Click the image above to see in more detail.
George Stephenson report 07 Jul 1832 p1
Image Details
| Description | By George Stephenson, locomotive engineer, to the Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company. He refers to a statement given to him on the Sankey Viaduct, by Mr Hartley, for his consideration. The report contains his observations. |
|---|---|
| Date of Creation | 07 Jul 1832 |
| Creator | George Stephenson |
| Archive Reference | STE/1/5/4/5 |
| Transcript |
To the Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Gentlemen The detailed statement of what Mr Huntley considers necessary to be done in respect of the Lickey Viaduct having been submitted to me for my consideration, I beg leave to observe. That there appears to be a misapprehension on the part of Mr Huntley as to the nature, or rather, as to the locality of the evil which it is wished to obviate. For in the Report which I have before me it seems to suppose that the settling of the work is said to itself most[crossed out] is taking place in the abutment and that[crossed out] the measures proposed for adoption have for their end, the prevention of[crossed out] the increase of this settlement. This further settlement however I consider is significantly[crossed out] effectually guarded against by the strong pieces of timber which have been inserted under below the surface of the ground between the abutment and the adjoining Pier, and as I am not aware of any projection of the abutment towards this Pier having taking place since their insertion of these stays, all further[crossed out] additional precautions must be looked upon as unnecessary. The yielding which has to a certain extent however this shrinking of the wing walls which has taken place since the deposition of the embankment behind it has become manifest[crossed out] The tendency to yield now manifested in any part of the structure is in the wing walls, to counteract which tendency counteracting between the Piers proposed by Mr Huntley would evidently be perfectly inefficaceous[inefficacious] in counteracting this tendency[crossed out] and nor would[crossed out] and the removal of the canal to a greater approved distance with the filling of the old channel cannot be expected to resist any decided tendency in the wing wall to ? forward at the foot. Should it be found advisable to take any further precautions than those which have already been taken to prevent the walls coming forward, I am of opinion that the simplest, the least expensive and the most effective means will be found to consist in driving a row of piles close to the canal and on each side of it inclining the Heads towards the face of the wing wall, and laying pieces of timber between these piles and if it app necessary between them and the foundations of the Wall. In order to remove render[crossed out] the work beyond all[crossed out] risk of the abutment separating laterally [more] than it has hitherto done, it may[crossed out] I think it will be prudent to put in a few iron bolts extending from one side of the abutment to the other. I do not see any necessity for passing them through the arch likewise. I am etc. G.[George] S.[Stephenson] July 7th 1832 Reverse side: Report To the Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway July 7th 1832 |
| Transcript (continued) | Please contact archive@imeche.org to report any transcription errors |
