Talk:Joseph Locke

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Barentin viaduct

Is there a reference which says that Locke shared the cost of rebuilding it after the collapse with Thomas Brassey? I note that this paragraph contains no citation. According to my three sources, the cost of rebuilding was met by the contractor, Brassey, as one might expect under the terms of a contract. The only exception was, according to Helps, that the French authorities paid the inducement fee for early completion, despite its not being completed early because of the collapse. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be right but I am sure I saw an old reference to Locke sharing the cost. However Brassey's biographer of the time says he paid all the cost, so unless I can find that ref, I will change the text. Peterlewis (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately my subscription does not cover access to the online ICE library but this search pulls up an interesting entry in the ICE proceedings: "Locke made joint venture contractors William Mackenzie and Thomas Brassey rebuild the Barentin viaduct on the Paris to Le Havre railway at their own expense". Which seems to indicate that Locke did not foot the bill and instead forced Mackenzie and Brassey to do so - Dumelow (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems to imply that he blamed them for the fall of the bridge: perhaps they added ballast too soon or used the wrong type of lime and didn't allow enough time for hardening. I wonder if someone ever produced a report of investigation of the fall? Peterlewis (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to mention that William Mackenzie was a co-contactor with Brassey in the project. I cannot find any evidence of a formal enquiry. The earliest evidence we have is in Helps' book of 1894. (Haynes says that Helps' book was commissioned by the Brassey family.) Helps had met Brassey and been impressed by him; the book is somewhat adulatory, but is probably the best evidence we shall be able to obtain. In writing about the cause of the collapse he is quoting "Mr Murton's evidence". Not sure who Mr Murton was, but it seems he was interviewed by Helps. To quote from pp. 50–51: It is scarcely necessary here to seek to establish the causes of this failure; very rapid execution in very bad weather, and being built, in accordance with the contract, with mortar made of lime of the country (but with which the other smaller works had been successfully built), were no doubt the principal causes. Mr. Brassey was very greatly upset by this untoward event; but he and his partner Mr. Mackenzie met the difficulty most manfully, 'The first thing to do,' as they said, 'is to build it up again.' and this they started most strenuously to do; not waiting, as many would have done, whether justly or unjustly, to settle, by litigation or other wise, upon whom the responsibility and the expense should fall. Stacey's booklet of 2005 (written by a descendant and therefore not unbiased) says on p. 17: Brassey had been dissatisfied with the quality of the mortar which was provided locally as his contract required. When he came to rebuild the viaduct, he did so this time using lime of his own choice. I guess that is as much as we shall ever know.

Incidentally have you seen this which shows the close working relationship between Locke and Brassey - it may be worth while adding something about this to the article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You sound like the best person to add these fascinating observations on Barentin! But I am sure Locke blamed the early addition of ballast to the structure, and some one (Locke?) was about to order that it be removed; but the fall then occurred with total collapse in less than 2 minutes. No doubt subsequent events may have been different if anyone had died. Peterlewis (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that a formal enquiry was averted by Brassey's rebuilding from his own pocket. The collapse was a form of progressive collapse whereby the failure of one of the arches increased the loading of its neighbours beyond their design strength and caused a very quick "house of cards" style collapse. I have heard of several reasons for the collapse including the poor mortar (locally sourced lime was not up to scratch) and ballast (adding ballast before mortar reached its peak strength) theories. I have also heard that the heavy rain soaked the ballast, increasing the dead load, or else affected the lime before it was properly set. It will probably never be known for sure. One interesting thing I found was a review of the diaries of Mackenzie (here and here for anyone with JSTOR or Blackwell Synergy access respectively) which contains an extract from the diaries after the collapse "Fault bad mortar, we (him and Brassey?) told Mr. Locke mortar was bad" and "today I met Locke ... he looked sad and low in spirits". Which seems to suggest the local lime was poor and places blame on Locke for not correcting it. At least we now have a lot of sources to add to the articles! - Dumelow (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)