Modelling of the Interaction of the

Different Vehicles and Various

Transport Modes Aleksander
S■adkowski
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/modelling-of-the-interaction-of-the-different-vehicles-a
nd-various-transport-modes-aleksander-sladkowski/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Rail Transport Systems Approach 1st Edition Aleksander

S■adkowski (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/rail-transport-systems-
approach-1st-edition-aleksander-sladkowski-eds/

Five Modes of Scepticism: Sextus Empiricus and the

Agrippan Modes Stefan Sienkiewicz

https://textbookfull.com/product/five-modes-of-scepticism-sextus-
empiricus-and-the-agrippan-modes-stefan-sienkiewicz/

Modelling Public Transport Passenger Flows in the Era

of Intelligent Transport Systems COST Action TU1004
TransITS 1st Edition Guido Gentile

https://textbookfull.com/product/modelling-public-transport-
passenger-flows-in-the-era-of-intelligent-transport-systems-cost-
action-tu1004-transits-1st-edition-guido-gentile/

Of Odysseys and Oddities Scales and Modes of

Interaction Between Prehistoric Aegean Societies and
their Neighbours Sheffield Studies in Aegean
Archaeology Barry Molloy Editor
https://textbookfull.com/product/of-odysseys-and-oddities-scales-
and-modes-of-interaction-between-prehistoric-aegean-societies-
and-their-neighbours-sheffield-studies-in-aegean-archaeology-
Land use-transport interaction models 1 Edition Edition
Rubén Cordera

https://textbookfull.com/product/land-use-transport-interaction-
models-1-edition-edition-ruben-cordera/

Spatial Practices Modes of Action and Engagement with

the City 1st Edition Melanie Dodd (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/spatial-practices-modes-of-
action-and-engagement-with-the-city-1st-edition-melanie-dodd-
editor/

Control of Operation Modes of Gas Consumers in the

Event of Gas Supply Disruptions Viktor I. Rabchuk

https://textbookfull.com/product/control-of-operation-modes-of-
gas-consumers-in-the-event-of-gas-supply-disruptions-viktor-i-
rabchuk/

Book of Amazing Vehicles Coll.

https://textbookfull.com/product/book-of-amazing-vehicles-coll/

Computational Modelling of Concrete Structures:

Proceedings of the Conference on Computational
Modelling of Concrete and Concrete Structures 1st
Edition Günther Meschke
https://textbookfull.com/product/computational-modelling-of-
concrete-structures-proceedings-of-the-conference-on-
computational-modelling-of-concrete-and-concrete-structures-1st-
Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation and Infrastructure
Series Editor: Janusz Kacprzyk

Aleksander Sładkowski Editor

Modelling of the
Interaction of the
Different Vehicles
and Various
Transport Modes
Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation
and Infrastructure

Series editor
Janusz Kacprzyk, Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warszawa, Poland
The series “Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation and Infrastructure” (LNITI)
publishes new developments and advances in the various areas of intelligent
transportation and infrastructure. The intent is to cover the theory, applications, and
perspectives on the state-of-the-art and future developments relevant to topics such as
intelligent transportation systems, smart mobility, urban logistics, smart grids, critical
infrastructure, smart architecture, smart citizens, intelligent governance, smart
architecture and construction design, as well as green and sustainable urban
structures. The series contains monographs, conference proceedings, edited volumes,
lecture notes and textbooks. Of particular value to both the contributors and the
readership are the short publication timeframe and the world-wide distribution, which
enable wide and rapid dissemination of high-quality research output.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15991

Aleksander Sładkowski
Editor

Modelling of the Interaction

of the Different Vehicles
and Various Transport Modes

123
Editor
Aleksander Sładkowski
Silesian University of Technology
Katowice, Poland

ISSN 2523-3440 ISSN 2523-3459 (electronic)

Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation and Infrastructure
ISBN 978-3-030-11511-1 ISBN 978-3-030-11512-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11512-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018966858

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

Studying modern fiction, one can see that many authors note certain changes in the
perception of the world around us. Very often the events of a particular story take
place in different countries and even on different continents. A hundred years ago, it
would have been difficult to imagine such a plot. In 1930, a special term appeared—
globalization. We can, of course, give a scientific definition of this term, for
example, «the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked
especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign
labor markets».1 This term has many definitions that ultimately denote the same.
It is based on the improvement of means of communication, if by this we mean
the development of means of communication, the generalization of financial mar-
kets, and the placement of means of production in different countries. And, nev-
ertheless, the basis of all this is the development of means of transport. It can be
said that without the transport industry, no globalization would have been possible.
Therefore, the development of international transport systems is currently more
relevant than ever.
The main idea of writing this monograph was to familiarize readers with the
experience of the development of transport systems in various countries, which
differ in both the level of economic development and the degree of integration into
the international community. However, often problems in the development of the
transport industry in these countries are similar and the proposed solutions, which
are developed in less economically developed countries, can also be used in highly
developed countries.
Another idea was to consider issues related to the problems of delivery of goods
on the most loaded routes, which is the transport connection between the countries
of East and Southeast Asia and the European Union. Obviously, this is due to the
new concept of the new Silk Road. This concept was formulated in 2013 by the

1
Merriam-Webster. Globalization (2018) URL: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
globalization.

v
vi Preface

President of China Xi Jinping and then supported at various levels by a number of

top leaders of countries participating in this process. In the future, this initiative was
called “Belt and Road” initiative.2
No less relevant are the problems of transport, as the main component of the
so-called smart city. All these ideas are based not only on new constructive solu-
tions, but also on the issues of modeling transport systems. The last aspect was put
in the title of the book that was brought to the attention of readers.
This monothematic monograph is a collective work of scientists representing
scientific and educational organizations from different countries: Bulgaria, Italy,
Kazakhstan, Poland, and Russia. As stated above, the book discusses the interaction
of various types of transport and individual vehicles, and model transport systems.
The first parts of the book are largely focused on the problems of rail transport,
its interaction with other modes of transport, as well as comparing the transport of
various modes of transport. In particular, the part written by Prof. S. Stoilova
considers a multi-criteria assessment of transport systems, including systems based
on rail transport. Various optimization methods are proposed. The main goal of the
research was to adapt the methods developed for railway transport for other types of
transport.
The next part, the author of which is Dr. K. Markowska, is devoted to the quality
problems of logistics processes at their different stages, ranging from preliminary
planning, receiving an order, to its implementation. Logistic operators, transport
companies, or customized freight handlers, which are mainly engaged in railway
transportation, as well as their connection with other types of transport, were the
objects of analysis.
The third part of the monograph, which was jointly prepared by Kazakh and
Polish authors, is quite close in subject. This part is devoted to modeling (fore-
casting) rail transportation and short-term planning. Very often, the problems of
such planning are associated with an insufficient amount of preliminary informa-
tion. Intellectual neural networks allow to solve this problem.
In the part that is written by teachers and researchers of the Sapienza University
of Rome, marshaling yards are considered that combine different types of transport,
but the key one is railway transport. This is a very promising direction, which
would increase the role of this type of transport not only for Italy, but also for the
entire European transport network.
The part, written by teachers of the Silesian University of Technology
(Katowice, Poland), is thematically similar to the previous part. It considers
intermodal terminals, one of the modes of transport for which is rail transport. Such
terminals are especially important for Poland, which is a key transit country in the
implementation of transcontinental traffic on the East–West routes.

2
Hofman B (2015) China’s One Belt One Road Initiative: What we know thus far. URL: http://
blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/china-one-belt-one-road-initiative-what-we-know-thus-far.
Preface vii

One of the important transport arteries of Europe is the Danube River. It con-
nects many countries of Central and Southern Europe. It can also serve as a
potentially important corridor for intermodal transport. Unfortunately, the possi-
bilities of such shipments are so far not fully utilized. The joint work of Bulgarian
and Polish scientists is considering the prospects for the development of such
transportation.
The following three parts, written by Polish and Italian scientists, are devoted to
the problems of urban transport. In particular, the Silesian agglomeration is the most
populated region of Poland and one of the largest megacities of Europe. But it also
carries many problems associated with the organization and sustainable operation of
transport systems. The specificity of this region was a certain disunity of neigh-
boring cities. Combining these cities into one metropolis is the decision of recent
years. This is a very promising solution that contributes to the accelerated devel-
opment of regional and urban transport, but a number of organizational and eco-
nomic problems are also associated with these problems, which are discussed in the
proposed monograph. The authors of this part, who represent the University of
Economics in Katowice, were the initiators of the union of the Silesian agglom-
eration into a megalopolis.
One of the possible solutions is the use of circular traffic at street intersections,
and, in particular, the organization of mini-roundabouts. This proposal of scientists
from the University of Pisa has already been successfully used in several cities
of the Silesian metropolis.
Another promising area for the development of urban transport is the use of
intelligent transport systems. Their use for some tram and bus routes has been
considered in the proposed parts of the monograph. This technical solution pro-
posed by scientists of the Silesian University of Technology is already used in Italy.
However, certain aspects are a scientific innovation.
This once again underlines the fact that many ideas, as the saying goes, are in the
air. However, often the implementation has local features.
The final and most extensive part of the monograph is written by Russian
scientists. It addresses the problems of global logistics. Here was developed
mathematical and simulation models for selecting parameters of intermodal trans-
port systems. Examples of the use of such models were given. The role of digiti-
zation in solving new transport and logistic problems is considered. The influence
of economic decisions on the development of transport systems has been studied.
Thus, it is necessary to emphasize the complex nature of the approach to solving
rather complex problems of the development of transport systems that use different
transport modes and different means of transport. The works of scientists from
viii Preface

different countries complement each other, and a discussion on the prospects for
the development of the transport industry takes place on the pages of the
monograph.
The editor of this monograph already had experience of interaction with the
Springer publishing house. In particular, three monographs were also published in
the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control series, which also dealt with transport
problems.3, 4, 5 The authors consider this monograph as a continuation of research
in this industry. Despite the fact that most of the authors are working in the uni-
versities, the monograph is directly aimed at solving of essential problems facing
logistics and transport in different countries. Some part of the problems was solved,
realizing ideas into concrete technical, economic, or organizational solutions. For
other problems identified ways for solutions.
The book is written primarily for professionals involved in various problems of
cargo deliveries, transport planning, and logistics. Nevertheless, the authors hope
that this book may be useful for manufacturers, for the technical staff of logistics
companies, for managers, for students of transport specialties, as well as for a wide
range of readers, who are interested in the current state of transport in different
countries.

