Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

RETURN to an Order of the Honourable The House of Commons,
dated 1 March 1882;-

THAT the Board of Trade do present to this House a REPORT on the RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY BILL.

1882.

REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY BILL.

By this Bill it is proposed (among other things) to enable the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Company to construct a Railway (No. 3), crossing an exposed portion of Swansea Bay at the mouth of the River Neath, below the entrance to the Briton Ferry Docks, on a viaduct which consists of two opening spans, each 60 feet wide and 12 feet high, two fixed spans, each 60 feet wide and 7 feet high, and 16 fixed spans, each 60 feet wide and 10 feet high.

The Board of Trade have received from the Great Western Railway Company, who are the proprietors of the Briton Ferry Docks, a statement of their objections to this part of the scheme. The observations of this Company, and also a joint report addressed to the Neath Harbour Commissioners by Mr. R. P. Brereton, c.E., their consulting Engineer, and Lieutenant Gwyn Lewis, of H. M. Indian Navy, their Harbour Master, are printed in the Appendix to this Report.

The Board of Trade are advised that the objections of the Great Western Railway Company, and the Harbour Commissioners deserve consideration, although they are unable to endorse the views expressed by the former as to the assumed difficulty of keeping the line open for passenger traffic.

The Board of Trade would suggest to Parliament, that while the proposed crossing is open to the same objection as the scheme proposed by the Glencorrwg, Rhondda, and Swansea Junction Railway Bill now before Parliament, it is open to further exception, for it interferes with the existing free access to the Briton Ferry Docks, which are below the crossing proposed by that Bill, the width of the opening spans is less, and the viaduct is proposed to be constructed in an exposed position outside the river mouth.

The Board of Trade are advised, that vessels trying to make the entrance to the Neath would, in gales of wind, or in distress, be unable to do so, while even in ordinary weather, owing to the strength of the tides, and the liability

of the river to freshets, tugs would have great difficulty in getting vessels in tow through the narrow openings without risk of damage either to themselves or to the bridge and its opening gear.

The Board of Trade are further advised, that the proposed crossing is calculated to interfere with the flow of the tides, and to cause silting up of the river.

Board of Trade,]

T. H. Farrer.

March 1882. J

APPENDIX.

OBSERVATIONS of the GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY with reference to the intended crossing of the RIVER NEATH by the proposed RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY.

1. Railway (No. 3) proposed to be authorised by the above Bill is shown on the plans deposited with the Board of Trade and at other public offices with respect to the Bill as intended to cross the shifting sands of Aberavon, and the mouth of the River Neath. At and near to the place of crossing, immense quantities of sand are blown by every heavy gale of wind, covering the adjacent land, and extending inland as far as the main line of the South Wales Railway, and the sand often covers the rails of that Railway.

2. It is, therefore, very probable that it will be impossible to keep the proposed line for passenger traffic if constructed across the Aberavon Sands as intended.

open

3. The proposed railway is intended to be constructed between the Briton Ferry Docks which are the property of this Company and the Sea, crossing the Sands and the River Neath within a few yards of the piers belonging to this Company, and which were constructed for the protection of the Briton Ferry Dock and the works and conveniences connected therewith.

4. The trade at the said Dock and in the River Neath is considerable, the number of vessels which entered and departed from the Dock in the year ending 31st October 1881 was 839, and the number of vessels which entered and departed from the River Neath, exclusive of those accommodated in the said Dock was, for the same period, 1,023. These vessels are principally small steamers, sailing vessels, which have to be navigated cheaply on account of the cheap freights at which they convey the coal and other cargoes carried by them, and anything which will increase the cost and danger of Navigation to and from the River Neath and the Briton Ferry Dock, might drive the trade therefrom.

5. The bridge is to be a swing bridge with two openings of 60-feet each.

6. The Neath Harbour Commissioners have, under the advice of the late Mr. Brunell, C.E., and that of Mr. Brereton, C.E., continued for many years to build or deposit a bank of copper slag in extension of the Company's Breakwater at Briton Ferry, so as to improve the entrance to the river, and in constructing the intended railway as proposed, the promoters must place a pier in the deepened part of the channel of the river, which inevitably will make it an extremely dangerous obstruction, because the pier will be placed at an angle to the proper sea-way to the Dock, and in rough or stormy weather it is believed that no vessel could with safety be brought from the river on to the Briton Ferry Dock, or vice versâ.

7. The bridge will be also an obstruction to, all vessels going up the River Neath. No vessel even in tow of a tug would attempt in anything like heavy weather to pass through such narrow ill-placed openings in a great tidal way, where the currents are swift and strong, and the result will be a great increase on insurance charges, and a serious impediment to all traffic in connection with this Company's dock, and the works connected therewith at Briton Ferry.

