NOTES AND
EXTRACTS
ON THE HISTORY OF THE
LONDON & BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY
CHAPTER 6
THE PROJECT
INTRODUCTION.
|
“In the flattering endeavour of his several
biographers to make out Robert Stephenson an infallible pattern
of universal excellence and genius, positive injury has been
done to his genuine merits, and controversies necessitated that,
had sober truth alone been told, would never have been referred
to. Stephenson’s great superiority was as a leader of men. We
see the same genuine mastery . . . . in his command of the
multitudinous details of the London and Birmingham office at the
Eyre Arms, and the creation of the system of plans,
specifications, contracts, and so forth, now become common
property for the railway engineer; and in the general career and
success of his life, in council, before committees, in the
management of boards, in the homage and zealous support of his
pupils and staff, and in the honest freedom of his life from a
single slur or stain.”
The Practical Mechanic’s Journal,
edition April 1866 – March 1867.
[1]
|
Robert Stephenson
F.R.S., Civil Engineer. |
|
A civil engineering project is a
temporary collaborative enterprise, set up to achieve a
particular aim within the built environment [2]
subject to the
usual constraints of time, cost and quality.
Broadly speaking, a transport infrastructure project,
such as the London and Birmingham Railway,
moves through a number of phases towards completion, usually
with some degree of overlap and iteration between each:
-
Initiation: Project Manager and Client agree on the
project’s
deliverables.
-
Outline plan: initial surveying and
the identification of the most suitable route.
-
Legislation: obtaining the necessary legal powers in
the form of a private Act of Parliament.
-
Definition: defining in greater detail what the
project is to
achieve, out of which comes a schedule of requirements.
-
Preliminaries: preparing detailed
designs and specifications.
-
Preparation: addressing the many and varied legal
issues.
-
Implementation: staking out, building and commissioning the line.
-
Handover: after some form of acceptance testing the Client takes possession
and the project is closed.
In its day, the construction of the London and
Birmingham Railway was the largest civil engineering project yet
undertaken. Its aim was to create a public railway along a
route sanctioned by Parliament, to be
achieved within a budget £2,500,000 (Appendix I.) for delivery
late in 1837. [3] The project would require a team of
suitably experienced people
to manage it; the preparation of a great number of plans, drawings,
specifications and contracts; the resolution of legal issues (involving,
for example, land
purchase, conveyancing, contractual matters, compensation for
damage and the diversion of roads and rivers); the supervision of
contractors; and, throughout, accurate accounting and strict financial control. Over the five years that the work took to complete,
maintaining steady progress was to be a continual problem for
the Board and their Chief Engineer, and some deviation
from the project’s original goals was inevitable.
Large-scale civil engineering projects
have always had a tendency to depart from their designers’
estimates of cost and delivery date, sometimes seriously, particularly when they are
of a type that hasn’t previously been attempted. In an earlier age, the
Manchester Ship Canal, at £15,000,000, was almost three times
over budget and two years late in opening. The
London and Birmingham Railway’s near
neighbour for many miles, the Grand Junction Canal, was delayed by almost five years through serious
flooding in the workings of the Blisworth Tunnel, the Canal’s eventual cost being three times the
original estimate. In our own age the Humber Bridge, the
Jubilee Line extension, the Channel Tunnel and the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) are just some examples of civil
engineering projects that failed to meet their forecasts for one
reason or another, and the Edinburgh Tramway project ― currently
some £200m over the original £375m budget, and five years late ― looks set to join them. Transport infrastructure
projects such as these attracted much
concern among their investors, which in our own age is usually the taxpayer.
If the out-turn for large-scale civil engineering projects
can still depart seriously from forecast, it is unsurprising
that the London and Birmingham Railway, a trailblazer in its
day, was no exception:
“The way in which these things are usually got up for
Parliament is so vague and undetermined, as to merit no other
name than a guess, and not a good one either; hence has arisen
the common saying with all great undertakings of this kind,
‘halve the receipts and double the expenditure if you wish to
know anything about it’.”
[4]
The History of the Railway
connecting London and Birmingham, Lieut. Peter Lecount R.N.
(1839).
――――♦――――
THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE.
Although the London and Birmingham Railway Act
passed into law on 6th May 1833, a year was to elapse before the
first construction contracts were let and building commenced. That does not mean that little was done in the intervening
period ― on the contrary, a great deal was done.
Railway engineering has grown into a
multi-faceted discipline that includes, among other things, civil
engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and information and communications technology. When the London and
Birmingham Railway was built, its construction was entirely a matter of civil
engineering, a discipline that then covered not only the design,
construction and maintenance of cuttings, embankments, bridges,
tunnels and a range of buildings, but track, signalling and
rolling stock. [5]
The delivery of these components
− locomotives being an exception − fell to Stephenson’s team. Each needed
to be planned and designed, and their construction managed to ensure
that they were
available when required, to specification and at the agreed price. But before any detailed planning could take
place it was first necessary to set up a structure for managing
what for its time was a huge project, and to recruit the engineers
and draughtsmen who were to produce the designs and specifications
and oversee their realisation. The management structure that
Stephenson put in place was much the same as would apply to a
similar project today.
|
George Parker Bidder
(1806–1878),
assistant to
Robert Stephenson. |
From an early date in its history, the Board had divided the line into
two equal sections, each under the direction of a committee, one
based in London and
the other in Birmingham. Under the Board came their Chief
Engineer, a role to which Robert Stephenson was appointed on the basis that “his time and
services should be devoted exclusively to the Company”; this
requirement departed from the usual arrangement whereby a
Resident Engineer took charge of day-to-day operations, the Chief
Engineer providing consultancy and occasional oversight, and
charging his fee on a per diem basis. [6] Instead, Stephenson
was paid a salary, set initially at £1,500 p.a. plus £200 p.a. expenses, but later increased to £2,000 p.a. to keep abreast of that which
Brunel was to receive following his appointment as Chief
Engineer of the Great Western Railway.