Katowice, Poland Aleksander Sładkowski

3
Sładkowski A, Pamuła W (eds.) (2015) Intelligent Transportation Systems—Problems and
Perspectives. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control 32. Cham, Heidelberg, New York,
Dordrecht, London: Springer. 316 p. ISBN 978-3-319-19149-2.
4
Sładkowski A (ed.) (2017) Rail transport—systems approach. Studies in Systems, Decision and
Control 87. Cham: Springer. 456 p. ISBN 978-3-319-51502-1.
5
Sładkowski A (ed.) (2018) Transport systems and delivery of cargo on East–West routes. Studies
in Systems, Decision and Control 155. Cham: Springer. 431 p. ISBN 978-3-319-78294-2.
Contents

Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection of Transportation

Technology in Transport Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Svetla Stoilova
Shaping Quality of Service in Freight Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Katarzyna Markowska
Application of Artificial Neural Networks for Short-Term Forecasting
of Container Flows in Kazakhstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Zhomart Abdirassilov, Aleksander Sładkowski, Aliya Izbairova
and Sugerali Sarbaev
Measuring Performances of Multi-mode Marshalling Yards . . . . . . . . . 159
Marco Antognoli, Riccardo Licciardello, Stefano Ricci and Eros Tombesi
Intermodal Terminals Network Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Maria Cieśla, Jerzy Margielewicz and Damian Gąska
The Danube River, Multimodality and Intermodality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Velizara Pencheva, Asen Asenov, Aleksander Sładkowski, Ivan Georgiev,
Ivan Beloev and Kamen Ivanov
Key Instruments of Sustainable Urban Mobility on the Example
of the Silesian Metropolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Barbara Kos, Grzegorz Krawczyk and Robert Tomanek
Mini-roundabouts for Improving Urban Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Antonio Pratelli, Marino Lupi, Chiara Pratelli and Alessandro Farina

ix
x Contents

Problems of Quality of Public Transportation Systems in Smart

Cities—Smoothness and Disruptions in Urban Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
Grzegorz Karoń and Renata Żochowska
Features of Logistic Terminal Complexes Functioning in the
Transition to the Circular Economy and Digitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
Irina Makarova, Ksenia Shubenkova, Vadim Mavrin,
Eduard Mukhametdinov, Aleksey Boyko, Zlata Almetova
and Vladimir Shepelev
Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection
of Transportation Technology
in Transport Network

Svetla Stoilova

Abstract The chapter presents a methodology for multi-criteria selection of

transportation technologies in a transport network. The methodology consists of the
following stages: development of transport alternatives; optimization the parameters
of the transportation for each alternative by economical criterion, evaluation the
alternatives, taking into account the uncertainty of the processes; choice of additional
quantitative and qualitative criteria for assessing the alternatives, and determination
the weights of additional criteria by using AHP method or its fuzzy version by
applying the theory of fuzzy sets FAHP; prioritization the alternatives according the
additional criteria by applying PROMETHEE method; definition an complex opti-
mization criterion for choosing the optimal alternative of transport technologies in a
state of certainty and uncertainty. The methodology has been applied to develop a
multi-criteria model for the optimization of the transport scheme in passenger rail
transport; multi-criteria model for route selection in the transport network;
multi-criteria model for assessing the efficiency of intermodal passenger and freight
transport. The research objective of this chapter was to experiment the application of
the developed methodology in different modes of transport.

Keywords Optimization AHP FAHP DEAMATEL PROMETHEE







Transport network Transportation Intermodal Railway Road transport

1 To the Question of Multi-criteria Assessment

for Transport Technologies

The technology and organization of transport with different modes of transport

depends on many factors that affect the transport process differently. On the one
hand, it is important for transport operators to provide transport services at

S. Stoilova (&)
Faculty of Transport, Technical University of Sofia, 8 Kl. Ohridski Blvd, 1000 Sofia,
Bulgaria
e-mail: stoilova@tu-sofia.bg

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

A. Sładkowski (ed.), Modelling of the Interaction of the Different Vehicles
and Various Transport Modes, Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation
and Infrastructure, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11512-8_1
2 S. Stoilova

minimum operating costs, in meeting the deadline for the delivery time and con-
straints of transport infrastructure. On the other hand, it is important for customers
to have fast, secure, reliable, convenient and cheap transportation. From the point of
view of the state and the policy of the European Union, transport must reduce
environmental pollution by introducing energy-efficient and environmentally
friendly transport technologies, which is a priority of many European documents.
In this respect, the development of an integrated multi-criteria assessment and
selection system for transport technology is an important task.
The research in the field of efficient transportation technologies can be identified
in three main groups:
• First: scientific research aimed at optimizing the organization of transport flows
for passenger and freight carriage using one type or combined transport;
research and optimization of processes in logistics chains and development of
energy-efficient technologies; study of processes and technical equipment in
logistics centres; exploring the interaction between modes of transport; study of
the impact of infrastructure parameters and rolling stock on transport technol-
ogy, etc.
• Second: European documents, directives and decisions, operational programs
and strategies for energy efficient and environmentally friendly transport.
• Third: National strategies, programs and concepts for the development of the
transport system.
Each mode of transport seeks to use its advantages as competitive to others. The
priorities of the contemporary development of transport technologies, are focused
on transport-logistics activity with the integrated use of different modes of transport
such as road and rail transportation in the logistics chain.
In the different researches, one or more optimization parameters and criteria are
applied in the modelling of technologies in different modes of transport. The factors
that are applied are of importance either to transport companies or to society, i.e.
environmental protection. The important tasks for transport operators are mini-
mization the fuel consumption [4, 23]; minimization the operating costs of transport
[53, 77, 85], optimization the routing [1, 27], optimization of processes in logistics
centres [71] and others. The factors that are important in terms of the environmental
protection and society are reducing vehicle emissions; reducing noise; increase the
speed; introducing environmentally friendly and energy-efficient transport tech-
nologies. In scientific research, these issues have been examined separately in
various publications. The selection of transportation technology is influenced by a
set of factors that need to be taken into account when making a decision.
The research objective of this chapter is to develop and verify the applicability of
a complex multi-criteria methodology for assessing and selecting transportation
technologies that take into account quantitative and qualitative economic, envi-
ronmental, technological, social and specific criteria of transport technology. In the
theoretical part of this chapter is presented the stages of complex methodology. In
Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection of Transportation … 3

the research part of this chapter the application of methodology in different type of
transport are analysed. The examples are shown for Bulgarian railway and road
networks.

2 Theoretical Background of the Research

The multi-criteria approach can be apply for evaluation of transport technologies

using various criteria. The choice of the transport technologies depends by both
quantitative and qualitative factors which are on different scales and bounds of
evaluation. The transport operators establish as the main criteria costs, incomes and
others economic factors. In the same time the user of the transport service has also
different criteria of assessment of transport technology. These assessments include
qualitative issues (e.g. safety, reliability, convenience) and quantitative (e.g. speed,
frequency of transport, fare price). In the other hand the transportation process have
to be environmental friendly. The process of evaluation the transport technology is
a complex task. Therefore, the present study aims to take into account the
requirements of different parts in the transport process—operators, users, state and
to evaluate this process in an integrated method, assuming the complexity of the
system of decision making.
Multi-criteria methods are a tool of decision making in complex situations. They
appertain to the decision making theory and allow different criteria to be taken into
account when choose the optimal alternative of predefined ones. The choice of
criteria and alternatives is set by the person making the decision.
The assessments are performed by experts who give estimates on predefined
scales. Many approaches and methods have been elaborated to solve the tasks of
multi-criteria analysis. Different comparisons of some methods are made in [8, 9,
21, 24, 25, 71, 95, 97, 99, 111]. Figure 1 shows the sequence of the process of
decision making using multi-criteria analysis.
The structure of the decision when is applied the multi-criteria analysis consists
of the following elements:
• Goals: This is the problem to be solved.
• Criteria: These are quantitative and qualitative parameters for decision making
about the alternatives and goals.

