|
Box Tunnel Beam Engine
Neil Hardwick August 2021 The story of how the Box Tunnel opening was delayed by water ingress is known from contemporary reports, such as in November 1837 “the water increased so fearfully, having filled the tunnel, and risen to the height of 56 feet in the Shaft, as to cause the total suspension of the work till the July following”.[1] But these reports tell us little about how the water was cleared. Chemical engineer Neil Hardwick had an interest in industrial archaeology and he has recorded the role of beam engines in the clearance of tunnel spring water. His article records, for the first time, the strange story of how an ex-London Dock beam engine ended up unused at the canal at Thimble Mill, until it was hired to clear water from the Box Tunnel in 1838 enabling the opening of the tunnel on 30 June 1841. The Crofton Mill 1812 Boulton & Watt Beam Engine (courtesy No 1 Engine - Boulton and Watt - Crofton Beam Engines) |
|
Work Needed
Isambard Kingdom Brunel first advertised the contracts to build the tunnel’s six permanent and two temporary shafts in August 1836. They were to be 28ft in diameter and anything up to 290ft deep and the attention of quarrymen is particularly called to the work. Two local building contractors, Errington Paxton and Horatio Orton, were appointed and they started work in September 1836. The Bath Chronicle optimistically reported that it appears certain that there can be no difficulty in completing the tunnel in 3 years. Unfortunately, that winter the shafts flooded and work was brought to a virtual standstill. The Wiltshire Independent reported on the 20 April 1837 that to surmount these difficulties Mr Brunel, of the Thames Tunnel, has been kind enough to allow some of his most skillful workmen to assist the contractor in this great work, the local men being more expert in quarrying and not experienced in this description of labour. Brunel also brought in a steam pump to supplement the existing horse gins. By now it was widely known that Paxton & Orton were in financial difficulties and with the GWR’s share price suffering, the company was forced to afford their contractor a liberal act. This was to no avail and the contractors were made bankrupt in July 1837 with a number of shafts still unfinished.
The contracts for the tunnel’s bore were advertised in August 1837. Thomas Lewis and William Brewer were individual speculative building contractors active in the Bath, Corsham and Box areas. Thomas Lewis was especially well-known in Bath: his grand-father had built houses in New Bond Street and Great Pulteney Street, whilst his uncle, Charles Lewis, had built Jane Austen’s house in Sydney Place.
Lewis and Brewer bid for Contracts No 2 and No 3, the difficult Eastern section to be dug through Bath stone. Initial access to the tunnel was via Shaft 7 whilst the partially completed Shaft 8, which was to be 83ft deep, had to be sunk as part of the contract. The excavation from the bottom of Shaft 7 was to be in two directions: 300 yards westwards towards Shaft 6 and 506 yards towards Shaft 8. Brunel included in the contract specification the clause that the Contractors shall at all times provide sufficient means for keeping the shafts free from water.
Isambard Kingdom Brunel first advertised the contracts to build the tunnel’s six permanent and two temporary shafts in August 1836. They were to be 28ft in diameter and anything up to 290ft deep and the attention of quarrymen is particularly called to the work. Two local building contractors, Errington Paxton and Horatio Orton, were appointed and they started work in September 1836. The Bath Chronicle optimistically reported that it appears certain that there can be no difficulty in completing the tunnel in 3 years. Unfortunately, that winter the shafts flooded and work was brought to a virtual standstill. The Wiltshire Independent reported on the 20 April 1837 that to surmount these difficulties Mr Brunel, of the Thames Tunnel, has been kind enough to allow some of his most skillful workmen to assist the contractor in this great work, the local men being more expert in quarrying and not experienced in this description of labour. Brunel also brought in a steam pump to supplement the existing horse gins. By now it was widely known that Paxton & Orton were in financial difficulties and with the GWR’s share price suffering, the company was forced to afford their contractor a liberal act. This was to no avail and the contractors were made bankrupt in July 1837 with a number of shafts still unfinished.
The contracts for the tunnel’s bore were advertised in August 1837. Thomas Lewis and William Brewer were individual speculative building contractors active in the Bath, Corsham and Box areas. Thomas Lewis was especially well-known in Bath: his grand-father had built houses in New Bond Street and Great Pulteney Street, whilst his uncle, Charles Lewis, had built Jane Austen’s house in Sydney Place.
Lewis and Brewer bid for Contracts No 2 and No 3, the difficult Eastern section to be dug through Bath stone. Initial access to the tunnel was via Shaft 7 whilst the partially completed Shaft 8, which was to be 83ft deep, had to be sunk as part of the contract. The excavation from the bottom of Shaft 7 was to be in two directions: 300 yards westwards towards Shaft 6 and 506 yards towards Shaft 8. Brunel included in the contract specification the clause that the Contractors shall at all times provide sufficient means for keeping the shafts free from water.
