Having now traced the important part that improvements in the conditions of
inland transport and communication have played in the economic and social
development of this country, and having seen, also, the action taken
therein, on the one hand by so-called "private enterprise" (defined by
Samuel Smiles as "the liberality, public spirit and commercial enterprise
of merchants, traders and manufacturers"), and on the other hand by State
and local authorities, we have now to consider, in this final chapter, what
are the prospects of further changes and developments in those transport
conditions to which, judging from past experience, it would not be wise to
fix finality in the matter of progress.
Thus far the railway certainly represents the survival of the fittest; and,
curiously enough, although great improvements have been made in locomotive
construction, in rails, in signalling, in carriage-building and in the
various departments of railway working, no absolutely new principle has
been developed since the Liverpool and Manchester Railway definitely
established the last of the three fundamental principles on which railway
construction and operation are really based: (1) that a greater load can be
moved, by an equivalent power, in a wheeled vehicle on a pair of rails than
in a similar vehicle on an ordinary road; (2) that flanged wheels and flat
rails are preferable for fast traffic to flat wheels and flanged rails; and
(3) that a railway train should be operated by a locomotive rather than by
either animal power or a stationary engine.
It is true that, in regard to the last-mentioned of these three main
principles, material changes have been brought about by the resort to
electricity as a motive power; but this, after all, is an improvement in
the means of rail transport rather than a complete change in the principle
of transport {495}itself; and, though electricity may supersede steam to a
considerable extent, especially for suburban traffic, the resort to it is a
reversal, in another form, to the earlier idea of motive power distributed
from a fixed point, as originally represented by stationary engines, before
the locomotive had established its superiority thereto.
In any case, the railway is still the railway, whatever the form of
traction employed, and there is, after all, no such fundamental difference
between an electric railway and a steam railway as there was between the
railway and the canal, or between either railway waggon or canal barge and
the carrier's cart travelling on ordinary roads. The question that really
arises here is, not whether electricity is likely to supersede steam for
long-distance as well as for short-distance rail traffic, but whether the
railways themselves are likely to be superseded, sharing the same fate as
that which they caused to fall on the stage-coach and, more or less, on the
canal barge.
For the physical, economic and other considerations already presented,
there is no reasonable ground for expecting much from the projected scheme
of canal revival. When the country comes fully to realise (1) the natural
unsuitability of England's undulatory surfaces for transport by artificial
waterways; (2) the enormous cost which the carrying out of any general
scheme of canal revival would involve; (3) the practical impossibility of
canal-widening in the Birmingham and Black Country districts; and (4) the
comparatively small proportion of traders in the United Kingdom who could
hope to benefit from a scheme for which all alike might have to pay;--it is
hardly probable that public opinion will sanction the carrying out of a
project at once so costly and so unsatisfactory in its prospective results.
Still less than in the case of canals would any attempt to improve the
conditions of transport on rivers--serving even more limited districts, and
having so many natural drawbacks and disadvantages--be likely to meet any
general advantage or to foster any material competition with the railways.
Developments in regard to road transport are much more promising--or, from
the point of view of the railways, much more to be feared--than any really
practical revival of inland navigation.
{496}Dealing, in this connection, first with personal travel, we find that
the main competition with the railways proceeds from (1) omnibuses, motor
or otherwise; (2) electric tramways, and (3) private motor-cars.
An omnibus, whether of the horse or of the motor type, is the equivalent of
the carrier's van or of the old stage-coach in so far as it has the
complete freedom of the roads. The electric tramway, while having to keep
to a certain route, and involved in greater capital expenditure by reason
of its need for rails, overhead wires and power stations, may, if owned by
a local authority, still be materially aided, directly or indirectly, out
of the local rates. Thus the omnibus and the electric tramway may both be
able to transport passengers at lower fares than the railways, which, as
regards the municipal tramways, may even be called on to pay, through
increased taxation, towards the maintenance of their rivals.
In London itself the motor-omnibuses have undoubtedly abstracted a
considerable amount of short-distance traffic from the Central London
Railway, which, however, still has the advantage in regard to longer
distance journeys.
That electric tramways and motor-omnibuses have also diverted a great deal
of suburban passenger traffic from the trunk railways is beyond dispute.
But here the companies are seeking to meet the position (1) by operating
their own suburban lines by electricity, giving their passengers a quicker
transport than they would get with tramways or motor-cars stopping
frequently, or held up by traffic repeatedly, on the roads or streets; or
(2) by offering to town workers greater facilities for removing from homes
in the inner to homes in the outer suburbs, if not in the country proper or
even on the coast itself--in other words, to such a distance that they
would naturally be dependent on the railway and the business trains that
are now run thereon from the places in question to meet their special
convenience.[71]
{497}Of these two developments the former has not yet been generally
adopted, whereas the latter is in full activity, and, in combination with
the heavier local taxation which is steadily driving people away from
London boroughs, is helping to produce results of much interest and
importance.
The population, not only of London, but of great towns in general, is
undergoing a considerable redistribution. Land at greater distances from
urban centres, and hitherto devoted only to agriculture or market gardens,
is being utilised more and more for building purposes; the increasing
values of land within the radius of these outer suburbs improves the
position on urban markets of producers in rural centres whose lower rents
may more than compensate for their slightly heavier cost of transport as
compared with the suburban growers; the health of town workers taking to
what are not merely suburban but country homes should improve. Social and
domestic conditions generally are, to a certain extent, in a state of
transition; while the trunk railways are getting back from their
long-distance suburban traffic some--though not yet, perhaps, actually the
whole--of the revenue they have lost on their short-distance traffic.
