For a considerable period, the populatio_Waterways and Water Transport in Different Countries With a description of the Panama, Suez, Manchester, Nicaraguan, and other canals.

at the rate of about half a million in each decade. If the same rate of

increase is continued, the shipping entering and clearing from the port

of London in twenty years should amount to five millions additional,

which would bring the annual total up to about 22½ millions of tons.

Will the river Thames be equal to carrying on this enormous traffic

without serious inconvenience and danger? This is at least doubtful,

and that being so, the duty is cast upon us of considering what steps

should be taken, in order to meet the requirements of a possible

congestion of traffic, and to minimise the dangers of river navigation.

This is all the more important and urgent that the tendency now is to

provide much larger vessels than formerly, both for the foreign and

the coasting trades. A few years ago, the average size of the vessels

that entered the port of London did not exceed 300 tons. In 1860, the

average was not over 210 tons. But in 1886, the average was not less

than 620 tons. In about twenty-five years, therefore, the average

size of the vessels using the Thames has been increased by about 200

per cent. There is little doubt that this movement will continue.

It has been established as the result of the experience gained in

the navigation of ships of large size that, all other things being

equal, the larger vessels are the more economical. The average size of

the ships now entering the port of Liverpool has risen to over 1000

tons, where a few years ago it was not over one-half of that tonnage.

Probably the average size of the ships frequenting the Thames would be

materially increased if larger vessels could be admitted with safety

at all states of the tide. But the condition of the tide, except at

high water, does not admit of ships of very large size coming far up

the river. There have been cases of the tide ebbing so low that it

has been possible to walk across at London Bridge. This occurred in

1114, 1158, and 1717. Since the removal of Old London Bridge, there

has been a much greater scour, and the systematic dredging of the

river has permitted of a moderately good depth of water from the

bridge downwards in ordinary times. But the depth is not uniform, it

is liable to fluctuation, and it would be difficult to adapt the river

for the entrance of vessels of the largest size at any state of the

tide. The consequence has been that Liverpool has been leaving London

somewhat behind in the competition that has for many years been carried

on between the two towns. In 1825 the aggregate foreign tonnage of

Liverpool was only one-half to five-eighths that of London. In 1850 the

two ports were nearly abreast, and in 1870 Liverpool exceeded London.

From that date the two ports have been running a nearly equal race,

London having had the start for some two or three years past. But when

the enormous distributive facilities of London are considered, it seems

remarkable, and almost unnatural, that Liverpool, with only about

one-sixth the population, should be in the running at all, and it is

extremely probable that London would have a much greater start if the

Thames navigation were only made equal to the requirements of the trade.

The question of how far it would be expedient to construct a ship canal

that would relieve the congested traffic of the river, and permit of

vessels entering the docks at all times, has been mooted, but has never

been very seriously entertained. It is not, however, improbable that

this may, after all, be the true solution of the problem. Ship canals

are now the order of the day. They are being either projected, as we

have already seen, or constructed for the purpose of aiding navigation

to an extent that is quite remarkable, not in this country only, but

in most continental countries as well. A ship canal has been proposed

to connect Birmingham with the river Trent; another to connect Bristol

with the English Channel; a third to connect Sheffield and Goole; and

a fourth to connect the Thames and New Haven. The Manchester Maritime

Canal will soon be an accomplished fact. On the Continent canals

are actually under construction across the Isthmus of Corinth, to

connect the Adriatic with the Archipelago; and in Schleswig-Holstein,

to connect the North Sea and the Baltic, not to speak of the great

enterprises of Panama and Nicaragua, designed to connect the Atlantic

and the Pacific. In Russia, a canal has recently been constructed

between Cronstadt and St. Petersburg, whereby the latter city has been

converted into a seaport, and a canal is now being talked of to connect

the Volga and the Don. In the United States ship canals are being

promoted to connect Lakes Michigan and Erie, and the Gulf of Mexico

with the Atlantic Ocean, through the Florida Peninsula. In India, it

is proposed to connect the Gulf of Manaar with the Palk Straits, by

a maritime canal, and in other countries the same movement has been

apparent. In most of these cases the object has been to save distance

and time. In others it has been to facilitate navigation generally.

Both ends would be served by a canal to connect London with the English

Channel. It is more than a hundred years since a similar project was

recommended by Brindley to the Corporation of London, who employed the

great engineer to make a survey of the Thames above Battersea, with the

object of having it improved for purposes of navigation. Brindley’s

recommendation was not adopted, although he declared that a canal would

cost less than the improvement of the river, that it would give the command

of cheaper transport, and that it would reduce distance and economise

time.[216] Probably Brindley’s scheme would have been adopted long before

now, but for the construction of the Grand Junction Canal.

It is likely to be objected to the suggested Thames canal that the

necessity for it has recently been obviated by the construction of

the docks at Tilbury, opposite to Gravesend, and within a few miles

of the estuary of the river. The Tilbury Docks have no doubt been a

great relief to the congested condition of the traffic, and they are

entitled to every consideration. But they do not by any means meet the

case, any more than the port of Cronstadt met the requirements of St.

Petersburg previous to the construction of the Poutiloff Canal, or

the docks at Havre or Rouen now meet the requirements of Paris, which

it has been proposed to convert into a seaport. The Tilbury Docks are

about 20 miles from the centre of the metropolis. They are 30 miles

from the western and southern limits of the city, being, indeed,

almost exactly the same distance as that which separates Cronstadt

from St. Petersburg. In the latter case, it was found that the cost of

transporting goods over this distance was often as great as the cost of

carrying them to or from England, not to speak of the inconvenience and

delay which were involved.

It may not, possibly, be quite so bad as this in the case of the

Tilbury Docks, but it is obvious that the traffic unloaded there

must, to a very large extent, go through two subsequent breakages of

bulk—the first, from the ship to the railway truck, and the second

from the truck to the wagon or van that is to deliver the goods at

their ultimate destination. It would be difficult to fix an average

sum that would fairly represent what this process adds to the ultimate

cost of the traffic, but if it is put at 10_s._ per ton all round it

is not likely to be much under the mark; and 10_s._ per ton, as we

know, represents the full amount that is frequently charged for the

conveyance of a ton of goods from Antwerp or Liverpool to New York.

There is no good reason why the people of London should continue to pay

as much for the carriage of their food and fuel from the ship’s side at

Tilbury to their own doors as they would pay for its transport across

the Atlantic. It may now be unavoidable, but the necessity is not

imperative.

If a canal were carried alongside the Thames, into the heart of the

city, the west end and the southern suburbs, a great deal of this

outlay might be avoided. The vessel carrying the traffic could be

stopped at any one of twenty places on the route of the canal, in order

that she might be enabled to unload, and the relatively short distance

for which the traffic would thus require to be transported from the

ship’s side to the ultimate destination of the traffic would not add

much to the cost of its water transport.

The question that those interested in this question would be likely

first to ask themselves would be—At what cost could such a canal be

constructed? The next question would be—Could it be made to pay? On

both points there is much that is reassuring.

If we take the cost of the Suez Canal as a criterion, we find that for

a distance of about 100 miles the expenditure actually incurred in

construction proper was 11,653,000_l._ The total outlay appearing in

the yearly balance-sheet at the end of 1886 was 19,782,000_l._, but a

great deal of the difference was expended in financing, in interest on

shares during the eleven years that the canal was under construction,

in transit, telegraph, and sanitary services, and in other items that

would only be necessary, if at all, to a much more limited extent

in the case under consideration. The actual outlay in construction

represents an average of about 116,530_l._ per mile, and at this rate

a Thames Navigation Canal could be built for a length of twenty-five

miles for, approximately, about three millions sterling. This would, of

course, be the cost of a canal capable of taking the largest vessels

like the Suez Canal, and constructed on the same principle—that is,

without intermediate locks, and at tide-level.

It will, however, be fairly objected that the Suez Canal is not a

parallel case. The land was given by the Khedive, and the labour of

the fellahs, which was largely _corvée_ or forced labour, cost very

little. In the neighbourhood of London, on the contrary, the price

of land is high, and labour is much more expensive, although, at the

same time, much more efficient. This would no doubt greatly modify the

force of the application of the experience gained in the construction

of the canal at Suez, although the item of land, for a considerable

distance in the county of Essex, would be comparatively trifling—land

being exceptionally cheap in that county—while higher wages would be

counterbalanced by the more general and effective use of labour-saving

machinery. Let us, however, rather be guided by the more recent, and

more parallel experience of the Amsterdam Ship Canal, which was

constructed in 1870-76, for the purpose of affording a direct outlet

from Amsterdam to the North Sea, through Lake Y and Lake Wigker Meer

(inlets of the Zuyder Sea). The distance from Amsterdam to the sea by

way of the North Holland Ship Canal, which was completed in 1825, was

52½ miles, while the Amsterdam Ship Canal reduced it to 15½ miles.

Saving of distance and time was not, however, the only reason for

adopting the latter project. The growing size of the ships frequenting

the port, and the frequent interference with navigation by ice,

rendered a new waterway necessary, apart from the considerations of

saving time and shortening distance. The total cost of the undertaking

was about three millions sterling, including all incidental expenses.

This is approximately about 200,000_l._ a mile, and at the same rate of

cost, the Thames Navigation Canal could be completed for 5,000,000_l._

as against 2,913,000_l._ in the case of adopting the mileage cost of

the Suez Canal. The conditions of the problem in Amsterdam were not

greatly different in kind to those of the Thames. The land had to be

purchased, and the price of labour did not much differ from what would

be paid in England. The quantity of material to be excavated would be

relatively much the same, and the works of art required in the form

of locks, sluice-gates, cofferdams, &c., would probably not be much

more, if any more, onerous and difficult. It is probable that some of

the heavier works required in the case of the Amsterdam Canal would be

unnecessary for that on the Thames, such as the large dam that had to

be built to keep the waters of the Zuyder Zee from overflowing, and

washing away the banks of the canal; but, on the other hand, there

would be heavier expense incurred in providing passing places, docks,

&c.

[Illustration: COURSE OF THE RIVER THAMES FROM OXFORD TO THE

SEA.]

Whatever its necessity, the canal would not be undertaken if

capitalists were not assured that it was to be a “good thing”

financially, unless, indeed—which is very unlikely—the Government put

a hand somewhat deep into the public purse. The revenue of the canal

would be derived from several different sources: from tolls, which

would probably take the form of a through rate; from haulage, by means

of tug-boats; from warehousing; and from delivery of goods _ex_ ship

at the different quays on the route. It is, of course, impossible to

say at present what proportion of the total number of ships now using

the Thames would prefer to take the canal, if constructed. If, however,

it were only one-third of the whole, in ten years’ time from now that

would be about seven millions of tons per annum. The revenue that would

thus be obtained, if a uniform charge of a shilling per ton were made,

would be 350,000_l._ a year, which would, after deducting 10 per cent.

for working expenses, yield a net revenue of 315,000_l._, equal to

more than 6 per cent. on the larger estimate of 5,000,000_l._ If,

however, the canal were carried right into the heart of transpontine

London, a large revenue might be expected from the delivery of goods.

The principal docks are now such a long way from the west end and the

southern and south-western suburbs that a very heavy charge is made for

delivery of merchandise, whether by railway or by van. In many cases,

indeed, as we have already pointed out, the delivery charge is higher

than the ocean freight, and instances are not uncommon in which a

parcel which has been carried from a port 400 or 600 miles distant for

a charge of 4_s._ or 5_s._, cost double that amount between the docks

and the houses of the recipients. This is a serious grievance with the

people of the metropolis, and one that they would gladly get rid of.

A long step would be taken in that direction if water communication

for large steamers could be brought nearer to the west end. For such a

purpose the river Thames above London Bridge is practically useless.

The only considerable traffic that is carried on in the upper reaches

of the river is the transport of coal in barges from the Great Western

Railway Company’s depots at Brentford to the docks, and this is

about as unsatisfactory as it could well be, involving the repeated

breaking of bulk, and the damage of the coals from frequent handling.

A well organised and economical system of delivery between the point

of the receipt of shipping traffic in London, and the point of its

ultimate consumption, would be certain to prove both successful and

remunerative, whether undertaken by a canal company or otherwise.

But the lower reaches of the Thames are not more in want of some

artificial relief of the kind suggested than the upper reaches.

The Thames, as we have seen, is commercially the most important

river on the earth’s surface, although far from being the largest,

the broadest, the deepest, or the longest. It takes its rise in

Gloucestershire, about 375 feet above sea level. As the crow flies,

the length of the river is about 119 miles, but as the river runs it

is about 193 miles from its source to the sea. About 74 miles of its

actual length are therefore made up of windings, the character of which

will be appreciated by the plan on the opposite page.

The river is only navigable for large vessels up to London Bridge,

which is about 18 miles from Gravesend. Above London Bridge a good deal

of traffic is carried on by means of barges. The only steamers, however,

that navigate the river above that point are the shallow-draught

passenger steamers that ply between the various piers that lie

alongside the banks up to Chelsea, with occasional trips in the summer

months to Kew and Hampton Court. Above Hampton Court a small part of

the river is canalised, and it has also been necessary to construct a

small canal at Teddington, where the first lock occurs. Small craft may

navigate the Thames as far as Oxford, but above Hampton Court there

are numerous locks and weirs that have to be overcome, and navigation

is tedious. The influence of the tide extends from the outer boundary

line of the Thames Conservancy, near Southend, to Teddington lock, a

distance of 57 miles. The Conservancy Board, however, control the river

as far up as Lechlade, in Gloucestershire, a distance of 173 miles from

its estuary.

