The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-03-21

s.## Is .rE
was presented to them. The Justine,
and fairness of adopting the result
or the "labor and expense" bestowe
upon them and their calling In another, IN
inviting him to reap the benefits Of the ski
and ingenuity Of one who presented NOR
desirable plans; which proposition Is reall
made in the following words: "The
would have been willing then, as they or
now, to take the contract on the specifica
tons it is proposed Messrs. Tanner g. CO
should work on, at saving to the city @
81 ,000-say for thesum Of $40, 600, which
very properly, did not commend itselfto tn
Council" How much they would hay
been willing to pay Messrs. Tanner & Co
for showing them what to do and how to d.
it is not even intimateds
We now turn to the report Of "one o
our engineers - !.
I" In the specifications of Messrs. Tanner
& Co., which the committee approved, thu
| gas-hO1der itself! is, considered apart from
| the columns, entirely of the same character
| and plan as ours. There is no substantial
difference. The variations are only in mi
nor details, and. on the whole, confidently
estimate the difference in cost between the
two would not amount to 800. The only
| real difference between their specifications
and ours is in the columns. They propose
q system OF small twelve-iuch (12) columns
on a triangular base, say ten or twelve
such systems, instead of eight three-feet
diameter single columns proposed by us
The actual difference in weight Of castings
in the two plans (supposing Tanner & Coz:
ten. column plan to be the one preferred)
estimate at not oyer 10, 900 to 1000 pounds,
representing cost of not over $500 at the
most; but the small twelve columns would
have nearly made up the difference of
weight. The actual difference in strength
and practical efficiency consider insisnii-
cant. = ~
ITO sum up, estimate the excess of cost
of the preferred specification of Messrs.
Tanner & Co. over ours at less than 81 900.
The foregoing estimate is based on the
supposition that Messrs. VIM. E. Tanner Is
Co.'s ten.colnmn specification was the one
preferred by the committee. II the twelve
column S4S,500 specification was the one
adopted, the increased cost of this spccifica-
ton over the Tredegar Company's might
amount to $4,000. 1.1.
81 have the honor to be, very respect-
fully, your obedient servant,
E. r. ARCHER, Engineer"
On this subject we have no more to say
besides what is shown in the following let
ter from one whose competency as an engi-
neer Is as we'll known as the authority
above quoted:
" METROPOLITAN IRON AND BRASS WoRKs.l
CORNER TTH AND CANAL STREETS,
RICHMOND, Va, March IS, 1871.
F. P. Brannan, Esq, Chairman Committee
ON Light, City Of Richmond:
Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiry as to
the comparative weights and cost of the
single and triple column for gas-holder, as
shown in our plans A and B respectively,
we have the honor to say that the estimated
weight OF the single column, AZ inches in
as shown in our plan B, inclu-
ding guides, guide-rollers with chains COM
plete, and fastenings, suspension chains, and
rollers complete, is 10000 pounds, which,
at the estimated cost of 3H cents per pound
for material and workmanship, gives the
cost OF each column erected upon our plan
BIS, 5SS.23. The Tredesar column, being
only sc inches in diameter, and consequently
hghter, would cost, with our system of
guides and rollers, 81 $3.50.
The triple column shown IN plan A is not
only heavier than the single column of plan
Is, but involves q greater amount of work
manship, as an inspection OF the plan will
show. The single column being composed of
sections bolted together by means Of internal
tlanges and bolts, while the triple column
must be braced ut each stage of connection
by means Of the ornamental entablatures,
as shown in our plan, making more eX-
pensire arrangement than plan 3, but at
the same time giving far more strength and
stability than the single column can posi-
by afford. Our estimate Of the weight of
triple column, with the guides and other
furniture, is 81, $50 pounds, which, at our
estimated cost of five and quarter cents
per pound, gives the cost OF each triple
column, when erected in place, S1,726.72.
There being u of these columns instead
of 8, as specified by the Trcdeear company,
an additional number of backing-platesa and
vertical ribs are required in the holder itself
to correspond with the four extra sets of
guides and rollers. This involves IN extra
weight Of $4,000 pounds oil angle, tee, and
bar iron, which, at cost of 6H cents per
pound, will amount to 1910. 10 sum up
the comparative cost
Twelve triple columns, ut 81, 1875. r. SEQ go Cd
Cost of extra vertical ribs, as abOve... 9IU 90
Cost of eight columns. per plan. 81 $50 "a
Tredcgar Co., at 81 800 per column l0,712 90
Differenceln favor of our plan. SIC, 9Is "a
Very truly, yours,
w. E. TANNER g. Co."
AS Mr.. Delaney, the author of these CAL
culationS, is a practical working mechanic,
brought up 1T the establishment of which
MIR. Archer is the engineer, we think that
his statements and estimates are reliable,
and, if doubted, they are open to the ex-
animation of the public. We believe them
to be correct, and therefore the Council
may judge what value is to be placed upon
the conclusion expressed in the report first
quoted. The difference in working value
between 4 holder suspended and guided at
twelve places, about thirty feet apart, by IN
of columns which secures sta
bilityto the framework and protection to the
holder during strong winds, over an arrange
ment of eight columns nearly fifty feet apart,
we think must he apparent to the most SUI
pertcal observer. We have now presented
in as brief form as possible the facts con-
nected with giving out the contract: to
Messrs. Tanner Sc Co., and our reply to the
erroneous statements and conclusions pre-
scented in the paper laid before you at the
last meeting. We trust that we have sus-
tanned ourselves in your good opinion, and
justified your sanction Of our decision, so
emphatically expressed at the last meeting
of the Council. .r-
Respectfully submitted.
f. P. BRANNAN (Ch'mani,
GEO. w. ALLEN,
THos. II. WYNNE,
JOHN NJ. HIGGINS,
E. j. EUKER,
Committee on Light.
THE WATER COMMITTEE
presented report from Mr.. Hindel, en-
gineer, in relation to the new proposed
reservoir, which was ordered to be printed.
They also recommend the appointment of
q hydrant inspector, whose duties shall be
to inspect the water works and prevent the
unnecessary waste of water, superintend
tho nnnstrnnfinn. and nlapinr of hIirants