On the other hand, results are being brought about in the inner suburbs
which are viewed with much uneasiness by the local authorities. The removal
from the inner suburbs of considerable numbers of those who can afford to
live further away from their business means (1) that population in the
inner suburban circle is decreasing, or, alternatively, that a better-class
population is giving place to a poorer-class one; (2) that much of the
house property there is either standing empty or is fetching considerably
lower rents; and (3) that the taxable capacity of the areas in question is
declining, although the need for raising more by local taxation is to-day
greater than ever.
Where the local authorities who are experiencing all these consequences of
an interesting social change have themselves helped to bring them about by
setting up municipal tramways to compete with the railways, thus, among
other consequences, driving the latter to resort to measures of
self-defence, they may find that attempts to change, if not to control, the
operation of economic forces have their risks and perils; while the
position for the authorities concerned will be even worse {498}if their
municipal tramway, in turn, should suffer materially from the competition
of the motor-omnibus.
Private motor-cars may appear to have deprived the railways of a good deal
of their passenger traffic, and they certainly constitute a most material
and much-appreciated increase in the facilities now available for getting
about the country. It must, however, be remembered that a very large
proportion of the journeys taken in them would probably not be made at all
if the motor-car did not exist, and if such journeys had to be made by
train instead. The actual diversion of traffic from the railway only occurs
when journeys which would otherwise be made by rail are made by motor, in
preference. Here the railway certainly does lose.
Against the loss in the one direction in railway revenue, owing to the
greater use of motor-cars, there can at least be set the constant growth in
the taste for travel which the railway companies (partly, again, to make up
for the competition in suburban traffic) have done their best to cultivate
by means of abnormally low excursion or week-end fares based, as one
leading railway officer put it to me, "not on any idea of distance, but on
the amount that the class of people catered for might be assumed to be
willing to pay."
The travel habit has thus undergone a greater expansion of late years than
has ever before been known, so that a falling-off of railway traffic in
some directions ought, sooner or later, to be compensated for by increases
in others, if, indeed, that result has not already been attained.
The actual position in regard to passenger travel on the railways of the
United Kingdom during the years 1901-10 is shown by the following figures,
taken from the Board of Trade Railway Returns:--
PASSENGER RECEIPTS FROM
YEAR. JOURNEYS.[72] PASSENGERS.
£
1901 1,172,395,900 39,096,053
1902 1,188,219,269 39,622,725
1903 1,195,265,195 39,985,003
1904 1,198,773,720 40,065,746
1905 1,199,022,102 40,256,930
1906 1,240,347,132 41,204,982
1907 1,259,481,315 42,102,007
1908 1,278,115,488 42,615,812
1909 1,265,080,761 41,950,188
1910 1,306,728,583 43,247,345
{499}These figures give evidence of, on the whole, a substantial advance in
railway passenger journeys and receipts, notwithstanding all the
competition of alternative facilities, and we may assume that although
tramways, motor-cars, motor-omnibuses and even the latest new-comer,
railless electric traction, may supplement and more or less compete with
the railways, there is no suggestion that they are likely entirely to
supplant them for passenger travel.
In the matter of goods transport in general, it is the fact that during the
last ten or fifteen years, more especially, there has been an increasing
tendency for the delivery of domestic supplies to suburban districts or
towns within an ever-expanding radius of London and other leading cities to
be effected by road, instead of by rail. The same has been the case in the
distribution by wholesale houses of goods to suburban shopkeepers, and,
also, in the reverse direction, in the sending of market-garden or other
produce to central markets.
Where the railway companies have really created new suburban districts
through the running of specially cheap workmen's trains, it may seem hard
upon them that they should be deprived of the goods transport to which such
districts give rise.
The fact must be recognised, however, that when the distances are within,
say, a ten-, a fifteen- or even a twenty-mile radius, and when only small
or comparatively small parcels or consignments are to be carried, the
advantages in economical transport may well be in favour of the road
vehicle rather than of the railway. The road vehicle can load up in the
streets as it stands opposite the wholesale trader's warehouse; it pays
nothing for the use of the road; it does not make any special contribution
to the police funds in recognition of services rendered in the regulation
of the traffic; nor is it taxed by the local authorities on the basis of
the quantity of {500}goods carried and the extent of the presumptive
profits made; whereas the railway company must have a costly goods depôt,
acquire land for their track, lay lines of rails, maintain an elaborate
organisation to ensure safe working of the traffic, and submit to taxation
by every local authority through whose district the goods carried may
require to pass. There is, also, the further consideration, of which I have
previously spoken, that in the case of short-distance journeys the cost of
terminal services makes the rate per ton per mile appear much higher, in
proportion, than when, while remaining at the same figure, it is spread
over a substantially greater mileage.
While, with the increasing facilities for road transport, the railways must
expect to lose more of their short-distance traffic, they should be able to
retain their long-distance traffic, and more especially their long-distance
traffic in bulk, commercial motors notwithstanding. Where commodities are
carried either in considerable quantities or for considerable distances,
and more particularly when both of these conditions prevail, transport by a
locomotive, operating on rails, and conveying a heavy load with no very
material increase in working expenses over the carrying of a light load,
must needs be more economical than the distribution of a corresponding
tonnage of goods among a collection of commercial motors, for conveyance by
road under such conditions that each motor is operated as a separate and
distinct unit.
