Chapter XXXIII: Appendix: I

(_See Chapter V. on the Broad Gauge, p. 99._)

_Report to the Board of Directors of the Great Western Railway Company._

August 1838.

GENTLEMEN,--As the endeavour to obtain the opinions and reports of Mr. Walker, Mr. Stephenson, and Mr. Wood, prior to the next half-yearly meeting, has not been successful, I am anxious to record more fully than I have previously done, and to combine them into one report, my own views and opinions upon the success of the several plans which have been adopted at my recommendation in the formation and in the working of our line; and in justice to myself and to these plans, and indeed to enable others to arrive at any just conclusion as to the result which has been attained, or as to the probable ultimate success or advantages of the system, it is necessary that I should enter very fully, I fear even tediously, into a recapitulation of the circumstances, peculiar to this railway, which led to the consideration and the adoption of these plans, which some call innovations and wide deviations from the results of past experience, but the majority of which I will undertake to show are merely adaptations of those plans to our particular circumstances.

It will be necessary also that I should refer to all the numerous difficulties which we have had to encounter, which have necessarily prevented the perfect working of these plans in the first instance, but which have been overcome, or which are gradually and successively diminishing; and, finally, I am prepared to show that, notwithstanding the novelty of the circumstances, and the difficulties and delays which at the outset invariably attend any alteration, however necessary, or however desirable, from the accustomed mode of proceeding, and notwithstanding the violent prejudices excited against us, and the increased difficulties caused by these prejudices, the result is still such as to justify the attempt which has been made, and to show that in the main features, if not in all the details, the system hitherto followed is good, and ought to be pursued.

The peculiarity of the circumstances of this railway, to which I would more particularly refer, and which have frequently been mentioned, consists in the unusually favourable gradients and curves which we have been able to obtain. With the capability of carrying the line upwards of fifty miles out of London on almost a dead level, and without any objectionable curve, and having beyond this, and for the whole distance to Bristol, excellent gradients, it was thought that unusually high speed might easily be attained, and that the very large extent of passenger traffic which such a line would certainly command would ensure a return for any advantages which could be offered to the public, either in increased speed or increased accommodations. With this view every possible attention was paid to the improvement of the line as originally laid down in the parliamentary plans. We ultimately succeeded in determining a maximum gradient of 4 feet per mile, which could be maintained for the unusual distance, before mentioned, of upwards of fifty miles from London, and also between Bristol and Bath, comprehending those parts of the line on which the principal portion of the passenger traffic will be carried. The attainment of high speed appeared to involve the question of the width of gauge, and on this point accordingly I expressed my opinion at a very early period.

It has been asserted that 4 feet 8 inches, the width adopted on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, is exactly the proper width for all railways, and that to adopt any other dimension is to deviate from a positive rule which experience has proved correct; but such an assertion can be maintained by no reasoning. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that, under the particular circumstances in which it has been tried, 4 feet 8 inches has been proved the best possible dimension, the question would still remain--What are the best dimensions under the circumstances?

Although a breadth of 4 feet 8 inches has been found to create a certain resistance on curves of a certain radius, a greater breadth would produce only the same resistance on curves of greater radius. If carriages and engines, and more particularly if wheels and axles of a certain weight, have not been found inconvenient upon one railway, greater weights may be employed and the same results obtained on a railway with better gradients. To adopt a gauge of the same number of inches on the Great Western Railway as on the Grand Junction Railway, would in fact amount practically to the use of a different gauge in similar railways. The gauge which is well adapted to the one is not well adapted to the other, unless, indeed, some mysterious cause exists which has never yet been explained for the empirical law which would fix the gauge under all circumstances.

Fortunately this no longer requires to be argued, as too many authorities may now be quoted in support of a very considerable deviation from this prescribed width, and in every case this change has been an increase. I take it for granted that, in determining the dimensions in each case, due regard has been had to the curves and gradients of the line, which ought to form a most essential, if not the principal, condition.

In the Report of the Commissioners upon Irish Railways, the arguments are identically the same with those which I used when first addressing you on the subject in my Report of October 1835. The mechanical advantage to be gained by increasing the diameter of the carriage-wheels is pointed out, the necessity, to attain this, of increasing the width of way, the dimensions of the bridges, tunnels, and other principal works, not being materially affected by this; but, on the other hand, the circumstance which limits this increase being the curves on the line, and the increased proportional resistance on inclinations (and on this account it is stated to be almost solely applicable to very level lines); and, lastly, the increased expense, which could be justified only by a great traffic.