Practically the whole of the large population on the river Thames above

London Bridge are shut out from the benefits of the navigation, except

by means of barges. Above Hampton Court the navigation is difficult,

even for these, especially when propelled by a tug-boat. The difficulty

is increased by the fact that there are over thirty locks and about

twenty-two mills on the river between Oxford and the sea.

It has been suggested more than once that the Thames should be made

navigable for a much longer distance, and there is, indeed, no

insuperable obstacle in the way of the navigation being carried up as

far as Oxford. Between that city and London there is only an average

fall of about 1 foot in 4100, which interposes no obstacle. The cost

of cutting canals through the most obstructive windings of the river

would not be serious, and it is more than probable that it would be

cheerfully borne by those whom it would be most likely to benefit.

There would probably be an outcry raised that the upper reaches of the

river, which are now largely consecrated to rural sports and pastimes,

and are in many cases remarkable for their sylvan beauties, would be

threatened. But in this utilitarian age—when steamers ply on the

Grand Canal of Venice, when railways are carried up Vesuvius and the

Righi, when the Alps are pierced by tunnels, and engineers are drawing

the water supply of our great towns from the Lakes of Cumberland

and Westmorland, heretofore the chosen retreat of our poets and

philosophers—the test of most things is that of use and convenience;

and, after all, the passage of steamers up the river Thames above

Hampton Court, if it would disturb the inmates of the house-boats,

and interfere with the _dolce far niente_ fancies of a favoured few,

would more than compensate for such drawbacks by bringing to the masses

who cannot afford to gratify such luxurious tastes, more abundant

commodities at a cheaper rate, and, what is quite as necessary,

by getting rid of the weirs which at the present time are a great

hindrance to navigation, by deepening the river, and by improving its

channel generally.

The latter important requirement could probably best be met by

diverting the course of the river, where it is most tortuous, or

by constructing canals which would at the same time allow of the

navigation being shortened, and the flood-water (which now and again

plays sad havoc with the surrounding country) being carried off. By

either diverting or canalising the Thames between Tadpole in Berkshire,

and Sutton Pool, near Abingdon, the distance could be shortened by some

16 miles. Another saving of fully 13 miles could be made by a new cut

between Reading and the river above Staines, while a third saving of 11

miles could be effected by a cut between Staines and Brentford.

The effect of giving to the numerous Thames-side towns and villages

above London such facilities as those indicated would be almost

certainly to develop trade and industry in the counties of Oxford,

Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey, and Middlesex, through which the

river flows. In those counties there is a population bordering on the

Thames, which can hardly be put at less than two millions. It is,

perhaps, of still more importance that the course proposed would secure

for them immunity from the devastating floods to which they are now

habitually exposed. Four great floods have overtaken the folks that

dwell by the Thames since 1821. The most recent of these occurred in

1876, and caused damage which has been estimated at 300,000_l._ to

400,000_l._, not to speak of the terrible hardships, inconvenience,

misery, and disease which were entailed on those whose dwellings

were inundated. If the ideas and proposals now put forward should

contribute, in how small so ever a degree, to obviate the recurrence of

such disasters, the writer would be abundantly satisfied.

FOOTNOTES:

[216] Smiles’ ‘Lives of the Engineers.’

SECTION III.

TRANSPORT AND WORKING.

CHAPTER XXVI.

RAILWAYS AND CANALS.

“Canals are to the inhabitants of a country what

seas are to nations; they equally serve to assist

the wants of society and benefit commerce.”

—_Cresy._

There is no movement of modern times that has been more pregnant in

its results, or more interesting in its course of development, than

that which has given to the world its existing system or systems of

transportation. Of that movement, the competition of the railway and

the canal for the traffic that has been equally open to both has

been a phase that has received less attention than it deserved. The

railways have now had a long innings. They have been productive of

immense advantage to the world. The transportation of both goods and

passengers has enormously increased as a result of the facilities they

have afforded. But whether railways or canals are the best adapted to

economical transport is still a problem which is exercising the minds

of traders, economists, politicians, and engineers, in most of the

leading countries of the world.

It is probably among the things not generally remembered, if it is

among the things generally known, that railways were first projected

and sanctioned as feeders to canals. They were designed as the

humble handmaidens of the canal system. The preamble to the earliest

railway Acts recites that they would be of “great advantage to the

extensive manufactories of earthenware” established in the Potteries

and elsewhere. In 1792, the Monmouthshire Canal Navigation Company

were authorised “to make railways or stone roads,”[217] from their

canals to various ironworks and mines in the counties of Monmouth and

Brecknock.[218] In the following year, the Grand Junction Company

were authorised to make a railway at Blisworth, and “a collateral

communication by cuts, railways, or other ways and means,” with

their canal at Gayton, and the navigation of the river Nene at

Northampton.[219] Up to 1825, indeed, canals were the absolute masters

of the situation. Their owners could afford to smile at the idea of

competition from railroads, and they did in many cases actually do so.

In the construction of canals, as in the promotion of railway projects,

there have, in most European countries, been periods of speculative

operations on a large scale, culminating in crises more or less acute.

In England, the canal mania was at its height between 1791 and 1794. In

those four years eighty-one canal and navigation Acts were passed by

Parliament.[220] This was only seven years before the first railway Act

was obtained for the construction of the Wandsworth and Croydon Railway.

In Holland and Russia, this epoch had been reached many years before.

In Holland many canals had been constructed early in the seventeenth

century, and in Russia, the same movement, initiated and carried to a

certain degree of development by Peter the Great, culminated in a great

number of canal projects being put forward about the same time that

the canal mania was raging in England[221] over the question whether a

railway or a canal should be built for the purpose of carrying coals

from the inland collieries to the sea at Stockton. In 1768, a survey

had been made for a canal for the purpose by one George Dixon and

one Robert Whitworth. In the following year, Brindley surveyed the

same route and reported that a canal about 27 miles in length could

be constructed for 63,722_l._ No action, however, was taken upon

either survey, nor upon a subsequent report by Rennie on the same

scheme. In 1818, we find the project still exciting the attention of

Darlington and Stockton, and the inhabitants of the district divided

as to the merits of the two systems. In the latter part of that year,

a meeting held at Darlington pronounced a judgment which closed the

controversy. It was decided that a “rail or tramway was, under existing

circumstances, preferable to a canal.” The expectations of the friends

of railway transport were not, however, very high. They were advised

by a committee which had been appointed to consider the subject, that

“one horse, of moderate power, could easily draw downwards on the

railway about ten tons, and upwards about four tons, exclusive of empty

waggons.” Small as this outlook was, it was a great advance on the

then existing system of coal transport, the towns of Tees-side having

been, up to that date, supplied with fuel by droves of asses and mules,

which stood in the principal thoroughfares until their burdens had been

disposed of—

“Here colliers stood with coals from distant parts,

Some having two, and some but one-horse carts.”

Even then, however, the railway had not made much impression, and the

canal interest had as yet little to fear. The promoters of the Stockton

and Darlington Railway, as we have seen, had no idea of employing

locomotives, or of providing for passenger traffic. No mention of

either was made in their original bill. The railway was intended only

“to facilitate the conveyance of coal, iron, lime, corn, and other

commodities” from the interior. “It had no congener for years. The

impression of most people, while it was under construction, was that

it was more or less of a mistake. While the line was in progress, a

vigorous agitation for the construction of a canal for similar purposes

was going on in the adjoining county of Northumberland.” When the

locomotive engine was introduced upon the scene, the friends of canal

navigation hailed it with ridicule. “Who,” it was said, “would ever

dream of paying to be conveyed in something like a coal-wagon, upon a

dreary wagon-way, by a roaring steam-engine?” The question appeared to

carry its answer written on its face. The _Quarterly Review_, of March

1825, ridiculed the idea of the people of England trusting themselves

to the mercy of “such a machine” as a locomotive engine on the then

proposed London and Woolwich Railway, and declared its readiness “to

back old Father Thames against the Woolwich Railway for any sum.”

Nicholas Wood, the author of the first really scientific treatise on

railway locomotion, denounced the idea that locomotives could be worked

at the rate of 12 miles an hour.[222] So recently as 1830, when the

Manchester and Liverpool Railway was opened, the railway system was

intended for the transport of merchandise alone, and a speed of

more than 12 miles an hour was not dreamt of. In this case, as in

that of the Stockton and Darlington Railway five years before, the

transportation problem was still unsolved.

“The barge ne’er came, but in its place

Shot into view the great fire-dragon,

And entered on his world-wide race,

With fairy coach and grim coal-waggon.”

But at coal-waggons, or rather at heavy traffic generally, the

enterprise was expected to stop.

The Rainhill locomotive contest, and the convincing proofs afforded

thereby of the practicability of applying railway transport alike to

goods and passengers, at a high rate of speed, impressed men’s minds

with the conviction that, if canals were not already doomed, they

were, at any rate, by no means so superior as they had seemed up to

that time. The Stockton and Darlington Railway had been opened for the

purpose of bringing the coalfields and the ports of Durham together.

There was no idea of competing with any other means of transport,

because no other means of transport existed, except the pack-horse. But

in the case of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, the object in view

was that of antagonism to the canals, which had proved impracticable

in their dealings with the merchants and manufacturers of those

towns. If the canal companies had met the just and reasonable demands

of the traders of Lancashire, the probability is that the Liverpool

and Manchester Railway would not have been constructed until many

years later. As it was, the high-handed proceedings adopted by those

companies, raised the Frankenstein of railway competition, and the

difficulty now was, how to lay it. Sisyphus, himself, had no harder

task to perform. The issue for a time appeared to be doubtful, but

not for long. The new system of transport fulfilled every expectation

formed by its most sanguine promoters, and disappointed every

apprehension entertained by its enemies. The canal companies found it

necessary to undertake experiments, in order to demonstrate the greater

economy of their system of transport. They also attempted to introduce

steam propulsion, to improve their lines of communication, and in some

cases to reduce their rates of charge. They did not, however, greatly

mend matters. Nicholas Wood analysed their experiments, and declared

that “coals and minerals were conveyed on railways equally cheap, if

not at a less rate, than on canals,” and in opposition to those who

maintained the greater economy of waterways, he declared that “in no

instance has it been shown that canal navigation is conducted at a

cheaper rate, including every charge.”[223] He thereupon argued that

“the slow, tardy, and interrupted transit of canal navigation must,

therefore, of necessity yield to other modes, affording a more rapid

and certain means of conveyance.”[224]

In 1825, Charles Maclaren of Edinburgh wrote an elaborate pamphlet on

the comparative merits of railways, canals, and common turnpike roads,

in which he maintained that the effect obtained by the draught of a

single horse was ten times as great on a railway, and thirty times as

great on a canal, as on a well-made road. He argued, further, that a

canal cost about three times as much as a railway, so that it would

require “nearly the same rates or dues per ton to make the capital

yield the same interest.” The relative conditions of working canals and

railways were at that time very imperfectly understood, and probably

the author of this interesting pamphlet would have been amazed, had he

lived, to see the average expenditure per mile of railway constructed

in England and Wales returned, as it now is, at close on 50,000_l._

per mile, or fully four times the outlay incurred on our canal system,

relatively to mileage.

An engineer of great experience, speaking of the contest between

railways and canals, has observed[225] that the introduction of railways

proved, in the first instance, a practical bar to the extension of

the canal system, and, eventually, a too successful competition with

the canals already made was the result. Frequently the route that had

been selected by the canal engineer was found (as was to be expected)

a favourable one for the competing railway, and in the result, the

towns that had been served by the canal, were served by the railway,

which was thus in a position to take away, even the local traffic of

the canal. For some time it appeared as though canal undertakings

and canalised river navigations must fail, for although heavy goods

could be carried very cheaply on canals, and although, in the case

of the many works and factories erected on their banks, or on basins

connected with them, there was with canal navigation no item of expense

corresponding to the cost of cartage to the railway stations, yet the

smallness of the railway rates for heavy goods, and the greater speed

of transit, were found to be more than countervailing advantages.

Canal companies, therefore, set themselves to work to add to their

position of mere owners of water highways, entitled to take toll for

the use of those highways, the function of common carriers, thus

putting themselves on a par with the railway companies, who were, in

the outset, legalised only as mere owners of iron highways, and as the

receivers of toll from any persons who might choose to run engines

and trains thereon—a condition of things which was altered as soon

as it was pointed out that it was utterly incompatible either with

punctuality or with safe working. This addition to the legal powers

of the canal companies, made by the Acts of 1845 and 1847, had a very

beneficial effect upon the value of their property, and assisted

somewhat to preserve a mode of transport competing with that afforded

by the railways.

