattle up the hill.” The principle is known to every one; while it is almost equally well known that the law of its operation, is according to the square of the velocity; so that the momentum of a coach which meets the hill with the horses pushed into a gallop that causes the rate of the vehicle to be 16 miles an hour, will (friction abstracted) rise four times as high as one that meets the hill when going at the rate of 8 miles an hour: the continuance of the operation of the power which overcame friction on the level, being (so far as relates to its counteractive effect) equivalent to an annihilation of friction.

This law is well known. Now let us see how this knowledge has been taken advantage of, by those who have had the expenditure of hundreds of thousands, placed at their discretion.

Rates of from 35 to 40 miles an hour, have been attained on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway for these four years. Supposing friction to be counteracted and neutralized, the momentum of a vehicle that was moving on a level at the rate of 36 miles an hour, would “swing” and cause it to rise up an inclined plane to the height of 43⅓ feet perpendicular, let the angle of ascent, or rate of rise, be what it might; while, as a velocity of 20 miles an hour, would, under similar circumstances, “swing” a carriage up 13⅓ feet perpendicular, and a velocity of 10 miles an hour, 3⅓ feet perpendicular, it needs not, _nor ever has needed_ any thing more than a proper arrangement of levels and inclined planes, to avoid _all_ deep cutting, high embanking, or tunnelling, in the line of a railway, except where a precipitous rise or hollow interposed itself.

It is true that it may, with reference to the deep cuttings and high embankments of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway be replied, that at the time these works were executed, it was not known that such great velocities could be attained on railways. {29a} But though it was not then _known_ that these rates of motion could be attained, yet was it as well known as it is now, that rates of ten miles an hour could be attained by horses: while, though the first line of the railway was laid out in 1824, and the present line in 1825, it was not till October, 1828, that it became decided whether horse or elementary power should be employed: vide pages 62, 67, 68, and 69 of Mr. Treasurer Booth’s “Account of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.”

And notwithstanding that instances of velocities equal to ten miles an hour having been attained by locomotive engines, were not very common at the time the line of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was laid out, yet do the under-quoted extracts from various publications of the period prove, both that they _had_ been attained, and that much higher velocities were confidently anticipated: while Mr. Treasurer Booth, at page 37 of his book, says, that “the earth work (comprising the cuttings and embankings along the whole line) was not commenced till January, 1827.” {29b}

Such statements being (as it were, officially) promulgated, and such opinions entertained relative to the velocities attainable by locomotive engines:—the question as to the employment of horses being, thus, an open one, not only during the survey for the second line, but also for two years and a half after the Act for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was obtained; and it being equally well known as it is that the sun gives light, that for the gallop which coachmen push their horses to just before touching a hill, in order to give their vehicles the momentum which imparts the “swing that carries their horses up the hill”, rates of 15 or 16 miles an hour could be attained—it being thus known at the time the line of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was laid out, that average velocities of 10, and occasional velocities of 15 miles an hour could be attained: and it being unquestionable that if friction be counteracted (as it is by the continuance of the operation of the moving power) the momenta imparted by those velocities will carry any vehicle up any inclined plane to the heights of 3⅓ and 7½ feet, it was necessary only to have laid out the railway in short levels, with sharp inclined planes rising a foot or two between them, to have avoided all deep cutting or high embanking.

It is true that owing to velocities of ten miles an hour, having at that time, been only occasionally attained by locomotive engines, it might have been proper to keep these ranges of levels, and inclined planes _within_ the limit prescribed by that rate. But as this limit is not within a vertical rise of 3 feet 4 inches, it would have been perfectly possible, by arranging short levels with sharp inclined planes of three feet in height between them, to have avoided the _whole_ of those deep cuttings and high embankments of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, of which the under-quoted extract from Mr. Treasurer Booth’s book gives such glowing descriptions. {30}

Admitting, however, (for the question’s sake) that the “most eminent engineers” and their “assistants of undoubted talents,” by whom these “Pelion-upon-Ossa-like spoil banks, towering over the adjacent land” were ordered—and of which Mr. Booth says, in addition, “this aggregate mass has been removed to various distances, from a few furlongs to between three and four miles; and no inconsiderable portion of it has been hoisted up by machinery from a depth of 30 to 60 feet”—admitting that these gentlemen should have been warranted in expending the hundreds of thousands which were paid for making these mountains between Liverpool and Manchester, by the uncertainty then prevalent as to what velocities were attainable by locomotive engines, it cannot be said that the engineers of the London and Birmingham Railway have any similar justification to plead. That line was not, I believe, laid out till 1831, while the velocities attained on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, and the short time within which London and Birmingham could, in consequence, be brought of each other, form the main features of the prospectus: rates of from 35 to 40 miles an hour having been (then) _long_ attained on the Liverpool and Manchester railway.