The whole is clearly argued in a general point of view, and then applied to the particular case, and the result of this application is the recommendation of the adoption of 6 feet 2 inches on the Irish railways. Thus, an increase in the breadth of way to attain one particular object--viz. the capability of increasing the diameter of the carriage-wheels without raising the bodies of the carriages--is admitted to be most desirable, but is limited by certain circumstances, namely, the gradients and curves of the line, and the extent of traffic.

Every argument here adduced, and every calculation made, would tend to the adoption of about 7 feet on the Great Western Railway.

The gradients of the lines laid down by the Irish Commission are considerably steeper than those of the London and Birmingham Railway, and four and five times the inclination of those on the Great Western Railway; the curves are by no means of very large radius, and indeed the Commissioners, after fixing the gauge of 6 feet 2 inches, express their opinion, that upon examination into the question of curves, with a view to economy, they do not find that the effect is so injurious as might have been anticipated, and imply therefore that curves, generally considered of small radius on our English lines, are not incompatible with the 6 feet 2 inch gauge; and, lastly, the traffic, instead of being unusually large, so as to justify any expense beyond that absolutely required, is such as to render assistance from Government necessary to ensure a return for the capital embarked. As compared with this, what are the circumstances in our case?

The object to be attained is the placing an ordinary coach body, which is upwards of 6 feet 6 inches in width, between the wheels. This necessarily involves a gauge of rail of about 6 feet 10½ inches to 6 feet 11 inches, but 7 feet allows of its being done easily; it allows, moreover, of a different arrangement of the body: it admits all sorts of carriages, stage-coaches, and carts to be carried between the wheels. And what are the limits in the case of the Great Western Railway, as compared to those on Irish railways? Gradients of one-fifth the inclination, very favourable curves, and probably the largest traffic in England.

I think it unnecessary to say another word to show that the Irish Commissioners would have arrived at 7 feet on the Great Western Railway by exactly the same train of argument that led them to adopt 6 feet 2 inches in the case then before them.

All these arguments were advanced by me in my first Report to you, and the subject was well considered. The circumstance of the Great Western Railway, and other principal railways likely to extend beyond it, having no connection with other lines then made, leaving us free from any prescribed dimension, the 7-feet gauge was ultimately determined upon. Many objections were certainly urged against it: the deviation from the established 4 feet 8 inches was then considered as the abandonment of the principle: this, however, was a mere assertion, unsupported even by plausible argument, and was gradually disused; but objections were still urged, that the original cost of construction of all the works connected with the formation of the line must be greatly increased; that the carriages must be so much stronger; that they would be proportionally heavier; that they would not run round the curves, and would be more liable to run off the rails; and particularly, that the increased length of the axles would render them liable to be broken: and these objections were not advanced as difficulties which, as existing in all railways, might be somewhat increased by the increase of gauge, but as peculiar to this, and fatal to the system.

With regard to the first objection, namely, the increased cost in the original construction of the line, if there be any, it is a question of calculation which is easily estimated, and was so estimated before the increased gauge was determined upon. Here, however, preconceived opinions have been allowed weight in lieu of arguments and calculations; cause and effect are mixed up, and without much consideration it was assumed at once that an increased gauge necessarily involved increased width of way, and dimensions of bridges, tunnels, &c.

Yet such is not the case within the limits we are now treating of: a 7-feet rail requires no wider bridge or tunnel than a 5-feet; the breadth is governed by a maximum width allowed for a loaded waggon, or the largest load to be carried on the railway, and the clear space to be allowed on either side beyond this.

On the Manchester and Liverpool Railway this total breadth is only 9 feet 10 inches, and the bridge and viaducts need only have been twice this, or 19 feet 8 inches; 9 feet 10 inches was found, however, rather too small, and in the London and Birmingham, with the same width of way, this was increased to 11 feet by widening the interval between the two rails.

In the space of 11 feet, allowed for each rail, a 7-feet gauge might be placed just as well as a 5-feet, leaving the bridges, tunnels, and viaducts exactly the same; but 11 feet was thought by some still too narrow: and when it is remembered that this barely allows a width of 10 feet for loads, whether of cotton, wool, agricultural produce, or other light goods, and which are liable also to be displaced in travelling, 13 feet (which has been fixed upon in the Great Western Railway, and which limits the maximum breadth, under any circumstances, to about 12 feet) will not be found excessive.

