In previous chapters I have shown that the first great highway for the
citizens of London passing from one part of the capital to another was the
River Thames; that the livelihood of the watermen became imperilled by the
competition successively of private carriages, hackney coaches, and
cabriolets, or "cabs"; and that these, in turn, had afterwards to face the
competition of omnibuses. A still further development, leading to
competition with the omnibuses, was brought about by the re-introduction of
the tramway, for the purposes of street transport.
It was in the United States that street tramways first came into vogue, and
it was by an American, George Francis Train, that the pioneer tramway of
this type in England was laid at Birkenhead at the end of the '50's. A few
other short lines followed, and some were put down--without authority--in
certain parts of London, only, however, to be condemned as a nuisance on
account of the hindrance to other traffic. It was not until 1868 that lines
laid in Liverpool secured public favour for the innovation. Fresh tramways
were laid in London between 1869 and 1871, and others followed in Glasgow,
Edinburgh, Dublin and elsewhere.
All the early lines were operated by horses; but various expedients were
resorted to with the idea both of obtaining greater speed and of carrying
more persons at comparatively less cost. Among these expedients were steam
locomotives and underground cables, the latter for cars furnished with a
grip attachment conveying to them the movement of the cables, as operated
by machinery at a central depôt. The greatest impetus to the street tramway
system came, however, with the application of electricity as the motive
power.
The first line opened on the "trolley" system of overhead {454}wires,
conveying electric current to the cars, was in Kansas City in 1884.
Electric tramways were tried in Leeds in 1891, and the system was
afterwards adopted in many other towns. Underground conduit and
surface-contact systems were also employed, with a view to avoiding
overhead wires, to which widespread objection was, especially at first,
entertained; but the latter system has been the one generally adopted.
Development of the tramway system in England was slow on account, not of
any lack of enterprise on the part of business men, but of the discouraging
nature of tramway legislation.
Just about the time when the original horse tramways began to come into
vogue certain local authorities were cherishing strong grievances against
the gas and water companies in their districts. They complained that the
charges of these companies were extortionate and that the terms they asked,
when invited to dispose of their undertakings to the said local
authorities, were excessive. The companies, nevertheless, controlled the
situation because their Parliamentary powers represented a permanent
concession, and because, also, they were able to fix their own price in any
negotiations upon which they might be invited to enter.
When the introduction of another public service, in the form of street
tramways, seemed likely to create still another "monopoly," it was thought
desirable to prevent the tramway companies from attaining to the same
position as that of the gas and water companies. Powers were accordingly
granted to enable the local authorities, if they so desired, to acquire the
undertakings, at the end of a certain period, on terms which would be
satisfactory to themselves, at least.
It was motives such as these that inspired some of the main provisions of
the Tramways Act of 1870, the full title of which is "An Act to Facilitate
the Construction and to Regulate the Working of Tramways"; though in a
statement presented to a Committee on Electrical Legislation of the
Institution of Electrical Engineers, in 1902, the late Sir Clifton
Robinson, manager of the London United Tramways Company, declared that "if
it had been described as an Act to discourage the construction of tramways
it would have better described the action of some of its clauses."
The Act did, undoubtedly, confer certain advantages on {455}tramway
promoters, as well as on local authorities, since it abolished the
obligation previously devolving upon them to obtain--as in the case of a
railway company--a Private Bill in respect to each fresh line they desired
to construct. It authorised them to apply, instead, to the Board of Trade
for a Provisional Order which, on its formal confirmation by Parliament,
would have all the force of a Private Act. In this way the procedure was
both simplified and rendered less costly.
On the other hand, the Act of 1870 laid down (1) that the assent of the
local and road authorities to a new line of tramway should be obtained;
though where the assent of authorities in respect to two-thirds of the
mileage was secured the Board of Trade might dispense with that of any
other objecting authority; (2) that the frontagers were also to have a
power of veto; (3) that the original concession should be granted for a
period of twenty-one years only; and (4) that at the end of such period, or
at the end of any subsequent period of seven years, the local authorities
should have the option of acquiring the tramway at the "then value" of the
plant, without any allowance for compulsory purchase, goodwill, prospective
profits or other similar consideration.
