Isambard Kingdom Brunel(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Isambard Kingdom Brunel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel
124 comments
Half-sovereign is a small gold coin (4g). Face value £0.50, but current gold value £194.15, so ~400% inflation since Britain came off the gold standard in 1931. Definitely worth extracting.
Interesting about the inflation here.
In 1931 mean wages in the UK are reckoned to have been 1s (£0.05) per hour [1].
Currently mean wages in the UK are £617 per week (40hrs) or £15.42 per hour [2].
So a half sov in 1931 was worth 10hrs of work, while today it's worth 12.60hrs of work. Quite interesting that it's value has risen (in real terms) even while it's stopped being a currency (more or less). Perhaps because it's actually useful in electronics now (not so much in 1931).
So gold has had real
[1] https://www.pocketpence.co.uk/wages-1930s-12269131.html [2] https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/business/average-uk-salary...
In 1931 mean wages in the UK are reckoned to have been 1s (£0.05) per hour [1].
Currently mean wages in the UK are £617 per week (40hrs) or £15.42 per hour [2].
So a half sov in 1931 was worth 10hrs of work, while today it's worth 12.60hrs of work. Quite interesting that it's value has risen (in real terms) even while it's stopped being a currency (more or less). Perhaps because it's actually useful in electronics now (not so much in 1931).
So gold has had real
[1] https://www.pocketpence.co.uk/wages-1930s-12269131.html [2] https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/business/average-uk-salary...
Nothing to do with industrial use of gold, which is negligible, compared to mine supply (~3,000t/yr) and jewelry consumption.
Labor in UK (and wider western world) has lost out compared to gold, due to globalization (net benefit to the world). That is irreversible.
Gold has lost out to tech and speculative risky investments, for now. That is certainly reversible. Watch this space 2024-5.
Labor in UK (and wider western world) has lost out compared to gold, due to globalization (net benefit to the world). That is irreversible.
Gold has lost out to tech and speculative risky investments, for now. That is certainly reversible. Watch this space 2024-5.
I think globalisation is very much reversable and in fact is being reversed at a rate of knots by things like Biden's green deal
Yes, it's somewhat interesting that gold is now more expensive (in terms of worth in hours worked) than when countries where on the gold standard.
I think you mean 40,000% inflation?
Yes, of course!
Slip of the orders of magnitude.
Hard to believe, but true.
Compound interest/inflation - the most powerful force in the universe (see Einstein). For good (interest) and ill (inflation).
All those investment advisors never mention the real interest rate, which is the key factor (and famously hard to measure, after all the Goodhart's Law shenanigans of govt and central banks manipulating RPI/CPI core/not and TIPS/breakevens).
Slip of the orders of magnitude.
Hard to believe, but true.
Compound interest/inflation - the most powerful force in the universe (see Einstein). For good (interest) and ill (inflation).
All those investment advisors never mention the real interest rate, which is the key factor (and famously hard to measure, after all the Goodhart's Law shenanigans of govt and central banks manipulating RPI/CPI core/not and TIPS/breakevens).
Compare https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/26/compound-interest-is-t...
I don't think the real interest rate is that hard to measure. You don't have to pick your local government's favoured measure of inflation, just pick your own.
Eg in the long run you could pick the Big Mac index. Or you could pick some other country's official price level measure and multiply it by the exchange rate with their currency. (In the short run, you have different real price levels between countries, but perhaps they even out in the long run.)
I don't think the real interest rate is that hard to measure. You don't have to pick your local government's favoured measure of inflation, just pick your own.
Eg in the long run you could pick the Big Mac index. Or you could pick some other country's official price level measure and multiply it by the exchange rate with their currency. (In the short run, you have different real price levels between countries, but perhaps they even out in the long run.)
...And the coin'd be tremendously handy if one lived to 200!
It's precisely the same spirit.
"At the suggestion of his father, ..."
We shouldn't forget Marc Brunel was also a great engineer and no doubt a very practical man. :-)
We shouldn't forget Marc Brunel was also a great engineer and no doubt a very practical man. :-)
He was a Hacque man after all.. (born in Hacqueville)
Ha, I know! And son Isambard spent time in France training. Funny isn't it that the British don't spend more time emphasising the French connection.
;-)
;-)
The average Briton might well have awareness through this documentary, where Brunel came second to Churchill in a public vote following the "Great Britons" TV series :
https://youtu.be/QwHnVH9jWmU?si=lFShZQ4WMvRQwiys
The French origins of his father Marc are mentioned very early on.
https://youtu.be/QwHnVH9jWmU?si=lFShZQ4WMvRQwiys
The French origins of his father Marc are mentioned very early on.
The time he lived in was an amazing era for engineering and engineering funding - with an lots of failed and successful projects. It's kind of like todays VC environment but rather than "AirBnb for cats" it was bridges, ships, railway lines, and tunnels
His father was almost as prolific and spent time in a debtors prison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Isambard_Brunel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Isambard_Brunel
His father was almost as prolific and spent time in a debtors prison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Isambard_Brunel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Isambard_Brunel
The ring railway in Berlin used to be a rich person's playset, when the city was much smaller and fit well within the ring. Now it's effective public transport that couldn't be built today.