The results, too, already brought about in the case of the suburban
passenger traffic may, possibly, be so far repeated that railway companies
deprived, also, of suburban goods traffic by the increasing competition of
road conveyances, will show further enterprise in encouraging long-distance
goods traffic to the same markets, or to the same towns. In this way they
might seek to avoid, as far as practicable, any falling-off in their
revenue at a time when taxation, wages, cost of materials and other working
expenses all show a continuous upward tendency.
Should the policy here in question be adopted, market-gardeners, more
especially, may find that, while they have effected a slight saving on
their cost of transport by resorting to road conveyance, they will have to
face increased competition from produce coming in larger quantities from
long-distance growers who, with a lower cost of production, and, {501}also,
with increased encouragement from the railways, might have advantages on
urban markets fully equal to those of the short-distance grower located in
the suburbs.
The whole question of the steadily increasing competition between road and
rail has thus become one of special interest, at the present moment, alike
for the trading, the motor and the railway interests.
That the use of motor-vehicles is destined to make even greater advance in
the immediate future has already here been shown. Yet there are distinct
limitations to its possibilities, although this fact is apt to be
overlooked by motor enthusiasts, some of whom are, indeed, over-sanguine.
One of them proclaims that "the new locomotion" is "designed to be the
chief means of transit to be used by humanity at large," and "eventually
will probably to a large extent supersede all others." He further writes:
"Many of us will live to see railway companies in places pulling up their
rails and making their tracks suitable for motor-car traffic, charging a
toll for private vehicles and carrying the bulk of the traffic in their own
motor-cars."
Granting that motor-vehicles are likely to supersede both tramways and
horse-vehicles, what are really the prospects of their superseding
railways, as well? Should railway shareholders at once sell out and put
their money, preferably, in motor-omnibus and commercial motor companies?
In regard to goods we have the fact that the quantities thereof carried by
the railways of the United Kingdom in 1910 were:--
Minerals 405,087,175 tons.
General merchandise 109,341,631 "
-----------
Total 514,428,806 tons.
Motor transport could obviously not be adapted to the transport of
400,000,000 tons of minerals, and for these, at least, the railways would
still be wanted. But the number of motor-vehicles necessary to deal with
109,000,000 tons of general merchandise would still be prodigious, apart
from considerations of distance, time taken in transport, wear and tear of
roads, and, also, of the question whether a locomotive, doing the work of
many motors, would not be the {502}cheaper unit in the conveyance of
commodities carried in bulk on long or comparatively long hauls. The
suburban delivery of parcels is one thing; the distribution, for example
(as mentioned in a footnote on page 399), of 1000 railway waggons of
broccoli from Penzance, all over Great Britain, in a single week, is
another.
In the matter of passenger traffic, while people of means may prefer to
make such journeys as that from London to Scotland in their own motor-car,
the railway will continue to form both the cheaper and the quicker means of
travel for the great bulk of the population as distinct from private
car-owners, whose number must needs be comparatively small.
It is in respect to urban and suburban traffic that motor-vehicles have
their best chance of competing with the railways on any extensive scale;
yet even here, and notwithstanding all that they are already doing, their
limitations are no less evident.
Taking only one of the many railway termini in London, the average number
of suburban passengers who arrive at the Liverpool Street station of the
Great Eastern Railway Company every week-day (exclusive of 12,000 from
places beyond the suburban district) is 81,000, and of these about 66,000
come by trains arriving, in rapid succession, up to 10 a.m. To convey
81,000 suburban dwellers by motor-omnibus instead of by train would
necessitate 2382 journeys, assuming that every seat was occupied. On the
basis of the average number of persons actually travelling in a motor-bus
at one time, it would probably require 4000 motor-bus journeys to bring
even the Great Eastern suburban passengers to town each day if they
discarded train for bus, and the same number to take them back in the
evening. So long, too, as a single locomotive on the Great Eastern suffices
for a suburban train accommodating between 800 and 1000 passengers, the
company are not likely to pull up their rails and provide tracks in their
place for a vast "fleet" of motor-cars or motor-omnibuses.
In some instances tramways and motor-omnibuses have, undoubtedly, deprived
the railways of considerable traffic, and certain local stations around
London have even been closed in consequence. In other instances tramways
and buses have been of advantage to the railways by relieving {503}them of
an amount of suburban traffic for which it might have been difficult for
them fully to provide. But any _general_ supplanting of railways by
motor-vehicles is as improbable in the case of passenger travel as it is in
that of goods transport. Motor-vehicles are certain to become still more
serious rivals of the railways than they are already, but they are not
likely to render them obsolete; and, taking the country as a whole, the
"bulk of the traffic" may be expected still to go by rail, motor-vehicles
notwithstanding.
Although, at the outset, some of the railway companies were disposed to
regard the motor as a rather dangerous rival, the most enterprising have
themselves adopted various forms of motor-vehicles, alike for establishing
direct communication between country stations and outlying districts
unprovided with branch lines, for enabling passengers arriving in London to
pass readily from the terminus of one company to that of another, and for
the collection and delivery of goods.