In most of the leading countries of the world, a time arrived when

the canal system and the railway system came into strong competition,

and when it seemed doubtful on which side the victory would lie. This

contest was necessarily more marked in England than in any other

country. England had not, indeed, been the first in the field with

canals, as she had been with railways. On the contrary, we are told

by Smiles that “at a time when Holland had completed its magnificent

system of water communication, and when France, Germany, and even

Russia, had opened up important lines of inland communication, England

had not cut a single canal.”[226] But England, having once started on a

career of canal development, followed it up with greater energy and

on a more comprehensive scale than any other country. For more than

half a century canals had had it all their own way. They had in their

time done good work, in spite of much opposition.[227] Coming as they

did on the back of an era of very dear transport, they easily proved

their claims to make transport cheaper. Baines states that they carried

traffic for about one-fourth of the rate that was paid previous to the

introduction of such waterways.[228] They were upheld and protected by

large vested interests. They offered the facilities which were desired

by many inland towns of being brought into direct connection with the

sea. But the railway system, first put forward as a tentative

experiment, and without the slightest knowledge on the part of its

promoters of the results that were before long to be realised, was

making encroachments, and proving its capabilities. This was a slow

process, as the way had to be felt. The first railway Acts did not

contemplate the use of locomotives, nor the transport of passenger

traffic. The Stockton and Darlington Railway, constructed in 1825, was

the first on which locomotives were employed. Even at this date, there

were many who doubted the expediency of having a railroad instead of a

canal, and in the county of Durham, as we have already indicated, there

was a fierce fight, carried on for more than twenty years.[229]

In the United States, the supremacy of waterways was maintained until

a much later date. As we have elsewhere shown, a keen and embittered

struggle was kept up between the canal and the railroad companies until

1857; and even in the latter year the Legislature of the State of New

York, finding that railway competition was making serious inroads upon

their canal traffic, were considering whether they should not either

entirely prohibit the railways from carrying freight, or impose such

tolls upon railway tonnage as would cripple the companies in their

competition with canals.[230] Finding also that a large part of the

traffic that had been diverted from the canals to the railroads had

been carried by the latter “without profit, if not at an absolute

loss,” the Legislature was recommended to enact that the railway

companies should be “compelled to transport at no less than fairly

remunerative rates such freight as would naturally seek the cheapest

mode of transit.” The canals were said to have been “despoiled of their

income by a semblance of legal enactment, and their rightful heritage

bestowed upon chartered competitors.”[231] We may smile in this year of

grace at such interpretations of the fundamental laws of political

economy and of the liberty of the subject. No doubt John Stuart Mill

would have set the rights of _meum_ and _tuum_ in a clearer and more

logical light. But in those days vested interests fought hard, and

distinctions were not so clearly drawn as in these. The element of

speed, to which such great importance has since been attached, was only

then beginning to be appreciated.[232] The vested interest of canals had

the Government on its side, the canals having been largely constructed

with State aid. The railways, on the contrary, were entirely the

products of private initiative, which had to make a bold fight in

order to establish any footing at all. The two systems were, moreover,

essentially antagonistic in their characteristics. “The infernal

activity of railroad men was naturally most repulsive to gentlemen

of the old school, whose stately decorum was well reflected in the

placid and unostentatious movement of the boats on the canals.”[233] The

railway companies were accused of having entered into a conspiracy

“deliberately to break down these great public works, upon which the

State has spent forty years of labour,” and to “crush the canals into

a kind of atrophy, which might result in making them odious to the

State, and to transfer them eventually at a vile price to the managers

of this highly creditable scheme.” The public press took up the cudgels

on behalf of the canals. A mighty wave of popular indignation against

the railroads swept over the land. “Danger to the canals!” was the

shibboleth of political parties and commercial cliques. The leading New

York journal declared that “the whole community is aroused as it never

was before.” Prominent men of all parties demanded, through the press,

that the canals should be rescued from the danger with which they were

threatened. The agitation, however, came to nothing. It had no solid

bottom. It was an agitation similar in kind to that which had disturbed

Europe when Arkwright’s spinning machine and Compton’s mule were taking

the place of hand labour. The clamour suddenly collapsed, and was never

heard of afterwards.

Meanwhile the railway system proceeded apace. The records of human

progress contain no more remarkable chapter than that which tells of

the growth of American railroads. The State of New York, in which the

canal interest was the strongest, had, in 1845, 721 miles of railway.

In 1877 it had about 6000 miles. In the United States, as a whole, the

railway mileage increased from 4633 miles in 1845 to 78,000 miles in

1877, and 160,000 miles in 1889. The growth of the system was attended,

as it always is, by a corresponding growth of trade, and what was of

more importance to the people, by a diminution of the cost of living.

The total freight traffic carried on the railways of the United States

in 1881 was 350 million tons, being an average of 6·7 tons per head. In

1888 the total freight carried was 589½ million tons, being an average

of 9·8 tons per head. In 1870 the cost of conveying a barrel of flour

from Chicago to New York was 6_s._ 5_d._; in 1880 a working man was

only called on to pay 3_s._ 3½_d._ for the same service.

From the date when the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was fairly

established, canal navigation in England, with a few notable

exceptions, appears to have fallen into a slumber which recalls the

long night of depression and inactivity that settled down upon the

arts and sciences during the middle ages. After a few years, hardly a

single apologist could be found for the system of internal navigations.

Railways were all the vogue, and were built everywhere. The covering of

the country with a network of iron roads was made the business alike

of engineers, economists, financiers, and manufacturers. The results

of the railway mania of 1845-46, did something to stem the torrent of

new projects, many of them of an almost impossible character. But only

for a time. The canal system never again appeared to look up. One by

one, canals dropped out of the race, and were bought up by railway

companies, either with a view to getting rid of their competition, and

so securing absolute control over the traffic, or in order to make way

for new railway lines. The canals that thus fell into the hands of

railways were, perhaps naturally enough, not particularly well looked

after. But for this the public did not seem to care. The country had

for many years been enjoying an exceptional amount of prosperity. The

start that our mechanical and manufacturing superiority had given us

in the race of nations, aided and abetted by the locomotive engine and

the steamship, and the awakening of foreign countries to a sense of

requirements previously ungratified, if not unfelt, created an enormous

demand for our industrial products. In many industries, indeed, we had

hardly any competition. In most others, there was a sufficient margin

of profit to make it of little consequence what rates were charged for

railway transport, so long as the transport was effected. In such a

race as this, the slow movements of canal boats were not deemed worthy

of attention, and the railways had it all their own way.

But a time was now at hand when all this was about to be changed.

Foreign nations had learned our arts and manufactures, had adopted our

processes, had purchased our machinery, and had instituted systems

of technical instruction that caused industrial knowledge to be

generally diffused and thoroughly appreciated. The development of the

modern steamship, acting in concert with the improvement of railway

transport in the United States, inflicted upon British agriculture a

blow from which it has not rallied, and possibly never may. The prices

of agricultural produce in England, hitherto almost unaffected by the

range of prices elsewhere, were now controlled by the cost of producing

wheat in Dakota, mutton in New Zealand, beef in Texas, butter and

cheese in France, and other commodities elsewhere. Almost suddenly,

a very remarkable fall took place in the profits of agriculturists

at home. Our agricultural population, with its purchasing power thus

seriously crippled, did not bring orders into the manufacturing

districts to the same extent as formerly. Coincidently with this

falling off in the home demand, foreign nations, having learned to

supply their own wants, sought fewer English-made goods than before. A

little later still, and they were competing “brow to brow” with English

industrials in neutral markets. Our import and export returns, which

had been advancing with portentous strides, suddenly dropped down in a

way that caused serious alarm. It was found that the decline was one

of price rather than of volume, and manufacturers, having to accept

much less profits than formerly, were compelled to strain every nerve

to make ends meet. This could only be done in one or other of three

different ways—by the command of cheaper materials, by more economical

processes of manufacture, or by cheaper transport. The railways of

the United States, the telegraph system, and our own steamship lines

provided the first desideratum. The second were diligently looked

after by the manufacturers themselves. As regards the third they were

powerless. Inquiry revealed the fact that the railway rates charged

in England were generally higher than those charged in competing

countries. In some cases they had damaged once-flourishing industries,

and imperilled the very existence of large centres of population.

Complaints against railway monopoly and railway exactions became

universal. The railways were for a long time inexorable, and as they

turned a deaf ear to the remonstrances of traders, the latter had to

seek elsewhere for relief.

At this stage in the remarkable annals of recent industrial progress,

attention was once again turned to the comparative merits of canals and

railways for the transport of heavy traffic. A committee of the House

of Commons was in 1882 appointed to inquire into the subject of British

canals. This committee sat for a considerable time and took a great

deal of evidence, most of it of an extremely unsatisfactory character,

as showing how greatly British canals had passed under the domination

of the principal railway companies. The report of this committee

directed renewed attention to the advantages of canals as a means of

transport, and gave an impetus to canal construction, of which the

Manchester Ship Canal, now approaching completion, is the latest and

most signal triumph. New ship canals are, however, being talked of; and

it is more than likely that Sheffield and some other inland towns will,

before long, be able to float large vessels to the sea.

The Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888 contained certain provisions

that specially affected canals. One of these requires returns to

be made annually to Parliament by canal companies. This provision

will enable us to ascertain that which has heretofore been a sealed

book—the extent to which British canals are now utilised. The

concurrent proposals of the railway companies as to maximum rates and

terminal charges will be likely to help the canal system, if it has any

vitality left, towards resuscitation.

FOOTNOTES:

[217] Stone blocks were used instead of wooden sleepers on the

earliest railways.

[218] One section of this Act enabled the company to charge a toll

for cattle driven along the line, as on an ordinary highway.

[219] 33 George III.

[220] Clifford’s ‘History of Private Bill Legislation,’ vol. i. p. 41.

[221] Oddy’s ‘European Commerce’ gives a list of the canals that

were either being promoted or constructed at the commencement of the

century. Some of them were of very considerable extent. Oddy remarked

in 1805 that “by means of the canals already finished a great part of

European Russia has communication with one or other of the seas by

which it is bounded.”

[222] ‘Practical Treatise on Railroads,’ first edition.

[223] ‘Practical Treatise on Railways,’ third edition, p. 699.

[224] Ibid., p. 18.

[225] ‘Minutes of Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers,’

vol. lxxx. p. 11.

[226] Preface to the ‘Lives of the Engineers,’ p. 7, 1st Ed.

[227] Johnson was a declared enemy of canals, believing that they

would interfere with country seclusion, make living dearer, displace

pack-horses and waggons, and injure the trade of towns near which

they might be carried.

[228] ‘History of the Commerce and Town of Liverpool.’

[229] Some particulars of this controversy will be found in the work

entitled, ‘The Jubilee Memorial of the Railway System,’ which the

writer prepared, at the request of the North-Eastern Railway Board,

for the occasion of the jubilee of the first passenger railway, held

at Darlington, September 1885.

[230] Poor’s ‘Manual of Railroads for 1881,’ p. xxvii.

[231] Ibid., p. xxx.

[232] One of the advocates of the canal, as against the railroad,

remarked that, “very possibly it may be vital, as it certainly is

characteristic, for a live American to hurry his person at racehorse

speed across the continent; but it certainly is not vital, nor in any

respect necessary or expedient, thus to hurry his fuel, his timber,

his building materials, his food, nor any very large proportion of

his merchandise or manufactures.”

[233] Poor’s ‘Manual for 1881,’ p. xxxiii.

CHAPTER XXVII.

COMPARATIVE COST OF WATER AND LAND TRANSPORT.

There is no matter connected with the trade and commerce of a country

that is of greater importance to its welfare than cheap transport. The

business of transportation, both by land and by sea, is now one of the

most gigantic in the history of the world. The railways of the United

Kingdom received in 1887, for the transport of goods and passengers

together, not less than 71 millions sterling, which is approximately

about 6 per cent. of the whole national income from all sources. The

railways of the United States in the same year had a total income of

about 1000 millions of dollars, or 200 millions sterling, which is

probably a still larger percentage of the total income of that country.

It is the same in other European countries. Transportation is becoming

a larger factor than before in the income and expenditure of all

civilised nations.

The same considerations apply to the over-sea trade. The tonnage of

vessels that entered and cleared from British ports in the foreign

trade of 1889 was over 67 millions of tons, which would probably

represent at least as many millions sterling for freights. In addition

to this enormous business in the over-sea trade, our coasting trade

was represented in 1889 by over 90 million tons of entrances and

clearances, which would probably add 20 to 25 millions additional

to the gross income of our shipping interest, bringing up the

total tonnage that entered and cleared from our ports in 1889 to

157 millions, and the gross income resulting from the business of

transportation by sea to, approximately, about 90 millions sterling.

The United States have no such record as this to show for their foreign

trade, their foreign entrances and clearances for 1888 having amounted

to only 31 millions of tons. But the internal trade of the United

States, on the lakes, rivers, and canals, will probably be at least

double this figure, so that the traffic dealt with is enormous. The

foreign trade of the United States has more than trebled since 1864,

and is still increasing at a very rapid rate.

These figures are quoted in order that the vast character of this

business of transportation, and its consequent importance, may be duly

appreciated. Manifestly, it is of great moment that the technical

conditions which influence the cost of transport should be as perfect

as possible, and that the most economical methods of carrying on the

business of a country from this point of view, should be put into

operation.

