That which is true for one railway of two miles in length is
equally true for a second or third, although they may be placed the
one at the end of the other; the chances of an accident are only in
the proportion of the number, or in other words, the length, a
proportion which holds equally good with locomotives, except that a
locomotive may be affected by the distance it has previously run,
while a stationary engine and its pipes cannot in like manner be
affected by the previous working of the neighbouring engine and
pipes.
In my opinion the Atmospheric System is, so far as any stationary
power can be, as applicable to a great length of line as it is to a
short one.
Upon all these points I could advance many arguments and many
proofs, but I shall content myself with saying that, as a
professional man, I express a decided opinion that, as a mechanical
contrivance, the Atmospheric apparatus has succeeded perfectly as
an effective means of working trains by stationary power, whether
on long or short lines, at higher velocity and with less chance of
interruption than is now effected by locomotives.
I will now proceed to consider the question of the advantage of its
application to the South Devon Railway.
It will simplify the discussion of the question very much if it is
considered as a comparison between a double line worked by
locomotives in the usual manner, and a single line of railway
worked by stationary power, the only peculiarity of the present
case being that upon four separate portions of the whole 52 miles
stationary assistant power would under any circumstances have been
used, these four inclines forming together one-fifth of the whole
distance.
It is necessary to consider it as a question of a single line on
account of the expense, the cost of the pipe for each line being
about 3,500_l._ per mile.
An addition of 7,000_l._ per mile, or of about 330,000_l._, in the
first construction could not be counterbalanced by any adequate
advantage in the saving in the works on the South Devon Railway,
and probably not by any subsequent economy or advantage in the
working; but the system admits of the working with a single line,
without danger of collision, certainly with less than upon a double
locomotive line. And I believe also that, considering the absence
of most of the causes of accidents, there will even be less
liability of interruption and less delay in the average resulting
from accidents than in the ordinary double locomotive railway.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account