SECTION XVI.

RAILWAY AMALGAMATION.

We now come to a class of criticisms and proposals wholly different

from those which have hitherto been considered. In the report by

Sir Bernhard Samuelson (page 22) is a recommendation that railway

companies should either amalgamate, or make agreements between

themselves, for the division of the receipts from competitive

traffic, so as to reduce the working expenses.[102] Probably for the

first time has this suggestion come from such a quarter. Manifestly

it is beginning to be understood that undue competition between

railways is injurious to the companies without being beneficial

to the public, and that, in the interests of both, it should be

moderated.

[102] “The loss arising from the unnecessary multiplication of

train services, as well for the passengers as for the goods, the

avoidance of which was one of the principal motives which decided

the Prussian Government to purchase their railways, may be obviated

in this country, by a more intimate fusion of the interests of the

various railways, either by amalgamation or by the consolidation of

their interests in some other way, under the sanction of Parliament;

care being taken that the interests of the public in regard to

accommodation and charges are duly safeguarded. I have reason to

believe that, so far as the railways north of the Thames and west

of the metropolis are concerned, the more active and enlightened

directors are by no means unprepared for a step of the kind.”

Hitherto, the public and Parliament have looked with jealousy on

arrangements between railway companies intended to lessen the waste

caused by undue competition. The statements so often put forward

by companies that the expenditure of capital in the construction

and working of unnecessary competing lines is not beneficial to the

public, have been disregarded. Any scheme which professed to meet

“public requirements,” and promised multiplication of trains and the

carriage of railway traffic at a high rate of speed, has met with

favour in and out of Parliament.

Whether the particular line could only be worked at undue cost, or

could yield a proper or, indeed, any return upon the capital to be

expended, has rarely been considered. The Legislature has fostered

new schemes, and has favoured competition, not economy; it has

not recognised how much interested the public were in the prudent

expenditure of capital on railways. Had the reports prepared under

the guidance of Lord Dalhousie, in order that railways might be

constructed according to a definite plan, been acted upon, or had

he been able to carry out here his ideas as to railway extension,

as he did in India, the rapid growth of railways might have been

retarded.[103] But, undoubtedly, the want of any plan has entailed

the outlay of a much larger amount of capital than would otherwise

have been required. Upon this excess, interest, if it can be earned,

is paid; a fact not to be overlooked by those who now desire that

the companies should reduce their rates. Such errors are repeated.

Even in recent years Parliamentary Committees have authorised on

the most trifling grounds new competing lines. True, they expressed

no opinion as to the success of such schemes. But it must have

been known that, if the capital were subscribed, it must come

from people who were under the impression that only schemes of

substantial value would be authorised by Parliament.

[103] See the late Mr. R. Stephenson’s evidence before Mr.

Cardwell’s Committee, 25th February, 1853. Q. 987-9.

Of the many schemes of this description, two or three illustrations

may be given. Within the last 13 years, authority was obtained to

construct a local line for the accommodation of a sparsely inhabited

agricultural district. In this form it was favoured by the companies

in whose district it was. The prospect of a return on the capital,

however, was so small that comparatively little money could be

raised. A scheme was, therefore, got up for obtaining Parliamentary

powers to extend the line on the plea that it would thus become a

through competitive line connecting two important existing systems;

a scheme which quite ignored the fact that the two systems had

already a means of communication, which it was their interest and

desire to develop to the utmost against any hostile scheme. A large

portion of the capital was procured on the faith of statements

contained in carefully framed prospectuses, for the issue of which

the financiers were paid £60,000. A considerable portion of the

capital came from persons residing in remote parts of the country.

Some money was borrowed for a time at the rate of 16 per cent.

per annum. Although about £1,200,000 in cash and paper has been

expended, the receipts do not cover the working expenses, including

the rent of stations and expenses of junctions; the line must be

imperfectly worked; and of course not a farthing of interest or

dividend can be paid on any portion of the capital.

A second illustration may be given. About twenty-five years ago a

branch railway of 6 miles in length was promoted and sanctioned by

Parliament as part of a line to compete with an existing railway.

The original cost was estimated at £42,000, and the total amount of

capital authorised was £60,000. Not until 20 years after the Act

was obtained was the line opened for traffic. During this period no

fewer than eleven applications for increased capital or other powers

were made to Parliament; and three schemes of arrangement were

entered into with creditors and confirmed by the Chancery Court. The

total capital expended has been upwards of £157,000, of which 44 per

cent. has been raised by loans, 46 per cent. by preference shares,

and 10 per cent. only by ordinary stock. What need there was of the

line may be inferred from the fact that, although it has now been

open for some five years, the gross receipts are not sufficient even

to pay the locomotive expenses.

One more case may be mentioned. An application was made to

Parliament for powers to construct a line about 7 miles in length,

which was estimated to cost not far short of £120,000. After four

years a further application was made for extension of time and for

power to raise more than half the share capital by the issue of

preference stock and to pay interest out of capital. It was then

given in evidence that upwards of one-fourth of the estimated cost

of the line had already been expended, although no works had been

constructed, and only £1,000 paid towards the acquisition of land.

In such cases the diversion of traffic from existing railways

usefully serving the public, the loss of interest on the outlay if

the line is in the end purchased by them, and the expense of working

it, are so much dead weight which the railway system has to bear.

Thus the companies are so much less able to reduce rates.

Many similar cases could be stated. Notwithstanding the absorption

of this class of schemes, there is still upwards of £61,000,000

of capital which has paid no dividend at all. An inquiry into the

promotion and construction of many of the railways authorised during

the last 25 years, would probably bring to light facts as startling

as those elicited by the Foreign Loans Committee. The established

companies oppose such schemes. But their opposition is generally

looked upon as arising solely from selfish objects. They are told

that it is not their money which is to be expended, and that though

they may have a nominal, they have no substantial, right to oppose.

It is a common observation that, if a new line afford accommodation

for a part of the traffic carried by the opposing company, it will

be useful to the public, and that if it will not carry any such

traffic the objections of the opposing company are groundless. Such

arguments succeed; the Bill is passed; and what happens? From long

experience the existing companies know that nearly all the schemes

which are at first brought out as independent competing lines will

sooner or later be pressing to be worked or leased, or be in the

market, and that the promoters of any of them not taken over, will

be continually making applications to Parliament or to the Railway

Commissioners, posing, not as an aggressive, but as an ill-used

company, and harassing its neighbours with a view to be purchased or

to levy blackmail.

The present position of railways is largely due to the action

of Parliament and to the public, though some blame is no doubt

attributable to the companies themselves. A great improvement has

taken place in the relations of the companies, and in the conduct of

railways in recent years. But there has been too much readiness,

indeed anxiety, to invade districts accommodated by neighbouring

companies. In the working of their lines exaggerated importance

is too often given to competition without regard to its utility.

Frequently passenger trains are run without sufficient regard to

whether or not they are fairly remunerative. Wagons containing only

a small quantity of goods are often sent long distances at little

profit, if not at a loss. Goods trains are run at an excessive

speed, and therefore do not and cannot carry such remunerative loads

as in other countries, notwithstanding some of the undoubtedly low

rates charged there. So-called “concessions,” not really essential,

are made to trading or other interests, when it would be better that

the companies should earn on the traffic a reasonable income to go

into the pockets of the shareholders, or be expended, as suggested

by Sir Bernhard Samuelson, in improved accommodation.

While there has been too much proneness to favour competing

schemes, there has been an unreasonable jealousy of agreements

between companies. Traces of the jealousy with which Parliament

has regarded agreements between companies, even for merely working

branches in extension of parent lines, are shewn by the provision

that agreements shall be reviewed every ten years. It also appears

in the views of the Railway Commissioners as expressed in section 6

of their twelfth report (1885). They state that it is the practice

of some companies to get such agreements confirmed by means of

a schedule to their private Bills, which gives the public no

opportunity of knowing what those agreements are about, and that the

agreements are confirmed, either for long terms, or in perpetuity,

without any provision for a periodical revision in the interests of

the public. And yet it is not known that the public have derived any

advantages from the periodical revision of agreements for working

branch lines, and whenever application has been made to Parliament

for absorbing a branch line it has been authorised without any

difficulty.

