Rambles on Railways

by Sir Cusack P. Roney

The greatest danger to travelling in the Hauenstein, is the falling down, either of portions of the rock, through which the tunnel is pierced, or the giving way of portions of its lining, owing to the water, which is constantly falling, forming into ice. To exclude the cold, as far as possible, a wooden screen, during winter, covers the upper part of the arch at each entrance, descending as far as possible, but allowing sufficient room for the funnel of the locomotive; there are also canvas curtains which may be drawn across the entrance at pleasure, and they are invariably so drawn in winter, except at the very moment of the passage of trains.

The chief engineer of the line is doubtful as to whether there ought not to be a shaft. At times the current of cold air through the tunnel is so strong, that it would be an inconvenience to the trains if not checked by the curtains. They also have the effect of keeping up a temperature in the tunnel sufficient to prevent the water that drips on to the rails becoming frozen in winter. Great trouble and inconvenience were experienced from this cause in the first instance. The freezing of water, lodged on the rails, has scarcely ever happened during the last few years.

The time that a train will take to pass through the tunnel of the Alps must now be considered. If it had been constructed throughout on the level, or with every favourable gradients, and that a train would be permitted to run throughout at express speed, it might be conveyed from entrance to exit in about twelve minutes. This gives a speed of say thirty-eight miles an hour. But with a gradient, the average of which is 1 in 45, anything approaching this rate of speed would be simply impossible.

Length, however, is not the only element that has to be taken into account.

M. Auguste Perdonnet, in his “Traité Elémentaire des Chemins de Fer” (Paris 1858-60), says with great truth: “Les fortes pentes sont plus nuisibles dans les souterrains que dans toute autre partie, d’un chemin de fer. L’humidité empechant la boue, qui impregne les rails, de secher, l’ascension de fortes rampes y devient tres penible. Il faut, donc, s’appliquer a les eviter plus encore dans les tunnels qu’a ciel ouvert.” No matter how stoutly the tunnel of the Alps may be lined, and no matter how impenetrably the tunnel may act as a barrier against infiltration of water, it never can be free from moisture; not the moisture of a downfall of rain, which washes the rails and “makes things pleasant,” but it will be one in which will be conbined, unchemically and therefore loosely, the steam of the engines condensed into water, minute particles of grease, and smoke; all three will, inter alios locos, find a resting place upon the rails, and they will thus create on them a thick, clammy, pasty moisture, which will sensibly diminish the engine’s adhesion, and act as a most serious impediment to its progress. It will therefore be impossible with the foregoing elements, and with a gradient of 1 in 45, to calculate on a higher rate of speed from the Modane entrance to the centre than ten miles an hour, or six minutes to the mile—twenty-two minutes; and our belief is that to maintain even this rate of speed it will be necessary to have a fiercely burning fire in the fire-box and tubes, together with a plentiful fall of sand from the sand boxes on to the rails. As soon as the train has arrived at the centre, which is also the summit of the tunnel, the engine will get relieved, and with the gradient almost level the second half of the tunnel can, as a simple question of speed, be run at the highest possible rate. But although it may be safe, it certainly will not be expedient to do so. At twenty-four miles an hour the time required would be nine minutes; total, with twenty-two minutes for the ascent, thirty-one minutes. As regards the journey from Italy to France, Can a higher rate of speed be permitted for the descent of the 429 feet in 3¾ miles than was allowed for the ascent? There appears to us to be but one answer—Certainly not. As regards danger, we believe that with efficient and powerful engines and proper brakes, in the hands of steady and competent men, the transit will not be attended with a particle of danger; but the question arises, Will travellers generally be of this opinion? Many of both sexes will undoubtedly consider that they are as safe in the tunnel as during any other part of their journey; but it is to be feared that the majority of persons who go through it will not only have vividly present in their minds a sense of actual danger from material causes, but also a belief that if they escape any damage from these causes, suffocation must be a natural result of going through seven and a-half miles of foul, fetid, and polluted atmosphere, in a long hole never less than three thousand, and for a tolerable distance five thousand six hundred feet, below the upper and outer surface of the mountain. Death, if it do occur, will be caused, not by actual suffocation, but from some action upon the nervous system, that will produce all the fatal symptoms of suffocation.

We have had no less than three very recent illustrations of death from such a cause, no later in fact than in August 1867; for during that month three inquests were held on three persons who had been taken out in a dying state from the London Metropolitan Railway. In each case the suspension of animation took place between Lisson Grove and King’s Cross Stations, yet the distance (all in tunnel) between them only slightly exceeds two miles, and there are abundant means of ventilation at the three intermediate points, Baker Street, Portland Road, and Gower Street Stations. The verdict in the first case was “accidental death from natural causes, accelerated by the suffocating atmosphere of the Underground Railway.” “Death from effusion of serum on the brain” was the verdict in the second case—in other words, apoplexy; but as the medical gentleman who made the post-mortem examination, could not state at the inquest that the atmosphere of the railway had accelerated death, no reference to it was made in the wording of the verdict.