It is this which makes the minimum width, actually required under bridges and tunnels, 26 feet instead of 22 feet, and not the increased gauge.

The earthwork is slightly affected by the gauge, but only to the extent of 2 feet on the embankment, and not quite so much in the cuttings; but what, in practice, has been the result? The bridges over the railway on the London and Birmingham are 30 feet, and the width of viaducts 28 feet; on the Great Western Railway they are both 30 feet; no great expense is therefore incurred on these items, and certainly a very small one compared to the increased space gained, which, as I have stated, is from 10 to 12 feet. In the tunnels exists the greatest difference; on the London and Birmingham Railway, which I refer to as being the best and most analogous case to that of the Great Western Railway, the tunnels are 24 feet wide. On the Great Western Railway the constant width of 30 feet is maintained, more with a view of diminishing the objections to tunnels, and maintaining the same minimum space which hereafter may form a limit to the size and form of everything carried on the railway, than from such a width being absolutely necessary.

Without pretending to find fault with the dimensions fixed, and which have, no doubt, been well considered, upon the works on other lines, I may state that the principle which has governed has been to fix the minimum width, and to make all the works the same, considering it unnecessary to have a greater width between the parapet walls of a viaduct, which admits of being altered, than between the sides of a tunnel which cannot be altered.

The embankments on the London and Birmingham Railway are 26 feet, on the Great Western 30 feet, making an excess of about six and a half per cent. on the actual quantity of earthwork.

The difference in the quantity of land required is under half an acre to a mile. On the whole, the increased dimensions from 10 to 12 feet will not cause any average increased expense in the construction of the works, and purchase of land, of above seven per cent.--eight per cent. having originally been assumed in my Report in 1835 as the excess to be provided for.

With respect to the weight of the carriages, although we have wheels of 4 feet diameter, instead of 3 feet, which, of course, involves an increased weight quite independent of the increase of width, and although the space allowed for each passenger is a trifle more, and the height of the body greater, yet the gross weight per passenger is somewhat less.

Tons cwt. qrs. lbs.

A Birmingham first-class coach weighs 3 17 2 0
Which with 18 passengers at 15 to the ton 1 4 0 0
----------------
5 1 2 0
Or 631 lbs. per passenger ================

A Great Western first-class weighs 4 14 0 0
And with 24 passengers 1 12 0 0
----------------
6 6 0 0
Or 588 lbs. per passenger ================

And our 6-wheeled first-class 6 11 0 0
With 32 passengers 2 2 2 0
----------------
8 13 2 0
Or 600 lbs. per passenger ================

Being an average of 594 lbs. on the two carriages.

This saving of weight does not arise from the increased width, and is notwithstanding the increased strength of the framing and the increased diameter and weight of the wheels; I have not weighed our second-class open carriages, but I should think the same proportion would exist.

As to the breaking of axles or running off the line, the practical result has been that, from some cause or other, we have been almost perfectly free from those very objections which have been felt so seriously on some other lines. Far from breaking any engine axles, not even a single cranked axle has been strained, although the engines have been subjected to rather severe trials. One of our largest having, a short time back, been sent along the line at night, when it was not expected, came in collision with some ballast waggons, and was thrown off the line nearly 6 feet; none of the axles were bent, or even strained in the least, although the front of the carriage, a piece of oak of very large scantling, was shattered. After ten weeks’ running, one solitary instance has occurred of a carriage in a train getting off the line and dragging another with it, and which was not discovered till after running a mile and a half. As the carriage was in the middle of the train, and one end of the axle was thrown completely out of the axle guard, there must evidently have been some extraordinary cause--possibly a plank thrown across the railway by a blow from the carriage which preceded, and which might have produced the same effect on any railway; and at any rate it was a strong trial to the axle, which was not broken, but merely restored to its place, and the carriage sent on to London. The same mode of reasoning which has by some been used in favour of the 4 feet 8 inches gauge, if applied here, would prove that long axles are stronger than short, and wide rails best adapted for curves. All that I think proved, however, is this--that the increased tendency of the axles to break, or of the wheels to run off the rails, is so slight that it is more than counterbalanced by the increased steadiness from the width of the base, and the absence of those violent strains which arise from irregularity on the gauge and the harshness of the ordinary construction of rails. In fact, not one of the objections originally urged against the practical working of the wide gauge has been found to exist, while the object sought for is obtained, namely, the capability of increasing at any future period the diameter of the wheels, which cannot be done, however desirable it may hereafter be found, with the old width of rail. This may be said to be only prospective; but, in the meantime, contingent advantages are sensibly felt in the increased lateral steadiness of the carriages and engines, and the greater space which is afforded for the works of the locomotives. And here I wish particularly to call your attention to the fact that this prospective advantage--this absence of a most inconvenient limit to the reduction of the friction, which, with our gradients, forms four-fifths or eighty per cent. of the total resistance--was the object sought for, and that, at the time of recommending it, I expressly stated as follows:--‘I am not by any means prepared at present to recommend any particular size of wheel, or even any great increase of the present dimensions. I believe they _will_ be materially increased; but my great object would be in every possible way to render each part _capable_ of improvement, and to remove what appears an obstacle to any great progress in such a very important point as the diameter of the wheels, upon which the resistance, which governs the cost of transport and the speed that may be obtained, so materially depends.’

