This misfortune led to a large excess of expenditure over the original estimates. In 1843 the whole of the funds raised (amounting to 45,000_l._) were exhausted, and there still remained to be executed the ornamental additions to the piers (the cost of which was estimated at about 4,000_l._), half of the iron work, the suspension of the chains and rods, the construction of the flooring, and the completion of the approaches, &c., the estimate for the execution of which was 30,000_l._

Unfortunately, all efforts to raise further subscriptions were unsuccessful; and in July 1853, when the time limited for the completion of the bridge had expired, the works were closed in, and the undertaking abandoned.[35]

Several proposals for completing the bridge were made in Mr. Brunel's lifetime, and he took every opportunity of furthering this object, which he had very much at heart. It was not, however, till about a year after his death that the superstructure of the bridge was actually commenced.

A company was formed in 1860 by some of the princ.i.p.al members of the Inst.i.tution of Civil Engineers, 'who had an interest in the work as completing a monument to their late friend Brunel, and at the same time removing a slur from the engineering talent of the country.'[36] Mr.

John Hawkshaw, F.R.S., and Mr. W. H. Barlow, F.R.S., were appointed the engineers, and Mr. Brunel's old friend Captain Christopher Claxton, R.N., the secretary. The works were carried on with vigour; and the bridge was opened with much ceremony on December 8, 1864.

The chains were brought from the Hungerford Suspension Bridge, then in process of demolition. A description of the Hungerford bridge will be found in the note to this chapter.[37]

Although the Clifton bridge was not completed by Mr. Brunel, his connection with it forms a very important pa.s.sage in the history of his life. Doubtless, if he had never heard of the proposed compet.i.tion in 1829, or if he had been one of the disappointed compet.i.tors, he would have found some other opportunity of making a name in his profession; but, as a matter of fact, the Clifton bridge compet.i.tion did give him the opportunity he desired, and all his subsequent success was traced by him to this victory, which he fought hard for, and gained only by persevering struggles. He never forgot the debt he owed to Bristol, and to the friends who helped him there; and he would have greatly rejoiced to see the completion of his earliest and favourite work.

[Ill.u.s.tration: HUNGERFORD SUSPENSION BRIDGE

H. Adiard Sc.]

NOTE (p. 58).

_The Hungerford Suspension Bridge._

The suspension bridge which spanned the Thames at Charing Cross, on the site of the present railway bridge, was designed and constructed by Mr.

Brunel between the years 1841 and 1845. It consisted of a centre span of 676 feet, and two side spans of 343 feet each. Being intended for foot pa.s.sengers only, its width was 14 feet. The versed sine, or deflection of the middle of the catenary, was 50 feet. The two river piers, which still exist up to the level of the railway, and form piers of the present bridge, were of brickwork, with large footings at the bottom, so as to distribute the pressure over a considerable area. The whole structure was made hollow and as light as possible. From the level of the footway the piers were carried up as ornamental campanile towers, the weight of the chains being taken by four solid pillars of brickwork, 7 feet 3 inches square, forming the angles. Mr. Brunel introduced here many of the arrangements he had designed for the Clifton bridge. In order that the pressure from the chains might be always vertical on the piers, the saddles rested on rollers working in oil, on the level surface of a large cast-iron bed-plate. By this arrangement it was rendered possible for the chains of the land spans to leave the tower at a greater inclination than those of the middle span, so that the chains were made shorter, and as they were at a lower level where they met the abutment, there was less change in their direction at that point, and consequently less thrust on the brickwork. Freedom of horizontal motion was also secured, so that, in the case of unequal loading of the spans, the chains might accommodate themselves to the strains, and move horizontally until equilibrium was restored. At each of the land abutments the chains pa.s.sed down over a fixed saddle, at an inclination, to anchorages placed at the bottom of the abutment. The brickwork under the fixed saddle was so disposed as to resist directly the thrust resulting from the change of direction between the main chains and the anchor chains. To resist any movement of the abutments, the piles on which they rested were driven obliquely, with their heads inclined from the river. These piles were very numerous, the abutments spreading out so as to cover a large area at the foundations. Nearly all the s.p.a.ces between the longitudinal, cross, and outside walls were filled with concrete, in order that the abutments might be as ma.s.sive as possible.

