RAILWAY RATES:
ENGLISH AND FOREIGN.
BY
J. GRIERSON,
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
SECOND THOUSAND.
LONDON:
EDWARD STANFORD, 55, CHARING CROSS.
1886.
PRINTED BY
WATERLOW AND SONS LIMITED, LONDON WALL, LONDON.
Transcriber's Notes:
Underscores "_" before and after a word or phrase indicate
_italics_ in the original text.
Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.
Obvious spelling mistakes have been corrected.
Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved.
In the sample contracts, the blank spaces to be filled in have
been replaced with underscores.
The caret character "^" indicates a superscript for the next
character or bracketed group of characters.
PREFACE.
A part of the information upon which these observations are founded
was obtained for my own guidance, in considering the complaints as
to Railway rates and the comparisons between railways in the United
Kingdom and abroad. At the suggestion of the representatives of some
of the Companies the subject was followed up. These observations
have expanded beyond my original intentions; but they have been
prepared for a limited object; they do not purport to exhaust the
subject. I have endeavoured to treat it fairly, and to pay due
regard alike to the interests of the traders, the public, and
the railway companies; interests which may, to a hasty observer,
occasionally appear conflicting, but which, looked at reasonably,
and in the light of full information, are seen to be identical.
Though solely responsible for the comments and conclusions, I am
indebted for the information upon which they are based to many
persons; among others, to several of the Presidents, General
Managers, and others connected with the control of the railways in
France, Belgium and Holland; to Sir Bernhard Samuelson, M.P. (who
placed at my disposal the voluminous and useful information which
he obtained as to the railways in Germany, Belgium and Holland); to
some of the General Managers and other Officers of the companies
in England, the United States, and Canada; and to many friends who
have been kind enough to supply much information and give valuable
assistance.
If the information thus collected helps to clear up some
misconceptions, to prevent the adoption of theories as to the fixing
of rates which would be most injurious to the trade of the country,
and to bring about an equitable and satisfactory settlement of
questions now so much discussed, my object will have been attained.
J. GRIERSON.
PADDINGTON,
_December 1st, 1886_.
CONTENTS.
SECTIONS PAGE
I. Introduction 1
II. The principle upon which Rates should be based 6
III. Cost of Service 8
IV. Equal Mileage Rates 13
V. Differential Rates 21
VI. Grouping, here and on the Continent 39
VII. Differential Rates on the Continent 45
VIII. The Interest of Consumers in Rates 62
IX. The Real Basis of Rates 68
X. New Classification 78
XI. Terminal Charges 93
XII. The Construction of Railways in England
and on the Continent 107
XIII. Working of English and Continental Railways--Comparative
facilities afforded by them 119
XIV. High Rates and their effect on trade 142
XV. Proposals for fixing rates by Railway
Commission.--Conciliation Courts 161
XVI. Railway Amalgamation 179
XVII. Railways and Canals 190
Conclusion 201
Appendix I. Comparison between English and Foreign Rates i
Appendix II. Comparison of Railway receipts from merchandise
and mineral traffic ix
Appendix III. Tariffs and Conditions for the conveyance of
merchandise Traffic in Holland xii
” ” Belgium xxvii
” ” Germany xliv
” ” France lv
Toll and maximum rate clauses in Railway Acts lxv
SECTION I.
INTRODUCTION.
For many reasons the failure to pass the Railway and Canal Traffic
Bill ought not to be regretted even by those who are dissatisfied
with railway companies, but who sincerely desire to benefit the
trade of the country. In the discussion of that Bill, and in the
debates on the subject of railway rates in recent sessions of
Parliament, the existence of many misconceptions were disclosed. As
to principles, there was little agreement; there was, if possible,
still less as to details. Charges which had often been explained or
refuted were repeated as if they were new, and as if they had never
been answered. One of the greatest defects of the discussion was
its fragmentary, one-sided character; it was carried on with far
too little regard to the interests of many classes, districts, and
ports which would have been seriously injured by some of the changes
hastily proposed. Many of those who professed to represent traders
ignored the interests of large sections of them; and what would
benefit consumers was, to a remarkable degree, lost sight of. The
delay may be useful; and it may be hoped that any future legislation
will be shaped according to the interests of all traders, and not of
a part of them only, and of the general public, to whom extended
and not restricted trade, cheapness, and a wide area of supply are
desirable.
