Mr. Berridge. Correspondence. Mr. H. BERRIDGE remarked that his experience of the subject was limited principally to fighting his way in and out of cars during "rush" hours on the elevated and surface car systems in Greater New York about 10 years ago. His surviving impression was one of admiration for the organization which effected the transport of such immense numbers of people at a marvellously cheap rate, coupled with a feeling of devout thankfulness that he was no longer one of the human units so transported. The Author was a past master in the art of designing those heartless New York stations where the hapless passenger, once started on a stream of traffic, had no chance of turning aside until the stream stopped, even though the "transportee" desired it never so strongly. Nulla vestigia retrorsum ought to be, if it were not, the motto of the Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners of New York City. In such systems the human being was looked upon as an animated parcel-its dimensions, weight, rate of unassisted progress, airconsumption, and other characteristics were all carefully tabulated, and stations, cars, seats, and other apparatus were all calculated to fit it with no little nicety. The elusive factor was the number of parcels to be dealt with in a given time, which, in spite of every effort, seemed to defy forecasting or the provisions made to meet it during "rush" hours. The absence of regulations as to seating produced the most extraordinary crowding, which, though in the main good-natured, was by no means pleasant, especially in a company of both sexes. The New York subway referred to was under construction while Mr. Berridge was in that city, and he had noticed particularly the freedom accorded to the builders compared with that accorded in London, where he had also had some experience in this class of work. In London a shaft was sunk here and there, surrounded by an æsthetically-decorated hoarding, inside which the works progressed almost unnoticed by the general public. During the construction of the New York subway the whole of the streets affected were opened in every possible place, and large gasand water-mains were deviated on trestles over the sidewalks in a very workmanlike but unpresentable way. He had a vivid recollection of being prevented just in time from stepping off a surface car into a subway excavation 20 feet deep, alongside which the car had stopped, and which was absolutely unprotected. The Londoner was apt to grumble at much smaller inconveniences, and Mr. Berridge. it would do him good to learn from the New Yorker how to join in the spirit of the thing and to realize that such discomfort was only temporary and would benefit him in the long run. A point in design which impressed Mr. Berridge was the trouble taken to put in transition-curves, compensation on gradients, and vertical curves to connect gradients; in fact, every device to get the traffic along as fast as possible with safety. Rail-joints also generally broke joint, as on all American tracks, which did away with the uncomfortable rhythm of the wheels passing over rail-joints, so noticeable in London tubes. As far as New York was concerned, he considered that if more attention were given to street-surfaces, so that motor-traffic could be employed, much relief would be afforded to the railways, which still appeared to be badly congested during "rush" hours. There used also to be much difficulty in making cross-country journeys, say, from Brooklyn terminus to steamerquays on the west side. The cross-town cars used to be few and slow, and the consequence was that the only thing to do in such cases was to take the elevated to the nearest station and walk-often considerable distances. This meant that the elevated had to carry a deal of traffic which did not really belong to it. However, the Americans had so far pinned their faith to railways, and as long as the track was workable the rest of the street generally got little attention. The streets along the water front were in a parlous state in his time. Personally he could not endorse the Author's recommendation to small towns to go in for elevated railways. The noise, unsightly appearance, and loss of amenity depreciated property greatly, and in Europe, at all events, the compensation due to abutting owners would certainly be a large set-off against any economy obtained by their construction compared with a subway. Only exceptional conditions, such as those at the Liverpool docks, could justify the construction of such a general nuisance. Mr. LIONEL CALISCH observed that on comparing London traffic Mr. Calisch. facilities with those of America, it would be seen that in New York the number of rides per head of population in 1910 were 322, while in London in 1911 they were 228.8. According to the Tables given in the Paper, the population of New York between 1900 and 1910 increased by 38.8 per cent., the number of passengers carried by 81 per cent., and the number of rides per head of population by 30 per cent.; while in London from 1901 to 1911, according to the London Traffic Report for 1912, the population increased by 9.2 per cent., the passenger-traffic 89 per cent., and the number of rides per head of population 72 per cent. It Mr. Calisch. would be interesting to know if the Author could give any information in regard to the financial results obtained on the underground and elevated railways in New York and other States. In London it did not appear that any of the tubes or underground railways paid a satisfactory dividend upon the capital expended. According to the London Traffic Report of 1912, the London underground railways and tubes would have to carry another 209.5 million passengers annually before they could pay 4 per cent. upon their ordinary shares. A long time would elapse before they carried this number. There was no doubt that the number of passengers carried per mile of track in New York was very high. He understood that the Author referred to "miles of single track," and not to "route" miles. In London the densest traffic was carried on the Central London Railway, on which the number of passengers per route mile averaged 5.51 millions per annum, or 2.75 millions per mile of single track, which, of course, was a much lower figure than that obtained in New York. The increase in the capacity of lines that had been electrified was a well-known advantage of electric traction, but it would appear that sixty trains per hour was the utmost limit of the present capacity of tube railways. It appeared, therefore, that some other means of transportation would have to be adopted if a tube railway was to be utilized to its fullest extent; that was, some means that would ensure an absolutely continuous succession of trains. Mr. Wellman's suggestion in regard to increasing the distances between stops was, to