Fig. 1 Decision-making process

4 S. Stoilova

• Alternatives: These are the objects of evaluation and choice. They should be
ranked on the basis of estimates expressing the value of the i -th alternative with
respect to the j-th criterion.
The application of multi-criteria analysis methods makes it possible to take into
account different criteria, including those relating to ecology, the field of logistics,
the development of transport projects; decision making on investment in transport
infrastructure; choice of mode of transport, route selection in a transport network;
etc. The main methods of multi-criteria analysis that are applied are the Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) method and its fuzzy version using fuzzy sets theory
(FAHP), the Preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation
method (PROMETHEE), Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality method
(ELECTRE), the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
method (TOPSIS) and the Decision making trial and evaluation laboratory method
(DEMATEL).
The multi-criteria analysis is used for research in transport and logistics [6, 15, 38,
40, 59, 71]. The methods AHP PROMETHEE are widely used for decision-making
[47, 48]. The application of multi-criteria analysis methods for transport research is
focused on the following main areas:
• Selection of a transport project;
• Selection a route in a transport network;
• Choice of transport;
• Study of carriage;
• Study of environmental impact.
Table 1 presents the used criteria and methods of multi-criteria analysis applied
in transport researches. The results show that AHP method and its fuzzy version
FAHP method are the most commonly used.
The multi-criteria analysis methods are appropriate to determine the importance
of previously introduced criteria and sub-criteria, their mutual influences and for
prioritization of the pre-defined transport alternatives. The important factors for
choosing a mode of transport are cost, speed, security, reliability and transport
capacity [12, 13, 20]. These criteria are of a different nature in terms of transport
services—carriers and consumers. In scientific researches these criteria are being
explored jointly, which makes it impossible to take into account the importance of
the transport service to the carriers and users of transport.
The main tendencies of the research related to the optimization of transport
technology in the transport network are aimed at solving the following problems:
• Optimization of the transport scheme, including the determination of the routes
and the number of means of transport according to the optimization criterion;
• Optimization of train connections at the nodes;
• Study of passenger and freight flows;
• Study of intermodal transport;
• Study of environmental parameters of transport.
Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection of Transportation … 5

Table 1 Application of multi-criteria analysis methods

Criteria Method
Selection of a transport project
Ecological criteria, costs, benefits [36] ANP
Accessibility, safety, comfort, surround environment, landscape [55] AHP
Costs, surround environment, transport efficiency [53, 54] AHP
Transport, economics, social, ecology [28] AHP
Land use, economics, social and ecology criteria [81] Utility function
Selection a route in a transport network
Economics, social and ecology criteria [77] AHP-ELECTRE
Management, schedule of movement, economic, comfort, safety [82] FAHP, TOPSIS
Costs, time travel, risk of damage to the load, risk of accidents [18, 66, FAHP
67, 76]
Costs, time needed to travel, risk, ecology [42] AHP
Transport efficiency, ecology, social and economic criteria [46] SMCA
Ecology, social and economic criteria [75] AHP, GIS
Choice of transport
Harmful emissions, noise, safety, transport capacity, infrastructure, FAHP
seasonality, energy resources [113]
Cost, speed, security, accuracy, transport capacity [12, 13, 20] AHP
Cost, speed, accuracy, safety, transport capacity [107] AHP
Social, economic criteria, environmental pollution [41, 64] AHP-ELECTRE,
FAHP
Technological, economic, energy, ecology [60] WSM
Study of carriage
Distance, number of locomotives, number of passengers, staff, stations, VIKOR
accidents, costs [61]
Price for delivery, delivery time, reliability, ecology [101] AHP
Technical condition of vehicles, technology of transportation, ticket AHP
price, safety [56]
Safety, speed, time travel, convenience [34] AHP
Safety, energy efficiency, competitiveness, quality of service [53, 54, 62, AHP
63]
Passengers, environment, investment projects [112] FAHP
Fuel consumption, emissions, noise, engine power [3] CP
Economic, technical, social, state criteria [78] PROMETHEE
Ecology, economic, technical and social criteria [10, 39, 65] AHP
Price of carriage, passengers, density of the transport network, speed AHP
[109]
Technical equipment of an intermodal terminal [47, 52] AHP
Environmental impact
Fuel consumption, emissions, noise, engine power [2] AHP
Types emissions [14] PROMETHEE
(continued)
6 S. Stoilova

Table 1 (continued)
Criteria Method
Social and economic criteria, environmental pollution [43] FAHP
Ecology, economic, technical and social criteria [49] AHP
Emissions, energy security [11] PROMETHEE
Infrastructure, transport management [104] AHP

The main mathematical methods used in the transport research are: linear opti-
mization, dynamic optimization, fuzzy sets theory, simulation modelling, heuristic
methods, stochastic models, multi-parametric optimization, and multi-criteria
analysis.
In [106] a multi objective model was developed for the selection of technology
for transportation by criteria journey time, ticket price, number of transfers of
passengers, distance between the stations, traffic interval. The minimum of oper-
ating costs, minimum loss of time for the passenger [17, 80, 105], maximum profit
and minimum cost of the company [45, 68–70, 108], minimum cost [17, 57] have
been studied as an optimization criteria using linear or fuzzy linear optimization
models. In [79] a nonlinear optimization model have been developed based on the
minimum cost of the passenger and the minimum cost of the carrier Some authors
apply a genetic algorithm for the choice of transport technology. For criteria have
been used: maximization the interests of railway companies and passenger satis-
faction [79, 113]; aggregate cost for passenger travel, ticket price, value of pas-
senger time travel, average passenger waiting [113]; optimization of the frequency
of train stops [58].
The ecological parameters of transport are discussed in [5, 19, 37, 51]. Linear
optimization based on the minimum emissions is applied. The criteria cost, time,
accuracy, accessibility, comfort, environmental impact are applied in [30].
There are different methods for determining the emissions. Most of the methods
allow determining the harmful emissions for different modes of transport, such as
NAEI [35, 96], MEET [33], ECOPASSENGER [32], and ECOTRANSIT [30]. For
preliminary estimates, it is appropriate to use the European emission standards
which define the exhaust emission values of motor vehicles placed on the European
market. Amounts of pollutants under European Standards can be determined
according to the Euro standard and mileage, and for heavy duty vehicles and engine
power.
The operating costs are a main criterion in the development of transport tech-
nology [98, 102, 103, 110]. For establishing the operating costs it is necessary to
carry out a preliminary optimization of the investigated alternatives for determining
the organization of the transport for each of them. As a basic criterion for carriers,
the operating costs should be considered as a independent factor for the choice of
transport technology.
Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection of Transportation … 7

The social and economic, technological, environmental and other factors also
influence the choice of transport. These factors can usually be interpreted as con-
tributing benefits to the transport process from the point of view of transport users
and society. For that reason, these criteria should be examined separately by
multi-criteria analysis and to evaluate their integrated influence on the choice of
transport alternatives.
To select a transport technology, it is necessary to introduce a complex
decision-making criterion that takes into account both the operating costs and the
additional factors affecting the transport process.
The impact of the change in transport flows on the choice of an optimal transport
scheme has not been sufficiently explored. The trends in traffic flow change are
examined by applying different forecasting methods, without taking into account of
the impact on the transport scheme. It is necessary to introduce a complex criterion
for choosing a solution which to take into account the variability in traffic flows and
to include both operational costs and other criteria important to the transport pro-
cess. In this case, it is appropriate to introduce an integrated approach consists of
multi-criteria analysis and an appropriate method of theory of decision.
The uncertainty of transport processes is not well explored. The theory of fuzzy
sets can be applied in traffic optimization to take into account the uncertainty of
selected parameters of the transport process, as passenger flows, filling of vehicles,
etc.
When choosing the ecological transport technology, it is necessary to compare
variants for the different modes of transport, which have been found that offer
service with minimal environmental pollution, respectively minimum fuel con-
sumption for road transport. The rail transport is for the most part electrified and, in
this sense, it is environmentally friendly. It is necessary when compare the alter-
natives of transportation by railway (intermodal) transport and road transport, for
road transport to apply pre-established effective routes according to a selected
optimization criterion.
The development of a multi-criteria system for the selection of transport tech-
nologies in the transport network is related to the creation of a complex method-
ology that can be applied in research with different scope—selection of technology
for transport by rail; assessment of the effectiveness of intermodal transport;
assessment of the efficiency of urban rail transport; selecting a route for transport in
the road network; influence of changes in transport flows on the choice of transport
scheme.
The complex methodology for multi-criteria selection of transportation tech-
nologies in the transport network is given in point 3, in point 4 the methodology is
applied for passenger rail transport, in point 5 it is used for intermodal passenger
transport, in point 6 it is applied for multi-criteria selection of route of a road train,
in point 7 it is applied for the evaluation of intermodal freight transport.
8 S. Stoilova

3 Methodological Approach

The decision-making process in transport management is connected to the analysis

of different, sometimes contradictory criteria and data. Generally, there is not
alternative that is optimal for all criteria, but there are a number of alternatives for
which any improvement in the value of one criterion give deterioration in the value
of at least one of the other criteria called a set of non-dominated Pareto optimal
alternatives (solutions). Any alternative to the Pareto’s set can be a solution to the
multi-criterion task. In order to choose alternative, additional information is
required, which is determined by the decision-maker or a group of experts, which
give estimates based on a predefined scale.
When selecting an optimal transport technology, it is necessary to evaluate
different alternatives. The research can be realized by applying an integrated sci-
entific approach including mathematical optimization models and multi-criteria
analysis in order to evaluate and select an optimal transport technology.
The complex methodology includes the following main stages:
• Stage 1. Development of transport alternatives.
• Stage 2. Determination of main criterion for evaluation of the alternatives.
• Stage 3. Choice of additional quantitative and qualitative criteria for assessing
the alternatives. Determination the weights of criteria.
• Stage 4. Prioritization the alternatives according to the additional criteria.
• Stage 5. Choice of an optimal alternative to a complex optimization criterion,
including the economical criterion and additional criteria.

3.1 Development of Transport Alternatives

The alternatives include variant schemes of transportation, for example the routes of
organization, the category of carriage according speed. When compare different
mode of transport the alternatives include organization of transportation by parallel
routes.


S ¼ a1 ; . . .; aj . . .; am ð1Þ

where: aj is the alternative of transportation; j ¼ 1; . . .; m is the number of

alternatives.
A linear optimization model can be applied for optimization of parameters of
transportation for each alternative according economical criterion. For passenger
transport, it is appropriate to use a fuzzy linear optimization model by applying
fuzzy sets theory to take account of the inconstancy of passenger traffic and the
filling of vehicles. This allows increasing the adequacy when made decisions.
Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection of Transportation … 9

In freight transport the main economic criterion is the fuel consumption in road
transport or the electricity costs for train movements in railway transport.

