The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-13 00:00:00

DGE.

WEST.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TINES.
Sir,—As your journal published the substance of
nearly the whole of Mr. Page's evidence before the West-
minster-bridge Committee, and not one of Mr. Walker's
reasons against lowering the headway of the centre
arch, the navigation interests have some claim upon
you for giving equal publicity to the corrections, by
other witnesses, of Mr. Page's omissions, which ap-
pear to go very far to wards neutralising his own ar-
guments in reference to the proposal for lowering the
headway for navigation from 25 feet 6 inches to 20 feet.
Mr. Walker is engineer to the present Bridge Com-
missioners, and has been employed as consulting engineer
to the Navigation Committee of the Port of London for
the last quarter of a century. Mr. Page is engineer to
the Board of Works, to whom the bridge and the bridge
estates are proposed to be transferred by the bill now
before Parliament.

Mr. Page stated in evidence (and this corresponds
with Sir W. Molesworth's letter to the Lord Mayor)
that by lowering the bridge to 20 feet headway, the in-
clination of the roadway would be reduced from 1 in 22,
the present inclination, to 1 in 54, and that the effect of
this would be that the same power which would be re-
quired to draw 1,000 tons up the present incline would
draw nearly 2,500 tons up the proposed incline ; and he
further stated, that during five days of 12 hours each,
48,000 tons were drawn up Westminster-bridge, but
that with the proposed lowering, the same power would
draw 120,000 tons over.
It appeared that in both the above statements he had
left out the important element of friction, and that if
friction be added, and taken at 1101 b. per ton, which Mr.
Page gave as his opinion of the amount of friction, the
120,000 tons would be reduced to 72,200, and the
2,500 tons to 1,500.
It was also proved that the headway of 25 feet 6 in.
might be preserved with an inclination of 1 in 42 upon a
new bridge, which would reduce the difference between
the 20 feet and the 25 feet 6 inches height in the pro-
portion of 1,500 to 1,370 tons.
As an illustration, it was shown that the rise of 1 in
42 would be the same as for half the length of the road-
way between the Canning monument in Palace-yard and
Bridge-street, and upon other equally unobjectionable
thoroughfares.
Under these circumstances, and making every allow-
ance for the greater importance and quantity of land
traffic, ought the height which navigation has always
had, and the opportunity for improving and increasing
the navigation which it affords, to be taken from it in
the way now proposed, particularly as all the bridges
below Westminster, and also Vauxhall-bridge, above
Westminster, have a greater height.
The resolution of a Royal commission, in 1851, was,
that the new bridge should have 25 feet 6 inches clear
headway, which corresponds with the plan deposited in
the autumn of 1852 by the Board of Works, prepara-
tory to an intended application to Parliament for a new
bridge, and of the attempt to lower this the navigation
interest were not informed until very lately.
Again, as the resistance by gravitation upon a rise
of 1 in 54, and also upon a rise of 1 in 42, are both
less than the resistance by friction on the road, the
power required to draw any given weight from one end
of the bridge to the other is the same in both, the
greater exertion required in getting up to the middle of
the bridge beine, all returned in going down on the oppo-
site side, so thatin truth there is not any, the smallest,
loss of power in going over the bridge by the difference
between the gradients of 1 in 54, and 1 in 42, where, as
in this case both are easy ; indeed, waggoners and
coachmen prefer easy inclines to a perfectly level road,
upon which they say "the load is always upon the
collar." Strange that this important fact was not
stated in the evidence of any of the engineers that were
examined.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
London, July, 1853. NAUTICUS.

(From the Times.)