“A great number of small 4-inch tubular drains have been laid down
in the several districts, some for considerable periods. They have
been found to keep themselves clear by the ordinary soil and drainage
waters of the houses. I have no doubt that pipes of this kind will keep
themselves clear by the ordinary discharge of house-drainage; assuming,
of course, a supply of water, pipes of good form, and materials
properly laid, and with fair usage.”
“One of the earliest illustrations of the tubular system,” it is stated
in a Report of the Board of Health, “was given in the improved drainage
of a block of houses in the cloisters of Westminster, which had been
the seat of a severe epidemic fever. The cesspools and the old drains
were filled up, and an entire system of tubular drainage and sewerage
substituted for the service of that block of houses.
“The Dean of Westminster, in a letter on the state of this drainage,
says, ‘I beg to report to the Commissioners that the success of the
entire new pipe-drainage laid down in St. Peter’s College during the
last twelve months has been complete. I consider this experiment on
drainage and sewage of about fifteen houses to afford a triumphant
proof of the efficacy of draining by pipes, and of the facility of
_dispensing entirely with cesspools and brick sewers_.’ Up to this time
they have acted, and continue to act, perfectly.
“Mr. Morris, a surveyor attached to the Metropolitan Sewers Commission,
gives the following account of the action of trial works of improved
house-drainage:--
“‘I have introduced the new 4-inch tubular house-drains into some
houses for the trustees of the parish of Poplar, with water-closets,
and have received no just cause of complaint. In every instance where
I have applied it, I found the system answer extremely well, if a
sufficient quantity of water has been used.
“‘The answer of the householders as to the effect of the new drainage
has invariably been that they and their families have been better in
health; that they were formerly annoyed with smells and effluvia, from
which they are now quite free.
“‘Since the new drainage has been laid down there has been only
occasion to go on the ground to examine it once for the whole year, and
that was from the inefficiency of the water service. It was found that
rags had been thrown down and had got into the pipe; and further, that
very little water had been used, so that the stoppage was the fault of
the tenant, not of the system.’”
Mr. Gotto, the engineer, having stated that in a plan for the
improvement of Goulston-street, Whitechapel, not only was the
removal of all cesspools contemplated, but also the substitution of
water-closet apparatus, gave the following estimate of _the cost_,
provided the pipes were made and the work done by contract under the
Commissioners of Sewers:--
_Water-closet Apparatus, &c._
£ _s._ _d._
Emptying, &c., cesspool 0 12 0
Digging, &c., for 8-feet pipe drain,
at 4_d._ 0 2 8
Making good to walls and floor of
water-closet over drain, at 3_d._ 0 2 0
8 feet run of 4-inch pipe, at 3_d._ 0 2 0
Laying ditto, at 2_d._ 0 1 4
Extra for junction 0 0 4
Fixing ditto 0 0 2
Water-closet apparatus, with stool
cock 0 10 0
Fixing ditto 0 2 0
Contingencies (10 per cent.) 0 3 6
The yard sink and drain would
cost 0 11 2
Kitchen sink and drain 0 15 7-1/2
---------------
So that the cost of _back_ draining
one house, including water-closet,
would be 3 2 9-1/2
The _front_ tubular drainage of a similar house (with fifteen yards
of carriage-way to be paved) would cost 6_l._ 2_s._ 7-1/2_d._; or the
drainage would cost, according to the old system, 11_l._ 13_s._ 11_d._
“The engineering witnesses who have given their special attention
to the subject,” state the Board of Health, in commenting on the
information I have just cited, “affirm that upon the improved system
of combined works the expense of the apparatus in substitution of
cesspools would _not greatly exceed one-half the expense_ of cleaning
the cesspools.”
The engineers have calculated--stating the difficulty of coming to a
nice calculation--that the present system of cesspools entailed an
average expenditure, for cleansing and repairs, of 4_d._ a week on each
householder; and that by the new system it would be but 1-3/4_d._ The
Board of Health’s calculations, however, are, I regret to say, always
dubious.
The subjoined scale of the difference in cost was prepared at the
instance of the Board.
Mr. Grant took four blocks of houses for examination, and the results
are given as a guide to what would be the general expenditure if the
change took place:--
“In one block of 44 houses--
The length of drains by back drainage was 1544 feet.
Cost (exclusive of pans, traps, and water in both cases) of back
drainage, 83_l._ 12_s._, or 1_l._ 18_s._ per house.
Cost of separate tubular drainage, 467_l._ 9_s._ 6_d._, or 10_l._
12_s._ 6_d._ per house.
Cost of separate brick drains, 910_l._ 19_s._, or 20_l._ 14_s._ 1_d._
per house.
* * * * *
“In another block of 23 houses--
The length of back drains was 783 feet.
Of separate drains, 1437 feet.
The cost of back tubular drains, 45_l._ 12_s._ 6_d._, or 1_l._ 19_s._
8_d._ per house.
Of separate tubular drains, 131_l._ 13_s._ 6_d._, or 5_l._ 14_s._
6_d._ per house.
Of separate brick drains, 305_l._ 7_s._, or 13_l._ 5_s._ 6_d._ per
house.
* * * * *
“In another block of 46 houses--
The length of back drainage, 1143 feet.
Ditto by separate ditto, 1892 feet.
The cost of back tubular drainage, 66_l._ 5_s._ 2_d._, or 1_l._ 8_s._
9-3/4_d._ per house.
Ditto of separate ditto ditto, 178_l._ 19_s._ 8_d._, or 3_l._ 17_s._
10_d._ per house.
Ditto of separate brick ditto, 390_l._ 4_s._, or 8_l._ 9_s._ 8_d._ per
house.
* * * * *
“In a fourth block of 46 houses--
The length of back drains, 985 feet.
Ditto of separate ditto, 2913 feet.
Cost of back tubular drainage, 66_l._ 8_s._ 2_d._, or 1_l._ 8_s._
10-1/2_d._ per house.
Ditto of separate ditto ditto, 262_l._ 11_s._ 7_d._, or 5_l._ 14_s._
2_d._ per house.
Ditto of separate brick ditto, 614_l._ 16_s._ 3_d._, or 13_l._ 7_s._
3-3/4_d._ per house.”
I have mentioned the diversity of opinion as to the best form, and
even material, for a sewer; and there is the same diversity as to
the material, &c., for house and gully or street-drainage, more
especially in the _pipes_ of the larger volume. The pipe-drainage of
any description is far less in favour than it was. One reason is that
it does not promote _subsoil drainage_; another is the difficulty
of repairs if the joints or fittings of pipes require mending; and
then the combination of the noxious gases is most offensive in its
exhalations, and difficult to overcome.
I was informed by a nightman, used to the cleansing of drains and to
night-work generally, that when there was any escape from one of the
tubular pipes the stench was more intense than any he had ever before
experienced from any drains on the old system.