There is, however, a great absence of agreement, even among experts,

as to what those conditions are, resulting, no doubt, from the great

variety of circumstances by which they are governed. On land, the cost

of haulage is necessarily determined by such considerations as the cost

of fuel, the proportions of tare to live load, the character of the

gradients, the adaptability of the rolling stock to the traffic, and

other elements of a more or less technical description. These introduce

so much variety of experience, and such conflict of results, that the

cost of transport is seldom or never in any two cases exactly the same;

and the figures that would be given by one authority on the subject

would probably be disputed by another, so that it is to this day, after

the railway system has been at work for over sixty years, and has

become the dominating factor in our commercial, social, and political

organisation, an extremely difficult matter to arrive at reliable

data, or, at any rate, at such data as would be generally accepted

as correct, relative to the actual cost of transport under given

conditions.

It may, of course, be argued that the actual charges imposed by the

railway companies is a likely criterion of the cost of the service.

But there could hardly be a greater fallacy. In the United Kingdom the

railway companies openly proclaim that the amount that a particular

traffic will bear, and not the cost of the services rendered, is their

basis of charge.[234] In no two countries, moreover, are the charges

even approximately the same, and finally the charges vary in the same

country, and vary considerably from year to year. As an example, it may

be remarked that in the United States the average freight charge per

ton per mile in 1887 was only 1·06 cents, or roughly a halfpenny per

ton per mile, for all kinds of traffic, whereas in 1868 it was as much

as 2·45 cents, or 1·22_d._ per ton per mile.[235] It is not pretended, of

course, that this striking difference represents the difference that

has, in the interval, occurred in the actual cost of transport. That

the cost of transport has been reduced goes without saying, but the

American railways are also now content to accept much smaller profits

than formerly.

In the United Kingdom, however, the average ton-mile rates for the

transport of railway traffic are much higher than in the United States,

or in any of the principal countries of the Continent. This higher rate

of charge is defended on the ground that the cost of railways has in

England been much higher than in any other country. The charges are

fixed, therefore, not according to the actual cost of the haulage and

working of the traffic, but according to the amount required to perform

that operation, plus the payment of dividends upon an abnormally, and,

as some think, unnecessarily and unjustifiably, large capital outlay.[236]

Under these circumstances, there has been a constant conflict between

the traders and the railway companies relative to traffic charges.

The trading community has naturally been desirous of paying only

for services actually rendered, and have sought to ascertain what

those services have cost. The railways, however—at any rate in the

United Kingdom—have withheld this information, and as they have

also declined, in the main, to bring down their charges to a level

that would give traders more chance in competition with foreign

countries, the latter have in some directions sought to fall back

upon water transport, which is generally believed to be a cheaper

mode of transport than that provided by any railway, however cheaply

constructed or well managed.

Even, however, in the matter of water transport there are differences

that appear to render perfectly hopeless any attempt to ascertain

what is the actual cost of working per unit of traffic, and what is,

accordingly, the charges that the traffic ought to be called on to pay.

It will be found that this cost, like that of railway transport, is

affected by many elements—by the size of the canal and of the vessels

employed, by the number of locks and their mechanical arrangements, by

the rate of speed, by the system of traction employed, and by other

obvious differences that we shall refer to later on. It is these

differences, and their effect on the cost of working canal traffic, and

on the consequent rates charged, that we now propose to consider.

In the annals of transportation, there is no more interesting chapter

than that which deals with the contest that has been carried on for

nearly half a century, between the railways and the lakes and canals

for the grain traffic between Chicago and New York. This contest is

interesting, not only to Americans, as the people who are engaged in

it, and whom it more directly concerns; but also to the people of

Europe, and of Great Britain in particular, the cost of whose food

supplies is affected thereby.

Up to the end of 1874, the rate charged by railways for the transport

of grain from Chicago to New York was seldom under 50 cents per 100

lbs., which is equivalent to about ·58_d._ per ton per mile—taking the

distance at 950 miles. Ten years previously the average rate was rather

more than double this amount. But from 1875 onwards there commenced

what is called a “war of rates,” in the course of which the cost of

transportation was subject to the most sudden and violent fluctuations,

apparently without the slightest reason or excuse, except that of the

caprice of the competing companies. Thus, in 1879, the year started

with a rate of 85 cents, which fell in February to 20, in April to 15,

and in May to 10 cents per 100 lbs., the latter rate being exactly

sixteen times more than the rate which obtained in January 1865. By the

end of the year, the rate had risen again to 40 cents, and in 1880 it

never fell below 30 cents. In 1881 the maximum was 40 and the minimum

12 cents; in 1882 the extremes were 30 and 12½cents; in 1883 there was

only a difference of 5 cents in the recorded maximum and minimum; and

in 1884 the fluctuations ranged between 15 and 30 cents.[237]

At the lowest rate quoted over this period—the 10 cent rate of May

1879—the railways were actually carrying grain between Chicago and

New York for rather over 0·11_d._ per ton per mile. At the same rate

of transport, goods should be carried between London and Edinburgh

for 3_s._ 8_d._ per ton, a fact which will perhaps bring home to the

British trader what such a low rate would mean to him. The average rate

over the last three or four years has, however, been about double this

figure, while for the American railways as a whole it has been nearly

four times as much.

The promoters of the improved Erie Canal claim that the cost of

transport of wheat between Chicago and Buffalo by the large steamers

that now navigate the lakes is now only 2 cents a bushel, or 8_d._

per quarter for a distance of about 800 miles. The remainder of the

distance between Chicago and New York being by canal, the cost of

transport has been over 4 cents per bushel for about 400 miles, being

more than twice the cost, with more than twice the time in transit, for

only one-half the distance.

The circumstances of the Erie Canal are, however, exceptional. Seldom,

indeed, do railway freights run so low as they do on the 950 miles of

railway that separate Chicago from New York. Over this distance, the

great trunk lines have recently been carrying freight at the rate of

15 cents, or 7½_d._ per 100 lbs.[238] This is equivalent to about 14_s._

per ton, or exactly 0·174_d._ per ton per mile. There is probably no

such low rates for railway transport in the world. But this low rate is

due entirely to the competition of the lakes, rivers, and canals. It is

very exceptional even in the United States. The average rate charged

for transport in the United States in 1888 was ·45_d._ per ton per

mile,[239] which is 164 per cent. more than the Chicago to New York rate

already quoted. The railway companies do not admit that the competition

of the canals was the cause of the remarkable difference here shown,

but allege that it was due to “the very active competition that existed

among the three main lines of railroad all striving for the business.”

This has been an element in the case, without doubt; but no one who is

familiar with railway pools, conferences, and arrangements, is likely

to suppose that if the water route had been closed, the railways would

have continued rates that were most probably highly unremunerative,

notwithstanding that 1131 tons of paying freight have been brought from

Buffalo to New York in one train.[240]

Mr. W. Shelford points out[241] that in the United States one half of the

exports of wheat are from districts whose nearest point is 1400 miles

from the Atlantic seaboard. This wheat is carried by water and rail,

which are in independent hands, and form alternative routes. The routes

between Chicago and New York are:—Rail, 912-990, say 950 miles; water,

lakes, 985 miles; river and canal, 420-1405 miles; that is, the water

route is 50 per cent. longer than the railway. Yet the water route

rules the rate, because the water transport costs ⅛_d._ per ton per

mile, while the railway transport costs nearly ⅕_d._ per ton per mile,

and the total rate by water between Chicago and New York is two-thirds

of the rate by rail. So far, there is a _prima facie_ case in favour of

canals.

But if the cost of transport by water be taken separately for the lakes

and Erie Canal, it appears that the cost on the lakes is 1/12_d._ per

ton per mile, and the cost on the Erie Canal and Hudson River is ⅙_d._

per ton per mile, so that the cost of transport on the Erie Canal is

double that on the lakes, and is nearly the same as the transport by

railway.

Notwithstanding the very low rates charged for transport on the canals

of the United States, the Interstate Commerce Commission reported in

1887 that “the experience of the country has demonstrated that the

artificial waterways cannot be successful competitors with the railways

upon equal terms.”

The transport of wheat grown in the Western States of America, between

Chicago and New York is the largest business of its kind in that

country. There are in the United States between 35 and 40 millions of

acres of land under wheat crops, an area about one-half that of the

whole surface of England, Ireland, and Scotland. On this vast area

there was grown, in 1886, 459¼ millions of bushels of wheat, and of

this quantity 129½ millions of bushels were transported from Chicago,

the great warehousing centre, to New York, in the proportions of over

46 millions by canal and river and over 80 millions by railway. For

many years there has been a great scramble for this traffic between the

two rival systems of transportation. The predominance has lain now with

the railway and then with the canal, and both, as we have seen, have

had to reduce their rates from time to time in order that they might

have their share of the traffic. The fluctuations in the quantities

carried by the two systems within recent years have been remarkable. In

1881 only 38 millions of bushels out of a total of 139¾ millions were

carried by canal, but in 1887 the canals carried 46 millions out of

127½, showing a remarkable advance in the interval. This advance is, no

doubt, mainly due to the fact that in 1883 the tolls on the New York

State canals were abolished.[242]

Appended is a table showing the estimated cost of transportation of

freight between Buffalo and New York (400 miles) by different systems

of water conveyance, inclusive of tolls,[243]—(From the Report of State

Engineer of New York for 1878.)

───────────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────

│ Cost per │ Mills. │Per Bushel

│ Ton. │ │ of Wheat.

├──────────┼──────────┼──────────

│ │ per │

│ dols. │ ton mile.│ cents.

By animal power │ 8·96 │ 4·53 │ 7·37

By Baxter steamers[244] │ 9·04 │ 4·58 │ 7·45

By Belgian system[245] │ 8·32 │ 4·21 │ 6·91

Do. do.[246] │ 7·76 │ 3·92 │ 6·48

By steamer and consort[247]│ 7·68 │ 3·88 │ 6·41

Do. do.[248] │ 7·56 │ 3·83 │ 6·34

───────────────────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴───────────

The economists and engineers of Germany have devoted a considerable

amount of attention to the question of the cost of transport by water

as compared with the cost of railway transport. For such an inquiry

they have had ample facilities, having not only an economically-worked

railway system, but having also several navigable rivers, on which a

large traffic is carried, in addition to their system of canals. The

results which have been brought out by these inquiries are instructive,

if they are not final. Their effect has been to create a very

considerable agitation in Germany on behalf of additional waterways,

which are described as essential to the transport of heavy traffic,

and which the Government has taken up as a measure of State. Hitherto,

however, the amount of traffic carried on the waterways of Germany has

been very much less than the traffic carried upon the railways, thus

confirming the experience of the United States, Great Britain, and

France, in so far as it shows that cheapness of cost of transport is

not the one thing needful.

The quantity of traffic carried over the German navigable ways in 1884

is estimated to have been close on 19½ millions of tons.[249] In the same

year the total quantity of traffic carried over the railways of Germany

amounted to 107 millions of tons, so that the railways carried 5½ times

more than the waterways. For other countries the proportions of the

total traffic carried in the same year were as follows:—

┌──────────────┬─────────┬────────────┐

│ │Railways.│ Waterways.│

│ ├─────────┼────────────┤

│ │ tons. │ tons. │

│United States │ │ │

│France │ .. │ 30,000,000 │

│Belgium │ .. │ 20,000,000 │

└──────────────┴─────────┴────────────┘

There does not exist any exact information as to the quantity of

traffic carried on English canals. C. von Scherzer has put the quantity

at 30 to 35 millions of tons.[250] This, however, is only conjecture.

There is no authoritative record of the extent of canal traffic in

this country, and no estimate of the tonnage actually carried was even

attempted by the Canal Committee of 1883.

A canal from the Westphalian coal district to Emden having recently

been projected, a German economist was led to compare the cost of

carriage upon canals and on a single-line mineral railway with few

stations and a small staff. Assuming eight trains of sixty loaded

waggons per day to the port, of which twelve are returned loaded, and

a cost of 6000_l._ per kilometre for building the line, as actually

incurred for similar lines in the district, he calculated the cost per

train-kilometre as follows:—

_d._

Repairs and renewals of locomotives 1·20

Fuel 2·40

Cleaning, oil, &c. 0·54

Repairs, and renewals of wagons 2·88

Lighting and heating of guard’s van 0·02

Drivers’ wages, including mileage 1·41

Guards and brakesmen’s wages, including mileage 2·46

Inspection, &c., of rolling stock 0·13

Station-service 3·12

Permanent-way, repairs, and signalmen 4·32

General management 1·56

Interest on capital account for line, locomotives, and

wagons, at 4 per cent. 14·52

──────

Total 34·56_d._

34·56

or ────── = 0·096_d._ per ton-kilometre = 0·16_d._ per ton mile.

3·60

The carriage on the Elbe canals costs 0·35_d._ per ton-mile, and on the

canal from the Belgian coalfields to Paris the rate was 0·29_d._ in the

spring and 0·34_d._ in the autumn of 1883, without paying interest.[251]

These figures do not, however, appear to agree with those found to

work out in similar cases elsewhere. On the Aire and Calder Canal,

for example, steamboat trains of barges, recently introduced by Mr.

Bartholomew, have reduced the cost of haulage with a speed of 4½ to 6

miles per hour to 1/119th of a penny per ton per mile for minerals, and

1/34th of a penny per ton per mile for general merchandise, including

return empties.[252] On the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, however, the cost

of steam haulage, towing two 40-ton barges, fully loaded, has been

given at ⅙ penny per ton per mile, and on the Gloucester Canal the

charge for steam towing is given at 1/10th penny per ton per mile.

