_Water-proofing._--As already pointed out, the original design for the lining of these tunnels provided for a brick arch. It was intended to cover this arch with water-proofing, this latter extending over the whole of the roof and down the sides as far as the bottom of the conduit lines. The water-proofing was to be placed against the sand-walls on the sides, up to the top of the side walls, Figs. 10 and 14. Over the arch, after being placed, it was to be protected by an armor course of brick, laid flat, the space between the brick and the excavation, which was required to be not less than 4 in. (and, as a matter of fact, was actually a great deal more), being filled with rock packing. Besides filling the space, this latter was designed to allow any water from the roof of the tunnel to find its way easily to the top of the sand-wall, from there being carried through the 4-in. cast-iron pipes, shown on Plate VIII[4] to the side ditches in the floor of the tunnel. [Footnote 4: Of the paper by Mr. Jacobs.] All the water-proofing placed in these tunnels was of felt and pitch, six-ply felt and seven layers of pitch. The felt was required to be Hydrex, or of equal quality, and the pitch, “Straight run coal-tar pitch which will soften at 60° Fahr., of a grade in which the distillate oils will have a specific gravity of 1.05.” In addition to tests as to the above qualities, the pitch was analyzed to determine the amount of free carbon it contained, and was not accepted if this fell below 20 per cent. It was considered quite important that there should be absolutely free drainage on the outer side of the lining, so that there would be no chance for any water to acquire a head. More than three-quarters of the length of these tunnels is below the level of mean high water, and while it was hardly expected that there would be any direct connection between the water in the Hudson River and the groundwater of the section penetrated, it was thought wise to provide ample drainage.