. ■ Univ.of ]jj. Library * 5 I 808 v. . , * . + \ > .// Record o / the- fro grew o/Modirn Enoineeruw* 1 & 65 . iS'/M r, , PHOTOGRAPHED IN WOTHLYTYPE BY THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PH OtO GRAPH Y, LI M ITF.D. 213. REGENT ST, London. Lockwood & C.°, 7, Stationers'lfcll Court. H I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/recordofprogressOOhumb JL A RECORD OF THE PROGRESS MODEM ENGINEERING. 1865. COMPRISING CIVIL, MECHANICAL, MARINE, HYDRAULIC, RAILWAY, BRIDGE, AND OTHEK ENGINEERING WORKS. WITH ESSAYS AND REVIEWS. EDITED BY WILLIAM HUMBER ASSOCIATE OF INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS; MEMBER OF INSTITUTE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. LONDON: LOCKWOOD & CO., 7 ST AT I ONER S’ -HALL COURT. 1866. 9 PRINTED LONDON P.Y SPOTTISWOODE AND NEW- STREET SQUARE CO. TO SIR JOHN THWAITES, WHO, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS, HAS SO LARGELY CONTRIBUTED TO THE HEALTH AND COMFORT OF THE METROPOLIS, IN BRINGING TO A SUCCESSFUL ISSUE THE WORKS HEREIN ILLUSTRATED, &j)is Dolume IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THE AUTHOR. !■*-**« ILLUSTRATIONS MAIN DRAINAGE, METROPOLIS. No. of Plate. North Side. Outfall Sewer. Reservoir and Outlet. Details . . 20 No. of Outfall Sewer. Reservoir and Outlet. Details . . 21 Map showing Interception of Sewers .... Plate. 1 Outfall Sewer. Reservoir and Outlet. Details . . 22 Middle Level Sewer. Sewer under Regent’s Canal 2 Outfall Sewer. Filth Hoist ...... . 23 Middle Level Sewer. Junction with Fleet Ditch 3 Sections of Sewers (North and South Sides) . 24 Outfall Sewer. Bridge over River Lea. Elevation . 4 Outfall Sewer. Bridge over River Lea. Details 5 Outfall Sewer. Bridge over River Lea. Details 6 THAMES EMBANKMENT. Outfall Sewer. Bridges over Marsh Lane, North Woolwich Rail- Section of River Wall ....... . 25 way, and Bow and Barking Railway Junction 7 Steam -boat Pier, Westminster. Elevation . 26 Outfall Sewer. Bridge over Bow and Barking Railway. Eleva- Steam-boat Pier, Westminster. Details .... . 27 tion . 8 Landing Stairs between Charing Cross and Waterloo Bridges . 28 Outfall Sewer. Bridge over Bow and Barking Railway. Details 9 York Gate. Front Elevation ...... . 29 Outfall Sewer. Bridge over Bow and Barking Railway. Details 10 York Gate. Side Elevation and Details .... . 30 Outfall Sewer. Bridge over East London Waterworks’ Feeder. Overflow and Outlet at Savoy Street Sewer. Details . . 31 Elevation 11 Overflow and Outlet at Savoy Street Sewer. Penstock . 32 Outfall Sewer. Bridge over East London Waterworks’ Feeder. Overflow and Outlet at Savoy Street Sewer. Penstock . 33 Details 12 Steam -boat Pier, Waterloo Bridge. Elevation . . 34 Outfall Sewer. Reservoir. Plan .... 13 Steam-boat Pier, Waterloo Bridge. Details . 35 Outfall Sewer. Reservoir. Section .... 14 Steam-boat Pier, Waterloo Bridge. Details . 36 Outfall Sewer. Tumbling Bay and Outlet 15 Junction of Sewers. Plans and Sections .... . 37 Outfall Sewer. Penstocks ..... 16 Gullies. Plans and Sections ...... . 38 South Side. Outfall Sewer. Bermondsey Branch .... 17 DIAGRAMS. Outfall Sewer. Bermondsey Branch .... 18 Rolling Stock ..... ... . A Outfall Sewer. Reservoir and Outlet. Plan 19 Granite and Iron Forts ....... . B NOTE TO THE BINDER. Plates A and B to face pages 22 and 20 respectively ; the remainder to he bound at the end of the volume. CONTEN T S . Biographical Sketch of John Robinson M‘Clean, Esq., C.E., F.A.S., F.G.S. ...... Address ............... Construction of Harbours, Ports, and Breakwaters ......... Improved System of Fortification. ........... Granite and Iron Forts ............. The Rationale of Railway Rolling Stock ........... The Rationale of the Sewage Question ........... History of the Drainage and Sewerage of London ......... Description of the Permanent Works of the Metropolis Main Drainage, executed under the direction of the Metropolitan Board of Works — North Side ......... Ditto ditto ditto South Side ......... Description of Plates ............. Thames Embankment ............. Description of Plates ............. PAGE ix 1 2 14 20 22 31 34 46 49 50 51 56 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOHN ROBINSON M'CLEAN, F.A.S., F.G.S. John Robinson JVPClean, C.E., F.A.S., F.G.S., J.P. (Staffordshire), Lieut.-Col. Engineer and Railway Volunteer Corps, President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, of whom we give a photographic likeness, forming a frontispiece to this volume, was born in Belfast in 1813, and educated at the Royal Academical Institution of that town. In 183-1 he went to Glasgow University, where he studied under Professors Thomson, Meikleham, and Sir W. Jackson Hooker, during two sessions, and obtained high honours in the classes of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, at the same time prosecuting studies of a practical character in Mining Engineering and Surveying. In 1837 he entered the office of Messrs. Walker & Burges, Civil Engineers, 23 Great George Street, Westminster, and remained with them until. 1844. Mr. Walker was one of the most celebrated Engineers of that day, and acted for all the great public departments, including the Admiralty, War Department, Trinity House, &c. Mr. MUlean assisted in preparing the Surveys and Contract Drawings of the Improvements of the Harbour of Belfast (which have since been carried out so successfully by Messrs. Walker & Burges and Mr. Smyth) ; and from that time to the end of 1843 was more or less connected with the works undertaken by Mr. Walker, especially the embankment in front of the Houses of Parliament, Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges Coffer Dams, Commercial Docks, Tame Valley and Bentley Canals — the last of the great canals constructed in this country. In 1844 Mr. M £ Clean commenced, at Great George Street, Westminster, the independent exercise of the profession of a Civil Engineer, in which he has ever since taken an active and distinguished part. During his first year of practice he became the Engineer-in-Chief of the Furness Railways, and has from that time to the present been intimately connected with all the great public works in that district, including the Barrow Harbour, Barrow Docks (as large as those at Birkenhead), Graving Docks, Railways, and other works. So great has been the progress resulting from the opening up of that part of the country by railways, that upwards of 200,000 tons of hiematite pig iron and steel are now annually manufactured at the Port of Barrow, and 500,000 tons of iron ore are a X BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOHN ROBINSON M‘CLEAN. annually exported from the district; while the population of Barrow, in 1844 numbering 130 persons, is now 16,000.* In 1849 the public press commenced an agitation upon the polluted state of the Thames, which was becoming full of sewage, whilst several of the Water Companies then obtained their supply from the river, near London. Engineers were urged by the Times to compete for the honour of providing a remedy for the evil, and the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers invited competition for plans for the drainage of London on both sides of the Thames. In accordance with the advertisement, as many as 116 plans were sent in, although there was at that time no complete survey of London, and the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers furnished no information respecting the levels of existing sewers and streets, and it was necessary for the competitors themselves to be at great personal expense in procuring the requisite information to enable them to prepare plans. Mr. M‘Clean, who had already devoted much attention to the drainage and water supply of the Metropolis, and had for three years before been occupied in bringing before Parliament a scheme for supplying London with 100,000,000 gallons of water daily from Henley-on-Thames, flowing by gravitation to the level of the Paddington Canal, sent in plans on this occasion. The Commissioners appointed to examine and consider the whole of the competitive designs were — Lieutenant-General Sir J. F. Burgoyne, Bart.; Captain James Vetch, K.E. ; J. M. Rendel, Esq., F.B.S. ; Capt. H. D. Harness, R.E. ; and Robert Stephenson, Esq., M.P., F.R.S. ; and in March 1850 they published their Report, from which, with reference to Mr. M‘Clean’s scheme, we extract the following passage : — “ The best-conceived and most practicable scheme submitted to the Commissioners is, in our opinion, that of Mr. J. B. M‘Clean ; and though we do not deem ourselves justified in recommending any one of these schemes for adoption as a whole, we yet think that Mr. M‘Clean’s plan contains many of the main elements of a sound and judicious system of drainage. It is characterised by a well-devised system of intercepting sewers ; in determining the situation and course of which a careful and elaborate study of the levels has evidently been made. These intercepting sewers generally follow the direction of the main thoroughfares, and avoid any extensive interference with private property.” In 1849 Mr. M ‘Clean received into partnership Mr. F. C. Stileman. The firm have been extensively engaged in the construction of Railways, Piers, Harbours, Docks, Waterworks, &c., including the South Staffordshire Railway and branches; the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railway, with its double tunnel and high retaining Avails, through the town of Birmingham ; the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Reservoirs, and the South Staffordshire Waterworks, which supply water from Lichfield at constant pressure to a population of nearly half a million, including the toAvns of Dudley, Walsall, Bilston, Wednesbury, Oldbury, Smethwick, West Bromwich, Tipton, Darlaston, Sedgeley, Brierley Hill, Bloxwich, and Burton-on-Trent. In 1851 Mr. M'Clean Avas called upon to advise as to the practicability of introducing the English system of baths and wash-houses into Paris, and carried out extensive works at the sole expense of the Emperor Napoleon III. He Avas at the same time employed by a * In our next volume we intend giving the draAvings of BarroAV Docks, including Avareliouscs and other Avorks, O O O / o as there are many features of interest in the construction of these works. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOHN ROBINSON M‘CLEAN. XI body of English capitalists in reporting upon the means of procuring an additional supply of pure water for Paris. After the death of the late Mr. James Walker, Mr. M‘Clean was appointed Government Engineer to the Harbours of Dover, Alderney and St. Catherine’s (Jersey), the Plymouth Break- water, and the Shovel Rock Fort at Plymouth, the works of which had not been commenced. The foundations of this Fort are 40 feet below low-water. He is Consulting Engineer to the Birmingham Canal Navigation and the Bute Docks, Cardiff ; Engineer to the Surrey Commercial Docks, the Tottenham and Hampstead Junction Railway, the Bristol and Portishead Pier and Railway, the Cannock Chase and Wolverhampton Railway, the Furness and Midland Railway, the Ryde Pier Company, and numerous other public works in Great Britain. He is Consulting Engineer to the Lemberg-Czernowitz Austrian Railway and the South-Eastern of Portugal Railway, and has projected Railways through the Danubian Principalities for the purpose of connecting Austria with the Port of Galatz on the Danube, and also with Odessa on the Black Sea. In the year 1855 he formed one of the International Commission, composed of eminent Engineers, representing France, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Holland, invited by the Viceroy of Egypt to visit that country and report on the practicability of uniting the Mediterranean and the Red Seas bv means of a Ship Canal, the Barrage of the Nile, and other works. After a careful study of the country, Mr. M‘Clean recommended that the proposed Canal should be made a Ship Canal, with water supplied from the Nile, instead of a Bosphorus, or Canal without locks, joining the two seas. In this opinion he was warmly supported by the late J. M. Rendel, Esq., F.R.S., and Charles Manby. Esq., F.R.S., the present Honorary Secretary of the Institution of Civil Engineers. It is now ten years since the date of this Report, and up to the present time the only communication between the two seas, although a very imperfect one, is by means of a Canal fed by the waters of the Nile. In 1861 Mr. M‘Clcan was appointed one of the Royal Commissioners to examine and report upon the numerous plans submitted for embanking the River Thames within the Metropolis. The labours of the Commission were so successful that they completed an examination of all the plans submitted to them in 1861, and made their Report ; and in 1862 obtained the Act for the Embankment of the River Thames from Westminster Bridge to Blackfriars Bridge. In 1862 Mr. M^Clean acted as one of the Royal Commissioners to enquire into and report upon the best mode of embanking the Surrey side of the Thames within the Metropolis ; and in July of that year, after the examination of numerous plans, their Report was published. In 1863 Mr. M‘Clean acted as one of the Royal Commissioners appointed to consider plans for making a communication between the Embankment at Blackfriars Bridge and the Mansion House, and also between the Embankment at Westminster Bridge and the Embankment at Millbank. In 1865 Mr. M‘Clcan was appointed one of the Royal Commissioners to enquire into the origin, nature, &c. of the Cattle Plague ; and in the same year, on the Royal Commission on Railways. Ml BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOHN ROBINSON MCLEAN. Mr. M'Clean became a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers in the year 1839, and Member of the Council in January 1848 ; Vice-President in January 1858 ; and filled the office of President for the years 1864 and 1865. His address on that occasion attracted considerable attention by the views it set forth upon the enormous effects of engineering works in promoting the prosperity of the country. By a comparison (drawn from published returns of property and income) between the years 1815 and 1856, he showed that the striking improvement in the national resources during those forty years was mainly attributable to the Railway system, which, besides its obvious agency in facilitating transport and promoting the development of our mineral wealth, had afforded extraordinary encouragement to the investment and reproduction of capital, and had contributed largely to the establishment of the wealthy and intelligent middle class, who have lately done so much in educating and humanising the mass of their countrymen. This address, containing other important and well-digested statements with regard to the vast and inexhaustible supplies of coal and iron in Great Britain, the progress of ship-building, and the construction of public works, was translated and read at the “ Societe des Ingenieurs Civils ” at Paris, exciting much interest and approval. His term of office as President was marked by the creation of the Benevolent Fund of the Institution, amounting to £ 26,000 , in which useful project (originally suggested by F. J. Bramwell, Esq.) he took the warmest interest. Mr. M‘Clean is now in his 53rd year, and we trust that his valuable and useful life may long be spared. A RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 1865. ADDRESS. It is with a well-assured confidence of still further success than the first two volumes received, that we now make this third issue of the “ Record.” At the request of several of our subscribers, we have devoted the plates entirely to the illustration of the Metropolitan Main Drainage and the Thames Embankment, as being two of the most important engineering works of modern date. In consequence of the great mass of information to be introduced into so comparatively brief a space, it has been found necessary to make the drawings, in many cases, to a very small scale. The exactness of their execution, however, will enable the minutest details to be understood. We have this year given a biographical sketch and photographic likeness of J. R. M‘Clean, Esq., President of the Institution of Civil Engineers. We beg to tender our most sincere thanks to J. W. Bazalgette, Esq., Memb. Inst. C.E., and Engineer to the Metropolitan Board of Works, for the use of the Contract Drawings, from which the plates have been prepared, and also for the general information which he has been at all times ready and willing to supply. B Abingdon Street, Westminster : December 1865. 2 RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERIN G. CONSTRUCTION OF HARBOURS, PORTS, AND BREAKWATERS. THEORETICAL, CONTINUED. IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGABLE RIVERS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF TIDAL HARBOURS, AND HARBOURS OF REFUGE. There beiim no two rivers on the surface of the "lobe O o precisely alike in every respect, as regards the operations of the engineer, it is consequently very evident that precise rules cannot be laid down applicable to all cases in reference to the improvement of rivers, the construc- tion of tidal harbours on their banks, nor of harbours of refuge near their mouths. The engineer must not, however, suppose that because precise rules cannot be laid down with respect to the ever-varying aspects which hydraulic engineering presents to him, that he is to approach this the most difficult branch of civil engineer- ing without a most careful study of the multifarious elements and varying aspects of nature with which he has to deal. In studying executed works in connection with the improvement of rivers, whether for affording improved facilities for navigation, the drainage of the country con- stituting the basin of the river, or the reclamation of partially submerged land upon its banks, or a combina- tion of all these objects, it 'will be very desirable to obtain plans and sections of the state of the river pre- viously to the commencement of any of the works which have been executed, and to ascertain from reports of engineers and others, and by local inquiries, what were the precise objects which the several works were intended to effect. With the above information, and a careful examination of the several localities upon the ground, it will readily be perceived whether or not the objects con- templated in the execution of the several works have been fully or but partially realised. Works which have partially or altogether failed to answer the purpose for which they were intended, whether the failure has resulted in consequence of erroneous or doubtful theory in the design, or of imperfect workmanship, or defective materials in the execution, are frequently much more instructive than the most careful examination of works which have been most successfully carried out. An engineer who carefully examines the various means which have been called into operation in the im- provement of a river under given circumstances, and comparing its improved state with its condition before the engineering operations commenced, will be able to some extent to generalise and form rules for his future guidance. However reluctant engineers may be to prescribe rules to be applied in all cases which, even if possible, would have a tendency to cramp genius, retard progress, and reduce the profession to the handbook system, still it can hardly be possible but that in the great diversity to be met with in rivers, there are not also many points of resemblance ; and if precise rules applicable to all circumstances cannot be laid down, at least some reliable principles may be deduced from several successful operations in this branch of engineering, as well as in other branches of the profession. It is better to have rules with exceptions than to have no rules at all. The engineer in his treatment of rivers will find that his difficulties will increase as he approaches the sea. He must consequently enlarge his field of observation, and prepare to encounter still greater difficulties as he extends his operations into the deep sea, in order to form artificial shelter for shipping where no natural shelter exists. The improvement of a river beyond the reach of the tide is a very different matter to the improvement of a tidal river, and requires a totally different treatment. Beyond the reach of the tide the question of navigation seldom if at all occurs ; the more prominent points to be attended to being the reclamation of land on the banks of the river, if any such land exists ; and the straighten- ing, narrowing, and deepening of the watercourse in order the more effectually to carry off the land floods. To fix the position of the banks of a river in order to train or direct and limit the space to be occupied by the bed of the river when improved requires very great con- sideration. If the enclosing or training walls are too far apart, leaving too much space for the flow of water, the reclaimed land will be curtailed in extent, and the value of the works diminished in proportion. The current would also be so much diminished, that banks or shoals would be formed between the training walls, and these shoals would change the direction of the current, and cause it to impinge upon one of the training walls, from which it would be reflected at an angle equal or nearly so to the incident or impinging angle, and would then strike the opposite bank at a point farther down the river. It is this principle of the reflection of a body of water from any resisting substance at an angle equal to the an inches thick, the whole bearing on a skin of inch-iron, and bound together by 22 bolts of 3 inches diameter, and 16 (SiAMra & mm mis, A RECORD OF Till: PROGRESS OF MODERN ENGINEERING MS. PLATE B EXPERIMENTAL C A S E M ATE , S H 0 E B U R Y N E S S 1865. F I C I DETAILS OF THE CHALMERS SHIELD A F I C 2 Front Dlevaticw CD Sectxxnval/ Plan/ crv C . D . JjtfhfA' 12 tf 6 o 0 Scale far Fins 2,3 & 4 ■ ■ ■? 1 f f- FIC 3 Section/ orv A. Ji . W. flLunbut dir. 1'( 11 10 n Scale for Fiq 5. 7 Q ^ 4 3 2 1 0 17 FI C 5. Section y cF Banking bang . JiJce _J Rout 6tfl ndi d£e T C c Li tJio, Old Jev/ry E ,C London: Lockwood. & C° 7. Stationers 'Hall Court. OZ RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 21 bolts of 2 inches, all having shallow square threads. The skin was attached to two struts by double angle- bars 0" by 4^" by f", and strengthened by six similar bars running at right angles to the -struts. A strong H girder, 18 inches deep, strengthened, the shield across the top of the embrasure. The struts to which the shield is attached rested upon a bottom plate of inch- iron, feet wide, and through this plate the entire mass was secured to the stone work by 10 bolts of 2. 1 , inches diameter. The backing bars, where cut to admit the passage of the through bolts, were bound together in bodies by the rivets a, b (Front Elevation), and the short' bars over the porthole were kept in their places by the lintel c. This shield owed its origin to the successful trial of the Chalmers target in April 1863, and the recommendation of Lord Palmerston, who in- troduced the inventor to the Secretary of State for War. As originally proposed, the principle was the same as. the Chalmers target ; but at the suggestion of the late Iron Plate Committee, and the Engineers of the War Department, it was altered to the form represented in the accompanying diagram. For the compound back- ing, or alternate layers of timber and iron of the original design, the present backing of layers, all of thin iron, was substituted, on the ground that it was not advisable to introduce such a perishable material as timber in a permanent work. Half of the shield, therefore, has a backing of plain bars 8" by 1", and the other half has bars which match or bind into each other (see Fig. 5). The latter were suggested by Mr. Chalmers, and their adoption for the entire shield would only have added about £10 to its cost. These alterations, while they still leave a cushion of timber in the very heart of the structure, add greatly to the weight and cost of the shield, without improving its powers of resistance. This shield has cost over £1,000 (independent of the con- sideration paid to Mr. Chalmers for the invention and superintending its construction, £600) ; but a shield of the same size, on the plan originally submitted (which has been shown to offer greater resistance to shot), would have cost only about half this amount. The western shield 13, designed by Major Inglis, R.E., Superintendent of Works, was manufactured by Messrs. John Brown & Co., of Sheffield. It was simply a solid plate of 13g inches in thickness, with a porthole 3 feet x 2' 4". It had no fastenings or backing. At top and bottom it was let into the stonework about 6 inches; and in order to keep it up to its work, it was further supported by bars of railway iron embedded in the stonework, which was fluted to receive them. The right flank of the casemate was protected by the cramped iron-facing, C, generally termed “the puzzle,” because the pieces of iron bind into each other in the manner of certain puzzles made of wood for the amusement of children ; and the left flank, D, was protected by 4^-inch armour plates, backed with timber and concrete. The entire cost of this experimental structure, including cost of trial, was about £8,000. The battery to test the struc- ture was placed at 200 yards’ distance, and consisted of the following guns : — 7-inch shunt, throwing a steel shot 115 lbs. with 18 lbs. ch. 8 „ „ „ 150 lbs. „ 22 lbs. „ » ,, „ 220 lbs. „ 30 lbs. „ 10 „ „ „ 280 lbs. „ 30 lbs. „ The latter charges were increased to 41 lbs. when firing at the compound or Chalmers shield A. Against the stonework cast-iron shot only were used. It is not necessary here to give a detailed account of the firing. The following graphic account, from an able article on “ The Spithead Forts,” in the Saturday Review , gives a correct summary of the result of the experiments : — “ The experiments were directed to two distinct objects — first, to _ test the comparative resisting power of the two shields; and secondly, to ascertain how long the huge mass of granite would be able to stand the. fire of the formidable battery. In order to approximate more closely to the conditions of a probable attack, the charges of the guns were .reduced, so as to give the same striking velocity as if they had been fired at 1,000 yards — a precaution somewhat lenient to the fort, though, as the result proved, not sufficiently so to save it from destruction. The practice on the shields exactly accorded with pre- vious experience. The solid plate was seriously damaged, and a lew more shots would have knocked it fairly away.* The Chalmers target stood well, as it has always done before ; it kept out all the shots, and suffered no great injury beyond the snapping of several of the bolts. The battery was then turned upon the masonry, and though only cast- iron shot were used, the first blow fairly split a huge mass of granite far in the rear of the point of impact. Still the shot did not get through, though the ultimate fate of the structure might easily be fore- seen. Two rounds from the four-gun battery were then completed. Of the eight shots, one missed altogether ; but the other seven struck the granite Walls. Upon examination, it was found that a great part of the casemate was a heap of ruins, and that one of the shots had forced a clear passage into the interior of the work. The conclusion is that seven well-directed shots, from a range of 1,000 yards, will suffice to annihilate the projected Spithead Forts, and that all the labour and money bestowed upon the works will have been thrown away, unless some better material than granite can be found for their con- struction It seems pretty clear that the granite gave way, less from the destruction of its face than from the want of elasticity which made the whole mass crack and fall to pieces under the blows to which it was subjected. An iron facing, | unless backed by wood and converted into armour strong enough to need no further backing, would do very little to break the shock upon the inner wall of stone, and there is scarcely room to doubt that the first experiment upon it has finally settled the fate of granite as a material for a first-class fort. If it were certain that this conclusion would be accepted without reserve and without delay, there would be nothing to cause alarm in the failure of this first design for our harbour fortresses, but it is sometimes easier to demolish the stoutest materials than to batter down a preconceived idea. Perhaps in this particular instance the failure of the proposed design has been too conspicuous and too startling to be altogether without effect. It is scarcely conceivable now that the defences of Portsmouth will be actually built of a material so worthless as granite has proved to be ; but it is quite possible that the cause of Iron v. Granite for the defence of forts may be as tedious as the cause of Iron v. Wood was in the construction of ships. In all these matters the rule * The thick-plate shield, which was disposed of at the fourth round, was struck by a total of 7G5 lbs. of metal, propelled by 106 lbs. of powder ; whilst the built-up, or Chalmers shield, resisted 2,445 lbs. of metal, and 311 lbs. of powder . — Army and Navy Gazette . | Such as the right and left wings C and D of Fig. 1. 