So long as these provisions applied to horse tramways only, the companies
may not have found them specially oppressive, inasmuch as there was still a
prospect of their being able to make a profit within the twenty-one-year
period before they were compulsorily bought out at "scrap-iron" rates,
while they could expect to realise the value of their stock of horses;
though, in effect, the statutory obligations meant, even then, that towards
the end of their tenure the tramway company did not spend a single shilling
on the line more than was absolutely necessary to keep it in working order
until the day of their eviction arrived, generally grudging even a coat of
paint for the cars and refraining from any avoidable labour on the roadway.
Individuals, and especially foreign visitors, unacquainted with the facts
of the case, might well have considered some of the old tramway systems a
discredit to the country.
When electric traction for tramway operation was introduced, there was a
natural expectation on the part of the British public that the tramway
companies would adopt it {456}in place of horse traction. The companies
were hampered, however, by the Act of 1870, which remained in force though
a complete revolution in the conditions of street rail-transport was being
brought about.
The substitution of electricity for horse-power meant (1) the provision of
power stations, sub-stations and new car depôts; (2) the fixing of overhead
wires, together with fresh track-work, in the streets; (3) the use of a
heavier type of car; and (4) the running of a much more frequent service,
since only under these conditions can an electric tramway possibly be made
to pay. All these things involved a very substantial increase in the
capital outlay, and companies may well have hesitated to incur so great an
expense with the prospect of only a twenty-one years' tenure before them;
while the position was even more hopeless in the case of companies whose
tenure had already half expired.
The dissatisfaction of the public when they found that the tramway system
of the country was not being brought up to date, and compared most
unfavourably with tramway systems abroad, gave to the local authorities an
apparent justification both for providing and for operating tramways as a
special phase of municipal enterprise. At the time the Act of 1870 was
passed it was assumed that, although local authorities might construct or
acquire tramways, they would certainly lease them to private companies to
operate.[61] In proportion, however, as the movement for municipal
enterprise developed, local authorities were the more inclined to operate
tramways in addition to owning them. There was no general Act giving them
authority so to do, but the difficulty was overcome by the insertion in
Local Bills of clauses giving to the local bodies promoting the Bills power
to operate their own tramways, the reason advanced being that there were
difficulties in the way of leasing the lines to companies on satisfactory
conditions.
Matters were not left entirely in the hands of the municipalities, various
tramway companies having sought, as their twenty-one years' tenure came to
a close, to make such arrangements as would warrant an adaptation of their
existing {457}system to electric traction; while other companies applied
for powers to construct new lines or extensions of lines on the same
system. Parliament had certainly sanctioned a longer period of tenure than
twenty-one years when the promoters could make an arrangement to this
effect with the local authorities concerned; and it was hardly likely that
a company would incur the great expense of constructing an entirely new
tramway, with electrical installation and other requirements all complete,
unless they had some guarantee of a longer tenure than the statutory
period. But these very factors enabled the local authorities concerned to
control the situation; and their power to exercise this control was made
still more complete by the operation of Standing Order No. 22, which
applied to Private Bills for tramway schemes requirements similar to those
of the Tramways Act as regards the obligation on promoters to obtain the
assents of local and road authorities.
These authorities had thus an absolute veto over any new tramway schemes,
and such veto might finally rest in the hands of a single local authority,
controlling a sparsely populated section of the proposed mileage, yet
having, perhaps, the controlling voice in being the one authority whose
approval was needed to make up the requisite two-thirds.
There had been some expectation on the part of tramway promoters that the
general position would be improved by the Light Railways Act, 1896, many
light railways being indistinguishable from tramways. Under this Act the
assent of the local and road authorities is not required, and the
frontagers' veto was done away with by it in the case of light railways;
but authority to oppose was given to railway companies, and in practice the
Light Railway Commissioners held that they ought not to authorise a tramway
as a light railway unless it connected the area of one local authority with
another. For these and other reasons the Act was not so beneficial in
regard to tramways as had been anticipated.