In the last session of Parliament, the Midland Company applied for

power to enter into, and carry into effect, agreements with certain

other railway companies with respect to the provision of joint

terminal accommodation at towns and stations on their respective

systems; the alteration and enlargement of existing stations for

joint purposes; the providing at joint expense of train services

between towns and places served by their respective systems, and of

locomotive engines and stock for such joint trains; the appointment

of joint staff and the fixing of rates, fares and charges in respect

of traffic using such joint stations, or carried by such joint

trains, and the division of the receipts therefrom. Any agreements

made under these powers were to be subject to the approval of the

Board of Trade. With the present view held by Parliament and by a

section of the traders as to railways, it is, however, questionable

whether such agreements would be confirmed, except on terms which it

would be impossible for the companies to accept.

In this country--which is unlike the United States in this

respect--agreements to charge equal rates for competitive traffic

have been, on the whole, adhered to. Arrangements for the division

of such traffic are therefore not so much required here as there.

The great desiderata of the companies are the limitation of

competition within reasonable bounds, stopping the waste which it

now causes, and fully affording to each other and to the public and

traffic all practicable facilities and accommodation.

Agreements for the division of traffic, or for “pooling,” as they

are termed in the United States and Canada, are not unknown in

this country. Some have been sanctioned by Parliament; others have

been made between the companies without any express Parliamentary

authority, and have been carried out. For instance, Mr. Gladstone

made, in 1851, an award apportioning, for a period of five years,

the receipts for traffic carried between, London, York, Leeds,

Sheffield, and several other places, between the Great Northern, and

London and North Western, and Midland Railways. In the year 1857 he

made a further award determining, for a period of fourteen years,

the proportions in which the proceeds from the passenger and goods

traffic between the same and other places, including Hull, Halifax,

Bradford, &c., were to be divided between these companies and the

Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company.

Parliament has sanctioned agreements for the division of traffic

receipts between the South Eastern and London Chatham and Dover,

and between the London Brighton and South Coast and South Eastern

Companies. But it is more than doubtful whether the parties to these

agreements have derived all the advantages which, consistently with

the interests of the public, they might have obtained.

It is well known that nowhere on the Continent has the construction

of competing lines been carried out to the same extent as in this

country; it is one of the great permanent advantages possessed by

Continental railways.[104] In France the companies have districts

within which they exclusively afford railway accommodation. The

Government recognise and sanction agreements between the companies

for the prevention of undue competition where it inevitably arises,

and for an apportionment of the receipts from competitive traffic.

The following is an instance:--An agreement made 31st March, 1885,

between the “Western of France Railway and the Orleans Railway

Companies, provided that the receipts in respect of traffic carried

between Paris and Angers, Nantes, Montoir, St. Nazaire, Redon and

stations beyond, after deducting taxes (“Impôts”) and terminals

should be apportioned thus:--

1. Traffic between Paris and Redon and stations beyond as far as

Plaermel and Pontivy--

55 per cent. proportion to the Western Company.

45 ” ” ” Orleans Company.

2. Traffic carried between Paris and Angers, Nantes, Montoir, St.

Nazaire, and branches leading out of the latter two stations, as

well as Pont Chateau, by whatever route the traffic may have

been carried--

49 per cent. proportion to the Western Company.

51 ” ” ” Orleans Company.

3. Traffic carried between Paris and stations beyond Angers or Martre

d’Ecole on the States Railway--

230/304 to the Western Company.

74/304 ” Orleans ”

[104] The General Prussian Railway Law of 1838 (S. 44) under which

many of the Prussian railways were constructed, expressly declared

that “no railway running in the same direction as the first one

between the same principal points shall be allowed to be constructed

by any undertakers other than the undertakers of the first railway,

within a space of 30 years from the opening of such railway,

provided that improvements of the communications between the points

and in the same direction by other means shall not be interfered

with.”

In Belgium there is practically no such competition as exists

in this country. The Government have had to face the difficult

questions respecting it: they have solved them in a manner different

from that adopted here. They have entered into an agreement for the

division of competitive traffic between the State railways and the

Grand Central Belge. Under this arrangement the route over which the

traffic is conveyed is credited with the whole of the terminals, and

50 per cent. of the carrying receipts. The remaining 50 per cent. is

apportioned between the two competing routes on the following basis,

viz:--

Each route is credited with 25 per cent. if the

mileage is equal.

The longest route is credited with

22½ per cent. if the mileage does not exceed the

shortest route by 5 per cent.

18 ” ” ” ” 10 ” ”

13½ ” ” ” ” 15 ” ”

9 ” ” ” ” 20 ” ”

4½ ” ” ” ” 25 ” ”

The route selected by either the State railways or the Grand Central

Belge must not exceed the distance by the shortest route by more

than 25 per cent.; above which limit all competition ceases.

In Germany exist arrangements practically amounting to a division

of traffic. For instance, the shortest route from Elberfeld to Bâle

is viâ Coblenz-Strasburg. The traffic to Bâle is carried every

alternate month by the Right Rhenish route over the Badisch State

railway, and by the Left Rhenish route over the Alsace-Lorraine

railways. As regards traffic with Austria-Hungary arrangements are

made which ensure to each line a certain percentage. In the event of

the returns showing that one company have not carried their fixed

share, they are entitled to a money compensation.

Undoubtedly the suggestion of Sir B. Samuelson that reductions

should be made in the expenses of working railways, and that

undue competition should be avoided by arrangements between the

companies, is important and well worthy of consideration. To

commerce generally, and to the traders using railways, it might

clearly be advantageous. It may, however, be premature to expect

that at present such agreements as he suggests would be sanctioned

by Parliament, except upon onerous conditions. If such agreements

were favourably regarded by the representatives of commerce and

agriculture in Parliament, the companies would more willingly enter

into them. In many cases greater economy and improved working would

undoubtedly result, and there is no reason why such arrangements

should not be made beneficial to the public as well as fair to the

railway companies.

SECTION XVI.

RAILWAYS AND CANALS.

Great stress is laid on the importance of canals. Railway companies

have been accused of preventing them from competing with railways,

of improperly getting possession of them, not maintaining them, and

so acting as to force the traffic on to their lines. In Parliament

and elsewhere they have been charged with purchasing canals and

then deliberately killing them, either by ceasing to keep them in

repair or by reducing rates upon their lines to a point which makes

competition by the canals impossible. These assertions have been

made before Royal Commissions and Select Committees. In no official

report or other authoritative document, however, have they been

declared proved; and it is submitted that facts do not warrant them.

Not to the artifices of railway companies, but to altered conditions

of trade is due, in the main, the inability of many canals to hold

their own against railways. The necessity for rapid transit, the

disinclination to keep large stocks, the growth of the practice of

applying to the producer or manufacturer as orders come in, and

as occasion requires, and the low rates by railway for articles

which canals can convey, have all been unfavourable to the latter.

It is not unimportant to note that no Commission or Committee has

been able to point out any mode in which the decline of canal

traffic--“the creeping paralysis of our inland waterways”--could be

arrested. We may, too, incidentally note the considerable diversity

of opinion as to the importance of canals generally. Some complain

that great injury has been done to the trading community by the

absorption of the canals by railway companies.[105] Others will have

it that too much importance is attached to canals; they have been

even described as “_those wretched little waterways which could

never compete successfully with the great railway companies_.”[106]

In 1883, a Committee was appointed by Parliament to enquire into the

condition and the position of the canals and internal navigation of

the country, to report thereupon, and to make such recommendations

as might appear necessary. It sat during the greater part of the

Session. Many charges were made against railway companies which

owned canals. They could not be answered in that Session for want

of time. So little importance seems to have been attached to them

or indeed to the subject of canals, that the Committee was not

re-appointed in the following Session. No report was therefore ever

made.