The third case, happening almost immediately afterwards, excited a good deal of alarm in the public mind; and the alarm was not lessened in consequence of the publication of several sensational articles in two or three London newspapers. Therefore, at the opening of the inquest held upon Elizabeth Stainsley, on the 28th of August, Mr. Myles Fenton, the General Manager of the company, requested an adjournment until time had been afforded to obtain analyses of the atmosphere of the tunnels. Professor Julian Rodgers, of the London Medical School, was engaged by the Coroner; Drs. Bachhoffner, Letheby and Whitmore by the company. At the adjourned inquest, held on the 30th of October, Professor Rodgers submitted his report, in which he stated that he had analysed and tested the air contained in the tunnels of the railway between Bishop’s Road and King’s Cross Stations, and he had made comparative experiments in other tunnels. “The atmosphere in a pure condition,” continued Professor Rodgers, “consisted of a volume of 79·19 measures of nitrogen, and 20·81 of oxygen; and every 10,000 measures of air contained from 3·7 to 6·2 measures of carbonic acid. On the 4th of September he found that, in 17 cubic inches of air taken from each of the tunnels between the hours of 3 and 5 p.m., tested for carbonic acid, with the exception of the air from the Gower Street and King’s Cross tunnel (which contained a more notable quantity), only a slight trace of the acid was indicated. On the 10th of September, between 10 and 11 p.m., he determined the quantity of carbonic and sulphurous acids contained in 17 cubic inches; and during his transit backwards and forwards from King’s Cross to Bishop’s Road he found 13 measures of carbonic acid in 10,000 of air, and one measure of sulphurous acid in 40,789. Carbonic acid was evident in 17 cubic inches of the air taken from the Gower Street and King’s Cross tunnel. On October 2, in the same tunnel, he found 18·7 measures of carbonic in 10,000, and one measure of sulphurous acid in 23,913. On October 28, between 8 and 9 p.m., he found traces of carbonic evident, in 17 cubic inches in all the tunnels. On the 4th of September he found that the following were the per centages of oxygen in the tunnels:—Bishop’s Road, 20·48; Edgware Road, 20·60; Baker Street, 20·30; Portland Road, 20·10; Gower Street, 18·7. In the Blackheath tunnel, on September 28, it was 20·0. The air of Pimlico on September 21 contained 20·9. On October 24 the per centage was as follows:—Box Tunnel, 20·3; Birkenhead Tunnel, 20·1; Wolverhampton Tunnel, 20·5; at Wellington Barracks, 22·42, at 2 feet 6 inches from the floor.”

Replying to the Coroner, Professor Rodgers said he did not think the deficiency of oxygen would act injuriously upon a delicate person passing through the tunnels; and he considered that the amount of carbonic and sulphurous gases in the tunnels could not have been injurious to the woman. There was not a sufficient accumulation of these gases to be of injury to the public health. The woman had eaten heartily, was laced tightly, and had a diseased heart; he, therefore, did not think the deficiency of oxygen could have hastened her death.

The joint report of Drs. Bachhoffner, Letheby, and Whitmore was then read and put in evidence. It stated that the analysers collected samples of the air on three separate occasions:—First, immediately after the trains had ceased running at night; second, just before they commenced running in the morning; and third, in the afternoon, between four and five o’clock, a period of the day when there was generally the largest amount of traffic. The samples, twenty-eight in number, were analysed for sulphurous acid, carbonic acid, carbonic oxide, coal gas, and oxygen. The presence of sulphurous acid having been sought by the most delicate chemical test—namely, its action upon iodic acid and starch, which was capable of showing the presence of one part by volume of sulphurous acid in 100,000 parts of air, but by such test the presence of that acid could not be detected; and from this the analysers concluded that its volume was less than the above in the tunnels. The mean proportion of carbonic acid was about 6 in each volume of 10,000. The amounts of coal-gas and of carbonic oxide were so small as to be barely discoverable. The amount of oxygen in the tunnels and stations was not in any case deficient. These results proved that in no instance was the air found to be vitiated to any material extent, although the air taken in the afternoon was less pure than that taken at night. The presence of sulphurous acid gas in the tunnels and stations, which at times was appreciable to both taste and smell, must not be taken as an indication that this gas existed in dangerous quantities, for as little as one part of this gas in 100,000 parts of atmospheric air was strongly perceptible both to taste and smell. The partial combustion of the wood forming the breaks, when acting upon the tires of the wheels, also produces a pungent smell. The analysers were of opinion that, having regard to the cubical volume of the trains, the short time occupied by them in passing through the tunnels and stations, the large volume of air they displaced, and the increased impetus given to the horizontal movements of the air by the rapidity of their transit, the vitiation of the atmosphere could not be of a serious character, and this accorded with the results of their analysis. The tunnels were dry and free from infiltration of liquid or other matters prejudicial to health. The general health of the employés of the company was such as to afford unquestionable proof of the sanitary condition of the air in the tunnels. The report ends thus:—“From the foregoing facts, we are enabled confidently to state that the atmosphere of the Metropolitan Railway is not unwholesome or injurious to health.”