22 R E CORD OF M ODERN E N G I N E E R I N G. Booms to he to cling to an old prejudice until it its fairly battered to pieces, and we only hope that the moral resistance of the granite theory may prove as feeble as the physical resistance of the material itself” Granite having been effectually disposed of as a material for forts, the superstructure of the works at Spithead will probably be chiefly of iron ; in which ease, reason, science, and all past experiments alike suggest that a large portion of the material should be composed of plates having their edges opposed to the attacking projectile. An arrangement similar to that of the Chalmers Shield, or perhaps a compromise be- tween it and the “ Naval Armour,” by the same in- ventor, referred to in Record of Modern Engineering , 18G3, could doubtless be extended to the entire walls of these forts, with advantage as regards resistance to shot and economy of space, if not of cost, as compared with granite. T1IE RATIONALE OF RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK. [Illustrated by Plate A.] This name was given by Captain Huish in order to distinguish the moveable stock of railways from fixed plant. It was not a happy selection, inasmuch as the stock in question when in transit did nearly as much sliding as rolling, and the term “ moving stock ” would have satisfied both conditions — a conclusion that our French neighbours had arrived at by their logical process. From the time that the first wagons rolled on the “way leaves” of the North, men conversant in transit have been alive to the desirability of rolling movement for the diminution of haulage labour, but it is a conclusion still oidy made practical in a few experimental cases. One important distinction between traction on common roads and that on tramways and railways we are too apt to overlook, viz., self-guidance. In the old coaching system of fast driving, with the contingency of rebellious horses, and the passing by other vehicles, driving was an art involving many high qualities — perfect self-possession, complete manipulation of whip and reins, clear vision, readiness in emergency, and hardihood against the weather. The “ four-in-hand club” was not wholly an absurdity, for it was a test of man- hood of a certain class. There was no possibility of preventing a pair of wilful leaders from upsetting the coach, if so minded, and only the thong was available to restrain them. With the advent of the rising edges on the tram-plates, self-guidance of the wheels ensued, and the chief labour of the driver ceased. The tram was far from perfect, for it was subject to much lateral friction, and a surface holding dirt, but when the edge rail supplanted it the principle of guidance was perfect in its theory, but far from it in practice, owing to imperfect structure. And with the abandonment of horses and the substitution of the steam-engine, the art of driving! resolved itself into a knowledge of the gradients and curves on the line, and when to quicken or lower the fire, or turn steam on or off. The engine was not a wilful, but a passive slave, and the necessity for manhood in the driver, resolved itself into presence of mind in case of impending collision, before or behind, with a rapid succession of trains, and power of resisting bad weather, and with the advantage of hugging! the boiler for warmth in case of extreme cold. The principle of guidance was as complete 36 years back, when the Liverpool and Manchester was opened, as it is now. A flange round each wheel, an inch in depth, rounded at its inner and outer angles, and loaded with a weight of half a ton upwards, offered an apparently insurmountable obstacle to getting off the rails. To make this “ apparently ” still more secure, the wheels were made conical on their peripheries, dimi- nishing in diameter outwards, as their width in- creased. The effect of this was to keep them central between the two rails, just as a river seeks its deepest channel, and thus to keep the flanges from rubbing against the rails. This principle was quite sound as regarded a single pair of wheels kept steadily rolling parallel to the rails, and with the axle at a right angle, but many adverse circumstances arose so soon as two pairs of wheels were applied to construct a four- wheel vehicle. To begin at the beginning ; the so-called wheels were not wheels at all, in the sense of the word wheel as used on roads, but oidy garden-rollers, with the centres re- duced to an axle diameter, and the outside peripheries coned. The two wheels being keyed, fast on one shaft, to avoid the trouble and expense of wheels and axles proper, could only roll along a straight line in virtue of their diameters being equal, or along a curved line in virtue of their diameters being unequal. But this com- pensating process ceased to act so soon as two axles were fixed in one frame without power of radial movement. From that time the movement ceased to be rollimr, and became a compound of rolling and sledging, and it is a known fact that if a vehicle so constructed were supplied with wheels of one-fourth greater diameter on one side than the other, such a vehicle, if drawn over a plane sur- RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. face without rails to guide it, would only advance in . a straight line if the axles were perfectly parallel, and only on a specific curved line if the axles were out of parallel. The only mode in which the so-called wheels could be made to roll would be by using them with two- wheeled carriages, that is, with a horizontal joint between every pair of wheels, and this would involve other con- siderations of disadvantage in trains. In short, from the time the Liverpool and Manchester opened until now, the practice on railways has been to force parallelograms round curves with more or less resistance in proportion as the vehicles have been longer or shorter, and the curves of small or large radius, the movement of the so-called wheels on the rails being alternate sliding and rolling. The polish which may be observed on the surfaces of both wheels and rails where their contact takes place, is proof of this. The result of this vicious practice was of course straining the axles by torsion and grinding both tires and rails by the sledging move- ment, involving great extra power in haulage, and causing a waste of fuel. For this reason tires had to be made thicker, and axles stronger, till the rails got the worst of it, and had to be strengthened and improved in turn. r An illustration of this evil may be taken from agricultural practice. There is an. implement called a clod-crusher: it originally consisted of a cylinder of cast-iron, some 18 inches in diameter, and 4 to 5 feet in length, set round with coarse teeth, which crushed the clods as it was drawn over a ploughed surface. But the labour to the horses was enormous. It was lessened by dividing the cylinder at the mid- length, so as to make two broad wheels revolving independently on an axle. These again were divided into four, with still greater advantage, and finally, the whole cylinder was divided into a series of narrow discs, each containing a row of spikes, and thus the minimum of resistance was arrived at with the maximum of effect. Railway wheels are in their present condition analogous to the condition of the clod-crusher at the outset, but they have a certain compensation in being enabled to slide upon hard iron surfaces. It was probably the perception of these difficulties that caused the first vehicles of the Liverpool and Man- chester to be kept short. And in an overweening confi- dence in the smoothness of the new road they were constructed, first, without springs, secondly, with very short springs, which on the general railways have gone on lengthening from their original 18 inches to G and 7 feet. So also in practice a new element became apparent. The “ bumpers,” or blocks, at the wagon ends, which answered well enough for the transport of minerals at slow speed, would not do at all for passengers, and “ buffers,” or stuffed cushions, were first applied, and 23 then sliding rods connected with steel springs. As speed increased lateral oscillation increased also, and then Henry Booth produced the right and left screw coupling, which drew the whole train up into a half solid, half elastic column, thus steadying it, but at the cost of greatly increased friction between the wheels and rails and end wear of the axle brasses, the wheels constantly trying to run along the path of least friction, and as constantly resisted by the compression of the couplings. It is instructive to watch the proceedings of the driver of a goods or mineral train of great length when just getting it into motion. He first backs every wagon one upon another till the whole train is comparatively solid. He then easily starts the first wagon to the length of the loose coupling chain. That being in motion, the momentum gives additional force to start the second, and so on till the whole is moving, subject to the difficulty of the sudden snatches breaking the coupling if not sufficiently provided with traction springs. But for this practice it would be utterly im- possible for the driver to move the train at all. And if the train be watched from an over bridge, it will be seen that each wagon has its own peculiar move- ment, causing the whole train to assume an irregular wriggle, analogous to that of a snake on uneven ground. The meaning of this is, that every wheel in the train is striving to find out the path of least friction along the numerous irregularities of the rails, the practical curves of very small radius, not intentionably set out ; and it will be found that when the train enters a very sharp curve of regular form, a steady movement ensues. This is induced by the flanges of the wheels all bearing steadily against the rails with greatly increased friction ; and, as a general rule, trains run steadier on curves. It will thus be seen that passenger trains run slowly in virtue of constituting to a certain extent one long carriage subject to enormous friction, a very long parallelogram, which may answer tolerably well on straight lines, but which is very costly and disadvan- tageous on curves or lines out of order, necessitating much greater strength in the vehicles and much heavier wheels, all of which act with compound mischievous effect in case of collision. It will therefore be understood that if a carriage could have its base sufficiently extended in its own length to constitute steadiness there would be no need for close coupling the train, and this would at once get rid of much surplus haulage. A frame of 42 or more feet in length, with a wheel base of 30 feet, would suffice for this. But inasmuch as the cause of wheels running off the rails is that they are in a position not parallel to the rail, but at an angle with it, it is neces- sary to provide for them free movement, so as to keep them always parallel with the rails. Another reason for getting off, is the inefficiency of the bearing springs in not permitting the wheels to rise and fall freely with 21 l; E C 0 R D 0 F M 0 D E R N E N G I N E E R I N G the inequalities of the rail surface, so that the flange is held above the level, like a dug with his fore foot lifted. “ The longer the carriage the steadier it will be,” is an axiom scarcely worth proving; but the history of the Great Western furnishes the proof ready-made. The earliest carriages thereon for the seven-feet gauge were of the same length as those of the narrow gauge, — about 8ft. ('in. from axle to axle — four-wheeled. When tried, they jumped up and down like a pitching vessel at sea, shuffling the passengers off their seats. It was evi- dently necessary to lengthen them, and this was done by applying another pair of wheels to carry the load, and thus longitudinal steadiness ensued. In proportion to the length of a carriage the width may be advantageously increased. As a rule the width of the carriage may be double the width of the gauge. The width of the rails of the narrow gauge is about five feet, centres, and therefore the bodies might be ten feet, if the side and middle spaces of double lines of rails permitted it. A carriage 42ft. by 10ft. gives 420 feet floor area, with an open space of buffers of 40 feet area. Comparing this with two ordinary carriages of 20ft. by 8ft., we find 320ft. of available area with 64 feet area of open buffer space, giving to the long carriage 100 feet extra passenger space, with a saving of 24 feet in buffer space. This is equal to about 25 per cent, saving in the length of platforms ; a very important consideration ; and it is also important as to hauling, whether by pressure of the flanges in curves or by the action of a side wind or a front wind, as the impinging area consists very largely of the open spaces in the trains, which would be diminished one-half by the use of the long carriage. There is yet another advantage in the wide long carriages; they afford the facility for a central passage for the guard throughout the whole train to serve as a policeman. They afford facility for passengers to find out their friends ; they afford facility for closets and for refreshment rooms, economising time on a long journey; they afford also facilities for helping passengers suddenly taken ill, and facilities also for warming and ventilation, and as a greater inducement to shareholders they economise the cost per passenger. It is not the mere difference in the first cost of first and third-class car- riages that constitutes the calculation, but the area of space occupied by each. Other things being equal, the cost of hauling a carriage is so much per ton, and the larger the space occupied the greater is the dead weight per passenger. Third-class occupy only half the. soace of first-class, and, saying nothing of cloth, lace, and trim- mings, the dead weight of the vehicle will be only half in proportion. There is yet another consideration. With large carriages the number of couplings is reduced in a pro- portion of more than one-half, and, with loose couplings, the time occupied is lessened by one-half, and thus the risk of accidents is very materially reduced. And in case of collision, the risk of the train being broken up by the several carriages riding on each other’s backs is much lessened. The same principles hold good with regard to the construction of wagons. A short four-wheel wagon constantly pitches and oscillates and disturbs its load, and more especially with a high load. In the item of coals the breakage thus ensuing is consider- able. We find that in sea-borne coals economy of transit demands much larger vessels than was formerly the rule, and the same thing holds good with wagons on rails. But the development of this principle has been prevented by the sharp curves which have pre- vented long wagons from getting to the pit’s mouth, and this is a question of improved structure. The general principles that should govern the struc- ture of railway vehicles are as follows, supposing the railways adapted to them as regards space : — 1. The width of the body or frame should be double that of the gauge of rails. 2. The length of each vehicle should be four times the width of the body, or eight times the width of the gauge. 3. The springs for carrying the load should be thoroughly elastic, with a rise and fall through ample space, to elude concussion, and prevent the wheel flanges from rising above the rails at inequalities of surface. 4. It is desirable to multiply the wheels in each vehicle, each wheel carrying the most economical load, having regard to wear and tear, as thus damage is lessened to the rails and way, and the risk of breaking springs is diminished by the simultaneous action and the absence of pitching movement. 5. The mechanism of the wheels should be so ar- ranged that under all circumstances, whether on straight lines or curves, the wheels should always be all parallel to the rails, and the axles at a right angle with them. 6. The wheels should not be keyed fast on the axles, but should have independent revolution, either at the axle or at the tire, so as to prevent all sliding friction between tire and rail on curves. 7. Each vehicle of the train being sufficiently long to run steadily by itself, should be coupled to the adjoining vehicles by a loose link, and not by a tight coupling. 8. The traction rods should run through the vehicle as a continuous bar, with longitudinal spring action, or an equivalent framing should be used, and with free radial movement in the headstock. 9. In all passenger trains there should be sufficient central space for the guard to pass from one carriage to another throughout the whole length of the train, and this without interfering with the privacy of first-class passengers. 10. The retarding or brake power should be applied RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 25 to every carriage, and if possible to every wheel in the train. It should be so arranged as to be applied at pleasure by either guard or driver, and to be instanta- neously self-acting in case of the separation of the continuity of the train by accident. In the question of haulage, the first consideration is whether the engine is intended for high speed, or for heavy loads and steep gradients. If for high speed and light loads, a single pair of driving wheels may suffice, but the fore and aft wheels should be so extended into a long wheel base, with such perfect action of the springs as to ensure steadiness and “ bite ” on the rails. The longer the wheel base the steadier the engine will be. But provision must be made for lateral radiation, to keep the wheels parallel to the rails. If a heavier load be needed, the driving wheels must be duplicated by coupling to a second pair either by side rods or by friction coupling wheels. The usual disadvantages of coupled wheels arise from impedimental friction, i.e. friction not useful for adhesion. If four driving wheels — two of which are driven by the cylin- ders — be connected by side rods, the accurate action must depend on the wheels being all of exactly equal diameters, and on the side rods being accurately keyed to the crank pins at equal length. But this is only adapted to straight lines. If upon curves, either two or all four of the wheels must slide or sledge, and the tires will then wear unequally, and become sledges on the straight ; thus requiring to be turned up to renew the equality of diameters. And if one or more of the tires be softer or harder than the others, this mis- chievous wear will be exaggerated. There are two methods of moderating this difficulty. The first is, to arrange the tires so that they may slip round on the wheels upon smooth and extended sur- faces between wheel and tire, and not between tire and rail. The second is, to substitute friction coupling wheels for the side rods, so that whatever be the diameter of the wheels, they will act equally well with- out strain upon the axles. For an engine required to draw a heavy load, it is essential that the whole weight of the engine should be available to the adhesive power of the driving wheels on the rails; for the adhesion depends, other things being equal, on the load. If the load be insufficient in pro- portion to the steam power employed, the wheels will slip on the rails, and therefore the load should be at least four times that of the steam power when plane surfaces of tires and rails are used, increasing in propor- tion to the slipperiness of the rails. If the wheel tires are perfectly rigid, a much more perfect rail will be required than where spring tires are used, i.e. elasticity applied between wheel and tire. When a pair of coupled driving Avheels — that is, two wheels coupled rigidly on the same shaft — are used to pass round a curve, the shaft must be exposed to more or less torsion, and the wheels to strain, and in this condition they jump from point to point on irregular rails, and slip with more or less mischief as the shaft regains its nor- mal position by reaction of the torsion. When two pairs of wheels are coupled together by side rods the mischief is increased, and, a fortiori , where three or four pairs are coupled together by side rods. When spring tires are used these evils are much alleviated. First, the tire slightly flattens on the rails. Secondly, it can rock sideways to equalise the tread on uneven rails. Thirdly, blows cannot take place. Fourthly, the wheel can, on emergency, slip round within the tire, to prevent the tire from slipping on the rails on curves. Lastly, there is no need of any great shrinking tension in applying the tires on the wheels, and there are no holes through the tire, so that there is no chance of the tire bursting when in action. Ex- perience on various lines has proved that tires so applied quadruple their durability, and positive experiments, long repeated, show that they have 20 per cent, more adhesion in ascending inclines as compared with rigid tires. There is another advantage. A heavier load may be borne on spring tires without damaging the tire or rail. Seven tons ‘on a wheel may be as easily borne on a spring tire as five on a rigid one. In the common construction of engines, it is essential to make them short on their wheel bases, to enable them to pass round curves. This has usually limited the driving wheels to three pairs coupled. But it is evident that the greater the number of wheels with equal loads the better will be the adhesion; and it is now practi- cable, by making the fore and aft wheels radiate to curves, to keep the wheels parallel with the rails under all circumstances. And by means of friction-wheel couplings between the crank drivers and the other wheels, every wheel in the engine, whether eight, or ten, or more, may be made adhesive, whether on the straight line or on the curve, and, with a proportionate increase of cylinder diameter, to draw any large load without loss of haulage by impedimental friction, and without damage to tires or rails. Of course, the smaller the diameter of the driving wheel in proportion to the length of stroke of the piston, the larger will be the load that may be drawn, but at a limited speed. But high-speed trains as a rule require smaller loads. With regard to the mode of coupling by friction wheels, their advantage has been demonstrated by actual experiment which corresponds to their true theory. In coupling wheels by means of cranks and rods, it is essential that the work should be perfectly accurate as to the lengths of the cranks and the lengths of the rods, and also that the diameters of the wheels should be exactly equal. If there be any variation in the lengths or in the diameter, the result must be sledging on the rails, causing grinding, wear, and waste, • E 2G RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. and torsion of the axles tending lo break them, with great waste of power, involving friction, and not available for duty or haulage. And although the engine when first constructed may be perfectly accurate, the process of wear very soon destroys the accuracy. One tire maybe softer than another, and so lessen its diameter in sliding along the rails, and in keying up the coupling rods as the bearings wear, the work may be done inaccurately. But even supposing the engine to be quite accurate in all its parts, it is only so as regards a straight line with rails like a pair of lathe-beds. On curves it is a mere sledge in which one wheel counteracts the movement of the other by friction, which is not useful, but impedimental. It is true that the coned diameters of the wheels may, by using sufficient play between the flanges, allow a certain compensation on curves, but this is only on the supposi- tion that the curves are quite regular — a supposition not borne out in practice, as may be seen by the serpentine line, marking the surface of the rails and denoting the path of the wheels. Theoretically, every axle should be rectangular to the rail on straight lines, and on curved lines it should point accurately to the centre of the curve, varying its position with the variation of the line. But where wheels are coupled by side rods, either four or six, the axles cannot vary with the curves, nor can the wheels run inde- pendently, to compensate for the difference in length of the tire rails. The only remedy in such case is to allow the tire to slip on the wheel instead of on the rail, and the slip in such case, with spring tires, is found to be no more than is needed to prevent torsion of the axles without affecting the usual adhesion on the rails essential to the haulage of the train. However loose the tire may be, it is evident that the load of the wheel will press on the lower half diameter. In sheet A, Diagrams Nos. 1 and 2, are shown spring tires for engines and carriages in cross sections. The spring is a hoop of tempered steel tapered edgewise, and overlying a hollow in the tire. Thus the wheel bears on the apex of the springs, and the tire can rock laterally to fit the rails, and can slightly flatten on the rail to induce better adhesion, while the slip round compensates for unequal length of the rails. In the carriage-wheels, there will not be weight enough to flatten the tires, even though made considerably thinner than they are required to be when rigid, for there is scarcely any strain upon them. The wheels are kept in position in the tires by the back ring which springs into a groove, and thus renders them perfectly safe, indeed much safer than ordinary wheels, inasmuch as there is no tension tending to burst the tire. A simpler and cheaper structure of spring tires may be applied for common wagons. Radial movement of the axles may be given in two or three modes. Diagrams Nos. 3 and 4, sheet A, are outline elevation and plan of the Great Northern engine, as regards wheels and axles. There are four coupled driving wheels as usual near the cylinders in front, forming a wheel base of 7ft. Gin. ; 12 feet behind them, making a total wheel base of 19ft. Gin., are placed a pair of trailing wheels with radial axle boxes, moving on a curved line to right or -left beneath the spring shoes which are fitted with brass bearings. The water is carried in a tank over the radial wheels, amounting to 1,000 gallons, and whether the tank is empty or full, the only difference in weight on the driving wheels is three hundredweight. These engines will run round a radius of four-and-a-half chains, or 300 feet, and run with perfect steadiness on the straight line at a speed over 50 miles per hour, either end fore- most. The length of wheel base being 19ft. Gin. on six wheels, it yet becomes practicable to increase that base to 31ft. Gin. by applying another pair of radial wheels to the other end while retaining the facility of passing round the same curves. In this mode the fuel may be carried behind the fire-box, and two thousand gallons of water in a tank in front of the smoke-box, making an express engine available for any distance or speed. The Diagrams 9 and 10, sheet A, are an elevation and section, showing a tank bolted to the smoke-box, forming as it were a continuation of it, a tube being carried through the whole length to warm the water and clean the fire tubes of the boiler, the smoke- door being fixed at the end of the tank. It will be seen that a certain amount of friction is involved in the movement of the spring bearing on the top of the radial axle-box, and although the tendency of the curvature of the axle-boxes is to keep the wheels central, still the movement must be effected by the pressure of the wheel flanges against the rails. With very heavy loads on the wheels this practice may be avoided by dispensing with the radial axle-boxes and guiding the wheels in another mode, giving free move- ment to the springs in every direction while using ordinary axle-boxes. Diagrams Nos. 7 and 8, sheet A, plan and elevation, show this arrangement. The ordinary axle-boxes are fitted with strong clips passing round them vertically, and connected to pivoted shackle-bars of great strength ; the other ends of the shackle-bar are pivoted to the frame of the engine or carriage in such a mode that the ends of the shackle-bars on the two opposite axle-boxes are 18 inches to 2 feet narrower together than the other ends are at the frame. The result of this is that as the flanges of the wheels press against the rails or curves to right or left, the axles are, by the action of these shackle-bars, put out of parallel with the rectangular cross-line of the frame, and assume posi- tions truly radial to the curves, the shackle-bars serving as Guides and retainers to the axles with much Greater strength than the ordinary horn plates, which are dis- pensed with. The bearing springs are pivoted on the RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 27 top of the axle-boxes, and carry the load by means of long suspending rods, the upper ends being hemispherical, and resting in cupped holes in the spring plate, provided with oil. The lower end of the suspending rod receives a nut of a similar form, taking a similar cup on a scroll or bracket attached to the carriage frame. Thus the top of the rod with the springs can move in a radius of six inches, giving free movement to the wheels acted on by the pressure of the flanges against the rails under the guidance of the shackle-bars. And the gravitation of the load upon the springs will always tend to keep the suspending rods vertical, and the axles at right angles when on straight lines of rail, yielding to the pressure of the flanges against the rail curves when required. As before mentioned, the greater the number of the driving wheels, the greater may be the power of the engine. For some time four driving wheels was the limit, then six obtained, and the load on them was gradually increased to obtain power. Then cylinders were applied to the tender by Mr. Sturrock for the pur- pose of converting tender weight into engine power, thus making a 12-wheeled engine capable of working two cylinders or four at pleasure. Some heavy tank engines have lately been introduced with eight driving wheels, all connected by coupling rods, the end wheels being enabled to slide laterally across the engine frame to the extent of five-eighths of an inch to either side by the pressure of their flanges against