Continuing Problems
It became quickly clear that, like their predecessors, Lewis and Brewer had underestimated the flooding risk. In November 1837 water again overwhelmed No 7 Shaft, filling it to a depth of 56 feet and suspending work until next summer. An exasperated Brunel eventually found it necessary to start sending them a series of critical letters:
25 June 1838: There is nothing to be said in your favour in excuse for this delay, no sufficient exertions have been made to get out the water from Shaft No 7, the machinery and apparatus for raising the water is most inefficient. I do not speak of the steam engine which could do twice the work, but the system followed has been radically bad, by proper management and exertions nearly twice the quantity of water might have now been raised and the shaft long time dry.
3 July 1838: I must beg to remind you that I have before now expressed my opinion that pumps were absolutely required in Shaft No 7, that I considered the system adopted of buckets inefficient.
The first completion certificate for £312.10s.4d was issued on the 27 July 1838. Unfortunately, penalties amounted to £720 so, some 9 months into the project, Lewis and Brewer’s remuneration for Contract No 3 amounted to a debt of £407.9s.8d!
Brunel again resorted to hostile correspondence:
29 August 1838: The interests of the Company have already suffered so much by the inefficient means which you adopted for pumping in Shaft No 7 that I must express my great disappointment in the course you are now pressing, in preferring to trust entirely to an engine of this power.
4th September 1838: It is now two months since the water was pumped out of the shaft and that you promised that immediate steps would be taken to proceed as rapidly as possible with the sinking — since then, although every hour is of the greatest importance nothing has been done or so little that it is not worth mentioning. It is not my business to watch all details of your work and ascertain that your men are properly employed but I will observe that the manner in which hours are wasted at their meals in the night and on every occasion which can afford cause or delay is disgraceful. Unless the shaft is sunk 12 feet per day between the present time and Saturday night I shall on Monday morning proceed with that part of the work at your expense and I have directed men may be ready for that purpose. I shall also feel it my duty to request the Directors to levy the penalties due upon this contract and to continue to do so until the work is placed in a satisfactory state. I regret exceedingly that such a course be necessary but the total neglect shown to my repeated cautions and utter want of energy displayed leaves me with no alternative.
It became quickly clear that, like their predecessors, Lewis and Brewer had underestimated the flooding risk. In November 1837 water again overwhelmed No 7 Shaft, filling it to a depth of 56 feet and suspending work until next summer. An exasperated Brunel eventually found it necessary to start sending them a series of critical letters:
25 June 1838: There is nothing to be said in your favour in excuse for this delay, no sufficient exertions have been made to get out the water from Shaft No 7, the machinery and apparatus for raising the water is most inefficient. I do not speak of the steam engine which could do twice the work, but the system followed has been radically bad, by proper management and exertions nearly twice the quantity of water might have now been raised and the shaft long time dry.
3 July 1838: I must beg to remind you that I have before now expressed my opinion that pumps were absolutely required in Shaft No 7, that I considered the system adopted of buckets inefficient.
The first completion certificate for £312.10s.4d was issued on the 27 July 1838. Unfortunately, penalties amounted to £720 so, some 9 months into the project, Lewis and Brewer’s remuneration for Contract No 3 amounted to a debt of £407.9s.8d!
Brunel again resorted to hostile correspondence:
29 August 1838: The interests of the Company have already suffered so much by the inefficient means which you adopted for pumping in Shaft No 7 that I must express my great disappointment in the course you are now pressing, in preferring to trust entirely to an engine of this power.
4th September 1838: It is now two months since the water was pumped out of the shaft and that you promised that immediate steps would be taken to proceed as rapidly as possible with the sinking — since then, although every hour is of the greatest importance nothing has been done or so little that it is not worth mentioning. It is not my business to watch all details of your work and ascertain that your men are properly employed but I will observe that the manner in which hours are wasted at their meals in the night and on every occasion which can afford cause or delay is disgraceful. Unless the shaft is sunk 12 feet per day between the present time and Saturday night I shall on Monday morning proceed with that part of the work at your expense and I have directed men may be ready for that purpose. I shall also feel it my duty to request the Directors to levy the penalties due upon this contract and to continue to do so until the work is placed in a satisfactory state. I regret exceedingly that such a course be necessary but the total neglect shown to my repeated cautions and utter want of energy displayed leaves me with no alternative.
Crofton Pumping Station seen in the distance houses the Beam engine (courtesy David Stowell)
Finding a Solution to Water Movement
At this point, we need to go back in time to consider the options available to Lewis and Brewer and to recall how the canal companies had previously dealt with the issue of causing artificial water flows to pump water into canal locks, a similar problem to water extraction. The technology was based on Beam engines, first used to pump water from deep tin mines in Cornwall. They were a type of steam engine which operated an overhead beam to lower a piston and created a vacuum on the upward stroke.
