According to the Bicycle principle, the Bicycle cars would be able to keep themselves in an upright position, while in motion, without any assistance of the upper guide-beam; but to quote the Engineering News, “Of course as stability depends on the existence of rapid forward motion, and that motion ceases at stations, and is liable to have to cease at any moment from accidental causes, provision must be continuously made by overhead rail and guide-wheels, or otherwise, for support in case of need. Otherwise if the vehicles stop, they will at once tip over. But a provision of this kind, which is only called into action in case of stoppage or sudden casualty, is one thing: an overhead rail which is continuously relied on for support is another and quite a different thing. In the latter case, the conditions might not be more favorable for smooth motion than on the ordinary double-track rail. In the former case, the top guiding-wheels need not be in contact with the overhead rail at all, except at stations, and hence there is much less necessity for exact construction or great strength or durability, and the evident possibility of maintaining much higher speed with smooth motion, because, the faster the speed the stronger should be the forces tending to maintain vertically, if the Bicycle principle be, in fact, capable of such extension, and the action of these forces is perfectly smooth and uniform.”
After a year’s constant use on the Coney Island road, with a wooden structure which was only put up for temporary use, the effect on the guide-beam was hardly perceptible. We have run on this road over 7,000 trips, or about 25,000 miles, and the rubber bands on the trolley wheels of the cars are not worn at all. These facts will bear investigation, and certainly ought to show conclusively the amount of overhead strain on the structure, as the road is full of sharp curves, and the effect of the strain should be apparent here if anywhere. Note Mr. Pond’s letter.
“Hon. E. M. Boynton, President Bicycle Railway Co.,
32 Nassau Street, N. Y.“Dear Sir:—I wrote you on the allowance of patents on your Bicycle Railway System as follows:
“‘It presents, I think, a practical solution of the problem of increased rate of speed, as also of the problem of an increase of the ratio of paying to non-paying load, whether in freight or in passenger traffic.
“‘I think both these results are altogether feasible, and are rendered so by the system you propose, which is simple, inexpensive and practical.’
“After my ride of Saturday last on your road, I will add, that I regard the predicted success as mechanically and practically accomplished. Upon careful examination, I believe the conditions to be more favorable to safety at a very high speed than in the standard road.
“The whole catalogue of risks arising from ‘spreading’ of the track is eliminated from railroading by this system.
“The freedom from lateral oscillation at high speed—at any speed—is remarkable, but very easily explained. Accustomed to write a great deal upon moving trains, I can write a steadier, smoother hand on this car than ever on any other. The evident capability of very high speed is surprising. Ride upon the tender and watch the guide-wheels aloft, and see for yourself how much the machine, when at high speed on a tangent, stands right up of itself, ‘bicycle fashion,’ and how little work is required of those same guide wheels; and, in short, to see the train pass is to see the ‘poetry of motion.’
“It would seem that to run 100 trains, each of sufficient capacity to carry 100 persons a mile and three-quarters, all on half a ton of coal, should attract the sharp attention of railroad people. Such a fact admits of some astonishing deductions, but can probably be explained by the very great reduction of friction, and the reduction of non-paying weight per passenger to be hauled, from six to thirty fold, which are realized in your system. To be able withal to transform a single track standard road into a double track line, with more than a doubling of capacity, is another startling and very tempting fact. I see no reason why your system should not, and every reason why it should, be universally adopted by existing roads in the interest of speed, safety and economy.
“BENJ. W. POND, Examiner U. S. Patent Office.”
N. B.—Mr. Pond is and has been Chief Examiner in the Railway Department of Patents for twenty years past.
Bicycle Box Freight Car. 30 feet long. 5 feet wide. Weight, 3½ tons. 9 feet high. Capacity, 7 tons.
Bicycle Coal Car. 24 feet long. 5 feet wide. Weight, 3½ tons. Capacity, 7 tons.