Mr. Calisch's mind, very applicable to London tubes. Some of the present stations could very well be cut out altogether, which would have the effect of increasing the scheduled time and decreasing the power-consumption. On most of the London underground railways the average distance between stops was about 0.4 to 0.5 mile, and the scheduled speed about 15.5 miles per hour. The Author mentioned that several improvements were made in the trainequipment when the number of cars per train was increased from eight to ten. Mr. Calisch understood, however, that these improvements had to be carried out on account of several failures of the train-equipment. He would like to know whether trouble had not been experienced with the "shoe" fuses on the front and rear motorcars, which fused continually. Was it true that the trouble was due to the fact that the bus-line resistance was less than that of the third rail in parallel with it, and that consequently a large portion of the current in the third rail was passed through the bus-line and the fuses? Did a resistance in series with the bus-line overcome the difficulty? Most automatic signalling in New York appeared to be done by alternating-current track-circuiting, and the system was Mr. Calisch. being introduced into England. The first installation had been made on the Central London Railway. He would like to know whether the train-stops in America were found to be satisfactory. Judging from the fact that the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railway had recently offered a large money prize for a satisfactory design, it would appear that there was still some room for improvement, and he would like to know what were the defects of the present train-stop. Of course, the blow received by a stop striking a projection on a train moving at the rate of 20 to 30 miles an hour was considerable. Failures of train-stops had occurred in England, the most recent happening on the Great Northern and Piccadilly Railway and resulting in a collision. The Board of Trade, however, considered the stops satisfactory, although admitting that they could be improved, and experiments were now being carried out with a view to make them absolutely safe. The lifts on London tubes certainly wasted a great deal of the public's time, as there seemed to be no relation whatever between the arrival of a lift and the arrival of a train, and it often happened that passengers reached a platform just as their train was disappearing. A wait of 5 minutes or so resulted sometimes, when the next train happened to be a non-stop one. Escalators were far superior to lifts, and it was to be hoped that the tube railways would install them generally. Mr. A. J. COUNTY, of Philadelphia, pointed out that the reason why the City of New York received no tenders, as mentioned on p. 175, was that the distinction became clearly recognized between a rapid-transit system-serving but one general territory, running trains on close headway, with a uniform fare of 5 cents, and without luggage or other parcel-traffic to carry and handle at the stations and the main-line railways, having graded fares and trains of varied composition, serving many different districts, and carrying not only passengers but also luggage, parcels, express, milk and other light traffic, and with many causes to interfere with preserving an exact time-table with trains from outlying points. In short, it would not have paid the main-line railways to incur this heavy cost of subway-construction for passengers paying only 5 cents fare, and, what would have been more serious, it would have meant disruption of the city's rapid-transit service and outlay on larger tunnel-sections and rolling stock. The vertical clearance was therefore reduced to 13 feet 2 inches, and the lines were restricted to city rapid-transit purposes; but the new subways were being constructed to enable a longer and wider car to be used. With regard to franchise conditions in the United States, so far Mr. County. Mr. County. as subways were concerned, their heavy first cost, the risk of the construction of competitive lines by the city, if not by other capitalists, and the heavy traffic required to render them remunerative, with constantly increasing taxation assessments, had caused private companies to look to the municipalities to construct them, because of the advantages which such public bodies possessed over a private company in the following respects: (1) general ability to raise capital at lower rates of interest; (2) if a deficit occurred, it was paid by the city under its taxation plans; (3) the lines opened up new areas and increased the taxable value of property, and some cities could afford to build lines for the sake of profits to be obtained in this way, although these lines might not be directly profitable; (4) a city or municipality could determine in the general public interest to construct some rapid-transit lines irrespective of the question of profits, either for the sake of this increase in the taxable value of property, or to relieve congested residential areas, or to encourage greater population. Real rapid transit required the construction of underground or elevated lines, and New York had given a demonstration of the desirability of first constructing elevated lines and supplementing them later by subways. With later improvements, both in construction and in working, a much superior type of elevated railway, with less objectionable features, could be constructed and worked. Boston, by its successive steps in handling the rapidtransit problem under conditions that would obtain in an averagesized city, had established a rapid-transit scheme more within the power of the ordinary city, namely, first, concentration of the surface lines in subways under the congested parts of the city; secondly, the construction of partial subways and elevated lines the latter plan also obtaining somewhat in New York. In Mr. County's opinion these steps ought to be taken by almost every city before sufficient justification was found for the construction of subway lines. It would pay the larger municipalities, in order to extend their residential sections and provide cheap homes for the working classes, and for recreational purposes, to construct elevated railways where required, and, when they had been in operation for about 30 years, replace them by subways, if overcrowded or obsolete. Mr. Gibbs. Mr. GEORGE GIBBS observed that the Paper could not fail to be of great interest and value to students of rapid transit in cities. It so admirably summed up a variety of topics that detailed criticism seemed somewhat out of place. With regard to elevated railways, this American invention for transit through city streets had been much criticized in respect of unsightliness and noise from moving trains. Elevated railways were adopted in New York as a |