In the case of tramway companies it became a matter either of paying to the
local authorities the "price" they asked for their assent, or else seeing
the schemes fail at the start, without any chance of having them even
considered on their merits. How local authorities have used--or abused--the
power of control thus possessed by them is suggested by some remarks
{458}made by Mr Emile Garcke in an article published in "The Times
Engineering Supplement" of July 25, 1906, where he says:--
"The right of veto is exercised not so much with the desire to destroy a
projected enterprise, but rather to exact the utmost conditions which a
promoter will accept sooner than abandon the project. When a scheme is
proceeded with in spite of these exactions it is taken as evidence that the
conditions imposed have not been exacting enough; and whenever the
operating company has occasion subsequently to ask the local authority to
approve anything, the company is expected to offer more than commensurate
consideration, although the object for which the approval is desired may be
primarily for the benefit of the public. All these obstacles imply
increased capital outlay or increased working costs, and perhaps both. If,
notwithstanding these conditions, the company earns a moderate profit, it
is accused of striving only after dividends to the prejudice of the public.
If non-success of the enterprise follows, then the company is accused of
being over-capitalised and mismanaged, and it has come to be considered an
impertinence for a company to offer ever so mild a protest."
On the same subject it is stated in "The Dangers of Municipal Trading," by
Robert P. Porter (1907):--
"The use of the veto has had disastrous effects on private enterprise. In
many districts it has led to utter stagnation of personal initiative. Good
schemes have been barred by local authorities out of pure caprice or
prejudice. Other schemes have been allowed to proceed under barely
tolerable conditions; the undertaking has been crippled from the start by
the high price municipalities have exacted for their consent. Others,
again, have been withdrawn by the promoter because he found it impossible
to agree to the extortionate demands of the governing bodies."
Mr Porter quotes various authorities who have expressed strong views on the
subject of the veto.
The chairman of the Parliamentary Committee which considered a scheme of
tramways promoted in Scotland said: "The Committee desire to put on record
that in their opinion the original scheme was a good one, and calculated to
be of much use to the district; but it has been so mutilated and loaded
with conditions by conflicting interests and the {459}excessive demands of
several local bodies that it now appears to the Committee to be wholly
unworkable."
In 1902 Mr Chaplin, at one time President of the Local Government Board,
stated that "what local authorities would describe as conditions are
regarded by promoters--and very often, no doubt, with good reason--as
neither more nor less than blackmail. This has been the subject of great
complaint for years, and I do not think I should be going too far if I said
that on several occasions it has led to considerable scandals."
Lest these expressions of opinion may be considered unduly severe by any
reader unacquainted with the facts, I turn for some definite data to the
"Exhibit to Proof of Evidence," handed in by Sir Clifton Robinson to the
Royal Commission on London Traffic when he was examined before that body in
1904.[62]
In the early days of his company (the London United), the local
authorities, Sir Clifton said, "had not, perhaps, fully recognised their
opportunity," and the company got their assents comparatively cheaply under
their first Act in 1898.
Two years later the price they had to pay for the assents of local
authorities to a group of tramways in the Twickenham, Teddington and
Hampton district was £202,000, or £16,000 a mile. The requirements imposed
on the company took the form of "wayleaves" and of street improvements, the
greater part of the latter being entirely apart from the actual needs of
the tramway. The improvements in Heath Road, Twickenham, giving a 45-ft.
roadway, cost for properties and works alone some £30,000. A like sum had
to be spent in Hampton and Hampton Wick, where the work done included the
setting back of the entire frontage of the Royal Deer Park of Bushey.
In 1901 the company sought for powers to construct twelve miles of tramway
in Kingston-upon-Thames and neighbourhood. On this occasion the
"concessions" wrung from {460}them by the local authorities amounted to
£66,000 for street improvements, £20,000 for bridges, and a further
£68,000, capitalised value of annual payments for so-called "wayleaves."
