Discoveries and Inventions of the Nineteenth Century

more gigantic is the project lately put forward by some competent French engineers of bridging the English Channel from Folkestone to Cape Grisnez in 70 spans on the cantilever system. The designs have been completed and the calculations made, and no one doubts of the engineering practicability of the scheme. But the cost is estimated at about 34 million pounds sterling, or nearly six times as much as that required for constructing the proposed Channel Tunnel; so that the scale could be turned in favour of the bridge only if the political reasons that were opposed to the tunnel were held not to be applicable to the bridge. But it is difficult to conceive that the existing traffic could ever be developed to such an extent as to make an undertaking of this magnitude a commercial success. Since the above account was written, the Forth Bridge was formally opened on the 4th March, 1890, by the Prince of Wales, in the presence of a great gathering of railway directors, eminent engineers, and other distinguished persons from all parts. A very strong gale was blowing at the time, and at this very hour the bridge was therefore subjected to another severe but undesigned test of its stability. The perfect steadiness and security of the structure impressed all who were present on that occasion, and the train crossed the bridge, exposed to a wind pressure, registered by the gauge, of 25 lbs. per square foot. At the luncheon following the opening ceremony, the Prince announced that baronetcies had been conferred upon Mr M. W. Thompson (the chairman of the Bridge Company) and upon Sir John Fowler, and that Mr. Baker and Mr. Arrol, the contractor for the works, were to be knighted. Sir John Fowler, the engineer-in-chief, was born in 1817, and has been engaged in many other important works of railway construction in Yorkshire, in that of the London and Brighton Railway, in the Sheffield Waterworks, &c. The Metropolitan Railway in London, which also was carried out by Sir John Fowler, would alone suffice to make him famous as an engineer. Sir Benjamin Baker is a much younger man, who has had a large and varied practice in railway engineering in various parts of the world. He is in much request on the American continent, and is now engaged in carrying out a ship railway in Canada and a tunnel under the Hudson at New York. Sir William Arrol began life at nine years of age as a “piecer” in a cotton mill, but was afterwards apprenticed as an engineer. Subsequently he was employed as a foreman by engineering firms in Glasgow. In 1866, he began business on his own account at Dalmarnock, and obtained contracts at first for smaller then for larger works connected with bridge and viaduct building. He is distinguished for the energy and inventive resources he displays in carrying out his undertakings. 297 THE TOWER BRIDGE, LONDON. A little more than four years after the opening of the Forth Bridge, in June 1894, another great enterprise which had been commenced eight years before, was inaugurated by the Prince and Princess of Wales as representatives of Her Majesty the Queen. This was the Tower Bridge, which not only is one of the most important public works of the century, but one that presents features of interest and novelty that have never before been combined in any single structure. The want of an adequate communication between the shores of the Thames eastward of London Bridge had long been felt, and was for years a subject of serious consideration for the Metropolitan authorities. The congested state of the traffic across London Bridge has often furnished a spectacle for the sight-seer, and figures are not wanting to show that the number of foot-passengers alone who daily traverse that bridge, which altogether is only 54 feet wide, would be equal to the whole population of many considerable cities: for in 1882 a count showed the daily average of pedestrians to be 110,525, while the number of vehicles was 22,242. There was much difference of opinion as to the best method of providing the required means of communication; but there was an almost universal agreement as to its position being selected just eastward of the Tower of London. The map of the districts connected by the Tower Bridge which is given in Fig. 147d, will show a reader who has any acquaintance with London the suitability of the site. The problem of traversing the river at this point involved complex conditions as affecting the vehicular traffic and the navigation, and many different schemes were proposed and examined, comprised under the three heads of bridges, tunnels and ferries. But a ferry is always an imperfect means of communication, liable to accidents and interruptions from fogs, and in severe weather from ice, rendering the transit impossible for sometimes many days together. A tunnel beneath the river would, of course, leave the navigation without impediment, but among its special disadvantages are the great expense of construction and maintenance, for it has been found that tunnels beneath waterways are very costly in both respects. Besides, there would have to be long inclined approaches at each end, and the cost would be enormously increased by the amount of valuable land these would occupy. It was indeed proposed that the tunnel should be provided instead with hydraulic lifts at each end, like those often found in connection with the sub-ways at railway stations; but such would have to be of Brobdignagian dimensions, and would daily entail heavy expense. Then, as regards the bridges, schemes of various kinds were proposed, some even bridging the whole 850 feet width of the river at a single span, but all distinguishable by these important characteristics: they either provided a high level roadway which requires long inclines to reach it, but permitted lofty-masted ships to pass under it; or, on the other hand, the roadway was to be made at