entertained by the engineers as to the behaviour of a compound brick and iron structure led to a timber front being put to the Edgware-road Station, where it rested on a 49-ft. span girder; yet in 1865, when the extension to Moorgate was executed, no hesitation was felt in trusting an elaborate brick and ashlar face wall, weighing 1300 tons, to a continuous girder 135 ft. in length.
It would be tedious and unprofitable to attempt to give a detailed account of the construction of the Inner Circle line, since the lessons taught by it have long ago been incorporated into the routine of engineering practice. It will ever remain a monument to the skill of the engineers concerned in its construction. Of these Mr. Fowler is responsible for the greater part, as shown by the annexed Table, which gives the lengths and percentages due to each.
| Length Executed |
Percentages | ||
| miles. | ch. | ||
| Mr John Fowler, engineer | 11 | 20 | 86 |
| Mr Edwawrd Wilson,,, | 0 | 27 | 2½ |
| Mr Francis Brady, ,, | 0 | 28 | 2½ |
| Mr. Joseph Tomlinson, Jun. | 0 | 27 | 3½ |
| Messers. Hawkshaw and Barry | 0 | 58 | 5½ |
| 13 | 8 | 100 | |
The main lines of the Metropolitan and Metropolitan
District Railways being complete, Mr.
Fowler carried out the lines in connection with them,
including the St. John's Wood Railway, the
Hammersmith line, the West Brompton line, and
others. His original plan, brought before the
Parliamentary Committee, included an outer circle
as well as an inner circle. Unfortunately, the
Committee was induced to reject the outer circle
on the faith of certain promises made by another
line. These promises have not been practically
fulfilled, and the immense advantage of being able
to conduct all through passenger, goods and
mineral traffic by a perfect and comprehensive
scheme around London was lost for ever.
Although somewhat out of chronological order, we may here refer to another underground railway, of which Mr. J. H. Greathead is the engineer. This railway—the City and Southwark Subway—is not opened at the time of writing, but it is rapidly approaching completion, and great hopes are entertained that it will be the pioneer of a new system of railways which will prove as great a convenience as those already in existence in the metropolis. The ventilation difficulty is avoided entirely by the device of using electric power for the propulsion of trains, while the expensive work of diverting sewers and pipes, underpinning buildings, disappropriating tenants, and buying property, is evaded by keeping the tunnels at a very low level. As the line follows, for the most part, the streets, there is little to pay for land, and the chief expense is that of construction. A Bill now before Parliament contemplates the creation of a second railway of this kind from Bayswater to King William-street, B.C., Sir John Fowler, Mr. B. Baker, and Mr. J. H. Greathead being the engineers. If it is made it will prove the greatest advantage to Londoners.
Mr. Fowler was elected President of the Institution of Civil Engineers for the year 1866, and took the chair for the first time in that capacity on January 9. His presidential address was devoted to the subject of the education of an engineer, and was so important and valuable that it has been reprinted and distributed extensively, notably by the Government of India to the engineers in its employment. He began by calling attention to the fact that the exclusive position hitherto held by the English engineers was not likely to continue, since both in France and Germany great efforts were being made to educate young men both theoretically and practically for this profession. Hence, although this was greatly to the advantage of engineering science, it behoved the Institution to see that the distinguished and leading position which had been so well maintained by their great predecessors, should not be lowered by those who came after them. After a short enumeration of the nature of the works and duties which fell to the lot of a civil engineer, he proceeded to enforce the necessity of a full comprehension of the nature and qualities of materials, and the proper adaptation of the design to the materials in which it was to be carried out. He asserted his conviction that it was most important that the early preparation and subsequent study of an engineer should be as extensive as possible, and should embrace every branch of professional practice. The sound knowledge and experience thus acquired would add greatly to his efficiency and value in any special branch. For the railway engineer there was required a thorough knowledge of surveying and earthworks, the capacity to design bridges, earthworks, and tunnels, and a knowledge of the effect of floods and drainage. To this should be added some knowledge of architecture, and a taste for appropriate decoration. The dock and harbour engineer required, he said, much of the general knowledge of the railway engineer, with a vast amount of special knowledge. This included the laws which govern the tide, the set and speed of currents, their scour and silting; also questions relating to the trade to be accommodated, and the methods of dealing with the goods. He would also be required to be cognisant of such matters as harbours of refuge, piers, landing stages, lighthouses, forts, and hydraulic appliances. The water works engineer, in addition to his general qualifications, had to be familiar with the means of collecting information about rainfall, the method of gauging streams, the excavation of reservoirs, conduits, weirs, tunnels, and aqueducts. He must also be competent to superintend and design sewerage works. The mechanical engineer, the speaker continued, dealt with the most varied and numerous subjects of all the branches of engineering. He must understand the laws of motion, of heat, of liquids, and gases; he must be familiar with the strength of materials and the friction of surfaces. On railways he was responsible for the machine tools, engines, and locomotives. For docks he had to design the machinery for working the gates, the sluices, and the cranes. For water works he produced the pumping engines, sluices, valves, stop-cocks, &c. And so on through the entire series of works in which mechanism is employed. The mining engineer needed, in addition to a knowledge of railway and mechanical engineering, the information requisite for sinking shafts, draining workings, excavating and raising minerals, and preparing them for market.