The subject affords a valuable illustration of the railway

legislation in this country, and of the prejudice and

misapprehension which exist in some quarters as to the conduct of

railway companies. Far from there being an inordinate desire to

absorb canals, it will appear that those which belong to railway

companies have, as a rule, been forced upon them, either to remove

the opposition of the canal companies, or as a condition of railway

Bills being passed.

[105] Mr. Mundella, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th

May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 461.

[106] Sir B. Samuelson, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill,

1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 441.

Let us give an instance of the treatment which the promoters of

railways, when opposed by the representatives of waterways, have

received at the hands of Parliament. In respect of the Severn

navigation, the Great Western Company are at the present time

under a heavy liability. This liability was forced upon their

predecessors, the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway

Company, when applying for powers to construct their railway, which

did not really compete with the navigation to any serious extent, if

at all. Clause 94 of the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway

Act of 1845 recites that the Severn Commissioners had raised the sum

of £180,000 upon the security of the tolls on the Severn navigation,

in the expectation that those tolls would reach the sum of £14,000 a

year. It provides that the Great Western and the Oxford, Worcester

and Wolverhampton Railway Companies should, from the opening of the

Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway for traffic between

Worcester and Wolverhampton, and so long as the principal moneys

raised by the Severn Commissioners, or interest thereon, remained

due, make up to the Severn Commissioners any deficiency between the

actual amount of the tolls for any year, and the sum of £14,000. The

Great Western Company do not possess or even control the navigation.

Yet this liability was forced on the promoters as a condition of

obtaining their Bill; and in respect of it the Great Western Company

actually now pay between £6,000 and £7,000 per annum!

How much truth there is in the allegation that the canals owned by

railway companies are not properly maintained by these companies,

but that on the contrary the railway companies obstruct the trade on

them, may be shown by the case of the Kennet and Avon canal, which

is also the property of the Great Western Company.[107]

[107] The Clause in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, as to the

maintenance of canals is as follows:--

Every Railway Company owning or having the management of any canal

or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal

or part, and all the reservoirs, works and conveniences thereto

belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged, and in good working

condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water to the same

so that the whole of such canal or part, may be at all times kept

open and navigable for the use of all persons desirous to use and

navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption,

or delay.

This canal was authorised by an Act of 1794. The canal is

between Newbury and Bath, a distance of 57 miles. But the water

communication is extended beyond Newbury on the one side to Reading

by means of the River Kennet, and from Bath to near Bristol on

the other side by means of the River Avon. The total navigable

distance between the points named is 86½ miles. This canal is

joined by the Wilts and Berks canal (which is connected with the

Thames by the Thames and Severn canal) and the Somersetshire Coal

canal. Thus the Kennet and Avon canal forms part of an extensive

system of waterways, by communicating direct with the Thames on

the one hand and the Severn on the other. The total cost of the

Kennet and Avon canal was £1,011,589. It was opened in 1810, from

which date, up to 1813, no separate accounts of capital and revenue

were kept. But the returns from 1813 show that the receipts of the

canal gradually increased from £22,075 gross and £11,843 net in

1813 to £58,820 gross and £39,113 net in 1840. The opening of the

Great Western Company’s line between Reading and Bath in 1840-41

seriously affected the canal revenue. The canal company applied

to Parliament for powers to construct a railway alongside their

canal. Failing in that project, they in 1848 availed themselves of

the powers of the General Canal Act, and entered upon the carrying

business, from which, however, they derived little profit. In fact

the first year was the only year when the revenue derived from the

carrying business exceeded the expenses. The opening of the line of

railway between Chippenham and Trowbridge in 1848-50 still further

injured the canal traffic. The canal company offered to transfer

their undertaking to the Great Western Company; and the terms for

such transfer were agreed and approved by Parliament in 1852. In

sanctioning the arrangement, Parliament, however, imposed upon

the Great Western Company the condition that, if at any time the

canal tolls were complained of as, in comparison with those of the

railway, prejudicially affecting traders on the canal, the Board of

Trade should make such regulations and fix such tolls as they might

think fit. In 1867-1868 the traders using the canal memorialized

the Board of Trade to reduce the tolls. An Arbitrator, who was

appointed, reported in favour of a reduction, which was accordingly

carried out. The tolls thus fixed were charged up to 1877, when

the traders again memorialized the Board of Trade. The matter was

referred to the Railway Commissioners, before whom it was given in

evidence that if further reductions were made on certain articles

constituting the chief trade of the canal, the traffic would

materially increase. The Railway Commissioners thereupon reduced the

tolls upon those articles from 1d. per ton per mile with a maximum

of 6s., to ½d. per ton per mile with a maximum, for the whole

distance of 86½ miles, of 2s. But the statements of the traders

that an increase of the traffic would follow upon a reduction of the

tolls have been found to be entirely baseless. Notwithstanding this

great reduction, the traffic had fallen from 159,190 tons in 1876,

to 125,807 in 1885.

The gross receipts in the year 1840 were, as already stated,

£58,820; in 1848 they had fallen to £33,205; in 1852, when the

canal was taken over by the Great Western Company, to £24,291, and

in 1885 to £4,237. The canal has been maintained in an efficient

state of repair by the Great Western Company, in accordance with

the obligation imposed upon them by their Act of 1852, and the

navigation has been always kept open. Notwithstanding the large

reductions in the tolls, the traffic has year by year diminished,

until in 1885 the expenses considerably exceeded the receipts,

without taking into account the interest (between £7,000 and £8,000

a year) which the company have to pay upon the capital expended in

acquiring the canal undertaking. These are weighty facts. Although

the Great Western Company purchased the Kennet and Avon canal, pay

interest on the purchase money, and maintain it, and although they

are deprived of the power to fix the tolls upon the canal, and

have had to submit to two reductions--the maximum under the latter

arrangement being for the whole length of the canal little more

than one farthing per ton per mile in respect of any description

of goods--the traffic has continued to fall off. The tolls do not

yield sufficient to pay the salaries and wages of the working staff,

or even the actual cost of the labour and materials necessary for

maintenance and repairs.

The foregoing illustration, may help to correct the statements

which have been made as to the conduct of railway companies in the

capacity of owners or workers of canals. Not only the Kennet and

Avon canal, but, it is probable, all the other canals which have

been taken over by the Great Western Company, must have been closed

years ago if they had remained in the possession of the canal

companies. The public have, in fact, had the opportunity of availing

themselves of the water carriage when it was to their interest to do

so, just because the railway company took over the canals and kept

them in working order.

Though every railway company owning or managing a canal may be

compelled under the Section cited on page 193 to keep it in

repair, only one application for that purpose has been made to the

Railway Commissioners. This is scarcely consistent with the loose,

unverified accusations as to the shortcomings of railway companies.

Besides, it is not true that the whole canal system has passed under

the influence of railways. Of the 3,029 miles of canals in Great

Britain, 1,592½ miles are owned or managed by other than railway

companies.[108] An examination of the map prepared by Mr. Abernethy,

C.E., for the Select Committee of 1883, shows, that south of a line

passing through Worcester, Birmingham, Nottingham and Hull, there is

scarcely a canal of any importance, with the exception of the Kennet

and Avon canal, between Bath and Reading, permanently, temporarily,

or partially in the hands of a railway company.

[108] Appendix to Report of Select Committee on Canals, page 214,

“These lengths are exclusive of the River Thames, Severn, Wye,

Humber, Wear, and Tyne in England; the Rivers Clyde, Forth, Tay,

and the Caledonian Ship Canal in Scotland; the Shannon and other

navigations in Ireland.” According to Mr. Taunton’s Report, the

canals and navigable rivers in England, Wales, and Scotland under

control of railways are 1,447 miles as against 2,335, which are

independent of railway companies (Appendix 228.)

