CHAPTER II.

ENGLISH RAILWAYS, RATES, AND FARMERS.

CONTENTS.-English roads and canals--Development of railways-Statistics for 1896-Passenger fares and rolling-stock-Goods rolling-stock-Goods rates and tolls-Equal mileage principle inapplicable-Cost of service indeterminableFactors affecting cost of service-Rates dependent on what the traffic can bear -Solacroup's statement of the rule-General classification of goods an illustration of it-Differential rates-Group rates-Government control of rates-Railway Commission under Act of 1873-Railway and Canal Commission under Act of 1888-Provisions of the Act of 1888-Statistical returns-Maximum rates— Undue preference-Competitive rates-Import rates and the British farmerKentish hopgrowers-Packing produce-Recent reductions of rates for home produce-Agricultural returns-Report issued in 1897 by the Royal Commission on Agriculture-Light railways required-Facilities afforded by the Light Railways Act, 1896.

Development of Traffic Routes.-It has never been considered in England to be the business of the State to initiate, plan, and construct the roads and canals in accordance with a regular and comprehensive system, such as that which, in France, originated with Colbert and was perfected by Napoleon. Private enterprise has, from the first, determined the development of our internal communications.

English roads seldom followed the best alignment, and were often steeply graded. These defects render them peculiarly unsuitable, in many instances, for the laying of light railways upon them. The fault did not necessarily lie with the surveyor, for his choice of route was limited by the necessity of skirting the boundaries of fields and estates belonging to landowners whose privileges would not yield to public interests. The canals, however, offered so efficient a means of communication, and commanded such powerful influence, that they constantly presented the most formidable opposition to the introduction and development of railways. But time brings its revenges, and the position was exactly reversed when the Manchester Ship Canal came to be made.

A

The most striking features of modern railways are the running of vehicles with flanged wheels upon two steel rails, and the haulage of trains, consisting of such vehicles, by steam locomotives. More than 220 years ago coal wagons were drawn on timber rails by horses. century later iron rails, nailed on wooden sleepers, were laid at the Sheffield colliery. In course of time, plate rails of cast-iron were replaced by edge rails of malleable iron, and the wheels were flanged. The history of modern railways has been dated from the construction

of a line between Wandsworth and Croydon, which was sanctioned in 1801, to be worked by horse traction.* Then followed Huskisson's decisive defeat of the canal opposition, the sanction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1820, and the completion of the Stockton and Darlington line in 1825. But the most important starting-point of modern railway progress must be referred to the success of Stephenson's locomotive, the "Rocket,"-with its blast-pipe, multi-tubular boiler, and springs,-in 1829. The contrast between Stephenson's engine and the modern locomotive, in regard to power, weight, and speed, is, indeed, sufficiently striking; but it is possible that we are about to make a still more startling development by the substitution of electricity for steam as the motive power. And while, in light railway work, we revert to rails and axle-loads lighter than those that prevailed in early days, it is not unlikely that we shall discover in so modern a motive-power as electricity the best and cheapest for our purpose under certain conditions.

Comparing our modern steam engine with that of sixty years ago, we find that, with a steam-generating surface three times as great, and nearly four times the steam-pressure, its power is ten-fold greater. Increasing axle-loads and higher speeds have required the adoption of heavier rails, and these have for many years been made of steel instead of iron. English passengers accept the speed, comfort, and safety with which they travel as a matter of course. The rapid succession of fast trains is due to the laying of double lines and the perfection of the block system. Safety appliances have been multiplied almost to excess. The development of through routes has been remarkable. In all the advantages of modern travelling the third-class passenger shares, for his paying value has long been recognised. It is now not merely economical, but almost fashionable, to travel third-class, and third-class accommodation is provided on nearly every train. The convenience and speed of the goods service are still more notable. Terminal facilities have been so perfected that the conveyance of goods is almost literally from the door of the producer to that of the consumer; and in regard to collecting, loading, unloading, delivery and other services connected with the despatch of goods, English arrangements are far ahead of those which prevail elsewhere.

In order to bring our appreciation of railways in the United Kingdom as nearly as possible up to date, the following figures may be quoted from the Railway Returns for 1896:—

In Messrs R. Giffen and F. J. S. Hopwood's Report * to the Board of Trade, the following figures are given :

And the expenditure per train-mile is thus distributed :

Maintenance of way,

Locomotive power,

Rolling-stock,

5.54d.

8.81d.

2.90d.

10.56d

1.48d.

2.13d.

0.19d.

0.08d.

0.18d.

0.20d.

0.34d.

Total working expenditure per train-mile, 32-41d.

Conditions Regulating Traffic Rates.-Passenger fares in England compare very favourably with those of other countries. A passenger in an ordinary American car may be charged an average of 1d. per mile, in an English third-class carriage somewhat less; but our first Herapath's Railway Journal, 29th October 1897.

