The Kearney Files
With regard to the expressed opinion of the Commission the writer of "Rapid Transit In the Future" says the Kearney System really forms an ideal combination of shallow and deep level construction and contains the economies and convenience of both methods. The stations on Kearney tube railways will be shallow while the main portion of the track will be of a depth of about 100 feet below the street level.
Alluding to the second point raised in favour of the case for "tube" the Commission in their report stated " although the construction of "tubes" owing to their great depth in the clay scarcely affects the traffic in the streets yet satisfactory construction of a "shallow" Railway is really only a matter of proper precautionary measures and it is to be remembered that the cost of such measures is included in the average cost per mile.
The same remarks apply to any necessary diversions of sewers and pipes "tube" railways almost entirely avoid the necessity for those diversions, while in the case of "shallow" railways they are frequently necessary but each diversion are only matters of ordinary engineering. To diversions of such as sewers and pipes there is no objection if properly carried out.
To the above remarks the writer of the book before us observes by the use of the Kearney system the diversions of sewers and pipes would only be necessary at the stations which in order to accommodate four car trains will be about 300 feet long in each case. As to the avoidance of damage to property (3) the Commission report proceeds :- " the chief cause of subsidence has been the making of the enlarged tunnels for stations and the sinking of shafts for the lifts, while on the other hand the damage to property occasioned by the making of shallow railways has been very small". "This evidence" writes the author is of importance indicating as it does that the damage to property which occurred during the construction of the existing tubes arose out of just those portions of the works that will be eliminated in the case of the Kearney system.
On the subject of ventilation (4) the Royal Commission stated in their report :- " it was anticipated that no difficulties would arise in the case of tube railways. It is hoped that they would ventilate themselves by the shafts but this did not prove to be the case. Under the conditions of ventilation must be greatly on the side shallow railway. In the case of future "shallow" railways it would be possible to look forward to the possession of a line with abundance of fresh air!
Mr. Kearney commenting on the above and in further support of his scheme writes :- " change of air is occur at every service of trains and will occur therefore be practically constant .... in the case of ordinary tubes very little air is forced into the street while in the other case a very large proportion is bound to find an outlet as there is nowhere else for it to go. When the train departs the direction of flow is reversed in the case of the Kearney tube a fresh supply of air is drawn from the street above.
With regard to the expressed opinion of the Commission the writer of "Rapid Transit In the Future" says the Kearney System really forms an ideal combination of shallow and deep level construction and contains the economies and convenience of both methods. The stations on Kearney tube railways will be shallow while the main portion of the track will be of a depth of about 100 feet below the street level.
Alluding to the second point raised in favour of the case for "tube" the Commission in their report stated " although the construction of "tubes" owing to their great depth in the clay scarcely affects the traffic in the streets yet satisfactory construction of a "shallow" Railway is really only a matter of proper precautionary measures and it is to be remembered that the cost of such measures is included in the average cost per mile.
The same remarks apply to any necessary diversions of sewers and pipes "tube" railways almost entirely avoid the necessity for those diversions, while in the case of "shallow" railways they are frequently necessary but each diversion are only matters of ordinary engineering. To diversions of such as sewers and pipes there is no objection if properly carried out.
To the above remarks the writer of the book before us observes by the use of the Kearney system the diversions of sewers and pipes would only be necessary at the stations which in order to accommodate four car trains will be about 300 feet long in each case. As to the avoidance of damage to property (3) the Commission report proceeds :- " the chief cause of subsidence has been the making of the enlarged tunnels for stations and the sinking of shafts for the lifts, while on the other hand the damage to property occasioned by the making of shallow railways has been very small". "This evidence" writes the author is of importance indicating as it does that the damage to property which occurred during the construction of the existing tubes arose out of just those portions of the works that will be eliminated in the case of the Kearney system.
On the subject of ventilation (4) the Royal Commission stated in their report :- " it was anticipated that no difficulties would arise in the case of tube railways. It is hoped that they would ventilate themselves by the shafts but this did not prove to be the case. Under the conditions of ventilation must be greatly on the side shallow railway. In the case of future "shallow" railways it would be possible to look forward to the possession of a line with abundance of fresh air!
Mr. Kearney commenting on the above and in further support of his scheme writes :- " change of air is occur at every service of trains and will occur therefore be practically constant .... in the case of ordinary tubes very little air is forced into the street while in the other case a very large proportion is bound to find an outlet as there is nowhere else for it to go. When the train departs the direction of flow is reversed in the case of the Kearney tube a fresh supply of air is drawn from the street above.
Comments
Post a Comment