At Crofton near Marlborough, the Civil Engineer, John Rennie, equipped a pumping station with two Boulton & Watt steam engines to lift water 40 feet from the Wilton Stream into a mile-long leat which entered them summit pound to the west of Crofton Top Lock. In its early years the canal functioned as intended. However, as it prospered, and the traffic between Bristol and the Bath wharves expanded, low water in the summer months began to be a problem. To assist the water flow, on 11 December 1832, the recently appointed Chairman of the Canal Company, Frederick Page, informed the Eastern Sub Committee that he had agreed to purchase the principal parts of a Steam Engine belonging to the London Dock Company to be erected at Bath for supplying the Bradford Level for the sum of £320. As we shall see, one of these engines ultimately solved the problems of Lewis and Brewer in Box Tunnel.
The London Dock Company engines had operated for several decades since the early 1800s. Conceived to provide secure wharfage and warehousing, the docks were approximately 90 acres in area, of which 35 acres were water. At that time, John Rennie was the Dock Company Engineer and, being a personal friend of James Watt, it was natural that he ordered the engines from his previous employer, Boulton & Watt. They built a number of engines for the London Docks, two of which were large pumping engines with 36-inch diameter cylinders and an eight-foot stroke. Rennie ordered both on the 29 October 1800.
The engine that Frederick Page bought for the Kennet & Avon Canal Company in 1832 must have precipitated a debate because his scheme was modified the following year. The new plan was to move the original Crofton engine to Bath and install the London Dock Company engine at Claverton. The minutes of 15 March read: John Blackwell was ordered to move the small steam engine at Crofton and erect it at such a point as he shall think most advisable for the supply of water to the locks at the junction of the canal with the River Avon.
The building of a pumping engine at Bathwick did not meet with the approval of the local residents. At the Western Region Sub-Committee meeting held on 3 April 1833 Mr Wilkinson at the head of a large deputation from the Bathwick Parish attended to complain of the steam engine proposed to be erected to pump up water from the Avon to the Bradford Level and expressed a wish that the engine might be erected at Bathampton. At the next quarterly meeting, held on the 26 June 1833, the plans were firmed up: it was ordered that the steam engine purchased of the London Dock Company be erected at Claverton and that the Clerk do make an application to George Vivian Esquire for purchasing the land necessary for the purpose of making a reservoir or pond on which to place the same. It can be assumed that these negotiations were unsuccessful because the Claverton scheme was never referred to again.
In light of this setback, the Company was forced to revert to the original plan, the Crofton engine remained in situ whilst the London Dock Company engine was erected in the building known today as Thimble Mill. A total of £345.18s.8d had been expended before the Company discovered that it didn’t have permission to abstract water from the River Avon. This was an extraordinary state of affairs because, despite the Canal Company owning 31 out of the 32 shares of the River Avon Navigation Company, the latter’s Articles of Association restricted shareholders to only one vote and thus the Kennet & Avon could never achieve a controlling interest. Under the threat of legal action, the Canal Company was forced to admit defeat and pumping ceased.
So, after five years of idleness, in 1838 the London Dock engine was hired out to the contractors building Box Tunnel for the Great Western Railway. The Canal Company started dismantling the Thimble Mill beam engine in October 1838.
At this point, we need to go back in time to consider the options available to Lewis and Brewer and to recall how the canal companies had previously dealt with the issue of causing artificial water flows to pump water into canal locks, a similar problem to water extraction. The technology was based on Beam engines, first used to pump water from deep tin mines in Cornwall. They were a type of steam engine which operated an overhead beam to lower a piston and created a vacuum on the upward stroke.
At Crofton near Marlborough, the Civil Engineer, John Rennie, equipped a pumping station with two Boulton & Watt steam engines to lift water 40 feet from the Wilton Stream into a mile-long leat which entered them summit pound to the west of Crofton Top Lock. In its early years the canal functioned as intended. However, as it prospered, and the traffic between Bristol and the Bath wharves expanded, low water in the summer months began to be a problem. To assist the water flow, on 11 December 1832, the recently appointed Chairman of the Canal Company, Frederick Page, informed the Eastern Sub Committee that he had agreed to purchase the principal parts of a Steam Engine belonging to the London Dock Company to be erected at Bath for supplying the Bradford Level for the sum of £320. As we shall see, one of these engines ultimately solved the problems of Lewis and Brewer in Box Tunnel.