3.2 Determination of Main Criterion for Evaluation

of the Alternatives

In the second stage of methodology, the choosing of an optimal alternative (variant

scheme) is done by main criterion—economical criterion. The optimization of the
transport technology for each alternative (variant scheme) is performed by this
criterion and the number of vehicles, categories of transportations, stops and other
necessary parameters for each alternative aj are determined. The criterion of opti-
mization may be the full operational costs (direct and indirect), direct operating
costs, fuel consumption, which is a part of the operating costs, or other economical
criterion.
When is applied the criterion minimum operating cost the optimal alternative is
determined as follow:
 
minaj 2S cj aj ; currency=day; ð2Þ
 
where: cj aj , is the operating costs for alternative aj , EUR/day. They are deter-
mined by individual optimizations for each alternative aj by applying an eco-
nomical criterion such as minimum operating cost to define the optimal parameters
of transportation, for example number of vehicles, number of categories of trans-
portation according the speed, etc.
The parameters of each alternative are:

aj ¼ fpj1 ; . . .; pjz ; . . .; pjZ g; ð3Þ

where: pjz are the parameters of j-th alternative aj ; z ¼ 1; . . .; Z is the number of

parameters determined by individual optimization of alternatives.
In this stage of methodology can be made optimization of the parameters of the
transportation for each alternative by main criterion, to be evaluated the alterna-
tives, taking into account the uncertainty of the processes.
A linear optimization model can be applied for optimization of parameters of
transportation for each alternative according economical criterion. For passenger
transport, it is appropriate to use a fuzzy linear optimization model by applying
fuzzy sets theory to take account of the inconstancy of passenger traffic and the
filling of vehicles. This allows increasing the adequacy when made decisions. In
freight transport the main economic criterion is the fuel consumption in road
transport or the cost of electricity in railway transport.
10 S. Stoilova

3.3 Choice of Additional Quantitative and Qualitative

Criteria for Assessing the Alternatives. Determination
the Weights of Criteria

For additional criteria technological, social, environmental and other factors are
taken into account, i.e.:

K ¼ fk1 ; . . .; ki ; . . .; kn g; ð4Þ

where: K is the matrix of additional criteria; ki are the additional criteria; i ¼

1; . . .; n are the number of additional criteria.
The criteria and sub-criteria may be quantitative (i.e. measurable) or qualitative.
For the purpose of determining the criteria for each alternative, the results of the
pre-optimization of the transports shall be used according to the criterion of min-
imum operating costs.

3.3.1 Forming the Matrix of Decision Making on the Additional

Criteria

  
The decision matrix S ¼ fi aj ; i ¼ 1; . . .; n; j ¼ 1; . . .; m is formed according
to the values of the additional criteria for each alternative that are obtained after
individual optimizations based on the minimum operating costs of each alternative,
Table 2. The number of columns is equal to the number of additional criteria and
the number of rows is equal to the number of alternatives. The qualitative criteria
are set to “yes” and “no”, or respectively
  “1” and “0”.
The elements of matrix are fi aj ; which are set with the values of the additional
 
criteria for each alternative. For alternative aj 2 S, fi aj is the value of i-th
criterion.

Table 2 Matrix of decision making

Alternatives K—Criteria
W—Weights
k1 k2 … ki … kn
W1 W1 Wi Wn
a1 f1 ða1 Þ f2 ða1 Þ … fi ða1 Þ … fn ða1 Þ
a2 f1 ða2 Þ f2 ða2 Þ … fi ða2 Þ … fn ða2 Þ
… … … … … … …
       
aj f 1 aj f2 aj … fi aj … fn aj
… … … … … … …
am f1 ðam Þ f2 ðam Þ … fi ðam Þ … fn ðam Þ
Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection of Transportation … 11

For the set of criteria K ¼ fk1 ; . . .; ki . . .; kn g corresponds the set of weights of

criteria W, which shows the significance of each criterion compared to the others.

W ¼ fW1 ; . . .; Wi . . .; Wn g: ð5Þ

For elements of W, the following condition is valid:

X
n
Wi ¼ 1: ð6Þ
i¼1

The weight of criterion ki indicates its importance to other criteria.

3.3.2 Determination of the Weights of Additional Criteria

A suitable method for this purpose is the multi-criteria analysis—Analytic hierarchy

process (AHP) method, its fuzzy version (FAHP) using fuzzy sets theory or the
DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) method.
The DEMATEL method can be applied if it is necessary to determine the mutual
influences between the criteria. In all three methods of multi-criteria analysis, the
assessment of the criteria is carried out by experts on pre-established assessment
scales.
The main steps of each of these methods are presented as follow.
The Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method is one of the most popular
methods of scientific analysis of scenarios and decision-making through a consis-
tent assessment of the hierarchy, the elements of which are the objectives, criteria,
sub-criteria and alternatives. The weights of the criteria are determined by com-
puting the own vectors and values of a certain score matrix that derives from the
information given by the decision-makers obtained by comparing the pairs of the
criteria on the basis of the fundamental scale for assessing the criteria (Saaty’s
scale). Table 3 presents Saaty’s scale for pair-wise comparison [72–74].

Table 3 Saaty’s scale for pair-wise comparison

Explanation Intensity of importance Reciprocal values
Equal importance 1 1
Moderate importance 3 1/3
Strong importance 5 1/5
Very strong importance 7 1/7
Extreme importance 9 1/9
Average intermediate values 2, 4, 6, 8 1/2; 1/4; 1/6; 1/8
between two close judgments
12 S. Stoilova

The evaluation square matrix A(n, n) is formed based on the pairwise compar-
ison on n criteria using Saaty’s scale. For the matrix elements are used the following
relationships:

aii ¼ 1; aij 6¼ 0; aji 6¼ 0; aji ¼ 1=aij : ð7Þ

The weights of criteria are determined according the following relationship:

A
W ¼ kmax
W; ð8Þ

where: W ¼ fw1 ; . . .; wn gT is the normalized right eigenvector; kmax is the largest

eigenvalue of the evaluation square matrix A.
" ! #
X
n X
n
kmax ¼ aij :wi : ð9Þ
i¼1 j¼1

In AHP method mathematically are validated the results using the consistency
ratio CR.

CR ¼ CI=RI  0:1; ð10Þ

where: CI is the consistency index; RI is a random index. The random matrix is

given by [72–74].
The consistency index is:

kmax  n
CI ¼ ; ð11Þ
n1

where: kmax is the maximum eigenvalue of the priority matrix, n is the number of
elements in the matrix.
Generally, if CR  0:10 the consistency of the decision-maker is considered
satisfactory. But if CR exceeds 0.10, some revisions of judgements may be
required. In order to control the results of the methods, the consistency ratio (CR) is
used to estimate directly the consistency of pairwise comparisons. The application
of consistency index of experts and the conduction of sensitivity analysis of
solutions verifies the results.
Fuzzy Analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) is based on the theory of fuzzy sets
and the method of Analytic hierarchy process. In the study is applied Chang’s
extent approach [16] in which a triangular fuzzy scale is used for pair wise com-
parison of criteria. Table 4 shows the triangular fuzzy scale. The sensitivity analysis
is performed as in AHP method. The fuzzy evaluation matrix of the criteria A ~¼
 
~
aij n;n for: i; j ¼ 1; . . .; n; i 6¼ j is constructed through the pairwise comparison of
Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection of Transportation … 13

Table 4 Triangular fuzzy scale for pair-wise comparison

Linguistic scale Intensity of importance Triangular fuzzy numbers (l; m; u)
Equal importance 1 (1,1,1)
(1,1,3)
Intermediate 2 (1,2,4)
Moderate importance 3 (1,3,5)
Strong importance 5 (3,5,7)
Very strong importance 7 (5,7,9)
Extreme importance 9 (7,9,9)
Reciprocal values (1=u; 1=m; 1=l)

different attributes relevant to the overall objective using the linguistic variables and
triangular fuzzy numbers—they are the least possible value (l), the most possible
value (m), and the largest possible value (u).
The fuzzy eigenvalue kl ; km ; ku corresponds to the maximum eigenvalue of the
priority matrix kmax by AHP method. They are determined separately using crisp
matrices Al ; Am ; Au and weights Wl ; Wm ; Wu .
In this research the eigenvalue is calculated for weighted mean method.
The TFN can be defused to a crisp number through the weight mean method with
the following equation:

~ crisp ¼ kmax ¼ kl þ 4km þ ku :

A ð12Þ
6

The procedure of DEMATEL method includes the following [44]: determination

of the perception matrix; calculation the average normalized perception matrix and
the total relation matrix; determination the normalized degree of influence of each
criterion; calculation of the threshold value to obtain a cause and effect relationship
diagram.
The scale of evaluation of criteria consist the following scores: 0—no influence;
1—low influence; 2—medium influence; 3—high influence; 4—very high influ-
ence. This scale is used from each of experts which evaluates the direct influence
between any two factors and thus is created a perception matrix. The diagonal
elements of perception matrix for i ¼ j, are set to zero. When the scores of each
expert are obtained, is formed the average perception matrix A as average values of
expert’s assessments.
The average normalized perception matrix Dnxn is calculated as:

D ¼ A=S; ð13Þ

where: A is the average perception matrix; S is the major value of the sum of each
column j of the matrix A and the sum of each row i of the matrix A.
14 S. Stoilova

The values of each element in matrix D are between zero and one.
In this method is determined a total relation matrix Tnn as follow:

T ¼ DðI  DÞ1 ; ð14Þ

where: I is an n  n identity matrix.

For each criterion is determined the normalized degree of influence as follows:

ri þ c i
e i ¼ Pn :100 ð%Þ; ð15Þ
i¼1 ðri þ ci Þ

where: ri ; ci are the elements of vector R and vector C.

