Kearney Scheme comments 1921



Sydney Morning Herald 27th September 1921
From Kearney Files

Kearney Scheme
Adverse Criticism
Technical Press Reports

Below is an article which contains adverse criticism of Elfric's system this is one  from many sources over the years to discredit his system. As can be seen the author of the article has to go back over a decade to find these comments.

It is credit to Elfric that he included items like this in his files to give a balanced view to the reader.


On the occasion of the exhibition of Mr. Kearney's models in London, the technical Press unfavourably criticised the scheme.
The "Electrical Times," for June 18 1908 after remarking that monorail systems had been so numerous in the past that it would be difficult for Mr. Kearney or anyone else to devise something which had not in some way been anticipated, stated that "the essence of the patent is to be found in the cross - section of the guide - rail with its corresponding section of the wheel groove. For the rest, most of the description is romantic, and may be left to the general press. . . Another of his (Mr. Kearney's) ideals is to avoid confusion by the use of many side doors and two platforms. But it will take several decades to educate elderly ladies into the belief that the vacant platform is their destination."
"We are entirely unconvinced of the practicability of the system as a whole." says "The Electrical Review." of March 11 1910."With the exception of the single tube between stations the leading features of the system are old aquaintances, if not old friends and the statements as to the cost of construction, as well as to the cost and conditions of working will not, in our opinion, be borne out in practice."The Electrical Times."  March 31 1910 said :- "Truly Mr. Kearney's single - tube is an astonishing proposal. He contemplates a rapid service of trains both ways in the same tube. Needless to say; there are automatic safeguards against a departing train entering the tube in one direction until the approaching train from the other direction has left the tube and taken its place in the station siding. Nevertheless, no automatic device made by human hands is perfect  and the idea of trains attaining a speed of 50 miles an hour between stations half a mile apart quite takes one's breath away. It would be a thousand pities to spoil the present remarkable record of underground tubes by a collision at 100 miles an hour.
"How Mr. Kearney succeeded in inducing people to join him in this hare - brained scheme we cannot imagine," states "The Electrical Review" of June 19 1908."We can only hope that the attempt to secure further funds to squander may prove fruitless."
Finally, " The Electrician," of March 4, 2910 said :- " Of the engineering details and problems which Mr. Kearney seems to waive aside all too lightly we say nothing, but we are afraid all the difference will be found between paper and cold steel, to say nothing of passengers"


Comments