The fact appears to be that canals flourish only where certain

conditions exist. Where a large traffic can be conveyed in full

boatloads; where the country is flat, and there are consequently

few locks; where large vessels propelled by steam can be used;

where works are so situated that the cost of collection or delivery

can be saved; in such circumstances, canals are suitable for coal,

chalk, cotton, stone, bricks, pig-iron, round timber, grain, &c.,

and such like goods carried in large quantities, or for short

distances. They can, no doubt, when such conditions exist, be

beneficially used at a low cost for carriage; but for traffic not

large, or composed of a great variety of articles, which have to

be collected in small quantities from different places, or to be

distributed all over the country, canals cannot successfully compete

with railways. Want of water in dry summers, interruptions from

ice in winter, and diversity of gauges in locks and tunnels--all

matters which add to cost--are great inconveniences, and grave

objections to water carriage. Often carriage by canal necessitates

the erection of warehouses for storing goods, which is saved by the

transit of traffic by rail. The speed and despatch demanded by the

modern necessities of trade have tended to throw upon the railway

more and more of the traffic which formerly went by canals, as well

as the increase in the traffic of the country. In Staffordshire,

canal boats meet from all the principal towns such as Manchester,

Liverpool, and parts of Yorkshire in the North, and London and

Bristol in the South; _but no through traffic is exchanged_. All

the traffic of Staffordshire in iron, hardware, chains, anchors,

nails, &c., outwards, and grain, timber, spelter, bone, manures, &c.

inwards, requiring speed, is carried by railways. Where the canal

charges are equal to, or lower than, the railway rates, the railways

and canals divide the traffic. Newly-opened collieries and works

are now, as a rule, laid out for loading into railway wagons, not

into boats, because railway stations and railway trucks give greater

facilities for distribution of coal to all parts of the country.

No doubt certain large canals--for example, the Aire and Calder,

Bridgwater, and the Leeds and Liverpool--can be profitably worked

in their exceptional circumstances, as they possess a plentiful

supply of water, and traverse a long stretch of comparatively level

country. Where such conditions exist for distances of fifty to

sixty miles, canals may compete successfully for heavy traffic with

railways.

Nor have the proprietors of canals done the utmost to overcome

inherent disadvantages. The existing inland system, with only 7-feet

locks, is inadequate. The canals are too shallow; they are wasteful

in the consumption of water; and they cannot be worked economically.

The cost of working larger boats of 300 tons on suitable canals,

hauled by steam, and loaded and unloaded by the best appliances of

steam cranes would, of course, be much less expensive than that of

working the boats of, say 30 to 60 tons, now used.

The cost of haulage on the narrow canals is much in excess of

the cost of conveyance by rail, and the difference remains,[109]

notwithstanding all efforts to improve the canals; efforts which,

to be really useful, it was estimated would cost about £12,000 a

mile. Mr. F. Morton, a canal carrier, stated that his firm lost from

£100 to £150 per boat, per year, on certain of their “Fly” or quick

boats, which were worked as an auxiliary to their general business

with a view to compete with the railways, and help to retain that

portion of the “Slow” traffic which they still have.

[109] See evidence before the Select Committee on Canals, in 1883.

In countries possessing a large network of canals and other

waterways--in France, Holland, and Germany (the Rhine provinces)

for example--and where railway accommodation is not so complete

as in this country, canals are necessarily important channels of

communication. In France the waterways consist of--

Miles

Navigable rivers 4,627

Canals 2,967

-----

7,594

Except 534 miles the whole of the mileage is the property of the

State, and canals have been artificially fostered by it. According

to a report prepared by M. Krantz, in 1872, and submitted to the

Select Committee on Canals in 1883, the expenditure upon the

waterways in France was on that date £32,738,715 on canals, and

£13,557,867 on rivers, a total of £46,296,582, while the cost of

maintenance for the year was upwards of £336,000[110].

[110] M. de Foville says (1880) “_Sur les canaux de l’Etat, la

suppression totale des droits de navigation sera peut être bientôt

un fait accompli_” p 134.

In Belgium the aggregate length of the canals and navigable rivers

is 1,254 miles, seven-eighths of which belong to the State. On

a great portion no toll is charged; and on the remainder, sums

varying from 3¼d. to 1s. 1d. per ton per 100 miles.

In Holland there are nearly 3,000 miles of canals and waterways, the

former of which practically belong to the State.

If the explanation which has been given be not correct--if the great

obstacle to the success of canals in this country be not their

inferiority, as compared with railways, in the carriage of goods

to answer the needs of trade--why have no new canals been made for

some fourteen or fifteen years? They cost much less per mile than

railways, and their maintenance expenses are not so heavy. That they

are falling into decay in this country when left in private hands,

is due, in the main, to the fact that this country is well supplied

with railway accommodation, and that for most kinds of merchandise

they are not such an efficient mode of transport as railways.[111]

[111] There is a large mileage of canals belonging to canal

companies, and considering the views expressed by some as to the

use which could be made of the canals which belong to the railway

companies, it would have been instructive if the proprietors of all

the independent canals had shown by the manner in which they had

maintained and worked them, that the railway companies’ canals could

be more profitably and usefully worked than they now are.

CONCLUSION.

The chief complaints which have been discussed fall under two heads;

first, the statements expressed in many forms that rates on the

Continent are lower than rates here, that this difference injures

our trade, and that English railway rates ought therefore, to be

reduced; secondly, that rates are based on no principle, that a

scientific system ought to be adopted, and that import, transit, and

certain other special rates, as the greatest anomalies, ought to be

prohibited. A few words remain to be said to summarise my arguments

as to each of these statements.

The facts and figures mentioned at pages 144-8, and elsewhere have

shown, it is hoped, that for instance, the exportation of iron or

coal--the articles more often mentioned in the controversy--is not

prejudiced by the railway rates charged in England as compared with

those charged abroad. There has been, undoubtedly, some loss of

trade in particular markets. For instance, coal was formerly sent

from this country to Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam. It is now

replaced by Belgian and German coal. Is this very surprising? Is

it reasonable to expect that colliery proprietors on the Continent

would not supply coal, or the Governments, the proprietors of the

railways, not convey it at anything above cost price rather than

allow foreign coal to be imported, their collieries to stand idle,

and their people to be unemployed? Coal of superior quality can be

shipped at Newport and Cardiff at from 6½d. to 1s. per ton. What

abatement could reasonably be expected from rates based on such a

very low scale? What effect, if a reduction were made, could it have

upon the alleged foreign competition, and upon the depression in

trade?

The prices of coal are low because of over production, and undue

competition between colliery owners. The extravagant prices obtained

by colliery proprietors in 1873-4 led to the opening of many new

collieries in the South Wales, Northern and Midland districts of

England, as well as in Germany and elsewhere. The result was to

create a capacity of output far beyond the demand--160,000,000 tons

per annum now as compared with 127,000,000 tons in 1873. The desire

which exists in every district for reductions in railway rates is

not so much to meet foreign, as home competition; the strength of

that desire is ascribable to the activity and intensity of the

latter competition.

In regard to export trade, the inland producers of manufactured

goods must be at a disadvantage as compared with their rivals on the

sea coast. But no complaint that the railway companies had diverted

traffic from England abroad by exorbitant rates was made out before

the Railway Rates Committee. The Royal Commission on the Depression

of Trade have heard much evidence to that effect, but they have

not thought it necessary to call upon the railway companies for

any reply. To very different causes--some of them far reaching and

deep--is due the depression which interested persons would attribute

on superficial grounds to the operation of rates.