Beneath the Chief Engineer, the management
arrangements were broadly those that John Smeaton had put in place during the construction of the Forth and Clyde canal over half a
century earlier. [7] The course of the Railway was divided into
a number of sections, each being placed under the direction of an
Assistant Engineer. Each section was then further divided into
shorter sections under the supervision of Sub-assistant
Engineers. (Appendix II.)
Some of those that Stephenson recommended
to the Board to fill these positions were men known to him, such
as his former pupil, John Birkinshaw (whose father appears in
Chapter 3); Thomas Gooch, who (together with Stephenson) had
done much of the early surveying, and George Bidder, who
Stephenson met while attending Edinburgh University. A
junior member of
the project team left his recollections of two of the professional
recruits who appeared at this time:
“Flying parties of surveyors were now succeeded by the
regular staff.
A tall, very tall young man,
upwards of six feet high, though losing somewhat from a slight
stoop and a low crowned hat, was found to have actually rented
one of the few available houses in the town. He was a man whom
no one set eyes on without wishing to see more of him. A grave
face, with a sweet and yet dignified expression, very dark eyes,
lineaments such as those to be found in the drawings of Westall,
a forehead not high, but broader than any often met with in
portraiture, in sculpture, or in life; the dress of a decent
mechanic, the air of an educated and well-bred man, and no
gloves: these were some of the outward marks of a man who has
since made his mark in the country. He was one of a family, in a
northern English county, distinguished for the talent of its
members. He was educated as a surgeon, but on coming of age
declined to follow his paternal profession, and, after an
engagement under Ericson, the inventor of the Monitors, during
which he had a share in conducting those experiments on the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway in which the speed attained by
the locomotives so much exceeded the expectations of their
constructors, became one of the earliest subalterns of Robert
Stephenson. The colleague and senior officer of this engineer
was a man considerably older, and rather of the stamp of the old
country surveyor, or the engineers of the school of Telford,
than of a mechanical turn. His shrewd grey eye, half
inquisitive, half defiant, twinkled with apparent love of fun. He soon devolved the out-door work on his assistant, although
the office-work at the station was light, the drawings being
prepared and the principal accounts kept at the
engineer-in-chief’s office in St John’s Wood.”
Personal Recollections of English Engineers,
F. R. Conder (1868).
|
Sir Charles Fox
(1810-74).
Sub-Assistant,
later Assistant Engineer. |
The memories are of Francis Conder, whose
pupil-master was Charles Fox (1810-74), “the very tall young
man” referred to ― and less than six years older than Conder
[8] ― to whom Stephenson allocated work on the Watford Tunnel
and on the Camden Incline down to Euston Station, on which Fox constructed his fine
iron bowstring bridge over
the Regent’s Canal:
“My father became a
pupil of, and afterwards assistant to, Mr. Robert Stephenson,
who was then the engineer of the London and Birmingham Railway,
now the London and North-Western . . . .
In 1837, Herbert Spencer entered the office at Camden
Town as an assistant engineer to my father, and it was during
this time that my father designed the roof over Euston Station,
the first of the kind ever made. He afterwards designed or built
the large iron roofs of New Street Station in Birmingham, of the
Great Western Railway at Paddington, and others at Waterloo
Station, York, and elsewhere.”
River,
Road, and Rail ― some engineering reminiscences, Francis
Fox MInstCE (1904).
Fox might
already have been known to Stephenson through the connection
that Conder mentions with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. He was later knighted for his contribution
to the construction of the Crystal Palace for the Great
Exhibition of 1851.
The “colleague and senior officer of
this engineer” to whom Conder refers, was G. W. Buck (1789–1854). It is possible that Stephenson first met Buck
during the latter’s visit to the Stockton and Darlington Railway
in 1828, or to the Rainhill locomotive trials in the following
year. Buck later described his duties as a member of the London
and Birmingham Railway project team:
“I have been engaged in the execution of various
Engineering Works for the last 20 years, but they were not of a
very extensive character; I had not superintended any Railway
until I was appointed one of the four Assistant Engineers, under
Mr. Stephenson, upon the London and Birmingham Railway; my
district is between London and Tring, and embraces a distance of
30 miles, and the work upon it is heavy compared with the rest
of the Line, i.e. there is more Tunnelling, and the Embankments
are higher and the Excavations deeper. My office is to see that
the Works are properly executed, and the amount of work done is
measured monthly by my Assistants, and tested by myself, as I am
responsible for its correctness.”
G.W.
Buck, from Railway Practice, S. C. Brees (1839).
Buck later worked on the Manchester and
Birmingham Railway, where among other work he designed the great
Stockport Railway Viaduct, which when completed in 1840 was the
largest in the world.
And so the professional ranks of the
project team were gradually filled:
“These gentlemen had arrived to superintend the works
of the great line of Railway, for which contracts had been
taken. Before long each of them had added a pupil to Mr
Stephenson’s staff. The younger of these gentlemen lived to
succeed that famous engineer as engineer-in-chief of the London
and North Western Railway . . . .”
Personal Recollections of English Engineers,
F. R. Conder (1868).
. . . . the
“younger of these gentlemen” was Buck’s pupil,
William Baker (1817-1878), who following Stephenson’s death in
1859 was appointed Chief Engineer of the London and North
Western Railway Company. One of the project’s sub-assistant
engineers, R. B. Dockray (1811-71), was also to achieve a
position of importance on the line, becoming its Resident
Engineer in 1840, then Resident Engineer for the Southern
Division of the London and North Western Railway upon its
formation in 1846. When Dockray retired through ill health in
1852, he was succeeded by William Baker.
|
Sir Robert
Rawlinson (1810-98).