curves of the rails, and credit is taken for what is called an “ apparatus of translation ; ” in other words, for the use of spiral springs placed horizontally parallel' with the axles for the purpose of keeping the wheels central or centre-seeking when on a straight line. The defects of these tank engines are several. The amount of move- ment on the end axles only corresponds to a curve of 7^ chains radius, and with the axles abnormal to the curve, while the total weight of the engines, 5G tons upon eight wheels, is crammed into a length of 15ft. 3in., being at the rate of 7 tons per wheel, and 3 tons 14 cwt. per foot run of rails. Such a concentrated weight must seriously damage the permanent way and severely try the bridges. It is true that better rails and stronger bridges may be arrived at, but with greatly increased cost, and it is better to distribute the load over a larcer area. There are ten driving wheels, the six internal bein^ as the ordinary six-wheel goods engine, connected by coupling rods, the middle wheels being without flanges. The four end wheels are radial, and have a lateral tra- verse of four inches to each side. They are connected to the driving wheels by friction wheels, pulled up be- tween them from below by screws acted on by pinions or worm wheels, which may be tightened or loosened by the driver at pleasure. Very small pressure is needed, as the friction wheels act as wedges at an acute angle between the other wheels, and the action is on the peri- phery instead of on a crank pin, between periphery and centre. The fire box is 1 1 feet long, and has 300 feet of heating surface. A tank in front is attached to the smoke-box with a through tube, which serves to heat the water and give access to the small tubes, the smoke- door then being placed at the end of the tank, which holds 2,000 gallons of water. The fuel bunk behind the fire-box has GO feet cubic of space. The space for the driver and stoker has 40 feet super. The total weight is GO tons, or G tons per wheel, and the total wheel base being 28 feet, gives a load of 2 tons 3 cwt. per foot run of rails. All the wheels have spring tires, both bearing and friction. The total length of the engine is 40 feet over buffer beams, and it will roll round curves of 3| chains radius. This engine should be equal to a load of 420 tons up 1 in 50 at 20 miles per hour. In making steam the important question is what fuel is used. Coal with abundant hydrogen is a better material than coke or anthracite without hydrogen. The reason is a very obvious one. The heat must be brought into contact more or less direct with the heating surface. Where red fuel without flame is used, the connection with the heating surface is through the medium of heated air. But it is not practicable in a fire-box to heat air to the intensity of flame, nor will air communi- cate the heat so freely. But if the flame can be pro- duced in quantities so as to cover the whole heating surface of fire-box and tubes, and thus cut off all access of air, much more heat can be applied to the metal and absorbed by the water in a given time, and thus a boiler may be doubled in its steam-producing capacity. If properly applied, petroleum would probably be the best fuel, as it would supply pure flame; sprays of petroleum being forced into the tire-box with air under pressure so as to produce perfect combustion without smoke. In fact it would be a huge paraffin lamp, with the great advantage of getting rid of dust and dirt, probably tripling the duration of tire-box, tubes, and boiler, besides preventing the cutting of the machinery by particles of coke, with the facility of exactly adjusting the heat to the demand, and keeping up steam when required without opening or closing the fire door, just as a gas-jet is turned up or down. We must work in this direction before the locomotive will cease to be a nuisance. In using radial axle-boxes for engines, with the friction of the spring bases on the box tops under heavy loads, there is no trouble, for the care of the engine in- volves an almost constant oiling process, and the oiling of the spring bases can be simultaneous with the axle- bearings; but wi th wagons apt to stand aside and be neglected this might be disadvantageous. For this pur- pose the plan of radial shackle bars would be preferable, as involving no necessity for care. That carriages with 28 RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. radial axle-boxes will do very well, has been sufficiently proved on the Hartlepool line; but in all cases of radia- tion with six-wheel carriages, provision must be made to keep the central wheels true to the gauge while the end wheels radiate. Curvilinear axle-beds may also be used as wheel guides with common axle-boxes (see Diagrams Nos. 17, 18, and 19, plate A). When very large carriages are required for heavy loads, eight-wheeled vehicles are best, and in such case it is better to group them in fours towards the extreme ends, providing for the true radiation of the wheels and axles to curves. The structure of American long; carriages is familiar to most of our readers. A body some GO feet in length, with entrances at each end and seats along the sides, leaving a central passage way, accom- modates about 60 passengers, or a passenger per foot run. Practically there are two doors for 30 passengers each, and for a quick-worked metropolitan line this al- lowance would be scarcely found enough for rapid work. This long body is placed upon two four-wheeled frames called bogies — one at each end, with a central pivot to each, so that the bogies may swivel beneath them by an impelling force in any direction. These bogies are sup- posed to be guided by the rails against the flanges, and so they are; but inasmuch as the axles are for the most part very close together, as the leading wheels impinge on the outer rail of a curve they recoil, and the axles, in- stead of taking a position truly radial to the curve, become misguided and abnormal to the curves, and the machine becomes a sledge against the rails, as may be known by the grinding and jarring, and the effects of wear. To make them run moderately true under these conditions, the bogies require to be lengthened, and the axles kept as far apart as those of ordinary wagons. In fact the bogy system is practically neither more nor less than the ordinary railway timber carriage — a long body stretched over two wagons. To make the bogy act properly requires that the wheels should be truly guided, with the axles normal to the curves or straight lines. Moreover, the structure of the bogies necessitates the use of wheels of small diameter, and a generally in- efficient mode of springing. Diagram No. 12, plate A, illustrates the application of a guiding principle without diminishing the diameter of the wheels, by the construc- tion of under frames. Two pairs of wheels at each end of the carriage are connected four feet six inches apart by iron bars bolted to the top and bottom of ordinary axle-boxes. Between these bars and between the wheels is bolted transversely to the carriage and parallel to the axles a strong wide wooden beam. This constitutes the under frame. On this beam is bolted a strong flat iron, in the form of a quad- rant, with a central pivot-hole above the axle nearest the carriage centre, and at a sufficient height to give ample play to the bearing springs without the quadrant- iron touching the body above. The radius of the quadrant curve struck from the pivot-hole is sufficiently long to project it clear of the beam. A central pin from the upper frame passes through the pivot-hole, with power for rising and falling by the bearing spring action, and a pair of curved angle plates bolted to the upper frame in front clip the curve of the quadrant between them, like fore and aft horn plates, perfectly securely, but Avitli provision for curvilinear movement. Bearing springs are placed on the wheel frames, two on each side, and the body is suspended on them by the long swinging rods or shackles before described. It will be seen that thus the inner axle and wheels nearest the centre of the upper frame are a pivot on which the outer wheels swing round with the axles normal to the curve, when pressure takes place on the flanges of the wheels. And end guards are ap- plied to the boxes of the inner axle from the frame, to prevent the frame from altering its position length-long the axle when passing round curves with the outer rail greatly elevated. There remains just so much want of truth in the radiation of the axles as the dis- tance between them amounts to, which is not much in 4 feet 6 inches, even on the two-chain curve, which the carriage is fitted to run round— i.e. the convergence or divergence of two lines 5 feet long on a radius of 132 feet. But whatever it may amount to can be easily compensated for by the use of sliding spring tires. A carriage (see Diagram 12, plate A) 54 ft. long by 9 ft. wide may thus contain 12 bodies for 12 persons each, third class — total, 144. The same sized frame may carry 10 second class, with 100 passengers; and a simi- lar frame 8 bodies for 64 first class passengers. This gives an area of 3 square feet for each third class passenger, 4;| for each second class, and 7.( for each first class; and this is the consideration which should govern the proportioning of fares. Comparing this with the American carriages, we find that in a length of 180 feet of train 180 passengers are carried, all one class ; while in the carriages above de- scribed, 308 passengers are carried in a train length of 162 feet. And while the Americans number 30 per doorway for exit and entrance, this improved system gives 12, 10, and 8 per doorway — a manifest advantage in rapid passenger traffic. Assuming the ten-wheel engine before described to be capable of taking a load of 650 tons up an incline of 1 in 100, this system would facilitate the transport of 5,000 passengers in a single train — a very important question to consider when the conveyance of troops, whether volunteers or regulars, is concerned ; and a very important consideration for railways where the traffic might be doubled but the trains are too frequent. In the construction of trains a very important element is the friction of axle bearings, and the minimum of friction is obtained by the use of good lubricating oil instead of viscid soap. The use of the latter originally obtained as a compensation for inferior mechanical RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 29 structure. The viscid material enabled axles to be used of smaller bearing surface than could be used with oil, which can only maintain a cushion with ample surface. As axles are usually constructed, the bearing brass is held between two raised collars of the axle. This is a disadvantage to begin with, as it is the ten- dency of the lubricating fluid to ascend to the largest diameter, just as the strap of a machine works to the highest point on a drum wheel. And thus the grease or oil in a railway bearing works out to the shoulder collar, in spite of all contrivances to arrest it by leather shields and collars, and other futile work. And at the same point the dirt and grit gets in ; and as this small surface of collar has to sustain the whole shock of the blows of the wheel flanges against the rail, rapid wear ensues. By Diagrams Nos. 13 and 14, plate A, the axle is shown with a centre collar, and no end collar, and the bearing brass clips over this collar without touching the shoulder next the wheel. It is thus in a position to carry up the oil, and be perfectly shielded from dirt. The oil is contained in a cup below the axle, with the edges passing into a groove of the brass bearing, and the ends fitting tight to the axle, which is thus contained in a bath of oil nearly up to the middle diameter. The cup is held up by a spring acting on a wooden block at the bottom of the box, and by an opening the cup can be removed for cleansing. Oil can also be applied from the top of the box, which will pass into the cup below. As the brass wears, the spring keeps the cup up to its work. Curled horsehair or other waste may be kept in the cup till it wears to an exact fit. In using long and heavy trains facility of traction is most important in diminishing the strain on the trac- tion apparatus; but there is another question to be considered — the brakes. All rapid movement which is not destructive must be of gradual increase and as gradual decrease. Even a cannon ball, if discharged by a gradual expansion of gases, might start from rest with as little destruction as a spent ball. The force which is needful to attain rapid movement must go on accumulating till the full speed is attained, when a lessened amount of force will serve to keep up the speed to the maximum. If by any con- trivance that speed could be suddenly arrested, the force must pass into the body arresting it at the risk of de- struction, unless a sufficient amount of elastic yielding were provided, just as a cricket ball which would fracture a skull is arrested by the elastic yielding of the hands and arms ; or as a boy’s marble in rapid movement is checked by a marble at rest, which takes up the motion lost by the other; or as a limited number of highly elastic spheres placed in contact in a line will on being struck by a similar sphere in movement arrest it, and deliver the force through the whole number, till the last takes up the movement which has been lost bv the first. In a railway train the surplus force required to attain speed is called “ momentum,” and it will take the same time with the same resistance to absorb the momentum as it takes to create it. Or with increased resistance the time may be lessened. The circumstances of railway working with frequent trains require that the momentum be arrested in the shortest time possible, and that the arrestation be under the control both of guard and driver, and more especially of the latter. The means of arrestation has in almost all cases been confined to the pressure of wood blocks against the peripheries of the wheels, with more or less force, dependent chiefly on the judgment and skill of the guard. That judgment has been mostly in favour of applying as much force as possible, in order to prevent the wheels revolving, the result being that the wheels skid on the rails and grind flat places, with, on the whole, a less retarding effect than would be produced by friction between brake-block and wheel, while the form of the wheel is destroyed and great mischief produced. The earliest brakes used in railway wagons were cranked levers armed with a block of wood pressing on one wheel out of four. This arrangement required each wagon to be man handled, and was obviously not adapted to fast trains in rapid motion. When fast passenger trains began to run, brakes were applied to first-class carriages as being the heaviest, and a guard outside worked them from the roof, the guards being increased according to the number of the car- riages. In this arrangement, the brake-blocks were suspended from the frame, and pressed against the wheels by cranked shafts drawing or pushing rods in opposite directions. When the brake-blocks are loose on the wheels they chatter and make much noise, but when tight the action of the spring is prevented and the passengers annoyed by roughness, as though riding in a cart. By another arrangement this difficulty was sought to be avoided : this was fixing a longitudinal bar to each pair of axle-boxes, and placing slides on it to carry the brake-blocks by the same process as the hanging brakes. But neither was this satisfactory, and finally the brake-van came into use, carrying the luggage of the passengers, which was supposed to give weight enough for the adhesion of the wheels to the rails, by the application of the brake- blocks as before described. In a large train three brake-vans were placed, one at the back of the train, one next the tender, and one in the middle, requiring of course a guard to each. Still this was not satisfactory, and attempts were made, with more or less success, to apply brakes to all the carriages of a train, working them from the end, the usual brake-blocks suspended by hangers being used. One method was to wind up a spiral spring on each carriage, and, when needed, to discharge it by a trigger i communicating with the guard. Another method was II E C 0 R D OF MODERN ENGINEERING 30 to connect a series of brake rods from carriage to car- riage along the whole train by a system of toggle joints compensating for the play of the buffers. In both these cases the ordinary suspended brake-blocks were used, the apparatus being an improvement in the mode of applying them. In the case of the spring it was a secondary application of human force, to be renewed as often as the brakes were discharged; and in the other it was a severer task to apply the brakes, because the whole force had to be used simultaneously instead of carriage by carriage, as in the case of a spring. Another method used successfully on a metropolitan line was to con- nect several carriages by a chain passing from the brake- van and wound up by the guard, the varying lengths by the action of the buffer springs between the carriages being equalised by jointed bars carrying sheeves, and thus preserving the same amount of chain action under all conditions. Still, as the stations increased on the line, the importance of stopping rapidly increased, in order to work to time, and that a very short time. The next change was to employ a very long chain through the whole length of the train, hanging in a fes- toon as bight below each carriage. The whole chain passed through running sheeves attached to the frame, and as the chain was tightened up to a straight line every pair of hanging brakes on each carriage was pressed simultaneously against the wheels with a gra- dually increasing force, and without necessarily stopping any of them, thus producing sufficient friction to arrest the train, even against the whole force of the engine. To perform this operation a very considerable force was needed, quite beyond manual power, and so a very ingenious plan was resorted to of using the momentum of the train to arrest itself. A pair of friction wheels were suspended from below the guard’s brake-van, three to four inches from the running wheels. These wheels carried a barrel on which the end of the brake chain was wound. By bringing these friction wheels in con- tact with the running wheels by hand, for which pur- pose a very small amount of power was needed, the friction caused the suspended wheels and their barrel to revolve, and so wind up the chain and put the brake- blocks on to the wheels by tightening up the bights. When the pressure of the friction wheels against the running wheels was removed, weights on the chain at the centre of each carriage brought it again into the festoon form and the brakes were free. In the preparation of plans for radial carriages the writer had to consider how to arrange them to follow radial wheels, and that point ascertained the next ques- tion was as to the general conditions required in a per- fect system of brakes, which are as follows: — 1. The brakes to be continuous through the whole train. 2. To be self-acting but under the control of both guard and driver. 3. To be connected to the axle-boxes or frames on them and not to the body. 4. So to be arranged that guard and driver might divide the train between them on applying the brakes to more or less carriages, as might be deemed desirable. 5. The brakes to come into instantaneous self-action in case of a train separating on an incline. G. That every individual carriage when left on a siding might have the brakes on or off at the pleasure of the porters. With regard to the continuity it may be remarked that one difficulty has been the varying lengths of the train by the collapse of the buffers. This has been usually overcome by shortening the stroke of the buffers and diminishing the collapse, and provided the connec- tion of the brake chains or rods be sufficiently strong to draw the train together all that is needed is attained in that particular. With regard to self-action, there is the choice of two means — gravity or spring power. The writer prefers the former. But there is this considera- tion, that while the pressure is ample on the wheels, it is necessary to remove as much weight as possible from the acting power. The weighted lever or steelyard beam, with a long limb and a short one, furnishes this desider- atum. This weighted lever then will be self-acting, but it is necessary to put it out of action at times. For this purpose it is necessary to use the principle of the common sash window, a counter-balance weight just so much greater than the weight of the lever as to keep the brakes off the wheels. The next question is how to lift these counter-balance weights so as to allow the levers to descend. This is accomplished by a system of continuous rods or bars, with chain connections be- tween the carriages, running over sheeves to permit easy movement, springs being applied to vary the length of the rods to suit the play of the buffers. Thus the weight to be lifted, apart from the friction of the bars, will be only about 5 lbs. per carriage through about a foot space, and about 60 lbs. per carriage through an inch space, to have the full pressure of say 5 cwt. on the four wheels. The total run of the rods longitudi- nally would be just the space of lifting the counter- balance weights vertically. To leave the brakes free to act in case of the couplings breaking accidentally in working inclines, it is only needful to be able to fix the counter-balance weight out of action on a sliding bar, and keep the. brakes suspended by guard or driver, each taking half. If taking the whole, and supposing a train of twenty carriages, the total load to lift would be about 11 cwt., against the total brake-power of five tons on the peripheries of the wheels. The Diagrams Nos. 5 and G, sheet A, show in plan and elevation the simple mode in which this is worked out. The springs are omitted for the sake of clearness. Half of a long carriage is shown with a front wheel underframe and quadrant plate. On the central cross timber are bolted a pair of tunbras parallel to the wheels, and carrying the brake-blocks, so that in radial action the brakes move with the wheels. The brake-blocks are RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING 31 connected together by two bars, one at the top, the other at the bottom. From these bars, attached at the centres, project two longitudinal bars connected together and forming a long lever, the end of which farthest from the brakes is held up by a chain, with a counter-balance weight passing over a sheeve transverse to the carriage frame. This counter-balance weight keeps the brakes off the wheels. On the lifting of the counter-balance weight by the longitudinal rods, pulled by either guard or driver, the brakes press on the wheels. These longitudinal rods may be connected together throughout the train, thus applying brakes to every carriage. To provide for the action of the buffer springs, the rods that govern the brakes are divided into two lengths by springs slightly in excess of the force required to lift the counter-balance weights, so that elongation may take place when needed. Thus the brake power may be divided between guard and driver by leaving the rods unconnected at any part of the train, and in case of accidental severing of the couplings on an incline, the brakes will, if the counter-balance weights be sus- pended out of use, be instantly pressing on the wheels of the detached portion of the train. That is to say, in ordinary cases the counter-balance weights keep the brakes off, and on steep inclines the guard or driver keeps them off. It is obvious that these long carriages offer a great advantage in carrying the brakes directly on the wheels, and in permitting great length of lever. With shorter carriages the brake- blocks may be attached to levers projecting downwards from the axle-boxes, and with the levers at the upper portion above the axles pressing them into contact with the wheels, as shown below by Diagram No. 15, sheet A. A very ingenious system of working brakes is now on trial on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. Air-pumps are worked by means of piston wheels in the running wheels of the carriages to charge a reservoir with compressed air. This air is admitted to a cylinder below each carriage, and pressing on the piston, com- municates the power to the brake levers. This system promises well, if the working surfaces can be kept in order and sufficiently air-tight. There has been much discussion as to the best means of communication between guard and driver, but it all resolves itself into the question how to obtain a con- venient passage way through the train, which is the American method. If the carriages were constructed nine or ten feet wide inside there would be no difficulty. A passage in the centre 1 ft. 9 in. wide through a first class would leave space on either side for enclosed cabins holding four persons each, with sliding doors opening into the passage, and with folding doors externally, as usual. The passage would also be accessible from the end platforms. The second class would only need a central passage for the guard’s legs between the seats, 12 inches in width, leaving space for three passengers on each side; and the third class would not need a passage way, but simply sliding doors at the ends, like the first and second, to form through communica- tions (see Diagram No. 16, sheet A). THE RATIONALE OF THE SEWAGE QUESTION. After all the cost of the great Metropolitan sewers, it is by no means a settled question whether the dry method or the wet method be the best in dealing with sewage. So far as regards sewage which largely consists of water, it must of course be provided with conduits to carry it away ; but as regards solid matters, it is probable that in the lono; run water added to them in lar circular tops, with circular or flat inverts, were joined to egg-shaped sewers ; and egg-shaped sewers with the narrow part uppermost, connected with sewers of less capacity, having the smaller end downwards. Variety seemed to be aimed at, and not uniformity of action, and the adaptation of the size of each sewer to the duty it had to perform in the position which it occupied in the general system. li is quite obvious, however, that so many independent bodies acting over a district which could only be success- lid ly treated as a whole, and without a correct plan of the several districts, with accurate levels reduced to a uniform datum, could oidy result in confusion and dis- order, even supposing all parties concerned to act in unison and with the best intentions. These several Commissions sought for no other out- fall than the River Thames opposite the city, and as the sewage from the upland districts on each side of the river was retained in the sewers in the low-lying grounds near the river tor several hours of each tide, they virtually became elongated cesspools. During the period of six years after it became compulsory to convey all house- drainage by direct communications into the sewers, more than thirty thousand cesspools were abolished, and all house and street refuse sent into the river, and that at the most unfavourable state of the tide. The Thames was therefore converted into an open sewer, with its contents not very much more diluted than the sewage in the tide-locked sewers. The sewage being generally sent into the river about low tide, was carried back by the next flood tide, and continued to oscillate for several tides through the heart of the city. Several of the water-companies took their principal supply from the contaminated portion of the river, and the outcry became loud for a remedy for so great and obvious an evil. It became one of the attractive amuse- ments at the Polytechnic Institution to exhibit the huge monsters which were disporting themselves in the Thames water which was supplied by the water- companies to the inhabitants of London. In the year 1847 the eight independent Commissions of Sewers were superseded by one consolidated Com- mission, termed the “ Metropolitan Commission of Sewers,” the members of which were nominated by the Government. When this Commission came into office it could not but find that the independent action of the eight Commissions, which it had superseded, had led to anything but a satisfactory state of things ; and as some of the leading members of the new Commission appeared to possess considerable destructive powers, so far as to exhibit in the most absurd and ridiculous light the piecemeal operations of their predecessors, a report was soon issued making the most of previous defects. The result, however, proved that nature is somewhat parsi- monious in the distribution of her gifts, and seldom bestows on the same individual great destructive power to demolish tottering systems and to exhibit them in their worst guise, and at the same time reconstructive ability to devise and build up an efficient and a perma- nent system to replace those that have been destroyed. The new Commissioners not only arrived at the conclu- sion that all the practical operations of their predecessors were erroneous and defective, but that these operations were based upon false theory, and that the existing science of Hydraulics relied upon by English and foreign engineers was also erroneous and utterly untrustworthy, as applicable to the operations of this Commission in carrying out what was considered an improved and economical system of drainage for the metropolis. The following extract from the Report of the late Mr. Robert Stephenson and Sir William Cubitt (dated December 11, 1854) shows the opinion of these gentlemen upon the existing state of