The degree of influence is corresponds to the weights of criteria.
The vector R represents the sums of rows of the T matrix. The vector C rep-
resents the sum of columns of the T matrix.
" #
Xn
R ¼ ½ri n1 ¼ tij ; ð16Þ
j¼1 n1
" #
 0 X
n
C ¼ cj 1n ¼ tij ; ð17Þ
i¼1 1n

where: ri is the sum of the i-th row in matrix T; cj is the sum of j-th column in
matrix T; ′ is the symbol means transposed matrix.
The elements of vector R presents both direct and indirect effects by the i-th
criterion on the other criteria. The elements of vector C show both direct and
indirect effects by criterion j from the other criteria.
In DEMATEL method is determine a threshold value that serves to determine
the relationships between criteria in the considered system. The threshold value v is
determined as an average value of the elements of matrix T [44]:
Pn Pn  
i¼1 j¼1 tij
v¼ ; ð18Þ
N

where: N—the total number of elements in the matrix T.

After determining the values of the threshold value all elements of matrix T are
being compared with its value. The elements that are smaller or equal to the
threshold value v, is set to zero. The elements that are larger than the threshold
value v, retain their value.
Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection of Transportation … 15

3.4 Prioritization of Alternatives According

to the Additional Criteria

A suitable approach to prioritize the alternatives is the outranking method of

multi-criteria analysis—PROMETHEE, where the decision matrix and the weights
of criteria are set by the decision maker. In the developed complex methodology,
the weights are determined in advance using the AHP method (FAHP,
DEAMATEL). For each of the additional criteria is set the type of optimization—
maximum or minimum, i.e.:
 
maxaj 2S fi aj ; ð19Þ
 
minaj 2S fi aj ; ð20Þ
 
where: fi aj , i ¼ 1; . . .; n is the score of criterion i.
 In the PROMETHEE method of each criterion can be set as the following pair
fi aj , P(a, b), where P(a, b) is the p-preference function. The preference function
characterizes the difference for a criterion between the evaluations obtained by two
possible decisions into a preference degree ranging from 0 to 1. Six basic preference
functions have been proposed in this method—usual criterion; quasi criterion;
criterion with linear preference; level criterion; criterion with linear preference and
indifference area; Gaussian criterion. The explanation and mathematical calculation
steps of the PROMETHEE method are summarised below [13, 16, 20]:
• Step 1: This step computes, for each pair of possible decisions and for each
criterion, the value of the preference degree.
• Step 2: This step consists of aggregating the preference degrees of all criteria for
each pair of possible decisions. For each pair of possible decisions, a global
preference index pða; bÞ has to be calculated.
Pn
wi
Pi ða; bÞ
i¼1 P
pða; bÞ ¼ n ; ð21Þ
i wi

where: i = 1, …, n is the number of criteria.

• Step 3: This step concerns the ranking of the possible decisions and includes the
computing of the outranking flows. For each possible decision the positive
outranking flow u þ ðaÞ and the negative outranking flow u ðaÞ are computed.
The positive outranking flow expresses how much each alternative is outranking
all the others. The negative outranking flow expresses how much each alter-
native is outranked by all the others.

pða; bÞ
u þ ð aÞ ¼ ; ð22Þ
m1
16 S. Stoilova

pðb; aÞ
u ðaÞ ¼ ; ð23Þ
m1

where: j = 1, …, m is the number of alternatives.

• Step 4: This step is the second phase of determining the ranking of the criteria
for each of the alternatives. The outranking flows are used to establish a com-

plete ranking between the possible decisions. The net outranking flow u aj of
aj in the alternatives set m of a possible decision is computed as a difference
   
between u þ aj and u aj .

     
u aj ¼ u þ aj  u aj : ð24Þ

For net outranking flow, the following conditions are valid:

 
u aj 2 ½1; 1: ð25Þ

X
m  
u aj ¼ 0: ð26Þ
j¼1

The matrix of alternatives with m number of alternatives is presented in Table 5.

Each line corresponds to an action and each column corresponds to a criterion.
The matrix of alternatives corresponds to a matrix of net outranking flows u,
which shows the priority of each alternative.


u ¼ u1 ; . . .; uj . . .; um ; ð27Þ

where: j ¼ 1; . . .; m is the number of alternatives.

Table 5 Triangular fuzzy scale for pair-wise comparison

Alternatives K—Criteria
k1 k2 … ki … kn
Type of optimization Min/Max
Weight W1 W1 Wi Wn
Preference function P(a,b)
a1 f1 ða1 Þ f2 ða1 Þ … fi ða1 Þ … fn ða1 Þ
a2 f1 ða2 Þ f2 ða2 Þ … fi ða2 Þ … fn ða2 Þ
… … … … … … …
       
aj f1 aj f2 aj … fi aj … fn aj
… … … … … … …
am f1 ðam Þ f2 ðam Þ … fi ðam Þ … fn ðam Þ
Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection of Transportation … 17

The optimal alternative to the additional criteria is determined by the maximum

value of net outranking flows, which corresponds to the alternative with highest
priority:
 
maxaj 2S uj aj ; ð28Þ
 
where: uj aj are the net outranking flows for alternative aj , determined by
PROMETHEE method.

3.5 Choice of an Optimal Alternative to a Complex

Optimization Criterion, Including the Economical
Criterion and Additional Criteria

In the study is determined the complex criterion for selection of the optimal
alternative. Using the main criterion—economical criterion (minimum of direct
operating costs) and the maximum net outranking flows of additional criteria it is
determined two solutions. They can be equal or differ.
The final phase of the methodology includes an alternative selection. In the
study, the full impact of all additional criteria is seen as a benefit to the users of
transport services. Thus, the economic criteria (operating costs) are not introduced
into the PROMETHEE model with a separate weigh defined by the FAHP method.
Their impact is examined separately, i.e. in this research is taken into account on the
one hand the complex impact of the costs, and on the other hand - the complex
effect of the benefits. The choice of an optimal transport alternative is performed in
two types of processes: defined and when changing the output parameters. In the
first case, the decision-making system is in a state of certainty, in the second case it
is in a state of uncertainty and risk.

3.5.1 State of Certainty

For selecting an optimal transport alternative, a complex criterion is introduced - the

minimum of the ratio rj of the normalized economic criterion (operating costs,
determined by optimization for each of the alternatives) and the normalized net
outranking flow flows (determined by PROMETHEE method):
 
minaj 2S rj aj : ð29Þ
  cj
r j aj ¼ : ð30Þ
aj
18 S. Stoilova

The normalized economic criterion (operating costs) for alternative j are deter-
mined as follow:
 
c j aj
c j ¼ Pm   ; ð31Þ
j¼1 cj aj

where: cj are the normalized economic criterion (operating costs) for alternative j;
 
cj aj are the economic criterion (operating costs) for alternative aj , determined by
preliminary optimization of transport, EUR/day.
The normalized outranking flows for alternative j are determined as follow:
 
u j aj þ M
au;j ¼ Pm   ; ð32Þ
j¼1 ðuj aj þ MÞ

where: au;j are the normalized net outranking flows, determined by PROMETHEE
 
method for each alternative aj ; uj aj are the net outranking flows for alternative aj ;
M is integer and positive value that should make all net outranking flow uf positive;
uf 2 ½1; 1. For example, if maximal negative value of uf ¼ 0:9, the value of M
is M ¼ 1, and if maximal negative value of uf ¼ 1, the value of M is M ¼ 2.
This integrated approach of multi-criteria decision makes it possible to reduce
subjectivism when making a decision, i.e. it is a combination of an expert and
optimization method, taking into account economic and other additional criteria to
select an optimal alternative of transportation.

3.5.2 State of Uncertainty

In case of uncertainty, for each percentage change of output parameters, they

weights are determined using AHP or FAHP methods.
The percentage changes of the output parameters are defined as follow:

Z ¼ fz1 ; . . .; zi ; . . .; zv g: ð33Þ

In this case, the set of probabilities of variation of the investigated parameter is

formed.

P ¼ fp1 ; . . .; pi ; . . .; pv g; ð34Þ

where: P is the set of the probabilities of amendments of the observed parameter; w

is the set of amendment of observed parameters; i ¼ 1; . . .; v is the number of
investigated the amendments.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The shaft, however, was never built. Screw propulsion was just
coming into use; the design of the vessel was changed, and the
whole scheme lapsed. A year or so later, M. Schneider, the French
iron master of Creuzot, and his engineer, M. Bourdon, visited
Bridgewater while Nasmyth happened to be away. Mr. Gaskell, after
taking them about the plant, showed them the Scheme Book and
pointed out the sketch of the hammer, telling them of the purpose for
which it was intended. They were impressed with it and took careful
notes and sketches of its details. Nasmyth was informed of their visit
upon his return, but knew nothing of their having taken sketches of
the hammer.
In 1842 Nasmyth visited France, and was cordially received at
Creuzot and shown about the works. “On entering,” he writes, “one
of the things that particularly struck me was the excellence of a large
wrought-iron marine engine single crank, forged with a remarkable
degree of exactness in its general form. I observed also that the
large eye of the crank had been punched and drifted with
extraordinary smoothness and truth. I inquired of M. Bourdon ‘how
that crank had been forged?’ His immediate reply was, ‘It was forged
by your steam hammer!’... He told me ... that he had taken careful
notes and sketches, and that among the first things he did after his
return to Creuzot was to put in hand the necessary work for the
erection of a steam hammer.... M. Bourdon conducted me to the
forge department of the works, that I might, as he said, ‘see my own
child’; and there it was, in truth—a thumping child of my brain.”[100]
Fortunately it was still time to save his patent rights. He moved
rapidly and in June, 1842, two months after his visit to Creuzot, a
patent was obtained.[101]. The steam hammer soon found its way
into all the large shops of the world and greatly increased Nasmyth’s
already comfortable fortune. Nasmyth transferred his United States
patent to S. V. Merrick of Philadelphia, who introduced the hammer
into the American iron works.
[100] Ibid., pp. 246-247. The self-acting valve motion for the steam
hammer was invented by Mr. Wilson, when Nasmyth was absent on
business. Wilson was manager at Patricroft and later became a partner. It
was much used for a time but with the advent of balanced piston-valves the
hand-operated gear supplanted it. Nasmyth’s invention of the hammer was
 denied by M. Schneider in 1871. For fuller discussion of the history of this
hammer see London Engineer, May 16, 1890, and a pamphlet by T. S.
Rowlandson, entitled “History of the Steam Hammer.” Manchester, 1866.
[101] No. 9382, June 9, 1842.

