The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-28 00:00:00

EASTERN COUNTIES.

Mr. George P. Bidder, ono of the engineers for the
construction of the branches of the Eastern Counties
and Norfolk Railways, has communicated to the di-
rectors of the Norfolk line a reply to the statements
of Lieutenant-Colonel Wynne, the Government In-
spector, touching the condition of that railway. Mr.
Bidder commences by pointing out that, although
Colonel Wynne has reported many bridges and via-
ducts in a dangerous state of decay,
"yet be cannot
cite one solitary case of accident." In reply to the
colobel's inference, that wood is not a safe material for
railway structures, Mr. Bidder says :—" Iron girders
have occasioraly failed--brick arches have broken down
i —earth embankments have settled—cuttings have

Mr. Bidder proceeds further to defend the use of wood,
by pointing out that it is more easy of inspection, more
capable of restoration, that the time it will continue in
goad repair is easily calculated, and that the known lia-
bility of timber to decay in a certain time causes a
watchful superintendence very went for any railway.
Mr. Bidder then lays down a position that "experience,"
and not "inspection," is the only test of the safety of
the line, and he quotes two cases (the Torksey viaduct
and the Westminster-road bridge of the South-Western
Railway) to show that Gove4nient inspectors bad
pronounced unsafe works that the after experience
of working for some years had proved to be per-
fectly secure. " These facts and instances appear to in-'
dicate that the railway departmewt of the board of
Trade is in the habit of receiving from its inspectors re-
pious and representations calcu'atif to exo.te needless
alarms ; and that it is al,io in the habit of assuming,
upon those reports, a false pesition, from which, sooner
or latter, it is obliged to recede.'
After pointing out that the use of wood in the
Eastern Counties bridges was a necessity, owing to the
nature of the ground and the -wtint of fro-, stone, or
brick in the neighbourhood, Mr. Bidder says " When
these bridges were designed and executed it was an-
ticipated by the constructors that they would last
from twelve to fourteen years--the usual period for
the duration of timber in similar situations. It was
not, however, anticipated that they would last during
that period without attention and occasional repara-
tion. Everyone knows that where Water gets into
the joints of timber decay induced ' • and that frequent
examination is required to avertgite,oonsaquences. If
the incipient decay of wood-worii4it!not
,stepniefl4l,lo4.,
comes, as it were, contagious, and the ireneral deteriora-
tion is propottiouably rapid. But if stopped in time,
the maintenance of the fabric will be proportionately
prolonged.
" Now, how do those facts apply themselves to the pre-
sent state of bridges on your line ? The Yarmouth
branch, which the ;Government inspector reports to be
in the worst state, was opened in 1344, 12 years ago.
During a considerable poteioe of that time, owing to
the insufficiency of the rep Airs effected by a late super-
intendent engineer, the bridges and viaducts upon the
line have been without any reparation of any sort.
Yet, what have been the results ? From 1844 up to
this moment the traffic of the line has been carrie t on
over those timber viaducts and bridges without a single
accident, and, until within the la, t twelve months, with-
out the slightest impediment to traffic!
"These results, then, demonstrate cmclusively the
applicability of timber for railway bridges, its durability
to the full extent expected from it, and the safety of such
works for all purposes of traffic. The assumption that
bridges and viaducts of timber are unfitted for railways,
and that the material is unsafe, as Lieutenant-Colonel
Wynne reports, is proved by these hots to be mere as-
sumption, based upon no experience, and communicated
without consideration.

" I have already adverted to the fact that these bridges
and viaducts have lasted the period they were expected
to endure, and that in consequence of the insufficiency
of the repairs done by a late superintendent engineer in
your employment, they have fallen into a much worse
state than they ought to have been permitted to have
fallen into. The extensive reparations required upon
bridges were fu'ly reported to the Eastern Counties
Company by their present engineer, Mr. Peter Bruff, at
the first meeting after his appointment, in February,
1855. From that period down to the present time, i.e.,
for nearly fourteen months, Mr. Bruff and his staff have
b-en unceasingly engaged in the work of replration.
The Government inspector after declaring, as he says,
without exaggeration,' that 'in many parts the tim-
bers could be dug out with a spade, like garden
mould,' tea you of the viaduct on which he inspected
those timbers—' When I inspected it, the repairs
it was undergoing wero nearly completed, and I am able
to report that t►,ey are such as to fully meet the exigency
of tha case, and to place the structure in perfect se-
curity.' "

Mr. Bidd.r estimates the cost of the repairs and the
Norfolk line (94 mile,) at 11,0001., "after the wear and
tear of 12 years." He goes on to say :—" Had these
bridges been built of brick or iron, they would have
cost at leas,. 50.000/. more than they did cost. The in-
terest on 50,0001., at 5 percent., is 2,5001. a year, which
in 12 years would have amounted to 30,0001. Instead
of 30,0001. interest, we have, alter the expiration of 12
years, to pay only 11,000/ to put the whole of the
bri Iges in complete and effectual repair." _ _

•
Mr. Bidder csmcludes as follows :—" In order to
inquire and report satisfactorily resp..ctinor a railway,
it is necessary that the inspectors should be persons
of enlarged experience, accustomed not only to the
constriction of railways but to their daily use.
In the present, and in other cases, the reports to
the Board of Trade upyn railways, their work-
log, and their conditiet, home been made
by a oentleman who has new:- himself been engaged in
the con-truction of a, single mile of railway, or of a single
bridge, who practically knows nothing about either, and
whose only source of practical acquaintance with the
subject on which he so strongly reports, is that practice
of inspection 4,f new railways which, for all useful pur-
poser, every civil engineer knows to be valueless and
absurd. When we remember that, with a host of emi-
nent officers of engineers employed in the Crimea, her
Majesty's Government nevertheless thought it proper to
entrust practical civil engineers (the priuc'pal of whom
was engaged in the construction of your line) with the
duty of laying down 6 miles of railway from Bal dclaya
to the heights, it certainly does appear not a little anoma-
lous that that Government should think it proper to corn-
mit the inspection of the railway works of practical civil
engineers to men of the v ery class to whom they could
not commit their construction. If inspections and reports
of this sort are persisted in, I ask, in conclusion, what
I will be the consequence I At the present time, in case of
ac;.,idents upon a line, the law exposes the railway com-
pany on whose lino it occurs to very serious liabilites
and penalties. That law was adopted in the belief that
it would afford the public the best security a;ainst rail-
way accidents. But if railway directors and managers
are to be interfered with, not only when accidents occur,
but when they do not occur, the result will be that rail-
way directors and managers will decline the responsibili-
ties they now undertake, and charge them upon those
who assert the right to control their management. If
Government will interfere, it is to Government the pub-
lic must look for safety, and for compensation when their
safety is not secured."