link to Talbot Project home page link to De Montfort University home page link to Glasgow University home page
Project Director: Professor Larry J Schaaf
 

Back to the letter search >

Result number 41 of 55:   < Back     Back to results list   Next >  

Document number: 5631
Date: 27 Mar 1858
Recipient: COTTRELL George Edward
Author: TALBOT William Henry Fox
Collection: British Library, London, Manuscripts - Fox Talbot Collection
Last updated: 1st September 2003

<draft>

(not sent)

Cottrell

March 27 / 58

There certly apprs t hv bn some little misunderstg abt the loop railwy (K) I did understd that if this line were ever made, it was to be made & kept in repair also at my own expense, but not worked at my expense – My idea offer was ^only to provide the way, leaving you to send as many or few trucks of ore along it as you pleased & at what times & seasons you found most convenient – in doing which for I have no doubt you that if smelting furnaces are built, and coal is required to be brought for them along my line, you would give all reasonable facilities for such traffic, by arranging the times of starting the ore and coal waggons in an amicable way so as not to interfere or cause trouble,

<at foot of page 1> (K) between the canal & GWR

which ^however being a mere matter of detail I need not per pursue the subject further at present.

I will endeavour to explain more clearly the different ways in wch as I think the ore cd be got upon the GWR with convenience – leaving which if you will consider at your leisure I shd be glad to know your opinion

First there is the plan of taking the ore in carts on the a common road, viz. down Bowden Hill to the canal (distance 2 miles ^good road) carting them then a little further on the present same road till the carts have crossed the canal 2 bridges over the canal, & the River. At that point a new road to be made by me, avoiding the village, & going straight to the GWR, wch is about ¾ of a mile distant.

Or this new road might only be made ^one quarter mile as far as the turnpike road fm Lacock to Melksham – Havg crossed that road, the carts wd be discharge the ore into railwa the GWR railwy waggons ^wch wd travel on a railway being made by me from the Melksh. road to the GWR. distance ¾ mile.

This plan wd avoid all boating, the construction of a bridge over the river, & that of a tunnel under the turnpike road. It would Substitute for all this, 2¼ miles of carting, & ¾ of loop railwy, wch wd be made all on my own land.

The second plan wd be what that wch I mentd in my last lr viz. the ores wd be brought down to Canal by an inclined plane to be made by you at your expense, they wd then be placed in a boat & carried 1½ mile on the canal to a wharf. N.B. they this transport wd be towards the left hand, or South – viz. towards Melksham. From At the wharf they the ores wd be placed in the GWR railway waggons (not twice shifted as you in your last letter imply) on the tramway leading to ye Gt Western – distance 1¼ mile This plan wd necessitate oblige me to build an iron bridge over the Avon and to purchase a field belonging to another proprietor. Also to make a tunnel under the Melksham road.

The 3d plan wd be to bring the ores down to the canal by the aforesaid inclined plane, & to lay a tramway, crossing the canal by a bridge (there happens to be one just thereabouts) The tramway wd go a certain distce over my own land – then ^by permission of the road trustees it must be laid for a little way by the side of a small parish road, and over Raybrid wch crosses the river at Raybridge. T So far horse power must be used to draw the trucks on the tramwy ^namely for about ¾ a mile – After But, crossing Raybridge, I can lay the tramway on my own land, as far

<new sheet, boxed off at top right> 2

Cottrell March 27 / 58 (not sent)

as far as the GWR. (about ¾ mile) but shd have to tunnel under a turnpike road – On this part of the tramway I shd recommend a stationy engine to draw the ores, as there is a rise I think of 100 feet, at any in ¾ of a mile. If this plan be adopted, I do not propose a less expensive kind of tramway wd ha need only be made, since the same cars wd go all the way from Nethermore to the GWR. This plan, saves all boating, & indeed all shifting of the ores except the unavoidable loading into the GWR waggons

It is of course much the directest & nearest.

These are I believe the principal plans to wch it is necessary that I shd direct your attention & between wch a choice can be exercised – Would it not be as well for you to consult an engineer? If you prefer the 3d plan Unless indeed you can say at once tht the 3d plan wd suit you, in wch case I wd take steps t like this plan ^I must ascertn whethr parish <illegible deletion> anybody ^wd object to ye tramwy being partly made ^for some distce by the side of a parish Road – It is possible they ^somebody may object. In that case the alternative wd be, it wd be necessy to cart the ore, over the said bit of parish road and over Raybridge which wd be about <illegible deletion> altogether nearly ½ mile, & then to put it it would be put in trucks on the a tramway, constructed on my own land.

If I were not afraid of wearying You with these details wch are hardly intelligible without a pla map, I shd say there is yet a 4th plan.

By bringing the ore down an inclined plane made as far to the left as possible (instead of keeping ^entirely to the right) it could be carted on a common road (on a level) from the bottom of this incline one mile & then put into the GWR waggons on a bit of branch railway which I wd make (¾ mile long) and which I is the one I have already described – see plan No 1.

the comparative merits ^& defects of these plans will be best shown by a tabular <illegible deletion> ranging them in a table

Plans

No 1. no inclined plane. no boating.

Carting 2¼ miles. ^good branch railway ¾ mile.

No 2. inclined plane. boating 1½ mile – ^no carting. branch railway tramway about 1¼ mile

No 3 inclined plane. no boating. carting nearly ½ mile. tramway ¾ mile

No 4. inclined plane. no boating. carting 1 mile. ^good branch railwy ¾ mile

These are I believe the principal plans to wch it is necessy I shd direct your attentn & between wch a choice can be exercised. Would it not be as well for you to consult an engineer? N.B. The branch railwy mentd in Nos 1 and 4 wd be such as the G Westn locomotives cd run upon ^being nearly on a level, without tunnel or bridge to make. Nor is anybody’s consent required for those plans No 1 and 4. as regards plan No 4.