hydraulic science: — “No part of engineering science has been more industriously inves- tigated than the laws that govern the flow of water in pipes and open channels ; and it is probably not too much to say, that the formulae which represent these laws rank among the most truthful that the professional man possesses. They have been the subject of laborious experimental investigation of the most elaborate charac- ter, and their results have been tested by the practical man under every variety of conditions, without their truth being impugned in the slightest degree. The princi- ples upon which they are founded have been sanctioned and adapted by Prony, Eytelwein, Du Buat, and others; and it is to them that we are indebted, in a great measure, for the simple practical form which they present. Our own engineers have modified them to suit particular circumstances, and given them more extensive usefulness. Mr. Hawksley, amongst others, has especially contributed to render the principles which they embrace applicable to almost every variety of condition which the complete drainage of large towns involves ; and we shall have occasion, almost immediately, to adduce some instances within the metropolis where the facts confirm theoretical deductions in a very remarkable manner, and lead irre- sistibly to the conclusion -that they may be implicitly depended on.” These conclusions being arrived at,- the Commission organised what it called “ Trial W(3rks,” with the view not only to deduce a new and complete theory of hy- draulics from actual experiment, but also to gain some reliable information upon the best practical mode of executing works in brick and mortar, and thus acting upon the supposition that the theory and practice of engineering: science in England was so defective that it was necessary to experiment de novo upon both. In experimenting upon any science, such as hydraulics, for example, in order to establish reliable formula?, which can be expanded with safety considerably beyond the actual range of the experiments, it is well known to all engineers that the most perfect apparatus is RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING, 37 absolutely necessary, that the manipulation must be of the most precise and delicate description, and that the whole process must be under the superintendence of parties possessing the very highest scientific acquire- ments. That these conditions were all or any of them fulfilled in the Trial Works of this first Commission may be doubted, inasmuch as the immense calculating powers of the Astronomer Royal at Greenwich failed to elimi- nate reliable formula} from the whole mass of recorded experiments sent to the Observatory for examination. Nothing daunted, however, the experiments instituted at the Trial Works were made to result in the production of what has been emphatically called the “ small-pipe system,” which was strongly advocated by the Commis- sion, and indeed is still advocated by some of the members of this first Metropolitan Commission, as a pet project, to be adopted whenever an opportunity presents itself. It must be admitted that many of the brick sewers in existence in the metropolis when this Commis- sion came into office, were very much too large; but it is only amateur engineers who run from one extreme to a still more dangerous one ; as in this case, from a brick sewer, which could hold three times as much as it was ever likely to be required to carry off, to an earthen- ware pipe, which would carry off not more than one- third of the quantity which might be required to pass through it under certain circumstances. The sewers in the flat districts bordering on the Thames could hardly be too large, as they had to contain the local sewage as well as that sent down from the high land, for several hours during every tide. Within nine years after the formation of the first Metropolitan Commission of Sewers, the Commission was six times superseded, and six new Commissions appointed, all with different powers, and differing widely as to the talent of the members of the successive recon- structions. The first Commission commenced very vigo- rously with Trial Works, and a new era was expected to dawn upon the scientific world by the labours of the experimentalists. Their successors, however, discarded the entire system of experimental and trial works, very much to the disgust of the would-be scientific reformers, who have lost no opportunity, ever since, of deploring the ignorance and incapacity of their successors in aban- doning the experimental works and the theories said to be based upon them. The great difficulty with the Government of the day appeared to be to discover, by numerous trials, not the best mode of carrying out works, but the best mode of forming a governing body which could hold together sufficiently long to devise and execute some scheme that would allay the clamour, which was becoming louder and louder every day, on the subject of defective drainage in general, the pollution of the Thames in particular, and the occasional dread of the cholera, as well as the fatal results of several actual visitations. The eight Commissions to whose government London in all its extent was distributed previously to the year 1847, could not, from their independent action, be expected to devise and execute any great scheme ; neither could their successors, the six Commissions appointed in the space of nine years, during the limited period of their existence devise and carry out works of sufficient magnitude to meet the extensive and complex nature of the case. The subject of the drainage of London is sufficiently complex in itself, as a mere scientific problem; but during the existence of the six successive Commissions, various projects for the utilization of the sewage of the metropolis, and also for a grand scheme of water-supply, were brought forward, and very much complicated and retarded the whole question. Bagshot Heath was to be the gathering ground for the supply of London with water, pure and of the softest description, and millions of money were to be saved in the article of soap alone. The subject also was, to a great extent, a political one, and necessarily so. Taxation without representation is an old bone of contention, and the members of the earlier Commissions were the mere nominees of Government. Local self-government was also u» in arms against cen- tralization, and consequently the successive Commissions were modifications and compromises with the view of harmonising antagonistic interests. All these successive Commissions, even the most mischievous and crotchety of them, did something towards arriving at a good system. For several of the Commissions pointed in the right direction, and indicated, however faintly, what ought to be done ; whilst others went sufficiently far wide of the mark to point out very distinctly what ought to be avoided ; and this is no mean assistance in the endeavour to evolve a good practical system from a chaotic mass of ill-digested schemes, and in opposition to many conflicting interests. The want of a general survey of London, with accu- rate levels, was felt during the existence of the earlier Metropolitan Commissions, and the Ordnance Depart- ment undertook to execute the work for a stipulated sum of money. An outline plan of London and suburban districts was soon produced, based upon a trigonometrical survey, engraved and published upon a large scale, and also upon several useful reduced scales. This survey has become the basis of all railway and other projects, whether public or private, which have been undertaken since the completion of the work. The levels are re- duced to the mean sea-level at Liverpool, and when this datum is carried to London, it is eight feet six inches below the Trinity datum. Bench-marks are permanently recorded upon the walls of the most substantial and permanent buildings and other objects. The Metropolitan Sewers Act of 1848 (11 & 12 Viet, c. 112), which first established one general Commis- sion for the metropolis, limited the amount of rates, R E C O R D O F M O I) E R N E N G I N E E R I N G. 38 which the Commissioners were empowered to levy, to one shilling in the pound; a subsequent Act reduced the amount to threepence in the pound, which was not sufficient to keep in efficient repair existing works, and altogether inadequate to meet the expense even of getting up extensive and elaborate schemes, much less to execute them. The first Commission was superseded in 1849, and the second Commission issued. At this time the Thames had become full of sewage, and very offensive; the cholera was raging in the ill-drained districts of Ber- mondsey, and several other low-lying portions of the metropolis ; and as several of the water-companies con- tinued to take their supply from the Thames, abundant materials were furnished to the public press for an active and incessant agitation for remedies to meet such glaring' and destructive evils. In the midst of these perplexities the Commissioners advertised for designs for the purifi- cation of the Thames, which virtually included the whole question of the drainage of the metropolis. In answer to this application one hundred and sixteen plans were sent to the Commission. The examination of so great a mass of projects, of various degrees of merit or demerit, was very much complicated, and the arrival at a satisfactory result was prevented by plans being pre- pared by two of the officers of the Commission. Both of these plans found zealous supporters, and the contest was carried on warmly, and resulted in little more than a war of words ; whilst the public clamour for remedial measures waxing louder and louder, produced so great a pressure upon the Government that it was induced to displace this second Commission and to issue a third. It would appear from the known ability and profes- sional standing of the members of the third Commission, both as civil and military engineers, and as possessed of administrative abilities of the highest order, that they were well calculated, by accepting the appointment, to extricate the Government from the difficult position into which it had been placed by superseding the original local Commissions, and by being unable to organise a good workable general Commission. This Commission com- menced its labours by arranging and classifying the immense mass of plans sent in to the previous Commis- sion, but eventually arrived at the conclusion that none of these plans could be adopted for execution. This conclusion might be considered, from the nature of the circumstances, to be inevitable. The parties sending in the several projects were not in possession of sufficient reliable data to enable them to devise and thoroughly comprehend a plan of general drainage for the metropolis. To enter into anything like details on so extensive and complex a subject as the efficient and economical drainage of the metropolitan district, together with the purification of the River Thames, required a larger stock : of local information of an accurate and specific character than could be collected by the unaided efforts of indi- viduals, at least in the short time allowed, without undue expense and waste of time. It must also be borne in mind that at the period when the Commissioners advertised for plans, there was no authentic general plan of London in existence, with accurate levels reduced to a uniform datum, and consequently no sufficient basis existed upon which to build up a project. A compiled map on a small scale, with levels approximately correct, was furnished to those who intended to respond to the appeal of the Commission. Many of the plans sent in were doubtless of a very inferior description, and several of the projectors appeared altogether to lose sight of the object sought to be at- tained. There were, however, many of the projects in which the plan finally adopted was more or less vividly foreshadowed, and no doubt furnished useful hints to the parties working out the matured plans which have been successfully carried out — whether the best possible under the circumstances, time alone can tell. The Commission then appointed Mr. Frank Foster as their engineer, and instructed him to prepare a scheme for the main-drainage of the metropolis, placing at his disposal the pre-accumulated mass of information which lay before the Commission in the one hundred and sixteen plans sent in to their predecessors, and carefully classified, examined, and reported upon to the Commis- sion by a scientific committee of its members. Mr. Foster was assisted by Messrs. Grant and Cresy in the preparation of his plan for the interception of the sewage of the district south of the Thames, and by Mr. Haywood in preparing a plan for a similar purpose for the districts on the north side of the Thames. Mr. Foster’s plan of interception-sewers for the district south of the Thames was never completed, but his plan for the drainage of the district north of the Thames upon the principle of interception was completed in 1851. When this Commission was ready to commence the construction of the new system for the drainage of the metropolis, the Parliament deprived it of the power of raising more money from the ratepayers than was neces- sary to keep existing works in repair, and the Com- mission consequently resigned. In 1851 a fourth Commission was issued, and the Commissioners commenced the consideration of the plans prepared by Mr. Foster and his assistants; but, unfortunately, a member of the Commission proposed a rival scheme to that of Mr. Foster, and this caused a division among the Commissioners upon the merits of the two plans before them. Mr. Foster’s health failed under the anxieties of his position — sufficiently irksome under ordinary circumstances, but increasingly so when he was opposed by a part of the Commission. lie resigned his office and soon after died, and the Com- mission was superseded. A fifth Commission was appointed in the latter end of 1852, and was met at the outset of its proceedings RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING, by a scheme which was submitted to Parliament by a private company under the title of the “ Great London Drainage.” This company adopted the engineering project of a Mr. Morewood, who had been advocating the principle of interception from the year 1845. His principle was to have a deep sewer near the Thames on each side of it, and to carry off the whole of the sewage and rainfall to deodorising works in Greenwich and Plaistow Marshes, and there to pump the whole up to the surface, the heights being forty and fifty feet. No portion of the sewage or rainfall was to be carried off by gravitation. This system only professed to drain thirty- nine square miles on the south side of the Thames, and about thirty-one square miles on the north side. The company expected to derive a considerable profit from the fertilising agents recovered from the sewage, which was to be precipitated at the deodorising works, and sold as dry manure. The company, however, did not rely altogether upon the anticipated profits to be derived from the sale of the dry manure, a three-per-cent, guarantee upon one million pounds, the proposed capital of the company, being introduced into the Bill. A great part of the Parliamentary Session of 1853 was occupied in the consideration of this scheme, which was supported by engineers and contractors, but ultimately rejected by a Committee of the House of Commons on the evidence of distinguished engineers. Much valuable time, however, was lost, as the operations of the Commis- sion could not be carried on with confidence whilst a doubtful issue was impending. In the year 1854 Mr. Bazalgette succeeded Mr. Foster as principal engineer to the Commission, and was in- structed to prepare a system of intercepting sewers for the purpose of effecting the main-drainage of London. Mr. Haywood, the engineer of the city sewers, was asso- ciated with him in designing the portion of the work north of the Thames. When the plans for the drainage of the northern district were prepared, they were sub- mitted to the late Mr. Robert Stephenson and Sir William Cubitt, who were consulting engineers to the Commission, and who devoted much time and attention to the consideration of the plans laid before them, and ultimately recommended their adoption. At the moment, however, when the carefully-studied plans of the engineers appeared likely to be carried into execution, a new complication arose in consequence of proposals made to the Government by a gentleman of the name of Ward, whose plans received the sanction of the then Secretary of State for the Home Department. This plan involved the separation of the subsoil and surface -drainage of the metropolis, and a system of double drainage for each house. This plan was of so sweeping a character that all the steps which had been hitherto taken to perfect plans for the drainage of the metropolis would become useless by the adoption of the proposed alterations, and the 39 expense Avould be nearly doubled. It was, moreover, but a mere suggestion, and not a matured plan followed out to its ultimate results, and ought not to have been listened to. The Commissioners totally disapproved of the pro- posed system of drainage thus attempted to be thrust upon them, and, finding that they were at issue with the Government upon the fundamental principles of the operations which they were expected to carry out, forthwith resigned their office. A sixth Commission was appointed in the year 1855, and composed of members partly nominated by Govern- ment and partly chosen by election. This Commission invited new plans, and considered several of them, but did not arrive at any solution of the general question. It has also been surmised that many of the members of this Commission wasted much valuable time in making speeches. This Commission was superseded by the present Metropolitan Board of Works. Nothing could be more palpably evident than that this rapid succession of so many Commissions was a blot upon the administrative powers of the executive govern- ment, upon the principles of the constitution, and upon the common sense and engineering talent of the country. The successive Commissions broke down from one or more of the following causes : Amateur engineering, com- bined with a mania for experimenting; internal divisions, caused by members of the Commissions having pet projects of their own ; the want of funds to carry out extensive projects; undue Government influence; and an excess of oratory. The necessity for some decisive steps being taken in devising and carrying out an improved system of drain- age for the metropolis was becoming more and more urgent. The ravages of the cholera in the years 1831-2, 1848-9, and in 1853-4, were very great. In 1849 the deaths from cholera were 18,036, and in 1854 nearly 20,000 ; and whatever opinion may be entertained upon the nature of the malady, and the manner in which it is carried from one country or locality to another, nothing could be more evident than that imperfect drainage was a predisposing cause of the disease. The imperfectly- drained districts suffered very severely from the disease, and when these districts were properly drained they became quite free from it. In January 1856, Sir Benjamin Hall’s Metropolitan Local Management Act came into operation, which con- stituted the present Metropolitan Board of Works. Under this Act, the whole drainage area is divided into thirty-nine districts. The ratepayers of these districts elect from among themselves a prescribed number of representatives, who form a vestry or district board. These boards manage the drainage, paving, lighting i and other local improvements of their respective dis- tricts, and elect from their several bodies one or more members, in proportion to the population and the extent 40 RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING of each district, to fin in the Metropolitan Board of Works, which consists of forty-five members, presided over by a chairman, who is elected by the board. The board has control over the main sewers, the Thames Embankment, new streets, and all metropolitan improvements, and frames bye-laws for the direction and control of the several district boards. This Act concedes to the fullest extent the combina- tion of the representative and the rating principle. The Metropolitan Board of Works can only raise the amount of rate fixed by Parliament, and the rate- payers elect the members of the general board, and also of the local boards, who are responsible to them for the manner in which the rates are expended. The minor operations of drainage, lighting, paving, cleansing, and all local improvements of an ordinary character, are executed by the local boards, and by officers ap- pointed by these boards, thus extending local self- government almost to every ratepayer’s door. This Act also, in a very admirable manner, combines centralization with local self-government. The whole of the operations, which can only be treated as a com- bined system, are under the entire control of the central board and their respective officers ; any other mode of treating the main-drainage would be an utter failure. The multifarious operations of the several districts, if concentrated into one central office, would be altogether unmanageable, whilst the central board has sufficient control over the district boards to ensure uniformity of action. The central board has to find outfalls for the whole drainage area — the several district boards find an outfall in the nearest intercepting sewer. Individual complaints can be more easily made, and more readily disposed of, in the respective districts where they occur, than by an appeal to the central board. When the Metropolitan Board of Works was consti- tuted, Mr. Bazalgette was appointed principal engineer to the board, and received instructions to prepare plans for the drainage of the metropolis. These plans, when completed, were approved of and adopted by the board. Unfortunately, however, another delay was inevitable : for, notwithstanding that the Government failed so often to form a Commission which did not contain the elements of destruction within itself, or which could hold together sufficiently long to devise and carry out a practical system of drainage for the metropolis, it still clung to some vestige of control over the newly-constituted board, as may be seen by the following veto-clause in the Bill : — “That before the Metropolitan Board of Works com- mence any sewers and works for preventing the sewage from passing into the River Thames as aforesaid, a plan, together with an estimate of the cost of carrying the same into execution, shall be submitted by such board to the Commissioners of Iler Majesty’s Works and Public Build- ings ; and no such plan shall be carried into effect until the same has been approved by such Commissioners.” Ulie First Commissioner of Works, by virtue of the above clause in the Act constituting the Metropolitan Board of Works, refused his sanction to the plans sub- mitted to him by the board, upon a technical point. Ilis veto was resisted by the board, and the difficulty was ultimately removed. The First Commissioner, how- ever, submitted the plans of the Board of Works to three scientific gentlemen as referees, as may be seen by the following extract from the First Commissioner’s letter of the 31st December 1853, appointing and instruct- ing the referees : — “ The First Commissioner wishes also that you should not confine yourselves merely to the plans submitted by the Metropolitan Board of Works; he desires to have the fullest information you can afford him ; and if you can devise any other scheme which may, in your opinion, be better calculated to carry out the object in view, he requests that you will in your report set forth that scheme, in order that he may lay it before the Metropolitan Board of Works for their consideration.” The above extract shows that the whole question, upon its broadest basis, was again fairly opened, as there was no limit set to the investigations of the referees. There can be no doubt but the Act under which the Metropolitan Board of Works was constituted gave to the First Commissioner a veto upon the plans of the board ; but it is not so clear that the Act gave him power to substitute a fresh scheme, to place before the Metropolitan Board of Works as a counter-project to that which had been propounded by the board, and submitted for the First Commissioner’s approval. The referees, armed with full powers to investigate the whole question, seemed to bestow very little labour upon an examination of the plans of the Board of Works submitted to them, but set vigorously to work to devise an entirely new project, extending much beyond the drainage area sanctioned by the Act. The first step was to advertise for gratuitous aid from anyone disposed to supply plans or suggestions, in the following terms : — “ The plans for the main-drainage of the metropolis having been referred to Captain Douglas Galton, R.E., James Simpson, Esq., C.E., and Thomas E. Blackwell, Esq., C.E., notice is hereby given that all persons desirous of communicating with those gentlemen upon the subject may direct letters, plans, &c., to them at their office, No. 29 Great George Street, Westminster, on or before the 2 th February next. Dated 10th January, 1857.” Directions followed as to scales, margins, &e. Several hundred plans and suggestions were sent in to the referees in response to the above invitation — indeed, such a mass of ill-digested and irrelevant matter as was much more likely to confuse, than to enlighten and assist, the referees. The idea and means of utilising the sewage entered largely into almost every project. The referees also had chemical investigations made by eminent chemists, upon “ the influence of sewage upon HE CORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 41 the river,” the “ actual agricultural value of London sewage,” “which of the various inodes for treating sewage by chemical agents would be the best,” the “ value of sewage for purposes of irrigation,” the “ manu- facture of sewage in a sanitary point of view,” and also “ with regard to the several modes of deodorization, simply as such.” The chemical report sent to the referees is a very long and, no doubt, a very valuable one; a great portion of the report is, however, taken up with the apparently endless question of the utilization of sewage for the purpose of manure; and the conclusion arrived at is, “ that the problem of profitably recovering the valuable constituents of sewage remains, up to the present mo- ment, unsolved, and very faint indeed are the hopes that the progress of chemical discovery will supply the means of so doing.” The report of the referees to the First Commissioner is dated 31st July 1857. The referees disapprove of the outfalls proposed by the Board of Works in Erith Reach, and propose that the outfall on the north side of the Thames should be between Mucking Lio-hthouse and Thames Haven, in Sea Reach ; and on the south side, at Iligham Creek, in the Lower Hope. The referees also state that the plan of the Metropoli- tan Board of Works does not provide for the removal / of a sufficient quantity of sewage from the metropolitan districts, that the channels leading to the outfalls are not sufficiently large ; and they propose to construct a channel on the north side, 39 feet broad and 1G feet 6 inches deep, and on the south side 37 feet broad and 16 feet deep, with a fall of 6 inches per mile, and a velocity of 2 feet 6 inches per second. But the above velocity could not be maintained unless the channels are kept nearly full, and when this cannot be done by natural means, it is proposed to be effected artificially by a supply of water from the Thames at high tide, in some cases directly, but principally by means of storage reservoirs. The referees also extended the drainage area beyond the metropolitan district 130 square miles on the north, along the valley of the River Lea, and 86 square miles on the south, along the valleys of the Ravensbourne, the Wandle, and Baveley Brook. It is difficult to account for this extension of the drainage area, as, upon the same principle, there can be no valid reason given why the whole valley of the Thames, with its numerous tributaries, should not be treated as one drainage area up to its source. The referees also propose not to con- sider the River Thames as naturally dividing the drainage area into two distinct portions, but propose to transfer the sewage from the western low-lying districts on the north to the south side, by a tunnel under the bed of the river at Battersea, and to raise it by pumping into a sewer on a higher level. Among the many hundred projects which had been submitted to the several com- missioners, and to the Government referees, there .was an almost unanimous opinion that the River Thames divided the metropolitan drainage area into two separate and distinct systems, requiring separate and distinct treatment, and separate outfalls. The schemes of the referees, however magnificent and expensive, can only be considered as crude suggestions, inasmuch as that they abandoned position after position, and proposed fresh plans and modifications whenever their plans were brought to a scientific test. On the 24th November 1857, the Metropolitan Board of Works appointed Messrs. Bidder, Ilawksley, and Bazalgette to report to the Board the best means of carrying out the main drainage of the metropolis. To these gentlemen was submitted the report of the Board, which had been sent to the First Commissioner, and by him referred to the referees, together with the volu- minous report of the referees. These gentlemen set vigorously to work, and sent their report to the Board of Works on the 6th April 1858. Their first operations were generally confined to an examination of the report of the referees, and frequently to such a dissection of the report as induced the referees to alter and mod : fy their plans three several times, not in mere details, but in essential and fundamental principles. The first plan proposed by the Government referees involves, among other propositions, the following important points: — 1st. A wider extension of the metropolitan drainage area. 2nd. The construction of main sewers capable of discharging greatly increased volumes of sewage and rainfall. 