There is a pub in Bristol called the Intrepid engineer. The engineer in question was IKB himself who, in the preliminary stages of the making of the Clifton suspension bridge, had himself hauled across the Avon Gorge on a steel table while suspended in a bucket. None of his workers were brave enough to do it. Halfway across the bucket snagged on a cable. IKB clumbed out of the bucket, freed it, climbed back in and continued on his way.
In the UK, if they like you enough, they name a pub after you.
In the UK, if they like you enough, they name a pub after you.
Are you thinking of "The Reckless Engineer" pub that used to be outside the road leading to Temple Meads? I believe that's now been renamed as "The Sidings".
Yes you are right. I had no idea they renamed it. Wankers.
Sounds like more than a name change, it was officially closed and reopened as a "bar and cafe" serving pizza, tapas and coffee: https://www.bristol247.com/food-and-drink/news-food-and-drin...
Dam. That is like someone kidnapping my cat, killing and stuffing her, covering her with glitter, then handing her back to me claiming that they 'improved' her.
> In the UK, if they like you enough, they name a pub after you.
No truer statement. Made me smile to read.
No truer statement. Made me smile to read.
There is one in Portsmouth called The Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
It's quite a grand looking place, for a weatherspoons.
Another one, this time in London, and called simply the engineer.
https://whatpub.com/pubs/NLD/6006/engineer-london
https://whatpub.com/pubs/NLD/6006/engineer-london
Thomas Telford was another early civil engineer, among other things known for the Menai Bridge between the Welsh mainland and Anglesey. When I saw the bridge in 1999, it was kind of odd to think that this short-by-today's-standards bridge would pave the way for behemoths like the Mackinac - or that it dated to 1826 and has needed few major overhauls.
I had never even heard of Telford before my UK visit, although there is a town in Pennsylvania named for him. As always, there always seems to be national gaps in education.
I had never even heard of Telford before my UK visit, although there is a town in Pennsylvania named for him. As always, there always seems to be national gaps in education.
Telford is also noted for his gates. They don't sag.[1] He was in the toll road business, and so, he had toll gates that had to be opened for each user. It was important to revenue that gates work well and not be left open. There are still some Telford gates in use, and they still don't sag after two centuries.
[1] https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6087744
[1] https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6087744
Telford's Pontcysyllte aqueduct is still in use and still the world's highest. Not bad for a civil engineering project started in the late 18th Century and completed 218 years ago (1805):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontcysyllte_Aqueduct
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ehX7gKaAL74
Here's another that's somewhat less famous:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirk_Aqueduct
Telford was before Brunel (Pontcysyllte was completed a year before Brunel was born) and no doubt the latter took inspiration from him. Both were giants of the Industrial Revolution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontcysyllte_Aqueduct
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ehX7gKaAL74
Here's another that's somewhat less famous:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirk_Aqueduct
Telford was before Brunel (Pontcysyllte was completed a year before Brunel was born) and no doubt the latter took inspiration from him. Both were giants of the Industrial Revolution.
I know, survivor bias, but still: some people built some things to really last back then.
I'd be too long here to give reasons in detail but noticeable characteristics of much Victorian era engineering are its excellent workmanship and longevity and that even with inferior materials than we have today that many of these works have lasted much longer than many structures that are more modern.
Much of the reason had to do with the then prevailing attitude (the Industrial Revolution worldview) which was that they had a more long-term view coupled with pride—'see what we can now do' (often engeering was carried out to the best of its ability and done without shortcomings).
Much of the reason had to do with the then prevailing attitude (the Industrial Revolution worldview) which was that they had a more long-term view coupled with pride—'see what we can now do' (often engeering was carried out to the best of its ability and done without shortcomings).
Also - material science and computation being less advanced, they just built bigger margins of error into everything that required resistance to force etc. Compare to today where everything is done to wafer-thin margins to minimise cost, hence fiascos such as RAAC.
As another example, Brunel's Maidenhead Railway Bridge to this day holds the world record for having the lowest ratio height:span for brick arches.
Yeah right. Like many techies and engineers interested in the history of tech I've a book of Brunel's bio. Some people have instinctive genius and he was one of them.
I used to live near Telford's Dean Bridge in Edinburgh and used to walk to work over it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Bridge
It's extra funny to think of the gigantic concrete bridge but a few metres beside his bridge just west of Gloucester:
https://www.britainexpress.com/images/attractions/editor/Ove...
One can only guess at his reaction were he to know what was to come. Excitement at the strength of it? Disappointment at its tasteless design? The old Telford bridge makes a lovely footpath these days though.
https://www.britainexpress.com/images/attractions/editor/Ove...
One can only guess at his reaction were he to know what was to come. Excitement at the strength of it? Disappointment at its tasteless design? The old Telford bridge makes a lovely footpath these days though.
