A Letter to the Kensington Canal Company on the Substitution of the Pneumatic Railway for the Common Railway by Which They Contemplate Extending Their Line of Conveyance

by John Vallance

Mere expense of purchase, might not, however, be the principal objection to a railway along the line you contemplate.

According to the section of that line, the height of the embankment it would be necessary to raise to give you a regular plane of ascent, would so effectually divide the grounds you passed through, as to prevent your bridging across such embankment for private roads, and compel you to “tunnel” under your own line, in order to admit of communication between the divided properties you would intersect; while, in the more level part, considerable expense for bridging across it for the same purpose might be necessary. And let you do the utmost that could be done, to inconvenience landowners and occupiers as little as possible, it is impossible to avoid giving them real cause for objection on this ground, for the reasons pointed out in the following extract from a publication on the London and Birmingham Railway.

“Parts of estates and of fields will also be separated from each other, by immense gashes and mounds; over and under which expensive bridges, and long and wide tunnels, must either be constructed, or the value of the land must be still further deteriorated. Granting these to be constructed (and they too would be an expense as great as the other), they would not be an adequate compensation; for the passing and repassing of the numerous flocks and herds by them, would completely trample down and ruin the adjacent fields. There will also be cutting of the veins that contain water; the springs and ponds will in consequence be dried, and many of the sloping fields adjoining the line so deprived of water, that they will either become unfit for the purposes of pasturage, or the stock will have to be driven to a distance for a supply, at a considerable injury to its own value, and also at considerable expense.”

Now as the opposition which, for these reasons only, the landowners and occupiers made to the proposed London and Birmingham Railway last session, was the cause of the bill being thrown out by the Lords’ Committee; [10a] while, in addition to thus losing them their bill, this opposition of the landowners and occupiers also cost that company 50,000l. in parliamentary expenses, [10b] it may behove you to calculate seriously the consequences of similar opposition; parliamentary expenses being almost the same, whether a bill is for a railway of 100 miles, or of only one mile in length.

But this surface expense of the road may still form its least expense. Among the evidence before the Lord’s Committee on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, stands the following item: “Maintainance of way 6,599l. 12s. 6d.” This being for the six months ending on the 31st December last, it appears that the expense of keeping that railway in condition, notwithstanding that it has been opened only two years, was at the rate of 438l. per mile, per annum, for the last half of last year; an amount, which, on your proposed line, would pay 5 per cent. on above 20,000l.

In the last general return made to Parliament, it was stated that the average expense of keeping the whole of the turnpike roads of England in repair, was 68l. 13s. 0d., per mile per annum. Therefore, it appears, that the expense of keeping the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in repair, is seven times as great as that of the average expense of repairing the turnpike roads of England.

For the first half of the present year, these expenses seem to have increased considerably in proportion. Since, notwithstanding that the number of passengers carried between the 1st of January and the 1st of July, 1832, is less by above 82,000 than during the preceding six months (being only 174,122 instead of 256,321), the repairs of the railway cost 7331l. in that period, which is at the rate of 488l. per mile, per annum.

On this and a corresponding subject, the Foreign Quarterly Review for October, 1832, in its observations on two French publications on railways, says, speaking of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway,

“The rails are not supported uniformly by laying on the surface of the road, but rest upon stone pillars, or sleepers, as they are called, placed at distances of a yard from each other; and as the great weights pass over them with considerable velocity, these sleepers are driven deeper into the ground; so that the rail-road soon becomes uneven, one rail having one direction, and the next a different one. Though these defects are not easily detected by the eye, yet they are very sensible upon close inspection with instruments; and still more so by the carriages that pass over them, as the wheels, on passing over a joining of two rails, receive a severe jolt, and also a change of direction. Driven first on one side of the road, then on the other, the carriage rocks like a ship at sea; whilst, at every swing, one wheel or the other strikes a rail with considerable violence.

“The damage sustained by the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, from these causes, is by no means trifling. On examining the last half yearly statement printed for the use of the subscribers, we find that the repairs of the railway cost 7331l. in six months; being more than 14,000l. per annum. [11] But the evil effects of this action are by no means confined to the railway itself, they are still more destructive to the engines that run upon it, as well as the carriages; as the former, from their delicate mechanism, receive the shocks with unmitigated violence; by which every bolt is shaken loose, and even the strongest parts of the machinery, are speedily torn to pieces.

“The jolting they receive is very violent. We have stood on one of them for hours, watching the action of the springs, and have experienced, on our own bodies, every jolt of the railway. The effect produced is most sensibly perceived, where it is most sorely felt, in the revenue of the company; for even at this moment, when their engines are new, and in the best order, the expense incurred for their support and repairs, is 10,582l. in six months; or above 21,000l. per annum, making, with the maintenance of the road, 35,000l. of yearly expenditure; the greater part of which is occasioned by the imperfections we have been describing. This expense is easily accounted for, when we consider that the company have twenty-four engines; out of which there are seldom more than six fit for use; the others, undergoing the progress of thorough repair.”

Supposing this 10,582l. to be divided among the whole twenty-four locomotives which are kept to do the work, the expense of their repair is 882l. per engine, per annum.