In regard, again, to the outlook for the future, important possibilities
were foreshadowed by a letter addressed to "The Times" of August 23, 1911,
by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, concerning "Road Transport during Strikes."
The hope of the leaders of the then recent railway strike had, of course,
been to produce such a paralysis in the transport arrangements of the
country that the railway companies would have been forced, owing to the
resultant loss, dislocation of traffic, and, possibly, actual famine
conditions, to surrender to all the demands made upon them. While the
attempt failed on that occasion--thanks to the loyalty of the majority of
the workers, the almost complete lack of public sympathy with the strikers,
and, also, the employment of troops for the protection of the
railways--there will always be the possibility of a renewal of the attempt.
Pointing, therefore, to the large number of motorists in the United
Kingdom, and mentioning, also, that there are, in addition, at least 10,000
commercial motor-vehicles as well, mostly running in or near the larger
industrial centres, Lord Montagu wrote that, if supported by the Royal
Automobile Club and the Automobile Association and Motor Union and assisted
by his brother motorists in general, he would undertake in the case of a
national emergency to carry out the following operations:
(1) The carriage of all mails where railways are now used.
{504}(2) The supply of milk, ice and necessaries to all hospitals and
nursing homes.
(3) The supply of milk, fish and perishable produce to London and other
large towns.
(4) The supply to country villages of stores not produced in or near their
area, such as sugar, tea, etc.
(5) The carriage of troops or police.
(6) The conveyance of passengers if on urgent business in connection with
family matters or trade.
Lord Montagu added that "the Government would, of course, have to guarantee
open roads and protection for loading and unloading vehicles, and provide
for the swearing-in of motorists as special constables, who would be thus
engaged in saving the community from starvation and chaos." He further
thought that the compilation of a national register of motorists willing to
lend their cars should be proceeded with at once.
The existence of such an organisation as this, with the inclusion, also, in
the proposed registry, of horsed waggons, waggonettes and other vehicles
owned by the country gentry and others, might be of incalculable service
both in enabling the railway companies to stand against the coercion of a
really general strike, and in saving the transport of the country from any
approach to a complete dislocation, pending the time when the full railway
services could be resumed.
A further example of the possible usefulness of motor-vehicles was shown by
a War Office memorandum, issued on September 26, 1911, giving particulars
of a provisional scheme for the subsidising of petrol motor-lorries already
manufactured and owned by civilians, complying with certain specified
conditions, the War Office thus acquiring the right to purchase such
lorries from the owners for military service, in the case of need.
Measures of the kind here in question would, of course, be temporary
expedients only, there being, as shown above, no probability that motor
transport by road would ever take the place altogether of transport by
rail.
Nor is aerial locomotion likely to be a more formidable rival of the
railways than either inland navigation or motor transport by road. One may
safely anticipate that further great advances are yet to be made in the art
of flying; yet {505}one may, also, assume there is no prospect of aerial
locomotion becoming a serious competitor with the railway. It is extremely
interesting to know that the journey from London to Scotland has now been
made in quicker time by aeroplane than by the fastest express, and that a
1000-mile flight round England has been accomplished with perfect control
of the machinery employed. Yet, even allowing for the greatest possible
improvements in the construction of the aeroplane, the number of passengers
who could be carried is so limited, and the fares charged to cover capital
outlay must needs be so high, that there could be no idea of rivalry
between the aeroplane and the railway in regard to passenger traffic.
Like considerations should apply in the case of goods traffic.
In theory the idea of an aerial express goods service looks very promising.
Yet, as a business proposition, one must needs again consider: (1) the
capital cost of the aeroplane; (2) the comparatively small quantity of
goods that could be carried on a single journey; and (3) the high rates
that would necessarily have to be paid for their transport on commercial
lines. A "record" in the aerial carriage of a 38-lb. consignment of
electric lamps from Shoreham to Hove (Brighton) was established on July 4,
1911, by Mr H. C. Barber, of the Hendon Aviation Grounds; but this
particular exploit was suggestive mainly of an advertisement for the lamps
in question. I ventured, therefore, to put the following proposition to Mr
Barber:--
"Assume that, owing to a railway strike, no goods trains could pass between
London and Liverpool, and that a London merchant had a consignment of goods
which it was of the utmost importance should be taken to Liverpool for
despatch by a steamer on the point of sailing. Then: (1) What would be the
maximum weight, and, also, the maximum bulk, of such consignment as an
aeroplane could carry? (2) In what time, approximately, could the journey
from Hendon to Liverpool be made? (3) What sum would the London trader have
to pay for the transport?"
Mr Barber informs me that the maximum weight of such consignment as could
be carried would be about ten stone (1 cwt. 1 qr.); that the maximum bulk
would be about 30 cubic feet; that the journey would take about four hours;
{506}and that the charge for transport would be ten shillings per mile. The
distance "as the crow--or the aeroplane--flies" between Hendon and
Liverpool being about 200 miles, the charge would come to £100. Mr. Barber
adds: "There is no doubt that within the very near future it will be
possible to make much smaller charges; also charges could be very much
reduced if there were sufficient business to make it worth while." This is
what one would expect to hear. Yet, assuming that the aeroplane rate were
reduced even by fifty per cent, it could not, even then, compete with the
railway rate under normal conditions; while to convey through the air the
150 tons of general merchandise which a single locomotive attached to one
of the many goods trains passing between London and Liverpool will haul
would, on the basis of 1 cwt. 1 qr. per machine, require the use of 2400
aeroplanes. This calculation leaves out of account, too, the much greater
weights of grain, timber and other heavy traffic in full truck-loads which
pass from Liverpool to various inland places, and could not, of course, be
dealt with by aeroplane at all.