Related:
The Commission for Stopping Further Improvements - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657436 - April 2023 (139 comments)
Steamships, Part 2: The Further Adventures of Isambard Kingdom Brunel - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34995158 - March 2023 (2 comments)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel – “one of the most ingenious and prolific engineers” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18823787 - Jan 2019 (1 comment)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10577096 - Nov 2015 (17 comments)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7736288 - May 2014 (25 comments)
The Commission for Stopping Further Improvements - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657436 - April 2023 (139 comments)
Steamships, Part 2: The Further Adventures of Isambard Kingdom Brunel - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34995158 - March 2023 (2 comments)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel – “one of the most ingenious and prolific engineers” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18823787 - Jan 2019 (1 comment)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10577096 - Nov 2015 (17 comments)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7736288 - May 2014 (25 comments)
Presumably also related, or so I thought when I saw the two items side-by-side on the homepage:
The Evolution of Tunnel Boring Machines - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37836889 (though that was due to Marc Brunel, Isambard's father).
The Evolution of Tunnel Boring Machines - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37836889 (though that was due to Marc Brunel, Isambard's father).
From the first one:
> If the Commission is to enquire into the conditions “to be observed,” it is to be presumed that they will give the result of their enquiries; or, in other words, that they will lay down, or at least suggest, “rules” and “conditions to be (hereafter) observed” in the construction of bridges, or, in other words, embarrass and shackle the progress of improvement tomorrow by recording and registering as law the prejudices or errors of today.
> Nothing, I believe, has tended more to distinguish advantageously the profession of engineering in England and in America, nothing has conduced more to the great advance made in our profession and to our pre-eminence in the real practical application of the science, than the absence of all règles de l’art—a term which I fear is now going to be translated into English by the words “conditions to be observed.” No man, however bold or however high he may stand in his profession, can resist the benumbing effect of rules laid down by authority. Occupied as leading men are, they could not afford the time, or trouble, or responsibility of constantly fighting against them—they would be compelled to abandon all idea of improving upon them; while incompetent men might commit the grossest blunder provided they followed the rules. For, in the simplest branch of construction, rules may be followed literally without any security as to the result.
> If the Commission is to enquire into the conditions “to be observed,” it is to be presumed that they will give the result of their enquiries; or, in other words, that they will lay down, or at least suggest, “rules” and “conditions to be (hereafter) observed” in the construction of bridges, or, in other words, embarrass and shackle the progress of improvement tomorrow by recording and registering as law the prejudices or errors of today.
> Nothing, I believe, has tended more to distinguish advantageously the profession of engineering in England and in America, nothing has conduced more to the great advance made in our profession and to our pre-eminence in the real practical application of the science, than the absence of all règles de l’art—a term which I fear is now going to be translated into English by the words “conditions to be observed.” No man, however bold or however high he may stand in his profession, can resist the benumbing effect of rules laid down by authority. Occupied as leading men are, they could not afford the time, or trouble, or responsibility of constantly fighting against them—they would be compelled to abandon all idea of improving upon them; while incompetent men might commit the grossest blunder provided they followed the rules. For, in the simplest branch of construction, rules may be followed literally without any security as to the result.
In the UK we, rightly, hold his creations up as great feats of engineering. You’ll often hear people say we need to get back to that sort of thing, which I agree with.
Sadly many projects that could become those great icons in the future now get killed by (often the same) people complaining about wasting money and not wanting it built near them.
I wonder how those projects were viewed when proposed and being built and what we can learn about our current approach in the UK.
I often think people feel the UK is “done” and we shouldn’t strive to built new things.
Sadly many projects that could become those great icons in the future now get killed by (often the same) people complaining about wasting money and not wanting it built near them.
I wonder how those projects were viewed when proposed and being built and what we can learn about our current approach in the UK.
I often think people feel the UK is “done” and we shouldn’t strive to built new things.
This is a great edition of the BBC radio programme In Our Time, about how the engineer Joseph Bazalgette was given the task of building proper sewerage for London after the "Great Stink" of 1858. It's remarkable how much more positive people were about large-scale engineering projects like this, and the participants in the show remark on that (although I do wonder if there were many working class people who hated the idea because it meant e.g. their house was demolished to make way for the works but they had no power to stop it).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001gjcm
Edit: And this is a great article on the reasons why large infrastructure projects in the UK are far too expensive: https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/britains-infrastructure-is-too... I bet if we could bring them in on budget people would get behind them much more.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001gjcm
Edit: And this is a great article on the reasons why large infrastructure projects in the UK are far too expensive: https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/britains-infrastructure-is-too... I bet if we could bring them in on budget people would get behind them much more.
Would have liked to see more detail on why projects are so expensive in the UK - there was some detail in the road section (changes from objections leading to more expensive features to placate these complaints), but can't see that for underground projects, for instance...
I know when the Olympics was in Weymouth and Portland, someone knew a contractor who was doing it, and they were able to charge 3x their normal rate as long as it was guaranteed to be on time. They made a fortune. In addition, a local road building project near me (which is on the road between London and Weymouth) was pushed through to provide a better route - despite it being massively expensive and making a terrible long-term mess of what was a bad junction that needed a flyover, not the awful hamburger junction solution that the local area is now saddled with that is always on the traffic reports.
I know when the Olympics was in Weymouth and Portland, someone knew a contractor who was doing it, and they were able to charge 3x their normal rate as long as it was guaranteed to be on time. They made a fortune. In addition, a local road building project near me (which is on the road between London and Weymouth) was pushed through to provide a better route - despite it being massively expensive and making a terrible long-term mess of what was a bad junction that needed a flyover, not the awful hamburger junction solution that the local area is now saddled with that is always on the traffic reports.