The details of the brickwork in the piers and abutments showed Mr.

Brunel's skill in the economical employment of this material. The chains were constructed so that the sectional area was proportional to the strain; the total area at the centre was 296 square inches, while near the piers it was 312 square inches. There were four chains, two on each side of the bridge, placed one above the other, and consisting each alternately of ten and eleven links. The links were 24 feet long and 7 inches in depth, the thickness varying so as to give the requisite sectional area.

The relative diameter of pin, and proper form of the ends of the link, were subjects of much consideration, and many experiments were made in order to determine these points. The fact that two specimens of iron, apparently identical in every respect, sometimes exhibit considerable difference in their breaking weights, shows that an average of a great number of experiments is required in order to test satisfactorily any proposed refinements of construction. Mr. Brunel, however, convinced himself by experiment that he had practically arrived at such a form of link and diameter of pin that the chain would have no tendency to break at one point rather than another. The links were forged with shoulders near the eyes, in order that by means of clamps the pin could be taken out and the links disengaged, if necessary.

The efficient action of the rollers was demonstrated shortly after the completion of the bridge. On the occasion of the opening of the Corn Exchange by Prince Albert, one of the land spans was crowded with people, while the centre span was nearly empty. In consequence of this the land chains became depressed considerably below their normal position; and the saddles on the top of the tower nearest to the loaded span moved horizontally on the rollers to the extent of 3 inches; and, when the crowd had dispersed, they returned to their original position.

Many years after the completion of the bridge a proposal was made to widen it for carriage traffic; but this was not carried out, and eventually the superstructure was removed, to make way for the bridge of the Charing Cross Railway. As the Hungerford Suspension Bridge has ceased to exist, an engraving has been given of it (Plate II. p. 59), in order that some record of its appearance may remain.

CHAPTER III.

_EARLY HISTORY OF THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY._

A.D. 1833--1835. aeTATIS 27--30.

SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF RAILWAYS IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO 1833--THE STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON--THE LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER--THE LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM--PROPOSED RAILWAY BETWEEN LONDON AND BRISTOL--MR.

BRUNEL APPOINTED ENGINEER, MARCH 7, 1833--SURVEY OF THE LINE--UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION TO PARLIAMENT IN 1834--SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION IN 1835--REMINISCENCES OF MR. BRUNEL, 1833-1835--EXTRACT FROM MR. BRUNEL'S DIARY, WRITTEN AT THE CLOSE OF 1835.

Before entering upon the history of the Great Western and the other railways of which Mr. Brunel was the engineer, it may be useful to give a brief sketch of the development of the railway system, previous to the period when he first became engaged in works of this description.

The first railway in England designed for the conveyance of general merchandise and pa.s.sengers, was the Stockton and Darlington. An Act of Parliament authorising the construction of this line was pa.s.sed in 1821.

In 1823, a further Act was obtained, in which a clause was inserted, at the request of Mr. George Stephenson, then the engineer of the company, taking power to work the railway by locomotive engines, and to employ them for the haulage of pa.s.sengers. This railway, which consisted of a single line with four sidings in the mile, was opened for traffic on September 27, 1825. Its success led at once to the promotion of similar works in other parts of the country.

Next in order must be noticed the celebrated railway between Liverpool and Manchester. A project for constructing a line of railway between these important towns was discussed as early as the year 1822; but a company for carrying it out was not formed till two years later. In 1825, the directors applied to Parliament for an Act; and after a long contest before a committee of the House of Commons, the preamble approving of the construction of the railway was carried by a majority of one. The Bill was, however, withdrawn, as the first two clauses empowering the company to make the line, and to acquire land for that purpose, were lost.[38] In the following year the Act was obtained, and the works were commenced under the direction of Mr. George Stephenson.

The line was opened for traffic on September 15, 1830.