After surveying all these possible competitors or alternatives we are left
to conclude that, as far as foresight can suggest, the railways are likely
still to constitute at least the chief means of carrying on internal
transport and communication in this country.
If this be so, then the main proposition as to the outlook for inland
transport in general relates to the outlook for the railways in particular.
Here the first consideration which presents itself is that, as regards main
lines, our railway system to-day may be regarded as approximately
complete.[73] There may still be good scope for the construction of
extensions, new links or of short cuts; but these should count as
improvements rather than as fresh lines of communication.
In London there are to be extensions of some of the existing tubes with a
view to affording to the public increased facilities both for reaching the
termini of the great trunk lines and for {507}a still easier interchange of
traffic between the different tube or underground railways themselves.
An exceptionally important scheme of improved transport was announced, on
November 18, 1911, by the London and North-Western Railway Company, such
scheme comprising (1) the electrification of 40 miles of suburban railway,
including a material portion of the North London Railway; (2) the
construction by the London Electric Railway Company of a new tube,
extending their Bakerloo line from Paddington to the L. & N. W. system at
Queens' Park; and (3) the running, for the first time, and by means of
specially-constructed carriages, of through services between a trunk line
and a tube.
While the existing tube companies may thus extend their lines, and while
the trunk companies may seek to co-operate more with them in providing for
suburban traffic, the outlook for any new tube companies in London would
not seem to be very promising in view of the fact that the holders of
£9,300,000 of ordinary stock in the London Electric Railway (controlling
the Bakerloo, Piccadilly and Hampstead lines), out of a total
capitalisation of £16,200,000, received in 1911 a dividend equal to only
one per cent.
In the country what is most wanted is an increase in transport facilities
between existing railways and outlying districts, the traffic from which
would not be sufficient to justify the construction of branch lines of
ordinary railway. There are fishing villages, agricultural districts,
market gardening areas, and innumerable small communities which would gain
a material advantage by being provided with better means of communication
with the nearest railway.
Whether or not such facilities should be provided by (1) road motors, (2)
railless electric traction, or (3) light railways, is a question that must
depend on the conditions, circumstances or prospects of the locality
concerned; but if more people are to be sent "back to the land," and if
colonies of small holders are to be established thereon with any hope of
success, then it is desirable, if not essential: (1) that each colony of
such settlers should form an agricultural co-operative society; (2) that
each society should set up its depôt to facilitate the combination of
purchases or consignments into grouped lots; and (3) that between the depôt
and a convenient railway station there should be provided some means
{508}of collective transport under the most effective and economical
conditions.
It is thus mainly in the direction of railway feeders that the need for
increased transport facilities exists to-day.
In this absence of any general necessity for additional railways, the
policy of the railway companies of late years has been directed more to the
consolidation and economical working of the existing system of lines. This
policy has especially aimed at the furtherance of those mutual agreements
and amalgamations which, as we have seen, have constituted a prominent
phase in the development of railways from a very early period in their
history. Present-day tendencies in this direction are especially due to the
fact that working expenses have greatly increased while the powers of the
companies to increase their charges are still subject to the restrictions
of the Act of 1894, under which they may be required to justify before the
Railway and Canal Commission any increase in a rate since the 31st of
December, 1892. Increase of expenditure is found in the higher wages bills,
in the ever-expanding items of rates and taxes, in the heavier cost of raw
materials, in the greater amount of clerical and other work resulting from
the sending of frequent small consignments in place of consignments in
bulk, and in the provision of greater conveniences and luxuries in travel.
An increased volume of traffic has, to a certain extent, compensated for
these heavier expenses; but it has not done so sufficiently, and the ideal
remedy has appeared to lie in the direction of effecting economies in
operation and management, either by individual companies or through
arrangements between two or more, to their mutual advantage, and without,
as the companies have claimed, any disadvantage to the public.
In some instances companies have had to grant such concessions to local
communities as a means of overcoming threatened opposition to their
proposed arrangements that the value of the advantages eventually obtained
has been represented almost by a negative quantity. In other instances the
opposition has been so keen, and the "prices of assent" have been so
exacting, that the companies concerned have preferred to abandon their
schemes rather than go on with them. In still other instances companies
have refrained from attempting to carry out amalgamations requiring
{509}Parliamentary sanction, and thus likely to provoke opposition, and
have made such arrangements between themselves as were within their powers
and were likely to give them some of the advantages they wanted, though
not, perhaps, all.
Following on certain developments in these various directions, a
Departmental Committee was appointed, in June, 1909, by the Board of Trade
to consider and report "what changes, if any, are expedient in the law
relating to agreements among railway companies, and what, if any, general
provisions ought to be embodied for the purpose of safeguarding the various
interests affected in future Acts of Parliament authorising railway
amalgamations or working unions." The report of this Committee [Cd. 5631]
was issued in May, 1911.