> not the awful hamburger junction solution that the local area is now saddled with...
Do you mean the Canford Bottom Roundabout [1] by any chance? :)
[1] https://maps.app.goo.gl/rpTJ3aPhsejWcChV8
Do you mean the Canford Bottom Roundabout [1] by any chance? :)
[1] https://maps.app.goo.gl/rpTJ3aPhsejWcChV8
Capitalism is why.
Can you imagine going back in time and telling Brunel that by 2023, Britain can’t build a rail line from London to Birmingham?
For sure. The thing is we can do it, from a technical perspective, we absolutely have the skills, talent and knowledge to do it. It’s everything else which is failing to work correctly.
> I often think people feel the UK is “done” and we shouldn’t strive to built new things.
I'd say the problem is cronyism and corruption with our politicians. They managed to splash £76million on a useless "NHS" Covid App (not NHS) and any solution to a problem is just seen as a way of funnelling public money into the pockets of the politicians' friends and family (c.f. Rishi Sunak's granting of new oil exploration licenses and his wife's family's investments).
I'd say the problem is cronyism and corruption with our politicians. They managed to splash £76million on a useless "NHS" Covid App (not NHS) and any solution to a problem is just seen as a way of funnelling public money into the pockets of the politicians' friends and family (c.f. Rishi Sunak's granting of new oil exploration licenses and his wife's family's investments).
I do not think so. The UK is a lot less corrupt that countries that are enthusiastic about big projects (most of Asia for a start).
I think people do want it, but the government is making bad picks. HS2 is a good example. Spending that much while not maintaining the (unreliable ) existing lines is pointless.
I think people do want it, but the government is making bad picks. HS2 is a good example. Spending that much while not maintaining the (unreliable ) existing lines is pointless.
> HS2 is a good example. Spending that much while not maintaining the (unreliable ) existing lines is pointless.
I don't believe there ever was a solid business case for HS2, but Adonis gave it the green light and no-one since was brave enough to pull the plug.
"The project itself goes back to 1982, when a group of managers from the nationalised British Rail visited the new TGV railway in France. They returned boggle-eyed at the sight of a train racing at 270kmph (150mph) down its own track, crossing France, from Paris to Lyon, in two hours. Among the visitors was a 35-year-old civil engineer, Jim Steer. He was captivated by speed and, as he told me recently, dismayed by the conviction of his colleagues that “in Britain we would never be allowed to do it”. As with Concorde, Steer understood that the idea of speed could arouse politicians and open purse strings to projects that might otherwise get nowhere. It was speed that had persuaded such prestige-sensitive governments as Japan and France to build new railways.
Steer was to be one of three men – the others were a rail-obsessed peer and a chancellor of the exchequer – who kept the dream of high-speed rail alive over the next three decades. Educated at Imperial College London, he trained at the contractors Freeman Fox, but in 1978 he turned freelance as a transport consultant, setting up his own firm: Steer Davies Gleave. A natural buccaneer, he proved adept at winning consultancy contracts anywhere there was a glimmer of interest in fast trains. “Jim was like a terrier,” a contemporary told me. “His name popped up at the foot of reports, inquiries and surveys, wherever the words high-speed rail occurred.”"
"It is the most extravagant infrastructure project in British history – but nobody can say why we need it. How did HS2 ever get so far?" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/hs2-the-zomb...
"The controversial campaign to build a high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham was dealt a blow on Tuesday when an independent report questioned the business case for the £32bn scheme." https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/21/business-case-hs2...
"In 2010, when a high-speed rail line from London to the north – HS2 – was proposed by the outgoing Labour government, I wrote an article arguing that the numbers didn’t add up. The environmental benefits had been inflated by a series of blatant accounting tricks and concocted figures. What the government called the “business case” for the scheme was in fact a cost-benefit analysis, in which the supposed economic benefits had been amplified by outright assaults on common sense. The case for HS2 always was a baggage train of bullshit." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/28/hs2-fi...
I don't believe there ever was a solid business case for HS2, but Adonis gave it the green light and no-one since was brave enough to pull the plug.
"The project itself goes back to 1982, when a group of managers from the nationalised British Rail visited the new TGV railway in France. They returned boggle-eyed at the sight of a train racing at 270kmph (150mph) down its own track, crossing France, from Paris to Lyon, in two hours. Among the visitors was a 35-year-old civil engineer, Jim Steer. He was captivated by speed and, as he told me recently, dismayed by the conviction of his colleagues that “in Britain we would never be allowed to do it”. As with Concorde, Steer understood that the idea of speed could arouse politicians and open purse strings to projects that might otherwise get nowhere. It was speed that had persuaded such prestige-sensitive governments as Japan and France to build new railways.
Steer was to be one of three men – the others were a rail-obsessed peer and a chancellor of the exchequer – who kept the dream of high-speed rail alive over the next three decades. Educated at Imperial College London, he trained at the contractors Freeman Fox, but in 1978 he turned freelance as a transport consultant, setting up his own firm: Steer Davies Gleave. A natural buccaneer, he proved adept at winning consultancy contracts anywhere there was a glimmer of interest in fast trains. “Jim was like a terrier,” a contemporary told me. “His name popped up at the foot of reports, inquiries and surveys, wherever the words high-speed rail occurred.”"
