From the Kearney Files
Sydney 7th February 1922
HARBOUR TUBE SCHEME
Kearney Company's Reply
Mr. R. T. D. O'Halloran, secretary of the Kearney High Speed Railway Company (Australia), Limited, writes:--
In view of the remarks by Mr. Estell, Minister of Works and Railways, and the criticism by the Railway Commissioners of the proposal to connect Circular Quay and Milson's Point by means of a tube, the directors of the Kearney High Speed Railway Company (Australia), Limited, desire to state that they are in no way opposed to the building of the North Shore Bridge.
It must be distinctly understood that the tube is suggested as a means of affording relief to the congestion now existing, and for coping with the rapidly increasing traffic, pending the construction of the bridge in ten or more years, otherwise chaos will result. Ten years is too long to wait for relief, and especially so when it is remembered that the population of the northern suburbs will probably double itself in that time. The tube railway would be in operation twelve months after the commencement of the work of construction.
Regarding the statement that the Kearney tube as a means of traffic across the harbour is out of the question, the directors point out that the scheme has the backing of Mr. M. Noel Ridley, M. Inst, C. E., M. C. I. Civil Engineer, of Leeds who under the date of December 8th 1921, writes :---
"In regard to the application of the Kearney system to the proposed tube under the Sydney Harbour from Circular Quay to Milson's Point: I have examined the plans for this line carefully. In my opinion it is an ideal application of the Kearney system, and I am able to endorse all the figures put forward as to the journey time (70 seconds), time required for construction (about one year), capacity (20,000 passengers per hour each way), and cost of working per annum ( £20,000 for a traffic of fifteen millions . . . . In conclusion I report the Kearney system and its application to the proposed tube under Sydney Harbour to be theoretically and practically sound in every particular."
Mr. John Portsmouth, A. M. Inst. C. E. of Victoria Street, Westminster, the Engineer to the North and South Shields Tube Railway writes under date of December 2nd 1921, that he has recommended the Kearney system to local authorities as having every likelihood of proving a financial success.
The two foregoing reports, both by celebrated engineers of world - wide repute, are now, or should very shortly be, in the possession of the Public Works Department.
The Kearney High Speed Tube Railway is also favoured by such eminent engineers as Lord Headley, M. I. C. E. I., Mr. H. C. Adams, M. Inst. C. E., M. I. Mech. E., President of the Society of Engineers, Dr. Held Shaw, L. L. D., F. R. S., M. Inst. V. E., Mr. H. N. Healy (President A. E. S. E.), Mr. Raymond J. Mitchell, A. M. I. Mech. E., M. S. E., A. M. E. E., M. I. A. E., M. I. P. E., and Mr. A. W. Gattie (Chairman of the New Transport Company Limited), all of whom expressed their views in the course of a discussion after reading of a paper by Mr. Kearney before the Society of Engineers.
It is also desired to contradict the statement that the reports of the technical press were entirely unfavourable after seeing the demonstrations of the working model in 1908 and 1910. The "Iron and Steel Trades Journal," "Colliery Engineer," and "Metallurgical Review," ( June and July, 1908) unreservedly supported the proposal, and went so far as to say that the Kearney railway had an immense future before it.
In any case, unfavourable comments 12 years old cannot be accepted to - day.
The whole world has changed greatly in that time, and novel or unexpected application of a sound principle must not be allowed to pay toll to apathy. stupidity or ignorance.
The development of the aeroplane in the last ,12 years is an example of how quickly old ideas change, despite vested interests , and notwithstanding adverse comments.
It is quite true that the Kearney system has never yet been adopted in any country, but but at one time the steam locomotive, the Westinghouse brake, and many other great inventions had not been adopted in any country, yet they are in operations in nearly all countries to - day. A start must be made somewhere, and would have been made in England only for the war, and the consequent financial depression afterwards.
The Kearney system would transport 20,000 passengers an hour in each direction by eight cars. Holding 125 passengers each, at intervals of three minutes as against the 20,000 passengers by the ferry at intervals of six minutes. Extra tubes would still further relieve the congestion, and no doubt in time a train would run every minute.
Regarding the location of the stations and the statements regarding the unsuitability, of the proposed sites, it is desired to point out that these have only been selected tentatively pending Mr. Kearney's arrival and therefore that matter can remain in abeyance for the present.
The suggestion by the Railway Commissioners of a standard guage railway track across a suspension bridge as a means of temporarily relieving the congestion, is somewhat belated, to say the least, and it would be interesting to have the opinion of competent engineers on this decidedly novel proposal.
The argument regarding the wages payable for subway work, and the men employed on building the tunnel for the tube railway would not be working in water, the proposal being to build the tunnel for the tube under the bed of the harbour, hence a wage of £10 4s for a week of 24 hours would not be payable.
Further, the directors of the Kearney High Speed Railway Company (Australia), Limited, desire to point out that In March, 1909, a Royal Commission appointed to report on the best way of communicating between Sydney and North Sydney unanimously decided in favour of a tunnel, being actuated, no doubt, by the difference in the time of construction.
While welcoming legitimate criticism, it is necessary to point out in, fairness to Mr, Kearney and his scheme of a high speed tube railway, that the expert advisers of the Government who reported against the proposal have not actually seen the model working, and so are hardly competent to decide as to the impracticability or otherwise of the scheme.
It would be interesting to learn the views of Sir Timothy Coglan, the Agent - General, who was recently given a demonstration of the system by means of a working model, also the views of the experts who were present, and were no doubt advising him. Such a report would be of immense value at this juncture.
In conclusion it might be mentioned that arrangements are now being finalised to bring Mr. Kearney and his models to Sydney, when the general public and the Government expert advisers will have an opportunity of judging the scheme on its merits.
