Page:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu/72

TABLE No. XII.—Progress of the Erection of the Superstructure of the Forth Bridge, 1887 to 1889.

Month.	1887.		1888.		1889.
	Erected and Bolted up.	Rivetted.	Erected and Bolted up.	Rivetted.	Erected and Bolted up.	Rivetted.
	Tons.	Tons.	Tons.	Tons.	Tons.	Tons.
January	793	521	1045	1080	1159	1922
February	652	716	1055	1149	1126	1647
March	922	817	653	742	1098	1499
April	1242	984	1703	1382	1061	1565
May	1122	819	1910	1316	1556	1991
June	1099	500	2351	1760	1047	1595
July	1180	973	1923	1341	593	1080
August	1151	1045	1929	1742	449	891
September	1050	876	2089	2104	897	906
October	1285	938	1638	2397	626	799
November	1561	1235	873	1402	265	515
December	959	1112	1598	1948	111	449
	13,016	10,536	18,767	18,379	9988	14,859

TABLE No. XIII.—Summary of Progress in Erecting Superstructure of the Forth Bridge.

—	Erected and Bolted up.	Rivetted.
	Tons.	Tons.
Up to the January 1, 1886, there had been put together and rivetted	512	512
During the year 1886	8284	6227
During„the year„ 1887	13,016	10,536
During„the year„ 1888	18,767	18,379
During„the year„ 1889	9988	14,859
⁠Total to January 1, 1890	50,567	50,513

There remained, therefore, on January 1, 1800, still to do—391 tons to erect and bolt up, 445 tons to rivet.

Mr. Spencer Brunton and Mr. James Hall Renton, elected by the shareholders.

The secretary of the company is Mr. G. B. Wieland, who is also secretary of the North British Railway Company.

The engineers to the company are Sir John Fowler, K.C.M.G., C.E., and Mr. Benjamin Baker, C.E.

The contractors for the bridge are:—Sir Thomas S. Tancred, Bart.; Mr. W. Arrol; Mr. T. H. Falkiner; and Mr. Joseph Phillips.

The contractors for the south and north approach railways are: Mr. W. Arrol; Mr. T. H. Falkiner; and Mr. Joseph Phillips.

On the staff of Messrs. Sir John Fowler and Baker were the following: Mr. Allen Stewart; Mr. P. W. Meik, resident engineer from 1883 to 1886; Mr. F. E. Cooper, resident engineer from 1886 to 1890; and a number of assistants.

On the contractor's staff were: Mr. Thomas Scott, manager; Mr. W. Westhofen, who was specially engaged on the works at Inchgarvie; Mr. A. S. Biggart, in charge of drawing offices, shops and yards; and a number of others.

The Visitors.

Their name is simply legion, for from beginning to end there has been an extraordinary amount of interest shown in this work by all classes of society. From the visit of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales, August 23, 1884, down to the present day, hardly a week has passed without bringing some person of rank or distinction. Dom Pedro of Brazil, the Kings of Saxony and of Belgium, and the Shah of Shahs, head this list, which includes, without exaggeration at any rate one-tenth of all people distinguished by rank or by scientific or social attainments.

As in most other matters ladies were to the fore, pluckily climbing into every nook and corner where anything interesting might be seen or learned, up the hoists and down the stairs and ladders, and frequently leaving the members of the so-called stronger sex far behind. It is needless to say that under such circumstances the duties of those called upon to guide the fair visitors were of the most agreeable.

The Preliminary Tests.

On January 21, 1890, two trains entered upon the bridge, side by side from the south end, and composed as follows:—Each train had two locomotives of 72 tons each at the head, followed by 50 waggons weighing fully 13 tons 10 cwt. each, and one engine at the rear of 72 tons. Total weight of each train, 900 tons; total weight on bridge, 1800 tons; total length of train when close-buffered, 998 ft. 6 in.; the same, when open or loose buffered, 1040 ft.

