|
THE greatest engineering work
with which Mr. Abernethy was professionally connected, and which he lived to
see completed, was the Manchester Ship Canal. Any serious attempt to give a
description of the vast number of “works of art” throughout the canal’s
length of thirty-six miles from Manchester to Eastham, its lofty viaducts
and bridges over which the deviated lines of railway now pass, the swing
bridges to enable masted vessels to traverse its course, the swing aqueduct
at Barton which conducts the old Bridgewater Canal overhead, the gigantic
sluices at the Weaver mouth and elsewhere, the numerous locks and docks, to
say nothing of the less interesting portion of the work, such as the immense
extent of excavation, walls and embankments, would requre the space of many
chapters, and even if some fairly adequate account of the different works
alluded to could be abridged into a conveniently small space, the
description would still be very imperfect, inasmuch as the great engineering
difficulties both foreseen and unforeseen which presented themselves during
the progress of the work, would still remain unnoticed, and the services of
the engineers and contractors, beginning with Sir E. L. Williams, the
engineer-in-chief and responsible head, downwards, upon whose skill and
energy the final triumph so much depended, and to each of whom a share of
merit is in all justice due, would also be awaiting recognition. Fortunately
an accurate description of the entire undertaking when completed may be
found in the special number of “Engineering,” published on January 26th,
1894, and the names of those whose services called for special mention may
there be found also. Accordingly it is proposed in the present chapter to
refer only to the part which Mr. Abernethy took in this historic work, and
for the purpose the description referred to also lends valuable assistance.
It was in 1880 that Mr.
Daniel Adamson, who together with Mr. Hicks had conceived the project of
forming a waterway to Manchester, first came to London to consult him with
regard to the scheme, and the upshot of the interview was, that the engineer
expressed his willingness to follow up the idea and assist to the best of
his ability, provided that some influential Manchester gentlemen could be
found to support and prosecute the scheme. Two years later, in 1882, a
Provisional Committee was formed to consider two projects for effecting the
waterway, one submitted by the late Mr. Hamilton Fulton, C E., who advocated
a tidal channel up to Manchester, and the other by Mr. (now Sir) E. Leader
Williams, who proposed a canal from Manchester to Runcorn, and thence
seaward by the River Mersey. These two rival schemes were submitted by the
Provisional Committee to Mr. Abernethy for consideration and opinion, and
after inspecting the Rivers Irwell and Mersey from Manchester to Runcorn, he
reported in favour of the plans put forward by Sir E. Leader Williams. The
tenor of his report was adopted, and he was further requested to act as
consulting engineer, and in that capacity advised and gave evidence in
support of the Bills before Parliament in the Sessions of 1883, 1884, and
1885. Upon the rejection of Mr. Fulton’s scheme by the Provisional
Committee, Sir E. L. Williams remained in possession of the field, and a
vast field it proved, not only in point of area, but for the exercise of
exceptional ability, energy, and tact, all of which qualities were in
constant demand in order to bring the undertaking to a successful issue. But
the Bill brought forward in 1883 proposed a very different work to that
finally authorized in the Session of 1885. As originally designed, the main
entrance to the canal was to be at Runcorn, and from thence to Garston a
channel was to be dredged, and kept open by means of half-tide training
walls. The canal was to have a depth of 22 feet, and to be 100 feet in
width. The first of the three locks was to be at Latchford, between which
point and Manchester the old river was to be completely canalized, much in
the same manner as has since been carried out, and there were to be docks at
Latchford, Irlam, and Barton, as well as the terminal docks at Manchester.