(Assistant engineer and contractor). |
At the bottom of the management tree ― if
they could be considered a part of it ― were the ‘pupils’, in
effect civil engineering apprentices taken on by professional
engineers (in exchange for a ‘premium’) for a term under
articles of seven years. These young men . . . .
“. . . . unable to front a public meeting or a board
of directors, were in demand everywhere for field work.
Engineers who had pupils to spare, lent them to one another, or
let them out on terms of hire agreeable to all parties. Thus the
scene of personal recollection
[for the pupil, in this case Conder] may readily change from
the busy hive of workmen, that filled the great open ditch of
the Euston Extension, to the Derbyshire moors, the Essex corn
lands, or the Norfolk fens.”
Personal Recollections of English Engineers,
F. R. Conder (1868). |
Stephenson’s biographer, John Cordy
Jeaffreson, leaves an interesting cameo of the Engineer’s regard
for his pupils:
“One of the pleasant features of Robert Stephenson’s
career was the strong personal attachment he formed for his
pupils when they were young men of capacity and character. He
never forgot or lost sight of them. A pupil of the ‘right sort’
was sure to win his approval and notice, and the pupil who had
so earned his good opinion was sure to reap advantage from it. On the other hand Robert Stephenson never considered himself
either bound, or at liberty, to recommend for advancement an old
apprentice, when he could not do so honestly. ‘I can do nothing
for you, unless you like to stop here as an ordinary workman,’
he said to more than one pupil when his time was out: but then
the young men to whom he so spoke merited no other treatment.”
The Life of Robert Stephenson, F. R. S.,
J. C. Jeaffreson (1864).
|
Herbert
Spencer
(1820-1903). |
The most illustrious member of this particular strata of
Stephenson’s
team ― indeed, with the exception of Stephenson himself, of
the entire project team
― was Herbert Spencer, later to become a notable philosopher,
biologist, anthropologist, sociologist and prominent classical
liberal political theorist.
The
17-year old Spencer joined Charles Fox’s team at Camden Town in
November 1837, and was assigned to the sorts of duties that
apprentices in most fields of endeavour might expect ― the lowly
and mundane:
“Many not unpleasant days were passed together
during the winter and early spring in surveying at various parts
of the line. It was, indeed, disagreeable in muddy weather to
make measurements of ‘spoil-banks,’ as are technically called
the vast heaps of earth which have, here and there, been in
excess of the needs for making embankments, and have been run
out into adjacent fields; and it was especially annoying when,
in pelting rain, the blackened water from one’s hat dripped on
to the note-book. The office-work, too, as may be inferred from
the tastes implied by the account of my education, came not
amiss. There was scope for accuracy and neatness, to which I was
naturally inclined; and there was opportunity for inventiveness. So fully, indeed, did the kind of work interest me, that I
shortly began to occupy the evenings in making a line-drawing of
a pumping engine for my own satisfaction, and as a sample of
skill as a draughtsman.”
“You will see by the date of this letter that I
am not at present staying in London. I have now been down in the
country rather more than three weeks, where I am staying as the
Company’s Agent to superintend the completion of the approach
roads to the Harrow Road bridge. My duties consist in seeing
that the contractor fulfils the terms of the contract, and also
to take care that when he draws money on account he does not get
more than an equivalent for the work done.”
An Autobiography,
Herbert Spencer (1904).
Spencer is generous in his praise of Charles Fox, assigning to him credit for work sometimes given to Stephenson ―
but such is generally the fate of any subordinate:
“. . . . in 1834, I had, in company with my father and
mother, paid a visit to him
[Fox]
at Watford, where he filled the post of sub-engineer. From this
post he had some time after been transferred by Mr. Robert
Stephenson, the engineer-in-chief, to superintend under him the
construction of what was in those days known as ‘The Extension.’ For the London and Birmingham Railway was originally intended to
stop at Chalk Farm [Camden Town];
and only in pursuance of an afterthought was it lengthened to
Euston Square. Mr. Charles Fox’s faculty had, probably, soon
made itself manifest to Mr. Stephenson. He had no special
discipline fitting him for engineering — very little
mathematical training or allied preparation; but in place of it
he had a mechanical genius. Much of the work on ‘The Extension’
for which Stephenson got credit, was originated by him: among
other things, the iron roof at Euston Station, which was the
first of the kind ever made. After the Extension was finished he
was appointed resident engineer of the London division of the
line: his limit being Wolverton.”
An Autobiography,
Herbert Spencer (1904).
Towards the end of the project, the number
employed in Stephenson’s team in various capacities had grown to
fifty-five. In looking into the backgrounds of those
for whom there is a record, it is surprising how many failed to
reach their sixtieth birthdays, perhaps a reflection on the
rigours of civil engineering in that age:
“.
. . . the havoc that death has made in the ranks of a
profession, which might expect to be distinguished by unusual
longevity has been most remarkable. Brunel, in the judgment of
those who remember the iron energy of his youth, should now be a
man in the prime of intellectual vigour. Robert Stephenson might
naturally have looked forward to many more years of quiet
authority. Locke, Rendel, Moorsom, ― how many are the names
which a greater reticence of labour and more attention to the
requirements of health, might have kept for many years from the
obituary!
In regarding such a mortality it is difficult not to search for
some cause peculiar to the profession. One sufficient cause may
perhaps be detected in the habitual loss of the usual repose of
the Sunday. For men to turn night into day is in itself a hard
strain. Twelve days’ work per week will try the strongest
constitution; but make the twelve into fourteen and the fatal
result arrives with startling rapidity. And working by day, and
travelling by night, make a constant and unrepaid demand on the
vital energy of the brain. The cost of the English railways
includes the lives of many eminent men.”