The London Dock Company engines had operated for several decades since the early 1800s. Conceived to provide secure wharfage and warehousing, the docks were approximately 90 acres in area, of which 35 acres were water. At that time, John Rennie was the Dock Company Engineer and, being a personal friend of James Watt, it was natural that he ordered the engines from his previous employer, Boulton & Watt. They built a number of engines for the London Docks, two of which were large pumping engines with 36-inch diameter cylinders and an eight-foot stroke. Rennie ordered both on the 29 October 1800.
The engine that Frederick Page bought for the Kennet & Avon Canal Company in 1832 must have precipitated a debate because his scheme was modified the following year. The new plan was to move the original Crofton engine to Bath and install the London Dock Company engine at Claverton. The minutes of 15 March read: John Blackwell was ordered to move the small steam engine at Crofton and erect it at such a point as he shall think most advisable for the supply of water to the locks at the junction of the canal with the River Avon.
The building of a pumping engine at Bathwick did not meet with the approval of the local residents. At the Western Region Sub-Committee meeting held on 3 April 1833 Mr Wilkinson at the head of a large deputation from the Bathwick Parish attended to complain of the steam engine proposed to be erected to pump up water from the Avon to the Bradford Level and expressed a wish that the engine might be erected at Bathampton. At the next quarterly meeting, held on the 26 June 1833, the plans were firmed up: it was ordered that the steam engine purchased of the London Dock Company be erected at Claverton and that the Clerk do make an application to George Vivian Esquire for purchasing the land necessary for the purpose of making a reservoir or pond on which to place the same. It can be assumed that these negotiations were unsuccessful because the Claverton scheme was never referred to again.
In light of this setback, the Company was forced to revert to the original plan, the Crofton engine remained in situ whilst the London Dock Company engine was erected in the building known today as Thimble Mill. A total of £345.18s.8d had been expended before the Company discovered that it didn’t have permission to abstract water from the River Avon. This was an extraordinary state of affairs because, despite the Canal Company owning 31 out of the 32 shares of the River Avon Navigation Company, the latter’s Articles of Association restricted shareholders to only one vote and thus the Kennet & Avon could never achieve a controlling interest. Under the threat of legal action, the Canal Company was forced to admit defeat and pumping ceased.
So, after five years of idleness, in 1838 the London Dock engine was hired out to the contractors building Box Tunnel for the Great Western Railway. The Canal Company started dismantling the Thimble Mill beam engine in October 1838.
Closer view of Crofton Pumping Station (courtesy Crofton Beam Engines: www.croftonbeamengines.org)
Using the Thimble Engine
The November 1838 accounts for steam engines in the Box Tunnel records show a surge in expenditure: £238.8s.3d on wages, accommodation, bricks, timber, horses and £11.0s.7d spent on beer. Also in November, for the third year running, No 7 Shaft was inundated with water. To compound Lewis and Brewer’s misery, the original pumping engine’s beam broke on the 2nd of the month and was not repaired until the following week.
The Wiltshire Independent continued to take an interest in proceedings: The contractors are erecting at No 7 Shaft an additional steam engine of 50 horse power, whose work will be entirely to pump the water from the Shaft. On the 2 November 1838 William Glennie, Brunel’s Resident Engineer, wrote in his weekly report: The walls of the large engine house are finished. On the 21 December he reported: No work has been done in the Tunnel since 13th November. The chimney of the large engine is nearly finished. The boilers and stoking house are roofed in, the steam pipes and the condensing apparatus fixed. The water has fallen 5 feet during the week and is now 42 feet above the line of rails. On the 18 January 1839 he reported that the engines commenced the drainage on the 11th inst in the afternoon, whilst the following week he wrote that the pump rod of the large engine broke twice during the week. Mechanical reliability appeared to be an ongoing problem for Lewis and Brewer.
In March Brunel was compelled to write them yet another scathing letter:
Gentlemen, Mr Glennie has just informed me that the works have again been delayed by the breaking of your machinery. This has been of such frequent occurrence and the consequences are likely to be so serious that I must insist on some decisive steps being taken to remedy the evil. It is not my business to point out to you where the principal defect is, whether in the designing of this machinery or in the construction, or in the use of it, it is evident it cannot be depended upon. I never knew a work in which the failure of the machinery was so frequent. I had hopes that you would soon regain the arrears which had accumulated. It is evident that no such hope can be entertained while the works are subject to be stopped weekly and almost daily by accidents to the machinery and I feel that the Directors will be compelled to enforce the penalties immediately and I must withhold any certificates until I can report that until the machinery, upon which everything depends, is put into an efficient state of repair. Your most serious attention must therefore be given immediately to this subject.
