Waterways and Water Transport in Different Countries / With a description of the Panama, Suez, Manchester, Nicaraguan, and other canals.

by J. Stephen Jeans

If we take the cost of the Suez Canal as a criterion, we find that for a distance of about 100 miles the expenditure actually incurred in construction proper was 11,653,000l. The total outlay appearing in the yearly balance-sheet at the end of 1886 was 19,782,000l., but a great deal of the difference was expended in financing, in interest on shares during the eleven years that the canal was under construction, in transit, telegraph, and sanitary services, and in other items that would only be necessary, if at all, to a much more limited extent in the case under consideration. The actual outlay in construction represents an average of about 116,530l. per mile, and at this rate a Thames Navigation Canal could be built for a length of twenty-five miles for, approximately, about three millions sterling. This would, of course, be the cost of a canal capable of taking the largest vessels like the Suez Canal, and constructed on the same principle—that is, without intermediate locks, and at tide-level.

It will, however, be fairly objected that the Suez Canal is not a parallel case. The land was given by the Khedive, and the labour of the fellahs, which was largely corvée or forced labour, cost very little. In the neighbourhood of London, on the contrary, the price of land is high, and labour is much more expensive, although, at the same time, much more efficient. This would no doubt greatly modify the force of the application of the experience gained in the construction of the canal at Suez, although the item of land, for a considerable distance in the county of Essex, would be comparatively trifling—land being exceptionally cheap in that county—while higher wages would be counterbalanced by the more general and effective use of labour-saving machinery. Let us, however, rather be guided by the more recent, and more parallel experience of the Amsterdam Ship Canal, which was constructed in 1870-76, for the purpose of affording a direct outlet from Amsterdam to the North Sea, through Lake Y and Lake Wigker Meer (inlets of the Zuyder Sea). The distance from Amsterdam to the sea by way of the North Holland Ship Canal, which was completed in 1825, was 52½ miles, while the Amsterdam Ship Canal reduced it to 15½ miles. Saving of distance and time was not, however, the only reason for adopting the latter project. The growing size of the ships frequenting the port, and the frequent interference with navigation by ice, rendered a new waterway necessary, apart from the considerations of saving time and shortening distance. The total cost of the undertaking was about three millions sterling, including all incidental expenses. This is approximately about 200,000l. a mile, and at the same rate of cost, the Thames Navigation Canal could be completed for 5,000,000l. as against 2,913,000l. in the case of adopting the mileage cost of the Suez Canal. The conditions of the problem in Amsterdam were not greatly different in kind to those of the Thames. The land had to be purchased, and the price of labour did not much differ from what would be paid in England. The quantity of material to be excavated would be relatively much the same, and the works of art required in the form of locks, sluice-gates, cofferdams, &c., would probably not be much more, if any more, onerous and difficult. It is probable that some of the heavier works required in the case of the Amsterdam Canal would be unnecessary for that on the Thames, such as the large dam that had to be built to keep the waters of the Zuyder Zee from overflowing, and washing away the banks of the canal; but, on the other hand, there would be heavier expense incurred in providing passing places, docks, &c.

Course of the River Thames from Oxford to the Sea.

Whatever its necessity, the canal would not be undertaken if capitalists were not assured that it was to be a “good thing” financially, unless, indeed—which is very unlikely—the Government put a hand somewhat deep into the public purse. The revenue of the canal would be derived from several different sources: from tolls, which would probably take the form of a through rate; from haulage, by means of tug-boats; from warehousing; and from delivery of goods ex ship at the different quays on the route. It is, of course, impossible to say at present what proportion of the total number of ships now using the Thames would prefer to take the canal, if constructed. If, however, it were only one-third of the whole, in ten years’ time from now that would be about seven millions of tons per annum. The revenue that would thus be obtained, if a uniform charge of a shilling per ton were made, would be 350,000l. a year, which would, after deducting 10 per cent. for working expenses, yield a net revenue of 315,000l., equal to more than 6 per cent. on the larger estimate of 5,000,000l. If, however, the canal were carried right into the heart of transpontine London, a large revenue might be expected from the delivery of goods. The principal docks are now such a long way from the west end and the southern and south-western suburbs that a very heavy charge is made for delivery of merchandise, whether by railway or by van. In many cases, indeed, as we have already pointed out, the delivery charge is higher than the ocean freight, and instances are not uncommon in which a parcel which has been carried from a port 400 or 600 miles distant for a charge of 4s. or 5s., cost double that amount between the docks and the houses of the recipients. This is a serious grievance with the people of the metropolis, and one that they would gladly get rid of. A long step would be taken in that direction if water communication for large steamers could be brought nearer to the west end. For such a purpose the river Thames above London Bridge is practically useless. The only considerable traffic that is carried on in the upper reaches of the river is the transport of coal in barges from the Great Western Railway Company’s depots at Brentford to the docks, and this is about as unsatisfactory as it could well be, involving the repeated breaking of bulk, and the damage of the coals from frequent handling. A well organised and economical system of delivery between the point of the receipt of shipping traffic in London, and the point of its ultimate consumption, would be certain to prove both successful and remunerative, whether undertaken by a canal company or otherwise.

But the lower reaches of the Thames are not more in want of some artificial relief of the kind suggested than the upper reaches.

The Thames, as we have seen, is commercially the most important river on the earth’s surface, although far from being the largest, the broadest, the deepest, or the longest. It takes its rise in Gloucestershire, about 375 feet above sea level. As the crow flies, the length of the river is about 119 miles, but as the river runs it is about 193 miles from its source to the sea. About 74 miles of its actual length are therefore made up of windings, the character of which will be appreciated by the plan on the opposite page.

The river is only navigable for large vessels up to London Bridge, which is about 18 miles from Gravesend. Above London Bridge a good deal of traffic is carried on by means of barges. The only steamers, however, that navigate the river above that point are the shallow-draught passenger steamers that ply between the various piers that lie alongside the banks up to Chelsea, with occasional trips in the summer months to Kew and Hampton Court. Above Hampton Court a small part of the river is canalised, and it has also been necessary to construct a small canal at Teddington, where the first lock occurs. Small craft may navigate the Thames as far as Oxford, but above Hampton Court there are numerous locks and weirs that have to be overcome, and navigation is tedious. The influence of the tide extends from the outer boundary line of the Thames Conservancy, near Southend, to Teddington lock, a distance of 57 miles. The Conservancy Board, however, control the river as far up as Lechlade, in Gloucestershire, a distance of 173 miles from its estuary.

Practically the whole of the large population on the river Thames above London Bridge are shut out from the benefits of the navigation, except by means of barges. Above Hampton Court the navigation is difficult, even for these, especially when propelled by a tug-boat. The difficulty is increased by the fact that there are over thirty locks and about twenty-two mills on the river between Oxford and the sea.

It has been suggested more than once that the Thames should be made navigable for a much longer distance, and there is, indeed, no insuperable obstacle in the way of the navigation being carried up as far as Oxford. Between that city and London there is only an average fall of about 1 foot in 4100, which interposes no obstacle. The cost of cutting canals through the most obstructive windings of the river would not be serious, and it is more than probable that it would be cheerfully borne by those whom it would be most likely to benefit.