This made a total of £154,000, or £12,800 per mile, merely for assents to
the construction of their lines. The details of the account included a sum
of £1500 extorted by an urban district council as "a contribution towards
some town improvement, not necessarily on the company's proposed line of
route, but anywhere in their district the council might desire."
One item to which the company had to agree in 1902, before they could
obtain an Act authorising them to build another thirteen miles of tramway,
was the construction at Barnes of an embankment and terrace along the river
side. It made a very pleasant promenade, and was certainly an addition to
the amenities of the neighbourhood; but it cost the tramway company
£40,000. The "price" of local authorities' assents for these thirteen miles
of line worked out thus: Street improvements (properties and works),
£72,000; Barnes Boulevard, £40,000; "wayleaves" (capitalised), £100,000; a
total of £412,000, or £31,600 per mile.
Altogether, in the four years, 1898-1902, the total expenditure of the
company on street and bridge improvements in respect to less than fifty
miles of tramway amounted to £745,000; and although, to a certain extent,
the widenings, etc., were necessary for electric tramway purposes, "the
bulk of the expenditure under this head," Sir Clifton declared, "was
undertaken with a view to conciliate the local authorities, or was forced
upon us by them as the 'price of their assents.'" To this £745,000 was to
be added £241,000, the capitalised value, at five per cent, of the
"wayleaves" the company had also agreed to pay, making a total of £986,500,
irrespective altogether of the cost of construction and equipment of the
lines.
When, in 1904, the company proposed to construct still another twenty-one
miles of tramway in the western suburbs of London, "they recognised their
obligations to the local and county authorities," Sir Clifton said, by
proposing to undertake street, road and bridge widenings which would have
cost them £217,932. They thought this a sufficiently generous "price" to
pay for permission to provide the district with {461}improved transport
facilities. Instead of being satisfied, the local authorities made demands
which would have involved the company in a further expenditure of £642,630,
making a total of £860,562. One urban district council included in its
demands the construction by the tramway company of public lavatories and a
subway. In a district where the company were prepared to spend £30,000 on
road improvements the county council demanded a carriageway of forty feet
and wood paving throughout six and a half miles of country roads, involving
the expenditure of a further £30,000.
Rather than submit to all these exactions the company abandoned their Bill.
They had already abandoned sixty miles of proposed tramway extensions
"owing," said Sir Clifton, "to the demands or the uncompromising attitude
of the local authorities," although many of these lines would have been
valuable connections with the existing tramway system, and would have
served in no small degree the traffic needs of the districts concerned.
"It is not too much to say," added Sir Clifton Robinson, in concluding his
statement, "that instead of giving such proposals sympathetic
consideration, if not practical encouragement, the attitude assumed by the
average local authority of to-day is one of hostility, inspired by a desire
to extort the uttermost farthing from promoters."
In the face of experiences, or the prospect of experiences, such as these,
many would-be promoters of tramway enterprise developed a natural
reluctance to put their own money, or to try to induce other people to put
theirs, into the business; and even some American financiers, who thought
we were much too slow in tramway matters in this country, and came over
here with the combined idea of showing us how to do things and of
exploiting us to their own advantage, abandoned their plans and went home
again when they got to understand the bearing of our legislative enactments
on the situation.
So, as time went on, the local authorities had greater excuse than ever for
constructing the tramways themselves; and most of the principal urban
centres built lines of their own, sooner or later.
That there have been certain resemblances between State policy towards the
railways and State policy towards the {462}tramways may have been already
noticed by the reader. Just as the one was primarily based on suspicion and
distrust due to the earlier action of the canal companies, so was the other
inspired by what were regarded as the shortcomings of gas and water
companies. Just, also, as the local authorities, while not aiding the
railways at all, were given authority to levy an abnormal taxation on them,
so have they been given a free hand to exploit the tramway companies in
making them pay a heavy price for assents to their enterprises. The story
of tramways, again, like that not only of railways but of canals and of
turnpike roads, shows the same early lack of centralised effort with a view
to securing a national system; and this piecemeal growth of tramways,
rather than of a tramway system, was, undoubtedly, fostered in proportion
as (1) discouragement was given to private companies, which could have
operated without respect to borough boundaries and county areas, and (2)
tramway construction drifted more into the hands of local authorities,
whose powers did not go beyond the borders of their own particular
districts.