In so far as they deal with the principle that even Parliament itself is
powerless to prevent the tendency to co-operation between railway companies
originally designed to compete with one another, the Committee do little
more than re-echo what was said, not only by the Joint Committee of 1872,
but even by Morrison in the speech he made in the House of Commons on May
17, 1836. There is, also, a close resemblance between what I have stated
concerning the position in 1836 and at subsequent dates--namely, that there
was no allegation that the railway companies _had_ abused their powers,
only fear that they _might_ do so--and the following extract from the
report made by the Departmental Committee in 1911:--
"It is, of course, to the interest of the railway companies not to raise
rates or stint accommodation to an extent that will reduce traffic unduly,
but, subject to this, a policy of self-interest might frequently lead the
companies to charge rates which, judged by any existing standard, would be
unreasonable."
So, in 1911, no less than in 1836, and at any time between those dates, the
policy of the State towards the railways, as far as it can be summed up in
a single word, is represented by this word "might." The attitude of
distrust and suspicion originally engendered towards the railways by the
canal companies evidently still survives, and is expected to form, even
to-day, the approved basis of State action. The principle of railway
co-operation is, indeed, frankly and fully accepted by the Departmental
Committee, who declare they have come to the unanimous conclusion "that the
natural lines of {510}development of an improved and more economical
railway system lie in the direction of more perfect understandings and
co-operation between the various railway companies which must frequently,
although not always, be secured by formal agreements of varying scope and
completeness, amounting in some cases to working unions and amalgamations."
But, although they admit that mutual competition between railway companies
exists to-day in only a "limited degree," and although they do not show
that the agreements and amalgamations thus far carried out have been in any
way really detrimental to the public interests, they are still influenced,
as Parliaments, Select Committees and Departmental Committees before them
have been for the last three-quarters of a century, by that one word
"might." Railway companies may be allowed to co-operate--more especially
because they cannot be prevented from doing so; but fresh restrictions and
further obligations must be imposed lest they _might_ abuse the facilities
granted to them, in seeking to cover increased taxation and other items of
heavier working expenses. Thus among the recommendations of the
Departmental Committee are the following:--
"That it should be provided that when a facility or service is diminished
or withdrawn, it should lie upon the railway company to show that the
reduction or withdrawal is reasonable.
"That it should lie upon the railway company to justify a charge made for a
service hitherto rendered gratuitously.
"That it should be declared that the law with regard to increased charges
applies to passenger fares and other charges made for the conveyance of
traffic by passenger trains."
These proposals are, no doubt, inspired by a genuine desire to protect the
public interests; yet the effect of carrying them out would be effectually
to destroy the small amount of elasticity that is still left in the
relations between the railway companies and the public. If, in addition to
having to "justify" the increase of any rate for goods or minerals, the
companies were required to run the risk of having to "justify" the taking
off of any train they found no longer necessary, or even the slightest
increase in any of the now often extremely low railway fares, the result
would be to tie their hands still further in the making of experimental
concessions, {511}and, in the result, the travelling public, as is the case
already with the traders, would stand to lose through a policy nominally
designed to protect their interests.
Whatever course may be actually taken in regard to these particular aspects
of the question, the trend of events in the railway world will probably be
more and more in the direction of continuing the policy of agreements and
amalgamations on lines which, while giving the fullest transport facilities
to the public, should check wasteful competition and ensure all practicable
economy in the matter of working expenses.
That the trade of the country would suffer, in consequence, is hardly to be
anticipated. Assuming that three railway companies, who had already agreed
as to the rates they would charge, had each been conveying goods between A
and B, and that they arranged for the consignments entrusted to all three
to be taken in one train by one route, instead of in three trains by
separate routes, a clear economy would be effected without any detriment to
the traders, since the goods would reach B all the same, while savings in
the working expenses should render the companies better able to meet the
wishes of traders in other directions.
In regard to the possibility (as already told on page 448) of an increase
in railway rates to enable the companies to meet increases of wages or
other betterment of the positions of their staffs, any general increase
might well occasion uneasiness, and even alarm, to traders who already find
it difficult enough to meet foreign competition, and to whom greater cost
of transport might be a matter of no little concern. On the other hand
there is an undoubted anomaly in the fact that whilst the burdens on
railway companies have greatly, if not enormously, increased of late years,
and whilst other commercial companies are free to pass on to the consumer
increased costs of production or heavier working expenses, including,
especially, a much heavier taxation, the statutory standard for railway
companies' rates and charges should still be that of the last day of
December, 1892.
A further result of the railway strikes in the autumn of 1911 was to revive
the agitation in favour of railway nationalisation. In some quarters it was
argued that an effective guarantee against the recurrence of railway
strikes would be found in State ownership; but this theory is certainly not
{512}confirmed by the actual experiences of Holland, Hungary, Victoria,
Italy and France. There is no suggestion that, if the railways were owned
by the State, the railwaymen would voluntarily abandon the right to strike;
but State ownership is favoured by the Amalgamated Society of Railway
Servants (which passed a resolution approving thereof at the annual
conference at Carlisle on October 4, 1911), in the expectation (1) that,
under these conditions, the unions would be certain to get "recognition";
(2) that they would then be able to bring such pressure to bear on the
Government that they would be sure to get what they wanted without having
to strike; and (3) that, owing to the economies to which State operation
would lead, the Government would be in a position to give the railway
workers higher pay and shorter hours. Here, however, the questions arise
whether the country would be willing to allow the railway unions
practically to control alike the Government and the economic situation;
whether the assumed "economies" under State ownership and operation of the
railways would really be effected; and whether any such changes in railway
service conditions as those that were demanded in the National All-Grades
Programme could be conceded even under a nationalisation system without
imposing on the railway users greater burdens in the way of higher rates
and fares than they might be disposed to tolerate.