"It is the most extravagant infrastructure project in British history – but nobody can say why we need it. How did HS2 ever get so far?" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/hs2-the-zomb...
"The controversial campaign to build a high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham was dealt a blow on Tuesday when an independent report questioned the business case for the £32bn scheme." https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/21/business-case-hs2...
"In 2010, when a high-speed rail line from London to the north – HS2 – was proposed by the outgoing Labour government, I wrote an article arguing that the numbers didn’t add up. The environmental benefits had been inflated by a series of blatant accounting tricks and concocted figures. What the government called the “business case” for the scheme was in fact a cost-benefit analysis, in which the supposed economic benefits had been amplified by outright assaults on common sense. The case for HS2 always was a baggage train of bullshit." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/28/hs2-fi...
That £76m was for the track and trace service including the teams of people on the phone. The app was a fraction of that cost.
Dinorwig hydroelectric power station in Wales is probably the last example of great British engineering - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
Amazing to think that, adjusted for inflation from 1984 pounds, it cost less to build than ten miles of track on HS2 (current estimate £307m per mile).
Amazing to think that, adjusted for inflation from 1984 pounds, it cost less to build than ten miles of track on HS2 (current estimate £307m per mile).
I’ve done a tour, very enjoyable and very cool to see up close
By the time of Brunel's death, Britain had a population of 24 million, most of whom couldn't vote.
>In 2002, Brunel was placed second in a BBC public poll to determine the "100 Greatest Britons".
The person who "sponsored" Brunel on that list was Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame, who was given an hour on the BBC to argue his case (other persons of note were given time to argue in favor of their own choices). You can find his video here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwHnVH9jWmU
The person who "sponsored" Brunel on that list was Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame, who was given an hour on the BBC to argue his case (other persons of note were given time to argue in favor of their own choices). You can find his video here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwHnVH9jWmU
He also was responsible for the invention of bungee jumping, which as a resident of Bristol I would be frequently reminded of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifton_Suspension_Bridge#Oper...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifton_Suspension_Bridge#Oper...
Do we have a bridge in Bristol?
Well, fancy that!
Well, fancy that!
How can you live in Bristol and not know about the Clifton Suspension Bridge..?
Your irony detector may be on the blink
There was a great BBC docudrama in 2003 called Seven Wonders of the Industrial World. [1]
First episode is about the SS Great Eastern, an iron ship that was the largest ship built at the time of her launch, designed by Brunel. [2]
I’d highly recommended the series which features episodes on the construction of the Panama Canal, Transcontinental railway and Hoover Dam.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Wonders_of_the_Industr...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern
First episode is about the SS Great Eastern, an iron ship that was the largest ship built at the time of her launch, designed by Brunel. [2]
I’d highly recommended the series which features episodes on the construction of the Panama Canal, Transcontinental railway and Hoover Dam.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Wonders_of_the_Industr...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern
Thanks for the recommendation. I've found the DVDs.
Edit: This is not a documentary but a docu-drama reenactment.
Edit: This is not a documentary but a docu-drama reenactment.
Brunel was great, but if you look at the financial history of the Great Western Railway (GWR) in the 1800s you can see that even back then, mega-projects that everyone admired didnt guarantee you a fortune in profits. It cost twice as much to build as originally estimated and while GWR made a profit, it was not a huge one.
As with all great civil engineering projects, the assessment of the cost was over-optimistic. The Act authorising the construction, passed in 1835, allowed for pounds 3.3m. The total cost when it opened in June 1841 turned out to be pounds 6.15m.
Despite cost runovers, healthy dividends were paid in these early days. Before the depression of the late 1840s, the company was paying 8 per cent per annum which, at a time of no inflation and low interest rates, was very satisfactory. Even after the economy recovered, according to E T MacDermot, author of the History of the Great Western Railway, 'three-quarters of a century were destined to pass before the Company again paid 8 per cent'. The deterioration of the economy led to a cut in dividends to 7 per cent per annum, then to 6 per cent. By August 1849, dividends were down to 4 per cent, where they remained until they fell to 3 per cent in the mid-1850s.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/lessons-of-history-an-...
Brunel himself made some money but quite a modest amount compared to what you might expect given his fame.
At the time of his death in 1859, Brunel is estimated to have been worth about £8 million in today’s money. It’s not a bad sum but for a someone of his profile, £8 million is a very modest amount.
https://historylists.org/people/list-of-10-famous-britons-an...
Not that I think engineers should strive to make a lot of money. But its interesting to know that one of the most famous engineers in history didn't generate a lot of cash.
As with all great civil engineering projects, the assessment of the cost was over-optimistic. The Act authorising the construction, passed in 1835, allowed for pounds 3.3m. The total cost when it opened in June 1841 turned out to be pounds 6.15m.
Despite cost runovers, healthy dividends were paid in these early days. Before the depression of the late 1840s, the company was paying 8 per cent per annum which, at a time of no inflation and low interest rates, was very satisfactory. Even after the economy recovered, according to E T MacDermot, author of the History of the Great Western Railway, 'three-quarters of a century were destined to pass before the Company again paid 8 per cent'. The deterioration of the economy led to a cut in dividends to 7 per cent per annum, then to 6 per cent. By August 1849, dividends were down to 4 per cent, where they remained until they fell to 3 per cent in the mid-1850s.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/lessons-of-history-an-...