Personal Recollections of
English Engineers,
F. R. Conder (1868).
Although a number of
the team had successful civil
engineering careers, only Fox and Rawlinson achieved public recognition,
both being knighted. Bidder was also recognised, but within his
profession, being elected President of the Institution of Civil Engineers (1859-61), a position that was also held by Stephenson
(1855 & 56) and by Rawlinson (1894).
|
Brunel (right)
shortly before his death on 15th September 1859,
aged 53.
A barely recognisable Stephenson (left)
followed him on the 12th October,
aged 55. |
In concluding this section, I
feel it necessary to mention
a member of Stephenson’s
team whose name crops up repeatedly in these pages,
but of whom
very little is known. I refer to Lieutenant Peter Lecount RN,
FRAS.
Lecount wrote two books of particular interest to railway
historians and
collaborated with Thomas Roscoe on a third, a
travel guide to the
London to
Birmingham Railway. So far as I can establish, his
History of the Railway Connecting London and Birmingham
is the only reasonably comprehensive and contemporaneous record of the
Railway’s construction. [9] In it,
Lecount gives a chronological account (mainly from his
perspective) of how the project unfolded and
the main problems thrown up along the way, together with some
technical details of the first locomotives used on the line and
a brief geological description of the route.
At some point
towards the end of construction, Lecount was commissioned to write a section on
‘Railways’
for inclusion in the
Encyclopædia
Britannica,
but what emerged was far too detailed
for the Editor’s
purpose. Presumably Lecount then reached a publishing agreement with
his principal, for the entire piece appeared separately under
the title of
A Practical Treatise on Railways, Explaining
Their Construction and Management (1839). In it, Lecount joins Wishaw and Brees in examining the
civil and mechanical engineering aspects of the railways of the
time.
For more information on the life of Peter Lecount
see
Appendix III.
――――♦――――
PLANNING.
|
John Brunton
(1812-99) ― in 1880.
(Sub-Assistant
Engineer) |
Following his appointment as Engineer-in-Chief, Stephenson moved his home from Newcastle to the
Hampstead area of London, using the vacant Eyre Arms Hotel (which
stood opposite the location of the present-day St. John’s Wood tube station)
as the
headquarters for his project team. Its large
ballroom became the drawing office in which thousands of skilfully crafted drawings were prepared, each signed
off by Stephenson. The
draughtsmen worked in two shifts ― the day shift sleeping in
the rooms the night shift had vacated ― to produce the drawings quickly to meet the demands of the Company’s
directors, who had become impatient for work to commence
following the long delay in obtaining parliamentary approval for
their scheme. However, before plans could be produced, the exact
course of the line needed to be staked out and further detailed
surveying undertaken to establish exactly what land needed to be
bought, and from whom, and for conveyancing to take place:
“. . . . we got the survey and setting out of the line
done, from Kilsby Tunnel face, to Birmingham, and I was ordered
up to London to take charge of the designing of the necessary
Bridge Drawings and other contract plans for the letting of the
works to contractors. The Railway Company took the ‘Eyre Arms’
Tavern, at St John’s wood as an Engineers’ drawing office, the
Tavern at that time being unoccupied. The Ball room formed the
Drawing Office. Twenty draughtsmen by day & the same number at
night formed the corps I had to superintend, of course under the
occasional inspection of my chief District Engineer Mr T. Longridge Gooch.
All the contract drawings had to be ready by a certain
day — about a fortnight after the day we commenced the work upon
them. It was a tight pinch, for my draughtsmen then were not
much used to this class of work. But we struggled on — I, very
anxious that this, my first important charge should not be
behind time, kept at my post night and day with one night only
in bed for the fortnight. This was foolish, as I found out
afterwards, but I was full of energy and determination.
One by one my staff dropped off quite overcome with
the incessant work I called for, but at last work was
accomplished on the evening before the Contract Plans &
Specifications were due in Birmingham. I had looked them all
over — put them all into their special portfolios — and was
waiting for the arrival of Gooch with some one, who was to take
them in charge and convey them to Birmingham by the night Mail
Coach. (Recollect there were only 2 Railways in existence then,
The Liverpool & Manchester and the Stockton and Darlington.) Every thing being ready I went down to the Entrance and sent for
a cab to take me to Edmonton, where my dear Father and Mother
were then living.
Each completed plan was endorsed
by
Stephenson.
At that moment I met Mr. George Stephenson and Mr.
Gooch. The latter hailed me: “Halloo Brunton, I can find nobody
to take these plans down to Birmm tonight, so you must take
them.” I made some slight remonstrance on the head of the work I
had gone thro’ for a fortnight. But no one else could be found,
so the cab which I had hired, with anticipation that it would
convey me to a good bed & sleep that night, was loaded with the
packages of plans and directed to take me to the ‘Swan with Two
Necks’, Lad Lane, whence the Mail Coach for Birmingham started
at half-past eight. I found all full inside and only one of the
four outside places left for poor me. I booked for Birmm, saw my
packages safe in the boot of the coach, and got the middle seat
of the three behind the coach man. I drew my plaid round my head
leaned back against the luggage on the roof and was fast asleep
before the coach left the yard. Nor did I awake until, 11½ hours
afterwards, I was roughly shaken and told I was at the ‘Hen &
Chickens’ Hotel Birmingham! Very stupid I felt, but I deposited
the plans . . . .”
From
The Dairy of John Brunton, Sub-Assistant Engineer.
Following land purchase, detailed plans,
specifications and schedules of quantities could be drawn up,
which together with samples of the strata, could be made
available to prospective contractors to assist them is preparing
tenders for the work. Thus, the first twelve months of the
London and Birmingham Railway project were absorbed with this
essential preliminary work, of which there was very little
evidence on the ground.