a low level with a clear headway above the water of moderate height. While avoiding the inclined approaches, this plan would either prevent fully rigged vessels passing to the wharves above the bridge, or some part of the structure would have to open or swing aside, that the ships might pass through the opening, thus completely interrupting the pedestrian and 298vehicular traffic for the time, with an amount of inconvenience that may be imagined when, as often happens, twenty large ships or more might pass in the course of a day, each causing a stoppage of five minutes in the road traffic. Nor would it be without risks that large vessels could pass through a comparatively narrow opening in a strong tide-way. Plans for sub-ways, for high level roadways and for low level roadways, were examined by Parliamentary Committees when powers to construct the works were successively applied for by the Metropolitan authorities, and much valuable evidence having been given, such objectionable features of each scheme as have been already referred to were duly noted. At length in 1878, Mr. Horace Jones, the late architect to the City of London, in a report on the various projects, suggested the general plan on which the present bridge is built, and this having been approved of by the Common Council, steps were taken to obtain Parliamentary powers to raise the necessary capital and to proceed with the works; but, for various reasons, it was not until 1885 that the Act authorising the undertaking was passed. In the meantime Mr. John Wolfe Barry was appointed engineer of the structure, while Mr. Jones was to superintend the architectural details; but after having received the honour of knighthood in 1885, he died in the same year; and Mr. Barry, reconsidering the joint design, introduced some new features and somewhat modified the architectural expression of the structure. One striking point of originality about the Tower Bridge is that while it is essentially an iron and steel construction as much as the Forth Bridge, the heavy stiff metal-work is encased in masonry of elegant and appropriate architectural design, by which the general desire that the bridge should harmonize so far as might be, with the ancient historical fortress it adjoins, has been happily realised. Then again, by the ingenious engineering, the public have the advantage of a low level roadway, while the largest vessels may pass freely through a wide space without risk. These apparently incompatible advantages have been obtained by the adoption of what is the bascule principle on a hitherto unattempted scale. Bascule is a French engineering term, which is probably less familiar to most of our readers than the thing itself. It is applied to the platform of a draw-bridge which turns as the lid of a box does on its hinges, to afford a passage over the stream or moat when it is horizontal, and when drawn up vertically denies such passage. Smaller bascule bridges on exactly the same plan as in the Tower Bridge may often be seen in places having docks or canals, such as Hull, &c. In these a flap or platform is let down from each side from the vertical position, in which the water-way is open until the free edges meet together to form the roadway. These platforms turn on horizontal pivots, and are counterpoised by loads of stone or metal, so that they are without difficulty raised and lowered by a winch or handle that turns a cogged pinion engaging the teeth of a large quadrant. PLATE XIV.THE TOWER BRIDGE IN COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. “The Engineer”      Swain Eng.Fig. 147d.—Map of the Tower Bridge and its Approaches. The following general description of the Tower Bridge is mainly abstracted from a very full and excellent account of it drawn up in 1894 by Mr. J. E. Tuit, engineer to Sir W. Arrol & Co., the contractors, in which are embraced the whole of the technical details of the structure. The map, Fig. 147d, shows the site of the bridge and its approaches, of which the northern one begins close to the mint and passes along the east side of the Tower of London to the northern abutment. This approach is formed of a series of brick arches, and is nearly 1,000 feet long and 35 feet wide in the roadway, with a footpath 12½ feet wide on either side of it. The 300incline is only a rise of 1 in 60, but the southern approach is slightly steeper, namely, 1 in 40 leaving the street level at Tooley Street. At each abutment there are also stairs connecting the banks of the river with the roadway of the bridge. The width of the river between the two abutments is 880 feet, and this is divided, as shown in Fig. 147e, into two side spans, each 270 feet wide, and one central span of 200 feet clear, making together 740 feet, the river piers, each of which is 70 feet wide, completing the total span. The clear headway above high water, when the bascules or leaves are down, is, in the middle span, 29½ feet in the centre, but only 15 feet at the ends; but when the leaves are raised for ships to pass, it is about 143 feet. The headway at the shore sides of the piers is 27 feet, but this is lessened to 23 feet and 20 feet at the north and south abutments respectively. The roadway and footpaths are continued along the side spans of the same width as on the approaches, but over the central span the road is 32 feet, and each footway 8½ feet wide. The river piers are said to be the largest in the world of the same kind, and their great area was necessitated by the nature of the London clay on which they rest, which was found incapable of bearing a load much exceeding four tons per square foot without some risk of undue settlement. The part of the piers below the bed of the river is formed of concrete, while the upper part is brickwork, set in cement and faced with Cornish granite. Upon each of the river piers rest four octagonal columns, built up of flat steel plates, connected together at their edges