Brunel himself made some money but quite a modest amount compared to what you might expect given his fame.
At the time of his death in 1859, Brunel is estimated to have been worth about £8 million in today’s money. It’s not a bad sum but for a someone of his profile, £8 million is a very modest amount.
https://historylists.org/people/list-of-10-famous-britons-an...
Not that I think engineers should strive to make a lot of money. But its interesting to know that one of the most famous engineers in history didn't generate a lot of cash.
£8 million in personal wealth is loads and more than enough for anyone. It's only considered "modest" now because of how absurd money has become.
I’ve crossed his Royal Albert Bridge, the rail connection between Devon and Cornwall over the River Tamar, many times. It opened in 1859 and still carries around 30 trains per day. Great view too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Albert_Bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Albert_Bridge
Nice. I crossed the Clifton Suspension Bridge every day going to school and back for a few years.
This one is a favorite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Bridges,_London
which has a road over a canal over a railway line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Bridges,_London
which has a road over a canal over a railway line.
One of the very best episodes of In Our Time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04nvbp1
Of all the characters I learned of while playing Railroad Tycoon, he had the most memorable name.
Isambard is special because he was prolific, had an impressive name and that one particularly photogenic moment. I like to think of him as a sort of everyman for engineers.
So much of a society is designed by engineers - all the important parts really - it seems probable that there are a lot of amazing people who the history books just don't record. The list of great engineering names is short vs. the list of great engineering marvels. Similarly to how is is easy enough to find histories of people who caused massive great wars (Alexander the so-called Great springs to mind) but histories of places that had centuries of prosperity tend to not penetrate the public consciousness. It is all too complex and there are usually greasy capitalists involved instead of respectable axe-murdering generals.
Anyway, thanks Isambard for representing something important in the history books.
So much of a society is designed by engineers - all the important parts really - it seems probable that there are a lot of amazing people who the history books just don't record. The list of great engineering names is short vs. the list of great engineering marvels. Similarly to how is is easy enough to find histories of people who caused massive great wars (Alexander the so-called Great springs to mind) but histories of places that had centuries of prosperity tend to not penetrate the public consciousness. It is all too complex and there are usually greasy capitalists involved instead of respectable axe-murdering generals.
Anyway, thanks Isambard for representing something important in the history books.
One of my favourite micro-instances of Brunel's engineering are the brick arches of Moulsford Railway Bridge on the Thames near Wallingford, Oxfordshire. The railway has to cross the river at an angle, so a plain perpendicular bridge wouldn't work.
The solution is simply explained if you take a piece of paper, draw some "brickwork" lines on it it, bend it into an arch, then twist it so that the arch and the thing it is crossing are at an angle.
You'll see how the lines of bricks are angled vertically instead of being straight horizontal. That is exactly how they are at Moulsford.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulsford_Railway_Bridge
The solution is simply explained if you take a piece of paper, draw some "brickwork" lines on it it, bend it into an arch, then twist it so that the arch and the thing it is crossing are at an angle.
You'll see how the lines of bricks are angled vertically instead of being straight horizontal. That is exactly how they are at Moulsford.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulsford_Railway_Bridge
Isambard Kingdom Brunel in modern Britain probably wouldn't bother with civil engineering; planning permission for his projects would get tied up in 10-15 year legal battles against NIMBYs.
Well yeah modern day engineering projects are of course planned and built differently. Back in Brunel's day it wasn't unheard of for bridges to collapse outright or to be deliberately overengineered to the extent that they'd probably not be funded today (see the Forth Bridge as an example)
I dunno what NIMBYs would have been in a position to object to his bridges, though.
I dunno what NIMBYs would have been in a position to object to his bridges, though.
"We like the view of the Forth just fine as it is, thank you very much. And, a rail line? With all the train noise? Not to be thought of. It would ruin the peaceful charm of the scene."
That did happen. Some of the circuitous routes of railways are due to the objections of large landowners.
An interesting historical example was the kromme lijn (curved line) in Delft (the Netherlands), which was in operation for all of 5 days before the landowner caved and ceded his land to the railway.
The landowner, incidentally, had purchased the land as an act of retaliation against the railway, feeling slighted after having previously sold land in Zandvoort (near Haarlem) to the railway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Gaag_Lane
The landowner, incidentally, had purchased the land as an act of retaliation against the railway, feeling slighted after having previously sold land in Zandvoort (near Haarlem) to the railway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Gaag_Lane
That's an interesting story. And I learned the term frog war.
It appears the Forth Bridge cost about 3.2 million GBP, which would be 470 million GBP today (according to https://www.officialdata.org/uk/inflation/1870?amount=3.20 )
It's 2.4 km long which puts it at about $200 million GBP / km.
The East Span of the Bay Bridge cost 6.5 billion USD in 2013 which would be 8.5 billion USD today or just shy of 7 billion GBP. It is 3.5 km long which puts it at $2 billion GBP / km.
It appears that the over-engineering yielded a cheaper result per kilometre and that more expensive projects will quite readily be funded, up to 10x higher.