Besides work on the hammer and machine tools, Nasmyth made a

number of inventions of interest. While still with Maudslay he
invented the flexible shaft made of a coiled spring, and speaks with
amusement at his finding the same idea in a dental engine many
years later credited as an American invention. He invented the ball-
and-socket joint for shafting hangers and also the single wedge gate
valve. His steam piledriver, an adaptation of the steam hammer, was
the invention in which he seems to have taken the most satisfaction.
He was working out a method of puddling iron with a blast of steam
when he was eclipsed by Bessemer’s brilliant invention, in 1855, of
the air blast. Nasmyth was a member of the Small Arms Committee
which remodeled the Small Arms Factory at Enfield. His connection
with this will be taken up in the consideration of the rise of
interchangeable manufacture.
Nasmyth retired from business in 1856, bought an estate in Kent,
and spent the remainder of his life in travel and in his studies in
astronomy. He was deeply interested in this study from boyhood.
Before he was twenty he had built an excellent 6-inch reflecting
telescope, and it was he who aroused Maudslay’s interest in the
subject. He had a 10-inch telescope at Patricroft and a large one at
Hammersfield. He began his study of the moon in 1842, and
received a medal for his work at the Exhibition of 1851. His book,
“The Moon, Considered as a Planet, a World, and a Satellite,”
published in 1874, in conjunction with James Carpenter, the result of
his thirty-two years of work, is authoritative today.
Nasmyth died in 1890 at the age of eighty-two. He was much more
than a splendid mechanic. His personal charm and quality of mind
can best be appreciated by reading his own story. This chapter will
have served its purpose if it induces the reader to read the
autobiography from which we have quoted so freely.
 CHAPTER IX
WHITWORTH
The work of the earlier generation of English tool builders may be
said to have culminated in that of Sir Joseph Whitworth. For a man
of his commanding influence, the information in regard to his life is
singularly meager. He left no account of himself as Nasmyth and
William Fairbairn did; no biography of him was written by his
contemporaries, and the various memoirs which appeared at the
time of his death are short and incomplete.
He was born at Stockport in 1803. His father was a minister and
schoolmaster. At fourteen he was placed in the office of his uncle, a
cotton spinner in Derbyshire, to learn the business. But commercial
work did not appeal to him. He slighted the office as much as
possible and delved into every nook and corner of the manufacturing
and mechanical departments of the establishment. In a few years he
had mastered the construction of every machine in the place and
acquired the deep-seated conviction that all the machinery about him
was imperfect. He ran away to Manchester to escape a routine
business life, and found work with Creighton & Company, as a
working mechanic. He married in 1825, and shortly afterward went to
work with Maudslay & Field in London. Maudslay soon placed him
next to John Hampson, a Yorkshireman, who was his best workman.
While there, Whitworth developed his method of making accurate
plane surfaces by hand scraping them, three at a time. On leaving
Maudslay, Whitworth worked for Holtzapffel, and later for Clement.
He returned to Manchester in 1833, rented a room with power, and
hung out a sign, “Joseph Whitworth, Tool Maker from London.” Here
he began his improvements in machine tools—the lathe, planer,
drilling, slotting and shaping machines. He improved Nasmyth’s
shaper, adding the quick-return motion, which has been known ever
since as the Whitworth quick-return motion. His tools became the
standard of the world, and in the London Exhibition of 1851 stood in
a class by themselves.
Their preëminence lay not so much in novelty of design as in the
standard of accuracy and quality of workmanship which they
embodied. With unerring judgment, Whitworth had turned his
attention first, to use his own words, “to the vast importance of
attending to the two great elements in constructive mechanics,—
namely, a true plane and power of measurement. The latter cannot
be attained without the former, which is, therefore, of primary
importance.... All excellence in workmanship depends upon it.”[102]
[102] Presidential Address. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1856, p.
125.

The first step, the production of true plane surfaces, made while
he was at Maudslay’s, was, we are told, a self-imposed task. The
method of producing these, three at a time, is generally credited to
Whitworth. We have already quoted Nasmyth’s statement that the
method was in use at Maudslay’s and that it was “a very old
mechanical dodge.” While this is probably true, Whitworth
contributed something to the method, which very greatly increased
the accuracy of the product. The writer is inclined to believe that that
element was the substitution of hand scraping for grinding in the final
finishing operations. Whitworth’s paper, read before the British
Association for the Advancement of Science at Glasgow in 1840,
indicates this, although it does not say so directly. In this paper he
specifically points out the reason why planes should not be finished
by grinding them together with abrasive powder in between; namely,
that the action of the grinding powder was under no control, that
there was no means of securing its equal diffusion or modifying its
application and localizing its action to the particular spot which
needed it. Holtzapffel confirms this view, saying, in 1847: “The entire
process of grinding, although apparently good, is so fraught with
uncertainty, that accurate mechanicians have long agreed that the
less grinding that is employed on rectilinear works the better, and Mr.
Whitworth has recently shown in the most satisfactory manner,[103]
that in such works grinding is entirely unnecessary, and may, with
the greatest advantage be dispensed with, as the further prosecution
of the scraping process is quite sufficient to lead to the limit of
attainable accuracy.... The author’s previous experience had so fully
prepared him for admission of the soundness of these views, that in
his own workshop he immediately adopted the suggestion of
accomplishing all accurate rectilinear works by the continuance of
scraping, to the entire exclusion of grinding.”[104]
[103] Referring to the paper before the British Association, 1840.
[104] “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,” Vol. II, p. 872.

When Whitworth determined to make a better set of planes than

any in use at the Maudslay shop, we are told that he was laughed at
by Hampson and his other fellow workmen for undertaking an
impossible job. He not only succeeded, but the truth of the planes he
produced aroused the admiration and wonder of all who saw them.
Nasmyth distinctly mentions scraping, but it should be remembered
that he worked at Maudslay’s four or five years after Whitworth went
there, and scraping may have been introduced into their older
methods of making triple surface-plates by Whitworth, and have
accounted for the wonderful accuracy of which Nasmyth speaks.
Having realized what he considered the first element in good
workmanship, Whitworth began on the second,—improved methods
in measurement. He introduced the system of “end measurements,”
relying ordinarily on the sense of touch rather than eyesight; and, for
extreme accuracy, on the falling of a tumbler held by friction between
two parallel planes. At the presentation of the address before the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, in 1856, he exhibited a
measuring machine built on this principle which detected differences
of length as small as one-millionth of an inch. The address was
largely devoted to the advantages of end measurement. Referring to
the machine before him, he said: “We have in this mode of
measurement all the accuracy we can desire; and we find in practice
in the workshop that it is easier to work to the ten-thousandth of an
inch from standards of end measurements, than to one-hundredth of
an inch from lines on a two-foot rule. In all cases of fitting, end
measure of length should be used, instead of lines.” This principle
has become almost universal for commercial work, although for
extremely accurate work upon final standards line measurements,
aided by the microscope, are used.
It was Whitworth who brought about the standardization of screw
thread practice in England. He had come into contact with the best
thread practice at Maudslay’s and at Clement’s, but in the other
shops throughout the country there was chaos, so far as any
recognized standard was concerned. Using their work as a basis,
and collecting and comparing all the screws obtainable, Whitworth
arrived at a pitch for all sizes and a thread contour, which he
proposed in a paper before the Institution of Civil Engineers in
1841.[105] It was received with favor, and by 1860 the “Whitworth
thread” had been generally adopted throughout the country.
[105] The Minutes of the Institution, Vol. I, give only an abstract of this
paper. A recent writer, however, in the American Machinist, Vol. XLIII, p.
1178, quotes Whitworth as follows:
It is impossible to deduce a precise rule for the threads of screws from
mechanical principles or from any number of experiments. On the other
hand, the nature of the case is such that mere approximation would be
unimportant, absolute identity of thread for a given diameter being
indispensable.
There are three essential characters belonging to the screw thread, namely,
pitch, depth and form. Each of these may be indefinitely modified
independently of the others, and any change will more or less affect the
several conditions of power, strength and durability. The selection of the
thread is also affected by the mutual relation subsisting between the three
constituent characters of pitch, depth and form. Each of these may be
separately modified; but practically no one character can be determined
irrespective of the others.
We find instead of that uniformity which is so desirable, a diversity so great
as almost to discourage any hope of its removal. The only mode in which
this could be attempted with any probability of success would be by a sort of
compromise, all parties consenting to adopt a medium for the sake of
common advantage. The average pitch and depth of the various threads
used by the leading engineers would thus become the common standard,
which would not only have the advantage of conciliating general
concurrence, but would, in all probability, be nearer the true standard for
practical purposes than any other.
An extensive collection was made of screw bolts from the principal
workshops throughout England, and the average thread was carefully
observed for different diameters.
(Then follows the well-known table showing the number of threads per
inch.)
It will be remembered that the threads, of which the preceding table shows
the average, are used in cast iron as well as wrought; and this circumstance
has had its effect in rendering them coarser than they would have been if
restricted to wrought-iron.
The variation in depth among the different specimens was found to be
greater proportionately than in pitch. The angle made by the sides of the
thread will afford a convenient expression for the depth. The mean of the
variations of this angle in 1-in. screws was found to be about 55 deg., and
this was also pretty nearly the mean of the angle in screws of different
diameters. As it is for various reasons desirable that the angle should be
constant, more especially with reference to general uniformity of system,
the angle of 55 deg. has been adopted throughout the entire scale. A
constant proportion is thus established between the depth and the pitch of
the thread.
In calculating the former, a deduction is to be made for the quantity rounded
off, amounting to one-third of the whole depth—that is, one-sixth from the
top and one-sixth from the bottom of the thread. Making this deduction it will
be found that the angle of 55 deg. gives for the actual depth rather more
than three-fifths and less than two-thirds of the pitch. The precaution of
rounding off is adopted to prevent the injury which the thread of the screw,
and that of the taps and dies, might sustain from accident.
Figure 25. Sir Joseph Whitworth
 In 1853 Whitworth visited the United States, and in conjunction
with George Wallis of the South Kensington Museum, reported on
the enterprises and manufactures of the United States.[106] Nearly all
the memoirs of Whitworth refer to the profound effect of this report.
As one reads it today, it seems difficult to see why it should have had
so much influence. It is probable that Whitworth’s own personal
report to the influential men about him contained much which does
not appear in the formal report. In it he takes up steam engines,
railway supplies, woodworking tools, electric telegraph, textile mills,
and gives brief accounts of some of the factories and methods which
he found at various places in New England and the Middle States.
The longest description is given to the Springfield Armory, but even
this is a mere fragment, and the only detailed information is of the
time necessary to finish a gun-stock. We know, however, that this
armory and the various private armories they saw, made an
impression upon Whitworth and the whole Commission which led to
the remodeling of the British gun-making plant at Enfield. Nasmyth
was also concerned in this and a fuller account of it will be given
later.
[106] “Report of the British Commissioners to the New York Industrial
Exhibition.” London, 1854.