While recognising these resemblances, one must admit that the handicapping
of the tramway companies has been far more severe than that of the railway
companies, by reason of the power of absolute veto possessed by local
authorities in regard to tramway schemes, and the use they have made of it.
Parliament certainly never foresaw the extent of such use, or abuse, when
it granted the said power of veto; and the practices in question, like the
operation of tramways by the local authorities themselves, were due to a
policy of drift and "leave alone" rather than to deliberate intention or
expressed approval on the part of the Legislature. The misfortune is that
when the new developments in tramways occurred, or that when the abuses
arose and the innovations were introduced, Parliament did not revise its
legislation to meet the new conditions. The Royal Commission on London
Traffic reported in 1905 in favour of the abolition of the power of veto,
saying: "We consider it unreasonable that any one portion of a district
should be in a position to put a stop to the construction of a general
system of tramways required for the public benefit, without even allowing
the case to be presented for the consideration of Parliament.... It appears
to us that instead of a 'veto' it would be sufficient that local and
{463}road authorities should have a _locus standi_ to appear before the
proposed Traffic Board and Parliament, in opposition to any tramway scheme
within their districts, by whomsoever such tramway scheme might be
promoted." But nothing has yet been done in the way of carrying this
recommendation into effect.
The proportions in which street and road tramways and light railways in the
United Kingdom were owned by (a) local authorities and (b) companies and
private individuals respectively in 1909-10 are shown by the following
table, taken from official returns:--
CAPITAL TOTAL
LENGTH EXPENDITURE ON EXPENDITURE
NUMBER OF OPEN FOR LINES AND WORKS ON CAPITAL
BELONGING TO UNDERTAKINGS. TRAFFIC. OPEN FOR TRAFFIC. ACCOUNT.
M. Ch. £ £
Local
authorities 176 1710 17 36,807,264 49,568,775
Companies, &c. 124 851 34 19,294,077 24,372,884
--- -------- ---------- ----------
Totals 300 2561 51 56,101,341 73,941,659
To this table I might append the following statistics as to the operation
of street and road tramways and light railways in the United Kingdom in
1909-10:--
Capital authorised £93,124,187
Capital paid up £73,260,225
Number of horses 2,365
Number of locomotive engines 31
Number of cars:
Electric 11,749
Non-electric 601
Total number of passengers carried 2,743,189,439
Quantity of electrical energy used
(Board of Trade unit) 483,671,806
Gross receipts £13,077,901
Working expenditure £8,132,114
Net receipts £4,945,787
Appropriations:--
Interest or dividends £1,913,872
Repayment of debt or sinking fund £1,133,134
Relief of rates £346,274
Added to Common Good funds £54,028
Aid from rates £64,215
It will have been seen from the table given above that the total length of
tramways and light railways owned by local authorities is double the length
of those owned by companies; {464}but, in the circumstances already
narrated, the cause for surprise is, rather, that private companies should
have been sufficiently bold or enterprising to do as much in the way of
tramway construction as they have.
To the tramway patron it may seem to be a matter of no great concern
whether the tramways are owned and operated by local authorities or by
companies, provided they are satisfactory; and there may even appear to be
various advantages on the side of public ownership of what, since the
public streets and roads are used, may be regarded as essentially a public
service.