A connection between Shafts 7 and 8 was made in May 1839, the Wiltshire Advertiser reporting that the joining of the two shafts has been a matter of rejoicing to the contractors and workmen, and merriment has been made in the shafts, accompanied by an efficient band of music. To the joy of the workmen, who took a lively interest in the result, and to the triumph of Messrs Lewis and Brewer’s scientific working, the junction was perfectly level, the two roofs forming an unvarying line, while at the sides the utmost deviation from a straight line was only an inch and a quarter. Brunel was so impressed with the result that he took a ring off his finger and gave it to the tunnelling overseer.
Whilst stone originating from Shafts 1 to 6 was blasted out of the tunnel with black powder, consumed at the rate of one ton every seven to ten days, the Bath stone recovered from Shafts 7 and 8 had to be extracted using traditional quarrying techniques. This involved manually sawing and splitting the stone into blocks of up to 1.25 tonnes and hoisting them up Shaft 7. There they would be dressed and lowered back down Shaft 6 to be used for lining the less stable sections of the tunnel. Brunel had anticipated that Box Tunnel could be effectively regarded as a quarry because he wrote in 1835: the stone which would be quarried in making the shafts for the Box Tunnel may, I have every reason to expect, be advantageously employed in constructing the Bridges and other works in Bath as well as upon the intermediate line.[2]
A report written in December 1839 reveals that a semblance of order was now in place at the shaft heads. Shafts 1 to 5 were worked with horse gins. Shaft 6 had two steam engines, one of 6hp for raising and lowering materials and another of 30hp for pumping water. Shaft 8 had one small 8hp steam engine for both duties. However, it was at the mouth of Shaft 7 that activity was most concentrated with three steam engines at work; one for materials and men, one for raising stone and a third, the K&A engine, for pumping water. Ascending and descending the shaft was a hazardous affair; the men rode on an open platform which lacked safety railings of any description, the materials were carried on a flat wagon.
By now there was frenetic activity to complete the tunnel and the most strenuous exertions were used, keeping very large bodies of men working day and night. The Bath Association for Promoting the Due Observance of the Lords Day was outraged, complaining of the evils of Sabbath-breaking, in whose train almost every other evil followed.
The November 1838 accounts for steam engines in the Box Tunnel records show a surge in expenditure: £238.8s.3d on wages, accommodation, bricks, timber, horses and £11.0s.7d spent on beer. Also in November, for the third year running, No 7 Shaft was inundated with water. To compound Lewis and Brewer’s misery, the original pumping engine’s beam broke on the 2nd of the month and was not repaired until the following week.
The Wiltshire Independent continued to take an interest in proceedings: The contractors are erecting at No 7 Shaft an additional steam engine of 50 horse power, whose work will be entirely to pump the water from the Shaft. On the 2 November 1838 William Glennie, Brunel’s Resident Engineer, wrote in his weekly report: The walls of the large engine house are finished. On the 21 December he reported: No work has been done in the Tunnel since 13th November. The chimney of the large engine is nearly finished. The boilers and stoking house are roofed in, the steam pipes and the condensing apparatus fixed. The water has fallen 5 feet during the week and is now 42 feet above the line of rails. On the 18 January 1839 he reported that the engines commenced the drainage on the 11th inst in the afternoon, whilst the following week he wrote that the pump rod of the large engine broke twice during the week. Mechanical reliability appeared to be an ongoing problem for Lewis and Brewer.
In March Brunel was compelled to write them yet another scathing letter:
Gentlemen, Mr Glennie has just informed me that the works have again been delayed by the breaking of your machinery. This has been of such frequent occurrence and the consequences are likely to be so serious that I must insist on some decisive steps being taken to remedy the evil. It is not my business to point out to you where the principal defect is, whether in the designing of this machinery or in the construction, or in the use of it, it is evident it cannot be depended upon. I never knew a work in which the failure of the machinery was so frequent. I had hopes that you would soon regain the arrears which had accumulated. It is evident that no such hope can be entertained while the works are subject to be stopped weekly and almost daily by accidents to the machinery and I feel that the Directors will be compelled to enforce the penalties immediately and I must withhold any certificates until I can report that until the machinery, upon which everything depends, is put into an efficient state of repair. Your most serious attention must therefore be given immediately to this subject.
A connection between Shafts 7 and 8 was made in May 1839, the Wiltshire Advertiser reporting that the joining of the two shafts has been a matter of rejoicing to the contractors and workmen, and merriment has been made in the shafts, accompanied by an efficient band of music. To the joy of the workmen, who took a lively interest in the result, and to the triumph of Messrs Lewis and Brewer’s scientific working, the junction was perfectly level, the two roofs forming an unvarying line, while at the sides the utmost deviation from a straight line was only an inch and a quarter. Brunel was so impressed with the result that he took a ring off his finger and gave it to the tunnelling overseer.