The conclusion of Whitworth’s report shows clearly that he was

deeply impressed with the extent to which the automatic principle
was being applied to machine tools in America. “The labouring
classes,” he says, “are comparatively few in number, but this is
counterbalanced by, and indeed, may be regarded as one of the
chief causes of, the eagerness with which they call in the aid of
machinery in almost every department of industry. Wherever it can
be introduced as a substitute for manual labour, it is universally and
willingly resorted to.... It is this condition of the labour market, and
this eager resort to machinery wherever it can be applied, to which,
under the guidance of superior education and intelligence, the
remarkable prosperity of the United States is mainly due.” Another
characteristic of American manufacture attracted his attention,—the
tendency toward standardization. In his address in 1856 he
condemns the overmultiplication of sizes prevalent in every branch
of English industry.
Shortly after his return from America, Whitworth was requested by
the government to design a complete plant for the manufacture of
muskets. He disapproved of the Enfield rifle and declined to
undertake the work until exhaustive tests were made to determine
the best type of rifle. The government, therefore, equipped a testing
plant and range near Manchester, and Whitworth began a series of
tests which showed the Enfield rifle to be inferior in almost every
respect. He then submitted a new rifle, designed on the basis of his
experiments, which embodied the small bore, an elongated projectile
and a rapid rifle-twist and great accuracy of manufacture. Although
this rifle excelled all others in accuracy, penetration and range, it was
rejected by the war office. Some thirty years later, the Lee-Metford
rifle, which embodied Whitworth’s improvements, was adopted, but
only after these principles had been recognized and used by every
other government in Europe. His contributions to the manufacture of
heavy ordnance were even greater, but they met with the same
reception from the war office. In 1862 he completed a high-powered
rifle cannon with a range of six miles, the proportions of which were
substantially those in use today. He developed the manufacture of
fluid compressed steel, about 1870, to supply a stronger and more
reliable material for ordnance use. Few men in any country have had
a greater influence on the design and development of ordnance and
armor. His partnership with Sir William Armstrong resulted in one of
the greatest gun factories in the world.
Whitworth married twice but had no children. He acquired a great
fortune. During his lifetime he established the famous Whitworth
scholarships. At his death, large sums were distributed by friends, to
whom he had willed them for the execution of his wishes, and they
devoted nearly £600,000 ($3,000,000) to the foundation or
endowment of the Whitworth Institute, Owens College, and the
Manchester Technical Schools, and other public institutions. In 1874
he converted his Manchester business into a stock company, giving
the majority of the stock to his foremen and making provision for the
acquiring of further stock by his clerks and workmen. While he was
slow in receiving recognition from his own government, he became
universally recognized as one of the greatest engineering authorities
in the world, and was honored as few engineers have been, being
elected to the Royal Society, chosen president of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, given degrees by Dublin and Oxford, the
Cross of the Legion of Honor; and, in 1869, made a baronet.
As he grew older he became irritable and exceedingly dogmatic,
possibly because of his long contests with slow-moving government
officials. Charles T. Porter, in his autobiography, brings out this side
of his nature and shows that the initiative of subordinates in his shop
was practically killed. Perhaps this limited his service somewhat in
his later years, but when all is taken into account, he was, without
question, one of the greatest of mechanical engineers. He was a
master experimenter. Tests which he made were thorough,
conclusive, and always led somewhere. His experiments, whether in
machine tools, screw threads, or ordnance, always resulted in a
design or process which sooner or later became standard.
Whitworth’s position as a tool builder is not weakened by the fact
that most of the general tools had been invented by the time he
began his independent work. He raised the whole art of tool building
by getting at the fundamental conditions. He led the way in the
change from the weak, architectural style of framing; introduced the
box design or hollow frame for machinery, taking his suggestion from
the human body, and very greatly increased the weight of metal
used.
In 1850 Whitworth was, without doubt, the foremost tool builder in
the world. He had introduced a standard of accuracy in machine
tools unknown before, and so improved their design and
workmanship that he dominated English tool practice for several
generations. In fact, the very ascendency of Whitworth’s methods
seems to have been an element in the loss of England’s leadership
in tool building. Most of the progressive work for the next fifty years
was done in America.
In the foregoing chapters we have traced briefly the work of the
great English mechanics from 1800 to 1850. Their services to
engineering, and, in fact, to mankind, cannot be measured. When
they began, machine tools in any modern sense did not exist. Under
their leadership nearly all of the great metal-working tools were given
forms which have remained essentially unchanged. England had the
unquestioned leadership in the field of machine tools. Machine-tool
building in Germany and France was one or two generations behind
that of England, and nearly all their machinery was imported from
that country. With the exception of the early and incomplete work of
the ingenious French mechanics, which we have referred to from
time to time, practically all of the pioneer work was done by
Englishmen.
In glancing back at these early tool builders, it will be seen that few
of them were men of education. All were men of powerful minds,
many of them with broad intellectual interests. It is suggestive to note
one thing, whatever may be its bearing. Only three of all these men,
Matthew Murray and the two Fairbairns, served a regular
apprenticeship. Bentham and Brunel were naval officers; Bramah, a
farmer’s boy and cabinetmaker; Maudslay, a blacksmith; Clement, a
slater; Roberts, a quarry laborer; Nasmyth, a clever school boy; and
Whitworth, an office clerk.
Whatever may have been the reason, the rapid advance of the
English machine-tool builders ceased about the middle of the last
century, and they have made but few radical changes or
improvements since that time. At about the same time the American
engineers introduced a number of improvements of very great
importance.
The great distance of America from England forced it into a
situation of more or less commercial and mechanical independence.
While France and Germany were importing machine tools from
England, America began making them and soon developed
independence of design. The interchangeable system of
manufactures and the general use of accurate working gauges,
which were hardly known in England, developed rapidly in America.
These, with the introduction of the turret, the protean cam, and
precision grinding machinery, and the great extension of the process
of milling, served in the next fifty years to transfer the leadership in
machine-tool design from England to America. A visit to any one of
the great machine shops in England, Germany or France will
convince one that the leadership now rests with the American tool
builders.
 The remaining chapters will take up the lives and work of those
who have contributed to this great change.
 CHAPTER X
EARLY AMERICAN MECHANICS
The phrase “Yankee ingenuity” has become a part of the English
language. If New England no longer holds all the good mechanics in
the United States, there was a time when she came so near it that
the term “New England mechanic” had a very definite meaning over
the whole country.
The industrial development of New England was long delayed, but
once started it was rapid. Up to 1800 New England artisans supplied
merely small local needs and there was little or no manufacturing in
any modern sense; but from then on the development was so rapid
that by 1850 New England was not only supplying the United States
with most of its manufactured products, but was beginning to export
machinery and tools to England, where machine tools originated. For
five generations, American mechanics had little or no industrial
influence on Europe, and then within fifty years they began to
compete on even terms.
There were several reasons for this. A market for machinery must
of necessity be a wide one, for no single community, not even a
large modern city, can alone support a great manufacturing
enterprise. Machinery building can thrive only in a settled country
having a large purchasing power and good transportation facilities.
The colonies lacked all of these conditions; the people were widely
scattered and poor, and there were practically no facilities for heavy
transportation, at least by land. The colonial mechanics were often
ingenious and skilled, but they had few raw materials and they could
supply only their immediate neighborhood. Any approach to
specialization and refinement was therefore impossible.
The second cause for delayed development was England’s
industrial policy toward her American colonies. The colonists had
hardly gained a foothold when they began to show a manufacturing
spirit and an industrial independence which aroused the
apprehension of the manufacturing interests in England. The first
importations of iron into England from the colonies came from
Virginia and Maryland, about 1718.[107] The importations for a few
years thereafter are not known, as no records are available. They
were sufficient, however, to arouse the jealousy of the English iron
masters, for, although there was plenty of iron ore in England, they
were beginning to feel seriously the shortage in wood which was
then used for its reduction. They felt that the abundance of iron ore,
fuel and water power in America constituted a serious menace, and
they vigorously opposed the growth of any kind of manufacture in the
colonies. This resulted in a prohibition of the manufacture of any
form of ironware and of bar or pig iron by forges or other works. In
spite of these repressive measures, a report on manufactures in the
colonies, made to the House of Commons in 1731, indicated that
New England had six furnaces, nineteen forges, one slitting mill and
one nail factory.[108] These could, however, have supplied only a
small part of the materials required even for colonial use. By 1737
much discussion had arisen respecting the policy of encouraging
importation of American iron, and petitions in favor of doing so were
presented to Parliament. England imported at that time about 20,000
tons of foreign iron, 15,000 from Sweden and 5000 from Russia,
most of which was paid for in money.[109] It was urged that if this
could be obtained from the colonies it could be paid for in British
manufactures, at a saving of £180,000 annually. The annual
production of bar iron in England was about 18,000 tons, and on
account of the shortage of wood this could not be materially
increased. To encourage colonial exportation of pig and bar iron to
England would, it was urged, be the best means of preventing such
further manufacturing as would interfere with their own. It was,
therefore, proposed that a heavy duty be laid on all iron and
manufactured products imported into the colonies from continental
Europe, and on all iron imported into England except from America.
These views prevailed and resulted in the act of 1750, which was
entitled “An act to encourage the importation of pig and bar iron from
His Majesty’s Plantations in America,” and provided that “pig-iron
made in the British Colonies in, America, may be imported, duty free,
and bar-iron into the port of London; no bar-iron, so imported, to be
carried coastwise, or to be landed at any other port, except for the
use of his Majesty’s dock yards; and not to be carried beyond ten
miles from London.”[110] With this was incorporated another clause
designed to arrest all manufacture at that stage. It was enacted that
“from and after the 24th day of June, 1750, no mill, or other engine
for slitting or rolling of Iron, or any plating forge to work with a tilt-
hammer, or any furnace for making steel shall be erected, or after
such erection, continued in any of his Majesty’s Colonies of America”
under penalty of £200.[111] This attempt to stifle the industrial life of
the colonies, persistently adhered to, ultimately brought about the
Revolution.
[107] J. L. Bishop: “History of American Manufactures,” Vol. I, p. 625.
[108] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 623.
[109] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 623.
[110] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 624.
[111] Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 624-625.