London & Birmingham Railway
‘Notice to Enter’.
Following their appointment, the engineers
set about staking out the exact course of the line, of which
Conder leaves an account:
“The next step in the invasion
[the first being surveying] proved a yet further aggravation
to the farmers, although it was one which, for the first time in
the course of the contest, afforded them the pleasure of
retaliation. Loads of oak pegs, accurately squared, planed, and
pointed, were driven to the fields, and the course of the
intended railway was marked out by driving two of these pegs,
one left standing about four inches above the surface to
indicate position, and a smaller one driven lower to the ground
a few inches off on which to take the level, at every interval
of twenty-two yards. It is obvious that the operations of
farming afforded many an opportunity for an unfriendly blow at
these pegs. Ploughs and harrows had a remarkable tendency to
become entangled in them; cart wheels ran foul of them;
sometimes they disappeared altogether. A mute and irregular
warfare on the subject of the pegs was generally protracted
until the last outrage was perpetrated by the agents of the
company; the land was purchased for the railway.”
Personal Recollections of English Engineers,
F. R. Conder (1868).
By the end of November, 1833, the
newspapers were beginning to report progress:
“We understand that about thirty miles of the line of
London and Birmingham Railway in parts where the greater
quantity of labour will be required, have been staked out. About
£96,000 (out of £125,000) of the second call have been already
paid up; and it is not expected that any material deviation from
the line for which the Act was obtained will be necessary. The
important undertaking is now proceeding with great spirit.”
The Northampton Mercury,
30th November 1833.
Following completion of land purchase,
plans and drawings could be prepared:
“It
[the London and Birmingham Railway] was the first of our
great metropolitan railroads, and its works are memorable
examples of engineering capacity. They became a guide to
succeeding engineers; as also did the plans and drawings with
which the details of the undertaking were ‘plotted’ in the Eyre
Arms Hotel. When Brunel entered upon the construction of the
Great Western line he borrowed Robert Stephenson’s plans, and
used them as the best possible system of draughting. From that
time they became recognised models for railway practice. To have
originated such plans and forms, thereby settling an important
division of engineering literature, would have made a position
for an ordinary man. In the list of Robert Stephenson’s
achievements such a service appears so insignificant as scarcely
to be worthy of note.”
The Life of Robert Stephenson, F.R.S.,
J. C. Jeaffreson (1864).
Specifications and contract documents were
also drawn up, and the work then advertised for tender. Some
difficult work was let by single tender ― the Tring Cutting,
for example ― but most was let through competitive
tendering, Robert
Stephenson being present at the opening of the sealed bids . . .
.
“The works are let by Public Contract, and the
Directors usually accept the lowest Tender, if the parties are
respectable and are able to give security; I am present at the
opening of the Tenders, but I have no opportunity of knowing
their several amounts until then: in allotting the several
Contracts, I have subdivided them pretty equally, and arranged
them so that one Contract shall not interfere with another; the
Work is measured at the time the Contractor delivers his Tender,
which is accompanied by a ‘Schedule of Prices’, upon which his
Estimate is founded, and at the expiration of every month the
work is measured and priced according to such List, and the
amount is paid him, with the exception of 20 per cent, which is
withheld until half the contract is finished, the amount
retained is then 10 per cent only, and the Contractor afterwards
receives the full amount of his work.”
Railway Practice, S. C. Brees
(1839).
――――♦――――
CONTRACTORS.
At the commencement of the project, the
Board had directed that:
•
those parts of the line which require
the longest time for execution, shall be
commenced first, and the rest in succession; so
that the whole may be completed at the same
time;
•
the purchase of land shall be made with
reference to this arrangement;
•
the payment of the calls
[on
part-paid shares in the Company] shall be
regulated, so that no part of the capital shall
be demanded before it is actually required;
•
the works shall be executed by contract,
by open competition, upon plans and
specifications previously prepared; security
being taken for the due performance of the
engagements. The only deviation from this plan
which the Directors propose, is in reference to
the portion of the line at the London end. This
portion they would recommend to be executed with
all the expedition which may be found consistent
with the stability of the work, and other
considerations, from a conviction that the
novelty and convenience of a railway contiguous
to the Metropolis cannot fail to excite a
general interest, and consequently to prove an
early and productive source of revenue to the
Company.
Chairman’s Report, London, 19th September, 1833.
|
Using contractors to build the Railway offered the Company three potential
advantages. By advertising their requirements in the
marketplace, the Company could more readily acquire the
appropriate manpower and equipment ― both being supplied by the
contractor ― than to assemble and manage it for themselves. [10] The
Company was also relived of the task of disposing of surplus equipment (mainly wagons, barrows, planks; also
ropes, chains, horses, possibly steam engines of various types,
etc.) on completion of the work, the contractor removing
it for his use elsewhere, or selling it by auction. Finally, the acquisition of services
through a process of competitive tendering offered the
promise that the work would be carried out in the most
economical manner.
However, even at this early stage in the
development of large-scale civil engineering, competitive
tendering was not considered to be a practice always to
be adhered to. The principle followed by the great civil
engineer Thomas Telford, was better the devil you know than
the one you don’t, advice that was reflected in early books
on civil engineering:
“As there is no difficulty in making an accurate
estimate of the sum which a new road ought to cost, if a
contractor of established reputation for skill and integrity,
and possessing sufficient capital, is willing to undertake the
work for the estimated sum, it will always be decidedly better
to make an agreement with him than to advertise for tenders.
If a contractor cannot be got, possessing the
qualifications which he ought to have to justify a private
arrangement, then an advertisement must be had recourse to. But
when tenders are delivered in, it is very important to take care
to act upon right principles in making a selection from them.