On the other hand there is the consideration that if the working expenses
of the railway companies are to be swollen to still greater proportions by
heavier wages bills, abnormal taxation, public demands for greater
facilities, and State requirements in equipment or operation; if, at the
same time, the companies are to be subjected to statutory restrictions in
regard to the charges they may impose for the services they render; and if,
also, the danger of strikes and of outside control or interference is to be
increased, the day may conceivably come when transfer of the railways to
the State, under, presumably, fair and equitable conditions, would be the
only effectual means of relieving the railways themselves from what might
then be an otherwise hopeless position.
While the outlook for the future has various elements of uncertainty, and,
in regard to matters of detail, gives rise to some degree of concern, a
review of the conditions {513}under which trade, industry and communication
have been developed throughout the ages leads to the conclusion that the
country may, at least, regard with feelings of profound thankfulness and
generous appreciation the efforts of that long succession of individual
pioneers, patriots and public-spirited men to whose zeal, foresight and
enterprise we are so materially indebted for the advantages we now enjoy.
{514}AUTHORITIES
The following books, pamphlets, and reports have, among others, been
consulted in the preparation of the present work:
"A Cursory View of the Advantages of an Intended Canal from Chesterfield to
Gainsborough" (1769).
Adams, William Bridges: "Practical Remarks on Railways" (1854).
"A History of Ten Years of Automobilism, 1896-1906," edited by Lord Montagu
(1906).
Aikin, J., M.D.: "A Description of the Country from Thirty to Forty Miles
round Manchester" (1795).
Allnutt, Zachariah: "Useful and Correct Accounts of the Navigation of the
Rivers and Canals West of London" (2nd ed., 1810).
Anderson, James, LL.D.: "On Cast Iron Rail-ways," in "Recreations in
Agriculture," etc., Vol. IV (Nov., 1800).
Ashley, W. J.: "The Beginnings of Town Life in the Middle Ages" (1896); "An
Introduction to English Economic History and Theory" (1892).
"A View of the Advantages of Inland Navigations, with a Plan of a Navigable
Canal intended for a Communication between the Ports of Liverpool and Hull"
(1765).
"Avona: or a Transient View of the Benefit of Making Rivers of this Kingdom
Navigable." By R. S. (1675).
Badeslade, Thomas: "The History of the Ancient and Present State of the
Navigation of the Port of Kings-Lyn and of Cambridge, and the Rest of the
Trading Towns in those Parts" (1766).
Bailey, J.: "General View of the Agriculture of the County of Durham"
(1810).
Bailey, J., and Culley, G.: "General View of the Agriculture of the County
of Northumberland" (1794).
Baines, Thomas: "History of the Commerce and Town of {515}Liverpool"
(1852); "Lancashire and Cheshire, Past and Present" (1867).
Bateman, J.: "The General Turnpike Roads Acts" (1854); "The General
Highways Acts" (2nd ed., 1863).
Blome, Richard: "Britannia: or a Geographical Description of England,
Scotland and Ireland" (1673).
Bourn, Daniel: "A Treatise upon Wheel Carriages" (1763).
Boyle and Waghorn: "The Law Relating to Railway and Canal Traffic" (1901).
Bradfield, J. E.: "Notes on Toll Reform and the Turnpike Ticket System"
(1856); "Observations on the Injustice, Inequalities and Anomalies of the
Present System of Taxation of State Carriages" (1854).
Brand, John: "History and Antiquities of Newcastle" (1789).
Brunlees, James, C.E.: Presidential Address, Mechanical Science Section,
British Association Meeting, 1883.
Buddie, John: "Description of a Coal Waggon," in the "General Magazine of
Arts and Sciences" for June, 1764.
Butterworth, A. Kaye: "The Law Relating to Maximum Rates and Charges on
Railways" (1897).
Cheyney, Edward P.: "English Towns and Gilds" (1895).
Clifford, Frederick, of the Inner Temple: "A History of Private Bill
Legislation" (2 vols., 1885 and 1887).
Copnall, H. H.: "A Practical Guide to the Administration of Highway Law"
(1905).
Cressett, John: "The Grand Concern of England Explained" (1673); Harleian
Miscellany, Vol. VIII.
Cumming, T. G.: "Illustrations of the Origin and Progress of Rail and Tram
Roads" (1824).
Cunningham, W.: "The Growth of English Industry and Commerce" (1890-92).
Curr, John: "Coalviewer and Engine Builder's Practical Companion" (1797).
Defoe, Daniel: "A Tour through the Whole Island of Great Britain" (1724).
Dehany, William Knight, of the Middle Temple: "The General Turnpike Acts"
(1823).
Denton, The Rev. W.: "England in the Fifteenth Century" (1888).
De Salis, Henry Rodolph: "A Chronology of Inland {516}Navigation in Great
Britain" (1897); "Bradshaw's Canals and Navigable Rivers of England and
Wales" (1904).