3rd. The construction of reservoirs and channels on both sides of the Thames, for the purpose of flushing and diluting the contents of the proposed outfall sewers . 4th. Outfall sewers extending for about 24 and 23 miles on the north and south sides of the river respec- tively. ‘ 5th. The discharge of the sewage into the Thames at two points below Gravesend. 6th. The transfer of the western division of the northern low-level sewage from the north side to the south side, by means of a tunnel under the Thames at Battersea. In the first report by the referees, it was proposed to have two great outfall sewers, partially uncovered and partially tidal- the sewage to be diluted by six or seven times its own bulk of water. This plan was modified by subsequent plans. The great difficulty which the adoption of remote outfalls necessarily creates, when the fall is very small, is, that velocity of current must be obtained by increas- ing the quantity of the fluid mass in order to increase the hydraulic mean depth ; and this hydraulic mean depth must be kept up to a uniform regime by artificial a 42 RECORD OF MODERN ENCxINEERING. means, as the flow of sewage is not uniform, and, when combined with rainfall, is still more irregular as to quantity. The referees proposed to maintain this con- stant hydraulic mean depth by taking in water from the Thames at high tide, at the head of their outfall sewers, and also by a supply of water from reservoirs, ■which were to be constructed on each side of the river, at points which were from time to time altered in the several plans proposed by the referees. These remote outfalls also encountered many and great difficulties in passing rivers and streams by the outfall channels. In some cases it was proposed to pass in syphons, on the north side, for example, under the River Lea, the Three Mill Stream, and the Channelsea River (a branch of the Lea), and also under the River Iloding at Barking. On the south side of the river there were also many diffi- culties encountered, the mode of overcoming which does not appear to have been maturely considered. The Darent was to be crossed under by a syphon, but in a subsequent plan it was proposed to be carried over the sewer in an iron aqueduct. The referees appeared to have anticipated some diffi- culties in the working of syphons, or, as they called them, “depressions,” under the rivers and streams crossed by the outfall channels; they proposed to lower the sewers, so “ as to enable the several streams to be passed without any depression of the bottoms.” In con- sequence of this alteration of depth, in order to regu- late the velocity, the width was to be respectively 25 and 22 feet at the head, gradually increasing to no less than GO feet and 57 feet at the outfalls. As these lanje sewers could never be supplied with sufficient drainage- water at their upper ends, it was proposed to make them tidal through their whole length, the tide entering from their lower ends. Under the first plan, the outfall channels were to be open for the greater portion of their length, but in the second plan they were to lie covered, with the exception of portions near their lower ends. Another important alteration was, that the sewers at their upper ends were to be depressed 9 feet 6 inches and 10 feet respectively, and at the outfalls 3 feet and 3 feet 6 inches respectively; they were also to be brought to a uniform fall of 6 inches to a mile. The third plan of the referees altered the outfall chan- nels in almost every particular, as to direction, size, and levels. On the north side the outfall sewer commenced near the River Lea, 24 feet G inches below Trinity high- water mark, and for the first four miles of its course the sewer would have an average internal width of 22 feet, and an average depth of excavation of 34 feet G inches. The internal width of the channel would be gradually increasing to 35 feet, with a depth of excavation of 50 feet, and terminating in an open channel about 32 feet deep, and an average width of 118 feet at top- water, 'l’lie level of the bottom of the channel at the outfall is 17 feet below average low-water mark at Sea Reach. On the south side of the river the outfall channel commences at the River Ravensbourne, 23 feet G inches below Trinity high-water mark. The first three miles of its course would pass partly through a densely-populated locality, and partly through Greenwich Park, at an ave- rage depth of excavation of 40 feet G inches. The tunnels on this line are — at Woolwich, 1| mile long; at Erith, two tunnels, 150 and 630 yards long respectively; and at Gravesend, passing under the heart of the town, 2,300 yards long, with an internal width of 30 feet 6 inches, and a height in the clear of 34 feet G inches. After the Gravesend tunnel the sewer will pass under the Thames and Medway Canal. The open portion of the channel will be two miles and 1,500 yards long, 32 feet deep, with an average width of 108 feet at top-water. The bottom of the proposed outfall at Higham Creek will be about 5 }j feet below the average low-water mark at Sea Reach. In this outfall sewer there are very deep cuttings between the tunnels, producing great quantities of surplus earth, which must be disposed of. This very cursory glance at the magnitude of the works proposed in the execution of these outfall sewers must convince any one that the engineering difficulties are of no ordinary description. The sewers in a large por- tion of their course will pass through silt gravel, quick- sand, and chalk, charged with an almost inexhaustible quantity of water, being placed at a level of 4 or 5 feet below mean low-water mark. As the very deep excava- tions are proposed to be taken out vertically, and of the exact width for the reception of the brickwork and concrete, there must be at least 40 miles of timbered channels ; and considering the width of these channels, this timber strutting would be a matter of great difficulty, danger, and expense. The pumping of so much water as may reasonably be anticipated from an average depth of 30 or 35 feet, would prove to be an operation ol considerable magnitude and great expense. In such treacherous soil it is evident that the brick- work constructed in open cuttings, and subsequently filled in, would require to be of the most substantial character, and there would be no portions of the work where an invert coidd be dispensed with. The tunnels being of greater dimensions than the usual railway tunnels, would require to be very sub- stantially built, and of the best material, as the sewage would doubtless have a deleterious effect upon the lining of the channels through which it flowed. The thickness of the brickwork estimated by the referees is very much less than what is in general employed in railway tunnels, being only 18 inches in the lower half, and 22 i inches in the upper half. There is concrete on the outside of the brickwork, averaging about the thickness of the brickwork, which maybe very useful as a. packing behind the walls when the timbering is being removed, but can add very little to the strength of the brick casing. The referees appear to have had some mis- RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 43 givings upon the subject of strength, and they have inserted “ longitudinal ribs,” apparently for the purpose of strengthening the brick lining of the tunnels, but it is difficult to comprehend how ribs placed longitudinally can add to the strength of the tunnel. Had the ribs been placed as circular rings, not very distant from each other, they would have acted as counter-forts act in strengthening revetment walls. In the third and most improved plan of the referees, there appear to be great difficulties experienced in devising the means of crossing the watercourses of the district. The syphon system appears in this plan to be abandoned, and the levels of the sewers being altered, several of the watercourses are now proposed to be passed through the course of the sewer by large iron troughs ; and, in order to maintain equal sectional area throughout the channel, to insure uniformity of flow, the sewer is widened out at the points where the troughs are placed. On the north side of the Thames, the Rivers Channelsea and Roding, the Dagenham and Rainham Brooks, and the Mardyke at Purfleet, are to be passed through the sewer. There are some streams also said to be taken into the sewer, but which the levels will not permit to be so treated. On the south side of the Thames the River Darent and the Thames and Medway Canal are to be passed over the sewer in iron troughs ; and the Springhead stream, near Northfleet, is to be passed through the sewer in a pipe. From Woolwich to Erith, and from the River Darent to Greenhithe, no provision is made for passing the upland waters across the sewer. This is a very serious omission, as the marsh-lands, being cut off from the upland waters, would be materially injured thereby. Tide-filled reservoirs on both sides of the Thames were a peculiarity of the several plans and modifications of the referees. By the first plan the reservoirs we^e to be placed in Plaistow Marshes on the north side of the Thames, and in the Ravensbourne Valley on the south side, but in both these situations there were insurmount- able difficulties to contend against; and the second plan placed the northern reservoir at Channelsea Island, and the southern in the Greenwich Marshes; the third plan placed the reservoir on the south side near Deptford Creek, on the north side of Greenwich railway station. In some positions of the reservoirs the levels were so arranged that considerable engine power would be necessary to pump the water from the reservoirs into the outfall channels. Under the most favourable aspect of the case the reservoir system could only be a failure, the difficulty being that of regulating the levels, so that the reservoir could be filled sufficiently from the Thames at spring and neap tides, the supplying of water from the reservoirs to the outlet channels in such quantities as to dilute the sewage to such an extent as the referees considered essential, and the supplying of scouring water so regular as to keep up a uniform flow in the channels. The water from the Thames would be so turbid that the reservoirs would be settling-ponds for the accumulation of mud, which could only be re- moved by dredging and at great expense. There can hardly be a doubt that the idea of collecting, diluting, and scouring water in reservoirs, so tenaciously adhered to by the referees in all their plans, materially em- barrassed and vitiated their several plans of outfall sewers. The reservoirs would be very costly in them- selves, expensive to keep clear of mud, and not only use- less, but would materially increase the evils they were designed to remedy. In some of the projects of the referees, the outfall channels are said to be tide-locked, and in other cases to be tidal throughout, the tide entering from the lower ends. AY hen tide-locked, there would be a considerable period of time during each tide when the sewage in the outfall channels would be in a perfectly quiescent state, and consequently the weighty matters held in suspension would be deposited; and when the tidal flow admitted into the channels at the points of outfall would meet, and neutralise the downward flow of sewage, there would also be such a quiescence as would cause a con- siderable deposit. But a still greater deposit would result from the circumstance that the bottom of the proposed outfall sewer on the south side of the Thames will be about 1 5^ feet below average low-water mark at Sea Reach, and on the north side about 17 feet below average low- water mark at the same point. It must be evident, therefore, that the seAvage in the portions of the outfall channels placed below the mean of loAv-tide level must remain in a perfectly quiescent state, and become perpetually tide- locked, and, consequently, elongated cesspools to all intents and purposes. In the first plan proposed by the referees, the greater portion of the outfall seAvers Avere open, but in the second and third plans there Avere only a feAV miles at their Ioavci* ends open. The proposal to pass rivers through the outfall seAvers is probably a novelty in engineering science. After a careful examination of the several plans pro- posed by the referees, the engineers appointed by the Metropolitan Board of Works came to the folloAving con- clusions : — “ That the plan recommended by the Govern- ment referees is needlessly large, excessively costly, and, as a Avork of construction, all but impracticable.” Also, “ that the probable cost of the smallest project Avill be upAvards of 9,000,000/.” Experiments Avere made in the river Avith floats by all parties avIio Avere investigating the points of outfall most proper to be adopted in the disposal of the seAvage of the metropolitan district. But as far as mere sewage is concerned, the float experiments are most fallacious, there being no analogy betA\ r een a float occupying a given position in the stream, and a mass of seAvage becoming decomposed and incorporated Avith a great RE C O It D OF MODERN ENGINEERING 44 body of water so soon as it enters the river. The float experiment may, however, give some approximate data as to the period of tide most proper for the dis- charge of sewage into the river. It is said to be demonstrated by a series of float experiments, that “ 'flic delivery of the sewage at high- water into the river at any point is equivalent to its dis- charge at low-water at a point twelve miles lower down the river; therefore the construction of twelve miles of sewer is saved by discharging the sewage at high instead of low-water.” The general principle upon which all drainage schemes must be based is, first, the determination of the drainage area; secondly, the outfall, or the point where the sewage can be most conveniently disposed of; and thirdly, the best means of collecting and conveying the sewage to the outfall. In applying these general prin- ciples to any particular locality, several other points of primary importance will present themselves. Applying these principles to London and the suburban districts, it is very obvious that the River Thames divides the drainage area into two distinct portions; and being dissimilar as to levels and other peculiarities, each district must have a distinct treatment. The northern and southern limits of these drainage areas are obviously the watershed on each side of the valley through which the river flows. The plan proposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, condemned by the Government referees in almost every point, but approved, with slight modifications, by the engineers to whom the question of metropolitan drainage had subsequently been referred, appears to lie, in its broad principles, to accept the drainage area which nature has pointed out; to allow no sewage to pass into the Thames from the drainage area, but to dispose of it at points of outfall on the river most remote from inhabited districts, but not so distant as to deprive the outfall channels of an efficient scouring descent. The sewage in the low-lying districts north and south of the Thames could not be disposed of but by raising it to a higher level by artificial means ; and this, under any circumstances, being an expensive process, the principle of not permitting any sewage from the upland districts to flow into the low-lying sewers was carried out to the fullest possible extent, by a system of intercepting sewers carrying off their contents by gravitation to the proposed outfalls. In the almost interminable discussions upon the drainage question, the purification of the River Thames, the positions of the outfalls, and the nature and capacity of the outfall channels, appear to have engrossed much more attention than the still more important considera- tion of rendering clean and wholesome the dwellings of the immense population of the metropolis, and more especially the densely-populated and ill-drained districts inhabited by the poorer classes, who can seldom ever breathe purer air than the poisoned atmosphere of their own lanes and alleys. There can be no doubt that the difficulties of the drainage of the metropolis were greatly increased by the previously existing drainage having been constructed upon erroneous principles, under divided and conflicting authorities. The plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was finally approved, and which has been carried out (see Plate No. 1), consists, on the north side of the Thames, of two principal lines of sewers, which discharge their con- tents by gravitation into the river at Barking- Creek at high tide. The most northern of these sewers com- mences to the south of Ilighgate, by .a junction with the Fleet Sewer, passes along Gordon Hoive Lane, across the’ Ilighgate Road, and under the Great North- ern Railway and the New River to High Street, Stoke Newington; thence proceeding eastward to the valley of the Hackney Brook, and crossing the Victoria Park to Old Ford. This sewer is about 7 miles long, and , drains an area of about 10 square miles. The Mid-Level sewer commences near the Harrow Road at Kensal Green, passes under the Paddington Canal into the Uxbridge Road, along Oxford Street, Hart Street, Liverpool Street, across Clerkenwell Green, along Old Street, and nearly direct to the south-west corner of Victoria Park, where it passes under the Regent’s Canal, to a junction with the High-Level sewer at Old Ford. The length of this sewer is about 9.| miles, and the area intercepted is 17| square miles. In order to carry off the greatest possible amount of sewage by gravitation, there is also an intercepting branch-sewer carried along Piccadilly, through Leicester Square, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and joins the Middle-Level sewer at King’s Road, Gray’s Inn Road, the length of which is about two miles. The fall in the High-Level sewer is considerable, ranging, at the upper end, from 1 in 71 to 1 in 376, and from 4 to 5 feet per mile at the lower end. The Northern Outfall sewer commences at Old Ford, where it receives the contents of the High and the Middle-Level sewers, and extends to the point of dis- charge into the river at Barking Creek. This outfall sewer is a work of peculiar construction, as it is raised considerably above the surrounding ground, upon an embankment, and a portion of the lower end upon brick arches. This mode of construction has been adopted for the purpose of discharging the sewage into the river at the point of outfall at high tide; it also gives great facilities for crossing over rivers, streets, public roads, and railways, in its course. The first portion consists of two parallel culverts, as far as Abbey Mills; and as the contents of the Low-Level sewer are raised at this point into the Outfall Sewer, the remaining portion of it consists of three parallel culverts. The whole of this outfall channel has a fall of 2 feet per mile, and the invert of the sewer at its outlet is about 45 RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 18 inches below high-water mark. At the outfall there is a reservoir (see Plate No. 13) covering acres, and divided into four compartments by partition-walls. The engineers to whom the plans of the Board were referred, recommended that “ the Northern Outfall sewer be con- structed in brickwork, and not in iron as designed, and that a carriage-road of 40 feet, be formed over it.” The Low-Level intercepting sewer on the north side of the Thames was originally intended to pass along the Strand, Fleet Street, and to the south of St. Paul’s. This direction of the sewer was very much objected to, and if carried out would have been a very in- ferior plan to that which is being executed in the northern Thames Embankment. The question of the embanking of the Thames was at that time very much agitated, and in the report of the engineers, to whom the plans of the Board of Works were referred, an earnest conviction is expressed that “ the Middle and High-Level sewers on the north side should be first pro- ceeded with, not only for the more speedy relief of the low-lying districts from floods, but also to afford time for a determination to be come to with respect to the suggested formation of a Thames Embankment in con- nection with the construction of the northern Low-Level sewer.” So soon as an Act was obtained for embanking the Thames, it was necessary to reconsider the whole subject of the lowdevel drainage on the north side of the river. The Low-Level intercepting sewer, properly so called, commences at the Grosvenor Canal, Pimlico, and passes under Lupus Street and Bessborough Street, to the bank of the river near Yauxhall Bridge; thence alono- the bank of the river, Millbank Street, passing through Old and New Palace Yard to tlie sewer in the Thames Embankment at. Westminster Bridge, and continues in the embankment as far as Blackfriars Bridge ; thence it will pass under a portion of the new street to the Mansion House, and thence by tunnelling to Tower Hill. From Tower Hill the sewer is carried by tunnel- ling under Mint Street, Cable Street, Commercial Road, Limehouse Cut, Bow Common, and the River Lea, to the pumping-station at Abbey Mills, where its contents are raised 36 feet by steam-power into the outfall channels before described. There are two branches connected with the lower end of this sewer, one from Homerton, and the other from the Isle of Dogs, a district where the extensive river- frontage is becoming the site of numerous factories and works, and is largely populated by artisans and work- men. The length of the main line is 8|, miles, and its branches are about 4 miles in length; its inclination ranges from 2 to 3 feet per mile, and it is provided with storm- overflows into the river. The Low-Level sewer drains an area of 11 square miles, and is also the outlet for the drainage of the western suburb of London, comprising an area of about 141 square miles, and lying so low that its sewage has to be lifted a height of 17 J> feet into the upper end of the Low-Level sewer. This western drainage area includes Fulham, Chelsea, Brompton, Kensington, Shepherd’s Bush, Hammersmith, and part of Acton. The drainage of the south side of the Thames required a different treatment from that applied to the north side. On the south side of the river there is an extensive low- lying district, thickly populated, and subject to be flooded, not only from very high tides in the river, but from the upland districts during excessive rains. It was necessary, therefore, in designing the intercepting sewers for this district, to give them sufficient capacity to carry off the storm rainfall, and not permit it to fall into the low-lying grounds. It was also desirable to dispose of this storm rainfall as soon as possible, and not to carry it to the outfall, as no portion of the sewage on the south side of the river can be sent into the Thames at high tide by gravitation. The southern main line of intercepting sewers com- mences at Clapham, and passes through Brixton, Camber- well, Peckham Rye, New Cross, to Deptford Creek. The Efra Branch commences at Dulwich (from which issue two branches, one to the Crystal Palace, and the other to Lower Norwood), passes through East Dulwich and Peckham Rye, where it runs parallel to the main line to Deptford Creek. These sewers together drain about 20 square miles, and the storm- waters collected from this area are disposed of by an overfall into Deptford Creek; whilst the sewage, together with the ordinary rainfall, is pumped into the outfall channel, which conveys them by gravitation to the outfall. The Low-Level sewer on the south side of the Thames commences at Putney, passes to the south of Battersea Park, through Lambeth and Walworth, to the Old Kent Road, along which it proceeds to Deptford Creek. This sewer, together with the Bermondsey branch, drains Putney, Battersea, Nine Elms, Lambeth, Newington, Southwark, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Deptford, comprising an area of 20 square miles; its length is about 10 miles, and the length of the Bermondsey branch about 2 miles. The fall of the main sewer is from 4 to 2 feet per mile, and the fall of the branch about 4| feet per mile, and the contents of both main line and branch are raised to a height of 13 feet into the outfall channel. The Southern Outfall sewer commences at Deptford Creek, where it receives the sewage from the High-Level sewer by gravitation, and that which is pumped into it from the Low-Level sewer, and passes through Greenwich and Woolwich to Crossness Point, in Erith Marshes. This outfall channel is miles long; it is 11 feet 6 inches in diameter, and has a fall of 2 feet per mile. This sewer has been constructed at a depth of about 16 feet below the surface of the ground, except the RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 46 portion through Woolwich, where the depth varies from 45 to 75 feet. The soil in which it is constructed is gravel, sand, and chalk, with great quantities of water in passing through the Plumstead and Erith Marshes. The whole of the sewage of the south side of the Thames is raised at Crossness to a height varying from 10 to 30 feet into reservoirs, from which it is discharged during the first two hours after the com- mencement of the ebb tide. The reservoir (see Plate No. 19), which is covered, is (bj> acres in extent. In designing a system of intercepting sewers, the capacity for receiving and carrying off sewage and other matters must vary according to the duty each portion has to perform, and generally have a gradually in- creasing rise from the head of the sewer to the outfall. In adapting the size of the sewer to the different localities through which it passes, several circumstances must be taken into consideration. Some of the necessary data may be accurately ascertained, and others, by varying degrees of approximation ; the fall in the sewer may be accurately ascertained; the existing quantity of sewage to be carried off may be ascertained with sufficient accuracy by numerous gaugings, and the prospective increase in the quantity from an increase of population may be estimated with tolerable certainty ; but the most uncertain element to be dealt with is the rainfall. A material distinction should be made between the quantity of rain to be carried off by the sewers and the actual rainfall on drainage area. The latter is the gross quantity which reaches the earth, and the former is only the residual after absorption, evaporation, and other causes of diminution. The variations of atmo- spheric phenomena are far too great to admit of any philosophical proportion to be established between the rainfall and the sewage flow. In the system carried out by the Board of Works, the only real safe plan has been adopted — that of providing overflows along the natural drainage valleys, and allowing the excessive rains, which only occur for a few days in the year, to flow off. Should there be no points of overflow pro- vided, the sewers must be made to carry off the most extreme rainfall on record. In the storm of 1st August 1846, the rainfall in 2 hours and 20 minutes was 33 inches. The plan of internal drainage for the metropolitan districts proposed by the Government referees, differs in many essential points from the plan of the Board of Works, which is now nearly completed. The two plans for the High-Level sewer on the north of the Thames did not materially differ from each other; that of the Board of Works was, however, preferable, as it went further to the west, and intercepted the two higher branches of the Fleet sewer, and the waters descending from the high grounds of Hampstead and Highgate. From the northern High-Level sewer to the Thames, the plan of the referees differs very essentially from that of the Board of Works; they disapprove of the Middle and Low-Level sewers of the Board of Works, and propose a main intercepting sewer to drain eastward to Abbey Mills, and there to be discharged by gravitation into the Northern Outfall channel. The Low-Level sewage is disposed of by the referees, by collecting it from the Hack- ney Marsh and the eastern district near the Thames, and raising it by artificial means into the Northern Out- fall channel, “whilst the Low-Level sewage west of Somerset House shall be carried back to nearly opposite Battersea, and then across the river, there to be raised by artificial means into a southern High-Level sewer.’ On the south side of the Thames the Government referees propose a High and Low-Level sewer, and to con- centrate the sewage at Deptford; but they propose to bring the Putney and Wandsworth waters to Battersea, and there lift them with a portion of the Lambeth sewage into the High-Level sewer. The referees also propose to commence their High-Level sewer at Rich- mond, to cross the valley of the Wandle by an elevated aqueduct of one-fourth of a mile in length, and then to take the general direction of the High-Level sewer of the Board of Works to Deptford Creek, where the outfall channel commences. DESCRIPTION OF THE PERMANENT WORKS OF THE METROPOLIS MAIN DRAINAGE, EXECUTED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. NORTH SIDE OF THE THAMES. The Thames naturally divides the drainage area into two distinct systems. On the north side there are three main intercepting sewers, called the High-Level, the Mid-Level, and the Low-Level sewers; in addition to these there are some collateral branches. The High- Level sewer commences by a junction with the Fleet sewer at the foot of Hampstead Hill, passes through Stoke Newington and Hackney, through Victoria Park, under Sir George Ducket’s Canal, and forms a junction with the Mid-Level sewer about 200 yards after passing the canal. This sewer, being so near the northern RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 47 boundary of the drainage area, has more of the character of a drainage sewer than of an intercepting sewer, and its principal utility appears to be to take up the open Fleet and Hackney Brook sewers which have since been filled up and abandoned. This sewer is about 7 miles long, and drains an area of about 10 square miles; its form is mostly circular, and varies in size from 4 feet in diameter to 9 feet 6 inches by 1 2 feet. In the higher portions, the fall is rapid, being from 1 in 71 to 1 in 376, and at the lower end is from 4 to 5 feet per mile. Unlike the other intercepting sewers, which were only formed to take a portion of the rainfall, this sewer has been constructed of such dimensions as to be capable of carrying 1 off the largest and most sudden falls of rain. This sewer is constructed of good sound stock brick, and varies in thickness from 9 inches to 2 feet 3 inches. In order to withstand the scour resulting from the rapid fall, the invert is lined with Staffordshire blue bricks. Between Hampstead and Maiden Lane there is a tunnel about half a mile long, but presenting no difficult engineering work. Great care was necessary in tunnel- ling under the New River, where its channel is on an embankment, and also under the Great Northern Railway, where the embankment is 30 feet high, the sewer being 7 feet 6 inches in diameter, with brickwork only 14 inches in thickness. It is of great importance to know that much property was successfully tunnelled under at Hackney ; and one house was undermined and placed upon iron girders, and the sewer, 9 feet 3 inches in diameter, carried through the cellar without further injury to the house. The only engineering work of any importance on this portion of the Metropolitan Drainage Works occurs in passing the sewer close under the bottom of Sir George Ducket’s Canal, the distance between the soffit of the arch in the sewer and the water in the canal being only 24 inches. The division between the canal and the sewer is formed of iron girders and plates, with a thin coating of puddle, and no leakage has as yet taken place from the canal into the sewer. As all the sewage which finds its way into the Low- Level sewer must be pumped up at very considerable expense, it is a matter of great importance that all sewage from the upland districts shall be intercepted or arrested in its progress downwards, and carried off by gravitation to the outfall at Barking Creek, on the bank of the Thames. The Mid-Level sewer commences by a junction with the Counter’s Creek sewer at the south side of the Great Western Railway, passes into the Uxbridge Road near Notting Hill, along Oxford Street and Hart Street, over the Fleet sewer, and thence over the Metropolitan Railway by a wrought-iron aqueduct 150 feet span and Avemhino; 240 tons. This latter is rather an interesting Avork both as to the design and mode of execution. It consists of a double line of seAvers, supported by boiler- plate girders, and only 2J> inches above the under side of the aqueduct, the sewers being supported upon the lower flanches of the girders. In order that the traffic of the raihvay should be carried on simultaneously with the construction of the seAvers and the girders by Avhich they are supported, a stage of great strength Avas carefully constructed about 5 feet higher than the intended level of the invert of the seAver, and upon this stage the Avliole structure Avas built of its entire length, and subsequently lowered into its permanent position by hydraulic rams. After passing over the Metropolitan Railway, the sewer crosses Clerkemvell Green ; thence it passes by Old Street Road to High Street, Shoreditch, along Church Street, Bethnal Green Road, and Green Street, under the Regent’s Canal close to the south-Avest, angle of Victoria Park, and joins the High-Level sewer at the Penstock Chamber, Old Ford. The length of this main line sewer is about 9^ miles, about 4 miles of Avhich were constructed by tunnelling under the streets at depths varying from 20 to 60 feet. The area drained by this sewer is 1 7 A square miles in extent, and densely covered with inhabitants. The fall of this seAver is gradually reduced from 17^ feet per mile at the upper end to 2 feet per mile at the loAver end. In order to intercept as much of the sewage as possible from the LoAv-Level district, a branch seAver is carried along Piccadilly, passing through Leicester Square and Lincoln’s Inn Fields, to the main line at King’s Road, Gray’s Inn Road. This branch is about 2 miles long ; it is 4 feet by 2 feet 8 inches, and has a fall of 4 feet per mile. There are a few other minor branches and feeders connected with this Mid- Level interception. The A\ r hole of the Piccadilly branch was constructed by tunnelling. In designing a system of drainage, it is a matter of very great importance to form correct principles upon the subject of the disposal of the rainfall over the Avliole drainage area. Tables of rainfall for several consecutive years ought to be obtained and acted upon, and no dependence should be placed upon observations extend- ing over a limited period of time only. It Avould be a very great Avaste of money to construct the sewers of sufficient capacity to carry off the rainfall of extra- ordinary floods Avhich only occur at very distant intervals, and it would also be a fallacy to receive the whole of the rainfall into the seAvers upon the suppo- sition of diluting the seAvage, as the supply is so intermittent as to become comparatively useless for that purpose, and the extra size given to the seAvers would retard the Aoav of the seAvage Avhen there A\ r as no addition to its mass by the rainfall. There is no doubt that a large proportion of the rainfall is disposed of by absorption into the ground, and by evaporation ; and the circumstances of atmo- spheric phenomena, and the ever-varying local pecu- '18 It E C 0 R D O P MODERN ENGINEERING Harities wliicli determine the proportions of each, are so various that nothing but approximate rules can be arrived at as to the quantity of rainfall likely to find its way into the sewers. The intercepting seAver must gradually increase in internal capacity as its course progresses towards the outfall, and this increase ob- viously depends upon the accessions of sewage, which gradually accumulate along the course of the seAver from the number and size of the tributaries falling into it. Much has also been said about the shape of sewers, Avhich has not any practical bearing upon the subject of drainage, as the advantage of shape depends upon the quantity of scAvage floAving through the seAver, and as this quantity is very fluctuating. To meet the theoretical requirements of the case, the shape ought constantly to vary Avitli the quantities of seAvage flowing through the sewer, and as this is obviously impossible, that shape of seAver Avhich Avill meet the most general conditions of the case should be adopted. The circle is a good shape when it runs half full. When an intercepting sewer passes over any of the natural drainage valley lines of the country, and sufficiently near the surface for that purpose, storm overflows should invariably be provided for the disposal of any rapid and excessive rainfall. Some of these are formed in connection with the Mid and Low-Level seAvers. From the junction of the High-Level seAvers at the Penstock Chamber at Old Ford, an outfall seAver is constructed in nearly a direct line to Barking Creek, on the bank of the Thames. This is a work cf peculiar construction, as the seAvers are placed on the top of an embankment raised considerably aboA'e the surrounding grounds. This outfall sewer simply passes the sewage collected by the High-Level sewers, and that raised at Abbey Mills, from the Low-Level seAver to the outfall; and its peculiar structure, although very expensive, has some important compensating advantages in being so raised as to pass over roads, streets, railways, &c. J he first portion of tills A\ r ork consists of two culverts placed side by side, 9 feet by 9 feet, Avitli upright sides, semicircular crowns, and segmental inverts ; and when the contents of the Low-Level seA\ r er are raised at Abbey Mills, another sewer of the above dimensions is added. The embankment upon which these servers are constructed is formed of concrete, carried doAvn to a considerable depth through peat and soft alluvial soil to the gravel, and also carried up as an abutment to the seA\ T ers at each side, Avith a slope of 1 to 1. The whole structure is then covered with earth, the side slopes being 1 1 to 1, and the foot of the slopes being fenced in by a quickset hedge and ditch. The finished structure assumes the appearance of a simple railway embankment. For about l.j miles of the lower end of this work a different mode of construction Avas adopted. The depth of the soft alluvial soil which had to be removed to form the concrete base of the works, became so great that it Avas found to be more economical to dig cross trenches, G feet G inches wide, doAvn to the gravel, at every 21 feet. These trenches were filled in with concrete, and upon these, as piers, a series of brick arches Avas constructed, upon which the three parallel sewers Avere formed. The works of the Avhole of the outfall sewers are of sufficient strength to admit of a railway or roadAvay to be placed on the top of the finished work at any future time, the top being 40 feet Avide, and in some cases 25 feet abovm the level of the marshes. The difficulty of designing this Avork arose from the circumstance that the fall of the sewer Avas reduced to 2 feet per mile, which could not be diminished, and therefore all public thoroughfares had to bend to this necessity. The first portion of the seAver passes under the North London Raihvay, which Avas supported by girders ; under Wick Lane, which had to be raised 18 feet ; and over the River Lea by a wrought-iron aqueduct, consisting of tAvo Avrought-iron culverts 57 feet span, and of the same section as the brick seAvers. IletAveen the River Lea and Stratford Road there are four streams crossed by tubes of similar section, but Avith spans from 18 to 45 feet. The sewers pass close under the rails of the Eastern Counties Railway through an embankment, and the work Avas completed Avithout causing any interruption to the traffic on the raihvay. In crossing the Stratford Road, it Avas necessary to raise the latter 10 feet upon a viaduct, with an inclination of 1 in 50, and also considerably to modify the seAver, to prevent a still greater rise. The sewage Avas carried under the road by four culverts, each G feet high and 7 feet 3 inches wide. Having cleared the road, tAvo culverts are adopted as before, and pass over Abbey Mill Lane by tAvo wrought-iron tubes. Some distance farther on, the Abbey Mills pumping station is reached. At this point, the sewage from the Loav- Level seAver is raised 3G feet by mechanical power, and to meet this augmentation of quantity, an additional culvert is added to the outlet channel. Gates and overfloAv Aveirs arc formed betAveen these culverts, by which means the seAA'age can be turned into either or all of them at A\ r ill. Just beyond the pumping station, the three parallel seAvers pass OA T er Channelsea River and Abbey Creek, by cast-iron culverts, supported by four Avrought-iron plate girders of tA\ r o spans of 40 feet each. The sewers are then carried over Marsh Lane, the North Woolwich, and the Bow and Barking Raihvays, as Avell as several other roads, streets, and lanes of minor importance, in its course to the outfall at Barking Creek ; the inA'crt of the system of seAvers being about 18 inches beloAV high-water mark at the outlet. The Low-Level seAver proper commences at the Grosvenor Canal, Pimlico. It intercepts and carries off RECORD OP MODERN ENGINEERING 49 the sewage from a low-lying area containing about 11 square miles, and is also the main outlet for the drainage of a district containing about 14^ square miles, forming the western suburb of London, lying so low that its sewage has to be raised 17| feet into the upper end of the Low-Level sewer. From the Grosvenor Canal the Low- Level sewer passes under Lupus Street, Bessborough Street, to the bank of the river at Vauxhall Bridge. It then continues along the bank of the river, and passes through Old and New Palace Yards to Westminster Bridge. From Westminster to Blackfriars Bridge the sewer is formed in the Thames embankment ; and from the embankment it will pass under the proposed new road to the Mansion House, and along the line of the Inner Circle Railway to Tower Hill. From Tower Hill the line is carried by tunnelling under Mint Street, Cable Street, Back Road, Commercial Road, under the Lime- liouse Cut, Bow Common, and the River Lea, to the pumping station at Abbey Mills. The Western District comprises Fulham, Chelsea, Brompton, Kensington, Shepherd’s Bush, Hammersmith, and part of Acton, and is drained by a main-line sewer and two branches falling into it. The main-line sewer commences at Chiswick Mall, passing near to the river along the Fulham Road and Walham Green, and skirts the river from Cremorne Gardens to the pumping station at the upper end of the Low-Level sewer. The Fulham branch commences at Putney Bridge, and joins the Chiswick line at the King’s Road. The Acton branch commences at Stamford Brook, Wormwood Scrubs, passes along the Uxbridge Road to the Counter’s Creek sewer at Royal Crescent, Notting Hill, and then turns to the south, and in nearly a straight direction joins the Chiswick sewer near Cremorne Gardens. The Chiswick line of sewer is 3£ miles long; the Fulham sewer 1 mile 720 feet, and the Acton branch f \ mile. The size of the mam line varies from 4 feet by 2 feet 8 inches, to 4 feet 6 inches diameter, with a fall of 4 feet per mile, the depth below the surface being from 14 to 30 feet. The Fulham branch varies in size from 3 feet 9 inches by 2 feet 6 inches, to 4 feet 6 inches by 3 feet, its fall 10^ foot per mile, and its depth below the surface about 17 feet. The works of this Western District were principally executed in gravel, charged with large volumes of water, which very much impeded the progress of the work. The difficulty was overcome by laying stoneware pipes under the inverts of the sewers to convey the water to powerful steam-pumps, and by this means the works were successfully carried out. The sewers were also successfully carried, in this treacherous subsoil, under railways and canals without any serious accident or failure. There are two very important low-lying districts in the East, also drained by the Low-Level sewer Hackney Wick and the Isle of Dogs. The branch ’draining the former of these districts commences at Ilomerton, to the north of the Northern High-Level sewer, but too low to be relieved by it. From Ilomerton it passes under the Northern Outfall sewer, and along the west bank of the River Lea, and falls into the Low-Level sewer, thus intercepting the sewage of a large district, and preventing it falling into the River Lea. The Isle of Dogs is an extensive district, too low to admit of efficient drainage without a resort to pumping. This district, although at no very remote period it was a stagnant marsh, is now becoming rapidly covered with factories and various descriptions of works along the banks of the river, and in the interior by the dwellings of workmen, and it is therefore a matter of considerable importance that an efficient system of drainage should be adopted. The length of the main-line Low-Level sewer is 8^ miles, and its size varies from 6 feet 9 inches to 10 feet 3 inches in diameter, with an inclination ranging from 2 to 3 feet per mile. It is provided with storm over- flows into the river. The length of the two above- named branches is about 4 miles. SOUTH SIDE OF THE THAMES. There are no engineering works of any importance on the south side of the Thames, with the exception of the pumping stations at Deptford, and at the outfall into the Thames at Crossness. In the execution of the inter- cepting sewers pn the south side, however, there were many difficulties to contend with, consequent upon the nature of the strata and other local peculiarities ren- dering it absolutely certain that in this case, as in all other engineering operations, these exceptional and un- foreseen difficulties can only be overcome by the in- genuity and scientific resources of the engineer carrying out the works. Some very successful operations were executed of tunnelling under railways — such, for example, as under the South-Eastern and the Brighton Railways, near the New Cross stations on these lines, where two parallel lines of sewers were carried but a very little distance under the permanent way of these railways, without stopping the traffic. Much difficulty was also experienced in executing the works under the foundations of the arches of the Greenwich Railway, in consequence of the treacherous nature of the soil. The sewer was carried under Deptford Creek, and the navigation kept open by con- structing a coffer-dam into the centre of the Creek, and executing half of the work at a time. Several portions of the Metropolitan Drainage Works, on each side of the Thames, were executed in quicksand ; and the difficulties heretofore experienced in drawing off the water without carrying the sand with it were successfully overcome by Mr. Bazalgette, in the following manner. Brick wells were built in any convenient II 50 RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. position near the works, and carried down 5 or G feet below the lowest part of’ the excavation, and the bottom and sides of the well were lined with shingle, which excluded the sand, and allowed the water to percolate through into the well, from which it was pumped up. The bricks used in the works were the best stocks, and the inverts were occasionally lined with Staffordshire blue bricks. In the lower portions of the sewers, the brick-work has been laid in Portland cement mixed with an equal proportion of sand; and in the upper part of the sewers, blue lias lime-mortar was used, mixed in the proportion of 2 of sand to 1 of lime. In some cases, however, the whole of the work was executed in Port- land cement. 'fhe cement used was the best quality of Portland cement, ground extremely line, weighing not less than 110 lbs. to the striked bushel, and capable of main- taining a tensile breaking weight of 500 lbs. on 2^ square inches, seven days after being made in an iron mould, and immersed in water during the interval. The severe tests employed by the engineers of the Board of Works have tended very much to the improve- ment of the manufacture of Portland cement, as manu- facturers used every possible effort to come up to the required standard. Much valuable information upon the very important subject of Portland cement, and the modes of testing its qualities, may be obtained by reference to a paper pre- sented to the Institution of Civil Engineers, in 1865, by Mr. John Grant, M. Inst. C.E., called u Experiments on the Strength of Cement, chiefly in reference to the Portland Cement used in the Southern Main Drainage Works.” DESCRIPTION OF PLATES. Plate 1 is a map of London, containing the whole of the drainage area embraced by the operations of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and showing the direction of the main lines of intercepting sewers, also the position of the outfalls and of the pumping stations. Plate 2 shows the mode in which the Mid- Level intercepting sewer passes under the Regent’s Canal near the south-west angle of Victoria Park. In ap- proaching the canal, the sewer is circular, 10 feet 6 inches in diameter, consisting of four half-brick rings ; but in order to retain the present depth of water in the canal, it was necessary to depress the crown of the sewer 2 feet, and to adopt the form shown by the cross section taken at G II on plan, with vertical sides, a flat segmental base, and horizontal top. The length of the sewer under the canal is 100 feet, and the top is formed of cast-iron girders 1 foot 3 inches deep, and placed 5 feet from centre to centre, fllled in between with brick arches in half-brick rings, with some concrete over to bring the bottom of the canal to a uniform level. In order to give ! a flat top to the sewer, cast-iron plates 1 inch thick, with strengthening flanges on the upper side, are introduced, resting on the bottom flanges of the cross girders. Plate 3 shows the mode in which the Mid- Level intercepting sewer passes over the Fleet sewer, and also forms a junction with it by a storm overflow. The plan on this plate shows the mode of crossing the Elect sewer and of passing off the storm waters into that sewer. The overflow being only 2 feet deep at the point where it leaves the sewer, it was necessary to elongate the space in order to obtain a capacity equal to that of the 4 feet diameter iron pipes which constitute the over- flow sewer. This capacity, however, appears to un- necessarily increase, as the length is 18 feet, which, with 2 feet deep, gives a sectional area of 36 feet, rapidly converging into a pipe of 4 feet in diameter. Sections on A B and G Ii show the outfall or overflow pipe, and the manner in which it is connected with the Mid- Level and Fleet sewers ; section D C shows the front of the storm overflow chamber ; and section C D shows the junction of Coppice branch sewer with the intercepting sewer. There are also various other matters of detail on this plate which will be easily understood when re- ferred to the principal parts to which these details belong. Plates 4, 5, and 6 show the manner in which the out- fall sewers are carried over the River Lea; and there being a roadway constructed over the sewers, gives to this work some degree of engineering interest. The sewers are supported between malleable iron longitudinal girders about 10 feet above the top water of the river, and the roadway is supported by transverse girders of triangular construction, resting upon the longitudinal girders. The roadway is 24 feet wide with a 6 feet footway on each side supported by cantilevers projecting from the end of the girders, and a series of light longitudinal girders support road plates on which are placed concrete and stone pitching. The principal portions of this structure, as well as the numerous details, are minutely described on the plates, and do not require any further general description here. Plate 7 shows a plan and section of bridges over Marsh Lane, the North Woolwich Railway, and the Bow and Barking Junction Railway. The thorough- fares are passed under the sewers, three in number, from the Abbey Mills pumping station downwards, and over the sewers a roadway is constructed 35 feet 6 inches in the clear between the parapets, including footways. The outfall sewers being reduced to a minimum fall of 2 feet per mile, which could not be altered, it was neces- sary that all thoroughfares crossed by the sewers should yield to this necessity. There are no peculiarities con- nected with these bridges which require to be pointed out. Plate 8 shows the plan and elevation of a bridge carrying the three sewers and an upper roadway over the main line of the Bow and Barking Railway. Plates 9 and 10 are the details of the above bridge. RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 51 These several details, if carefully studied, will be suffi- cient to give a correct idea of the mode in which the several parts of the structure are connected together. Plates 11 and 12 represent the plan, section, and details of a bridge over the feeder to the East London Waterworks. This bridge is situated on the upper side of the Abbey Mills pumping station, and conse- quently there are only two tubes or sewers. These sewers are placed about 5 feet above the level of the water, with a roadway over the sewers 24 feet wide with two 6 feet footways. The details on Plate 12 are numerous and explicit, and described on the plate with sufficient minuteness. Plate 13 is a plan of the lower portion of the outfall sewer, with the reservoir on one side of it. The reservoir is 16§ feet average depth, divided by partition walls into four compartments, covering altogether an effective area of about 9^ acres, and is constructed for the pur- pose of storing the sewage during 11 hours of each tide, so that it may be permitted to fall into the river only at the beginning of the ebb tide. The bottom of the reservoir being about the level of low- water in the river, it is necessary to unite the sewage from the outfall sewers with the sewage issuing from the reser- voir, in order that the combined mass shall overcome the resistance of the head of water in the river. The external and partition walls of the reservoirs are com- posed of brickwork, and the entire area is covered by brick arches supported upon brick piles, and the whole is covered by an embankment of earth rising about 2 feet above the crown of the arches. Plates 14, 15, and 16 show the details of reservoir and of the several penstocks, exit culverts, valves, &c. Plate 17 shows the junction of the Bermondsey branch of the Low-Level sewer with the Duffield sewer at the commencement of the branch. The details of the junc- tion, and of the penstock connected therewith, are also contained upon the plate. The same plate contains the plan and details of the junction of the branch sewer with the Earl sewer at Deptford Lower lioad. Plate 18 shows the details of the junction of the Bermondsey branch with the Low-Level sewer, and also the penstocks and penstock chambers connected with the arrangements at this junction. From this junction the Low-Level sewer extends to the Deptford pumping station, where the sewage of the main line and branch is raised a height of 18 feet into the southern outfall sewer, and, together with the sewage of the two High-Level sewers, conveyed to the Outfall pumping station at Crossness. Crossness pumping station, taken as a whole, is the most important engineering work connected with the Metropolitan Drainage Works. The Abbey Mills pump- ing station has a greater pumping power, being capable of raising 15,000 cubic feet of sewage per minute a height of 36 feet, whilst the quantity to be raised at Crossness is ordinarily 10,000 cubic feet per minute, and the lift varying from 10 to 30 feet ; still the four reservoirs, covering an area of 6g acres in extent, and the complex nature of the penstock and other arrange.