The preference should invariably be decided on by taking into
consideration the skill, integrity, and capital of the persons
who make the tenders, as well as the prices which they offer:
for if a contractor be selected without skill, or integrity, or
capital, merely because his tender is for the smallest sum, the
consequence will inevitably be imperfect work, every kind of
trouble and disappointment, and frequently expensive
litigation.”
A Treatise on Roads, Sir Henry Parnell (1833).
“We strongly advise every company not to look at the
lowest tender, but at the respectability, competency, and
character of the parties who come forward to offer for the work. There are well-known persons who go about to offer for works of
this kind, without the slightest intention of ever finishing
them, who are in effect mere men of straw, borrowing perhaps a
hundred pounds to make a beginning, and trusting to the chance
of doing all the light and easy work, which will pay them well,
and then standing stock-still till the company are glad to buy
them out, after which they have to do all the heavy work
themselves, at a proportionate cost, which is still farther
increased by having to press the work in all directions, in
order to make up as much as possible the time wasted by the
contractor.
There is no way of preventing this but awarding the
work to persons of established character, who will give in a
fair estimate, and be content with a reasonable profit, and
finish their work in such a way that they can look for future
employment from the same parties; whereas there are many who in
fact never make an estimate at all, but put in a round sum,
taking no care but to be low enough so that they may get the
job. Many tenders of this kind have been put in at prices by
which it was absolutely certain the parties must have lost
several thousand pounds if they had completed their contracts.”
A Practical Treatise on Railways,
Peter LeCount (1839).
That was the theory, but Stephenson was to
have first-hand experience of the legal maxim caveat emptor,
‘let the buyer beware’. Had everything gone according to plan,
the London and Birmingham Railway would have been built by
contractors to plans and specifications drawn up by the Company’s engineers, under whose general direction the work
took place and who measured up and certified for
payment each month the quantity of work completed on each contract. But as
events turned out, the contractors for eight of the thirty
contracts (Appendix IV.) failed to fulfil their
obligations, leaving the Company’s engineers to procure the
necessary plant and manpower, and undertake the work themselves. These failures included the most difficult sections of the line, the Tring and Blisworth cuttings and the Primrose Hill and Kilsby tunnels.
The first railway Act having being passed,
at the following half-yearly shareholder’s
meeting the Chairman was able to report significant progress
in much of the preliminary work. This involved setting up the project and
the preparation that was necessary before tenders could be
advertised to
undertake the work:
“Since the General Meeting of the Proprietors in
September last, the attention of the Directors has been
principally occupied by preparatory measures for the
construction of the Railway, and the arrangements for obtaining
possession of the Land.
In their former report, the Directors announced the
appointment of Mr. Robert Stephenson, as Engineer in chief. They
have since succeeded, to their complete satisfaction, in
obtaining the services of a sufficient number of skilful and
scientific persons as Assistant Engineers, for conducting the
Works on every part of the Line, which has been arranged in
sub-divisions for this purpose.
Notwithstanding the obstacles which an unfavourable
season has presented to the field operations of the Engineers,
the whole of the line from London to Birmingham has been staked
out and levelled, with the exception of a few points, to which
Mr. Stephenson is desirous of devoting his particular attention. He has reported that the Plans and Specifications of the Works
for the first twenty miles from London will be completed by the
1st of March.
The directors will then immediately advertise for
Tenders for the execution of the Work on that portion of the
Railway, and the Plans and Specifications for other parts of the
Line will follow in such succession as shall bring the remainder
into completion, in conformity with the intention announced in
the former Report.”
Chairman’s Report, Birmingham, 21st February 1834.
James Copeland, who obtained the contract
for building the Watford to Kings Langley section, including the
long Watford Tunnel, left a record of the financial aspects of
contracting for civil engineering work:
“I am now executing a Contract upon the London and
Birmingham Railway, which I obtained by open tender; my Contract
amounts to £117,000, and extends from Watford to Kings Langley,
and is about 5¼ miles in length . . . . I found two Sureties . . . . to the amount £11,700 (or
10 percent upon the amount), each in half that amount . . . . There is about 700,000 cubic yards of Cutting and 600,000 cubic
yards of Embankment, also a Tunnel of 1,716 yards in length (the
Cuttings and Embankments are nearly equal). Ten or twelve Tenders were submitted for the Contract,
and I believe my Tender was about the lowest; it consisted of a
gross sum, and a ‘Schedule of Prices’ attached, in which the
prices for open Cutting was 1s 2d per cubic yard (the price for
the Cutting also includes the Embankment), the average Lead of
which is about a mile, the Tunnelling was £28 per lineal yard,
and the Fencing about 2s 6d or 2s 9d per yard for each side of
the railway . . . . I find Waggons, Barrows, Planks, Sleepers, Chains, Keys
and Pins, which amounts to about 2d per yard more; i.e. for
the actual cost of Materials, exclusive of the Wear and Tear; as
I have expended £15,000 for materials, there is the interest of
that sum, and the Wear and Tear to be allowed for extra, there
is a continual expense in the repairing of Waggons, &c. The expence value of the materials, after the conclusion of the
Contract, may be about ¼d per yard, which deducted from the
original outlay, would make the price of the materials 1½d per
cubic yard, the cutting therefore costs 10½d per cubic yard; and
we take the risk of Slips and Contingencies; and prepare proper
Drains; which in Clay cuttings are very considerable; also the Sodding of the Banks, as some of the soil is removed twice,
which I have allowed for in the average of 2d per yard. I
therefore consider that a Contractor must pay great attention,
to his business, and practice considerable economy, to make a
profit out of the 1s 2d, as it is barely sufficient.”
James
Copeland, from Railway Practice, S. C. Brees (1839).
