Rambles on Railways

by Sir Cusack P. Roney

[118] A writer in one of the French journals, describing the passage of the first locomotive and train over the Mont Cenis, doubtless, having Switzerland and her legendary hero in his mind, says, that “the railway is laid on the system of the distinguished Swiss engineer, M. Guillaume Tell!” The Edinburgh Review, in 1865, described Mr. Fell as an American. He is, however, of English birth and of Saxon descent. In the course of an excellent description of the trial trip on the 26th of August, published in one of the London papers, reference is made to the railway over the Brenner, and the writer adds that, in point of precedence, the Austrian engineers had beaten their English confrères, but the printers, by omitting one letter, made it appear as if the Austrian engineers had eaten those of England!

[119] It is wonderful how ingenious men can be when they are out of temper, and want to vent anger and disappointment. A writer in a professional paper, from whom better things might have been expected, and who has fairly and honestly won reputation in fields where imaginery grievances have not warped and overset truthful judgment, argues that because Mr. Fell’s engine must go up the mountain by the centre rail system, it is most costly, and therefore practically useless on account of the great loss of power occasioned by the necessity of the engine coming down again. Nearly as much power, says the writer, is thus lost in the descent as is required to get the train up to the summit. This maybe so, and very probably is so, but is not this loss the penalty that has to be paid for crossing the mountain at all. If the writer have crossed the Mont Cenis he could not fail to have seen that instead of the eight or ten horses or mules that are required to draw a carriage or a waggon up the pass, only two are required in the descent for the former, and one for the latter, all the other horses coming down the mountain loadless. After all, the disease is not half so bad as the remedy suggested for curing it—twenty-four to thirty miles of tube or tunnel, to say nothing of the mode of propulsion through it.

[120] An article appeared in the Times, of the 18th September last, upon the subject of engines ascending steep gradients and sharp curves. The Fell system was condemned, and grooved rails, within which the phlanges of the wheels were to move, were recommended in substitution of the centre rail, and of horizontal wheels upon the engine. Railway men could at once recognise the writer of the article, both from its style and from the extensive reference made to the plans of one individual who was specially named more than once in it. It does not require to be an engineer to know that the plan recommended would, instead of giving increased adhesion, create friction to an extent that would soon render a locomotive fixed and buried in its own sand, for it should be mentioned that the continuous pouring of sand from the sand-box of the engine on to the rails, and into the groove, was one of the sources from which it was stated, increased adhesion was to be obtained.

Mr. J. M. Heppel, C.E., declining to enter into criticism or controversy upon this point, and doubting the necessity of using sand with the Fell engine, unless in very limited and exceptional cases, proceeds to state, in answer to the assertion, that its vertical and horizontal wheels would not act together:—“The vertical and horizontal wheels of Mr. Fell’s engine are all driven from one pair of cylinders, and so coupled that they must all revolve exactly together; so that, abstracting for a moment from the slip or scrub of the vertical wheels which takes place on curves, if one slips they must all slip; and so long as the total adhesion is sufficient to take up the power, it is a matter of very little importance how it is distributed among them.

“The adhesion of the vertical wheels is due to the weight of the engine, and for any given condition of the rails, is a constant quantity. On the other hand, the adhesion of the horizontal wheels is, within its maximum limit, completely under control, and is given by a powerful screw motion, acting upon springs, which keep them always pressed against the rail with a force practically uniform. Notwithstanding any small inequalities of dimensions, all therefore that is requisite in ascending a heavy incline, is to set up the screws till the adhesion of the horizontal wheels makes up with that of the vertical ones, the total amount required for utilising the traction power of the engine.

“One obvious advantage of this arrangement is that it admits of all improvements of construction by which an engine, at the same time powerful and light, is obtained, a most important point on steep gradients, where gravitation is so formidable an obstacle, and one which has, as far as I am aware, been obtained by no other system in a way to be practically useful.

“Another great advantage is the power of regulating the adhesion to suit the requirements of the case, thereby avoiding superfluous and useless friction, which is always the necessary concomitant of adhesion; and when the latter is in excess must, so far as it goes, both absorb the power uselessly, and wear out the machinery unnecessarily.

“I will not enter into a discussion with regard to the polishing of the rails by the breaks, and the consequent loss of adhesion. I believe that adhesion depends much more on the accidental condition of the rails, due to atmospheric causes, than on any permanent mechanical condition of their surface; but, at any rate, that quite sufficient adhesion will always be obtainable by the means I have endeavoured to describe, to what ever state of polish the rails may have attained.”

[121] Baron Seguier evidently still considers himself the inventor of the centre rail system, for after the announcement in the newspapers of the successful crossing of the Mont Cenis Pass, on the 26th of August 1867, he published a letter in the Moniteur, making a statement to the above effect. He added, however, that he did not intend “to raise any question as to the pecuniary advantages that would be derived by others from the invention.”

[122] It has recently come to light that, through some members of the Mont Cenis Board interfering in details connected with the construction of the engines—upon which they were not competent to pronounce an opinion, but which were, nevertheless, adopted in opposition to the recommendation of Mr. Fell—considerable alterations will have to be made in the rolling stock before the line can be opened for traffic. These alterations can hardly be completed before February of next year.