8. Further, any bridge constructed where the intended bridge is proposed to be constructed, or any ordinary embankment placed on the said sands, must be exposed to so much damage from the great storms which are often experienced on this coast, that no company could undertake the proper maintenance of a railway constructed where the proposed line is intended to be made, and it is believed that there are no instances where a railway has been projected in so unworkable a place.

9. When

9. When the South Wales Railway was originally proposed, it was intended to be made across the very district to be traversed by the proposed line, and the late Mr. Izambard Kingdom Brunel found it nesessary to deviate widely inland, as he did not consider that even a continuous covering over of the rails would have been sufficient to keep the railway

safe.

10. In the Session of Parliament held in the year 1861, the promoters of the Swansea and Neath Railway sought power by their Bill, then pending in Parliament, to construct a railway across the River Neath; that railway was designed to form a junction with the South Wales Railway, near to where the South Wales Mineral Railway joins that Railway at Briton Ferry, and thence to cross the River Neath near to the Red Jacket Copper Works; that crossing did not in any way interfere with the traffic to and from the Briton Ferry Docks, as it was considerably higher up the river than the crossing now proposed. It was, however, opposed by the Neath Harbour Commissioners and other parties, and was rejected by the Committee of the House of Commons, to whom the Bill was referred.

11. Under these circumstances it is hoped that the Admiralty Department of the Board of Trade will cause a proper investigation to be made as to the proposed crossing, and will report against its being sanctioned.

31 January 1882.

Gentlemen,

REPORT to the NEATH HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.

23, Delahay street, Westminster, S. W., 17 January 1882.

In accordance with the resolution of your Committee of the 12th January, requesting us to report on the effect on the navigation by the bridge across the River Neath, below the entrance to the Briton Ferry Floating Dock proposed by the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway, we beg to say, that after carefully considering the subject, we cannot come to any other conclusion than, that such crossing will not only be most seriously prejudicial to the interests of, but will eventually be tantamount to a practical closing of the port, and will be a permanent and serious injury to all the proprietors of works, land, and property in the Neath Valley, many of which now use the port for the purposes of

trade.

That this trade is considerable may be seen from the statement that the imports and exports during the last 10 years reached, on an average, 405,042 tons of various goods each year, including large quantities of coal, copper ore, bar and pig iron, timber, iron ore, &c.

The proposed crossing of the river below or seaward of the entrance to the Briton Ferry Floating Dock, would cut off from the sea the whole of the traffic of the river, comprising that from the Town of Neath, the Dynevor and other coal companies' shipping wharves, the Tennant's Canal shipping stages, the copper works on the "Red Jacket" Pill, the coal traffic from the Neath Canal at the "Giant's Grave" Quay, the Briton Ferry Iron Works Wharf, the Briton Ferry Floating Dock, as well as the whole of the traffic from the new floating docks, in course of construction by the Neath Harbour Commissioners.

The width of the river along the line of the proposed crossing is 810 feet, which is to be bridged by a viaduct of that length. There will be an opening bridge of two spans of 60 feet each, with 12 feet clear headway when closed above high-water spring tides. There will be two farther spans of 60 feet each, with seven feet clear headway, and 16 spans of 30 feet each, with 10 feet clear headway, leaving an aggregate of 90 feet for the 19 bridge piers in the river.

The bridge will cross the river askew at an angle of about 15 degrees out of square. Our objections to the crossing are mainly as follows:

1. That any such tidal crossing of an estuary intercepting from the sea the whole of the shipping traffic would be a general source of great delay, embarrassment, and danger to vessels which would deter their owners and masters from taking their ships to a port where such a bridge existed.

2. That assuming other conditions favourable the two opening spans of 60 feet each in the bridge would be far too small for navigation purposes in this situation.

3. A bridge at the proposed crossing would be little more than 100 yards below the south pier at the entrance of the Briton Ferry Dock Outer Basin on the eastern side of the river. At this place the deep water navigable channel (about 26 feet at high water springs) follows the foot of the Slag Breakwater, a river bank along the eastern or concave side of the river and the opening spans of the bridge would have to be so placed as to provide for this. Vessels leaving the Briton Ferry Docks have to make a sharp turn into the tideway of the river close to the proposed bridge; much care is now necessary in navigating vessels of any size at this spot, and with the piers of a swing bridge, the difficulty of steadying a large ship for passing it would be much increased, and would be the cause of frequent accidents and delays.

« EdellinenJatka »