|
THE troubles and miseries of
a passage in the small and stuffy boats across that short but uncomfortable
strip of seas, known as the Straits of Dover or Pas de Calais, had so far
successfully aggravated the feelings of the daily and nightly victims of
business or pleasure who traversed to and fro in the year 1870, that there
arose what might be termed a general outcry for something better. “Rude
waves” far too frequently, irrespective of age, infancy, or sex, dashed over
the unfortunate passengers on such boats as “the Petrel, the Wave, and the
Foam," who shunned the proffered saloon accommodation below, preferring what
rough shelter they could find on deck. One writer to the papers at this
date, possibly an American, gives expression to his feelings by saying, “The
way in which that passage across a strip of water is conducted in these days
of incessant international communication, is one of the wonders of the age.”
On clear days the opposite coast of France loomed clearly and hospitably to
the eye, but the problem as to how the horrors that lay between were to be
lessened or overcome, remained and still remains unsolved.
The traveller descending from
the train upon its arrival at the Admiralty Pier at Dover stills feels only
too frequently:—
“Like one that stands upon a
promontory,
And spies a far off shore where he would treat,
Wishing his foot were equal with his eye;
And chides the sea that sunders him from thence,
Saying, he’ll lade it dry to have his way.”
3rd Part King Henry VI., Act
3, s. 2.
The sight of the cliffs of
two great and wealthy nations but seven leagues distant from each other has
long since suggested to the people of both various schemes of different
degrees of practicability, but all of them probably more practical in their
conception, and feasable of execution than that suggested by the quotation.
There have been the submerged tube lying on the bottom, the submarine
shield, the bridge of M. Charles Boutet, the tunnel, first advocated by M.
de Gamond in 1838, and the ferry plying between piers. But it is the latter
scheme only, put forward by Messrs. Fowler and Abernethy that need be, and
the only one probably that should be described In this biography. The
requirement of larger boats and of greater power which would make the
passage quickly and give plenty of room and comfort to the passengers, in
place of the existing packets, was widely recognised, and to the many who
were of opinion that the other schemes aimed at too much, and were convinced
that the then existing service with the Continent aimed at too little, the
Channel Ferry scheme found favour as a happy medium. But the dimensions of
the packets have to be determined by the exigencies of trade and harbours.
Calais and Boulogne were ports so small that only small steamers could
enter, and Dover was not much better. Here was the foundation of the
difficulty. Packets of greatly increased size could not run nto the ports on
the French coast, even if they could at Dover, and so before the boats could
be enlarged, the ports required to be first enlarged to receive them. Much
bigger boats were considered as the first essential, but before that first
essential, came the necessity for larger harbours to receive them.
It was in 1870 that Mr. (now
Sir) John Fowler and Mr. Abernethy brought forward their scheme for a new
International Communication between England and France. They suggested in
the first place further protection and accommodation at Dover by lengthening
the Admiralty Pier 300 feet, and constructing a second pier or breakwater,
projecting from the southern end of the Marine Parade for a distance of 400
feet in a southeasterly direction, so as to ensure a large enclosure of
smooth water in which the proposed steam ferry boats, which will be referred
to shortly, would find a harbour in any weather and at any state of the
tide, while a huge water-shed was to be erected with a glass roof into which
both train and boat were to run, and these works would have had the further
effect of rendering the harbour a harbour of shelter to vessels running in
from stress of weather. The necessity of improving Calais or Boulogne
Harbour simultaneously with Dover involved the conscnt and co-operation of
the French Government, all harbours in France being under direct State
control, but the French Government were much in favour of the project, the
Emperor Napoleon III. especially so, and the improvement of the selected
port on the French coast was to be entrusted to French engineers. No little
diplomacy was required, however, in successfully representing the scheme to
the French Government, and the two English engineers who brought it forward,
and made themselves professionally responsible for its design, were several
times summoned to Paris between the years 1869 and 1872. In December, 1869,
the late Right Hon. Ward Hunt, then First Lord of the Admiralty, who took
much interest in the proposed scheme, accompanied by the two engineers, had
a long interview by appointment with the Emperor at the Tuileries.
Ushered by an aide-de-camp
through several apartments, the visitors found the Emperor in a small room,
wearing a plain brown tweed suit and devoid of anything in the way of
Orders. He at once rose to meet them as they entered, shook hands heartily,
and requested his English guests to be seated at a small table with him. He
listened to the proposed schcme with great interest, and after it had been
represented to him, expressed his desire to do all in his power to support
it. He also stated that to the best of his recollection a somewhat similar
project had been submitted to him some time back, and rang for his
secretary, to whom upon his appearance he gave instructions to search for
the papers referring to it ;n the adjoining horary. After some time the
secretary returned and stated that he was unable to find them. “Then I will
try myself,” said his majesty, and returned after a short interval with his
hands soiled with dust, but without having found what he wanted.
The chief features in the
proposed channel communication were these: The ferry boat, of 5000 tons
burden, measuring 450 feet in length, 57 feet beam, and 95 feet over the
paddle-boxes, with a draught of 12ft. 6in., a foot less draught than the
Dublin and Holyhead boats of that time, and with engines of 1400 horse
power, capable of giving a speed of 20 knots an hour, and driven by four
independent oscillating cylinder engines, was to await the arrival of the
trains in the large water-shed under cover of a glass roof. The trains of
the South-Eastern and London Chatham and Dover Companies were to be joined
together at Dover, and run direct on to the ferry boat. A great feature in
the scheme, was the method proposed of taking the train on board by
hydraulic lifts and raising it to the requisite level, and Mr. Abernethy
thus described the process in his evidence before the Committee of the House
of Lords :—“The railway carriages will pass from the level of the rails on
to the hydraulic lift, and according to the state of the tide, the lift will
be lowered to any required level to enable the carriages to be passed
directly on to the midship deck of the steamer. The lift itself will always
be on the level, and will be lowered to any requisite extent by hydraulic
power.” Sir William (now Lord) Armstrong calculated that the time occupied
in putting the passenger trains on the upper-deck would be five minutes. It
was estimated that 12 coaches on the upper-deck, with the means of placing
either 12 goods trucks or 8 additional coaches on the lower-deck, which
would then accommodate 28R passengers, would be sufficient, and either could
be done in five minutes.
