The life of George Stephenson, railway engineer - Lighthouse ...

CHAP. XII.] LOCOMOTION ON COMMON EOADS. 141
was clear that the same engine, if applied to a railway, instead
of conveying 20 or 30 persons, would easily convey 200 or 300 ;
and, instead of travelling at a speed of 10 or 12 miles an hour,
a speed of at least 30 or 40 miles an hour might be attained.
All this seems trite and common-place enough, now that the
thing has been done ; but it was not so in those days, before it
had been attempted or even thought of, excepting by one man,
whom his contemporaries spoke of as a dreamer and enthusiast
on the subject of railways. Then, the so-called ". practical " men
were bent upon a really impracticable thing—the economical
application of steam power to turnpike roads ; while the " enthusiast
" was pursuing the only safe road to practical success. At
this day it is difficult to understand how the sagacious and strong
common-sense views of Stephenson on this subject failed to force
themselves sooner upon the minds of those who were persisting in
their vain though ingenious attempts to apply locomotive power to
ordinary roads. For a long time they continued to hold with ob-
stinate perseverance to the belief that for steam purposes a soft
road was better than a hard one—a road easily crushed better
than one. incapable of being crushed ;
and they held to this after
it had been demonstrated in all parts of the mining districts, that
iron tramways were better than paved roads. But the fallacy
that iron was incapable of adhesion upon iron continued to pre-
vail, and the projectors of steam travelling on common roads
only shared in the common belief. They still considered that
roughness of surface was essential to produce " bite," especially
in surmounting acclivities ; the truth being, that they confounded
roughness of surface with tenacity of surface and contact of
parts ; not perceiving that a yielding surface which would adapt
itself to the tread of the wheel, could never become an unyield-
ing surface to form a fulcrum for its progression. It was the
error of reasoning from one circumstance, instead of taking all
the circumstances into account.