There have, however, been many suggestions that municipal tramways are too
often managed on lines involving a disregard of commercial principles, and
that much of the financial success claimed for them is due less to real
"profits" than to the omission from the expenditure side of their accounts
of inconvenient items which, if included therein, would show much less
favourable results than those desired. Thus it has been represented from
time to time by opponents of "municipal trading"--who have advanced many
facts and figures in proof of their assertions--that large sums of money
spent on street widenings for tramway purposes--that is to say, sums which
a tramway company would pay from its capital account, and put down as costs
of construction--are omitted from the municipal tramway accounts and
classed under the head of "public improvements," to be covered out of the
local rates. The general practice is to debit a third of such expenditure
to the tramway, the other two-thirds coming out of the rates; but the
critics allege that, in some instances, a far greater proportion even than
the two-thirds has been left to be defrayed by the general ratepayer.[63]
It is further alleged that inadequate amounts are set aside for
depreciation, and that the sums allowed for the use of the central office
and the services of the central staff may be considerably less than the
figures which ought to be allocated thereto, if the municipal tramway
business were really conducted on business lines.
{465}Whatever the actual position may be in regard to these matters of
account, which the financial experts may be left to decide, it has long
been a question (1) whether it would not have been better either from the
early days of street tramways or, at least, from the time when electric
tramways were introduced, to have given a greater degree of encouragement
to private enterprise; and (2) whether, assuming it was necessary, or
desirable, that local authorities should own the tramways, it would not
have been more prudent to arrange with private companies for their
operation, as is done, for example, in the case of the light railway system
in Belgium. On this latter point the Royal Commission on London Traffic say
in their report (1905):--
"We think it reasonable that some profit should be derived from the
tramways for the benefit of the municipality, but it does not follow that
the best way of securing the largest profit will be that the municipality,
even if it finds the money for construction, should undertake the task of
operating. In other countries it is not unusual for municipalities to
construct, purchase or otherwise acquire the tramways, but in such cases
the actual working is generally left to operating companies, with provision
for proper rates and general control. It is claimed that such methods yield
a better financial result to municipalities, and avoid difficulties which
might arise from municipal authorities carrying on a business of this kind
on a large scale."
To-day we have the further question whether electric tramways, which have
always constituted a more or less speculative business, have not attained
the height of their possible development, and whether they are not already
on their decline in face of other systems more efficient or, at least, less
costly and less cumbersome.
The whole history of transport shows constant change and progress, the
achievements of one generation or the "records" of one pioneer being only
the starting-point of fresh advance or of still greater triumphs later on.
Electric tramways themselves were, undoubtedly, as great an improvement on
horse tramways as the drawing of vehicles by horses along a pair of rails
had already been an advance on locomotion over the rough and rugged
surfaces of badly made streets or roads. But electric tramways did not
necessarily constitute finality, {466}and local authorities who built them
as though for eternity are now faced by the rivalry of the motor-omnibus.
Motor-omnibuses are still to a certain extent in the experimental stage,
since no one would suggest that they have yet attained to the greatest
possible perfection, while further improvements in them are constantly
being announced. Yet already their number has enormously increased, and
they are not only competing severely with the tramway but threatening
eventually to supersede it. The motor-omnibus requires no special track, no
overhead wires, no power station and sub-stations, and no costly widenings
of streets and roads or rebuilding of bridges. Consequently, the capital
expenditure involved in the provision of a large stock of motor-omnibuses
is far less, in proportion, than that entailed by electric tramways
providing an equivalent service. The motor-omnibus, too, has greater
freedom in a busy thoroughfare--and is thus quicker in its movements--than
the tramway car, limited to a fixed track and much more liable to be
detained by blocks of traffic. The motor-bus, again, can readily be
transferred from one route to another where greater traffic is likely to be
found, whereas the tramway, once laid, must remain where it is, whether the
takings are satisfactory or not; while another material factor in the case
of an electric tramway, namely, that owing to the cost of the standing
equipment (power house, etc.), a fifteen-minute service is, generally
speaking, the lowest economic limit,[64] does not arise in the case of the
motor-omnibus, which can be run according to the actual requirements of
traffic.