_Cost of Horse Towing._—On two Belgian canals, the Louvain and the

Charleroi, horses are employed for towing. The Louvain Canal is

semi-maritime, with 3½ metres = 11½ feet depth of water, and runs

north-west from Louvain to the river Senne, which flows into the Rupel

about 1 kilom. or ⅝th of a mile further north-west. Its length is 30

kilom. = 18¾ miles, divided into five levels; the total tonnage of the

boats and ships passing through it in 1878 was estimated at 273,000

tons, and the charge for towing averages 6 millimes per tonne-kilom. =

0·093 penny per ton per mile. The Charleroi Canal, winding northwards

from Charleroi to Brussels by a circuitous route of 75 kilom. = 47

miles, is of small section, and its boats carry only 70 tons; hence the

charge for towing is higher, amounting to 8 millimes per tonne-kilom. =

0·125 penny per ton per mile. Including the return of empties, a recent

writer has estimated that horse towing might be done on free canals for

5 millimes per tonne-kilom. = 0·078 penny per ton per mile.

_Cost of Steam-towing._—On the Willebroeck Canal, which runs north

from Brussels past Willebroeck and enters the river Rupel opposite

Boom, all boats, except steamers, are towed by a steam tug working on

a chain. The length of the canal is 28 kilom. = 17½ miles, divided

into five levels; and the locks are large enough to take in six or

seven boats at a time, along with their tug. The towing is done by a

company, from whose scale of charges and year’s balance-sheet a recent

writer has calculated 0·078 penny per ton per mile as the price paid

for towing, the total annual traffic amounting to about 15,400,000

ton-miles. But if the actual dividends were reduced to the rate of four

per cent., which prevails for Belgian Government securities, and if

certain economies were effected which are believed to be practicable,

the charge for towing might be brought down to 0·047 penny per ton per

mile, including empties.[253]

The 110-ton boats in general use by the carriers on the Willebroeck

Canal make weekly the double journey from Brussels to Antwerp and back.

The distance by the canal, the Rupel, and the Scheldt, is 45 × 2 = 90

kilom. = 56 miles there and back. The boatman gets 70 francs = 56_s._

per week for himself and his boat. With a full load both ways, this

would give 7 millimes per tonne-kilom. = 0·109 penny per ton per mile.

When the Charleroi Canal is enlarged, a large traffic right through

from Charleroi to Antwerp is anticipated, a distance of 120 kilom. = 75

miles. A single journey per week would then bring the cost down to 5·2

millimes = 0·081 penny. German estimates by Dr. Meitzen range from

4·8 to 6·4 millimes = 0·075 to 0·100 penny; whence 5 millimes per

tonne-kilom. = 0·078 penny per ton per mile has been calculated as the

cost of boats and boatmen, with a full load both ways, travelling 17

kilom. or 11 miles per day, including all stoppages.

After all, however, there is no case of cheap transport rates abroad

that is more remarkable than the rate of sixpence per ton charged for

the transport of salt on the river Weaver, between Northwich and the

Mersey—a distance of thirty-six miles. This corresponds to an average

of ·17_d._ per ton per mile.

In 1888, 265 vessels were trading on the river Weaver, not including

canal boats, 65 of these being steamers. These made an average of 25

trips per day, carrying a gross tonnage of 1,300,000 tons per annum,

chiefly salt. The rates charged vary from a penny per ton for cinders

and gravel, to a shilling per ton for white salt—rock salt, which is

the staple, being charged sixpence per ton. No charge is made for dock

dues, and vessels are towed up the Mersey free of cost.

_Sea-transport._—There is, of course, no system of transport that is

so cheap as that of ocean carrying. The rates of freight now ruling

for ocean transport, low though they be, are not by any means a true

criterion of the actual charges involved. Thus, it appears that at a

recent date, a large quantity of grain was carried between European

and United States ports for 10_s._ per ton, or ·04_d._ per ton per

mile. Between Newcastle-on-Tyne and German ports, coal cargoes have

been carried rather largely for about 4_s._ 10_d._ or ·12_d._ per ton

per mile. Between North Sea and Baltic ports freights have ruled over

considerable periods at 5_s._ per ton, or between ·04_d._ and ·08_d._

per ton per mile. The daily expenses of a large steamer may be taken at

about sixpence per ton register, and as such a steamer will run from

190 to 250 miles per day, the actual cost of transport will probably

not exceed ·03_d._ per ton per mile, which, however, will be increased

by port stoppages, and other inevitable circumstances to ·05_d._ Mr.

Bailey has ascertained that the transport of a cargo of 2360 tons of

cargo, in an ordinary steamer, allowing for interest, depreciation,

insurance, fuel, wages, and food, was only one penny per forty miles of

journey.[254] This figure seems, no doubt, to be exceptionally low, but

of course much would depend upon the condition of the steamer and the

character of the cargo. The Erie Canal charges for sea transport are

only 1/18 penny per ton per mile, as compared with ¼ penny on the

canal. This may, perhaps, be accepted as the measure of the differences

in the cost of transport, and, if so, it would mean that the cost of

working canal traffic is about four and a half times that of working

such traffic on the sea. This figure is verified by many others, which

are worthy of consideration. On lakes like Erie, Ontario, and Superior,

the traffic costs more to work than on the sea, but less than it costs

on canals. The Erie Canal charge for lake transport is 1/9_d._ per ton

per mile, being twice the amount charged for sea transport

Theoretically, there is no sound reason why a modern steamship on a

sufficiently large tide-level canal should not transport traffic almost

at the same rate as it can do on the ocean. The resistance on the canal

would be less than that usually met with at sea, but, on the other

hand, the dangers of steaming too quickly compel a slow rate of speed.

The actual cost of transport at sea has been variously put at from 0·03

to 0·07 per ton per mile. This does not probably include interest on

capital and wear and tear, although the steamers in the Transatlantic

trade were content over a long period to accept rates of freight

which averaged no more than 0·04_d_. per ton per mile. If this rate

of freight were possible on inland waterways for our heavy traffic,

it would make a wonderful difference in the total cost of transport

in the United Kingdom. In 1888, there were 200 millions of tons of

minerals carried in the United Kingdom alone. The total receipts from

this traffic amounted to rather over 16 millions sterling, which,

taking an average of a penny per ton all round, would be equivalent to

3700 millions of ton miles. If this enormous traffic were carried by

canal, as it possibly might be (or at least the greater part of it) for

·25_d._ per ton per mile, there would be a possible gain to the trade

of the country of 7¾ millions sterling per annum.

As things are at present, the trader who desires to make use of canal

navigation in Great Britain is compelled to deal with a number of small

companies, every one of which has its own rate of toll, and none of

which is disposed to give too much facility to the others. Thus, a

trader desiring to send iron-work from London to Liverpool, or _vice

versâ_ by canal, would have to deal with no fewer than six canals, who

charge tolls varying from 2_d._ to 1_s._ 9_d._ per ton[255] to Preston

Brook within 20 miles of Liverpool. If, however, the traffic is to be

carried 20 miles further, it has to be transhipped into larger craft,

and carried on the Bridgwater Canal, the owners of which charge 7_s._

6_d._ per ton, or more by 2_s._ 4_d._ than the other six companies

charge for the whole of the distance of 220¼ miles over which they

have carried the goods. It is not, therefore, surprising that the

canals compare unfavourably with railways, instead of being more

favourable to the trader. For the transport of iron-work, the canal

companies now make a charge of 20_s._ or more per ton between London

and Liverpool,[256] which is at the rate of over a penny per ton per

mile. This is not only a prohibitory rate, but it is one that is quite

unjustifiable. The actual cost of transport, including all charges,

is seldom, as we have seen, more than three-tenths of a penny on

English waterways. In the case of steam colliers it has been given as

0·15_d._; in the case of steam barges on the river Lea, it is 0·33_d._;

and on the French canals it is 0·38_d._[257] In the case of ocean steam

navigation, the cost of transport is so much lower that an ocean

steamer often conveys cargo across the Atlantic for about one half the

price at which cargo is carried from London to Liverpool by canal,

although the distance in the former case is about seventeen times that

in the latter. In Germany again, where much more effectual use is made

of the inland waterways than in England, the rate varies from ·18 to

·48 of a penny per ton per mile.[258] Hence, it is not surprising that

in Germany “for valuable goods a preference is shown for water over

railway transport.” There, we are told, that “artificial waterways

carry the mass of cheap goods for two-thirds of the regular railway

tariff, and valuable goods for one-third or two-thirds of this

tariff.[259] It is the same in other continental countries.

At present, our canal traders are paying four times the amount they

require to do for the carriage of their heavy goods between our

largest centres of population. The case of the traffic between London

and Liverpool is only typical of the trade of the country generally.

Between the Lancashire coalfield and the metropolis, the railway

charge for transport is about 7_s._ per ton. By the canal it should,

as we have seen, be brought, with a profit of 25 per cent. to the

transportation agency, for a fraction over 2_s._ 6_d._; and when we

consider that the metropolis now receives about eight million tons of

coal annually by railway, this difference should exercise a sensible

influence on the trade of that part of the kingdom.

The great secret of cheap transportation is to handle and carry large

quantities. It is this, and this only, that has enabled the United

States to achieve such remarkably cheap transport, both on railways

and canals—on land and on water. In 1850 the capacity of the trains

which carried grain from Chicago to New York was only twenty-five cars

or waggons, carrying eight tons each, or a total train-load of about

200 tons. It is now, however, no uncommon thing to see train loads of

1000 to 1200 tons between Buffalo and New York. In 1850 the largest

craft employed for transporting traffic on the lakes and rivers between

Chicago and New York did not exceed 600 tons, whereas now the maximum

is not less than 3000 tons.[260] In both cases the maximum load has been

increased to five times as much as it was in 1850.

Mr. Conder[261] has pointed out that a feature of prime importance in

which the economy of transport by canal differs from that by railway,

is the incidence of the expenses of maintenance. The cost of railway

maintenance, as soon as anything like an adequate amount of traffic

is brought on a line, is remarkably steady, rising and falling, to

a certain extent, with the increase or diminution of the volume of

transport. On canals, the fixed expenses demand, in any case, a certain

cost, and this cost is very little increased by a large increase of

traffic. The annual cost of maintenance in the Suez Canal was actually

less from 1876 to 1881 than it had been from 1871 to 1876. But the

traffic had considerably more than doubled, so that the cost of

maintenance per ton per mile fell from 0·35_d._ to 0·134_d._

Bearing in mind this peculiar feature of water traffic, it is

necessary, in speaking of the cost of transport by canal, to indicate

the approximate amount of transport for which the calculation is made.

Mr. Conder[262] holds that a traffic of 600,000 units of net load may

be taken for this purpose, though it is far beneath the capacity of a

canal of very moderate size. At this amount of duty, in order to allow

a dividend of 4¼ per cent. on the capital cost, the rate of freight

on an ordinary English canal comes to 154_l._ per 100,000 units, or

0·37_d._ per ton per mile. On the French canals, providing for sinking

fund as well as interest, the cost of freight is 0·33_d._ per ton per

mile. In Belgium it is reduced to 0·20_d._, and on the lake and large

canal navigations of the United States to 0·10_d._ But on the Aire

and Calder Canal, where very special arrangements have been made for

the transport of coal, it was stated in evidence before the Select

Committee on Canals, that the cost of freight has been reduced to the

very low figure of 0·05_d._ per ton per mile. On English railways coal

transport is charged for at the rate of 0·5_d._ to 1_d._ per ton per

mile.

Mr. Conder has further estimated that in order to obtain the mean

return of 4¼ per cent. on capital, which is all that the English

railways have secured since they stopped the canal traffic, the normal

charge must be, for passengers 0·67_d._ each, for goods 1·164_d._, and

for minerals 1·838_d._ per ton per mile.[263] He adds that the charge at

which the long coal traffic is conveyed to London from Wales, over the

Great Western Railway, is 0·43_d._ per ton per mile; the loss to the

Company being to some extent recouped by charges of from 1·5_d._ to

1·75_d._ per ton per mile made to those towns which have no alternative

means of supply. The positive loss to the Company is thus about 0·4_d._

per ton per mile, and about one-half that loss is inflicted on the

purchasers or freighters.[264]

It is only right to point out that Mr. Conder’s calculations are not

accepted by railway managers, nor endorsed by independent experts. Mr.

Price Williams, a well-known railway engineer, who has very closely

investigated this subject, has come to the conclusion that railway

companies can carry coal on an ordinary road at about 0·25_d._ per ton

per mile, including return empties. This, however, is merely the cost

of haulage, and it must, of course, be added to the cost of management,

depreciation, interest, &c., before the exact figure is capable of

ascertainment.

There is, however, even more authoritative evidence as to the actual

cost of mineral traffic to the railway companies. Sir James Allport has

had the candour to admit[265] that on the Midland Railway it is about

2_s._ 6_d._ per train mile with a train of 320 to 350 tons, which

corresponds to rather under 0·2_d._ per ton per mile. This has been

confirmed from other railway quarters.

FOOTNOTES:

[234] Mr. Grierson, in his work on ‘Railway Rates’ (p. 68) remarks

that the railway companies aim at making rates conform “to the

requirements of trade, or according to a popular expression, to

charge what the traffic will bear.”