Upon the policies pursued by foreign Governments in regard to the

construction and working of railways, it is unnecessary to pass

any opinion. No trustworthy judgment is possible without fully

considering all the circumstances--especially the difficulties to

be encountered and the objects which the Governments had in view.

It is enough to point out how radically different are the railway

systems here and abroad--how much at variance are the policies

pursued by our Government and by those of Continental States. Here

the sole principle running through railway legislation has been to

depend upon private enterprise, and to encourage competition between

the companies.[112] Parliament has afforded no assistance to them,

except indeed conferring the power to purchase, often on payment

of exorbitant prices, the necessary land. Even when property of

the State has been required by a railway company, the Government

have, as a rule, been as exacting in their terms as any of the

now maligned landowners, wholly different has been the policy of

Governments abroad. Not only have railways been saved the payment

of extravagant compensation or legal expenses in obtaining powers

to construct the railways or acquire property, but inasmuch as the

public in France did not, as in England, come forward to provide the

necessary capital, the State supplied large portions of the capital

of some railways, and contracted heavy obligations to promote the

construction of others. In Germany, the State is responsible for

the interest on the capital, the Government alone bearing any loss

arising from charging low rates or otherwise. That also is the

position of the Government in Belgium, which is responsible to

the extent of 71 per cent. of the railway system in that country.

The principles which have guided the Belgian Government in fixing

railway rates appear from the extract from the report of the Debate

to be found on page 115. At an interview which M. Vandenpeereboom,

the Belgian Minister of Railways, Post and Telegraphs, was good

enough to grant the writer, this was confirmed. Asked “what had been

the object which the Government had in fixing the tariff; whether

they had in view the obtaining of a fair interest on the outlay

as a commercial undertaking, or whether the object was to develop

the resources of the country, looking to a return on the outlay

as a secondary consideration,” M. Vandenpeereboom replied “_that

the object had been to develop the resources of the country_, and

therefore a return on the capital was not of primary importance.”

These fundamental differences cannot be disregarded; the fruits of

systems so radically dissimilar cannot be expected to be the same.

[112] “Monopoly” is at present the favourite word of the adversaries

of railways; everything is permissible because railway companies

have a “monopoly.” This word has at least three senses. Monopoly in

the strict legal sense in which the Bank of England is guaranteed

by statute, the exclusive right of issuing notes within a certain

area; monopoly in the sense of being able to exclude other

competitors, because in a commercial point of view there is no room

for competition, or because the work could not be done more cheaply

or better by others. Messrs. W. H. Smith may be said to possess

a monopoly in this sense; monopoly is equivalent to property. No

railway company possesses a monopoly in the first sense. No company

is guaranteed against competition within any area, as many of them

know to their cost. Most attacks against railways are justified by

using the word, true in the second or third sense, as if true in the

first; and persons in eminent positions occasionally condescend to

sanction the use of this fallacy.

If the State here, as in France, had provided without charging

interest towards the capital expended upon the railways in this

country, the same proportion as was so provided by the State in

France (say upwards of £200,000,000), and guaranteed from 7 to 11

per cent. dividend on the remainder of the share capital; if it

had, as in Holland, found three-fifths (£480,880,000) of the total

sum expended on British railways, and accepted less than one per

cent. interest upon the advance, the railway companies in this

country could have afforded to carry at rates considerably lower

than they now carry. It would not have been unreasonable in that

case on the part of traders to have called on them to do so.

But the benefits, such as they are, of the Continental system cannot

be fairly claimed without bearing the cost. Other countries, having

in view advantages from railways, have paid for them with public

money, and are prepared to pay still further for them at the expense

of the taxpayer; it would be an unreasonable and scarcely honest

policy to try to get indirectly the same rights and advantages

without payment.

Our Government have been called upon to reduce the rates of the

railway companies upon the complaint of traders that they have to

compete with French, German, and Belgian traders, who are served

by what, speaking generally, may be termed “subsidised lines.” To

such an application the answer of the Government of this country,

who have hitherto declined to aid the sugar manufacturers in their

competition with those in France, supported though the latter are by

State bounties, cannot be doubtful. Nor would purchase by the State

remove all the differences which have been mentioned. Some of them

cannot now be overcome. If the Government did purchase the railways,

and by reducing the accommodation to something like that given on

the Continent, were enabled to diminish the working expenses; if

they placed the railways on the same footing as regards duties and

taxes as the Government lines in Germany, the fact would remain

that the railways in this country have cost from 45 to 120 per cent.

more than those on the Continent, and that in wages alone there is a

disparity which they would not be able materially to alter.

The volume of trade in England, it may be said, is greater in

proportion to that of other countries; this should be considered, it

may be argued, as an equivalent for the greater cost of construction

and working of the railways. The fact that the average dividend is

only 4·02 per cent.--that is, two-fifths of the dividend which in

1844 it was considered the railways should pay--is one of several

answers to this contention.

A few remarks may be made with respect to the second class of

complaints--those which relate to the mode of fixing rates.

The chief question is, What rates will at once yield a fair return

on the capital of railways and best accommodate and develop the

trade of the country? The early Acts provided that they should be

fixed according to mileage. This, as we have seen, was altered by s.

90 of the Railway Clauses Act 1845. Are railway companies no longer

to carry out the provision of that Act, and continue to charge rates

“so as to accommodate them to the circumstances of the traffic?”

That principle has guided them for forty years, and certainly ought

not to be altered without good cause and full consideration. Instead

of merely inveighing against the present mode of fixing rates as

unscientific, those who are dissatisfied should explicitly state

what mode they would substitute, and make clear by full explanation

that it would be at once fair to the companies, and not injurious

to the trade of the country. To charge according to actual cost of

conveyance, or on a strictly mileage basis, has been shown to be

impracticable and impolitic. What other modes can be suggested?

If the mode of fixing rates adopted in France, Holland, Belgium and

Germany--systems which differ from each other--are suited to those

countries they would be inapplicable here. In practice they have

to be modified. In Holland, for instance, the theory is mileage

rates, but the greater portion of the traffic conveyed by railways

is, in fact, carried on under special contracts wholly inconsistent

with the principle upon which the railway rate system is nominally

based, which, if imitated in this country, would afford continuous

occupation for the Railway Commissioners.

The main complaint against the English companies is that they so

charge differential rates as to encourage foreign competition. The

effect of these rates is apt to be overestimated or misunderstood.

The benefits which the manufacturers derive from the low export

rates--based upon exactly the same principle--are entirely ignored.

It may be a matter of doubt whether it has been prudent on the

part of railway companies to consent to some of the import rates

complained of. Indeed, this doubt may be entertained, even if there

is no substantial grievance, and it may be desirable that Parliament

or the Board of Trade should institute an inquiry into the subject,

which affects not only the interests of railway companies,

agriculturists, and manufacturers, but also those of consumers,

steamboat proprietors, merchants, and sea-ports.

No system of rates can be suggested, much less adopted, which

would satisfy the desires of all traders. When the recommendation

of the Railway Rates Committee is carried out--when one uniform

classification is adopted over all the railways, and the maximum

rate clauses of the Companies are consolidated and revised on the

basis of their existing powers--any difficulty in ascertaining

whether the charges are within the companies’ powers will be

removed. The reasonableness of the charges for terminal services

will be determined by the Railway Commissioners.

Instead of the many scales of tolls now in force on all large

systems of railways--due to their being built up of originally

independent lines--one or at most two scales of tolls will govern

the entire systems of companies. By this process a great improvement

will be effected. Many of the anomalies in the rates will be

removed. But it is to be hoped, in the interest of the trade of the

country as a whole, that no legislation affecting railways, while

preserving the existing provisions against undue preference, will

interfere with the right of the companies to charge, within their

maxima, differential rates such as the traffic will fairly bear; a

power which has enabled them to meet the requirements of producers

and consumers in varying circumstances.