Mr. Fowler then turned to the preparation required by a civil engineer to enable him to perform his work efficiently. This he classed under four heads: (1) General instruction, or a liberal education; (2) special education as a preparation for technical knowledge; (3) technical knowledge; (4) preparation for conducting practical works. He supposed a boy to start at fourteen years of age with a strong constitution, considerable energy and perseverance, and a fair education, together with a mechanical bias. The period from fourteen to eighteen should be devoted, he said, to a special education, including mathematics, natural philosophy, surveying, drawing, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, strength of materials, mechanical motions, and the principles of hydraulics. To these must be added considerable progress in French and German, even at the sacrifice of classical studies and pure mathematics. At the age of eighteen, assuming the boy to have fair abilities and more than average perseverance, three courses were open. He might be placed with a civil engineer for four or five years' pupilage, or in a mechanical workshop, or he might be sent to one of the universities. The choice would depend on the taste of the boy, the means of his parents, and other circumstances. If he followed either of the first two courses it would be necessary for him to continue his studies in mathematics, science, and foreign languages at the same time. If the latter course were adopted, the drudgery of learning to survey, to draw, and the like, must be passed through first. With a clever hard-working boy the most advantageous course might be to send him, from seventeen to eighteen, into a good workshop, then for three years for a university course, and finally into an engineer's office for his pupilage. This, of course, would require a boy of special ability and determination to render it a successful course. The office chosen for the pupilage to be passed in ought to be well organised and not too large; the engineer should be a comparatively young and rising man, and be accustomed to take pupils, who should be few in number, and bear some proportion to the number and extent of the works in usual course of construction under the engineer's direction. Here the pupil ceased to be a boy, and his future success or failure could no longer be directed by others, but depended upon his own abilities and industry.
Mr. Fowler also laid stress on the fact that the whole duties of the engineer were not comprised in the mere accomplishing of the objects entertained by his employers. It was his duty, he held, to advise those who consulted him whether the undertaking was one that would repay the expenditure which must be made upon it. The engineer was not merely a man of technical skill engaged to bridge the difficulties of capitalists, as a servant carries out the orders of his master; on the contrary, he was a member of an honourable and noble profession which could not lend itself to enterprises which did not give fair promise of being beneficial to the world, and to the advancement of civilisation.
In 1870 Mr. Fowler took part in a commission sent to Norway to examine the railways there. As is well known Norway has built a great length of railway which was constructed at a very small cost and is worked very cheaply. Now, at the date mentioned the Indian government were undecided whether to adhere to the broad gauge of 5 ft. 6 in., which had been adopted for the trunk lines, or to introduce a narrower gauge for the less important railways. A commission composed of General Strachey, Colonel Dickens, Mr. Rendel (now Sir A. Meadows Rendel), and Mr. Fowler, was, therefore, sent to Norway, for the purpose of acquiring information as to what gauge should be adopted in India, assuming that it was decided that a narrow gauge should in certain cases be laid down. The commission was received and accompanied by Mr. Carl Pihil, the experienced engineer of the Government, who had carried out all the railways in Norway. They travelled over the Dovre Fjld by carriole, passing over the ground on which a railway has since been constructed, and were thus able to see the nature of the works which would have to be carried out. The Norwegian lines are 3 ft. 6 in. gauge, and the rails and engines are both very light, the speed being usually quite slow. Mr. Fowler considered this gauge narrow enough, and the engines too light for economy. His colleagues, however, took a different view, and recommended 2 ft. 9 in. as the proper gauge for India.
Two reports, therefore, were made, one by Mr. Fowler recommending 3 ft. 6 in. gauge, and one by the other members of the commission, recommending 2 ft. 9 in. The final decision of Government was between the two, but much nearer Mr. Fowler's opinion, viz.—a metre, or 3 ft. 31⁄2 in.
It was understood that the question referred to the Commissioners was not whether narrow-gauge railways should be adopted in India or not, but, supposing a narrow gauge to be adopted, what gauge should it be. Mr. Fowler, from his long experience of the evil on the Great Western Railway, had very strong objections to breaks of gauge except when unavoidable. He would never permit an exceptional gauge in a link, or a possible link line, nor for short branches where exceptional plant would neutralise all saving. He considered that an exceptional gauge should be confined to a district of country where break of gauge is unimportant by reason of non-interchange of traffic, and even then he preferred to adopt a light railway on the standard gauge, except under very peculiar circumstances, which must be very rare indeed, when the narrow gauge would have some special advantages.
Last winter (1888-89) Sir John Fowler had the opportunity of verifying by actual inspection on the spot, the opinion he had formed as to the railway policy of India, and it is well known that he has expressed himself as having had his former conclusions strongly confirmed by his Indian visit.
Sir John visited Darjeeling to see the working of the 2 ft. 6 in. gauge mountain railway, ascending 8000 ft. by gradients of 1 in 27. This curious little railway has been laid on the fine road made to Darjeeling, and, being saved all expenses except that of permanent way, it is not surprising that a good dividend is earned, notwithstanding the fact that the engines can only draw less than twice their own weight up the incline. In this case the gauge and everything else are suited to the traffic, but unless the same circumstances were found the system could not be applied elsewhere with advantage.
Sir John was naturally much consulted, both professionally and otherwise, in India by the authorities on the subject of railways, docks, and water works, and was received everywhere with great distinction. His general impressions of India and its resources were of the most favourable character.
