The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-05 00:00:00

CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY.

Copy of Mr. Rendel's Report to the Admiralty on the
Chester and Holyhead Railway.—(Ordered to be
printed 10th May, 1844.)
Mr. Rendel, in the commencement of his Report,
states that " the subject being of great importance,
and the interests involved numerous, the inquiry has
necessarily occupied much time, and required close
investigation. Accordingly I have been twice over
the line, first with the Company's acting engineer,
for information on such details as the Parliamentary
plans and sections do not furnish, and the second time
to satisfy myself upon several points that appeared
doubtful, and to meet such parties interested in the
navigation of the Foryd River and sundry shipping
places on the coast which the line interferes with, as
had intimated a wish to do so." The questions which,
by desire of their Lordships, the Secretary to the
Admiralty had submitted for Mr. Rendel's opinion
were these :

" 1. Which of the two proposed crossings of the Dee,
at Chester, will least interfere with the navigation of
that river?

" 2. Whether the ground on the bank of the Dee, and
the sea beach from thence to the Strait of Menai, will
admit of the line being carried at such distance within
high-water mark (without putting the parties to unrea-
sonable expense) as would leave the shore freely acces-
sible at all times?
" 3. Can the railway be carried across the Foryd
River at or above Rhyddlan, or in a manner that will
interfere less with the navigation of that river than by
the Company's plans?
"4. Will the proposed bridge for crossing the Conway
give the same headway as the suspension bridge now
there?

" 5. Cannot the line of railway be carried on arches
in front of the town of Holyhead, so as not to cut off all
communication at high water between the houses and
the harbour?

" 6. Does Captain Beechey's plan for enlarging Holy-
head Harbour appear to possess any advantages over
Mr. Walker's plan; and what is your own opinion on the
best position for the harbour?

" 7. The difference in cost of the plans; and
" 8. Whether, if it appear that the line of railway
cannot be so modified as to preserve that ample space on
the beaeh which those interested in the navigation, and
the inhabitants of the coast generally, have a fair right
to demand, the line could be carried by Mold, as sug-
gested in one of the petitions?"

On the first question, Mr. Rendel reports—
' " Neither of the proposed lines will interfere with the
part of the river which is now navigated. The direct
London line is proposed to cross the river considerably
above the old bridge and wear, beyond which barges
even cannot pass. The other line, which may be called
the direct Liverpool line, crosses about half a mile below
Chester new bridge, which limits the navigation for sea-
going vessels. This half mile of river would therefore
be made by the railway unavailable to such craft as could
not lower their masts.'

But he adds, afterwards—
" I am, therefore, of opinion that the Company should
be permitted to cross the Dee in either or both of the
situations shown in their Parliamentary plans, provided
the bridges be made of the capacity and form described."

On the second question, after stating that " the
whole distance referred to here, is upwards of sixty
miles, and in this length there are essential differences
in the character and apropriation of the coast and
the adjoining country;' Mr. Rendel enters into a
minute description of the physical features and forma-
tion of these different districts of coast, &c., along the
bank of the Dee at Chester, to the point of Air in
Flintshire, from the point of Air to Rhyddlan and
Abergele, and the points of Penmaen-rhos, through
which it is proposed to carry a tunnel four hundred
yards long; and he reports to this effect--