These advantages were considered important by you, they are now considered so by many others; and certainly everything which has occurred in the practical working of the line confirms me in my conviction that we have secured a most valuable power to the Great Western Railway, and that it would be folly to abandon it.

The next point I shall consider is the construction of the engines, the modifications in which, necessary to adapt them to higher speeds than usual, have, like the increased width of gauge, been condemned as innovations.

I shall not attempt to argue with those who consider any increase of speed unnecessary. The public will always prefer that conveyance which is most perfect, and speed within reasonable limits is a material ingredient in perfection in travelling.

A rate of thirty-five to forty miles an hour is not unfrequently attained at present on other railways in descending planes, or with light loads on a level, and is found practically to be attended with no inconvenience. To maintain such a speed with regularity on a level line, with moderate loads, is therefore quite practicable, and unquestionably desirable. With this view the engines were constructed, but nothing new was required or recommended by me.

A certain velocity of the piston is considered the most advantageous.

The engines intended for slow speeds have always had the driving wheels small in proportion to the length of stroke of the piston. The faster engines have had a different proportion; the wheels have been larger, or the strokes of the piston shorter. From the somewhat clamorous objections raised against the large wheels, and the construction of the Great Western Railway engines, and the opinions rather freely expressed of my judgment in directing this construction, it would naturally be supposed that some established principle had been departed from, and that I had recommended this departure.

The facts are, that a certain velocity of piston being found most advantageous, I fixed this velocity, so that the engines should be adapted to run thirty-five miles an hour, and capable of running forty--as the Manchester and Liverpool Railway engines are best calculated for twenty to twenty-five, but capable of running easily up to thirty and thirty-five miles per hour; and fixing also the load which the engine was to be capable of drawing, I left the form of construction and the proportions entirely to the manufacturers, stipulating merely that they should submit detail drawings to me for my approval. This was the substance of the circular, which, with your sanction, was sent to several of the most experienced manufacturers. Most of these manufacturers, of their own accord, and without previous communication with me, adopted the large wheels, as a necessary consequence of the speed required. The recommendation coming from such quarters, there can be no necessity for defending my opinion in its favour; neither have I now the slightest doubt of its correctness. As it has been supposed that the manufacturers may have been compelled or induced by me to adopt certain modes of construction, or certain dimensions, in other parts by a specification--a practice which has been adopted on some lines--and that these restrictions may have embarrassed them, I should wish to take this opportunity to state distinctly that such is not the case. I have indeed strongly recommended to their consideration the advantages of having very large and well-formed steam passages, which generally they have adopted, and with good results; and with this single exception, if it can be considered one, they have been left unfettered by me (perhaps too much so) and uninfluenced, except indeed by the prejudices and fears of those by whom they have been surrounded, which have by no means diminished the difficulties I have had to contend with.

The principal proportions of these engines being those which have been recommended by the most able experimentalists and writers, and these having been adopted by the most experienced makers, it is difficult to understand who can constitute themselves objectors, or what can be their objections.