Whilst stone originating from Shafts 1 to 6 was blasted out of the tunnel with black powder, consumed at the rate of one ton every seven to ten days, the Bath stone recovered from Shafts 7 and 8 had to be extracted using traditional quarrying techniques. This involved manually sawing and splitting the stone into blocks of up to 1.25 tonnes and hoisting them up Shaft 7. There they would be dressed and lowered back down Shaft 6 to be used for lining the less stable sections of the tunnel. Brunel had anticipated that Box Tunnel could be effectively regarded as a quarry because he wrote in 1835: the stone which would be quarried in making the shafts for the Box Tunnel may, I have every reason to expect, be advantageously employed in constructing the Bridges and other works in Bath as well as upon the intermediate line.[2]
A report written in December 1839 reveals that a semblance of order was now in place at the shaft heads. Shafts 1 to 5 were worked with horse gins. Shaft 6 had two steam engines, one of 6hp for raising and lowering materials and another of 30hp for pumping water. Shaft 8 had one small 8hp steam engine for both duties. However, it was at the mouth of Shaft 7 that activity was most concentrated with three steam engines at work; one for materials and men, one for raising stone and a third, the K&A engine, for pumping water. Ascending and descending the shaft was a hazardous affair; the men rode on an open platform which lacked safety railings of any description, the materials were carried on a flat wagon.
By now there was frenetic activity to complete the tunnel and the most strenuous exertions were used, keeping very large bodies of men working day and night. The Bath Association for Promoting the Due Observance of the Lords Day was outraged, complaining of the evils of Sabbath-breaking, in whose train almost every other evil followed.
Accidents
An article in the Wiltshire Independent hinted that a hung-ho attitude was being taken towards working procedures: Notwithstanding the unfortunate accidents with which Messrs Lewis and Brewer have had to contend, and the probability that these accidents will deprive them of their fair profit which ought to attend such an adventure, their spirits have never given way. The truth was that the numerous accidents and excessive loss of life was making Box Tunnel notorious. The Wiltshire Independent commented in November 1839 that the destruction of human life at the works of the Box Tunnel is awful; nearly fifty lives have been sacrificed since its commencement.
Internal letters demonstrated an element of concern and Brunel wrote to Glennie that you must assure me that there will be no more accidents in the mouth of the Tunnel. But the GWR and contractors publicly denied all liability, putting the blame securely on the men’s own careless and drunken behaviour:
CORSHAM Aug. 21. An inquest was held this evening (Tuesday) before John Edwards, Esq., on the body of a man named Hall, a Banksman at Shaft 8, Box Tunnel, who came by his death about 11 o’clock on Monday evening, in the following peculiar manner. The deceased was engaged in running the empty wagons upon the scale, by which they are lowered into the shaft, and which scale fits into the opening at the mouth of the shaft. Through some aberration of memory, caused partially by drink, he drew the waggon, he himself walking backwards, towards the place that was open, and went backwards into the shaft, pulling the waggon after him. His death was instantaneous—one short moment of intense mental agony, and a rapid and insensible transit into eternity. The distance was about 80 feet, and the waggon coming upon him literally crushed the back part of his head and legs. Verdict, accidental death. The deceased left a wife and five children.
ANOTHER of those shocking and melancholy sacrifices of human life, which are of such frequent occurrences on the works of the Great Western Railway, took place on the evening of Thursday week, at the Box Tunnel, which is too typical of the “dark valley and shadow of death.” The appalling accident occurred in the Engine House of the Shaft No 7, to a man of the name of Sheppard, from Atworth. The deceased, (who it is to be feared was in a state of intoxication) had gone to the engine-house to lie down. The unfortunate young man had fallen asleep, and while sleeping his clothes were caught in some way by the engine. He was thus dragged under the sway-beam, which coming down with irresistible force, absolutely ground his head to pieces.
On the 4 March 1841 Brunel was able to report that the tunnel was complete from the Western end through to Shaft No 8, which was always considered to be the tunnel’s Eastern extremity. There only remained the open cutting to finish and to reduce the amount of material excavated Lewis and Brewer were asked to extend their activities eastward. The Tunnel was completed on the 30 June 1841 without any formal celebrations. Those took place the following week when Mr George Burge, the contractor, together with Messrs. Brewer & Lewis and a large party, accompanied by a band of music, with flags and banners, proceeded through the tunnel which was lighted all throughout, and which presented a most extraordinary appearance. Whilst making this procession, three trains, crowded with people, passed through and nothing could exceed their astonishment at seeing a splendid procession three hundred feet underground literally within the bowels of the earth.