These observations have not been written with a view to prove that

there is no scope for criticism in the management of railways in

this country, but are made with every desire to comprehend and

appreciate all reasonable objections. They do not pretend to solve

all difficulties of the railway problem; but they may, at least,

show the serious dangers which would arise if some of the crude and

popular proposals often put forward were adopted, and may aid in

arriving at a safe and equitable settlement.

APPENDIX I.

COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLISH AND FOREIGN RATES.

The figures and facts which have been stated prove that, as a rule,

no fair, or even useful, comparison can be made between rates per

ton per mile on railways in England, and those charged on railways

in continental countries. A multitude of circumstances--original

cost of construction, difference in gradients, nature of services

performed, speed in transit, limited liability of foreign companies,

opportunities for getting full loads, immunity from taxation--must

all be taken into account before a just comparison can be

established.

But even assuming due regard is not given to these striking

differences the inference to the extent drawn by Sir B. Samuelson is

not accurate; the rates on the Continent are not universally lower.

Sir B. Samuelson’s report contains many errors of detail; and some

of them are worth noting, because they are frequently repeated.

Comparisons throughout have been made without due regard to the

conditions attaching to the rates, or the different circumstances

under which the traffic is carried. We give a few instances of the

errors; errors, it may be observed, not merely in calculation but in

the very bases of the comparison.

An effort has been made to reduce the English rates (which include

collection and delivery) to station to station rates, with the

object of comparing them with similar rates in other countries. But

many of the deductions are inaccurate and misleading. Instead of

adding to the continental station to station rates the charges for

cartage, which in Brussels is 4s. per ton, and in other Belgian

towns about 2s. 5d. at each end, Sir B. Samuelson has apparently

made arbitrary deductions of sums varying from 3d. and 4d. to 1s.

and 2s. per ton for cartage from British rates. These are manifestly

insufficient deductions. It is impossible that services could

be performed for such sums, especially in London. We cite a few

illustrations of this class of errors.

For IRON WIRE packed from Birmingham to London the rate is

shown as 24s. 4d. per ton; the actual rate is 28s. 4d. per ton,

including collection and delivery. Apparently 4s. per ton has

been deducted for cartage at both ends; that is _merely 2s. per

ton_ for cartage in London, although the cost of delivery in

such a city as Brussels would be 4s. per ton.

Similar remarks apply to the rates for unpacked iron wire from

Birmingham to London and Manchester, which have been treated in

the same way.

COTTON GOODS from Manchester to Oxford.--The rate shewn on

page 32 is 42s. per ton, station to station; the correct rate,

including collection and delivery, being 42s. 6d. per ton, so

that 6d. per ton, _or 3d. per ton only at each end_, has been

apparently allowed for collection and delivery.

WOOLLEN, WORSTED AND STUFF GOODS from Bradford (Yorks) to

Norwich.--The rate shown on page 32 is 41s. per ton, station

to station, while the correct rate, including collection and

delivery, is 41s. 8d. per ton; 8d. per ton being apparently

allowed in this case for the two services of collection and

delivery.

GENERAL MACHINERY from Leeds to Newcastle.--The export rate is

12s. 6d. per ton, including both collection and delivery, but

11s. 6d. is shewn on page 33 of report; that is, 1s. per ton

only has been deducted for the two services of collection and

delivery.[113]

[113] Some difficulty has been experienced in checking the rates

contained in Sir B. Samuelson’s report owing to the distances not

being given, and from the name of the district being used instead

of the names of the places between which the rates are shewn. For

instance, although the South Wales Coalfields extend over a very

large area, a rate of 7s. 3d. per ton for coke is referred to as

from “South Wales to Darlaston,” on page 24 of the report; and in

like manner on pages 27 and 28 the rates for pig iron are given as

from “Cleveland and Northamptonshire.”

These errors make many of the comparisons valueless.

A still graver error has been repeatedly committed. Notwithstanding

the remark (page 19) that the cost of collection and delivery has

been deducted, Sir B. Samuelson has in numerous cases assumed

British rates, which include either collection or delivery, and in

some cases both those services, to be station to station rates, and

compared them as such with station to station rates on the foreign

lines. Here are a few examples of this class of mistakes.

GENERAL MACHINERY.--Leeds to Hull, the export rate of 12s. 6d.

per ton is shown on page 33 as station to station, whereas it

includes both collection and delivery.

Though all the following rates for BUTTER include collection

and delivery, they are shewn on pages 38 and 39 as station to

station, viz.:--

s. d.

Hull to Manchester 21 8 per ton.

” Birmingham 21 8 ”

” Leeds 13 4 ”

Newcastle to Manchester 23 4 ”

” Birmingham 21 8 ”

” Leeds 14 2 ”

An unfortunate omission may be mentioned. In some cases there are

alternative rates on the English railways, _i.e._, a higher rate

when the company undertakes the risk of conveyance, and a lower

rate when the risk is borne by the owner. In no single instance has

Sir B. Samuelson taken in his comparisons the lower owner’s risk

rate chargeable at the option of the consignor. Yet in Holland,

for instance, the goods are carried practically at the risk of the

owner. On some goods no compensation for damage or delay is payable,

while on the others the compensation is limited, in some cases, to

simply a return of a portion, or, at the utmost, the whole of the

freight. We give a few examples of this class of errors.

The rate for iron wire packed from Birmingham to London is shown

on page 29 as 24s. 4d. per ton station to station; there is no

reference to the fact that there is an owner’s risk rate of 19s. 2d.

per ton, collected and delivered.

In like manner the rates for agricultural implements shown in the

first column of the following table are given on pages 33 & 34 of

the report, although there are the special rates shown in the other

columns, all notice of which has been omitted.

AGRICULTURAL MACHINES.

------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------

| | SPECIAL RATES.

| +------------+---------+---------------

| Rates |Agricultural| Machines| Machines

FROM TO | per ton in | Engines, | in cases|not in cases at

|report reduced| Steam | and iron| owner’s risk

| to station to| Ploughs, | harrows | collected and

| station. |&c., station|collected| delivered.

| | to station.| and |

| | |delivered|

------------------+--------------+------------+---------+---------------

| per ton. | per ton. | per ton.| per ton.

Banbury London | 26/2 to 32/- | 14/8 | 24/2 | 25/- to 29/7

” Lynn | 28/8 ” 34/6 | 19/8 | 26/8 | 27/1 ” 32/1

” Shrewsbury| 25/4 ” 30/4 | 16/2 | 23/4 | 24/2 ” 28/4

| | [114]| [115]| [116]

” Liverpool | 35/4 ” 43/8 | 28/6 | 31/8 | 32/6 ” 39/7

” Bridgwater| 34/6 ” 40/4 | 24/- | 29/2 | 31/3 ” 36/8

Bedford London | 18/8 ” 22/- | 11/- | 17/6 | 18/4 ” 21/3

------------------+--------------+------------+---------+---------------

[114] Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in

Liverpool in 10 ton lots.

[115] Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in

Liverpool in 10 ton lots.

[116] Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in

Liverpool in 10 ton lots.

These are not the only misleading omissions; it is incumbent to

mention others not less important.

In Holland bulky articles pay double the fast goods or ordinary

goods rates, or as for a minimum truckload of 5,000 or 10,000

kilogrammes respectively. An actual instance of a consignment from

Rotterdam to Munich will illustrate the system:--2 machines and 7

packages of appurtenances, the actual weight of which was 6,762

kilogrammes (6 tons 13 cwt.) were charged as for 10,000 kilogrammes

(9 tons 16 cwt. 3 qrs.) under the conditions of special tariff No.

3. This special rate is ignored.

In almost every instance, Sir B. Samuelson has taken the lowest

rates in Germany, Belgium and Holland, which are applicable only to

full truckloads of 5 and 10 tons, and in some cases, viz., Belgium,

to a minimum weight of 8 cwt. These he has used for the purpose of

comparison with English rates for any quantities over 500 lbs.