[235] Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1888, pp. 185-188.

[236] In 1888 the average capital per mile of railway open in the

United Kingdom was 43,210_l._, but for England and Wales alone the

expenditure per mile was about 50,00_l._ In the United States the

cost of construction and equipment per mile of railway open in 1888

was 52,699 dollars, or roughly, 10,600_l._

[237] The rates have been taken from an interesting table published

in the _Railroad Gazette_—an admirable and ably conducted paper—of

January 9th, 1885. It is to be observed that down to 1879 the rates

were quoted in a depreciated and fluctuating currency.

[238] Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol.

xiv., p. 44.

[239] According to the returns published by Poor, the total tonnage

carried was 589½ million tons, and the number of ton miles was 70,423

millions. The gross receipts from freight were 639½ million dollars,

and by dividing the ton-miles into the gross receipts, we get at the

approximate ton-mile average.

[240] Trans. Am. Soc. C. E., vol. xiv., p. 50.

[241] Report of the Conference on canal navigation at the Society of

Arts, 1888.

[242] According to the “Statistical Abstract of the United States”

for 1887, the rates on the principal trunk railroads and the New York

State canals at different periods were respectively:—

┌───────┬──────────┬─────────┐

│ Year. │ Railroad.│ Canal │

│ │ Average. │ Average.│

├───────┼──────────┼─────────┤

│ │ cents. │ cents. │

│ 1868 │ 2·45 │ ·87 │

│ 1878 │ 1·40 │ ·42 │

│ 1880 │ 1·29 │ ·49 │

│ 1882 │ 1·18 │ ·42 │

└───────┴──────────┴─────────┘

[243] Tolls, 1·04 cent.; elevating at New York, ½ cent.; trimming,

15/100 cent.

[244] Simple steamers propelled by screws.

[245] Cable in bottom of canal; steamer and tow.

[246] Cable in bottom of canal; steamer and tow.

[247] Screw steamer pushing consort ahead, both loaded.

[248] Screw steamer pushing consort ahead, both loaded.

[249] The details are as under:—

Tons.

Basin of East Prussia, Niemen, Vistula,

Pregel, and Passarge 2,227,000

Basin of the Oder 861,000

” ” Elbe 7,767,000

” ” Weser 218,000

” ” Ems 176,000

” ” Rhine 7,565,000

Lake of Constance 338,000

Basin of the Danube 210,000

──────────

19,362,000

══════════

[250] C. von Scherzer’s ‘Economic Life of Nations.’

[251] Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,

vol. 78, p. 485.

[252] Ald. Bailey’s address to the Manchester Association of

Engineers, January 1886.

[253] Pro. I.C.E., vol. 78.

[254] Address to the Manchester Association of Engineers, p. 19.

[255] The tolls are as under:—

───────────────┬───────┬────────┬──────────

│ │ │ Total

Canal. │ Per │ Miles. │ per Ton

│ Ton. │ │ per Mile.

───────────────┼───────┼────────┼──────────

│_s. d._│ │ _d_.

Grand Junction │ 1 8 │ 96 │ ⅕

Oxford │ 0 8 │ 24 │ ⅓

Coventry │ 0 5½ │ 22¼ │ ¼

Birmingham │ 0 5¼ │ 5½ │ 1

Coventry │ 0 2 │ 5½ │ ⅓

North Stafford │ 1 9 │ 67 │ ⅓

├───────┼────────┤

Total │ 7 6 │ 220¼ │

───────────────┴───────┴────────┴──────────

[256] The principal elements of this charge are:—

Per Ton.

_s. d._

Actual cost of transport 10 0

Tolls from London to Preston Brook 5 2

Bridgwater Company’s charges 5 _s._ 6 _d._ to 7 6

[257] Appendix to ‘Report of Select Committee on Canals,’ p. 236.

[258] The inland navigation rates of Germany are established

according to the following scale (‘Journal of Statistical Society,

1888,’ p. 391):—

Per Ton per Mile.

(_a_) Goods in bulk, loaded in boats

and towed in trains ·18_d._ to ·29_d._

(_b_) Goods in bales, towed in trains ·24_d._ to ·38_d._

(_c_) Goods in bales, carried by

steam carriers ·39_d._ to 1·0_d._

[259] ‘Bulletin du Ministère de travaux publics,’ Nov. 1887.

[260] ‘Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,’ vol.

xiv. p. 55.

[261] Paper on “Inland Transport in the Nineteenth Century by Land

and by Water,” ‘Journal of the Society of Arts,’ 1888.

[262] Ibid.

[263] Report on Wilts and Berks Canal, 1882.

[264] Paper on “Inland Transport in the Nineteenth Century by Land

and by Water.” By F. R. Conder.

[265] Select Committee on Canals, Report, 1883.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

SYSTEMS OF TRANSPORT AND HAULAGE.

The cost of transport, whether by land or by water, is necessarily

largely affected by the method of propulsion or traction employed. On

the ocean, on lakes, and, for the most part, on rivers as well, steam

and wind are the systems available. On canals, however, the wind is

practically impossible as a motive power, and steam is not always

convenient. It has, therefore, become necessary and customary to employ

other methods. Of these, the most common in Great Britain is horse

traction, which, however, is often varied by manual labour on the

towing path. In either of these forms, traction is slow, tedious, and

costly, but there are many cases in which it is not possible to make

use of any other system. Much depends upon the width of the canal, the

number of locks that have to be passed through, and other conditions

that affect the problem. It has, however, been placed beyond all doubt

that where steam traction can be introduced, it is much more economical

than either horse or manual labour. Steam may, of course, be employed

in either of two ways—either in the form of a tug-boat, with a number

of barges in tow, as on the great lakes of the United States; or, where

the locks are not long and wide enough to permit of this system, in

the form of a locomotive, instead of a horse, on the towing-path. The

former system is, of course, much more general, and, so far as it is

possible to judge from recorded experiments, much more satisfactory

than the latter. But there are few towing paths that could not be

adapted for a narrow-gauge railway, and a small locomotive engine

might, therefore, be frequently employed where a steam-tug was out of

the question.

Besides the systems of traction already named, there are various

systems of chain towage that have been employed, especially on the

Continent, with more or less satisfactory results. These usually take

the form of ordinary chain towage, by an endless chain or rope, laid

along the bottom of the canal in lengths of two or three miles, the

tug being drawn along by the engine pulleys engaging with the rope or

chain; or endless chain towage, by which, as practised on the Rhone,

the tug carries two independent engines, each of which puts in motion

an endless chain drawn along by the tug. This chain, on the Rhone,

receives a motion like that of the bucket chain of a dredge, but the

upper part remains horizontal, while the lower follows the bottom of

the canal, the length and weight of the chain being determined by the

adhesion necessary to draw the tug.

Another system which is practised in France to some extent, and

especially on the Rhone, is that of a keel carrying at the stem or prow

a large wheel with cams, which draws the boat along by pushing against

the bottom, the initial motion being given by a steam engine.

The moving of boats upon canals or narrow rivers, where sailing is

impracticable, has always been attended with difficulties. Where the

width and depth of water will admit, long oars have been used, worked

by one or two men on each side of the vessel, as is done on the coal

barges or lighters on the Thames. On the Tyne, at Newcastle, these

keels are said to have been in use ever since 1378, and are rowed by an

immense oar on one side, another being used at the stem to steer by,

and so to counteract the tendency of this strange mode of rowing.

It is said that the large oar is hung by an iron ring, so as to admit

of its being laid on the gunwale of the keel, when not in use, but not

of its being removed. Owing to the want of any regular and proper path

on which horses could travel by the sides of rivers, the first hauling

or towing of boats was performed by men. This still continues to be

the case on the canals of China and some other countries; and in this

country most of our navigable rivers were without horse towing-paths

until the early part of the present century. Formerly ten or fifteen

men were seen tugging at the hauling line of a barge on the Thames

in the meadows of Twickenham. A good horse-path now begins at Putney

bridge, on the south side, and continues uninterruptedly on one side

or other of the river to the extreme points of the navigation. These

essential appendages to navigation were even more recently adopted on

the Severn river. The towing path on many of our old navigations is

continually interrupted and broken off by mills and other obstacles

without any bridges for the crossing of the towing horses and boys. On

the Ouse river, below Bedford, the towing-path used to be interrupted

at the end of almost every field by high and dangerous stiles, over

which the ill-fated navigation horses had to leap, encumbered by their

harness and the heavy rope.

The records of the machines approved by the Academy at Paris, and

the Cabinet of M. de Servier, printed in 1719, contain plates and

descriptions of many different contrivances, designed for the

propelling or rowing of boats on canals and rivers. One of these

systems depends upon gaining an impulse or hold against the ground at

the bottom of the river or canal, in one of which a small boat moved

by oars was proposed to be employed in successively carrying forwards

and dropping anchors whose ropes were to be attached to a horse-gin, on

board of a barge, which was designed to tow or drag a great number of

others. In another, a spiked wheel was proposed to roll on the bottom

of the canal, attached by a frame, movable on hinges, at the stern

of a barge, where a roller, turned by a winch, was to give motion to

the spiked wheel, and propel the barge by means of an endless rope

or chain. A second kind depended upon the same principles as an oar,

except in the construction and mode of applying the power.

On the 20th of July, 1796, one Thomas Potts took out a patent for the

use of a large flap or oar moving upon a horizontal hinge, attached

to a framed lever at the stern of a barge, intended, when the handle

of this lever was lifted up by several men, to turn on its hinge and

present but little resistance; but on the descent of the lever, its

whole surface was, by the action of the men at the lever, to be exerted

on the water for propelling the barge.

In the year 1801, one Edward Steers took out a patent which seems to

have differed but little from the above, except in having two paddles

or oars. Robert Beatson took out a patent for applying the principle

of luffer boards or Venetian blinds to several purposes, which he

has explained at length in an essay printed in 1798; and he proposed

to propel ships by large oars or fins of this kind to be hung on the

sides thereof by hinges, and worked by a lever, as a rudder is by its

tiller-poles, with square frames fixed on their ends, to push against

the water behind the vessel. A third kind, depending on the reverse of

the action of an undershot water-wheel, has had many advocates.

Thomas Savery, in 1698, proposed the use of six or eight paddles, like

those of a water-wheel, on each side of the vessel, fixed on an axis

across the same, by the force of a capstan to be turned by men.

In the year 1781, the Abbé Arnal proposed to apply the power of a steam

engine on board of a vessel for working paddles.

Soon after this period, there was employed on the Thames, at

Westminster, a small barge with a water-wheel in a cavity in its

stern, with a steam engine for working it, which was said to be the

contrivance of Earl Stanhope, and had been tried with success against

the tide in the river. In the year 1797 a vessel having rowers by its

side, that made 18 strokes per minute, from the action of a steam

engine on board, was tried on the Sankey Canal near Liverpool, by which

it was propelled 10 miles and back again to the same place.[266] About

the year 1800, Messrs. Hunter and Dickenson, took out a patent for a

propeller for ships, which was tried in January 1801, on board of a

Government sloop off Deptford on the Thames, and the sloop thereby made

way against the tide at the rate of three knots an hour.[267]

In the Journal of the Royal Institution, about the year 1802, there is

a description of an improved application of the steam engine to the

turning of a wheel for propelling boats; the cylinder of this engine

was horizontal, and the wheels with paddles were in a cavity in the

stem of the boat, which, therefore, had two rudders, one on each side

of the wheel, connected together by cross rods. A vessel of this kind

was constructed for the Forth and Clyde Company under the direction of

Mr. Symington, the inventor, and, in a trial made in December 1801,

drew three vessels of 60 and 70 tons burthen each, at the rate of 2½

miles per hour on their canal.[268]

Robert Fulton exhibited a vessel on the Seine at Paris, in August 1803,

having two wheels with paddles, worked by a steam engine, and it was

reported that two other vessels were towed by it against the stream at

the rate of three miles per hour. A fourth kind of boat propellors,

depended upon the rotary motion of a screw or fliers, like those of a

jack. Daniel Bushnel, in his attempts to navigate submarine vessels,[269]

used oars, placed near the sides and top of the vessel, formed upon the

principle of a screw, the axles of which entered the vessel, and by

turning the same one way, the vessel was made to advance or descend by

a contrary motion of the screw. John Vidler contrived a vessel—which

was tried in the Thames at Westminster, about 1810—that had a boom

hung by a universal joint (hooks) at the stern to a rotative axis,

turned by a capstan upon the deck of the vessel. At the end of this

boom was fixed a circle of strong flyers, just like those of a jack,

which, by striking the water obliquely as the boom was turned round,

propelled the vessel forward. Near to the flyers there was a collar

on the boom that turned easily therein; to this collar ropes were

attached, which were carried to different parts of the stern of the

vessel, and by means of which the boom could be stopped when in motion,

if it was desired to stop its propelling action on any temporary

occasion, or the flies thereof could be let down into the water to any

depth required, or be turned aside from the direct line of the vessel

to steer her on any course, without expending so much of the propelling

power upon the rudder as was usually done in steering.