- ments, renders the Crossness works, as a whole, highly interesting. Plate 19, Fig. 1, shows a plan of the Outfall sewer, the reservoirs, engine and boiler-houses, penstocks, discharging culverts, &c. The sewage may be sent into the river direct from the Outfall sewer at or near the time of low-water, but is ordinarily sent in by the main culvert to the pump well, whence it is raised into the reservoirs, passing through the upper culvert, and discharged during the two first hours of the ebb tide by the middle culvert, and during the time of discharge the sewage raised by the pumps is sent direct into the river. Figures 2, 3, and 4 are transverse sections ; and 5, 6, and 7 are details of river wall. Plates 20, 21, 22, and 23 contain the several details of the upper, lower, and middle culverts, the penstocks and penstock chambers, and the arrangement of a direct outlet from pumps to river. Plate 24 shows plans and sections of ventilating shafts, side entrances, weirs, junctions, and storm over- flows. THAMES EMBANKMENT. The history of inventions, discoveries, and improve- ments in the several branches of scientific investigation, which can be presented to the human mind in its progressive stages from rude barbarism to the highest point of refinement to which the intellectual faculty of man has yet attained, presents almost universally a gradual development, and very seldom exhibits strongly marked and abrupt steps taken in advance. In con- sequence of the intimate connection which subsists between the several branches of human knowledge and of the laws which govern the material universe, and the aid which a knowledge of one branch or of one law fo RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 52 nature affords as a key to collateral branches, and to the investigation ol‘ natural laws, it seems but reasonable to award more credit to the first crude idea or suggestion in furtherance of the invention or improvement of any- thing tending to the benefit of society than to more im- portant steps taken at a more advanced period of mechanical and scientific improvement. In the rude ages of society, great inventors were frequently deified, and swelled the long list of mytholo- gical celebrities; and indeed there is still a tendency, even in this country, and in this enlightened age, to a species of hero-worship among the uninitiated, and more particularly among those who have not a near or microscopic examination of the heroes who are thus placed upon the pedestal of fame. In tracing the history of any invention, it will be found that the first germ of the subject is lost in the pre-historic period ; and as the subject is traced along its several stages, a portion of the credit of the invention must be awarded to so many parties, that there is no individual standing out so very prominently as to entitle him to any more credit than that of a successful grouping together and utilising the ideas of previous labourers in the same field, and of adding his own quota more or less to the previous stock of knowledge on the same subject. The prejudices of the age in which an inventor lives, and the apparent dread of innovation which possesses the multitude, must also be taken into the account in awarding the proper meed of praise to all parties concerned. With reference to the Thames Embankment now in progress under the direction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, this gra- dual accrument of efforts towards the realisation of the projects now being carried out, have been in operation beyond the reach of authentic history ; and whether the perfection now aimed at, after so many efforts in past ages to improve the Thames, will prove satisfactory or not, time alone can tell. In this eminently practical country, however, a very prominent position is always awarded to the person who successfully carries out a project, which may have been under consideration in various stages of development, and contending with ignorance and conflicting interests for centuries; and no doubt when the embankment works, and the drainage connected therewith, have been successfully carried out, due credit will be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works, to the engineer- in-chief to the Board, and to the resident engineers acting under him. In Stow’s “ Survey of London ” it is stated of the Thames : “ That this famous stream hath her head or beginning' out of the side of an hill standing in the plaine of Cotswold in Gloucester shire, about a mile from Tetbury in the same county.” . . . . “F rom hence it runneth directly to the East, as all good rivers should do.” .... “ Our famous river being thus brought to London, and hasting on a pase to meet with Oceanus her amorous husband.” . ... u What should I speake of the fat and sweet salmon daily taken in this stream, and that in such plenty as no river in Europe is able to exceed it.” There are also a great variety of other kinds of fish enumerated which were found in great quantities in the River Thames before its waters were polluted by sewage and other deleterious matters. Whether the most perfect system of sewage and embank- ing which can be carried out can ever restore the Thames to its pristine state may be considered very doubtful. History does not appear to afford any trace of the time when the embankment of the Thames from Sheerness to London was accomplished. The probability is that it was executed by the ancient Britons by compulsory labour under the superintendence and coercion of the Romans. The earliest fragments of information which can be obtained respecting the embanking and improving the River Thames, refer to some existing law of previous construction. The first authentic information which can be obtained on the embankment of the Thames does not extend beyond the reign of Edward II. in the year 1367, when “John Abel and John de Hortone, being then by the King’s letters patent constituted commissioners for to view and take order for the repair of the banks, ditches, &c. for the safeguard of those from the over- flowing of the tide, which lie between Dertford, Flete, and Grenewich.” “And not long after this, John de Ifeld, John de TIortone, and Will de Northo had the like commission for the very same marches.” Patents and commissions of the above description continued to be issued very frequently for small portions of the banks of the Thames, or for the repair of specified breaches which had taken place. This very inefficient mode of guarding and repairing the banks of the river was continued to the reign of Henry A' III., when the subject was frequently brought before Parliament; and several Acts were passed in his reign, and in the reign of Elizabeth, for the preservation of the banks and im- provement of the navigation, and the subject thus began to be treated ou a more uniform and a more extended scale. In 1695 an Act was passed to “ Prevent Exactions of the Occupiers of Locks and Wears upon the River Thames westward, and for Ascertaining the Rates of AVater Carriage upon the said River.” In Sir Christopher Wren’s plan for rebuilding the City of London after the great fire of 1666, it was pro- posed to construct a solid embankment wall, or quay, from the Temple Gardens to the Tower; and in conse- quence of tliis proposal, an Act was passed in 1668 to prevent the erection of buildings within 40 feet of the river bank between the Tower and the Temple. This 40-foot way was to have very extensive ranges of ware- houses built on the side of it, to meet the wants of the several descriptions of trade carried on in the port of RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING 53 London. Encroachments were, however, soon made, and the Act was ultimately repealed in 1821. The next public measure of any importance took place in 17G7, when, in connection with the completion of Blackfriars Bridge, the river frontage from Paul’s Wharf up to and including Temple Gardens was em- banked under the direction of the late Mr. Mylne. This improvement, although partial and limited, was the greatest modern embanking operation which had at that time been executed on the Thames. The object, how- ever, was merely local, as may be seen from the following statement : “ To remove the accumulations of mud, filth, and rubbish from the City side, which had ren- dered the wharfs inaccessible even at high-water, was extremely offensive, and in summer often dangerous to the health of the neighbouring inhabitants.” The next attempt to embank any portion of the Thames took place in 1770, when it was proposed to throw a solid embankment 100 feet into the river in front of Durham Yard, now the Adelphi Terrace. The Act to effect this object was strenuously opposed by the Cor- poration of London, and by several other parties. The subject was investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons, and much contradictory evidence was laid before the Committee on the advantage to be derived from embanking on the one hand, and the injury to the river, as a navigable channel, on the other. Sir Charles Knowles stated “ That the only thing that can possibly be done for the preservation of the navigation of the River Thames is the making of wharfs. That it is a known principle in hydraulics that wherever water can spread upon the surface, it diminishes its velocity; therefore contracting its channel will certainly augment it, wear its bed deeper, and render it more navigable. That the embankment mentioned in the petition being partial, will have a partial effect ; but if this effect will be found good, embankments will soon become general. That a greater embankment would be a greater advantage, and that embankments would not obstruct the flood-tide.” The opposition was principally carried on by lighter- men, with some questionable engineering evidence. A Mr. Charles Holmes states that he finds, from surveys of the river, that it has shoaled as much as three feet in the centre in about thirty years, and that “ in about eighty years he calculates the Thames will be filled up on a level with the land ; ” also that “ he denies the principle of the velocity of water being able to scour the beds of rivers.” The Committee, however, resolved “ That the petitioners, John, Robert, Janies, and William Adam, &c., have fully proved the allegations of their petition, and that the House be move’d for leave to bring in a Bill for embanking a certain part of the River Thames, near Durham Yard, within the liberty of the City of Westminster, and County of Middlesex.” The third Report of the House of Commons upon the improvement of the port of London, dated 28th July 1800, contains the following statement : “ A second point for consideration, and of much greater importance, is the embankment and improvement of the shores. Referring to the several plans in the Appendix for the particular proposal of each of the architects already named, and also to a very curious paper drawn up by Mr. Jessop on this subject, accompanied by a section of the river, showing its present width, depth, and form, and proposed improvement, your Committee beg leave to observe in general that a considerable embankment on the northern shore would not only be useful in deepening the channel of the river, but might prove the means of defraying a great part of the expense of the whole of the system of improvement; as the value of the space gained from the river, either to be employed as wharfs or warehouses, would greatly exceed the cost of the work ; and it might be desirable to remove so much of the shore on the Surrey side, where the ground is of much less value, as to straighten the course of the river, and allow for a large embankment on the London side, without reducing the width of the river in any part below the width which it now has opposite to Old Swan Stairs ; and it is obvious that the gravel and soil removed in ballasting away the shoals in the river may be advantageously employed in filling up the embank- ment on the shore, and forming foundations for ware- houses.” The subject of the improvement of the Thames below London in the lower reaches of the river to its mouth, the portion passing through the metropolis, and the complicated and conflicting interests connected •with the navigation and drainage of the Upper Thames, was seldom allowed to remain long without some efforts to arrive at something like a perfect system of improve- ment and of administration. Great embarrassment was, however, occasioned by a disputed j urisdiction, the Cor- poration of the City of London and the Government being at issue upon many important points. In 1831, Sir John Rennie, Mr. Telford, and Mr. W. C. Mylne were called upon by the Corporation to report upon the navigation and embanking of the River Thames. Mr. Telford could not attend, and the Report was made by Sir John Rennie and Mr. Mylne. The following points were considered by them : — First. The preservation and improvement of the navigation. Secondly. Increased facilities and accommodation to the adjoining shores. Thirdly. The practicability of constructing quays. Fourthly. The expense and probable returns for the sums expended. It is very evident from this Report that the antici- pated alteration in the regime of the river in consequence of the removal of Old London Bridge, then about to be effected, prevented the reporters from arriving at any MODERN RECORD OF ENGINEERING 54 very definite conclusions upon any of the subjects under in v estigation . It, is stated in the Report that “ The attempt to lay down a definitive line for the quays at present, until the effects of the removal of the old bridge shall have been fully ascertained, would be attended with considerable difficulties.” Under the third head it is stated that “ These quays should be constructed in a durable manner, at the same time unnecessary expense might be avoided. They should be founded a sufficient depth below the bed of the river, so as to prevent them from being undermined by the increased velocity of the current, and to be generally faced with brick, and with stone only when the proprietors themselves may choose to do so.” “ Fourth. A fund to be raised from the wharfingers to defray expenses.” The Report concludes by stating that, “ Upon the whole, therefore, viewing this important subject in every possible manner, we are decidedly of opinion, either as regards the improvement of the navigation, or the salubrity and ornament of the metropolis, that some such arrangement as now proposed for regulating the line of wharfs, should be carried into effect as early as possible after the removal of Old London Bridge.” In 1840 a very important step was taken by the Cor- poration of the City of London, in having a line laid down on each bank of the river (known as Walker’s line) beyond which no projection would for the future be allowed ; and as these lines were laid down with the view of giving the best possible direction to embank- ments or training walls which, in future, would be carried out even if the operations were in detached por- tions, it is much to be regretted that a measure of this kind was delayed so long. In 1844 a Commission was appointed “ to consider the most effectual means of improving the metropolis.” This Commission, however, devoted much of its time to the improvement of the navigation of the River Thames, and to the formation of embankments on the north and south sides of the river from Vauxhall to London Bridge. The Report of the Committee contains the following statement, that “ Upon a careful review of the many subjects of improvement, for which plans had already been before the public, or were subsequently submitted to us, we consider an Embankment of the River Thames to have the first claim to our attention.” Sir Frederick Trench spent much time in endeavour- ing to promote an embankment of the Thames on the north side. He proposed to adopt the outline of the river as laid down by Mr. Walker, and to construct a railway upon pillars passing over the dock entrances. This plan was ultimately abandoned. The most indefatigable advocate for a Thames Em- bankment was a Mr. John Martin, whose plans, although reported against by the Commission, approximate more nearly to the plans which are now being carried out than the plans of any other projector. The principal features of the several plans proposed by Mr. Martin were a solid embankment, with roadways and prome- nades, occupying some of the reclaimed land for build- ing purposes; the interception of the sewage from the river, and the utilization of it for agricultural purposes. The Commission doubtless considered that the time had not arrived when a clean sweep could be made of all the river-side traffic without an overwhelming amount of compensation. The plan proposed by Mr. Walker was confined in its outline to the line he had laid down for the Corporation of London some years previously. Mr. Walker’s plan comprised an embankment between London and Vaux- liall Bridges, on both sides of the river, with openings for wharfs at the following places on the north side : — At Northumberland Wharf, about 500 feet; at Waterloo Bridge, extending to the bridge stairs, about 800 feet; near Temple Gardens, about 400 feet; and a fourth, commencing at Whitefriars Dock and terminating at Blackfriars Bridge Stairs, 700 feet in extent. These docks prevented the possibility of the formation of a roadway which, however desirable, formed no feature in Mr. Walker’s plan; he proposed, however, as a supple- ment to his plan, if it was considered desirable, to construct a raised terrace, 50 feet wide, supported on flat arches of 100 feet span, and communicating with Hungerford, Waterloo, and Blackfriars Bridges, at the level of their respective roadways. Mr. Walker’s plan had excited considerable opposition in Parliament in 1840 from the wharfingers and others interested in the trade of the locality over which his embanking operations extended. Much conflicting and even very doubtful evidence was given upon the ques- tion of the diminished quantity of tidal water which would flow up the river after the embankment had been completed. This is, however, a point upon which great diversity of opinion exists among engineers. Mr. Walker’s plan was principally directed to the improve- ment of the River Thames, and not to the increase of thoroughfare accommodation along the banks of the river. The plan was intended to effect — First. “ To bring the River Thames to a more uni- form width than it is at present, by means of embank- ments.” Secondly. “To improve the present river lines where the ground is not built upon, by easing the present quick curves.” Thirdly. “ To remove the shoals by dredging, and to form the bottom of the navigable channel to a regular line.” Fourthly. “ To continue the covered sewers out to the front of the proposed embankment, where they may discharge below the level of low- water.” Fifthly. “ To avoid the heavy claims that might be RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. made for interference with the coal and timber traffic, the above docks were allowed to remain as breaks in the continuity of the embankment.” Mr. Page laid before the Commission a “ Plan of part of the River Thames in the seventeenth century, show- ins' successive encroachments.” These encroachments consist, for the most part, of embankments which had been authorised by Parliament, but being in detached portions, and forming no general outline, must have acted injuriously upon the river. Mr. Page supplied much valuable information to the Commission upon the state of the river, and the altera- tions which had taken place in the bed and banks of the river in consequence of the removal of Old London Bridge and various other causes. Mr. Page submitted several plans for embanking the river from the Penitentiary to some distance below Blackfriars Bridge, but with continuous docks on both sides of the river. The dock entrances were numerous, and would, consequently, very much diminish the ad- vantages which would otherwise result from an unin- terrupted communication for traffic, or as a promenade. Modifications of Mr. Page’s plan were also laid before the Commission by Mr. Cubitt and Mr. Rendel, but the proposed modifications did not materially alter the prin- ciple of the plan, but gave generally an increased amount of solid embankment, and a more convenient roadway. A plan was also laid before the Commission by Mr. Barry, one of its members, “ for embanking the River Thames on both sides, from Vauxhall to London Bridge, upon the levels of the present wharfs, gardens, &c. ; for providing private docks or slips for each wharf, or for two adjoining wharfs ; and for forming a public road from London to Vauxhall Bridge, on the Surrey side of the river,” — the road to be formed upon arches, upon such levels as would coincide with those of the road- ways of the several bridges with which it would com- municate. This plan, if carried out to its full extent, would tend very much to embellish the southern bank of the Thames ; but it would render the northern bank of the river very much uglier than it ever has been, inasmuch as it is proposed greatly to increase the num- ber of docks and to project them a considerable dis- tance into the river; and these extended wharfs were intended to afford “ the means of forming depots for coals, &c. and of erecting warehouses or sheds for loading and unloading wagons under cover upon the portions of solid embankment between the proposed docks or slips.” In 1851 a pamphlet was published by a Mr. W. H. Smith, “ London, Not as It Is, but as It Should Be: a Plan to relieve the Street Traffic, purify the Thames, remove the Sewage, give abundant House Water, and form a Junction of all the Railways within the Thames Embankment, by means of one Reproductive Under- taking.” Projects of this description generally break down in consequence of an attempt to combine too many opera- tions in one general scheme. The authors of this class of contemplated improvements appear to have an excess of ingenuity or a great deficiency in working out details in order to ascertain whether one part of a project may be inconsistent or not inconsistent with another part of it. In 1860 a Committee of the House of Commons ex- amined several projects for embanking the northern shore of the river between Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges. Some of the projects contemplated very extensive building schemes upon the land reclaimed from the river, consisting principally of bonded ware- houses. In 1861 the Thames Embankment Commission was appointed, “ to enquire into plans for embanking the River Thames within the metropolis,” so as to “ provide with the greatest efficiency and economy for the relief of the most crowded streets, by the establishment of a new and spacious thoroughfare, for the improvement of the navigation of the river, and which will afford an opportunity of making the Low-Level sewer without disturbing the Strand or Fleet Street, and also to report upon the cost and means of carrying the same into execution.” The Commissioners adopted the usual, but not very creditable plan of begging for assistance, and the admis- sion of their incapacity to grapple with the subject entrusted to their investigation “ was made known to the public by advertisement in the newspapers, and more than fifty plans were presented for our considera- tion.” The projectors of these several plans not having the advantage of perusing the mass of evidence elicited during the investigation upon the nature, extent, and value of the traffic along the site of the proposed em- bankment, could not possibly arrive at anything like a definite idea upon the whole question. Had such evi- dence been laid before intended projectors, it is very probable that a better plan would have been produced than that proposed by the Commission. The Commissioners, with one exception, were of opinion “ that the control and management of the under- taking should be entrusted to a special Commission appointed by your Majesty, in order to ensure the speedy and economical attainment of an object so much needed by the public, and affording so favourable an oppor- tunity for the improvement of the river and the adorn- ment of the metropolis.” Had this recommendation been acted upon by the Government there can hardly be a doubt that the special Commission would be composed principally, if not entirely, of members of the Commission who had made the recommendation, and who were so intimately acquainted with the several bearings of the whole subject RECORD OF MODERN ENGINEERING. 56 from the muss of facts, figures, and plans which had been laid before them. DESCRIPTION OF PLATES. Plate 25 shows a front elevation of the granite facing to the embankment wall, built header and stretcher in uniform courses. The granite facing commences 2 feet below the mean level of low- water, and is carried up to a height of 4 feet above Trinity high-water mark, with a solid parapet 3 feet 6 inches high. The longi- tudinal and transverse sections on this plate show the Low-Level intercepting sewer constructed at the back of the granite facing, and its brick backing giving breadth and consequent stability to the whole structure. The sewer is circular, 7 feet 9 inches in diameter at Westminster Bridge, and increasing to 8 feet 3 inches at the lower end. This appears to be a very small increase in the capacity of the sewer to meet the augmented quantity of sewage which would flow into it from the several local sewers forming junctions with it. There is a subway constructed over the sewer 9 feet by 7 feet 6 inches. Along the river face of the embankment wall there will be a promenade about 40 feet average breadth, beyond which there will be a public road for all de- scription of traffic. Plates 26 and 27 show the arrangement for a steam- boat landing-pier near Westminster Bridge. The recess in the embankment wall for the reception of the floating pier or dumby is 250 feet long by 29 broad, for 90 feet in the centre and 18 feet broad, for 80 feet long at each end. Access to and from Westminster Bridge is attained by three flights of steps, and by a descending ramp or passage of only 8 feet in width, and from the embank- ment terrace by a similar ramp or passage at the op- posite end of the dumby. The space under the three flights of steps is made available for the collection of water at high tide, to be used in flushing the floor of the recess. The details of mouldings and other matters connected with this position of the works will be easily understood, as the dimensions are legibly marked. Plate 28 shows the plan, section, and the necessary details of a landing-stairs between Charing Cross and Waterloo Bridges. The landing- stairs consist, generally, of a few steps placed at right angles to the river wall, descending on to a platform or landing 50 feet by 18 feet 9 inches, from which a flight of steps parallel to the river wall descend on each side to the foreshore. The space beneath the steps and landing is so con- structed as to serve for a reservoir for the storage of tidal water to be used for flushing purposes. This work will form an ornamental feature in the general embankment works. Plate 29 represents a plan, elevation, and section of landing-stairs at York Gate, and Plate 30 represents the several details of the work. The existing structure at the bottom of Buckingham Street is to be reconstructed as a central ornament to these landing-stairs. The details of this work are so minutely delineated and ex- plained on Plate 30 as to supersede the necessity for any general description. Plate 31 shows a plan, section, elevation, and some of the details of the overflow and outlet sewer at Savoy Street. The mouth of the overflow sewer is covered by a hanging flap valve to exclude the tidal water; conse- quently there can be no overflow from the sewer into the river unless the pressure is greater on the inside of the valve than it is on the outside, and this will depend upon the relative height of the water in the river, and the sewage in the overflow chamber. Plates 32 and 33 show the plans, sections, and elevations of penstocks, penstock chambers, and the necessary gearing for the overflow and outlet at Savoy Street sewer. Plate 34 contains plan, section, and elevations of steamboat pier at Waterloo Bridge. There is a recess on each side of the first pier of the bridge about 180 feet long, with a mean breadth of about 27 feet. The pon- toons, screen walls, and other arrangements are similar to those at Westminster Bridge. At the centre and ends of the recesses, projecting piers are constructed, surmounted by blocks or pedestals for the reception of statuary. Plate 35 shows the manner in which the foundation of the pier of the bridge is secured, the foundations of the new works being carried lower than the foundation of the piers of the existing bridge. Plate 36 contains the several details of the works shown on Plates 34 and 35. Plate 37 shows the junction of Northumberland Street and Craven Street sewers; and from the junction of these sewers a sewer is constructed conveying the contents of both into the Low- Level intercepting sewer. Plate 38 shows plans and sections of gullies, venti- lating grates, Ac. Ac. Note. — We had intended giving some particulars respecting the iron caissons, but circumstances have transpired which prevent our doing so for the present. END OF VOLUME FOR 1 8 6 5. INDEX Address Advertisement for Plans for Drainage of London American Railway Carriages .... Anecdote of a Sewerman .... Axle Boxes B Barry, Mr., Plan for Embanking the Thames Bars at the Mouths of Rivers . Bastion System of Fortification Bazalgette, Mr Biographical Sketch of J. R. M‘Clean, Esq. Bomb-proof Batteries .... Booth’s Screw Couplings Brakes, Railway Breakwaters, Floating .... Breakwater Wall, Formation of Buffers Caissons ........ Carriages on the Great Western Railway . „ Railway ...... „ „ Length of ... „ „ Principles to be observed in the Construe tion of „ „ Width of ... Casemate, Granite ...... Casemates; Improved System of Fortification . Cesspools and Wells ..... Chemical Investigations into the Sewage Question Clod-crushers Coast Battery ; Improved System of Fortification Coffer-dams ....... Communication between Passengers, Guard, and Driver Concrete „ Blocks ...... Construction of River and Quay Walls . Coupling Irons ...... Couplings, Friction Wheel .... D Defects of the Polygonal System of Fortification Deltas Description of Plates illustrating Main Drainage „ „ „ Thames Embankment „ the Metropolis Main Drainage . Cement . . . Low-Level Sewer ...... Method of carrying Sewer through Quicksand . Mid-Level Sewer ...... Northern Outfall Sewer ..... Northern High-Level Sewer .... Sewer under Deptford Creek .... PAGE 1 40 • 28 . 32 26 55 6 # 16 39, 40 • ix 19 . 23 29 8 8 , 9 23 14 24 , 28 • 23 c- 24 • 24 • 20 17, 18 32, 35 41 23 18 12 31 13 8 9 13 23 25 16 5 • 50 . 56 . 46 50 48 49 47 47 46 49 Size and Shape of Sewers South Side of the Thames Detached Works; Improved System of Fortification Discharge of Sewage ; Float Experiments Dock Retaining Walls Docks, Graving „ Selection of Site for „ Wet Dock Walls Draiuage and Sewage of London, History of Advertisement for Plans, &c. . Cesspools and Wells Chemical Investigations Difference between Referees and Board of Works’ Plan Discharge of Sewage ; Float Experiments Drainage Schemes, General Principles of Embanking of the Thames Extract from Report of Stephenson and Cubitt Formation of the Metropolitan Board of Works Method of Carrying Sewers across Rivers Metropolitan Commission of Sewers Metropolitan Local Management Act Metropolitan Sewers Act Mr. Bazalgette Ordnance Survey Outfalls Plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works Plan of the Referees Reservoirs .... Sewers Commissions Supply of Water to Reservoirs Syphons or Depressions The Great London Drainage Trial Works .... Drainage Schemes, General Principles of Dynamometer, Mr. Stevenson’s PAGE . 47 . 49 . 16 . 43 . 13 . 14 . 12 . 1 1 . 13 . 34 . 40 . 35 . 40 . 46 . 43 . 44 . 35 . 36 . 39 . 43 . 36 . 39 . 37 39, 40 . 37 . 41 . 44 43 43 35 43 42 39 36 44 7 41, E Embanking of Thames ........ 35 Embankment of Rivers ........ 3 Embrasures; Improved System of Fortification . . .18 Entrenched Field Positions ; Fortifications . . . .17 Estuaries 5 F Float Experiments; Discharge of Sewage . 43 Floating Breakwaters ..... . 8 Force of Waves ...... . . • ( Formation of Breakwater Wall. 8, 9 Fortification, Improved System of . . 14 Bastion System ..... . 16 Bomb-proof Batteries .... . 19 Casemates ...... . 17, 18 Circular Tower ..... . 17 Coast Battery . 18 58 INDEX. page PAGE Detached Works .... . 16 Thames Embankment Commission .... 55 Embrasures ..... . 18 Walker’s Line ........ 54 Entrenched Field Positions . 