The idea of being able to
take a seat in a railway carriage in London, and not leaving it save by
choice, until arrival eight hours later in Paris, found favour with a large
section of the public, while the offered facility of despatching a railway
truck full of goods direct from London to Berlin or Vienna, without breaking
bulk, appealed forcibly to merchants and to the railway companies. The train
once on board, a passenger could open his carriage door, betake himself as
he felt disposed (or indisposed), to a private cabin at its side, walk to a
handsome refreshment room, or mount to the outer deck, (for the train
occupied the centre of the deck saloon, exactly as a dinner table does in
ordinary steamers.)
The train would thus pass
from London to Paris as unbrokenly as from London to Dover, the only
difference being in the motive power while crossing the Straits, and on
arrival, the bow or the stern of the boat would be again opened in the same
manner as lock-gates, the hydraulic lift lowered to the requisite level to
receive the train, raise it to the level of the permanent way, and the
journey to Paris could then be continued. As a further convenience to
passengers, in addition to not having to change carriages, with the sole
result of exchanging one seat for another exactly similar, all the
incidental trouble of looking after luggage would be avoided, and to secure
despatch, it was intended that the luggage should be searched during the
passage.
The proposed powerful boats
were obviously intended to save time, and in those days, when the average
passage was about one hour and three-quarters, they would certainly have
fulfilled the object of their design. There would as certainly have been a
saving of temper with respect to the luggage. Safety in bad weather was a
second feature in the design of these monster ferry-boats, and as a
corollary to their hugeness, it was confidently anticipated by many, both
experts and non experts in seamanship, that sea-sickness would be reduced to
a minimum by the steadiness with which they would travel. Many were to be
found, no doubt, who took this assurance cam gram salis, for there are many
people who exhibit almost a pre-disposition to be ill as soon as they step
on board, and make preparations for their coming misery before the steamer
is under weigh. The late Six Luke Smithett, who was engaged :n the service
between Dover and Calais for thirty years, in his evidence before
Parliament, offered hope even to such as these. “There would,” said he, “be
much less motion in these boats, and consequently much less sea-sickness.
There would be no pitching, and, if they went at the speed proposed, they
would not have time to roll.”
The harbour of Calais,
however, not being considered capable of the required improvement for this
traffic, a site for a new deep water harbour was selected at Andresselles, a
little to the south of Cape Grisnez, which was thought to possess
considerable natural facilities, and had been well reported upon by French
engineers to their Government. While on a certain visit early in the year
1872 to this spot, he met his old friend Mr. George Hudson, the deposed
railway king, for whom he ever entertained feelings of respect, and whom,
though he had fallen from his high estate into one of poverty, he continued
to regard as an unfortunate catspaw of others, who better deserved to be in
his then reduced circumstances. Mr. Hudson, whom he met at the railway
station on the arrival of the boat at Calais, joined him, by invitation, at
dinner that evening, at Dessien’s Hotel, and during the dinner, gave a
graphic description of his fetes at Albert Gate, and of the many who toadied
to him, with a view to their own advantage, and their very different
behaviour when misfortunes began to overtake him.
The Bill passed in 1870, but
was withdrawn in consequence of the Franco-German War, and on its renewal in
1872, it was unexpectedly thrown out by a Committee of the House of Lords,
presided over the late Lord Lawrence, ex-Governor-General of India.
The cost of the works on this
side of the Channel was put down in the Parliamentary estimate at £890,000,
and the time within which the works would be completed, three years. With
the rejection of the Channel Ferry scheme by the House of Lords, attention
was diverted again to the proposed tunnel, advocated by Sir James Brunlees,
and at length authorized and commenced by a company, of which Sir Edward
Watkin, was chairman. With the subsequent history of this gigantic work, its
stoppage, abandonment, and utilization of the site of the approach to the
Tunnel as an approach to the Kent coal fields, all readers are familiar.
None of the rival schemes have been carried out. The railway companies’ new
boats have no doubt vastly improved the service in recent years, and there
is no longer the same occasion for complaining of the service. Great
improvements have been effected at Dover, Calais, and Boulogne harbours, but
the remarks in Mr. Abernethy’s presidential address to the Institute of
Civil Engineers in 1881,—eleven years after the rejection of the Channel
Ferry scheme—were true when spoken, at Dover the single pier affords no
adequate shelter during on shore gales; the entrance to the harbour and the
anchorage are entirely unprotected. On the French coast, at the nearest
point to our own, nature has provided great facilities for the construction
of a deep water harbour, but local interests have hitherto prevailed over
national interests, and nothing effective has yet been done, nor is there
much promise in the immediate future. The entrance to Calais harbour is, if
anything, in a worse condition than it was in past years, and the problem of
forming a deep water harbour at Boulogne, on an extensive range of sandy
foreshore, by enclosing a large space with backwater, remains to be solved.”
The large scheme now being carried out by the Government will far more than
embody the proposals of 1870, as regards improving and sheltering the
harbour. |