In 1824, Mr. George Stephenson wrote a report on a proposed line connecting Liverpool and Birmingham. Surveys were made, and plans deposited; but the Bill was thrown out on standing orders. A similar fate attended the introduction of a Bill in 1826. In 1830, a new line was surveyed by Mr. Joseph Locke and Mr. Rastrick, under the direction of Mr. George Stephenson. The Act was obtained in 1833, and the railway, which was called the Grand Junction, and is now a part of the London and North-Western system, was constructed by Mr. Locke.[39]

In 1830, surveys were commenced by Mr. Robert Stephenson for a line between London and Birmingham, and a Bill was introduced into Parliament in 1832. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway had now been opened for some time, and the promoters of the Birmingham line had the advantage of being able to give in evidence the results of the working of the earlier undertaking. Those results, it is said, were such as to startle most of those who heard them. It was shown that a speed had been attained double that of the fastest stage-coach, that the cost of travelling had been diminished by one half, and that out of 700,000 persons carried since the opening of the railway, only one had met with a fatal accident. The amount of travelling between Liverpool and Manchester had increased four-fold, and the value of the shares of the railway had risen one hundred per cent. Similar evidence was given as to the results of the working of the Stockton and Darlington Railway, and the promoters endeavoured to prove that advantages at least as great would arise from the construction of a railway between Birmingham and London. They were successful in the House of Commons; but, they failed to convince the Upper House that the benefits which such a railway would confer on the country traversed by it were sufficient to ent.i.tle its promoters to receive for it the sanction of the legislature. The Bill was again introduced in the following session (1833); and, strange to relate, it pa.s.sed both Houses almost without opposition.[40]

Meanwhile, the princ.i.p.al merchants of Bristol, who had in 1825 made an attempt to get up a railway company, were urged forward, both by the inadequacy of their communications with the metropolis, and by the success of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, to make another effort.

In the autumn of 1832 a committee was formed of members of the corporation, and other public bodies of the city of Bristol, to carry out the project of a railway to London.

The first step taken by the committee was the appointment of an engineer to make the preliminary surveys, and to prepare an estimate of the cost of the undertaking.

Among the candidates for the post was Mr. Brunel. He was well known in Bristol as the engineer of the Clifton Suspension Bridge, and of the works for the improvement of the Floating Harbour. He had made many friends among the leading citizens, and they used their best exertions to procure his election; but there were several other candidates in the field who had great local interest, and the contest was a close one.

While the issue was yet undecided, an unexpected difficulty arose. Some members of the committee resolved to select their engineer by means of a compet.i.tion among the candidates, as to which of them would provide the lowest estimate. Upon this being announced, Mr. Brunel declared that he must withdraw his name, as he could not consent to become a party to so objectionable a proceeding. 'You are holding out,' he wrote to the committee, 'a premium to the man who will make you the most flattering promises. It is quite obvious that the man who has either least reputation at stake, or who has most to gain by temporary success, and least to lose by the consequences of disappointment, must be the winner in such a race.' Happily, this plan was abandoned; Mr. Brunel obtained a majority of votes, and was appointed engineer on March 7, 1833.

He commenced the survey without delay; and in addition to his strictly professional duties, he a.s.sisted in forming a committee in London, and took a leading part in the consultations which were held upon various important matters connected with the general interests of the undertaking.

A hasty survey of the country between London and Bristol occupied him till the middle of June; and as soon as it was completed, and the course of the line settled on, preparations were made for placing the scheme before the public.

The first public meeting was held on July 30, 1833. Mr. Brunel thus refers to it in his diary:--'Got through it very tolerably, which I consider great things. I hate public meetings: it is playing with a tiger, and all you can hope is, that you may not get scratched, or worse.' The result, however, seems to have been successful, and in a month's time a company was formally const.i.tuted, and the parliamentary survey commenced.

Mr. Brunel organised a staff of a.s.sistants, at that time rather a difficult task, and set them to work on various parts of the line. His own duty of superintendence severely taxed his great powers of work. He spent several weeks travelling from place to place by night, and riding about the country by day, directing his a.s.sistants, and endeavouring, very frequently without success, to conciliate the landowners on whose property he proposed to trespa.s.s.

His diary of this date shows that when he halted at an inn for the night, but little time was spent in rest, and that often he sat up writing letters and reports until it was almost time for his horse to come round to take him on the day's work. 'Between ourselves,' he wrote to Mr. Hammond, his a.s.sistant, 'it is harder work than I like. I am rarely much under twenty hours a day at it.'