The following observations do not attempt to correct or remove all
the misconceptions in circulation, or to answer all the charges
against English railway companies. Many of such charges are so
vague as to elude refutation; they appear formidable, but only
formidable because they are indefinite. Nor is this an attempt to
show that, with regard to railway working and rates, all is done
for the best by the companies. Considering the fact that the rates
are numbered by millions, and the variety of interests which they
affect--considering, too, the fact that this is an island with
numerous ports, companies and trading interests, all competing with
each other--it would be amazing if there were no anomalies and
defects. The present purpose is only to show that of the charges
brought against railway companies some are erroneous; that some
are exaggerated; that many are of a contradictory character; that
some are complaints of evils which railway companies did not create
and cannot alter; and that other supposed grievances could not be
removed without injury to the community. It has recently been stated
in Parliament that “this is the first time that traders have had
an opportunity of going before a tribunal and putting their views
fairly before it.”[1] This betrays forgetfulness of the fact that,
as lately as 1881 and 1882, during two sessions, a Select Committee
heard the complaints of all persons who believed that they had
grievances to relate. The statement, too, inadvertently ignores
the fact that, when the companies submitted in the session of
1885 Bills to Parliament, and thus offered a further opportunity
of inquiry, Chambers of Commerce and other persons professing to
represent trades refused to avail themselves of the opportunity,
and prevented the investigation taking place. English railway
companies need not dread a thorough examination of their working,
or a comparison with any foreign system. They need be apprehensive
only of a vague uninstructed notion that “something must be done;”
of legislation adopted, if not in a panic, in a time of greatly
depressed trade; of crude one-sided proposals made on behalf of a
part of the interests concerned by persons who have not sufficiently
examined and considered all the consequences of their schemes; and
of the application of a standard of perfection supposed to exist
somewhere, but in truth nowhere realized.
[1] Mr. Forwood. Debate on second reading of Railway and Canal
Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv. 446.
The continued depression of trade, the necessary efforts to
reduce the cost of production, jealousy of foreign competition,
misapprehensions fostered by agitation, as to the commercial effects
of “special,” “import,” and “transit” rates, have given birth to
vague, ill-considered proposals, some of which would be certain to
injure the cause which their authors have most at heart.
One point is at the outset very clear--the inconsistent nature of
many of the charges made against railway companies. Within the
last twenty years such complaints have been the subject of three
elaborate inquiries before Royal Commissions or Parliamentary
Committees[2]. Before all of them were submitted proposals
completely at variance with each other. With equal emphasis
railways are now asked to satisfy contradictory demands; and to a
large extent the multifarious charges made against them answer or
cancel each other. Many traders demand the very opposite of what
is a necessity to others, and of what consumers, naturally anxious
to enlarge the field of supply, earnestly desire. Some of the
former complain, for example, in language which seems borrowed from
mediæval times, that their “geographical” or “natural advantages”
are diminished. Other traders blame railway companies for not
sufficiently effacing natural disadvantages, and not offering
inducements for the development of trade in new districts. Exporters
want favourable terms; importers do the same; and another class
protests against concessions either in favour of exports or imports.
It is a remarkable fact that many of the proposals which were most
in fashion a few years ago have now been abandoned, and that in
Parliament and the Press we now hear chiefly of schemes totally
different from those which were formerly supported. Equal mileage
rates were once strongly advocated; and, probably owing to the great
success of the Penny Post and to the experiences of the advantages
of one uniform rate for all distances, there was a belief in some
minds that, with certain modifications, the same principle might
be applied to rates for goods. Ingenious schemes were devised for
equalizing within certain zones or areas, rates irrespective of
distance and other circumstances. There is a fashion in so-called
Railway Reform. Such schemes are now little heard of; they have
given place to proposals essentially different, which may in their
turn make way for others.
[2] See Report of Royal Commission, 1867; Report of Joint Select
Committee of House of Lords and Commons, 1872; Report of Select
Committee, 1881-2.
In all the recent discussions of rates much was heard of those who
were discontented, but very little of those who, being satisfied,
were silent. Most errors in Political Economy, it has been said,
come from not taking into account what is not seen. Especially true
is this of the question of railway rates, not the least important
problem of Political Economy. Of the trades and interests which are
dissatisfied with existing arrangements, people hear and see much.
Unfortunately they appear to take little heed of other interests,
equally important, which are contented, or comparatively so, which
do not send deputations to the Board of Trade, and which changes
such as have been from time to time proposed would injure or even go
far to ruin.