Download document:
Isambard Kingdom Brunel – Obituary - .PDF file.
More than 150 years after his death Isambard Kingdom Brunel remains one of the few engineers that most British people can name.
Revered alike by Industrialists, politicians, media and the general public he regularly tops lists of “Great Britons”, is frequently held up as an example of the qualities missing from modern Britain, and even played a starring role in the recent Olympics opening ceremony
But as the Obituary that appeared in The Engineer following his death in Sept 1859 illustrates, a man regarded by many today as the greatest engineer that ever lived was viewed very differently by at least some of his contemporaries.
Mr Brunel was almost uniformly unsuccessful
Dwelling on a number of projects that it asserts were failures, the article describes Brunel’s career as “unfortunate”, writing that ‘notwithstanding the number and imposing character of his works many of them, often indeed through no fault of his own, have proved unsuccessful.’
His celebrated bridge over the Thames at Maidenhead – today in the running to be considered a world heritage site – is described as “bold, but unsuccessful”, while the Great Western Railway – routinely held up us one of the marvels of the Victorian age of innovation – is described as remarkable for its high cost rather than “any merits which it may possess as a work of engineering.”
Brunel’s shipbuilding efforts come in for a bit more praise. On his championing of screw propulsion for the SS Great Britain the magazine wrote that “Mr Brunel never allowed himself to overlook any new discovery giving promise of value in its application to engineering. Being in a position to exercise considerable influence he did not hesitate to employ it in introducing the new means of propulsion which has wrought such a marked change in the construction and working of our ocean steam marine.’
The article also contains a valuable lesson for today’s politicians and businesses, who increasingly struggle to justify investment in projects with little short-term economic pay-off. ‘He seized upon, modified and carried out many valuable discoveries which came before him and in this way often gave them a value which they would not otherwise have possessed. Judged by another standard, that of the financial results of the vast sums of money the expenditure of which he controlled, Mr Brunel was almost uniformly unsuccessful.’
Brunel was reportedly a friend of The Engineer’s founder Edward Charles Healey, so it seems unlikely that the paper would have an axe to grind. But after reading the article’s damning analysis of his personality its hard to escape the feeling that the maverick engineer had managed to upset someone on the editorial team. ‘He did not seek, in proportion to his opportunities, to raise those beneath him, and comparatively few men enjoyed his confidence,. He often managed to quarrel with his contractors. He had little sympathy for struggling genius, he seldom lost an opportunity for decrying against inventions and inventors not withstanding that his reputation was largely due to the applications which he had made of the ideas of others.’
i would be fascinated to learn how the Thames bridge was regarded as ‘unsuccesful’ – if a bridge meetrs its design requirements ie carry the specified traffic (and I guess it does much more now) and stays up (probably longer then expected) how can it be other than successful?
At least Brunel merited an obituary even if a bit scathing, it was an indication that then engineers were regarded as someone worth remembering. I wonder how many of today’s engineers will get recognition or will they be lost in the anonymity of design by committee and engineering constrained by the need for short term profit. I also wonder of the engineers that do manage to push their heads in to the public consciousness how many column inches they would get in comparison to so called football “stars” and the numerous other“ media generated celebrities”.
I have noticed, the ICE (inst’n Civil Engineers) have almost given up on obits or even notice of demise – they used to print, at least, a list of Deaths of Members . . “in Memoriam”.
Some do get in the general press, e.g the Prof who most helped me: PW Rowe of Manchester – a shock to see his beaming face in the Times a while ago, rather prematurely demised. Just try “googling” a few more you know, and see. Senior academics seem to do best here. Lord Henry Chilver was another, recent. And, Professor Eric Laithwaite, of Manchester and Imperial College
The Daily Telegraph has a neat decision/sort “tree” to look for scientific etc obits.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/science-obituaries/
Perhaps we/The Engineer should suggest, they should add “Engineer”/Ir. to their list/categories.
In support of David above, I checked this from Wiki – with the stress implication of an arch (or catenary) being flat in profile/gradient. .. There were other implications for carrying the resulting sub-horizontal thrust into the foundation material too, and to avoid “spread”.
“The (Maidenhead) railway is carried across the river on two brick arches, which at the time of building were the widest and flattest in the world.[4][5] …. The flatness of the arches was necessary to avoid putting a “hump” in the bridge, ……
It has been claimed that the board of the Great Western Railway did not believe that the arches would stay up under the weight of the trains and ordered Brunel to leave the wooden formwork used to construct the arches in place. However, Brunel simply lowered the formwork slightly so that it had no structural effect, but appeared to be in place. Later, when the formwork was washed away in floods, but the bridge remained, the strength of the arches was accepted.”
In the 1851 Census, Joseph Locke, a leading figure and contemporary of Brunel, is living in Lowndes Square, London and you don’t get much better than that. He lists himself as Engineer and Member of Parliament. I like the fact that Engineer is first.