From 1730 to 1750 there had been an importation of about 2300

tons of bar iron annually, 90 per cent of which came from Maryland
and Virginia, and a little less than 6 per cent from Pennsylvania. New
England and New York were producing iron by that time, but were
using nearly all of their product, hence their small share in the trade.
The iron masters of the midland counties in England protested
against this act, prophesying the utter ruin of the English iron
industry. England, they said, would be rendered dependent upon the
colonies, and thousands of English workmen would be reduced to
want and misery; American iron could never supply the place of the
Swedish iron in quality, nor the Russian iron in cheapness,
consequently the manufacture of tools would be stopped and
numberless families reduced to beggary.
The manufacturers of Birmingham, on the other hand, petitioned
that the bill was a benefit to their trade and to the colonists, who
would exchange their raw products for British manufactures; that
manufacturing was more valuable to the nation than the production
of raw materials, and as iron could not be produced at home in such
quantity and at such price as to supply all the needs of the
manufacturers, it was the duty of Parliament to encourage the
importation of raw materials, even if it should arrest their production
in England; that the importation of iron from America could affect the
iron works no more than the same quantity from any other country,
and the home production was less than one-half the amount
required, and growing steadily dearer: that the increasing activity of
the English manufacturers rendered it more and more necessary to
obtain these materials at the lowest price, and the only way to do this
was either to reduce the duty on continental iron, or make it
necessary for English iron masters to reduce their prices by raising
up a rival in America. They heartily concurred, however, in the
prohibition of all finishing of materials as an interference with British
manufactures. The merchants of Bristol petitioned that American bar
iron, which was admitted only at the port of London, be imported
duty free into all of His Majesty’s ports. This discussion continued
until 1757, when the privilege of importation was extended to the
other ports of Great Britain.[112]
[112] Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 626-627.

Under the act of 1750, the importation rose to about 3250 tons, 94
per cent of which still came from Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania. Practically all the iron produced in New England was
used there, for, despite the repressive measures from the mother
country, small local manufacturing enterprises, “moonshine iron
works,” were constantly cropping up. The iron supply of New
England came at first from the bog ores in eastern Massachusetts
and Rhode Island. By 1730-1760 better mines were opened at
Salisbury, Conn., and in Orange County, New York, so that the
production of iron in the bog-ore regions gradually dwindled.
The Revolution terminated British legislative control over the trade
and manufactures of America. The war itself furnished a market for
supplies for the army, and the manufacture of cannon and guns was
active. Many of these factories were ruined by the flood of imports
which followed the Revolution. In 1789 the present Federal
Government replaced the ineffective Confederation, which had left to
the separate states the duty of protecting their manufacturing
interests, and a tariff was placed upon manufactured articles. Freed
from the old restrictions, and with foreign competition largely
precluded, manufacturing industries began to spring up on every
hand.
A third cause contributed to rapid development at this time. An
enormous production of cotton followed Whitney’s invention of the
cotton gin in 1792, and the South, which had never been a
manufacturing community, furnished both a source of supply and a
rich market, easily accessible by coastwise trade. The beginnings of
New England’s manufacturing industries are closely identified with
the rise of the American cotton crop, and most of the first machine
shops were developed to manufacture textile machinery.
England, who seems to have blundered whenever she legislated
on early American trade, made one more serious mistake. In 1785
Parliament passed a stringent law, with severe penalties, to stop the
emigration of all mechanics and workmen in iron and steel
manufactures, and to prevent not only the exportation of every
description of tool, engine or machine, or parts of a machine used in
making and working up iron and other materials, but even the
models and plans of such machinery.[113] England was then the most
advanced of all countries in the production of engines, tools and
textile machinery, and it was hoped by this act that manufacturing
might be kept there. It had the opposite effect so far as America was
concerned. It was inevitable that mechanics, such as Samuel Slater
and William Crompton, should get away, and with them, ideas. The
act only stimulated a race of skillful mechanics in America to
independent development of machine tools, textile machinery, and
the like. America, instead of buying her machinery from England as
she would naturally have done, proceeded to make it herself.
[113] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 630.

One of the earliest American mechanics was Joseph Jenks, who

came from Hammersmith, England, to Lynn, Mass., about 1642, and
died in 1683. With the backing of Governor Winthrop, he set up an
iron foundry and forge near a bog-iron mine. The very first attempt in
America to start an iron works had been made in Virginia more than
twenty years before, at the settlement of Jamestown. It was hardly
started, however, before it was destroyed in the general sack of the
settlement, and for one hundred years there was no further attempt
at producing iron in Virginia.[114]
[114] Beverley: “History of Virginia.” Bishop: “History of American
Manufactures,” Vol. I, pp. 469, 595.

From the little forge and foundry started at Lynn, there is no break
in the spread of iron manufacturing in this country. The forge was
located on the lands of Thomas Hudson, of the same family as
Hendrick Hudson, the explorer. Jenks was “the first founder who
worked in brass and iron on the western continent. By his hands, the
first models were made and the first castings taken of many
domestic implements and iron tools.”[115] The very first casting is said
to have been an iron quart pot.
[115] Lewis: “History of Lynn.”

For many years the colonial records refer to his various activities.
He made the dies for the early Massachusetts coinage, including the
famous pine-tree shilling.[116] In 1646 the General Court of
Massachusetts resolved that “In answer to the peticon of Joseph
Jenckes, for liberty to make experience of his abilityes and
Inventions for ye making of Engines for mills to go with water for ye
more speedy despatch of work than formerly, and mills for ye making
of Sithes and other Edged tools, with a new invented Sawe-Mill, that
things may be afforded cheaper than formerly, and that for fourteen
yeeres without disturbance by any others setting up like inventions;
... this peticon is granted.”[117] In 1655 he was granted a
Massachusetts patent for scythes, his improvement consisting of
making them long and thin, instead of short and thick, as in the old
English scythe, and of welding a bar of iron upon the back to
strengthen it, which later became the universal practice,[118] and no
radical change has been made in the blade of this implement since
his day. He built for the town of Boston the first fire engine used in
this country, and also made machines for drawing wire. Jenks seems
to have also been interested in another iron works started at
Braintree between 1645 and 1650.
 [116] Weeden: “Economic and Social History of New England,” Vol. I, p.
191.
[117] Goodrich: “History of Pawtucket,” p. 17.
[118] Weeden, Vol. I, p. 184. Bishop, Vol. I, p. 477.

An iron works was started at Raynham in 1652 by the Leonards,

who came from England about the same time as Jenks and had
worked at Lynn.[119] The Jenks and Leonard families were all
mechanics. It used to be said that wherever you found a Leonard
you found a mechanic; and the Jenks family has been in some form
of manufacturing continuously from the days of Joseph Jenks to the
present time.
[119] Bishop, Vol. I, p. 479. Weeden, Vol. I, p. 192.

The near-by portions of Rhode Island and Massachusetts

centering on the headwaters of Narragansett Bay, became famous
for the production and manufacture of iron. A young Scotchman,
Hugh Orr, settled in Bridgewater about 1738. He was a pioneer in
the manufacture of edged tools, and is said to have introduced the
trip hammer into this country. “For several years he was the only
edge-tool maker in this part of the country, and ship-carpenters,
millwrights, etc., ... constantly resorted to him for supply. And,
indeed, such was his fame, that applications were frequently made
to him from the distance of twenty miles for the purpose of having an
axe, an adze or an auger new tempered by his hands.” In 1748, he
built 500 stand-of-arms for the province, the first made in America,
and later did much casting and boring of cannon during the
Revolution. After the war, he made cotton machinery until his death
in 1798, at the age of eighty-two. Weeden credits Hugh Orr with
being “perhaps the most conspicuous” American iron worker in the
eighteenth century. His son, Robert Orr, was also a skilled mechanic,
and was one of the very early master armorers of the Springfield
Arsenal.[120]
[120] Weeden, Vol. II, p. 685. Bishop, Vol. I, pp. 486-487.

Joseph Holmes is another of the pioneers of this neighborhood.

He is said to have made more than 3000 tons of iron from bog ore,
and “Holmes’ iron” was famous for anchors. He also furnished many