"Description of a Coal Waggon, Staith, and Waggon-way," in the "Commercial
and Agricultural Magazine," October, 1800.
Dowell, Stephen: "A History of Taxation and Taxes in England" (2nd ed.,
1888).
Eaton, J. Shirley: "Education for Efficiency in Railroad Service," United
States Bureau of Education (1909).
Edgeworth, Richard Lovell: "An Essay on the Construction of Roads and
Carriages" (2nd ed., 1817).
Edington, Robert: "A Treatise on the Coal Trade" (1813).
Findlay, Sir George: "The Working and Management of an English Railway"
(4th ed., 1891).
Forbes and Ashford: "Our Waterways" (1906).
Fowler, J. Kersley: "Records of Old Times" (1898).
Francis, John: "A History of the English Railway" (1851).
Franks, W. Temple: "History of Traffic Legislation and Parliamentary Action
in Connection with Railways"; London School of Economic Lectures (1907).
Fulton, R.: "A Treatise on the Improvement of Canal Navigation, exhibiting
the numerous advantages to be derived from Small Canals and boats of two to
five feet wide, containing from two to five tons burthen" (1796).
Galloway, R. L.: "Annals of Coal Mining and the Coal Trade" (1898 and
1904); "A History of Coal Mining in Great Britain" (1862); "Papers Relating
to the History of the Coal Trade" (1906).
Gilbey, Sir Walter: "Early Carriages and Roads" (1903).
Gordon, Alexander: "An Historical and Practical Treatise upon Elemental
Locomotion by Means of Steam Carriages on Common Roads" (1832).
Gray, Thomas: "Observations on a General Iron Rail-way" (2nd ed., 1821;
5th, 1825).
Grierson, J.: "Railway Rates, English and Foreign" (1886).
Hackworth, T.: "Jubilee of the World's First Public Railway" (1892).
Hadley, A. T.: "Railway Transportation: Its History and Its Laws" (1906).
{517}Harper, C. G.: "The Holyhead Road" (1902); "The Great North Road"
(1910).
Harris, Stanley: "Old Coaching Days" (1882); "The Coaching Age" (1885).
Herepath, John: "Railway Magazine" (1836-39).
Homer, Henry: "An Inquiry into the Means of Preserving Publick Roads"
(1767).
Humpherus, Henry: "History of the Origin and Progress of the Company of
Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames" (1887).
Hunter, The Rev. Joseph: "The History and Topography of the Deanery of
Doncaster" (1828).
Hutton, William: "History of Birmingham" (1781).
Jacob, Giles: "Law Dictionary" (4th ed., 1809).
Jeans, J. Stephen: "Waterways and Water Transport" (1890); "Jubilee
Memorial of the Railway System" (1875).
Jessop, William: "On Inland Navigation and Public Roads," Georgical Essays,
Vol. VI (1804).
Jusserand, J. J.: "English Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages" (1889).
Kinderley, Nathaniel: "The Ancient and Present State of the Navigation of
the Towns of Lyn, Wisbech, Spalding and Boston, of the Rivers that pass
through those Places and the countries that border thereupon" (2nd ed.,
1751).
Law, H., and Clark, D. K.: "The Construction of Roads and Streets" (1887).
Lloyd, John: "Papers Relating to the Rivers Wye and Lug" (1873).
McAdam, John Loudon: "Remarks on the Present System of Road Making" (9th
ed., 1827).
Macaulay, Lord: "History of England," chapter III.
McCulloch, J. R.: "Dictionary of Commerce and Commercial Navigation"
(1882).
Macdonald, Sir J. H. A.: "The Triumph of Motor Traction," in "Chambers's
Journal," August 1, 1911.
Macpherson, David: "Annals of Commerce" (1805).
Maitland, F. W.: "Township and Borough" (1898).
Marriott, H.: "The Fixing of Rates and Fares" (2nd ed., 1910).
Marshall, A.: "Principles of Economics" (4th ed., 1898).
Mathew, Francis: "Of the Opening of Rivers for {518}Navigation: The Benefit
exemplified by the two Avons of Salisbury and Bristol, with a Mediterranean
Passage by Water for Billanders of Thirty Tun, between Bristol and London"
(1655); "A Mediterranean Passage by Water from London to Bristol and from
Lynne to Yarmouth, and so consequently to the City of York, for the great
Advancement of Trade and Traffique" (1670).
Maxwell, William H.: "The Construction of Roads and Streets" (1899).
May, George: "Descriptive History of Evesham" (1845).
Mayo-Smith, Richmond: "Statistics and Economics" (1895-99).
Midleton, Viscount: Article on "Our Highways," in "The Nineteenth Century"
for Oct., 1881.
Moore, H. C.: "Omnibuses and Cabs: their Origin and History" (1902).
Morrison, James, M.P.: "Rail Roads: A Speech Delivered in the House of
Commons, 17th May, 1836"; "Influence of Railway Legislation on Trade and
Industry" (1848).
Nash, T.: "The History and Antiquities of Worcestershire" (1781).
Nicholson, J. Shield: "Principles of Political Economy" (1893).
Ogilby, John: "Britannia: A Geographical and Historical Description of the
Roads of England and Wales" (1675).
"On the Country Manners of the Present Age." Annual Register (1761).
Palgrave, R. H. I.: "Dictionary of Political Economy" (1900).