<extended version>

(not sent)

Cottrell

March 27, 1858

There certainly appears to have been some little misunderstanding about the loop railway between the canal and the Great Western Railway. I did understand that if this line were ever made, it was to be made and kept in repair also at my own expense, but not worked at my expense – My idea offer was only to provide the way, leaving you to send as many or few trucks of ore along it as you pleased and at what times and seasons you found most convenient – in doing which for I have no doubt you that if smelting furnaces are built, and coal is required to be brought for them along my line, you would give all reasonable facilities for such traffic, by arranging the times of starting the ore and coal waggons in an amicable way so as not to interfere or cause trouble, which however being a mere matter of detail I need not per pursue the subject further at present.

I will endeavour to explain more clearly the different ways in which as I think the ore could be got upon the Great Western Railway with convenience – leaving which if you will consider at your leisure I should be glad to know your opinion.

First there is the plan of taking the ore in carts on the a common road, viz. down Bowden Hill to the canal (distance two miles good road) carting them then a little further on the present same road till the carts have crossed the canal two bridges over the canal, and the River. At that point a new road to be made by me, avoiding the village, and going straight to the Great Western Railway, which is about three-quarters of a mile distant.

Or this new road might only be made one quarter mile as far as the turnpike road fromLacock to Melksham – Having crossed that road, the carts would be discharge the ore into railway the Great Western Railway railway waggons which would travel on a railway being made by me from the Melksham road to the Great Western Railway, distance three-quarters mile. This plan would avoid all boating, the construction of a bridge over the river, and that of a tunnel under the turnpike road. It would Substitute for all this, two and a quarter miles of carting, and three-quarters of loop railway, which would be made all on my own land.

The second plan would be what that which I mentioned in my last letter viz. the ores would be brought down to Canal by an inclined plane to be made by you at your expense, they would then be placed in a boat and carried one and half miles on the canal to a wharf. N.B. they this transport would be towards the left hand, or South – viz. towards Melksham. From At the wharf they the ores would be placed in the Great Western Railway railway waggons (not twice shifted as you in your last letter imply) on the tramway leading to the Great Western – distance one and a quarter miles. This plan would necessitate oblige me to build an iron bridge over the Avon and to purchase a field belonging to another proprietor. Also to make a tunnel under the Melksham road.

The third plan would be to bring the ores down to the canal by the aforesaid inclined plane, and to lay a tramway, crossing the canal by a bridge (there happens to be one just thereabouts) The tramway would go a certain distance over my own land – then by permission of the road trustees it must be laid for a little way by the side of a small parish road, and over Raybridge which crosses the river at Raybridge. Trucks So far horse power must be used to draw the trucks on the tramway namely for about three-quarters of a mile – After But, crossing Raybridge, I can lay the tramway on my own land, as far as the Great Western Railway (about three-quarters of a mile) but should have to tunnel under a turnpike road – On this part of the tramway I should recommend a stationary engine to draw the ores, as there is a rise I think of one-hundred feet, at any in three-quarters of a mile. If this plan be adopted, I do not propose a less expensive kind of tramway would have need only be made, since the same cars would go all the way from Nethermore to the Great Western Railway. This plan, saves all boating, and indeed all shifting of the ores except the unavoidable loading into the Great Western Railway waggons. It is of course much the directest and nearest.

These are I believe the principal plans to which it is necessary that I should direct your attention and between which a choice can be exercised – Would it not be as well for you to consult an engineer? If you prefer the third plan Unless indeed you can say at once that the third plan would suit you, in which case I would take steps to like this plan I must ascertain whether parish <illegible deletion> anybody would object to the tramway being partly made for some distancce by the side of a parish Road – It is possible they somebody may object. In that case the alternative would be, it would be necessary to cart the ore, over the said bit of parish road and over Raybridge which would be about <illegible deletion> altogether nearly half a mile, and then to put it it would be put in trucks on the a tramway, constructed on my own land.

If I were not afraid of wearying You with these details which are hardly intelligible without a plan map, I should say there is yet a fourth plan. By bringing the ore down an inclined plane made as far to the left as possible (instead of keeping entirely to the right) it could be carted on a common road (on a level) from the bottom of this incline one mile and then put into the Great Western Railway waggons on a bit of branch railway which I would make (three-quarters of a mile long) and which I is the one I have already described – see plan Number one.

the comparative merits & defects of these plans will be best shown by a tabular <illegible deletion> ranging them in a table

Plans No 1. no inclined plane. no boating. Carting 2¼ miles. good branch railway ¾ mile. No 2. inclined plane. boating 1½ mile - no carting. branch railway tramway about 1¼ mile No 3 inclined plane. no boating. carting nearly ½ mile. tramway ¾ mile No 4. inclined plane. no boating. carting 1 mile. good branch railwy ¾ mile

These are I believe the principal plans to which it is necessary I should direct your attention and between which a choice can be exercised. Would it not be as well for you to consult an engineer? N.B. The branch railway mentioned in Numbers one and four would be such as the Great Western locomotives could run upon being nearly on a level, without tunnel or bridge to make. Nor is anybody's consent required for those plans Numbers one and four – as regards plan Number four.

Result number 41 of 55:   < Back     Back to results list   Next >