――――♦――――
WORK COMMENCES.
It seems evident from the tone of the
Chairman’s reports that the Board intended to exercise control
over the project rather than leave everything to Stephenson. They had good reason,
for there were business risks to manage over and above than the
line’s engineering. Investor confidence needed to be maintained in what for the time was large-scale innovation, for even at an early stage of
the work the Board probably realised that they would need to
raise significantly more capital than first estimated to complete the line. [11]
Thus, a quick win was needed, which was best
achieved by bringing the southernmost section of the line ― its
biggest revenue-earner ― into operation soonest. Achieving this would also help raise the project’s profile in
the eye of its investors and of the general public, hence the
Board’s
directive that:
“The only deviation from this plan
[the sequence for
undertaking other stages of the project] which the Directors
propose, is in reference to the portion of the line at the
London end. This portion they would recommend to be executed
with all the expedition which may be found consistent with the
stability of the work, and other considerations, from a
conviction that the novelty and convenience of a railway
contiguous to the Metropolis cannot fail to excite a general
interest, and consequently to prove an early and productive
source of revenue to the Company.”
Chairman’s Report, London, 19th September, 1833.
It was also recognised that the long Tring
Cutting represented significantly more work that elsewhere, and
here excavations commenced early on to ensure that its
completion did not delay the eventual opening of the line. [12]
At the half-yearly shareholders’ meeting
held in February 1834, the Company Secretary [13] informed the
meeting that, with a few exceptions, the entire
length of the line had been staked out, that plans and
specifications for the first 70 miles were nearing completion,
and that the first construction contracts were let:
“The London and Birmingham Railway, which attracted so
much of the public attention in the progress of the bill through
parliament, may now be said to be fairly launched. Tenders have
been accepted for executing the first twenty-one miles from
London in the period of two years, on terms which are considered
very favourable, this being in many respects the most expensive
part of the line. The specifications and plans of the works are
spoken of as being full, clear, and precise, shewing that the
time elapsed since the passing of the act has been profitably
employed. The next contracts, which will be advertised in a
short time, will comprise the district between Coventry and
Birmingham.”
Birmingham Gazette, 5th May 1834.
By June, 1834, work had commenced on the
Watford Viaduct and the section southwards to Willesden .
. . .
“The London and Birmingham railway has been commenced
by Messrs. Nowell and Son, the contractors for that part of the
line commencing from the River Brent to the Colne. They have a
number of excavators
[navvies] digging the foundations for the bridge over the
turnpike road at the lower end of Watford. It will be about
forty feet above the road, and there will be five arches, which,
with the abutments, &c. will be near four hundred feet in
length. Messrs. Copeland and Harding, the contractors for the
third part ― viz. from the Colne to King’s Langley, are likewise
at Watford, with several other gentlemen connected with this
work.”
The Northampton Mercury,
21st June 1834.
The Birmingham to Coventry
contracts were let in August:
“The directors, in conformity with the intentions
announced in their last report, contracted on the 21st April for
the first 21 miles of the railway from London, by three separate
contracts, binding the contractors, under a penalty, to complete
their respective portions in two years from 1st June last. They
further contracted, on 12th August for the first 21 miles of the
railway from Birmingham, by five separate contracts, to be
completed, under similar penalties, in 2½ years.”
Chairman’s Report, London, 21st August, 1834.
And so work on the Railway commenced:
“During the years 1834, 5, 6, and 7, the most
strenuous exertions were made in prosecuting the works: and
although many harassing and unforeseen difficulties were
encountered on some parts of the line, the continued energies
and acknowledged skill of the engineer-in-chief and his able
assistants were successfully employed to surmount them.”
Introduction to Drawings of the London & Birmingham Railway,
John Britton (1839).
――――♦――――
ESCALATING
COSTS.
Several factors conspired to drive up the
Railway’s cost and introduce delay. Other railway projects that
commenced during the 1830s added to the competition for
increasingly scarce resources, the effect being to increase wage and material costs
well beyond estimates: [14]
“Retardation of Railways by the High Price of
Labour. ― Owing to the great demand for labour the wages
have risen considerably, and increased obstacles are thrown in
the way of completing the lines which are in progress. The
Birmingham, Southampton, and other lines, we are informed, are
not proceeding with little more than half the rapidity they
were. Of course this, with the great rise in iron and other
things, must tell materially in the estimates, and tend much to
retard that early benefit the country would otherwise derive
from these undertakings. Common labourers are offered on the
London and Birmingham Railway, from fifteen to eighteen
shillings per week, and masons four shillings and sixpence per
day, but even at these wages the application for hands in many
places has been unsuccessful.”
The Railway Magazine
, Vol. 1, 1836
“Iron, one of the principal sources of expense, one of
its indispensable requisites, rose from nine to fourteen pounds
per ton, entailing an expense of about £300,000 above the
parliamentary estimate, although a rise of two pounds per ton
had been allowed for therein.”
The Railway Companion, from London to Birmingham,
Arthur Freeling (1838)
“From the great increase in prices, which took place
almost immediately after the letting of the works, no less than
seven contracts were thrown on the Company’s hands, and of
course these were the most difficult and expensive parts of the
works, and in each case, the directors had to purchase all kinds
of implements and materials at a vast expense, including five
locomotive engines, while, from the times at which these seven
contracts took to complete them, there was very little
possibility of transferring these implements (technically called
the Plant) from one contract to another. This, although a very
expensive process, was the only one to be followed, or the line
could not be opened under at least a year beyond the time
contemplated.”
The London and Birmingham Railway,
Thomas Roscoe and Peter Lecount (1839).