Yet does the “Estimate” laid before Parliament shew no less a sum than 429,286_l._ appropriated to “Excavations, Embankments, and Tunnelling,” which, with “the increase in the number of arches in the Wolverton viaduct,” will give an _estimated_ expenditure of nearly half a million to do that, which, taking _proper_ advantage of the law of motion I am adverting to, would entirely have saved; except where a hill as perpendicular as a wall, or a hollow as precipitous as a well, rendered tunnelling, deep cutting, or filling up, absolutely unavoidable.

At the time the Birmingham Railway was before Parliament last session, maps of it were issued from the office of that company, which gave the “Section of the line of railway; shewing the rises and falls.”

This section is on too small a scale to shew either the height of the embankments or the depth of the cuttings: and though it has not suited my convenience to spare the time necessary for examining the section deposited in Parliament, yet as the cubic yards of cuttings and embankments amount to nearly twenty-three millions: as the map and section I have just mentioned shew ten tunnels (some of which are a mile and upwards in length): and inclined planes, in _unbroken_ rises of 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 20, and 25 miles, there can be no doubt but that _much_ deep cutting and high embanking is included in it. Now though I do not mean to imply that the expense of _all_ cutting and embanking could have been saved, by taking proper advantage of the power of ascending heights, which is imparted by the momenta of the velocities whereat locomotive engines now go, yet I do mean to state it as my full conviction, that had this railway been (as the second prospectus of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, stated that line should be) “laid down 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” the whole of the anticipated expenses of _deep_ cutting and _high_ embanking would have been expunged from the estimates; it being certain, that deep cuttings, high embankments, and _long_ inclined planes are no more evidences of engineering skill, than winning a battle by hard fighting is of generalship: while the expense of the numerous “very small cuttings varying from 8 to 10 feet,” which are spoken of in the “Minutes of Evidence taken before the Lords’ Committees,” might as certainly have been saved, and those rises passed over by the vehicles in consequence of their momentum; as a cricket ball will roll over a mole-hill.

But if these remarks are applicable to the Birmingham Railway—the line of which, was I believe, laid out in 1831—what must be said relative to the _now_ proposed London and Bristol Railway?

For nearly twelve months the principle of avoiding level, and constructing “undulating railways” has been discussed, in consequence of Mr. Badnall having taken out a patent for, and published a work, proposing such “undulating railways”: and though, owing to the fall on your line being wholly (as well as _greatly_) one way, it is not necessary to express any opinion here on a proposition, which appears to have for its object the construction of unlevel railways _in preference_ to level ones, and the labour of toiling up hill for the sake of the momentum to be obtained by running down hill, yet as, in consequence of it, the effect of momentum in carrying moving bodies up ascents, has been largely and widely adverted to for the last twelve months (nearly), it must have been within the expectation of every one, that, let the gentleman who has been employed to lay out the line of the Bristol Railway be anxious as he might, to avoid any “undulating” proposition, he would be equally anxious to call in the aid of all _known_ and _established_ principles, to diminish the expense of the line he was required to lay down. {32}

Now, nothing, I believe, is more certain, than that if a vehicle be moving along a level at the rate of 2¾ (2.7272) miles an hour, it will, on coming to an inclined plane, and provided the operation of the power which overcame friction on the level, be continued, so as to neutralise and (as relates to counteractive effect) annihilate friction during the ascent, “swing” itself up, and rise to the height of (that is, its momentum will cause it to rise to the height of) three inches perpendicular; let the angle of ascent, or rate of rise of the plane, be what it may.