Even if these engines had not been found effective, at least it must be admitted that the best and most liberal means had been adopted to procure them; but I am far from asking such an admission. The engines, I think, have proved to be well adapted to the particular task for which they were calculated--namely, high speeds--but circumstances prevent their being beneficially applied to this purpose at present, and they are, therefore, working under great disadvantages. An engine constructed expressly for a high velocity cannot, of course, be well adapted to exert great power at a low speed; neither can it be well adapted for stopping frequently and regaining its speed. But such was not the intention when these engines were made, neither will it be the case when the arrangements on the line are complete; in the meantime, our average rate of travelling is much greater than it was either on the Grand Junction or the Birmingham Railway within the same period of the opening. I have but one serious objection to make to our present engines, and for this, strange as it may seem, I feel that we are mainly indebted to those who have been most loud in their complaints--I refer to the unnecessary weight of the engines. There is nothing in the wide gauge which involves any considerable increased weight in the engine. An engine of the same power and capacity for speed, whether for a 4-feet 8-inch rail, or for a 7-feet rail, will have identically the same boiler, the same fire-box, the same cylinder and piston, and other working gear, the same side frames, and the same wheels; the axles and the cross-framing will alone differ, and upon these alone need there be any increase; but, if these were doubled in weight, the difference upon the whole engine would be immaterial. But the repeated assertion, frequently professing to come from experienced authorities, and repeated until it was supposed to be proved, that the increased gauge must require increased strength and great power, was not without its indirect effect upon the manufacturers. Unnecessary dimensions have been given to many parts, and the weight thereby increased--rather tending, as I believe, to diminish than to add to the strength of the whole. I thought then, and I believe now, that it would have been unwise in this case to have resisted the general opinion, and taken upon myself the responsibility which belonged to the manufacturers; but I need not now hesitate to say that a very considerable reduction may be effected, and that no such unusual precautions are necessary to meet these anticipated strains and resistances--such being, in fact, imaginary. It cannot surprise anybody that, under such circumstances, attention was more occupied in endeavouring to meet these imaginary prejudiced objections, than in boldly taking advantage of the new circumstances, and that a piece of machinery constructed under such disadvantages was not likely to be a fair sample of what might be done. I am happy to say, however, that the result of the trials that have been made has entirely destroyed all credit in these alarmists with the manufacturer, and that we may hope in future to have the benefits of the free exercise of the intelligence and practical knowledge of engine-manufacturers.

The mode of laying the rails is the next point which I shall consider. It may appear strange that I should again in this case disclaim having attempted anything perfectly new; yet regard to truth compels me to do so. I have recommended, in the case of the Great Western, the principle of a continuous bearing of timber under the rail, instead of isolated supports--an old system recently revived, and as such I described it in my Report of January 1836; the result of many hundred miles laid in this manner in America, and of some detached portions of railways in England, was quite sufficient to prove that the system was attended with many advantages; but since we first adopted it these proofs have been multiplied--there need now be no apprehension. There are railways in full work, upon which the experiment has been tried sufficiently to prove beyond doubt, to those willing to be convinced, that a permanent way in continuous bearings of wood may be constructed, in which the motion will be much smoother, the noise less, and consequently--for they are effects produced by the same cause--the wear and tear of the machinery much less. Such a plan is certainly best adapted for high speeds, and this is the system recommended by me and adopted on our road. There are, no doubt, different modes of construction, and that which I have adopted as an improvement upon others may, on the contrary, be attended with disadvantages. For the system I will strenuously contend.