" I am of opinion, therefore, that the company should
be required to make this alteration in the tunnel, and
keep the line proportionably inland on either side of it,
and that in all places where it encroaches on the coast
it should be retained by a perpendicular wall, widened
out at intervals of five hundred yards, so as to form side
slipways down to the beach; such slips being made at
least fifteen feet wide, and their inclination not exceed-
ing one in twelve. Walls would not be more inacces-
sible to shipwrecked sailors than the present cliffs, gene-
rally speaking, are; whilst the proposed slipways would
be an added convenience, that could not be otherwise
than of great service in sending assistance to stranded
vessels, and for the escape of their crews. Of course
such slipways should not be used unless with the permis-
sion of the railway company, excepting in cases of
wreck, when the police of the railroad, and the rapidity
with which assistance could be brought, would prove of
great service. The slips should incline from west to east,
and within the reach of high water they should be se-
curely paved. On this part of the coast I consider per-
pendicular stone walls with slips in every respect prefer-
able to stone-paved slopes of the kind proposed, which,
if made sufficiently flat, would encroach greatly on the
beach, without offering a single advantage over perpen-
dicular walls. From west of Colwyn to beyond Conway
the line is inland, excepting where it passes along the
slope of Conway-bridge embankment. At Penmaen-
bach and Penmaen-mawr, the line is necessarily carried
along the face of the cliffs for some distance. It also of
necessity intersects detached portions of the beach, but
in no one case to any extent as to length or protrusion.
I should cartainly recommend the adoption of a short
tunnel through the point of Penmaen-bach, by which
means the encroachment on the coast would be reduced,
and the security of the works increased. In all cases of
encroachment, a perpendicular wall, with slipways to the
beach, in the manner before proposed, should be insisted
on ; and with this provision, I am of opinion that the
line on this division also would be unobjectionable in
every nautical point of view."

To the third question he replies, "There are no
physical difficulties in the way of carrying the line
across the Foryd at Rhydillan ;" but he recommends
certain deviations from the plans submitted. To the
fourth question he answers—

" I am of opinion that the company should be required
to make the new bridge of equal capacity with the pre-
sent one, in headway and waterway."
Of the fifth, he reports—
" If the line of railway. be permitted to encroach upon
the harbour, as shown in the Parliamentary plans, it
should certainly be carried on arches, which is very
practicable. I am, however, of opinion, that no ad-
vantages are to be derived by the continuation of the
railway beyond the eastern limits of the town, which
can in any way compensate for the injury it would in-
flict on the harbour, even if carried on arches. . . . My
opinion, therefore, is, that the railway should terminate
east of the harbour, which would prevent injury to the
town and harbour, whilst only occasioning an omnibus
distance of three-quarters of a mile, in place of one
quarter of a mil., to the present packet pier."
In answer to the sixth question the details are
very curious, whereby Mr. Rendel illustrates the re-
lative elements for preference as between the plans of
Mr. Walker and Capt. Beechey ; and also those of a
plan now submitted to the Board of Admiralty by
himself. We subjoin the whole of this portion of the
report : ,

" Captain Beechey's plan incloses an area of 176 acres,
by 4,100 feet of breakwater, and 3,000 feet of pier ;
whilst Mr. Walker's plan incloses only 90 acres, by
3,300 feet of breakwater, and 2,500 feet of pier. Of the
176 acres enclosed by Captain Beechey's plan, 131 acres
have two fathoms deep and upwards (at low water), 110
acres of three fathoms and upwards, 69 acres of four
fathoms and upwards, and 43 acres of five fathoms and
upwards. Mr. Walker's plan has 80 acres of two
fathoms and upwards, 70 acres of three fathoms and up
wards, 40 acres of four fathoms and upwards, and 17
acres of five fathoms and upwards. In regard, there-
fore, to area in proportion to length of breakwater and
pier, Captain Beechey's plan obviously claims the pre-
ference. The entrance to each harbour has the same
aspect, viz., true east; but, owing to the greater size of
Captain Beechey's harbour, he can afford to have a \yid, r
entrance than Mr. Walker, without proportionately in..
creasing the risk of injurious disturbance within it.
Accordingly, Captain Beechey makes his entrance up-
wards of 1,000 feet wide, whilst Mr. Walker limits his
entrance to 350 feet. It also appears to me that at the ter-
minating kant of the north breakwater of Captain
Beechey's plan is so placed, with reference to the head
of his south pier, as to occasion less broken water across
the entrance, which, in connexion with its being nearly
three times the width, makes it much more accessible
when the wind is from the northward and westward,
which are the bad weather points, and which, consider-
ing how close both entrances are to a rocky lee shore,
makes a wide and easy access all important. I am
therefore of opinion, that in every point of view, as an
asylum harbour, Captain Beechey's plan must be deemed