It's 2.4 km long which puts it at about $200 million GBP / km.
The East Span of the Bay Bridge cost 6.5 billion USD in 2013 which would be 8.5 billion USD today or just shy of 7 billion GBP. It is 3.5 km long which puts it at $2 billion GBP / km.
It appears that the over-engineering yielded a cheaper result per kilometre and that more expensive projects will quite readily be funded, up to 10x higher.
I don't think you appreciate quite what an outlier that bridge is, and plugging the cost into an inflation calculator then comparing it the Bay Bridge or the new Queensferry Crossing isn't a good comparison either. It's maybe better to compare to an example from around that time, and as it happens there's actually a really good and relevant one we can use. The Forth Bridge was designed and constructed shortly after a slightly longer rail bridge over the river Tay had famously collapsed - a bridge which was constructed for 0.35 million GBP. So we're talking nearly 10x the cost for a bridge that is actually just a little bit shorter.
Veering slightly offtopic now, but I don't know we can confidently say it yielded a "cheaper" result too - maintenance over the years has been pretty expensive, since the bridge needed to be constantly coated with special paint to prevent corrosion. This has found its way into Scots language as a popular simile for a neverending task: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/like_painting_the_Forth_Bridg...
Veering slightly offtopic now, but I don't know we can confidently say it yielded a "cheaper" result too - maintenance over the years has been pretty expensive, since the bridge needed to be constantly coated with special paint to prevent corrosion. This has found its way into Scots language as a popular simile for a neverending task: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/like_painting_the_Forth_Bridg...
You don't need to compare to the "Bay Bridge". The Queensferry Crossing was recently completed and it sits right next to the Forth Bridge, it cost an estimated 1.35bn and it 2.7km long making it about £500 million per KM.
So there is a significant additional cost, however only one person was killed building it vs 73 for the forth bridge. It was also (of course) bitterly opposed by the green party, the friends of the earth, nimbies etc but thankfully these usual suspects were defeated.
You can't easily compare different bridges (especially on different continents!) with the different terrain. I assume the queensferry crossing is on the "3rd best" location to build a bridge on that part of the Forth, the Forth Bridge will have been able to choose the easiest route.
The queensferry crossing is regarded as quite well managed when it comes to costs: https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/sections/news/queensferry...
So there is a significant additional cost, however only one person was killed building it vs 73 for the forth bridge. It was also (of course) bitterly opposed by the green party, the friends of the earth, nimbies etc but thankfully these usual suspects were defeated.
You can't easily compare different bridges (especially on different continents!) with the different terrain. I assume the queensferry crossing is on the "3rd best" location to build a bridge on that part of the Forth, the Forth Bridge will have been able to choose the easiest route.
The queensferry crossing is regarded as quite well managed when it comes to costs: https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/sections/news/queensferry...
It's not entirely a fair comparison as the cost of labour and life have gone up significantly since then
It's estimated 78 people died constructing the forth bridge which would be unacceptable these days
It's estimated 78 people died constructing the forth bridge which would be unacceptable these days
Even that is assuming his projects would get funded in the first place
"After running your proposed project through the HM Treasury Green Book*, I'm afraid we can't justify funding it."
* The Green Book is how the government appraises public projects. It has often been accused of having a miserly view on the benefits of infrastructure, leading to regional disparities in spending.
* The Green Book is how the government appraises public projects. It has often been accused of having a miserly view on the benefits of infrastructure, leading to regional disparities in spending.
> planning permission for his projects
Worthwhile noting that back then the country was significantly less full of people to mount objections. e.g. Paddington was built where it is because that was the edge of the city at the time. Similarly Bristol Temple Meads was built in a meadow area outside the city. The were no major roads unless built by Romans.
Worthwhile noting that back then the country was significantly less full of people to mount objections. e.g. Paddington was built where it is because that was the edge of the city at the time. Similarly Bristol Temple Meads was built in a meadow area outside the city. The were no major roads unless built by Romans.
Here’s one of my favourtie videos about Brunel.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=21QqXumEWFU&pp=ygUcaXNhbWJhcmQ...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=21QqXumEWFU&pp=ygUcaXNhbWJhcmQ...
Though unsuccessful, another of Brunel's interesting use of technical innovations was the atmospheric railway ... Instead of using locomotives, the trains were moved by Clegg and Samuda's patented system of atmospheric (vacuum) traction, whereby stationary pumps sucked the air from a pipe placed in the centre of the track.
The section from Exeter to Newton (now Newton Abbot) was completed on this principle, and trains ran at approximately 68 miles per hour (109 km/h).[59] Pumping stations with distinctive square chimneys were sited at two-mile intervals.
Thats amazing, but I guess it kindof sucked
The section from Exeter to Newton (now Newton Abbot) was completed on this principle, and trains ran at approximately 68 miles per hour (109 km/h).[59] Pumping stations with distinctive square chimneys were sited at two-mile intervals.
Thats amazing, but I guess it kindof sucked
Even though I lived in Bristol for a few years, and traveled on the GWR thousands of times, I learned a few things from that article. e.g. that he was educated in France. So we have Napoleon to thank.