Still greater attention is now being paid to the subject of
motor-omnibuses, inasmuch as the discouragement given to the provision of
electric tramways by commercial companies--by reason of the exactions
levied as the price of assents or because of the preference shown for
municipal ownership--has driven private enterprise to seek alternative
methods in supplying facilities for street and road traffic with the
prospect of a reasonable return on the capital invested; and one ideal in
these alternative methods naturally is, in the circumstances, that they
should involve a minimum of possible control by the local authorities. If,
in the result, private enterprise, thus driven to adopt new expedients in
locomotion, should so far {467}perfect a motor-omnibus, or any other
alternative service, that the electric tramway will not only have a
powerful competitor but be largely superseded, the position of the
municipalities which first sought to exclude or to exploit private
enterprise and then invested large sums in speculative tramway undertakings
of their own will be sufficiently serious.
While, on the one hand, certain local authorities which have no municipal
tramways are now establishing municipal motor-omnibuses--showing in this
practical manner their own view of the respective claims of the two
systems--others, with the intention of safeguarding the interests of their
tramway undertakings rather than of securing greater transport facilities
for the public, are renewing towards the motor-omnibus, as a direct
competitor with municipal tramways, the hostility shown by the canal
companies towards the railways when the probability of the former being
supplanted by the latter began to be realised; though it is, of course, now
no longer a matter simply of one set of commercial companies competing with
another.
A further rival to the electric tramway is arising in the system of
railless electric traction, the fundamental principle of which is the
application of electric power, derived from overhead wires, to electric
cars, resembling motor-omnibuses (or alternatively, to goods lorries and
vans), driven on ordinary roads without rails, and capable of being steered
in and out of the traffic over the whole width of the roadway.
The advantages claimed for the system are (1) that the cost of installation
is only from one-fourth to one-third of the average cost of British
tramways per mile of route, the permanent way of the latter being
responsible for from two-thirds to three-quarters of the capital
expenditure, while maintenance of tramway lines is also very expensive; (2)
that costly street widenings are avoided; (3) that Bills for railless
electric traction projects can be laid before Parliament without first
obtaining the assent of the local authorities; (4) that such traction can
be profitably installed in towns having populations insufficient to support
a tramway, or having streets unsuitable for tramway rails; (5) that it is
especially useful for linking up outlying districts with tramways and
railways; for developing country and seaside places; for the conveyance of
agricultural produce from rural districts {468}to neighbouring towns or the
nearest railway; and for the transport of goods or minerals to or from
railway stations or harbours over the same routes as passengers; (6) that
the cars are more reliable and cheaper to operate than petrol,
petrol-electric, steam or battery-driven vehicles; and (7) that inasmuch as
the running of railless electric traction is practically noiseless, house
property is not likely to be depreciated in value as in the case of the
tramway.
The disadvantages of the system as compared with the motor-bus are (1) that
the railless electric traction bus can only run along streets which have
been provided with overhead wires; (2) that, even allowing for the absence
of rails, the expense involved in overhead wires and power stations will
still be necessary, as in the case of a tramway; (3) that by reason of the
standing expenses, and in order to utilise the electric current to the best
advantage, a frequent service will have to be maintained, whether the
traffic really warrants it or not, whereas the motor-omnibus can be brought
out and run only at such hours of the day as remunerative traffic is likely
to be obtained; and (4) that railless electric traction goods vans or
lorries--being able to go only along certain streets, and being unable even
there to load or unload, inasmuch as these operations would prevent other
railless cars from passing--would be less better adapted for urban trading
purposes than commercial motors.
Railless electric traction seems to have been first adopted at Grevenbruck,
Westphalia, in 1903, and since that date it has been resorted to in various
other places on the Continent. In this country, apart from a short
experimental line constructed at the Hendon depôt of the Metropolitan
Electric Tramways, the first applications of railless traction have been at
Leeds and Bradford, where, following on the obtaining of Parliamentary
powers in 1910, municipal railless electric traction systems were formally
opened in June, 1911, the system adopted being that of the Railless
Electric Traction Construction Company, Ltd. In each case the railless
traction supplements the existing municipal tramway.
