The New York Rapid-transit Subway

Dr. 70 DISCUSSION ON NEW YORK SUBWAY. [Minutes of Galbraith. York subway, he quite approved of the flat-roof construction. Ilie width between the columns (12 feet) decided of course the width of the carriages, which was the same as on the Waterloo and City railway. No doubt the form of the cross section had a great advantage in the room it gave in the upper part of the carriage. He had intended to say something about columns at the edges of plat- forms, but Colonel Yorke 'had already disposed of that point. No doubt the carriages were not fitted with side doors, but there was still that source of trouble in England, as he noticed the Metro- politan railway continued to run the old carriages with side doors. Delay in the lifts had been much aggravated lately by the change in the fares. When there was only one fare the passenger dropped hrs ticket into a box and the matter was ended ; now he had to show the ticket as he entered the lift on arrival, and again on entering the lift at his destination. That all caused delay. The logical deduction was to have only one fare; but that had been tried and found wanting, for the public would not pay 2d. to ride half a mile along the street when they could take a penny omnibus. With regard to reinforced concrete, he was glad to see the Author used a water- proof covering all round. Reinforced concrete was very good if water was kept away from it. At Southampton and Liverpool, where a good deal of reinforced concrete had been used, there had been failures, the water finding entrance to the rods and causing rusting and scaling. It was necessary to have the rods thoroughly surrounded with the best of concrete. He had had an idea that painting the rods would afford better protection against rusting, but he noticed that the Author’s experiment of applying a coat of paint to the iron spoilt the adhesion of the concrete to the metal, and therefore he had given up tliat idea. Tlie actual tunnelling was mucli the same as had been done in London. In conclusion, lie compli- mented the Author on his very instructive and admirable Paper. Mr. Mott. Mr. Basil MOTT had read the Paper with the greatest interest and had learned a great deal from it. He had hoped that some of the designs might have assisted in dealing with the traffic-problem in London, but he was afraid that was not so. He thought that anyone who had studied the subject of London traffic would agree that if a shallow subway was possible there was no doubt that it was the proper thing to have, but the question was whether it was possible. Sir John Wolfe Barry had spoken very strongly against tubes, and he believed Sir John never had liked them, looking on them as a sort of glorified sewer, with not mucli glory left. There was something in that view. They were very much like sewers especially the latest sewers constructed by Mr. Fitzmaurice—and