These are but a few of the many services that have either been proposed

or applied to the propulsion of boats on rivers and canals. Most of

them, it need hardly be added, were found to be failures, although in

some cases they contained the germs of the remarkable progress that has

since taken place in the matter of propulsion generally. The number

of patents that have been taken out with a view to overcoming the

difficulties incidental to canal haulage have been legion. The real

gist of the matter is that no two waterways present exactly the same

conditions, and no system of transport will be found to answer equally

well in all cases, unless the circumstances under which it is applied

are identical and parallel. Hence, it becomes important to show what

has been done on different waterways to meet the special conditions

that have existed, and the results of these different applications.

In the earliest traction experiments made on the Elbe in 1720 a hempen

rope was fastened on shore, the other end being wound up on board, and

vessels were thus propelled. Nothing better than this rough system

obtained for a hundred years, when, in 1820, Messrs. Tourasse and

Courteaut designed special flat-bottomed tugs, 75 feet long and 17 feet

wide, with a horse capstan for winding up the rope; and subsequently,

on the Seine, a 6 horse-power steam-engine was substituted for the

horse capstan.

Chains next took the place of hempen ropes, and between 1820 and

1830 many chain-tugs were employed on French rivers; but the first

systematic service was carried out in 1846 between Paris and Montereau

(65 miles) with tugs designed by Mr. Dietz, which in their essential

features are similar to those in use at the present day. These tugs

drew 18 inches of water, and were fitted with engines of from 35 to 40

horse-power, actuating the drum on which the chain was wound, two sets

of gear being provided for going up and down stream, respectively. The

boiler pressure was 5½ atmospheres, and the expenditure of fuel 5½ lbs.

per horse-power per hour. Subsequently the chain was laid further up

the Seine, and it was also applied to some rivers in France.

In Germany, in 1866, chain-tugs were running on 200 miles of the Elbe,

and in the next ten or twelve years this system was in use on the

Saale, the Brahe, and the Neckar.

The Elbe tugs are 138 to 150 feet long and 24 feet wide, with 18

inches draught. On the other rivers of Germany they are somewhat

smaller. The sides are of ¼-inch iron plate, and formerly the bottoms

were of ½-inch iron, but now they are built of 4-inch pine planks,

as suffering less from abrasion on dragging over a rough bed. There

is a rudder at each end, the wheel being amidships. The engines are

from 60 to 70 horse-power, and work with a pressure of from 5 to 7

atmospheres. In slight currents a single drum is sufficient, the chain

being kept pressed against it by rollers, and the drum is nicked to

prevent the slip of the chain, but ordinarily there are two drums,

to which the engine power is transmitted by two sets of gearing with

different rates of speed—one for working up stream, with great power

and small speed; the other for down stream, with less power and greater

speed. Projecting over each end of the tug are booms furnished with

guide-rollers for the chain, which give increased steering facilities.

The chains are from ¾ to 1 inch thick. When fractures occur, which is

seldom, it is generally at the moment of the chain being first wound

round the drum. Each drum is fitted with a brake, and at the ends of

the booms there are clips, designed to prevent a running out of the

chain in case of the brake failing to hold.

Chain-towing has so increased on the Elbe that in 1874 there were

twenty-eight tugs running regularly between Hamburg and Aussig (420

miles). On the Neckar, at the same date, five tugs were employed on 56

miles of chain, and this was to be extended for 30 miles more, from

Heilbronn to Cannstatt. Experience has shown that chain-tugs have great

advantages over paddle-tugs, even in smooth water, for in the latter 60

to 70 per cent. of the power is lost in slips. Another advantage of

chain-towing is that it produces no wash or swell. The charge for

transport by this system is said to average about ¼_d._ per ton per

mile.

In 1865 Mr. de Meseil, a Belgian, introduced a system of transport

where a wire rope was substituted for the chain. The same system was

taken up and improved by Max Eith of Wurtemburg, and worked with

success on a 40-mile section of the Maas (from Namur to Liége). It was

subsequently employed on canals in Holland and Belgium, and also on the

Rhine. Extensive trials were also made on the Danube with satisfactory

results.

A wire-rope tug company in 1873 laid down the line from Bingen to

Rotterdam, but worked the upper section only themselves, viz. from

Bingen to Ruhrort (155 miles). From Ruhrort downwards a concession

was granted to a Dutch company, who employed a special kind of tug,

in which the rope passed over drums inside the vessel, similar to the

chain-tug system; but the usual arrangement of having the rope outside

the tug has been found most convenient, as it enables it to be easily

cast off and taken up again when two tugs meet.

The wire rope generally used on the Rhine is formed of forty-nine wires

0·189 inch thick, is 1·7 inch in diameter, and weighs 4¾ lb. per yard.

It usually costs 10 _d._ per foot, which is about one-third the weight

and cost per foot of an iron chain of equal strength.

The first wire-rope tugs at work in Holland and Belgium had a 20

horse-power engine for the driving wheels, and another 10 horse-power

engine to work a screw when going down stream clear of the rope. At

each end, outside the tug, there are guide-wheels to keep the rope

clear of the vessel, and at the centre are two large wheels which lead

the rope on to a Fowler’s clip-drum, against which it is kept pressed

by small rollers. To pick up the rope and pass it over the wheels and

drum takes a quarter of an hour.

The Danube Company’s tug _Nyitra_, which resembles the Rhine tugs, is

140 feet long, 24½ feet wide, and draws 3½ feet of water; the clip-drum

is 10½ feet, and the adjoining wheels about 9 feet, in diameter.

Against a current of 4¼ feet per second, it can draw eight barges, with

a total load of over 2000 tons, at a speed of 3 miles an hour, with

useful effect of 75 per cent. In chain-tugs this percentage is higher

on account of the greater flexibility of the chain. Fractures of the

rope seldom occur, in spite of the rocky bottom in certain sections of

the river. The life of a wire rope may be taken at from four to six

years.

It has been found that wire-rope tugs cannot work in less than 3 feet

of water, or only with difficulty, whereas chain tugs can work in

one-half of that depth. As regards steering facility, they are much

alike. The delay caused by fractures is an important item in the

comparison. Repairs to chains usually occupy considerably less time

than repairs to wire ropes. Chain tugs in any depth under 3 feet, and

in sharp curves, are said to be preferable to rope tugs; in moderately

strong currents, and in larger curves, they are about equal; but in

canals, and in large deep rivers, rope tugs are the best, and both are

superior, in ordinary circumstances, to paddle tugs.

In canal tunnels, as in the 4-mile section between Mons and Paris,

where steam cannot be used on account of the smoke, chain tugs, worked

by a horse capstan, tow a barge through in one-third the time, and at

one-fourth the cost, of the former system, when men were employed for

towing.

Where strong rapids are met with, special appliances called “grapins”

are sometimes employed. This consists of an iron wheel of about 20 feet

in diameter and 17½ tons weight, furnished with projections or picks,

fixed in a well-hole at midships, and worked by a chain attached to the

paddle-shaft. On ascending a river the “grapin” is lowered till the

picks grip the bed, on which the wheel slowly turns, and the paddles,

working at the same time, in this way tow barges over the strongest

rapids. Busquet’s tug, which is used in France, works on a chain,

though it is similar to a wire-rope tug. The _Baxter_ steamboat, used

on the Erie canal, was the outcome of a competition invited by the

State of New York for a prize of 20,000_l._ for the steamer which best

fulfilled the following, viz. a mean speed of 3 miles per hour with a

load of 200 tons, small cost, and no wash or swell. This steamboat is

100 feet long, 17½ feet wide, and about 9 feet deep, with a flat bottom

and vertical sides, and, including engines and coal, weighs 52 tons. It

carries a load of 200 tons, with a draught of 6 feet of water, and has

an average speed of about 4 miles, but can work up to 7½ miles an hour.

On the Saar coal canal Jacquel’s steam-tug system is in use, where the

screw is within the body of the vessel, and surrounded by a cylinder,

and is fed with water by two large channels leading from the sides of

the vessel to the front of the screw.[270]

The tugs of the Rhine are large, very tapering vessels; some of them

have engines of from 600 to 700 horse-power, and they are provided

with all the latest improvement for economising fuel. Vessels with two

screws are preferred, as combining adequate power with small draught;

nevertheless, when the river is very low, paddle-wheel tugs of the old

type have to be resorted to. Towing by aid of a submerged cable was

started some years ago, but it has since been abandoned, except in the

most difficult part of the river between St. Goar and Bingen, where it

has proved serviceable, especially when the water is low. A serious

disadvantage of this system is that in descending the river the tug has

to let go the cable, and act simply as a tug, for which it is not well

suited.

Improvements have been introduced in the vessels as well as in the

tugs. Narrow iron vessels have been substituted for the broad wooden

barges in order to reduce the tractive force. Some of these vessels

are 1000 tons register; but vessels from 400 to 500 tons are the most

common. On the Rhine, vessels forming one convoy are not connected

together in trains, as in France, but each is provided with its tug,

which is a great advantage where the navigation is difficult.

Human labour is still employed for towage on some of the Dutch,

Belgian, and German canals. Boats of from 15 to 26 tons are towed

by men at a speed of 1 to 1⅓ miles per hour. Dr. Mitzen, a German

authority, allows for this system of transport a duty of 11 miles a

day, including all stoppages. Steam-tug boats on the Belgian canals are

restricted to a speed of 2⅔ miles per hour, and on the wider rivers

to 4½ miles per hour. On the canal joining the Tiege to the Vistula,

steam-tugs draw trains of barges 410 feet long, the speed being

restricted to three miles per hour. The steam-tugs put by Mr. Beardmore

on the river Lea towed from 50 to 60 tons, at from two to two and a

half miles per hour, in the cuts, three to three and a half miles per

hour in the larger sections, and five miles per hour in the Thames. On

the Grand Junction Canal the speed of a steamer towing one vessel is

put from three to three and a half miles per hour. On the Rotterdam

Canal, four boats, of 130 tons each, are towed by a screw steamer.

Several attempts have been made on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal to

introduce steam towage, and in the year 1879 the company tried a screw

steamer with compound condensing engines, to tow six 40-ton barges on a

river or deep canal.

It was very quickly discovered that the vessel was next to useless

on a shallow canal—the section of that particular waterway only

averages from 40 feet to 50 feet in width at the surface, with flat

sloping sides under water, tapering down to a mid-channel or gutter

with an average depth of only 4½ feet—inasmuch as with that depth (in

mid-channel only) a screw propeller of sufficient diameter could not be

used to utilise the power of the engines without a very great amount of

“slip” and churning of the water instead of doing useful work. It was

also found that when the least obstruction took place by meeting other

barges near bridges or sharp curves, causing the slowing up or stoppage

entirely of the tug, the barges in tow would, so to speak, insist on

running pell-mell into one another, for the simple reason that they

could not apply a brake, and besides they used to get zig-zagged across

the canal in every direction, which often caused a delay of fifteen or

twenty minutes before all could be marshalled and got under weigh again.

Another attempt has since been made, which utilised the power of the

engines with more success. Two narrow boats of about five feet beam

were braced side by side under one deck, with a longitudinal space of

about three feet between each, and in this space was one paddle-wheel

with a long-stroke horizontal engine on deck over each boat (two

engines) driving a crank on each end of the paddle shaft, set at

right-angles, and across the deck stood a locomotive boiler, each boat

carrying its own proportion of the weight of the boiler. The funnel had

to be placed at an angle of 45 degrees, so as to get under the very low

bridges. This steamer towed fairly well five barges of coal, but caused

a great waste in the canal, to the injury of the banks, and was subject

to the steering difficulties whenever any obstruction took place, which

in this canal are frequent, owing to its very tortuous character.

The ordinary barges on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal have been utilised

as tugs by putting in small engines of just sufficient power to drive

a screw propeller as large as could be made available without a large

percentage of positive “slip,” each tug carrying a paying cargo. When

the first barge was fitted up in this way, it was found that it would

tow two others very well at two miles an hour. In some parts of the

canal where the depth is a little greater the speed would rise to 2½

and 2¾ miles an hour; and under similar conditions, with only one

barge in tow, as high as 3¼ to 3½ miles an hour. At the latter speed,

however, the displacement sets up a rolling wave along banks, which

does injury, whereas at 2 to 2½ miles an hour there is no perceptible

disturbance of the water at the sides, and only a very slight

disturbance in the centre.

A number of these steam barges are now employed on this canal, in

addition to one for towing through Foulridge tunnel, one mile in

length. This tug has both ends alike, with two propellers, one at the

bow and one at the stern, as well as a rudder at bow and stern, so

that the boat does not require to be turned about at each journey.

Prior to the adoption of this tug, all barges had to be worked through

the tunnel by men, who lay on their side on the gunwale of the boat,

pushing it along with their feet against the tunnel wall, and taking

2 to 2¼ hours to travel the mile, whereas the tug tows two and three

loaded barges at a time the same distance (one mile) in twenty to

twenty-five minutes, the only hands required being the engineer and

helmsman. The engine and boiler are placed as far aft as possible. The

form of propeller is the result of a very exhaustive and costly series

of experiments. With full-size ones in actual work, it gives the best

results in shallow waters. It would not, however, be well adapted

for deep-water towage. The helmsman can perform the following duties

without leaving his helm, viz., start, stop, or reverse the engines,

lower the funnel at bridges, blow the whistle and use the auxiliary

steam jet for funnel. He can also observe the conditions of his boiler,

for he has the water-gauge and steam-gauge in full view before him.