But a departure from the scheme as originally designed was made even before
the first application to Parliament, in so far that instead of utilizing the
existing river channel to Warrington, the river bed was to be abandoned
about i| mile above Runcorn, and a new cutting mainly depended upon. The
Bill for 1883 was duly deposited :n the preceding November, but a serious
omission to comply with the requirements of Standing Orders jeopardised its
existence at an early stage; upon petition, however, the House of Commons
waived the Standing Orders in its favour, and so saved the Bill in the only
way in which it could be saved, and in due time it came before a Committee
of the House. Thirty-seven days were occupied in discussion, at the end of
which time it was passed, but saddled with conditions which entailed a
further application to Parliament in a subsequent Session. The promoters,
however, thought fit to proceed to the House of Lords, but unfortunately the
Special Committee of Peers took a different view, and declined to allow a
Bill to proceed which would in part depend upon a another yet to be
obtained.
But the temporary reverse
only had the effect of arousing the energy of the promoters, and inciting
them all the more keenly to prepare for the following Session, and in 1884 a
second Bill, similar in its main features to the first, came on for hearing.
But there were several important alterations. The locks were to be brought
lower down, training walls were to be made down to Garston, at which point
they were to be 1000 feet wide, diminishing to 400 feet opposite the River
Weaver, whence the channel would gradually close into the canal proper. It
was in opposition to this proposed estuary work that the main evidence of
the opponents was directed. Would the effect of these training walls
diminish the tidal flow in the Mersey? was the great question which the
Committee were called upon to decide.
The estuary of the Mersey is
narrower near the entrance than in the upper portion, and the tide naturally
runs harder where the sectional area is less, and so keeps the channel clear
by scour. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board said, and said legitimately,
and were supported in their contention by strong engineering evidence, that
if the upper portion of the estuary were interfered with by constructing
these training walls, the shoals would increase, less water would ebb and
flow, the tidal scour diminish, and finally the channel over the bar silt
up.
In that year the contest
began in the Upper House and the Bill passed, but the Lower House refused 'ts
sanction, so no headway was as yet made, and the scheme remained to be
brought forward and contested in a future Session.
At this juncture the
Provisional Committee again asked the advice of their consulting engineer,
and he reported to them in favour of an alternative design, viz., a canal
independently of the tideway from Manchester to Eastham, and at the earliest
opportunity, in the Session of 1885, the promoters introduced their Bill by
which the estuary works were eliminated. To Mr. G. F. Lyster, the late
engineer to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the credit is due of having
made this practical suggestion while giving evidence in the preceding year
in opposition to the proposed estuary works, and the promoters now embodied
the suggestion in their Bill, and so got free from a strong element of
opposition. But even with this relief given, thirty days were consumed in
the House of Lords, and thirty-five more in the House of Commons before the
great scheme passed through both Houses. It was, however this time, under
the able pilotage of Mr. Pember, Q.C., the leading counsel, conducted safely
through its two long voyages, and received the Royal Assent and so became an
Act in 1885 and an accomplished fact in 1894, but it is stated that the
actual expenditure incurred in obtaining the authority to commence the work
amounted to £350,000.
At this stage the appointment
of consulting engineer was renewed, and he undertook to visit and inspect
the work while in course of construction once in every month and report its
progress and condition to the Works Committee. This duty he continued to
perform until 1893, when the canal was nearly completed, its success from a
constructive point of view assured, and his services no longer required. It
was informally opened for traffic on January 1st, 1894, and formally by Her
Majesty the Queen on May 21st of the same year. The cost of construction was
over £13,500,000.
His association with the
Manchester Ship Canal, however, which had in every sense been a memorable
and pleasant one from first to last, was sadly changed after its completion
by the death of his son Harold, who had throughout the undertaking acted
under Sir E. L. Williams as resident engineer upon the difficult Runcorn
section, and had had charge of the construction during the first three years
of seven, and afterwards of ten miles of the canal. Shortly before the
opening in January, 1894, he contracted a malarial fever upon the canal
works, which at intervals incapacitated him from work, and gradually
assuming a more malignant form, culminated in his death at the age of
thirty-six on his way home from Cape Town, whither he had gone for a sea
voyage on July 9th, 1895. He had previously done much good work as assistant
engineer at Hull, and at Lake Aboukir in Egypt. |