The rate for hardware from Birmingham to Newcastle for

export--206 miles--is 27s. 6d. per ton, including collection

and delivery, but it is shewn as 25s. 6d. per ton, station to

station, overlooking the special owner’s risk rate of 25s. per

ton, which also includes collection and delivery. The German

rate for the same distance (331 kilometres) is incorrectly given

as 18s. 7d. per ton; the lowest station to station rate is 19s.

per ton for full truckloads of not less than 5 tons, the rate

for smaller quantities, including collection and delivery, being

45s. 2d. per ton.

In Belgium again, the station to station rate of 18s. 11d. per

ton (which should be 19s. 4d.) is for a minimum of 8 cwt., the

rate, including collection and delivery for the same minimum,

being 24s. 3d. per ton.

The Dutch station to station rate of 14s. 10d. per ton (which

should be 15s. 7d.) is for full truck loads of not less than

5 tons, the rate, including collection and delivery for any

quantities, being 30s. 4d. per ton.

In the German tariff the rate is 2·15d. per ton per mile for goods

of every description in lots of less than 5 tons, with a lower

tariff divided into six classes for goods in full truckloads of

5 and 10 tons. The latter have been compared with the rates on

English railways applicable to consignment of 500 lbs. and over,

or of 2 tons. The higher foreign tariff for such traffic, in like

circumstances, is not shown. To arrive at a proper comparison, the

English rate should, in many instances, have been compared with

the rates charged for “_Eilgut_” (or fast goods service) on the

continental lines. Of course, the general public in Holland and

Germany cannot avail themselves of the rates for 5 and 10 ton lots.

They must deal with carriers or forwarding agents, who perform many

of the services included in the rates on English railways, and who

fill up, or partially fill up, truckloads. The agents who pay the

railway transit charges are free to make their own charges to the

public without limitation. What would be instructive--what, however,

is not supplied--would be a comparison between what is actually paid

in England, and what the majority of the public pay in Germany;

it is of little interest to know _what the carriers or forwarding

agents pay_ to the railway companies. The comparison, such as it is,

does not show the rate of conveyance per ton, because the carriers

have to pay as for five or ten tons, even if that quantity is not in

a wagon. They must make charges to the public beyond the ordinary

profits to cover deficiencies in the loads per wagon, as well as for

all the services performed by them.[117]

In some instances, Sir B. Samuelson has not included in the foreign

rates the charge for loading and unloading. Bar-iron is a case in

point. In every other case he has omitted to include in those rates

the charges for weighing, counting, labelling, booking, use of

cranes, and advice of arrival of goods--all of which are authorised

additional charges beyond the tariff rates. In this country, as

is well known, such services are included in the collected and

delivered railway rates.[118]

[117] The observation made in the report that the higher rates

in Germany are avoided by the intervention of forwarding agents,

who collect from small consignees, and make up the minimum load,

charging somewhat higher rates than for 5 or 10 ton lots, shows that

it was seen that, although the comparison of British rates is made

with them, the general public cannot obtain the advantage of the low

rates, because of the heavy minimum quantities.

[118] The following are the charges authorised to be made for such

services in addition to the mileage rate and terminals in Germany,

Holland, and Belgium:--

---------------+---------------------+------------------+--------------

| GERMANY. | HOLLAND. | BELGIUM.

---------------+---------------------+------------------+--------------

{| 1·2d. per 20 pieces.| |

{| 1s. 0d. per truck | |

Counting {| minimum. | 0·2d. per packge.| 1d. per ton.

{| 3s. 0d. per truck | |

{| maximum. | |

| | |

{| Stückgut 0·6d. per | |

{| 2 cwt. | |

Weighing {| Wagon Loads 0·48d. | from 0·2d. to | 5d. per ton.

{| per 2 cwt. if each | 0·6d. per 2 cwt. |

{| piece is weighed | |

{| separately; 1s.0d. | |

{| per truck. | |

| | |

Booking | ... | ... | 2d. per con-

| | | signment.

| | |

Labelling | 0·6d. per piece. | 0·6d. per packge.| 2d.

| | |

Stamping | ... | 1·2d. each note. | ...

| | |

Use of Cranes | 0·36d. per 2 cwt. | 10d. to 1s. 8d. | 3d. per ton.

| 9d. minimum. | per ton. |

| | |

Advice of Goods| About ½d. | 1d. | 1d.

| | |

Tarpaulins | 2s. 0d. each. | 2s. 8d. each. | 1s. 7d. each.

| | |

Disinfecting | 1s. per truck. | 1s. per truck. | 1s. per truck

---------------+---------------------+------------------+--------------

Such are some examples of the errors vitiating the comparison. We

have by no means exhausted them; they might be greatly multiplied.

It is not intended to suggest that Sir B. Samuelson has been

more inaccurate than other critics. On the contrary, his report,

notwithstanding its inaccuracies, shows that a considerable

amount of labour has been expended in endeavouring to obtain the

information. It is a favourable specimen of such criticisms, and for

this reason it is deserving of notice. It is, of course, difficult

for any person, even when practically acquainted with railway

business, to appreciate the practical effect of the different

conditions under which traffic is carried on Foreign and English

railways. It is not surprising that Sir B. Samuelson has evidently

not become fully acquainted with all the conditions of carriage,

or that he has omitted to give them their proper value in the tables

which he has prepared. Unfortunately, owing to the omissions, the

conclusions which he draws are, in some cases, erroneous,

and in others misleading.

APPENDIX II.

COMPARISON OF RAILWAY RECEIPTS FROM MERCHANDISE AND MINERAL TRAFFIC.

It may be useful to enquire how far it is true that the heavy trades

of coal and iron, or the general trade of the country, are being

“slowly, but surely killed by high rates and tolls,” or otherwise.

That trade in all countries is subject to fluctuation is undoubted,

and the causes are many and various. The conveyance of minerals and

goods upon the railways of the United Kingdom is one test. Let us

take periods of three years:--

RAILWAY RECEIPTS IN UNITED KINGDOM.

Average per Year.

Years. For minerals. General merchandise.

1875 to 1877 £13,560,096 £18,922,238

1878 ” 1880 13,891,326 19,181,927

1881 ” 1883 15,742,615 20,801,075

{ 2 years }

1884 & 1885{ of } 15,387,443 20,631,066

{depression}

According to the test of railway receipts for conveyance of minerals

and goods, the killing process seems very slow indeed, and it is

not even sure, because in 1885 the railway receipts for minerals

were in some instances reduced. The average receipts for minerals

were about 2¼ per cent. less on the average of the past two years

as compared with those of the previous three years. In the case

of goods traffic this percentage was only 0·82 per cent. But, as

against the above average receipts for 1884 and 1885, let us place

the average for the preceding nine years. For minerals, £14,398,012;

for goods, £19,635,080, which shows an increased receipt on the

average of the past two years--on minerals of £989,431; on goods

of £995,986. Certainly these results are the reverse of decay in

traffic or trade.

Another and better test is the tonnage of minerals and goods

conveyed on the railways of the United Kingdom for the like period.

Years. Minerals. Goods.

Tons. Tons.

1875 to 1877, average 141,910,505 64,094,565

1878 ” 1880 ” 152,528,097 65,548,450

1881 ” 1883 ” 182,310,041 74,204,559

1884 ” 1885 ” 183,696,151 74,612,020

This test contradicts the theory of decaying trade in an

unmistakable manner, but it may be urged that these averages are

insufficient to show the great depression in 1885. The fact is, that

in 1885 there was a larger tonnage of minerals conveyed than in any

year, with the exception of 1883, and a larger tonnage of goods than

in any year except 1882, 1883 and 1884.

