The New York Rapid-transit Subway

Proceedings.] DISCUSSION ON NEW YORK SUBWAY. 121 tion, or until such time as the particles of sand had again come to The Author, rest and exerted a pressure, the iron ring would settle vertically and deform, cracking the plates along the top. This flattening could be resisted by chains and turn-buckles, applied at every other ring and as close to the shield as possible. The estimates of cost given in the Paper, which had confused Mr. Fitzmaurice and other speakers, were based not upon the prices paid by the City—which, as Mr. Fitz- maurice has pointed out, did not, in the case of the Brooklyn extension, represent the true cost—but upon the actual payments by the company to the sub-contractors. Mr. Galbraith had given some interesting figures of cost of the Waterloo and City tube, which was over 13 mile long, witli only the terminal stations. In order to compare the cost per mile of this railway witli the average cost of the New York Subway, it was necessary to add the cost of five inter- mediate stations, and not merely one, as Mr. Galbraith had done, because on the Subway they occurred at A-mile intervals. When this arbitrary allowance was made, Mr. Galbraith’s figures also confirmed the experience of Sir John Wolfe Barry and the Author, that deep tubular construction was more expensive than a shallow subway. In this particular comparison the difference in size was wholly in favour of the New York Subway, the Waterloo and City tube being but 12 feet in diameter, as against the 15 feet 6 inches which would be necessary for tubes to carry the Subway rolling stock. Sir George Gibb, in dealing with the traffic aspect and financial return, had stated that in America there were no omnibuses, but as Sir George Bartley had remarked, there was a much more dangerous competitor for traffic in the tram-cars. In New York, to the surprise of many, the subway had not only created new traffic, but had drawn heavily from the tram-lines overhead. This was due to the higher speed, the freedom from traffic-delays, and, as compared with London, to mucli less loss of time in going between pavement and station-platform. In reply to Mr. Bury, the sleepers were not creo- soted in order to keep out of the subway the very objectionable odour of that material. Under the conditions existing, with no sun and no moisture, there was little tendency for wood to decay, and therefore no need to preserve it. Wear was the destructive agent, and that was guarded against by “ tie-plates.” Mr. Bury, in comparing the carrying-capacity of a five-car subway train with one of the Great Northern trains, overlooked the fact that his trains took their full load at King’s Cross or other terminal, and this load gradually diminished as the train proceeded. In the Subway there was no terminus, but a continual emptying and loading, so that every seat was occupied by several successive passengers on the same journey. The difference