iffel's public remarks regarding the safety of the Roux
machinery, in private he did not trouble to conceal his doubts. Otis'
representative, Hall, discussing this toward the end of Brown's previously
mentioned report, probably presented a fairly accurate picture of the
situation. His comments were based on conversations with Eiffel and
Koechlin:

Mr. Gibson, Mr. Hanning [who were other Otis employees] and myself
came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Eiffel had been forced to
order those other machines, from outside parties, against his own
judgment: and that he was very much in doubt as to their being a
practical success--and was, therefore, all the more anxious to put in
our machines (which he did have faith in) ... and if the others ate
up coal in proportions greatly in excess of ours, he would have it to
say ... "Gentlemen, these are my choice of elevators, those are yours
&c." There was a published interview ... in which Eiffel stated ...
that he was to meet some American gentlemen the following day, who
were to provide him with elevators--grand elevators, I think he
said....

[Illustration: Figure 30.--Upperworks and passenger platforms of the Otis
system at second level. (From _La Nature_, Aug. 10, 1889, vol. 17, p.
169.)]

The Roux and the Otis systems both drew their water supply from the same
tanks; also, each system used similar distributing valves (fig. 32)
operated from the cars. Although no reports have been found of actual
controlled tests comparing the efficiencies of the Otis and Roux systems,
a general quantitative comparison may be made from the balance figures
given for each (p. 40), where it is seen that 2,665 pounds of excess
tractive effort were allowed to overcome the friction of the Otis
machinery against 13,856 pounds for the Roux.

THE EDOUX SYSTEM

The section of the Tower presenting the least difficulty to elevator
installation was that above the juncture of the four legs--from the second
platform to the third, or observation, enclosure. There was no question
that French equipment could perform this service. The run being perfectly
straight and vertical, the only unusual demand upon contemporary elevator
technology was the length of rise--525 feet.

The system ultimately selected (fig. 37) appealed to the Commission
largely because of a similar one that had been installed in one tower of
the famous Trocadero[13] and