The Men That Will Not Be Blamed For Nothing have put some of his achievements to song - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=21QqXumEWFU. "Yerr, well I'm not a lot of men". If you enjoy that, then also have a listen to the helpful guide to identifying the different Mr Stevensons - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TKoMLqUx5xM.
Atmospheric railways were attempted a few different times, with similarly bad results. This page has a quite a bit more detail about one of the attempts:
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/croydon-experimental-at...
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/croydon-experimental-at...
Rodless pneumatic have a long history of being headaches. Having to seal the slot with leather, wax, and tallow didn't help. Here's how a modern one works.[1]
There's a famous example of a large rodless cylinder application - the launch system for the V-1 "buzz bomb" of WWII. It didn't have enough engine power to take off without help, so it was launched from a ramp, propelled by a piston in a tube much like the atmospheric railways. Power came from steam, created by the reaction of hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate, a very volatile combination. The V-1 itself just ran on low-octane gasoline.
During WWII, some V-1 buzz bombs crashed in England without detonating, and were analyzed and duplicated in the US, as the "Loon". But the Allies didn't have access to a launch ramp (those being in enemy territory at the time) so they didn't know how the launch system worked. Amusingly, that was a good thing. A new launch system had to be invented. The result was a solid fuel booster for rocket-assisted takeoff. This allowed a much more effective launch setup, with a short takeoff rail instead of a huge fixed concrete ramp clearly visible from the air.
Aircraft carrier steam catapults are rodless piston steam systems. Same principle.[2] Some of the same headaches.
[1] https://www.parker.com/content/dam/Parker-com/Literature/Lit...
[2] https://navalmarinearchive.com/research/ims/steam_cat_2.jpg
There's a famous example of a large rodless cylinder application - the launch system for the V-1 "buzz bomb" of WWII. It didn't have enough engine power to take off without help, so it was launched from a ramp, propelled by a piston in a tube much like the atmospheric railways. Power came from steam, created by the reaction of hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate, a very volatile combination. The V-1 itself just ran on low-octane gasoline.
During WWII, some V-1 buzz bombs crashed in England without detonating, and were analyzed and duplicated in the US, as the "Loon". But the Allies didn't have access to a launch ramp (those being in enemy territory at the time) so they didn't know how the launch system worked. Amusingly, that was a good thing. A new launch system had to be invented. The result was a solid fuel booster for rocket-assisted takeoff. This allowed a much more effective launch setup, with a short takeoff rail instead of a huge fixed concrete ramp clearly visible from the air.
Aircraft carrier steam catapults are rodless piston steam systems. Same principle.[2] Some of the same headaches.
[1] https://www.parker.com/content/dam/Parker-com/Literature/Lit...
[2] https://navalmarinearchive.com/research/ims/steam_cat_2.jpg
I first became aware of Isambard through the late works of Sting, in "Ballad of the Great Eastern", on "The Last Ship" album. Catchy song. It tells a darker story, likely taking some liberties with this legend.
https://youtu.be/eaMQxDvfHEg
https://youtu.be/eaMQxDvfHEg
I would actually say that it doesn't detail most of the ship's tragedy. The Great Eastern was responsible for damaging or sinking 10 other ships, that some guy humorously proposed using it to ram against the land to help create the Panama canal.
Is there a decent documentary or even book about him? I’ve long been fascinated by him and was hoping to consume something a bit less wikipedia/reference and there seemed to be only a couple of books with some mixed reviews. Which seems surprising for someone of such historical note.
There's a Channel 5 series about him: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10648480/
It's available on the high seas if you go looking.
It's available on the high seas if you go looking.
[deleted]
His name is so cool, that alone deserves a celebration!
I was in Bristol some weeks ago, took the opportunity to visit the suspension bridge. Breathtaking, to say the least.
Very ironic that he's on the HN front list when the UK govt has decided to cancel HS2.
I love seeing random Wiki pages hit the front page. On this topic I can highly recommend the book "The Lost Works of Isambard Kingdom Brunel". It was a fascinating read to learn of his impact on both bridges and trains, and neat to see a few sights from my visit to London years ago.
It is fun seeing the random wikis.
But I can't tell if it more or less fun to try to recognize which article inspired the post. In this case, I imagine it's the TBM post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37836889), which has a link to Brunel in the first fifth of the article.
It happens a lot on HN...
But I can't tell if it more or less fun to try to recognize which article inspired the post. In this case, I imagine it's the TBM post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37836889), which has a link to Brunel in the first fifth of the article.
It happens a lot on HN...
It does and it's not such a good thing - we try to avoid having multiple frontpage slots consumed by the same story cluster, and so we try to downweight follow-ups: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
Follow-up links are great of course! but they belong in the comments, not the submission feed.
Follow-up links are great of course! but they belong in the comments, not the submission feed.
Wikipedia. It’s not enough to call it a wiki
xyzelement(3)
> While performing a conjuring trick for the amusement of his children in 1843 Brunel accidentally inhaled a half-sovereign coin, which became lodged in his windpipe. A special pair of forceps failed to remove it, as did a machine devised by Brunel to shake it loose. At the suggestion of his father, Brunel was strapped to a board and turned upside-down, and the coin was jerked free.
It feels like the hacker spirit - the enthusiasm for dumb tricks and then having to invent your way out the pickle you have got yourself in.