Autobiography of Sir John Rennie, F.R.S. 35

Autobiography of Sir John Rennie, F.R.S. 35

The surveys for the line over Chatmoss were completed and deposited in

due time, and the usual notices were given. The Bill was read a first

time in the Commons, and after the second reading was referred to a

committee. Certainly Bradshaw had not exaggerated the opposition, for the

Bill was most energetically contested, the leading counsel against the

Bill being the late able and amiable Baron Alderson. The Bill, however,

passed the Commons, and ultimately the Lords, after an equally strong

contest; but Lord Lowther and his friends were indefatigable, and to his

lordship’s great exertions the success may be mainly attributed. At the

time I was so completely prostrated by the effects of the fall which I

had met with at London Bridge, as previously mentioned, that I was unable

to take any very active part, which therefore chiefly devolved upon my

brother and Mr. Vignolles. After the passing of the Bill, my brother and

myself prepared working drawings and estimates for carrying the work

into effect, and we naturally expected to be appointed the executive

engineers, after having with so much labour and anxiety carried the

Bill through Parliament. The Executive Committee of the Company behaved

extremely ill to us. Stephenson, although he had failed in carrying the

first Bill, still possessed considerable influence with the Executive

Committee, who proposed that Mr. Stephenson should be united with us. We

said that we had no objection to Mr. Stephenson taking the locomotive

department, which should be distinct from the other works. This, however,

the Committee declined, and at once appointed Mr. Stephenson the chief

engineer, and Mr. Vignolles the resident.

 

My brother and myself designed that the width of gauge should be 5 feet

6 inches from centre to centre of the rail, and if this had been adopted

we should never have heard of any other. This was the proper gauge for

which an engine could have been made of the most powerful description,

without being too long. Moreover, the centre of gravity being lower, it

would have been more steady, being better adapted to going round sharp

curves. The same advantages would have been gained by the passenger

and goods carriages. Unfortunately, Mr. Stephenson was of a different

opinion: he thought that the old colliery waggon gauge of 4 feet 8½

inches from centre to centre of the rail was ample, and it was adopted.

Hence all the enormous litigation and expense which afterwards ensued.

Brunel subsequently, on the Great Western Railway, feeling confident that

Stephenson’s gauge was too narrow, proposed and ultimately adopted 7 feet

as the proper gauge. Now this was as much too wide as Stephenson’s was

too narrow. Stephenson’s party have ultimately prevailed, and the narrow

gauge has been generally adopted, much to the efficiency and economy of

railways.

 

Before leaving this part of the subject, it may be right to remark

that the opposition endeavoured to make a strong case against our line

crossing Chatmoss, which they said was utterly impracticable at any

reasonable expense. This we knew from our own experience to be simply

ridiculous, and so it was found to be during the execution; it has now

proved to be the best part of the line, and the easiest to keep in

repair. All that was required was to drain the surface by moderate-sized

drains, so as to get rid of the superfluous water, then the foundation

for the rails would be sufficiently solid to bear anything; moreover, it

possesses a certain degree of elasticity which prevents the concussion

or jolting that is usually found on a hard unyielding road. In 1828 the

line was so far advanced that the Company determined to advertise for

locomotives, and to give a premium of 1000_l._ for the best one that

was produced. Amongst the competitors were Messrs. Stephenson and Lord,

Messrs. Braithwaite and Ericsson, and Mr. T. Hackworth.

 

The competition took place at Rainhill. The Company restricted the

weight of the engines to seven tons, which shows how little the subject

was at that time understood, for the power of a locomotive engine is

in proportion to its weight and the steam generated to work it; hence

it was quite clear that in restricting the weight they restricted its

power. Notwithstanding this, the engines performed wonders, and attained

the speed of 28 to 29 miles an hour. This was so contrary to the general

expectation, for even the makers did not expect above 8 or 10 miles an

hour, that everybody was astonished, and from that time forward the

glorious career of railways was established, and the old road system for

goods and passengers was condemned as a thing of the past. The shares,

which had been at a discount, now rose to a premium, and numerous new

lines were in contemplation. Stephenson’s engine, the ‘Rocket,’ gained

the premium, as it complied with all the required conditions, although

that of Messrs. Braithwaite and Ericsson was in other respects considered

the best.

 

The rails used upon this line were what is technically called the edge

rail. These were of cast iron, weighing 30 lb. per yard, and they were

cast on lengths 3 feet long, resting upon blocks of stone about 12 inches

thick and 2 feet square, like the old tramways. Here is another example

of the little that was known upon the subject; for it was forgotten that

the old tramways were worked by horses, which seldom exceeded the speed

of 2½ miles, and, consequently, the vibration upon a tolerably well made

road was scarcely sensible, although it prevailed to a certain extent;

but when the velocity was increased to above 20 miles an hour, the case

was totally different, as should have been anticipated; yet the line was

opened for traffic on the old principle, until it was found that the

concussion and vibration produced by the rigidity of the road were so

serious as to cause considerable trouble. On account of its elasticity,

the Chatmoss section was found to be the easiest and best part of the

road, yet it is singular that this did not occur to the Company. They

continued to use stone blocks more or less up to the year 1837, when they

discovered their error, and replaced the blocks with wooden sleepers, and

large hillocks of these stone blocks may still be seen lying along the

Manchester and Liverpool, and Birmingham lines.