17 French and German Systems . . 15 T Gun Carriage ..... . 19 Guns ...... Improved System of Fortification ..... 16 Polygonal System .... . 15 Bomb-proof Batteries ...... 19 Travelling Gun Platform . 19 Casemates ........ 17, 18 Forts, Granito and Iron .... . 20 Circular Tower ....... 17 „ The Spithoad .... . 21 Coast Battery ........ 18 French and German Systems of Fortification . 15 Embrasures ........ 18 Friction Wheel Couplings . 25 Entrenched Field Positions ..... 17 Fuel on Railways ..... . 27 Gun Carriage ........ 19 Guns ......... 17 G Outworks ........ 16 Gates, Lock ...... . 13 Travelling Gun Platform ...... 19 German and French Systems of Fortification . 15 Improvement of Navigable Rivers ..... 2 Granite and Iron Forts . . 20 Granito Casemate .... . 20 T Graving Docks ..... . 14 O Great London Drainage .... . 39 Jetties .......... 11 ,, Western Railway, Carriages on the . 24 „ Or Groins 4, 5 Groins or Jetties ..... . 4 Gun Carriage ..... . 19 T ,, Platform, Travelling . 19 Lj Guns in Fortifications .... . 17 Land, Reclamation of ...... 2, 3 „ Warping up ....... • 3 II Length of Railway Carriages • 23 Harbours, Natural and Artificial . 6 Lock Gates • 13 „ Of Refuge .... . 5, 6, 10 Harbours, Ports, and Breakwaters . . 2 M Caissons ...... . 14 Coffer-dams ..... . 12 Martin, Mr. John, Plan for Embanking the Thames • 54 Concrete ...... . 13 M‘Clean, J. R., Esq., Biographical Sketch of • ix Concrete Blocks .... 8, 9 Metropolis Main Drainage, Cement .... • 50 Construction of River and Quay Walls . 13 Description of, North side of the Thames . . 46 Deltas . . 5 Description of Plates ...... 50 Dock Retaining Walls . 13 Description of, South side of the Thames 49 Dock Wall . 13 Method of carrying Sewer through Quicksand . • 49 Embankment of Rivers . 3 Mid-Level Sewer ....... 47 Estuaries ..... . 5 Northern High-Level Sewer ..... 46 Floating Breakwaters . 8 Northern Low-Level Sewer ..... 48 Formation of Breakwater Wall 8, 9 Northern Outfall Sewer ...... . 48 Form of Sea Wall 6, 7 Rainfall ......... 47 Graving Docks .... . 14 Sewer under Deptford Creek ..... 49 Groins and Jetties .... . 4, o Metropolitan Board of Works, Formation of • 29 Hydraulic Cranes .... . 11 „ „ „ Plan for the Drainage of Loudon 44 Improvement of Navigable Rivers; Construction of Tidal „ Commission of Sewers .... . 36 Harbours and Harbours of Refuge . 2 „ Local Management Act .... . 39 Jetties ...... . 11 ,, Sewers Act ...... . 37 Lock Gates ..... . 13 Mid-Level Sewer ........ 47 Moorings ..... . 10 Moorings ......... 10 Mr. Stevenson’s Dynamometer . *■7 • . i National Survey .... . 3 N Nature of Waves .... . 7 Reclamation of Land 2, 3 National Survey ........ 3 Reservoirs ..... . 4 Natural and Artificial Harbours ..... 6 Selection of Site .... 9, 10 Navigable Rivers, Improvement of . 2 Selection of Site for Docks . 12 Northern High-Level Sewer ...... 46 Sewage in Rivers .... . 4 „ Outfall Sewer 48 Shoals ...... . 10 Silting up of Harbours . 10 0 Theoretical, continued 2 Training Walls .... 2, 4 Ordnance Survey ........ 37 Warping up Land .... . 3 Outfalls for Drainage proposed by Government Referees . • 41 Wet Docks ..... . 11 Outworks ; Improved System of Fortification . • 16 Harbours, Selection of Site for 9, 10 „ Silting up of . . 10 P „ Tidal ..... . 6 History of Thames Embankment . 51 Page, Mr., Plan for Embanking the Thames 55 Pamphlet by Mr. W. II. Smith . . 55 Polygonal System of Fortification ..... 16 Plan of Mr. Barry .... . 55 „ Defects of ...... 16 Plan of Mr. John Martin . . 54 Portland Cement, Metropolitan Main Drainage 50 Plan of Mr. Page .... . 55 Ports and Harbours ....... 10 Plan of Mr. Walker .... . 54 Principles to observo in the Construction of Railway Carriages 24 INDEX. 59 Q PAGE Quay Walls, Construction of 13 R Radial Axlo Boxes ......... 26 Railway Carriages, Length of . . . . . . .23 Railways and Tramways ........ 22 Rainfall, Metropolis Main Drainage ...... 47 Rationale of Railway Rolling Stock ...... 22 American Carriages ........ 28 Brakes .......... 29 Buffers .......... 23 Carriages ........ 23, 27 „ on the Great Western Railway . . . .24 Clod-crushers 23 Communication between Passengers and Guard . .31 Friction Wheel Couplings ...... 25 Fuel 27 Length of Carriages ........ 23 Locomotive on the Great Northern . . . . .26 Principles to be observed in the Construction of Carriages 24 Radial Axle Boxes ........ 26 Screw Couplings ........ 23 Tank Engines ......... 27 Tires ......... 25, 26 Trains on Curves ........ 23 Wheels 22, 25 Width of Carriages ........ 24 Rationale of the Sewage Question . . . . . .31 Anecdote of a Sewerman ....... 32 Pollution of the Thames ....... 32 Rivers and their Sources ....... 34 Sewage Irrigation ........ 33 Sewer Gas 33, 34 Ventilating Shafts ........ 33 Wells and Cesspools ........ 32 Reclamation of Land ....... 2, 3 Referees, Plan of, for Drainage of London . . . 41-43 Report of Stephenson and Cubitt, Extract of, on Hydraulic Science 36 Reservoirs, Harbours, Ports, and Breakwater .... 4 „ Main Drainage ....... 43 „ „ „ Supply of Water to . .43 Retaining Dock Walls . . . . . . . .13 River and Quay Walls, Construction of . . . . .13 Rivers and their Sources ........ 34 „ Bars at the Mouths of . . . . . . .6 „ Embankment of ........ 3 „ Method of Carrying Sewers across . . . .43 „ Navigable, Improvement of . . . . . .2 „ Sewerage in ........ 4 Rolling Stock, Rationale of . . . . . .22 American Carriages ........ 28 Brakes .......... 29 Buffers .......... 23 Carriages 23, 27 „ on the Great Western Railway . . . .24 Clod-crushers ......... 23 Communication between Passenger, Guard, and Driver . 31 Friction Wheel Couplings ...... 25 Fuel 27 Length of Carriages ........ 23 Locomotive on the Great Northern Railway . . .26 Principles to be observed in the Construction of Carriages 24 Radial Axle Boxes ........ 26 Screw Couplings ........ 23 Tank Engines ......... 27 Trains on Curves ........ 23 Wheels ......... 22, 25 Width of Carriages ........ 24 S Sea Wall, Form of 6, 7 Sewerage and Drainage of London, History of PAGE . 34 Cesspools and Wells . 35 Chemical Investigations ..... . 40 Depressions or Syphons ..... . 42 Difference between Plans of Referees and Board of Works 46 Discharge of Sewerage ; Float Experiments . 43 Drainage Schemes, General Principle of . . 44 Embanking of the Thames .... . 33 Extract from Report of Stephenson and Cubitt . . 36 Formation of Metropolitan Board of Works . 39 Method of Carrying Sewers across Rivers . 43 Metropolitan Commission of Sewers . . 36 Metropolitan Local Management Act . 39 Metropolitan Sewers Act . 37 Mr. Bazalgette ....... 39, 40 Ordnance Survey Outfalls ........ . 41 Plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works . 44 Plan of Referees ...... 4), 43 Reservoirs ....... . 43 Sewers Commission ..... . 35 Supply of Water to Reservoirs . 43 The Great London Drainage .... . 39 Trial Works ....... . 36 Sewage in Rivers . 4 Sewage Question, Rationale of the .... . 31 Pollution of the Thames ..... . 32 Rivers and their Sources .... . 34 Sewage Irrigation ...... . 33 Sewer Gas ....... 33, 34 Ventilating Shafts ...... . 33 Wells and Cesspools . 32 Sewerman, Anecdote of a . 32 Sewers Commissions ...... . 35 „ Size and Shape of .... . 47 Shipping Ports . 10 Shoals . 10 Smith, Mr. W. H., Pamphlet by, on Thames Embankment . 55 Spithead Forts, the ...... . 21 Stevenson’s, Mr., Dynamometer .... . 7 T Tank Engines ....... . 27 Thames Embankment, Description of Plates . 56 „ „ History of . . 51 Pamphlet by Mr. W. H. Smith .... . 55 Plan of Mr. Barry ...... . 55 Plan of Mr. John Martin ..... . 54 Plan of Mr. Page ...... . 55 Plan of Mr. Walker ...... . 54 Thames Embankment Commission . 55 Walker’s Line ....... . 54 „ Pollution of the ...... . 32 Tidal Harbours ....... . 6 „ Construction of . . 2 Tires, Spring ....... 25, 26 Tower, Circular ; Improved System of Fortifications . 17 Training Walls ....... 2, 4, 5 Trains on Curves ....... . 23 Tramways and Railways ..... . 22 Trial Works, Main, Drainage ..... . 36 V Ventilating Shafts for Sewers ..... • . 33 W Walker, Mr., Plan for Embanking the Thames . 54 Walls, Dock Retaining ...... . 13 Warping up Land ....... . 3 Waves, Force of ...... . 7 „ Nature of . . . 7 Wells and Cesspools ...... . 32 Wet Docks . 11 Wheels, Railway ....... • 22, 25 LONDON PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODB AND CO. NEW-STREET SQUARE London: Lockwood & C° 7. Stationers' 'Hall Court • ■-T- Half SectCoruaZ/ Plan/ Section.' tiu-vi !< 6 !• <- — 7 . 3 * — ** Enlarged/ LmgUzuLinctZ Section, > at A . Section / o/' 2 A ' /?* i.ong/tudin ai Section/ tV Humber Air. Lou don Lookwooil >V i L SEWER. :ents canal A ffE/O/'D OF F//F PItOCMSS OF MODEM FNCWLFRING. ME. PLATE 2. vir ■;:» pHo., o . ;• nu lin& A . B . Section thtvugh Iirc& E . F Sections tiicough line C . H J>--~ / 7-i IMM MM1RM2S N ° 3 O M Scrtinne// /'/(a ton on tau C H Section/ through Line M N Section,' tiiroi//Lh/ Lznr C . D WM W///M General / < Section cf 'Sewer when lender surface of Ground General Section / of Sewer where d rises above /he Surface/ of the Ground General/ Sec/mu ^ 'of Sewer eat rises above 'I/he/ Surface of /he v ' _ i Ground General/ Section, under Surface .11/ ' 77777777777 ^ -T^r-yt/A ft,/. >,/. /. // /. G >,/, h >' fa G-- PEN/ ■ // 7 /GGy e//t///. fa///, //,/. /,//// tt '/ St //, /.//. /////", mi ////////// If t ; 1/1 // ////)//, hr ///'It. ; * 1 ^ / jUI / / 1 ** M r . / ' // ff/i — <>\ Fleet Sewer I I SIDE A RECORD OF THE PROGRESS OF MODERN ENGINEERING . IRON. PLATE 3 i /rich, to the /ool. Standufye BRICKWORK A FIG. 4. Cast Iran Horse live Sr • fcci / <’ /. 1 Acalf /• ; l_ jl Sctlli HcdJ Front Elsvatun of A'/c/scn ri ■ cjticL Face Castings Shming Fh xtes ceruZ Cover Flatter of Janet Castings fee t 5 4 3 2 1 C hin i - -r ~ ~i - i ~ 4 3 ? 1 C 2 3 4 k 7 i ris. 1Z 9 G 3 (, brnTfimrl- 1 in e MM DMIffiffl N 0 6. !i Haifa // OM" Alcvatio/i of Half outer Girder & F I C I 0 a ■/ Platas !■ i /:/< \ ~ P 55 55555 P . - 5 53 PHtt/t x/teninff Kivctfim/ andt Bnijlr Vroris of bottom. Booms «P Srctn o | I, |c ooo o o l ie 1 coo r o o o c ||[]o|oooo ooo 0^0000 O O o [o|jj|o| O OO O O O 6|o[|i|o|oO OO OOOlO “o.Q q o o o..C p o o o o o o o o.o p ... o q q Q q o c, c . f/ojooo ooo oT5i 1 fm oooooooffl toooooo oo^ymo ooo o o oop]]!|C|ooo o o ooTTrnrjooo o o ooptl mo ooo ooojtmmjlooo oo 0 0 5lliFl 000 o o o o pijipl 0 ooo ooofrjj [lo OOO O ooopljb ooooooolo fjo oooocooioljo ooo ooooo jo oo oooooloajooooo o oobfjb OOO o QQo|oHf|oloOOO o O ojoilllolooo OO o o lo|J[JoloOOO OOPjOll /Jetcu'ts op t/tc, '/unction c. 9 ooo o a o oloFILlo ooooooo pBLjo qMp^„Q n o, ooocooc o ooojo OO ' ' p o o Q- ad °q riti't't'o w o ^ot) GiUNdtEo J J di$t>E v o^o'd d±>d o~bo J d J 6 J o o 'o J o o o o o^fo w o v o~b ’SSS&m I’oooftjlJ^oooooooPtlfpioo 0 0*00 cteijijSooooooo^ik? 'jooobil iolo oooooo ,o!j[|o|ooo o ooo|oMt1o|ooo oooo,ot|[|o ooo o o oofsljp O^OOOOOpJII ao oolo o o O 000)0 o o I I oc oc Cast Hue/ Horse, Crul JS/emUcn of Suu/le Wheel eel lit lire- F I C 8 Blocks //ruler //ee./el ce//A ef ti/c Ore r/re * I h P Sretreero re/ liner lr.fr. Section rn lieu r r Hu /A- /Slot a/rirt of Crest Iron Street M:, S, 1 i/!!'iki'/;i:/.'/:i. /. ir.’! / l I f f tit//// // V // I/t 2 / // /////Ir/rleru/l Section r/ A'/./utnsu/t t/ri/ilr l/'/un ref Ail T I rent af Cast Ann Street rn i’/u/rr at /■ t I s In its . hr./ s /, ere// ft/' C/tr iGl/rs ■ //setts • S '< ti/r / t>r ■ Ftt/s I Nr 2 < f t f / Jzzc/i g 7 e n // ' & 12 ' i r t i rn r ticeulr /hr Freys. G/l. A, An//’ /he- Freys. UJ f/Jc/tn/Y) A ” * \ \ \ \ Scf//f’ /rr Freys Hi H . 17 - hf f St '{ l_ti StaxiAcffi- A. C LI IjiIi j Old Jewry K C tatiouers'IIaU Conn h Uum/x f th SEWER. A RECORD OF TIIE PROGRESS OF MODERN ENGINEERING. MS. PL ATE 7. WAY AND BOW AND BARKINC RAILWAY JUNCTION. r Part Lunqiludimtl Section . StancluJ^e S C.° Latho. 36, Old Jewry . E C. 700 Feet & of Sewer. Part Plan Shmiruj Read Plates A Top of' Sewer. Pari Sectzo7ial 6 e we rs removed/ tationers'Hall Court MM MBMM« lEffliiffi. N ° 8 . OUTFALL :> BRIDGE OVER THE MAIN LINE OF Loll do tl : jockwood TV //ujriJw /Ju • SectionaL Plan through/ ce/Ure: of Sewer JJHr# tanS!;* ■//.'. I \y,‘. ;ewer IE BOW & BARKING RAILWAY. A MCOIW OF ////;' PROGRESS OF MODEM ENGINFEMNG. MS, PLATE 8 7. Statiouers'Eall Court Starid^e &. C?Ia£ho, Old Jewry London, F. C Sectic?e 'U Plcerv of FotuicLations Half LcjhgitiuLaujd 1 he- Foot HO Put F I C . II. inches n 9 0 3 V ; h jrirT-li-U.IXJ-i — J - "~ -L- vnches VI 9 6 .1 o l-i-i- t-t-t Min i 1 iSVy lift i l.o n ilon Look wood, iS 1 // //t/tff/trr /)//• r Itfall sewer.. I A RECORD OF TJ/E PROGRESS OF MODEM ENOINEEEIMi MS. PLATE 9. Part Elevation of Insula larapot FIG 5. eit ffirvugh/ centre of oufAzde/ Sewer 2. Road |£ OF THE BOW & BARKING RAILWAY. r ,/ of Bt rf/f/r ' . I . of Road y/%Fv:y — ... vvvw k 13 t ■ Ftps Me 2. Fins 3 to If - 4 Flos / 7 . 18 & It) — I — zoFeei ip Feet. 5 Feet StaiuLni^e Sc C°, Litko, 36, OlAJewry, £ . C. I Stationers 'Hall Court, . • •. I MIH1 WMHM2K M1MP©HS, N? 10. S' . *J- *. OUTFALL SEWER ■6; C I 1 S'/ Vx £Z V. Q O U O ij 0 o o o o o o [ : ) / O O o ' -j v_> n o O O O O! 0 .O J 2 n V o o! o o /)e/t??/.s of /Jm/f/s (W/-J.1// ' - t/rtf/tt/ s//B/ f/?e t/r/v/e/w /?//■ / / i rt/et/ Stye/// r/- O 0(0 o o © o o§ <%o O h V oif •o ojo o o I) r O O O 0_’0 o o o o'Voo O O O' O .Q O i/trr/,/. Bf/t/t //tit/,- * O 0,0*0 O'O o. o 0 .o O .o. o,'p‘-o ,oo Q O O; O O O O 0 - 0.0 0 o o O (p 0 0 0.0 0 Ob r< 5 0 5 ol . ' <5 O 'OO0 OO o o *o 6 cT O' j 6*O*0;..p b O p '.O O P O 0 'o', o*. o- -6 o 0 O'.OO o o. O Q0 0.0 0 0 0 Cr £ N sN V s N ’v: - . V -Jw N ^ /,* - P — -- k-- \For-ft t ;. .W ( ,. ; rr -.- ...J ^ cn^acrrixcaytr// > *ctjfet,ri r/t Y. ZX s=r- — ^ y0 V_y JrtriBr ; o o o Q P o o b o p p 00000000 Q P 0 0 > o o a « o o 0 o a • OOOOOOOO a - 0 0 y_ r -jPccc7ci-r?'ty '/trip 2 'S'//- * yVC' *' pp V o ( o -gj 0 O PnPr / .o^o^o^o^o , b >o 0 o ^o^o" i ri , s .. . 'o o pv "O w O w O w O^O^O w O w O " 1 0^0 h o o Cl O o o p o a P OOOOOOOO x j 7 1J 0 0 c o o a o o o i-o b b OOOOOOOO a O 0 0 c c ■ XrSWrite- pp_ W“ ; w- y. - 1 : \jt -fb/'/zBrc -utit/tsirzet ‘ -_W_ Setter/? jB/s/m/s, (O O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O Cj Cj 0 O' r\ 1 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O r\ O (01 O O 0 0 0 O 0 O. O O O O O 0 w 0 r - hast/ jP/ettc P? th t. c 7 ( O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 (0 Q o 0 0 O O 0 O O O C O O 0 O ^•\ <0 1 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 ( 0 > (0 0 -J v',- Transverse Secti on of Outer Face Gi/afen FIG II. Half Genu -a J Plan H’ /////// Art: it/f Lull il.i’ n Lock woo il X'uO r/ t tor cxpaeisu/n < / t>f»er crown fjucrs < rriftur i Scwors Fnrui/js tyi- FIG 6 =r.:x JEleva port- hrse C < i , win g Positions of Sewers and FIG. 10. a— ^ •n Cornier ( at, r 3 7 - . icale Sr fr//.r /,Z3//:S,i> &7. A MCOR/) OF I/Ii; PROGRESS OF MODERN ENGINEERING. W6. PLATE 10. Treu isvcr.n Motion of iron .Sewer FIG. 3. 67 . C HI 4 RFCOJU) Of ////;' PROGRESS OF MODFRN ENGINEERING. /FOR. ALL SEWER WATERWORKS FEEDER PLATE II Half Lvtup/udui aF Section u. Statioafci-s'HalL Court L mm min D E T A I LS f LONDON fratitivcr.se Trartsver'se/ iron k x /* iron y An iflo- Irons Zb, \ w UhV te rivets Vote The Trussing at A A B B C. C &c to be sets out; to nrrh iw ivith the^ Tzvetlbng of the Tibs and to be cot' the same Ume kept as near to they dimens ions givea as possible The Angle Iron to be % thick top to the joints D & E acid *% thiofa ahave Surtax / cruj/un >nal Section and Elevation^ of Tube ' do o ooo o’ '• '■ .oToo ooQo o/ooooooo Sectional Elan through (ciUrc of Tube ....... oV if / . ion v /■an/ U tegKo c OOOOOi a r, o •> ooo ooo 6 c > o o o o o 6 o 00000' o o 6 o o o 0 o 00 d_ >t|od boo o ^ Hunt in / /hr oucLot .1 1 , 00 k woo li BRIDGE OVER 'FERWORKS FEEDER. '6 "'MSS OF MO/JFM FFGJNAFFFVG, MS. PLATE 12. iitandidfr- & C° Utbo 0U1 JewiyEC ^^V,y^\\ v ' v , A ;,V,\ ■ -V.> ? 7, Stationers 'Hall Court R A RECORD OF THE PROGRESS OR MODEM ENGINEERING. IPGS. PLATE 13. GENERAL PLAN HA ME Standid^e 8c C° Litbo. London E C Stationers 'Hall Court MM 'Vi'Mimim. IffiTiS©MDMS N° 14. ^ m ' ' m ~ ' , Transverse Secttcre thro' line R.S. Shewing outside Elevutioro of Wall/ at West Side f .To" ” ; y ,-a '1 0 0 0 -V t0 r S'o 0 - * J '- 1 " J V : r J 0 0 " * ' - 0 V- : U « '«, • • aj q* o C D 0 0 » *c . o 0 . 0 “ ' J ’ 0 • /oV 0 o q e , • • V® ) • • .- _ _ . „ v w „ 0 ' » o . . t 0 0. ° W . • o • oO " O o (0 • p 0. .- C ’ 0- ® o » r . 0 . *CyV o o : , 0 0 • * f o * 0 ^ c ° o 0 0 o o * 0 0 0 ' o* • . 0 o "0 a ’, V °° ( o 0.. * o 4 0 o o * O •*»: • © n ° ^ „ ° ••0 «°; • * 0 o ,, o Ot O 0 0 * ,0 CT 0 O' c . • d . » « o . 0 * • & 0 0 0 /.? . »0 * off. 0 ®’ * 0 #'■ • 0 o . 0® o * !' 0 • o ° ® *c?° 0 0 0 rt ° D Q 0 o Q . ° 3 • ,° „ ° 0 ° 1K ~ n fi * 11 " n ii. r.» - U... fi i - 1 i. ■ ! ' 1 ** Y a 11 ii fi ^ 1 1 “ ■ ** " 4 0 “ - f Tlcui shewing Wall at West side JV Humber dm f. Miilou l.orlcwood lV L' '/ RECODE OF T//E PROGRESS OF MODERN ENGINEERING. /EG PLATE 14 . Traxisverse, Section thru Centr'e- of Weir C . D Top of Embankment I Top of Embankment/ RIVER BANK 1 / IPPI •% 0 . % . A te longitudinal Section thro hew N . 0 lop of Embankment Top of Embankment e-* 0 <* 0 4 - 0 0 o o V od 0 * o Q o o 0 ° o . ° o * it Section, /Are // y//ytA cc A Section. /Are trougk y/. A Cast tro/v Plates to /Entrance, Skates in (Acer/ in/ Arches -Entrance Shahs on- Covered . hr Acs DO d , BO a * Za Oft ’ n 0 0 0D» %Pi<£? « 00 mm /mMN 'NtWN'ZS/ /yr/'/yt'/Z' (ttonFffM/ ■ //,, / //'/• A MS' wmm IM c ; 7 j i/g\ I ro'i |‘i / / 1 £Si !: /'/ H / L Ugfllwg Scott for Cover /‘/ate- '"•* ”, ■» | f i i •> ■> s >■/. / ft Stanxiui^e & C° Lidao, Old Jewry Xondun ~ ' -• ’ T ■ - - ■ - - — ^ ptationers'Hail Court &e ro e r oub PL/Ojtv Plaiv\ i 1 \cbiXre a ■Sewer \ I;- .. f/ z Lj: " Plaiv Footings 77777 ///, , Section - thro’ line F F uncT/t SecUot I, on don ], '.’k:wood >V 4 RECORD OF FRF PROGRESS OF MODERN ENGINEERING, IRON. PLATE 15 £ no b a n k no e to L TRINITY RICH WATl.n MAKH I RIVER THAMES Rr-e-teni ptcn'c'fkji £ -i.T, ■ — y- ■ ■ ~ ' 2207777777%. 1111 Y" h nxJ'ouinm&U, Sec/Drty O/ro 7ine L. N r. .v.'r.r.v <£2/22022. " — CrauruL Lvrve / m V////////A ?2o////47/2//y/y. //////, ® ! n - - » * j 'y/Z 7 ^gprraL Standid^e & C° Litko, Old. Jewr Lo ndonJi C -.6.6-- i 1 Stationers 'Hall Court N ? 16. NORTHERN ( PENSTOCK FOR FLUSHING CULVERT. FIG. I. /w /y* > ‘ttt/i // RESI FIC. 2. FIG. 3. A’/fitt //<'// Sn/u/rt /Ar/v ///if A.B. FIC. 4. <* . v/ / . c r FIC. 13. FIC. 5. - *>////< ■// z///y //su G. D. FIC 8. ///, ////, K . L. FIG. /are J3a// /rrrrtrjzlsvatu/ri Plate, 7/(i /A //(// As ///f t n/i&n ° o -> 10. //a// r/ fi/,/ ZZ//// Tab > FIG. 12. /‘/a// r/- Ifth'r n FIC. 7. • \(r7/Sc{' /(/Ufa/ /rear 1 1’ I/u/n/tri; //// Loudon l. iokwoocl 6c L . v ? t fyiniZti : ’?2f>itrh ■ ihi/ ■ I rc/zon. at E.F. 7/ - 7.///// ,// C.D | FIC. 18. al Section, Wastcft S Screw. . 7 / or "Upper 7 C &. Rh/v/e/- Yep <7 Frame, at C FIC.20. I ri of Frame ^ ( t (rrreZeny complete I va/r* r rt JTuwey/e^ ' Jars ray/; Sect/or/ eRF/am* \r 6 centre of Socket fr/f of met / Ser/zc/siaf A B' l/l/\ f/J/t < ' , ZV'/s/ f a.rf: Jrvn, jPlatc Slate rim aF Framit^rai A. A. /%w t.f HA,- <£ Girder at B.B. C FALL SEWER 'O I R FIC. 14. FIC 15. dtctunal JY/ecatfcn of SeetOtocks &Si/h/zo fear Section, i/tro centre li/te t l SeruvtocJc fSrule i //, / - i un i/ ibtationers'Hall Court A RECORD OR ERE PROGRESS OR MOD/RF ENCTNMMNG. MS. PLATE 16 OUTFALL PENSTOCK. FIG. 26. FIC. 29. Fj-mt F/rraticn •Srrtirn FIC 27. FIC. 28. FIC. 30. Standage & C” Tub , Old Jewry E C ini ssmamm mMM. N° 17. LOW LEVEL S 0 U T SEWER Secticro threat/?/, lute ILL ■»«'** Wp \\' V SectCcrv through/ //to A . B . Section/ three G.H. Sectzon/ there O. P. Sectiorv through/ line A . I) . London oti through /me E F Section ita-oiufio Zme A H Section/ through Luce M Section through line B. B r c 1 ni niinjinrm... . MTO’ L m— — SIDE 'ERMONDSEY BRANCH 4 R/rmjj of m: puocmss or mo/jsm engine f Rif // ms. PLATE 17. JUNCTION WITH THE EARL SEWER, DEPTFORD LOWER ROAD 03T664-3Z / C JL aolteb Staudid£e i C Intho Old. Jewry Icmdou E C Stat ; oners Hull Court B Milt MMMME LOW LEVEL SEWER JUNCTION V\ London Lookwooil & O S( s z Mttinj (Upper', htiwer £ Middle/) W/// / //////////// 77 Z 77 B 0 El Q - > □ □ □ 0 0 3 E -+-0 v > 0 a 0 c$ a 0 a 0 ' ED □ s m a <, □ □ a G 3 Q-vD 0 □ 0 El §0 a □ □ 0 □ £3 s 0 •S □ S- Q K a Q 0 0^0 El a 0 a 0 ■| □ 0 0 □ §0 .0 . .Q ,0 . J .Q. ■c-w G~/G 6 »/G G* /G 6 » JG 123 . 10 0 0 a L£J EJ **>1 a 0 □ 0 KB 3 $ K a 0 0 E part E 0 □ 0 050 p 3 □ □ 0 a a 5 0 0 0 13 ^0 V „ 0 0 a EKsS 0 0 0 o s □ s; 93 0 □ 13 . □ '3 '55 0 Q a □ + a s a s @1 056 ip ^ J_. _ „ , A J R iv a ar^ia a a I cv a m a ®i m a Divided/ into /t Cim m a a ssi 1 a m m PL '§> a^a ''a a m 1a I® 11 a m at a p -<5 a a a ire Tip W E T 1 m a a it 88 a S 8 e-ffll £ pj 3E a a a a m m m m Bffl r^Sr H|D g ISr II ™nr ran mu IM ill m rani Ml! Ml; St IHH1TI H® St BPl ire HI IK K r rre Ml ire m K Bit in MI ini l lift "T TOT Mira 11111 MI MI IMS in®, ram Ml Pi It Ihi/nbri /hr I ini cLon : Lockwood I FALL WORKS. V 0 I R . A RfCORI) Of 7/IE PROGRESS Of MODERN ENGINEERING. MS. PLATE 19 on tisulr neseri < t i 1 Transverse Set/ /on Inlet u ml Ont/i't Savers 4 iyv/' Latu/j njj Turn/uJNu. f/r, r ti ' 0/ A/ Shr/i/i — pi — m • S n r! ill t r,, '/re-sent, | ai h ■■ 4 t U ergge. On nut r ■) Q Trafnseer.se .Section through line M" N .shewing Inside Elevation of Wall nea-t/ Engine House .'//n it he ft l/t* t/w rperiings fan- .1 it /h til/gi ij /lfi " Pi Jip /isf t. / ; Transverse Section through line 0 . P 'hewing In.sule Elevation at Wall south sale Tap of Embankment' TfiflgHST; (oritixln fed. ■h, i*)u' 4’ tft* t/ii riiti/j.'f / Z Jf ’ , • ' ' * * • * * 0 • 0 B * . 0 » f - ' ' (f/t /'crtfafi cky I : ' " ^ jp! •/• Wall FIG 6 Section/ through (bu nterpost Section/ FIG. 5 4>,*.} O' r Z(T^ m J‘ , Xfit hU.L £11/ ta. t ta ■’UJta Trout E/tmrticn Hath Elevation //at/ tun cl fan *5/ /it' l Mu Hi Ground Tift hull 1 0 In l-/i P' * fount I ' ■ sp hr/Alur 0 tin/. Mtt r/t .Sr/'f Aunt/ 37d 0 71 Ft nsftuyi '• cAumh a JM ;! § |r T :| 'Cf/. It m // . 6 - B I 'S 'f f |m j i ft m 'Mi r ' ' o * 3*0* - (J ' l r—\ -J ^ ^ — i_j i"t— • =^- ===: 1 1 Section/ through, line I . B . Section through/ E. F. Section through F. E. S,ul r/tc/tf'i'i titiv 1 V .1 4 .» 0 1 S !* t(> Imt -i »• nri-iTi.T: W. Uur/du r l)tt v/y Penstccl \Ckoanher Ten/fooch Sewer (xmftctk pcn* tcC ' VOir Section, through line f .(Su, Plate I 3 j •Section tkr&ua „ v- jJLm il Section t /trough Hue G. F. Sect tin Sect ton through. Section, through f'f“l ■ Pcnutcck Cha/nber&j PtmotvcJe Chambe /‘rns/rrt ( Lumhrr wi tif t'cb C '/u tin her \ tV nep Outlet Sewer Gromit ! • Grautul Lower Culvert J 1 Culvert ( } ttf /ul/y) • J),,/' j ( / ( / f ( ( i \C\M7 Zv’Offi LorioitudinaZ Sections to (rri/rt jffiZ/V/ ZjZlTct'hTWnf. wwwmy/h e ";: CJitmSbcr akAj ' i ' j| \ ''i,, ' ‘ Lcru/itudinul Section t/ira Setter if «ww«s* Rirer Waft Bi'i/ DarnSttMei IS ('Section and /kcn^daehnal Section/ ct Sun/me/ ■■ f; W'Yi ( s ' t t - From > Mi/Jjdte CuCvert 1 * 1 Outlet taken at Vutyingt jLcvcIf . Peake /rr two /wee ot’ track# t< tie /an/ alma r/itiri ■ Ft fieri/ u/ Tret ay hint/ Plan ■Si in r Irc/i i under Sava 7 / St • Stit t’ rt/' /'t‘fet,VY*’A‘ It-ee/S 111 iJ ffl f 11 M'/Al/S/s/sr/ • t/t/ London Lockwood //«//' /’/a/i J/nltrni /•/' Steps !325Dteairr Section. at/ N . N Section/ at 0 . O Section/ at/ R . R Section at '/Jrtfj ( Outlet \ ; Setter t W.igtl // ,,/ JWncti 70’. C 27(7 C 7 " (V <■/,,/, A 7 S,vu 7 e l0j '■ l\/(\atari r/’ A'/vet- IVa// eu/ei t't/t/rt ■Section' I Y .Y r Sat/ on at X Srrt/cn at \V _jr« (J it ,? r n .7 W Arc/// /iVetr/t/en. at A/out/// oA" Gist/ Jrvn/ t Ai///r e>" i /< v r//~ S taffing Sections at WjWWMt Strmchd^r &C* Ltflio.JP.Olii Jewry? G. L 3 7. Stationers 'Hall Court // FECOIW OF THE PROGRESS OF MODEM ENGINEERING. /EOF. PLATE 22 mm 'jymsmm mn, N° 23. FIG I . — — "si 'Side Mevation, of ChamJjer f Section of drums u iJfr chain. W. Humimc. I)ir Scale for Figs. 1. Z. 3. i. 3. 6 7. 8. 13 11, 1,5. 16. 17. 18. India « • • ‘ O 5 /, o IS Fei-f. ZncJlf.S 11 6 IV H 8 7 6 .5 6 .5 Z 1 O Scale, for Jigs. 16. 11. <5 Feet Standulge & C° lith Old Jewry K G f — - IjT F A L L WORKS. Ill 01 ST A. PENSTOCK. 1 FIG. 6. A RECORD Of im PROGRESS OP MODERN FNGINEEJHNG. MS. PLATE 23. C Zf i |/ — FIG. 9. \ A \ n 7 ' V \ / 'e* f \ V /\ / \ \ / A \ / /\ H S / > x / \ ^ / s 1 7 \ \ / X S 3 'F\ \ / [ $> •> sx I3.0!y\ / \ - .3 0 i-> V Y ,i 6 \ Arrangement of tip chegizered plates lor covering /he chamber. ers'Hall. Court N? I DETAILS Frank Elevation* Lonfftizubiruil' Sectvor 100 -fb mm tkm c ‘Concrete ^ " • 0 c . '* 7 “ Wm Stcfyway mm S et^e LOW WATER . ? o 4 t/i o t'/Z/Z'/'/'W 7V' YS* Wwwm Wm& WZaZwZpM tonrreie* WSA; ^4 brass Screw mmmm m mm ml Cast & li Meta i ] 2, 01 /l RECORD Of THE PROGRESS Of MODERN ENG1NEER/NG. MS. PLATE 25. N 1= RIVER WALL ■hrvugR A B Transverse, SecUorv OQ r Fut Standid^e & C° Litho, 36 Old Jewry X .C . stationers 'flail Court V nm m 3i3 PSMI T. N° 2 STEAM BOAT W EST M I NST / 1 ' f/umJ/rt : t/n River WaU . Details of fAFouldiru/s ■Serf ton on /me East of Recess London; Look wo Or! 4 RECORD OF THE PROGRESS OF MODERN ENG/NEER/NG. MS. PLATE 26 ( N D( N C PIER. B R I D C E . - * ■'///// Wfttf i 'f f T - T ’T Struaducl^c C°, lidxo.36,0U JVwrjr.E.G. /. C td-tioners'KaJJ Conrt , N° 3 STEAMBOAT LANDING PIE Section/ through/ tine. MMx Level of Lop of JJumby at Low Wgler ^ trrvc Ot'CtveL Idling 16 f 6.0 CD Sec&oro i f/ rctLgrh/ fierce C . YY if Mcavdiole- 2.3 X 0 Square oU/ ends of Spindle for Key-SpuuLU. to work, througlv S/ulUn^ Box, fitted, into block, of ■Jtqns^dccdt, into Arch, ■ , / ' .-iiv S JLoaiSv 6 York , Lcurvdtnjq V/////Y///YZ,, Wtmm'M ^ j Elevations UoriszonstaJs Section.' thro’ lines G. H . Section/ thro ’ lints C . D . The storoes Elaggirig re/movecl . London; Lookwood i A RECORD OF THE PROGRESS OF MODERN ENGINEERING. MS. PLATE 28 . Lon git u ilt nai Section 7 Feet thro’ Transverse Section thro' One A . B Section thro’ One SlamJid^e £. C° I.itho Old Jewry I. C I . . J. Stationers Hall Court [MJ3E5 MIMMllEIX N° 5. Section thro' h'/ir E . F. See Plate Seri/e ‘ \ " U S L - T 'i - i LJ LJ-i. IV Ifu/rjft't \ fh / Lon do n ; Lock woo d V/FF'J > U’ /Jw Foot a 7. Stationers 'HalL Court SlKitdicI^e ?f G°, latho , OR Jowry ,E. C. Elevation . A RECORD OF THE PROGRESS OF MODERN ENGINEERING /SON PLATE 29. Flan . 40. 1 - D ETA Details of Stovm Outlet Idle Elevation 2. 6 Iron Pif> Instillation tie-sent W}iarf Wally T 5 T 5 Face; of Embankme/it Wall Section/ through tine Section throiujh * ’ o & ^ c ng re . u . • N ® - 22 S?S 2 ■ o . ■•<>. J. e ,/ ,y /.M V ™ fi Efrth Filling 'N| 7 / s v 3 jl T.r, - i 1 ' ■ ,j Earth nil. i,i/ % Filin' filling ,,('- tV Hu tuber,
, ! p- * j =^=j — ■ i 53 |£> " ^ {S' 0 iSV’SP. ?•&’£*. GO, i/SiNF- ' / . 1.3 i # 4 . v.<< JL 40 Feet/. Horizon taZ Scale for Fuf 5 wo — we Feet/ i* /. Stationer;. Hail Court Standee & C°,Lith.o, 36, Old Jevr-y E C m ally.. , • « rttcns o / 1 N? 7 . ♦ OVERFLOW & OUTLET AT SAVO' Ul Sectional Plan/ ////////////. Section/ ere tine I Secti on / on/ Ivrce K.K PreservO Suti‘ tLC m§ LorufUAiitiital/ Section/ cm Luce C.C [ci u/iOi utin/il Secticro am tine D . D W limn bee, die w ST SEWER. a rrcord or n/r r/ioonrss or modern mgm:erjng. ms. D I ATT Q I SecUonaL ricuo art Lute, B . B . Jrocneveive Section' ore line C. C . uc/u — 1 Foot. 7) u ns verse Section/ on/ One H H . ChaerLber Overflow Staudid^e k C° Litho London E.C. 7, Stationers 'Hail Court If Blanker, ]>ir Standee & C° Lttho ;i6 Old / • ft ■ ^ fO ^ - s I § So H I D o DC uJ £ UJ co H- CO >- o > < CO DC o JS u_ b£ j Sq ‘V />■/ ----« i '*<5 "* 6 ! - i ’ '4- .A yfinojif) 'U0&O9g ; ' W/'z/Mv, wM*mm / : V/^/Xv//^ t xo u mn r [ sf? c r .9 M fh/zn/z/f/i; — 1 .on don.loelcwoi i i | WATERLOO BRIDGE. A RF(ORI) OF T//A' PROGRESS OF MODERN ENG/NEER/ATC . /PGR. PLAT E 34 I oad Grout I ? D . D . — - - Standidge Sc. C'°, Lidic, 36, QM. Jewiy. E . ' 7. Statiouers flail Court llUL . I to Mtj-i J.Z.3. %. U> Pig 4 . 1MCES MMiflMIlT. N 0 1 1 Sec/un t/i/vur/h /me C D Ttirvc 7V .5 /Fet Radiu-i DETAILS OF STEAM BOAT F /JaU P/wr a/ BrieJeje/ /'ter at h/tc F . F . Outre linr eT »>>«»•/ f 7 j tnmhi / /hr I .ii 11 il i'll irk WOO ‘I k AMCOJW OE THE PROGRESS OF MODEM EMJNEEE/NG. MS. PLATE 35 . :R WATERLOO BRIDCE. Sectwnnl /’Out on ///n C C . 7. Statioi i'sHaiL '-ourt 'SYandttiffc A ( ' Et/A/ Sf ' , - Jr f M Mm MM I MII I l N° 12 . FIG I . 'S 'ection ///re’ Line - Ve< /‘/are fSS ) A B. G STEAM BOAT PIER A FIG. 2 . Sections t/f rv’ Zina 1. J. Safe - FIG. 3 . Section on Line K . L . See f*/are / >'/S ) FIG. 5. Sec/torc on Zine See / ‘/a O’ /SS) 0. P. FIG 4. Section/ on Zinc M . N . See I ‘/ate fSS) FIG. 6 . Seeticrv one Zinc Q R . See f/aie /SS J If' l/i/rni/i'c, Dir /hr/ o/‘ Section and o/‘ / hrttpe/s \\ V ^ N\^ JPI1 mmm ' v" K'N'... ■ ....... J -v Zltm Last/ /row /Ur ( Jm erfcr/ Z/an Section at R .R. <£< * ' 1 >i - London Lockwood & WATERLOO BRIDGE. iEIevatio 7 o •'/ iu M M. £leoatzo7V at P. P. (as/ /ran P/a/c tt/ S . Si c Pfat&fo /j J Const/ Iron Plate a/ T j See /laU / J 5) — > Section at W. W. ton Plan on Top. A Pro /tty P legation . w Wrought Iron leni-r at L . •See Ptcu& f i -7SJ A RECOH.D OP THE PROGRESS OF MODERN ENGINEERING. MS. PL AT E36. /Zlevotc£i 07 i' . 8 '* "Zh> n . . V Section at V V. Sec/ic/t at X X W (ins/ Tron /‘tics . See riate, fit J H routjf/U Iron^ Junction ■Scale / o r Figs / Z. 3. i- 5 & 6’. to 2t> sc /'i Tie Red ^ ! && IK Tie Red ry /hr Art H 9 6 J 0 / Scale (or Details 2 J 4 5 6 7 WjEeeo • /. Stationers 'Hall Court Stnndid£c & C° Litha 018. Jewry, London. Seel Lon through; line /. J Seettoti through Q.R CoTt'rreie" . ‘I k.V-' v'-c: ■Ccncre Sec/ loro th rough/ line/ K , L ■Section through S 'CcrureXe Sect ton through M . At. ' 3 w f Secaon. as JUNCTION WITH SAVOY S JfJP Plcm « Sect /ton through Secti on through A . B BULL MOUTH JUNCTION IMMES MMMMOT. N° 13. IV Humber l)n I, iMi iJ i'll l.oiikwoo il iV { I I I SEIM ST SEWERS. I Fot'&thjorp 'x gh - line, CD. A RECORD o/ THE PROGRESS Of MODERN ENGINEERING. MS. PLATE 37 . Section, thcvughj line A.B . V . i s * . r ! •ft t t ■' ■1 I