The latest investigations into the comparative cost of lighting by gas and electricity upon the Victoria Embankment and Waterloo Bridge in London, show that the lighting as effected by 96 gas burners for an average of 12 hours burning all night, and 121 gas burners for 6 hours lighted after the electric lights are put out, together with the electric lighting 40 lights on the parapet of Embankment, and 10 on the bridge, costs 834l. for the gas and 663l. for the electric light per annum. Gas costing 3s. 2d. per 1000 cubic feet showed a cost of nearly 1s. per hour for every 1000 candle power of light. The electric lights cost 1¹⁄₂d. per light per hour, which is stated to represent 5·66 pence per 1000 candle power of light; each electric light as now used, it is said, gives a photometric light of 265 candles, frosted glass globes being found to pass much more light than the opalescent globes.
These are by far the most important and reliable comparisons that have hitherto been made, and it will be seen that the cost is in favour of the electric light.
There is no doubt that the acme of all artificial lighting is the prolongation of the light of day, and whether this is proposed to be effected by electricity or gas, it should be the goal aimed at by all who make this question their study.
[112] Since writing these lines the following letter has appeared in the Standard and has never been refuted, which shows that electric lighting for streets is not yet all that can be desired:
Electric Lighting.
To the Editor of the Standard.
Sir,—At this time, when the question of lighting by means of electricity is receiving so much attention, and as Chesterfield is the only town in England whose lighting is done throughout by electricity, it may be interesting to your readers to know what our experience has been.
I need not detail the stages which led to our abandoning gas, and taking up the electric light after being in darkness some months. I may briefly state that, after going carefully into the question, we decided to adopt the system whose praise was in everyone’s mouth a year ago, namely, “The Brush,” and, though we were applied to by other companies, we placed the execution of the work in the hands of the one that we considered the most suitable—the Hammond Company. During the negotiations of the contract, Mr. Hammond particularly pressed us not to stipulate for incandescent lamps, as he acknowledged that their Company were not in a position to cope with incandescent lighting for public purposes. We, however, decided upon the town being lighted with the Lane-Fox Incandescent Lamps, as well as the Brush Arc Lights.
After waiting many weary months for the completion of the incandescent lighting, it is now, when declared by the contractors complete, in my opinion a decided failure. The Lane-Fox lamps, which have been supplied by the Brush Company, are most variable in their lighting power; whilst some are good, others only give a feeble light instead of a light equal to that of fifteen candles, as expected. The arc lights are doing good service in some of the large streets, but as a whole I think it has been fully demonstrated in a year’s trial in Chesterfield, that the field for arc lighting is very limited indeed.