Mr. Ald. Bailey, of Salford, has given the following interesting

details of the cost of a steamer for twenty-four hours’ work, towing

two barges fully loaded, on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal:—[271]

COST OF STEAMER.

£ _s. d_.

One captain 0 4 8

One mate 0 4 8

Two ordinary hands 0 8 0

Gas coke for engines:

24 cwt. at 6_s_. 8_d_. per ton 0 8 0

Tallow (2 lb.) at 5_d_. 0 0 10

Oil (2 quarts) at 10_d_. 0 1 8

Stores, waste and lights 0 1 0

COST OF TWO BARGES.

Two captains at 4_s_. 4_d_. 0 8 8

Two ordinary hands at 4_s_. 0 8 0

Five per cent. interest, and 10 per cent.

depreciation, on first cost of steamer and

barges (£1000) for one day 0 8 3

Fifteen per cent. of steamer and barges for

repairs per day 0 8 3

──────────

£3 1 8

The distance averaged in twenty-four hours (including locks) was 40

miles. The weight carried was—steamer, 35 tons; barges, each 40 tons;

total 115 tons. The cost was about one-sixth of a penny per ton per

mile.

Mr. Bartholomew, of the Aire and Calder Navigation, has introduced a

system of a train of boats about ten or twelve in number, each carrying

about 40 tons, 20 feet long, 16 feet wide, and 7 feet 6 inches deep,

propelled by a steam tug.

By having a tug behind the train of boats, greater control of the

steaming power is obtained. The boats are threaded together by means

of wire rope controlled by two cylinders which are self-acting, and

are under the charge of the man who is steering. By lengthening and

shortening the wire ropes on each side of the train, it can be guided

to go to any curve by making it convex or concave, the train being

left to rise and fall vertically according to any little variation of

headline. Buffers are attached to the ends of the boats, which have

a tendency to bring them back again into line in case of any slight

disorganisation caused by wind or water, the full control of the train

and its direction being under the guidance of the steerer.

This system, however, could not be introduced on many of the canals in

England, unless larger locks were made, or inclined planes to get from

one level to another. The system has been well described as a train of

waggons on water without wheels.

On the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal, Mr. Clegram found that, after

allowing 15 per cent. for interest and depreciation, the cost of steam

haulage amounted to 1/11th of a penny per ton per mile, being a saving

of two-thirds as compared with horse power. With a heavier trade,

however, which allowed the barges to be more generally employed, the

work was done for 1/16th of a penny per ton per mile.

In a number of cases both chain and wire rope haulage has been tried

unsuccessfully on English canals, but that, no doubt, has been owing

to their peculiar local circumstances. The wire rope system has been

tried on the Bridgwater Canal and found unworkable owing to the large

number of bends and turns and the difficulty of working the traffic

in different directions. The chain system of haulage was tried on the

Grand Junction Canal of Ireland as far back as 1860, but it was soon

abandoned as impracticable, and steam power was substituted.

On the canals of Deûle and Neufossés locomotive haulage is employed for

a total length of about 50 miles. The line is of metre gauge, and the

locomotives, of which there are twenty-two, weigh from six to ten tons

each. The speed employed, however, is only about 1¼ miles per hour, at

which rate each locomotive can draw about 1000 tons.

In some interesting experiments lately made on French canals, a railway

was laid down on the towing-path, about a yard from the brink of the

canal, and a small locomotive of about four tons weight was placed upon

it. The wheels were coupled and geared, with a driving wheel making

140 revolutions per minute, and allowing a maximum speed of 7 miles

per hour. The engine, which was worked by one man, was attached to a

cable about 80 yards long, and then drew a team of barges with complete

success. It was found capable of drawing a net load of 100 tons of

goods for each ton of its own weight. The actual speed was 2·4 miles

per hour, and the average speed, allowing for stoppages, 1·8 miles

per hour. With horses the average speed on the same canals was only

0·9 mile per hour, so that an important saving in time, as well as of

expense, was obtained. The system has since been tried on a larger

scale upon the canals between Dunkirk and Paris.

It seems, on a survey of the various systems heretofore applied to

canal towage, that they may be divided into two categories. In the most

important of these, the fulcrum lies out of the water, as in chain

and wire-rope towage, in the employment of grapplers, in locomotive

towage, and in the use of horses and men. In the other category, we

find paddle-wheels and screw-propellers, which have their fulcrum in

the water. In the former category, the amount of power utilised is much

greater than in the latter, and, for that reason, chain, wire-rope, or

locomotive towage would appear to be preferable, more especially so, as

the use of screw propellers or paddle-wheels has a tendency to damage

the embankments of the canal, and thereby to increase the expense of

maintenance.

[Illustration: CABLE TRACTION ON THE ST. MAURICE CANAL.]

[Illustration: PLAN OF THE ST. MAURICE CANAL, SHOWING CABLE TRACTION.]

During the year 1888, experiments were carried out on the Saint

Maurice canal with a system of cable haulage introduced by M. Levy,

which seems to be of some value. An endless cable, supported by

pulleys on posts along the banks of the canal, is set in motion by

a hauling engine situated at some convenient point, and the barges

which are attached to this cable are thus drawn along. On one side of

the canal the cable runs in one direction, and on the other side it

runs in the opposite direction, so as to accommodate both up and down

traffic. Notwithstanding the extreme simplicity of the idea, there

occur considerable difficulties in its practical application, the most

formidable of these being the danger that, by the oblique pull from the

barges, the cable may be thrown off its supporting pulleys into the

water, especially where there occurs a bend in the canal. To prevent

the cable from leaving the pulleys, the latter are provided with deep

flanges; but as these would prevent the easy passage of the oblique

hauling rope, some special provision had to be made for this purpose.

The flange on the water side of each pulley has two gaps, as shown in

the drawings (pp. 405-406), and as the cable with its hauling rope

passes into the groove, one or the other of these gaps engages the

oblique rope, but not the cable which passes on in a straight line. The

rope passing through the gap is thus shunted out of the groove, and

passes clear of the pulley. The attachment of the rope to the cable is

shown at 3. At certain intervals along the cable are attached ferrules,

between which is a shackle A, which can freely revolve. Through this

shackle is passed the hauling rope, made fast upon itself by an easily

detachable clamp D, from which a line is taken on board. By a pull at

this line the clamp is unfastened, and the hauling rope is slipped

through the shackle, so that the man in charge of the barge can at any

moment disconnect the latter from the cable. The speed of the cable is

from 2¼ to 2½ miles per hour, and with this speed no difficulty was

experienced in making the attachment. The difficulty, however, was to

impart motion to the barge without unnecessarily straining the cable.

It will be easily understood that when a weight of 200 tons to 300

tons has to be set in motion, even at a comparatively slow speed, the

acceleration must not be too great, otherwise the strain on the cable

and hauling rope would be excessive. The attachment must therefore not

be an absolutely rigid one, and, to give time for the gradual starting

of the barge, the hauling rope is taken round a brake drum, and allowed

to slip at first, so that the barge may be gradually set in motion;

the brake is then locked, and the only further attention required is

the steering. At the end of the length of canal served by the rope,

the bargeman simply pulls the line, and the momentum of the barge

is sufficient to carry it on to the next section, where it would be

similarly attached to a running cable.

[Illustration: CABLE TRACTION ON THE ST. MAURICE CANAL.]

The illustration on p. 404, reproduced from _Industries_, shows

the engine house by the side of the canal bank: and a plan of the

experimental installation as at present carried out is shown on p. 405.

The results have been so encouraging, that it is intended to equip

about 6½ miles of canal with this system. Compared with horse haulage,

there is said to be a considerable gain in speed; and, as far as can

be judged at present, the cost of haulage is reduced from 10 to 30 per

cent.

FOOTNOTES:

[266] ‘Monthly Magazine,’ vol. iv. p. 75.

[267] Ibid., vol. xi. p. 195.

[268] ‘Agricultural Magazine,’ vol. vii. p. 152.

[269] ‘Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,’ vol. iv.

p. 303.

[270] These particulars are abstracted, through the “Minutes of

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,” from the

‘Zeitschrift für technische Hochschulen’ for 1881.

[271] Paper read before the Manchester Association of Engineers.

CHAPTER XXIX.

LOCKS, PLANES, SLUICE-GATES AND LIFTS.

The main difference between rivers and canals, is that the former are

usually capable of being navigated without any artificial provision

for overcoming differences of level, whereas canals are so constructed

that differences of level are overcome by locks or lifts. There

are, of course, many cases in which the navigation of a river is

suddenly and effectually obstructed by differences of level which are

unsurmountable. This is notably the case on the Niagara river, where

the falls of that name interpose a bar to the further navigation of a

stream which would otherwise be the natural connection between lakes

Erie and Ontario. The same sort of obstruction is interposed to the

navigation of the Gotha river in Sweden, by the Falls of Trolhätta.

There are many cataracts on the Mississippi river and its tributaries

which render navigation all but impossible. These natural barriers have

in many cases been got over by the risky and difficult operation of

“shooting the rapids”—a feat in which the red Indian navigators have

long excelled. But while it may be possible with a canoe to overcome

such obstructions without absolute disaster, it is manifest that

such risks could never be run in the everyday business of commercial

transport.

For these reasons, it has, in not a few cases, been found expedient to

overcome the obstructions to river navigation that are interposed by

rapids or cataracts, by constructing an artificial waterway parallel

to the falls, on which the rise or fall of the natural waterway is

surmounted by locks or lifts. The Welland Canal performs this function

in Canada, and the Gotha Canal in Sweden. There is practically no limit

to the differences of level that may be met by this arrangement, always

assuming that water supply can be commanded at the summit.

[Illustration: VIEW FROM THE NIAGARA ESCARPMENT, LOOKING DOWN THE

WELLAND CANAL TOWARDS LAKE ONTARIO.]

Obviously, however, on canals, as on rivers, the fewer locks or lifts

the better. The process of passing through a canal lock is tedious,

and while it involves a considerable expenditure of time, it involves

also a corresponding amount of cost. For ship canals, it is much better

to have no locks or lifts whatever. This aim was kept in view in the

laying out of the Suez and Panama Canals, but on the latter canal,

the cost of cutting through the Culebra mountain was found to be so

very considerable, and the financial position of the company was so

unsatisfactory, that M. Eiffel submitted a proposal to make use of

locks, which was adopted by M. de Lesseps and his colleagues as a

_dernier ressort_.[272] The Panama Canal has proved that the avoidance of

locks can only be purchased in an uneven country at an immense cost,

and the canal engineer has therefore to consider whether the resources

at his disposal will enable him to pay the price involved. The proposed

Nicaraguan Canal is another enterprise that presents some interesting

problems of this description. This canal will make use for a great

part of the total distance between ocean and ocean—169 miles—of

Lake Nicaragua, and as that lake is 600 feet above sea level, it is

manifestly necessary to make use of locks. In other words, as the lake

cannot be brought to the tide level of the canal, the canal must be

carried up to the level of the lake.

A lock chamber, enclosed by a double pair of gates is said to have

been employed for the first time in Italy in 1481, the designers

and builders having been two clock-makers in Viterbo of the name of

Domenico. The State of Venice was the first to adopt the system, but

before the end of the fifteenth century, Leonardo da Vinci had united

the two chief canals of Milan by six such locks, having a fall of 17

braces.[273]

On one of the canals constructed in Italy, between Padua and Vicenza,

about the fifteenth century, there are several sluice-gates, or

_pertuis_, which are said by Cresy[274] to have been thus contrived:—

“The lower beam of each gate was framed with the head and heel posts,

so as to allow a space of 6 inches between it and the sill. From the

middle beam to the top, the gates were planked over in the ordinary

way; the lower part was left open, or in skeleton framing, and was

closed by paddles or sluices, which were moved up and down by a rack

and pinion. When the paddles were let down, they descended 3 or 4

inches lower than the surface of the floor on the lower side, which

acted as a rebate, against which they pressed, and effectually shut the

lock. They also had a bearing against the lower cross-beam of the gate,

and the head and heel posts rested on square stones made fast in the

sill.

“To make use of gates upon this construction, it was necessary first

to raise the paddle as high as the lower cross-beam, which permitted

the water to pass through at the foot of the gate. The paddles were

then elevated to the height of the middle beam, which was placed at the

ordinary level of the water, usually 4 or 5 feet deep upon the sill.

“These gates were easily opened, as the boarded part was entirely out

of the water, and a deposit on the floor of the chamber of the lock

could form but little obstruction, as from the scour of the water

the greater part would be washed away. The only serious objection to

this early contrivance in aid of internal navigation is the injury

that vessels might sustain at the time they were passing through,

when one half of their length would be out of the water, producing

a considerable strain upon them. The water passing through a space,

walled in on both sides, would, to a certain extent, allow the barge

or vessel to slide down an apparent plane; but, before it could again

resume its level position, it would be subjected to another strain.

These side walls were, however, made of considerable length, a foot

being usually allowed for every inch of fall; a timber floor was laid

throughout, to prevent the force of the water from deepening and

undermining the foundations.”

Waterways and Water Transport in Different Countries With a description of the Panama, Suez, Manchester, Nicaraguan, and other canals. · 第 21 / 23 章

For a considerable period, the population of London has been increasing