 

But to return to the edge rail, which was certainly a great improvement

upon the old flange rail. This edge rail was, I believe, first invented

by William Jessop, a celebrated man of his time, and tried under Smeaton,

who proposed it for the Leicester and Loughborough Tram Railway. The

flange was transferred from the rail to the inner edge of the waggon

wheel; and the edge rail having no flange occasioned less friction to

the shaft. As the rails were manufactured of cast iron, they could not

be made longer than 3 feet without materially increasing their liability

to break; but there were so many joints that it was very difficult to

make a smooth road and keep it in order, particularly when the speed

of travelling increased. Hence the use of stone blocks had not been

abandoned. This difficulty was at length overcome by the substitution of

wrought-iron rails, which were first proposed by Buckenshaw. These were

laid on wooden sleepers, and this was another great improvement; but

the numerous joints were still a great difficulty in the way of making a

smooth road and keeping it in order. This was at last overcome by making

the rails in one single piece on rollers patented for the purpose.

 

Rails have now been increased from 30 to 80 lb. per foot, and have been

fished at every joint; that is, a plate has been fixed on each side with

sufficient room in the connecting bolt-holes to allow for expansion and

contraction.

 

With regard to locomotives, numerous improvements have been made. We have

first Watt’s idea of making a steam engine, with its boiler complete,

upon an independent carriage, mounted upon wheels, so that it could

move in any direction and propel itself; as well as a weight attached

to it, mounted upon wheels also. As the tramways of cast iron were then

established, this locomotive machine could have readily been applied to

it, so that, in fact, to Watt may be attributed the first practical idea

of the locomotive engine, although there are some doubts about this, for

a M. Cugnot is said to have made a working model of a locomotive engine

upon a considerable scale, at Paris, in the year 1783. Be this as it may,

they were both made so nearly about the same time that it is difficult to

decide which had the priority. At all events, Watt is justly entitled to

the merit of having been the first to invent it in England.

 

Hackworth’s (of Darlington) engine was made about the same time, and was

similar to Stephenson’s.

 

The next improvement consisted in placing the cylinders of the engine

horizontally instead of vertically, so that the piston acted directly

upon the axle upon which the driving wheels were placed, instead of by

the intervention of a double crank; this made the engine more compact.

 

The next was the multitubular boiler, by means of which the generation

of steam was greatly accelerated, in consequence of the increased surface

exposed to the action of the heat.[4]

 

I will now revert to 1826, the time when I was asked my opinion as to

the value of railways, and I said, in the most decided terms, to Lord

Lowther, that I thought very highly of them, that they must succeed and

eventually supersede every other mode of transport for passengers and

goods. Being quite convinced of this, with which opinion my brother

George cordially agreed, I set about projecting lines to those places

where I thought they were most applicable; that is, where there was

actually a large and constant traffic, and where a more facile means

of locomotion would be attended with an increased trade. Next to the

Liverpool and Manchester, I selected the London and Birmingham line,

whilst my brother, in company with the late Jonas Jessop and William

Chapman, chose a direct line, from the termination of mine at Birmingham,

to Liverpool, so that the two lines together would have considerably

reduced the distance between London, Birmingham, and Liverpool. My line

proceeded by Aylesbury, Banbury, Bicester, Kenilworth, and Warwick, to

the higher part of Birmingham; and my brother’s from thence by Stafford

and Runcorn--with a bridge across the Mersey at that place--to Liverpool.

Thus London, Birmingham, and Liverpool, the three largest and most

important commercial towns in the kingdom, would have been connected

together in the shortest possible distance and with the least expensive

works practicable. The project, upon the whole, was well received, but

the public were not quite prepared for such an undertaking; in fact, it

was in advance of the time, and for a while fell to the ground. Canals

had not fallen into disrepute, and Mr. Telford, who succeeded my father

in carrying into effect the great improvements proposed by him for the

Birmingham Canal, suggested a continuation of this (through the very

district which my brother, Jessop, and Chapman had proposed to carry

their railway), to connect it with the Bridgewater and Mersey canal to

Liverpool; this was accordingly executed, and, as regards a commercial

speculation, failed entirely, as it was soon superseded by railways.

The fact was, that Telford, having been bred in the old school, and

having seen the triumph of canals, could not, or would not, believe in

the efficacy of railways, or that they would ever succeed; and, indeed,

he laughed heartily when he had succeeded in supplanting my brother’s

line of railway from Birmingham to Liverpool by a canal. He had a strong

prejudice against railways, which he maintained until his death, in 1835.

He had just finished his great work the Holyhead Road, with the great

connecting suspension bridges of Conway and Bangor, and of which, with