*

and second-class fares are higher than those which include the use of the American special cars. Continental fares, taken with their drawbacks and our advantages-e.g., our provision of third-class accommodation on almost every train, and allowance of 60 lbs. of luggage free of charge are seldom, in the long run, lower than ours, while the barriers, formalities, and tedious methods of dealing with luggage, which are suffered on Continental railways, would be intolerable in England. Indian fares are, of course, exceptionally low. A third-class fare of d. per mile is the highest that can be levied, and could only be levied, in a country where the wages of the railway employé and of the ticket buyer are extremely low. Neither the wages nor the fares can be compared with ours, for in India the necessaries of life are cheap and the conditions are easy to the native, however costly the former and difficult the latter may be to the Englishman in India.

With our passenger carriages, although they may be only 7 feet. wide, as compared with 9 feet in America, we may well be content. The third-class passenger now-a-days is provided with roomy and comfortable compartments, and finds a dining car attached to longjourney trains. Our goods stock are more open to foreign, and especially to American, criticism. If we have utterly discarded the defunct stage-coach as a pattern for passenger carriages, our goods wagons-these critics say are still little better than the colliery trucks placed upon the earliest railways. An Indian standard-gauge covered wagon, taring only 7 tons 10 cwts., will take a load of 16 tons 10 cwts., and an American freight car, weighing only 18,480 lbs., may have a capacity of 56,000 lbs., while an English truck may tare 4 tons 16 cwt., and not take more than an 8-ton load. The difference in stock is chiefly due to the difference in conditions. If Indian and American railways did not build for a higher ratio of paying to dead load, they would never bring their wheat to the English market. Full train-loads of full wagon-loads are of the first importance. On the contrary, short lead, light loads, and rapid transit are essentially characteristic of English goods traffic. Our wagons have to be moved about in yards and sidings by horse-power, and an 8-ton truck is quite as much as a single horse can fairly manage. There is much to be said, therefore, for preferring 8-ton stock, and 10 tons may be regarded as the extreme limit. As a matter of fact, the full capacity of a truck is seldom tested. The contents may be bulky, or it may not. be convenient to put more than one consignment in the truck, so that in either case a mere fraction of the full load is frequently carried. The division of receipts between one railway and another is based upon so low a minimum load as 1 ton. Economy of time rather than of load is the first desideratum. An express goods train may slip or pick up a wagon at a station, but it has no time to spare for dealing with mixed consignments in one wagon. Where a wholesale traffic in wheat, hog products, etc., is offered for haulage hundreds of miles from the interior to the port, full trains of fully-loaded wagons. -specially designed for a high percentage of paying to dead load

are essential to economical working. But in England the traffic is largely made up of small consignments of a high class, manufactured articles, mixed goods, &c., and speed and convenience are of more importance than economical loading. A few figures will show how different the conditions of traffic in one country and another may be. In England the goods receipts are only 51.2 per cent. of the whole, the passenger receipts amounting to 434 per cent. ; yet no less than 619,081 vehicles are required for the conveyance of live stock, minerals and general merchandise, while 42,284 carriages are sufficient for the passengers. In India the goods receipts make up 60.6 per cent. of the whole, as compared with 36-2 per cent. from passengers; but 49,524 standard-gauge and 27,424 metre-gauge vehicles are enough for the goods, while 7078 standard-gauge and 4903 metre-gauge carriages are required for the passengers. The conditions of traffic in England demand a much larger proportion of goods rolling-stock.

Comparison between goods rates in England and in other countries is almost impossible. The classification of passengers is simple enough; in Sir James Allport's words, they load and unload themselves; and it is convenient to charge them on a mileage basis. The classification of goods, on the other hand, is most complicated. English goods rates generally include collection and delivery, so that comparison with foreign rates, which do not include such services, would not only be difficult but unsatisfactory and misleading; and to express English goods rates as multiples of the mileage is utterly impracticable.

From the first the construction of each railway required a special Act, and the new railway Acts were framed on very much the same lines as canal Acts. Railways were regarded merely as a new form of highway, upon which traders paying certain tolls would run their own trucks, just as the users of roads loaded their own wagons or users of canals carried their cargoes in their own barges. Railway charges accordingly took the form of tolls, and were so scheduled in the Acts. The supply of trucks by the traders instead of by the railways still survives, and the theory of equal-mileage rates-or the application to the same kind of goods of the same charge per mile throughout, a theory natural to a system of tolls-is not yet wholly dead, although traders must know that, of all the factors which affect the cost of working, distance is generally the least important.

The equal-mileage principle, if applied to rates, would favour short-distance traffic most obviously and unfairly for a charge depending on a short mileage could not possibly cover those expenses which are independent of distance-while it would be absolutely prohibitive in its effect on the great bulk of long-lead traffic. How large a proportion of the total expenses, even in the latter case, may be assigned to terminals, is shown by Mr A. M. Wellington's statement that they account for three-fifths of the whole rate of goods from Chicago to New York.*

The equal-mileage basis of rating was thrown out by the Joint Railway Location, by A. M. Wellington, p. 820.