But I should be sorry to enter with any such determined feeling into a discussion of the merits of the particular mode of construction. I would refer to my last Report for the reasons which influenced me, and the objects I had in view in introducing the piling; that part which had been made under my own eye answered fully all my expectations. Here the piles did answer their purpose, and no inconvenience resulted from their use. The difficulties which we have since encountered, the bad state in which the line was for a considerable time, and which is only recently improved, have undoubtedly been aggravated, if not caused, by these piles; but not, as I believe, from a defect in the principle as applied in our case, where the line is mostly in cutting, or on the surface, but from defective execution; for, notwithstanding the determination to allow sufficient time for this most important operation, yet, to make up for previous delays and loss of time, it became necessary at last to force forward the work more rapidly than was at all consistent with due care in the execution; and during the whole of this period I was most unfortunately prevented by a serious accident from even seeing the work almost until the day of opening, when I ought to have personally superintended the whole. I do not mean that the work was neglected by those whose duty it was to supply my place--far from it; but in such a case, a new work cannot be properly directed except under the eye of the master. Following exactly the plan which had succeeded on the first piece completed, several serious faults were committed. A much greater density and firmness of packing is required than was previously supposed; the mode of packing adopted, and the material selected, in the first instance, have proved defective elsewhere; and over a great extent in the line, particularly in the clay cuttings, and where the work was at last most hurried, it has been badly executed. But many parts have stood well from the commencement; others are fast improving; and I have the satisfaction, although a very painful one, of seeing that if, in the first instance, a foundation of coarse gravel had been everywhere well rammed in before the timbers had been laid, and the packing formed upon this, we should, from the outset, have obtained as solid a road as we have now over a great part of the line. What we have been able to effect since the opening of the line has necessarily been a slow, expensive, and laborious operation. We have been compelled to open the ground, and excavate it to a depth of 18 inches under the longitudinal timbers, and this without interrupting the traffic: to remove the whole of the material thus obtained from off the line, and to replace it by coarse ballast; and not having the means of sufficiently consolidating this ballast by ramming while the timber is in its place, the packing has to be repeated once or twice after it has been compressed by the passing of the trains. This new packing, however, does stand, and in a few weeks I expect the line will be in a very different state from that in which it has been, or indeed now is. From what I have described as the result which can now be, and might have been, obtained from the commencement, it will be inferred that I am disposed still to defend the system of piling. I certainly could not abandon it from conviction of its inefficiency, for I see proofs of the contrary; and I feel that under similar circumstances I could now prevent the mischief which has occurred. Upon that portion of the line where the permanent way must next be formed, piling could not be resorted to, the ground being a solid hard chalk for many miles. I had intended, however, recommending the same principle, but in a different form, holding down the longitudinals by small iron rods driven into the chalk; but the same objection could not exist, because the chalk cannot yield under the timbers like clay, or even gravel. But I should wish most anxiously to avoid anything like an obstinate adherence to a plan, if the object which I believe essential can be obtained by other means, particularly when, that plan being my own, I may be somewhat prejudiced in its favour. I find that the system of piling involves considerable expenses in the first construction, and requires perhaps too great a perfection in the whole work, and that if the whole or a part of this cost were expended in increased scantling of timber and weight of metal, that a very solid continuous rail would be formed.

For this as a principle, as for the width of gauge, I am prepared to contend, and to stand or fall by it, believing it to be a most essential improvement, where high speeds are to be obtained. I strongly urge upon you not to hesitate upon these two main points, which, combined with what may be termed the natural advantages of the line, will eventually secure to you a superiority which, under other circumstances, cannot be obtained.

As regards the expense of forming the permanent way on this principle, I am quite prepared to maintain what I have on a former occasion advanced: that even on the system which we have adopted between London and Maidenhead, the total cost does not materially exceed that of a well-constructed line with stone blocks. I did not make in the outset an exact estimate of the cost of either mode; I was unable to obtain the cost which has actually been incurred on other lines; but a comparative estimate was made, and the result of that comparison led me to state that the one might exceed the other by 500_l._ a mile. The actual cost of our permanent way appears, by the detailed account which has been made out, to have been above 9,000_l._, including expenses of under-draining and forming the surfaces which cannot be included in the cost given in other cases, because that drainage (although I believe generally forming part of the plan) is not yet constructed. This sum includes the sidings at the stations, switches, joints, and other contingencies, and also the expenses incurred during the first month of working the line, and which, as I have before stated, consisted in removing and replacing work which had been improperly executed. These items will make a considerable reduction; and besides these, larger reductions may be effected in parts of the work which were new, and, from the circumstances naturally attending a first attempt, were not so economically conducted as they might be, or indeed, as they were towards the close of the works, when the different parts were let by contract. Taking the prices at which the work was latterly actually executed, 8,000_l._ per mile would be a liberal allowance for our future proceeding, even adopting the same system; and with a modified system, such as that suggested of simple longitudinal bearers of large scantling, and a rail of fifty-four pounds per yard, at the present high price of iron, the cost, calculated upon our actual past expenditure, would not exceed 7,400_l._ per mile. This, I am aware, is a larger sum than that which has usually been assumed as the cost of the permanent way. I cannot prove that others have cost more, or even so much as this, as I have nothing but the published accounts to refer to; but this I can state, and prove if necessary, that rails and blocks, such as are now being adopted on the Manchester and Liverpool Railway, would upon our line cost at least as much.

The prime cost of rails and chairs delivered on the line would alone amount to half the money; and nothing is, perhaps, more certain than that the experience of other lines within the last two or three years has proved that this part of the construction of a railway is unavoidably much more expensive than was ever calculated for at the time our estimates were made.

I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,

(Signed) I. K. BRUNEL.