The train was moved slowly until the two engines in front were three-quarters through the central girder connecting Inchgarvie with Queensferry, the rear engine being about the centre of the Queensferry Tower. This is considered the most unfavourable load for the Queensferry north cantilever. In that position the following observations were made: The vertical columns of the central tower in Queensferry were drawn north to the extent of 1+³⁄₈ in. The end of the Queensferry north cantilever deflected 5 in., the end of the Inchgarvie south cantilever deflected 1+⁵⁄₈ in., the end of the Queensferry south cantilever (at that time not fully loaded by nearly 200 tons) rose to the full amount of play existing, namely, ³⁄₁₆ of an inch. The Queensferry south cantilever in itself took an upward deflection of about 1+¹⁄₈ in.

The train then moved forward until the two front engines of the trains were three-quarters through the north central girder, the most unfavourable condition of loading for the Inchgarvie north cantilever. In this position the vertical columns of the Inchgarvie central tower were drawn north to the extent of 1+¹⁄₄ in., while the Fife central tower was drawn ¹⁄₂ in. to the south. The vertical downward deflection of the end of the Inchgarvie north cantilever was 6+⁷⁄₈ in., and the same for the end of the Fife south cantilever was 2+¹⁄₂ in., while the end of the Inchgarvie south cantilever rose to the extent of 3+¹⁄₂ in.

It is not necessary in the face of further trials by the Board of Trade, to say more than that all these movements were well within the calculated amounts.

THE ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS OF THE FORTH BRIDGE.

Our work of describing the Forth Bridge would be incomplete without suitable notices of the engineers and contractors upon whom the responsibility of its construction rested. As we have seen, Messrs. Harrison and Barlow took no part in this work; having finally approved the design, they gave Messrs. Fowler and Baker the task of its execution. It is of these gentlemen, therefore, as well as of Messrs. Tancred, Arrol, Falkiner, and Phillips, and of M. Coiseau, who completed the pneumatic foundation, we shall attempt to give such notices as will convey an idea of their respective careers during the course of which they acquired the experience necessary for carrying out this great work. We have been led to deal with the biography of Sir John Fowler at great length, because his history is the history of the most important period of the profession, and dates back for more than half a century.

Sir John Fowler, K.C.M.G.

The period over which Sir John Fowler's career extends practically coincides with that of the profession of modern engineering. In saying this we do not forget the illustrious men who preceded him, such as Telford, Trevithick, Watt, Smeaton, and Rennie. But these all flourished before the manufacture of iron, and the tools for working it, had so far progressed that it was readily available for every-day use. Many of them executed splendid works in brick and stone, works which will uphold their reputations for centuries, and others of them were capital mechanics. But it was not then practicable to use iron, and particularly wrought iron, for large structural purposes. It is worth while to recall a few instances in exemplification of this fact which is often forgotten. The first flour mill which had iron wheels and shafting was erected by Rennie in 1788. The first iron bridge was designed by French-Italian engineers in 1755, and was attempted to be constructed at Lyons, but the founders proved unable to cast it. In 1777 a cast-iron bridge of 100 ft. span was erected at Coalbrookdale, and this was followed in 1796 by one over the Wear. This latter had been constructed to the directions of the celebrated Tom Paine for a different site. A third bridge was erected by Telford over the Severn about the same date, and he constructed four other cast-iron bridges before the century terminated. Rennie's first iron bridge was opened in 1803 at Boston. It is thus shown that the employment of iron on a large scale during the eighteenth century was practically unknown. In the early part of the nineteenth century, cast-iron was largely used for bridges, for canal aqueducts, for locks, and for dozens of other purposes, only to be supplanted in its turn by wrought iron. When this metal could be obtained cheaply and abundantly, engineering science entered upon a new phase of its existence, and the world commenced to progress at a speed hitherto undreamed of.

It was under conditions such as these that the subject of our sketch entered his professional career. He was born in 1817 at Wadsley Hall, Sheffield, the residence of his father, Mr. John Fowler, and when his general education was completed, the boy, at the age of seventeen, became a pupil of Mr.