At Leeds the tramway route from the City Square is followed for about a
mile, and then, with the help of a special set of wires, the new system
diverges, and continues to a point three miles further on; though the
Parliamentary {469}powers allow of a still further extension to the city
boundary. At Bradford the railless system establishes a link a little over
a mile in length between two tramway routes.
In the Session of 1911 there were about sixteen Bills before Parliament
applying for powers in respect to railless traction. Some of these were
promoted by local authorities, one or two were by tramway companies, one
was by an omnibus company, and the remainder were schemes by various
private promoters.
Municipal corporations already owning and operating tramways would seem to
favour the railless electric traction system because it enables them (1) to
utilise to greater advantage the electric power they are already generating
for tramway purposes; and (2) to provide transport facilities for parts of
their district where, as is said, the traffic prospects would not warrant
the laying of a tramway. It is open to consideration, however, whether the
recognition by municipalities of the advantages of railless electric
traction over the tramway does not itself foreshadow the eventual doom of
the latter, apart altogether from any considerations that arise in respect
to the motor-omnibus. It is certainly significant that in his presidential
address to the ninth annual conference of the Municipal Tramways
Association, in September, 1910, the general manager of the Bradford
Corporation Tramways, Mr C. J. Spencer, is reported to have said:--
"In considering future developments the trackless trolley system naturally
comes first into view. The introduction of this new method of transit into
this country ... will undoubtedly extend the sphere of usefulness of the
trolley system. The tramway construction boom stopped, not because every
district that required better facilities was supplied, but because
financial reasons made it impossible to proceed any further into districts
unable to support a capital expenditure of £14,000 to £15,000 per mile of
tramway laid.... The railless system, however, comes along with a vehicle
as reliable as a tramcar, and at least as cheap to operate, but with a
capital expenditure on street work so low that the bugbear of heavy
interest and sinking fund charges is practically nonexistent."
It remains to be seen to what extent companies or corporations will be
likely to start entirely new and independent schemes of railless electric
traction, setting up power-houses, {470}etc., for the purpose, in
preference to running motor-buses or commercial motor vehicles. This will
be the real test of the respective merits of the two systems, apart from
any further utilisation of existing tramway power stations; and it is
always to be remembered that still greater improvements in self-propelled
buses, vans, etc., will certainly be brought about. There is certainly
significance, in this connection, in the following report, published in the
"Engineering Supplement" of "The Times" of November 8, 1911:--
"The Tramways Committee of the Edinburgh Corporation have decided that
nothing further is to be done for the present in connection with the
proposal to adopt rail-less tramways for the city and district, in view of
information which they have obtained regarding an improved type of
petrol-electric omnibus which has been introduced in London. In the latter
class of vehicle, they are informed, many of the disadvantages of the
motor-omnibus as hitherto known have been overcome, and they consider that
it would be prudent to await further developments before taking any action
with regard to rail-less tramways."
Whatever the eventual issue of the rivalry between the two new systems
themselves, the fact that they have been introduced at all would seem to
confirm the assumption that in the dictionary of transport there is no such
word as "finality." We are also left to conclude--
(1) That in the struggle between governing authorities and private
enterprise the last word is not always with the former;
(2) That the resort by local authorities both to motor-omnibuses and to
railless electric traction suggests that, even in their opinion, electric
tramways are being improved upon, even if they have not already had their
day;
(3) That the municipalities which checked the development of tramways by
private companies--from whom an assured return might have been gained--and
themselves spent, in the aggregate, many millions of public money on a form
of municipal enterprise yielding doubtful results, involving great
liabilities, and now, apparently, being superseded by superior systems, may
eventually find abundant reason for regretting their past policy; and
(4) That when local governing authorities do enter upon speculative
commercial enterprises, they cannot, any more than {471}commercial
companies, set up the plea of "vested interests" as against new-comers in
the march of progress, but must themselves also submit to economic laws,
and run the risks which commercial undertakings, even under municipal
direction, necessarily involve.
{472}CHAPTER XXX