From the Kearney Files
Sydney 6th July 1922
PROPOSED SYDNEY BRIDGE.
Reply to comments dated 24th June 1922.
From a Sydney Engineer in reply to earlier comments made.
The comments dated 24th June are full of inaccuracies.
It states that "From official information there is little chance of the bridge gett beyond the picture stage . . . and that tenders were called for its construction nearly a year ago, but so far there seems to be no bidder."
As the ","official" best qualified to have information is Mr. J. J. C. Bradfield, it will interest people to know that many firms are tendering, the closing date for tenders not being till October 31st 1922.
The anonymous correspondent also states shat ", contractors in Great Britain without exception have declined to entertain the proposal mainly on the grounds that it sought to put upon the contracting firm the sole responsibility for preparing working drawings of the bridge."
That is incorrect affirms are not asked to prepare working drawings, but only sufficient for them to work out the weight of the bridge, all details for the structure being given in the specification supplied each contractor.
The anonymous correspondent also unfairly manipulates certain figures mentioned by Mr. Bradfield, referring to the speed of trains across the bridge, and builds upon his manipulated figures deductions that have no bearing upon the subject.
The bridge has been designed to carry four trains each 1,000 feet long, which length is necessary in order to determine the maximum stresses of the various members of the bridge, which had to be designed to stand the breaking force of four trains at 60 miles per hour; not that such traffic would be in operation, but to provide for the possibility. The anonymous correspondent also ETFs in stating the plan disclosed five reverse curves.
It is a pity he did not sign his name, as the tone of his letter is similar to a letter the writer has seen from an individual whose system of underground switchback monorail has been before the engineering world for the last 14 years without any recognition.
Could he be referring to Elfric Wells Chalmers Kearney?
Sydney 6th July 1922
PROPOSED SYDNEY BRIDGE.
Reply to comments dated 24th June 1922.
From a Sydney Engineer in reply to earlier comments made.
The comments dated 24th June are full of inaccuracies.
It states that "From official information there is little chance of the bridge gett beyond the picture stage . . . and that tenders were called for its construction nearly a year ago, but so far there seems to be no bidder."
As the ","official" best qualified to have information is Mr. J. J. C. Bradfield, it will interest people to know that many firms are tendering, the closing date for tenders not being till October 31st 1922.
The anonymous correspondent also states shat ", contractors in Great Britain without exception have declined to entertain the proposal mainly on the grounds that it sought to put upon the contracting firm the sole responsibility for preparing working drawings of the bridge."
That is incorrect affirms are not asked to prepare working drawings, but only sufficient for them to work out the weight of the bridge, all details for the structure being given in the specification supplied each contractor.
The anonymous correspondent also unfairly manipulates certain figures mentioned by Mr. Bradfield, referring to the speed of trains across the bridge, and builds upon his manipulated figures deductions that have no bearing upon the subject.
The bridge has been designed to carry four trains each 1,000 feet long, which length is necessary in order to determine the maximum stresses of the various members of the bridge, which had to be designed to stand the breaking force of four trains at 60 miles per hour; not that such traffic would be in operation, but to provide for the possibility. The anonymous correspondent also ETFs in stating the plan disclosed five reverse curves.
It is a pity he did not sign his name, as the tone of his letter is similar to a letter the writer has seen from an individual whose system of underground switchback monorail has been before the engineering world for the last 14 years without any recognition.
Could he be referring to Elfric Wells Chalmers Kearney?
Comments
Post a Comment