The New York Rapid-transit Subway

Proceedings.] DISCUSSION ON NEW YORK SUBWAY. 67 larger than on the Central London ; they were 12 feet in diameter Mr, Galbraith, on the straight and 12 feet 9 inches at the sharp curves, whereas the Central London tubes were 11 feet 6 inches. The cost per mile of the Waterloo and City line included the concrete lining of the tunnels, and he thought there was nothing of that kind on the running-tunnels of the Central London. Sir John Wolfe Barry had made rather an onslaught on tubes. He had given the cost of one tube, probably the Piccadilly line, as £740,000 per mile ; he had objected to the disturbance of buildings and to the delay in the lifts; and had concluded by saying that the tube-railway system of London was totally wrong. With regard to those objections Mr. Galbraith would like to say a few words. There was no need to spend £700,000 per mile on a tube railway in London, and it seemed to him that some financial mystery must be responsible for that figure. He had already given the cost of one tube railway at .£483,000, and he failed to see the ground for €700,000. Witli regard to damage to buildings inflicted by tubes, the figure he had given with regard to the Waterloo and City railway included all damage to buildings because the contractor’s price covered that item. What damage was inflicted the contractor had to pay for himself. He did not know what had been spent on the Central London railway in compensation for damage to buildings, but on the Baker Street and Waterloo, which was 43 miles long, and on the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead, about 8 miles long, double track, although these lines ran through very crowded parts of London, and, in places, through very narrow streets, the total cost of damage to property was only about £3,000 or £4,000 on the whole of the lines, from Charing Cross to Highgate and to Golders Green on the one line, and from the Elephant and Castle to the Great Central railway on the other. Of course if a railway was not properly constructed and maintained, the cost very soon mounted up, but if it was constructed properly, and the rings were grouted as the work went on, there was no need of any apprehension of great outlay in compensation for damage to property. On the Waterloo and City railway a little damage to property occurred in the neighbourhood of Walbrook, where there was a very treacherous bit of ground, con- sisting of an embankment deposited many years ago. At one end of the street certain failures occurred; the contractor did not admit liability, but compromised by repairing the buildings, and nothing had been heard about it since. With regard to the delay at the lifts, Mr. Galbraith freely admitted that a shallow subway with short stairs to the street was far better than a tube with lifts, causing a certain amount of delay. But the question was, were shallow subways in London practicable? He had very great doubt about that. He did