From the Kearney Files
London 13th July 1922 (part 2)
J. J. C. Bradfield's Lecture in London.
Comments on M. Bradfield's Lecture by an British Engineer.
In reference to various questions of fact regarding J. J. C Bradfield's very interesting lecture on Town Planning in Sydney, lately delivered before the Town Planning Association at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Storey's Gate S. W. As one of the engineers who had the privilege of being present at this lecture, I can assert that, whether Mr. Bradfield meant it or did not mean it, he talked about trains running at a headway of one minute over the proposed bridge across Sydney Harbour at a speed of 60 miles per hour. From a mere glance at the plan of route in question, and considering that some curves are of about nine chains radius, it is obvious that such a feat as this would be totally impracticable. Moreover, one believes that such a heavy train as was mentioned, namely, a train 1,000 feet long, if operated at a speed of 60 miles per hour for such an immense structure as the bridge proposed, would entail a vastly increased first cost, out of all proportion to the benefits to be derived from the slight saving of time over such a distance as required. In addition to this, there appears to be a very severe gradient to negotiate, which, at any rate on the up journey, would make such speed fantastically impossible. Regarding "Sydney Engineers" comments on the Kearney monorail deep tube system, which he doubtless had in mind, I would suggest strongly that the fact that this admirable conception, the soundness of which has been repeatedly endorsed by many eminent engineers, has remained before the engineering world for the last 14 years, reflects in no wise on the soundness of the system nor on Mr. Kearney's ability as an original thinker, but rather represents a further illustration of the blind predudice, laziness, and mental inertia which pioneers almost invariably must overcome before their gifts to civilization are even accepted. Such gifts are then often filched from the giver without gratitude or recognition in any form. I do not, however, believe that this will be Mr. Kearney's fate, as he plods on with his scheme undaunted by the opposition put up by vested interests against him, and I feel sure he will succeed, and that, moreover, he deserves to do so.
I have the arrogance to state that I believe Mr. Kearney will prove to be right regarding the Sydney Harbour scheme. Bridges are obsolete where rapid transit is desired, and where low first cost is essential. Moreover, bridges are not bomb proof when attacked by aircraft, and never can be; and we have no reason to believe that the war belongs to the past, as engineers are still, as a body, easily led by the nose by the powers behind them in the cause of war. Doubtless wisdom will prevail, though it does not seem in a hurry to do so. --
Raymond J. Mitchell, M. I. A. E., A. M. I. E. E., A. M. I. Mech. E., A. M. I. Min. E., M. S. E., M. I. P. E.
London 13th July 1922 (part 2)
J. J. C. Bradfield's Lecture in London.
Comments on M. Bradfield's Lecture by an British Engineer.
In reference to various questions of fact regarding J. J. C Bradfield's very interesting lecture on Town Planning in Sydney, lately delivered before the Town Planning Association at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Storey's Gate S. W. As one of the engineers who had the privilege of being present at this lecture, I can assert that, whether Mr. Bradfield meant it or did not mean it, he talked about trains running at a headway of one minute over the proposed bridge across Sydney Harbour at a speed of 60 miles per hour. From a mere glance at the plan of route in question, and considering that some curves are of about nine chains radius, it is obvious that such a feat as this would be totally impracticable. Moreover, one believes that such a heavy train as was mentioned, namely, a train 1,000 feet long, if operated at a speed of 60 miles per hour for such an immense structure as the bridge proposed, would entail a vastly increased first cost, out of all proportion to the benefits to be derived from the slight saving of time over such a distance as required. In addition to this, there appears to be a very severe gradient to negotiate, which, at any rate on the up journey, would make such speed fantastically impossible. Regarding "Sydney Engineers" comments on the Kearney monorail deep tube system, which he doubtless had in mind, I would suggest strongly that the fact that this admirable conception, the soundness of which has been repeatedly endorsed by many eminent engineers, has remained before the engineering world for the last 14 years, reflects in no wise on the soundness of the system nor on Mr. Kearney's ability as an original thinker, but rather represents a further illustration of the blind predudice, laziness, and mental inertia which pioneers almost invariably must overcome before their gifts to civilization are even accepted. Such gifts are then often filched from the giver without gratitude or recognition in any form. I do not, however, believe that this will be Mr. Kearney's fate, as he plods on with his scheme undaunted by the opposition put up by vested interests against him, and I feel sure he will succeed, and that, moreover, he deserves to do so.
I have the arrogance to state that I believe Mr. Kearney will prove to be right regarding the Sydney Harbour scheme. Bridges are obsolete where rapid transit is desired, and where low first cost is essential. Moreover, bridges are not bomb proof when attacked by aircraft, and never can be; and we have no reason to believe that the war belongs to the past, as engineers are still, as a body, easily led by the nose by the powers behind them in the cause of war. Doubtless wisdom will prevail, though it does not seem in a hurry to do so. --
Raymond J. Mitchell, M. I. A. E., A. M. I. E. E., A. M. I. Mech. E., A. M. I. Min. E., M. S. E., M. I. P. E.
Comments
Post a Comment