Sydney 7th February 1922
HARBOUR TUBE SCHEME
Kearney Company's Reply
Mr. R. T. D. O'Halloran, secretary of the Kearney High Speed Railway Company (Australia), Limited, writes:--
In view of the remarks by Mr. Estell, Minister of Works and Railways, and the criticism by the Railway Commissioners of the proposal to connect Circular Quay and Milson's Point by means of a tube, the directors of the Kearney High Speed Railway Company (Australia), Limited, desire to state that they are in no way opposed to the building of the North Shore Bridge.
It must be distinctly understood that the tube is suggested as a means of affording relief to the congestion now existing, and for coping with the rapidly increasing traffic, pending the construction of the bridge in ten or more years, otherwise chaos will result. Ten years is too long to wait for relief, and especially so when it is remembered that the population of the northern suburbs will probably double itself in that time. The tube railway would be in operation twelve months after the commencement of the work of construction.
Regarding the statement that the Kearney tube as a means of traffic across the harbour is out of the question, the directors point out that the scheme has the backing of Mr. M. Noel Ridley, M. Inst, C. E., M. C. I. Civil Engineer, of Leeds who under the date of December 8th 1921, writes :---
"In regard to the application of the Kearney system to the proposed tube under the Sydney Harbour from Circular Quay to Milson's Point: I have examined the plans for this line carefully. In my opinion it is an ideal application of the Kearney system, and I am able to endorse all the figures put forward as to the journey time (70 seconds), time required for construction (about one year), capacity (20,000 passengers per hour each way), and cost of working per annum ( £20,000 for a traffic of fifteen millions . . . . In conclusion I report the Kearney system and its application to the proposed tube under Sydney Harbour to be theoretically and practically sound in every particular."
Mr. John Portsmouth, A. M. Inst. C. E. of Victoria Street, Westminster, the Engineer to the North and South Shields Tube Railway writes under date of December 2nd 1921, that he has recommended the Kearney system to local authorities as having every likelihood of proving a financial success.
The two foregoing reports, both by celebrated engineers of world - wide repute, are now, or should very shortly be, in the possession of the Public Works Department.
The Kearney High Speed Tube Railway is also favoured by such eminent engineers as Lord Headley, M. I. C. E. I., Mr. H. C. Adams, M. Inst. C. E., M. I. Mech. E., President of the Society of Engineers, Dr. Held Shaw, L. L. D., F. R. S., M. Inst. V. E., Mr. H. N. Healy (President A. E. S. E.), Mr. Raymond J. Mitchell, A. M. I. Mech. E., M. S. E., A. M. E. E., M. I. A. E., M. I. P. E., and Mr. A. W. Gattie (Chairman of the New Transport Company Limited), all of whom expressed their views in the course of a discussion after reading of a paper by Mr. Kearney before the Society of Engineers.
It is also desired to contradict the statement that the reports of the technical press were entirely unfavourable after seeing the demonstrations of the working model in 1908 and 1910. The "Iron and Steel Trades Journal," "Colliery Engineer," and "Metallurgical Review," ( June and July, 1908) unreservedly supported the proposal, and went so far as to say that the Kearney railway had an immense future before it.
In any case, unfavourable comments 12 years old cannot be accepted to - day.
The whole world has changed greatly in that time, and novel or unexpected application of a sound principle must not be allowed to pay toll to apathy. stupidity or ignorance.
The development of the aeroplane in the last ,12 years is an example of how quickly old ideas change, despite vested interests , and notwithstanding adverse comments.
It is quite true that the Kearney system has never yet been adopted in any country, but but at one time the steam locomotive, the Westinghouse brake, and many other great inventions had not been adopted in any country, yet they are in operations in nearly all countries to - day. A start must be made somewhere, and would have been made in England only for the war, and the consequent financial depression afterwards.
The Kearney system would transport 20,000 passengers an hour in each direction by eight cars. Holding 125 passengers each, at intervals of three minutes as against the 20,000 passengers by the ferry at intervals of six minutes. Extra tubes would still further relieve the congestion, and no doubt in time a train would run every minute.
Regarding the location of the stations and the statements regarding the unsuitability, of the proposed sites, it is desired to point out that these have only been selected tentatively pending Mr. Kearney's arrival and therefore that matter can remain in abeyance for the present.
The suggestion by the Railway Commissioners of a standard guage railway track across a suspension bridge as a means of temporarily relieving the congestion, is somewhat belated, to say the least, and it would be interesting to have the opinion of competent engineers on this decidedly novel proposal.
The argument regarding the wages payable for subway work, and the men employed on building the tunnel for the tube railway would not be working in water, the proposal being to build the tunnel for the tube under the bed of the harbour, hence a wage of £10 4s for a week of 24 hours would not be payable.
Further, the directors of the Kearney High Speed Railway Company (Australia), Limited, desire to point out that In March, 1909, a Royal Commission appointed to report on the best way of communicating between Sydney and North Sydney unanimously decided in favour of a tunnel, being actuated, no doubt, by the difference in the time of construction.
While welcoming legitimate criticism, it is necessary to point out in, fairness to Mr, Kearney and his scheme of a high speed tube railway, that the expert advisers of the Government who reported against the proposal have not actually seen the model working, and so are hardly competent to decide as to the impracticability or otherwise of the scheme.
It would be interesting to learn the views of Sir Timothy Coglan, the Agent - General, who was recently given a demonstration of the system by means of a working model, also the views of the experts who were present, and were no doubt advising him. Such a report would be of immense value at this juncture.
In conclusion it might be mentioned that arrangements are now being finalised to bring Mr. Kearney and his models to Sydney, when the general public and the Government expert advisers will have an opportunity of judging the scheme on its merits.
Comments
Post a Comment