Between September 1838 and June 1841 Lewis Brewer had advanced the tunnel by 860 metres. In doing so they quarried approximately 200,000 tonnes of material.[3]
An article in the Wiltshire Independent hinted that a hung-ho attitude was being taken towards working procedures: Notwithstanding the unfortunate accidents with which Messrs Lewis and Brewer have had to contend, and the probability that these accidents will deprive them of their fair profit which ought to attend such an adventure, their spirits have never given way. The truth was that the numerous accidents and excessive loss of life was making Box Tunnel notorious. The Wiltshire Independent commented in November 1839 that the destruction of human life at the works of the Box Tunnel is awful; nearly fifty lives have been sacrificed since its commencement.
Internal letters demonstrated an element of concern and Brunel wrote to Glennie that you must assure me that there will be no more accidents in the mouth of the Tunnel. But the GWR and contractors publicly denied all liability, putting the blame securely on the men’s own careless and drunken behaviour:
CORSHAM Aug. 21. An inquest was held this evening (Tuesday) before John Edwards, Esq., on the body of a man named Hall, a Banksman at Shaft 8, Box Tunnel, who came by his death about 11 o’clock on Monday evening, in the following peculiar manner. The deceased was engaged in running the empty wagons upon the scale, by which they are lowered into the shaft, and which scale fits into the opening at the mouth of the shaft. Through some aberration of memory, caused partially by drink, he drew the waggon, he himself walking backwards, towards the place that was open, and went backwards into the shaft, pulling the waggon after him. His death was instantaneous—one short moment of intense mental agony, and a rapid and insensible transit into eternity. The distance was about 80 feet, and the waggon coming upon him literally crushed the back part of his head and legs. Verdict, accidental death. The deceased left a wife and five children.
ANOTHER of those shocking and melancholy sacrifices of human life, which are of such frequent occurrences on the works of the Great Western Railway, took place on the evening of Thursday week, at the Box Tunnel, which is too typical of the “dark valley and shadow of death.” The appalling accident occurred in the Engine House of the Shaft No 7, to a man of the name of Sheppard, from Atworth. The deceased, (who it is to be feared was in a state of intoxication) had gone to the engine-house to lie down. The unfortunate young man had fallen asleep, and while sleeping his clothes were caught in some way by the engine. He was thus dragged under the sway-beam, which coming down with irresistible force, absolutely ground his head to pieces.
On the 4 March 1841 Brunel was able to report that the tunnel was complete from the Western end through to Shaft No 8, which was always considered to be the tunnel’s Eastern extremity. There only remained the open cutting to finish and to reduce the amount of material excavated Lewis and Brewer were asked to extend their activities eastward. The Tunnel was completed on the 30 June 1841 without any formal celebrations. Those took place the following week when Mr George Burge, the contractor, together with Messrs. Brewer & Lewis and a large party, accompanied by a band of music, with flags and banners, proceeded through the tunnel which was lighted all throughout, and which presented a most extraordinary appearance. Whilst making this procession, three trains, crowded with people, passed through and nothing could exceed their astonishment at seeing a splendid procession three hundred feet underground literally within the bowels of the earth.
Between September 1838 and June 1841 Lewis Brewer had advanced the tunnel by 860 metres. In doing so they quarried approximately 200,000 tonnes of material.[3]
Disputes Over Payments
The first indication that Brewer and Lewis were capable of defaulting on their payments to the Canal Company for the loan of the beam engine had come the previous year on the 23 June 1840. It was minuted that Messrs Stothert and Brewer attended on behalf of Messrs Lewis Brewer & Co respecting the Steam Engine hired by them of the Kennet and Avon Canal Co.—Resolved that Messrs Brewer Lewis immediately pay the K & A Co £60, the present arrangement to continue till the expiration of 3 months after the 30 June when the K & A Co are to remit them £40. All provisions relating to the return of the Engine to the K & A Co to be the same as made in the original agreement. The following day Thomas Blackwell, the engineer, was instructed: the Steam Engine now at Box and let to Messrs Lewis and Brewer be sold if a suitable price can be obtained. A month later: Mr T E Blackwell reported that he had offered the Steam Engine mentioned in the Minutes of the last meeting to Messrs Lewis & Co for £550, which offer they had refused. Resolved that the sale of the said engine be postponed for the present.
The contracts between Lewis and Brewer, the GWR and the Canal Company did not end amicably. Lewis and Brewer disputed their final award and the Canal Company sought compensation because the GWR broke up the pumping engine on-site. On 23 December 1842 Brunel wrote to Lewis and Brewer saying that the final payment would be delayed until he had established that the engine at Box was broken up. It may well be that the GWR thought it owned the engine because there was a one-off payment of £400 on account made to Lewis and Brewer at the end of the contract for pumping water. The contract also stipulated that, in the event of a contractor not meeting their obligations, the Railway could confiscate their tools and machinery. It took until 18 December 1843 to agree that the GWR would pay Lewis and Brewer £3,500, and they in turn would pay the Canal Company £224.15s.0d. Ominously, a note written by Lewis and Brewer’s solicitors to the GWR read You will be so good as not to communicate with Messrs Merriman on the subject as Lewis and Brewer will see them about the demand produced as they consider they do not owe the amount.