Equally certain is it, that if the velocity of the vehicle be twice 2¾ miles an hour, that is 5.4544 miles, the momentum will (under similar circumstances as to counteraction of friction) then cause the vehicle to rise up said inclined plane to four times the height to which the former velocity raised it; or to the height of one foot. And it is equally certain, that the momenta imparted by increased velocities will, under the circumstance of the friction of the vehicle being overcome, neutralised, and (as relates to counteractive effect) annihilated, by the continued operation of the moving power during the ascent, cause the vehicle to rise up any inclined plane to the perpendicular heights stated in the following table:—

Carriages moving on levels, at the Have momenta, which (friction
under-mentioned velocities, the being counteracted and
motions of which are changed from neutralised) will cause them
horizontal to ascending, by means, to rise to the
either of circular or angular under-mentioned heights
ascents. (perpendicular) above the
level where those velocities
were attained: let the rate
of rise, or angle of ascent,
be what it may.
MILES. MILES PER HOUR. PERPENDICULAR.
2¾ or 2.7272 3 inches.
5½ or 5.4544 1.0 foot.
11 or 10.9088 4.0 feet.
22 or 21.8176 16.0 do.
44 or 43.6352 64.0 do.
88 or 87.2704 256.0 do.
176 or 174.5404 1024.0 do.
352 {33} or 349.0808 4096.0 do.

Now, let it have been proper as it may, that the gentleman whose name appears as “Engineer” to the Bristol Railway, should (in laying out that line) have avoided encumbering the subject with the “undulating” question, there can be no doubt that it was incumbent on him to diminish expense in every way which _established_ principles admitted. And as the usual railway rate is now 20 miles an hour, while that rate will give momentum enough to cause any vehicle to rise up any inclined plane to the height of 13⅓ feet (perpendicular) above the level on which it was running at the rate of 20 miles an hour, it is necessary only to lay out the line of this railway in levels, and rises of 10 feet each, to avoid (very nearly, if not _quite_) all necessity for cutting, or embanking; while _deep_ cutting, _high_ embanking, and tunnelling, might (except in _very_ peculiar cases) have been as certainly avoided, as erecting a suspension bridge will obviate the necessity for piers and arches over a river. Yet does not this gentleman appear to have any more called in the aid of this law of motion, than did those equally “_eminent_ engineers” who laid out the line of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway; or those who have laid out that of the Birmingham Railway: the “Report” of the public meeting held at Bristol, on the 30th July last, stating that “although the line of country (except for about 30 miles at the Bristol end) is _very advantageous_, yet the comparative levelness of the railway will be attained by a _great deal_ of deep cutting, and _several_ tunnels;” while the prospectus issued from the London office of the Company states, that “the construction of a road so nearly level, in the hilly country about Bath and Bristol, will, unavoidably, be a costly work.”

The length of the Birmingham Railway is 112½ miles; that of the Bristol Railway “from 115 to 118 or 120 miles,” average 117½. The estimated expense of the cuttings, embankments, and tunnels, of the Birmingham Railway is 429,286_l._ or 3,185_l._ per mile. The same expense on the Bristol Railway is (835,300_l._ + 15,000_l._=) 850,300_l._ or 7,236_l._ per mile; that is, above twice as much: and this too, notwithstanding that the Report states that “this expensive part of the work, fortunately, lies principally in two of the most favourable materials—the chalk and the freestone;” and also notwithstanding that the estimate of the Birmingham Railway has undergone two years’ scrutiny, and the most rigid investigation, by several Parliamentary Committees; while that for the Bristol Railway is the result of only a “_preliminary_ survey,” directed by a “Provisional Committee:” so that were it to be increased as the estimate for the Birmingham Railway has been increased, it would be _many_ times as much as the similar work on that railway. Indeed, the parties themselves have made a considerable increase already: 10 per cent. being added to the above amount of 850,300 by the Bristol Committee, and 7 per cent. by the London Committee; {34a} so that 978,494_l._ is the _whole_ amount at present allowed for works, which taking proper advantage of the momentum of the vehicles would have saved.

Yet, with well-known laws of motion thus set at nought and neglected, and with expense thus unnecessarily as well as most enormously added to, are the Committee—gentlemen who were, unavoidably, as entirely dependant on the opinion of their engineers, as the Ministry of 1789 were upon that of the “Insanity Doctors,” relative to the mental affliction of George III.; or as those of 1830 were on that of the physicians who attended George IV. during his long illness—under circumstances of such entire dependence on the opinion of their engineers, are the “Provisional Committee” of the Bristol Railway led into the following expressions of approbation in their Report: “The Committee think it but justice to say, that the zeal, the diligence, the _ability and other valuable qualities_ manifested by these gentlemen, have given them ample reason to congratulate themselves on their choice”!; and “The Committee, in conclusion, _repeat_ that they have carefully availed themselves of the resources of _skill and experience_ in investigating the probable cost of the railway.” {34b}