A great portion of this labour was for the time thrown away, for as November 30 drew near, it became evident that subscriptions were not coming in to the extent which would enable the directors to lodge a Bill for the whole line in the session of 1834.

The directors therefore determined to apply to Parliament for powers to make a railway from London to Reading, and from Bath to Bristol, 'as a means of facilitating the ultimate establishment of a railway between London and Bristol;' postponing till a future session their application for an Act to enable them to complete the undertaking by making the line from Reading to Bath.

The Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, and on March 10, Lord Granville Somerset moved that it be read a second time. This motion was seconded by the Earl of Kerry, and supported by several influential members, amongst whom were Mr. Labouchere (the late Lord Taunton) and Mr. Daniel O'Connell.

The second reading was carried by a majority of ninety in a House of 274 members.

The Bill was then referred to a committee which met on April 16, Lord Granville Somerset being in the chair. Evidence was called to prove the advantages of the railway to the agricultural and trading community of the country through which it would pa.s.s, even if only the two proposed divisions of the line were constructed.

The traffic in merchandise between Bristol and London was at this time princ.i.p.ally carried on by means of water carriage, consisting, first of the river Avon navigation from Bristol to Bath, next of the Kennet and Avon Ca.n.a.l from Bath to Reading, and lastly of the river Thames from Reading to London. The evidence went to show that the distance between London and Reading, which by railway would be thirty-six miles, amounted by the river to nearly eighty; that the delays and impediments arising from drought, flood, and frosts on the rivers, were such as sometimes to detain barges for several weeks; and that so great were the consequent uncertainties and inconveniences of this navigation, that goods which came as far as Reading by the ca.n.a.l, were frequently sent thence to London by road, although at a great increase of expense. Even under the most advantageous circ.u.mstances, goods could not be conveyed from Reading to London in less than three days, or in less than a day by the river Avon from Bath to Bristol. It was therefore contended, that to form a railway which should supersede, or at all events come in aid of, the worst portions of the navigation between London and Bristol, would be an important public benefit.[41] The various advantages of the measure were most fully discussed in an investigation which lasted during fifty-seven days. Against the Bill was arrayed every cla.s.s of opponent that a private Bill could possibly encounter. Those interested in the ca.n.a.ls, rivers, and stage-coaches, opposed it from the fear of compet.i.tion; the inhabitants of Windsor opposed it, because the railway did not run so near to the town as they wished; the corporation of Maidenhead opposed it, because they thought that all the traffic which paid toll on their bridge over the Thames would be diverted to the railway; landowners and farmers near town opposed it, because they feared it would bring produce to London from a distance, as cheap as that supplied by themselves.

There was another very formidable cla.s.s of opponents to the Bill, consisting of landed proprietors and owners of houses in the immediate neighbourhood of London.

Many engineers were called by these several opponents, to show that a more advantageous line of railway might have been selected; but, upon sifting the merits of the various new lines proposed, it became apparent that the one chosen by Mr. Brunel was the best. Indeed, although some trifling deviations of his line were suggested, the opposing engineers admitted that in all essential features the railway had been most skilfully laid out. It was generally agreed that the line through the valley of the Thames, and thence in a direction north of the Marlborough Downs, was the only proper course for a railway between Bristol and London, as the levels were much better, and communication could be made with much greater ease with the northern and South Wales districts, than if the route to the south of the Marlborough Downs had been selected.

The plans proposed for entering London raised great opposition. In this respect public feeling has greatly changed, for now no railway is thought complete which has not a terminus in the heart of London; and it is considered an advantage for houses to be within easy reach of a railway station; but in 1834 such a neighbour was looked upon with horror and dismay--a nuisance to be, if possible, absolutely prohibited.

When Mr. Brunel commenced the survey for the London terminus, he had some idea of bringing the railway in on the south side of the Thames; but this was abandoned, as it was found to involve very heavy works, and the line proposed in the first Bill was made to terminate on the north side of the river at Vauxhall Bridge. It was to have been carried on a viaduct 24 feet high, with a parapet 6 feet 6 inches high, to prevent the pa.s.sengers looking into the windows of the neighbouring houses.