In 1844 the Canal Company began pursuing Lewis and Brewer for the debt. On 26 June 1844 the General Management Minutes recorded the Principal Clerk reported that he had an interview with Mr Lewis who attended at the Office— Resolved that this Committee see no reason for relaxing the Agreement entered into by Messrs Lewis & Brewer and the Clerk is directed to take legal proceedings for the recovery of the Company’s demand unless the same is forthwith settled. This took place in December 1844 when the Clerk reported that a sum of £200 had been received from Messrs Lewis & Brewer, and Mr Brand, on receiving the said £200, was to discharge the account.
The first indication that Brewer and Lewis were capable of defaulting on their payments to the Canal Company for the loan of the beam engine had come the previous year on the 23 June 1840. It was minuted that Messrs Stothert and Brewer attended on behalf of Messrs Lewis Brewer & Co respecting the Steam Engine hired by them of the Kennet and Avon Canal Co.—Resolved that Messrs Brewer Lewis immediately pay the K & A Co £60, the present arrangement to continue till the expiration of 3 months after the 30 June when the K & A Co are to remit them £40. All provisions relating to the return of the Engine to the K & A Co to be the same as made in the original agreement. The following day Thomas Blackwell, the engineer, was instructed: the Steam Engine now at Box and let to Messrs Lewis and Brewer be sold if a suitable price can be obtained. A month later: Mr T E Blackwell reported that he had offered the Steam Engine mentioned in the Minutes of the last meeting to Messrs Lewis & Co for £550, which offer they had refused. Resolved that the sale of the said engine be postponed for the present.
The contracts between Lewis and Brewer, the GWR and the Canal Company did not end amicably. Lewis and Brewer disputed their final award and the Canal Company sought compensation because the GWR broke up the pumping engine on-site. On 23 December 1842 Brunel wrote to Lewis and Brewer saying that the final payment would be delayed until he had established that the engine at Box was broken up. It may well be that the GWR thought it owned the engine because there was a one-off payment of £400 on account made to Lewis and Brewer at the end of the contract for pumping water. The contract also stipulated that, in the event of a contractor not meeting their obligations, the Railway could confiscate their tools and machinery. It took until 18 December 1843 to agree that the GWR would pay Lewis and Brewer £3,500, and they in turn would pay the Canal Company £224.15s.0d. Ominously, a note written by Lewis and Brewer’s solicitors to the GWR read You will be so good as not to communicate with Messrs Merriman on the subject as Lewis and Brewer will see them about the demand produced as they consider they do not owe the amount.
In 1844 the Canal Company began pursuing Lewis and Brewer for the debt. On 26 June 1844 the General Management Minutes recorded the Principal Clerk reported that he had an interview with Mr Lewis who attended at the Office— Resolved that this Committee see no reason for relaxing the Agreement entered into by Messrs Lewis & Brewer and the Clerk is directed to take legal proceedings for the recovery of the Company’s demand unless the same is forthwith settled. This took place in December 1844 when the Clerk reported that a sum of £200 had been received from Messrs Lewis & Brewer, and Mr Brand, on receiving the said £200, was to discharge the account.
Conclusion
The completion of the Box Tunnel was a scramble and the availability of the ex-London Docks beam engine at Thimble Mill was mere chance. It is futile to predict outcomes of alternative events but the likelihood remains that without these circumstances the opening of Box Tunnel would have been still further delayed. Probably more definitive was the indebtedness of the pioneering railway companies to the innovative work of their predecessors, the canal companies.
The completion of the Box Tunnel was a scramble and the availability of the ex-London Docks beam engine at Thimble Mill was mere chance. It is futile to predict outcomes of alternative events but the likelihood remains that without these circumstances the opening of Box Tunnel would have been still further delayed. Probably more definitive was the indebtedness of the pioneering railway companies to the innovative work of their predecessors, the canal companies.
Reference
[1] The Bath Chronicle, 18 July 1839
[2] David Pollard, Digging Bath Stone, 2021, Lightmoor Press, p.280
[3] David Pollard, Digging Bath Stone, 2021, Lightmoor Press, p.281
[1] The Bath Chronicle, 18 July 1839
[2] David Pollard, Digging Bath Stone, 2021, Lightmoor Press, p.280
[3] David Pollard, Digging Bath Stone, 2021, Lightmoor Press, p.281