Fig. 38.—Pit-Saw.
Fig. 39.—Box Tunnel.
RAILWAYS.
Fig. 40.—Coal-pit, Salop.
Towards the end of last century, tramways formed by laying down narrow plates of iron, were in use at mines and collieries in several parts of England. These plates had usually a projection or flange on the inner edge, thus—L, in order to keep the waggons on the track, for the wheels themselves had no flange, but were of the kind used on ordinary roads. These flat tramways were found liable to become covered up with dirt and gravel, so that the benefit which ought to have been obtained from their smoothness was in a great measure lost. Edge rails were, therefore, substituted, and the wheels were kept on the rails by having a flange cast on the inner edge of the rim. The rails were then always made of cast iron, for, although they were very liable to break, the great cost of making them of wrought iron prevented that material from being used until 1820, when the method of forming rails of malleable iron by rolling came into use. The first time a tramway was used for the conveyance of passengers was in 1825, when the Stockton and Darlington Railway was opened—a length of thirty-seven miles. It appears that the carriages were at first drawn by horses, although locomotives were used on this and other colliery lines for dragging, at a slow rate, trains of mineral waggons. At that time engineers were exercising their ingenuity in overcoming a difficulty which never existed by devising plans for giving tractive power to the locomotive through the instrumentality of rack-work rails. It never occurred to them to first try whether the adhesion of the smooth wheel to the smooth rail was not sufficient for the purpose. During the first quarter of the present century the greater part of the goods and much passenger traffic was monopolized by the canals. It is quoted, as a proof of the careless manner in which this service was performed, that the transport of bales of cotton from Liverpool to Manchester sometimes occupied twice the length of time required in their voyage across the Atlantic. When an Act of Parliament authorizing the construction of a railway between Liverpool and Manchester was applied for, the canal companies succeeded in retarding, by their influence, the passing of that Act for two years. It was passed, however, in 1828, and the construction of the line was proceeded with. This line was at first intended only for the conveyance of goods, especially of cotton and cotton manufactures, and the waggons were to be drawn by horses. When the line was nearly finished the idea of employing horses was, at the instigation of Mr. George Stephenson, abandoned in favour of steam power. The directors were divided in opinion as to whether the carriage should be dragged by ropes wound on large drums by stationary engines, or whether locomotives should be employed. Finally, the latter plan was adopted, and it was also suggested that passengers might be carried. The directors offered a prize for the best locomotive, and the result has been already mentioned. In the light of our experience since that time, it is curious to read of the doubts then entertained by skilful engineers about the success of the locomotive. In a serious treatise on the subject, one eminent authority hoped “that he might not be confounded with those hot-brained enthusiasts who maintained the possibility of carriages being driven by a steam engine on a railway at such a speed as twelve miles an hour.” When the “Rocket” had accomplished the unprecedented velocity of twenty-nine miles an hour, and the railway was opened for passengers as well as goods, the thirty stage coaches daily plying between Liverpool and Manchester found their occupation gone, and all ceased to run except one, which had to depend on the roadside towns only, while the daily number of passengers between the two cities rose at once from 500 to 1,600. In that delightful book, Smiles’s “Life of George Stephenson,” may be found most interesting details of the difficulties attending the introduction of railways, especially with regard to the construction of this first important line. Mr. Smiles relates how the promoters of the scheme struggled against “vested interests;” how the canal proprietors, confident at first of a secure and continuous enjoyment of their monopoly, ridiculed the proposed railway, and continued their exorbitant charges and tardy conveyance, pocketing in profits the prime cost of their canal about every three years; how, roused into active opposition, they did all in their power to thwart the new scheme; how the Lord Derby and the Lord Sefton of that day, and other landowners, offered every resistance to the surveyors; how the Duke of Bridgewater’s farmers would not allow them to enter their fields, and the Duke’s gamekeepers had orders to shoot them; how even a clergyman threatened them with personal violence, and they had to do their work by stealth, while the reverend gentleman was conducting the services in his church; how newspaper and other writers declared that the locomotives would kill the birds, prevent cows from grazing and hens from laying, burn houses, and cause the extinction of the race of horses. All the civil engineers scouted the idea of a locomotive railway, and Stephenson was held up to derision as an ignoramus and a maniac by the “most eminent lawyers,” and the most advanced and “respectable” professional C.E.s of the time. An article appeared in the “Quarterly Review,” very favourable to the construction of railways, but remarking in reference to a proposed line between London and Woolwich: “What can be more palpably absurd and ridiculous than the prospect held out of locomotives travelling twice as fast as stage coaches! We should as soon expect the people of Woolwich to suffer themselves to be fired off upon one of Congreve’s ricochet rockets as trust themselves to the mercy of a machine going at such a rate. We will back old Father Thames against the Woolwich Railway for any sum. We trust that Parliament will, in all railways it may sanction, limit the speed to eight or nine miles an hour, which we entirely agree with Mr. Sylvester is as great as can be ventured on with safety.” This passage, which reads so strangely now, may be seen in the “Quarterly Review” for March, 1825. But still more curious appear now the reports of the debates in Parliament, and of the evidence taken before the Parliamentary Committee, in which we find the opinions and fears of the best informed men of that period, and trace the frantic efforts of the holders of the “vested interests” to retain them, however obstructive of the public good.
Fig. 41.—Sankey Viaduct.