The purchase of land also proved far more
expensive than anticipated, for landowners soon developed
tactics to inflate its value. Lecount described one manoeuvre that landowners
adopted to place more cash in their pockets:
“In one portion of the line, on the Birmingham
division, some land was passed through in such a way that it was
evident the proprietor required, in reality, no accommodation in
the way of bridges at all. At the first outset, however, he
demanded five bridges; but, in the course of the discussion,
came down to four, with an equivalent in the price of the land.
It was absolutely necessary to obtain the land, or the
contractors would have been stopped in their operations, so
that, after a great deal of argument, the Company was forced to
submit to this enormity, and the agreement was signed, sealed,
and delivered, guaranteeing to the proprietor a bridge at A,
another at B, another at C, and another at D.
Soon after the money had been received the proprietor wrote to
say, he thought he could dispense with a bridge at A, and
if the company would give him about half its value he would do
without it; of course as this would save expense it was agreed
to, and bridge A done away with, the proprietor receiving
about half what it would have cost in building.”
The London and Birmingham Railway,
Thomas Roscoe and Peter Lecount (1839).
The reader might guess what happened next;
bridges B, C and D were, in sequence, declared unnecessary by
the landowner, in each case leaving him to pocket half the
bridge’s construction cost as compensation for relinquishing it. Sometimes the price demanded by a landowner was so
exorbitant that the Company declined to buy. An example was the
high price asked for the land on which to build Tring
Station, which caused the Company to consider relocating the station
on cheaper land further down the
line at Ivinghoe. But in this case the townsfolk raised a collection
to make good the difference between the asking price and what
the Company was prepared to pay, and Tring got its
station, albeit almost 2 miles from the town.
The Company was also under pressure over
land purchase from another direction, their contractors:
“It will be much better if no contract is let till the
company are in possession of all the land belonging to
that part of the line. Attention to this will most probably save
the company many thousands; and if it be not done, exorbitant
claims, which are sure to be advanced, will often have to be
complied with, because the contractor is demanding the land, and
very properly saying, that he cannot be bound to time, unless he
be put in possession of his ground.”
A Practical Treatise on Railways,
Peter Lecount (1839).
There were also engineering difficulties. Although the canal builders had shown the way,
the more direct route taken by a railway generally
needed more substantial earthworks than a contour-following
canal in order to create an acceptable
gradient, [15] a need that could prove expensive to satisfy. For
instance, on closer investigation it was found prudent to build
some of the
London and Birmingham Railway’s cuttings and embankments with shallower slopes than had
been intended in order to reduce the risk of slip. This meant
that more land had to be purchased, while the increased volume of
earthworks that resulted required more man-hours of labour to construct. Both factors acted to
increase cost over estimate. Engineering problems such as these [16] stemmed from a lack of
experience, and of the equipment and data that today permit civil engineers to explore the strata and model the
land more readily.
Adverse weather conditions also slowed or
halted work on cuttings and embankments, for when ground is wet
or sodden ― particularly if it has a high clay content ― it
becomes difficult or impossible to work. The same applies to the
effects of frost and snow. On average, over a year, the weather
permitted contractors to work on five days out of
seven.
Time lost to problems can be estimated for on
the basis of past experience ― where it exists ― and contingencies included in the
projected cost. But the question the designers need to address is how
much contingency to build in without making the project appear
financially unattractive to potential investors:
“Mr. Moss, chairman of the Grand Junction Railway
Company, on his recent examination before a committee of the
House of Commons, made some strong remarks on the
misrepresentations of engineers, in omitting important items of
expense from the parliamentary estimates. He stated, that the
whole case of a railway is never fairly brought before
Parliament on application for a bill; and added that engineers
were aware, if they apprised the shareholders of the whole cost
attending such undertakings, the latter would never embark on
any of them.”
Introduction to Drawings of the London & Birmingham Railway,
John Britton (1839).
CHAPTER
7
――――♦――――
APPENDIX I.
THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE LINE
Cap. xxxvi. An Act for making a Railway from London to
Birmingham.
6th May 1833.
. . . . III. And be it further enacted,
That it shall be lawful for the said Company to raise amongst
themselves any Sum of Money for making and maintaining the said
Railway and other Works by this Act authorized, not exceeding in
the whole the Sum of Two million five hundred thousand Pounds,
the whole to be divided into Twenty five thousand Shares of One
hundred Pounds each, and such Twenty five thousand Shares shall
be numbered, beginning with Number One, in arithmetical
Progression . . . .
|
Estimates proved in the House of Commons
£ |
£ |
Excavations and Embankments |
170,000 |
|
Tunnelling |
250,286 |
|
Masonry ― This Item is increased in
consequence of an Agreement with the Commissioners of
the Metropolitan Roads to add to some of our Bridges in
Width and Height, and also an Agreement with the
Trustees of the Radcliffe Library Estates to increase
the Number of Arches in the Wolverton Viaduct, and also
an Addition of Two Bridges over the Avon near Brandon,
to avoid the Diversion of the River. |
350,574 |
|
Rails Chairs Keys and Pins |
212,940 |
|
Blocks and Sleepers |
102,960 |
|
Ballasting and laying Rails |
102,960 |
|
Fencing at £740 per Mile |
76,032 |
|
Sub-total |
|
1,874,752 |
|
|
|
Land |
250,000 |
|
Six Water Stations at £500 |
3,000 |
|
Six intermediate Pumps |
600 |
|
Offices, &c. requisite at each End of
the Line, for Convenience of Passengers, &c. and Walling
for enclosing the Space for Depot |
16,000 |
|
Forty Locomotive Engines £1,000 |
40,000 |
|
300 Waggons at £30 |
9,000 |
|
Sixty Coaches at £200 |
12,000 |
|
Sub-total |
|
2,205,352 |
Contingencies |
|
294,698 |
|
|
|
Total |
|
2,500,000 |