But a third test, that of production, may be applied. In 1884, the

quantity of coal raised in the United Kingdom

was 160,758,000 tons.

and in 1885 159,351,000 ”

-----------------

Decrease 1,407,000 tons.

or about ·88 per cent.

In 1884 the tonnage of iron ore raised was 16,138,000 tons,

And Iron Ore imported 2,730,800 ”

-----------------

18,868,800 tons.

In 1885, 15,418,000 tons of Iron Ore were raised

Add 2,822,600 ” imported.

----------

18,240,600 ”

being a decrease of 628,200 tons, or a decrease of 3·33 per cent.

In 1883, the quantity of pig iron produced in Great

Britain was 8,529,000 tons.

” 1884 7,812,000 ”

” 1885 7,415,000 ”

The fact is, that 1883 was an exceptional year. The tonnage of

minerals conveyed by railway in 1883 was 8,075,101 tons greater than

in 1882, 13,451,612 tons greater than in 1881, and 23,815,308 tons

greater than in 1880.

And in like manner the tonnage of general merchandise conveyed in

1883 was 2,192,034 tons in excess of 1882, 5,886,356 tons in excess

of 1881, and 7,262,031 tons in excess of the tonnage of 1880.

The production of pig iron is not a real test, inasmuch as large

stocks accumulate at certain periods, and the ratio of production is

lessened in order to reduce the quantity in stock.

No doubt depression of trade may arise from lower prices. The years

1876 and 1877 were probably those during which the highest possible

prices ruled for coal, iron, &c. What were the quantities conveyed

by railway?

Minerals. Merchandise.

Tons. Tons.

In 1875 137,087,713 62,981,938

” 1876 141,779,393 64,185,671

” 1877 146,864,410 65,116,085

” 1880 165,670,304 69,635,325

” 1883 189,485,612 76,897,356

” 1885 183,776,745 73,511,709

If lower prices now rule, it is clear there is a very much larger

volume of trade now than in the years of high prices. That there has

been depression in some branches of the trade of the country may be

a fact, but it is only natural to overrate and overstate its reality

and importance, and to cast blame upon the wrong parties.

APPENDIX III.

TARIFFS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF MERCHANDISE TRAFFIC.

HOLLAND.

There is no scale of rates universally chargeable in Holland; each

railway company is authorised by the Concession under which the

railway was constructed to charge certain specified rates. The

rates actually charged are, as in England, generally lower than the

maximum, and they are controlled by the State.

Although the same maximum rates do not govern all the railways

in Holland, and the classifications also vary, the basis of a

mileage scale is practically the same throughout, viz.:--a rate per

kilometre and per ton according to distance, and a fixed charge for

Station terminals according to class. The terminal charges on Fast

and “Piece” (ordinary) goods include loading and unloading, but in

the wagon load classes the terminals do not include those services.

The tariff for the conveyance of through Goods Traffic--_i.e._,

traffic exchanged between all Dutch Railways--is divided into the

following classes, viz.:--

1. Fast Goods, carried by ordinary Passenger Trains.

2. “Piece” (Ordinary) Goods, or consignments under 5 tons

carried by Goods Trains.

3. Truck loads--Classes A, B and C.

Mileage rates per kilometre and per ton of 1,000 kilos.:--

--------------------+------+---------+---------------------------

| |Ordinary | Truck Loads.

| Fast | Goods +--------+--------+---------

DISTANCES. |Goods.|less than|Class A.|Class B.|Class C.

| | 5 tons. | | |

--------------------+------+---------+--------+--------+---------

|Cents.| Cents. | Cents. | Cents. | Cents.

1 to 50 kilometres| 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02

51 to 150 ” | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01

151 to 250 ” | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01

251 and upwards | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01

--------------------+------+---------+--------+--------+---------

NOTE.--One cent. per 1,000 kilogrammes per kilometre equals 0.327d.

per ton per mile.

Terminal charges per 1,000 kilos.:-- s. d.

Fast Goods Fl. 2.50 { Including loading } (4/2)

Ordinary Goods ” 1.50 { and unloading } (2/6)

Class A. ” 0.90 (1/6)

” B. ” 0.80 (1/4)

” C. ” 0.70 (1/2)

Consignments of Fast Goods and Piece Goods weighing less than 50

kilos. (1 cwt.) are charged as for 50 kilos.--the minimum charge per

freight note being 60 cents. (1s.) by Fast Train; 30 cents. (6d.) by

Goods Train.

To the “Ordinary Goods” class belong all goods in lots of less than

5 tons carried by Goods Train; to the “Truck Load,” class A--all

goods in 5 ton lots, or paying as for 5 tons, which, according to

the classification, do not belong to classes B or C. Classes B and C

comprise Truck Loads of 5 and 10 tons respectively of such goods as

are specified in the classification.

On the DUTCH STATES AND CENTRAL RAILWAYS the mileage rates for

local traffic are the same as the foregoing scale for through

traffic; but the terminals vary as under:--

Terminals

per Ton of

1,000 Kilos.

Fast Goods Fl. 1.40 { including loading } (2/4)

Ordinary Goods ” 0.90 { and unloading } (1/6)

Class A. ” 0.70 (1/2)

” B. ” 0.70 (1/2)

” C. ” 0.70 (1/2)

On the HOLLAND RAILWAY the mileage rates and the terminals for local

traffic are as follows:--

Mileage rates Terminals

per Ton, and per Ton of

per Kilometre. 1,000 Kilos.

Fast Goods Fl. 0.08 Fl. 1.20 { Including } (2/-)

Ordinary Goods ” 0.05 ” 1.20 { loading and } (2/-)

{ unloading }

Class A. ” 0.02½ ” 0.80 (1/4)

” B. ” 0.02 ” 0.80 (1/4)

” C. ” 0.013 ” 0.70 (1/2)

On the DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY the following are the mileage rates

charged:--[119]

------------------+--------+-----------+-----------------------+--------

| | GENERAL | BULK GOODS. |

| FAST | GOODS. | | SPEC’L

| GOODS. |-----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ CLASS.

| | I. | II. | A. | B. | C. | D. |

------------------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------

| [120] |[121]| | | | | |

| | (_Per 1000 Kilogramme in Cents._) |

| cts. | cts.| cts.| cts.| cts.| cts.| cts.| cts.

Rate per Kilometre| 13·3 | 6·7| 5·3| 4 | 3·3| 2·7| 2 | 1·3

| | | | | | | |

Terminals |fl. 1·20| 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 72

| | | | | | | |

| |(_In English Money. Pence_) | |

| d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d.

Rate per mile | 4·28 |2·156|1·7 |1·288|1·056|0·87 |0·64 |0·418

| s. d. |s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.

Terminals | 2 0 |1 0 |1 0 |1 0 |1 0 |1 0 |1 0 |1 2·5

------------------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------

[119] NOTE.--By agreement the Holland Railway Company are bound

to adopt the same basis as the local rates on the States Railway,

unless their own scale is lower.

[120] The terminals for Fast, and General Goods Classes 1 and 2,

include loading and unloading.

[121] The terminals for Fast, and General Goods Classes 1 and 2,

include loading and unloading.

The tariff of the DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY is divided into the

following classes:--

(_a_) Fast goods, which are usually forwarded by mixed Goods and

Passenger trains and by Fast Goods trains.

(_b_) General Goods in quantities of less than 5 tons not mentioned

in the classification as belonging to another class. (Class I.)

(_c_) General Goods in quantities of less than 5 tons which pay less

according to classification. (Class II.)

Goods of these two Classes in lots of at least 5 tons pay the rate

of Class A.

(_d_) Bulk Goods which in quantities of at least 5 tons, or

quantities which are charged as if for that weight, are carried at

reduced rates. These are subdivided into Classes A, B, C and D.

Goods belonging to Class A, in quantities of 10 tons in one truck

are carried at the rates of Class B.

(_e_) Special class--Goods which in consignments of 10 tons, or

paying for that weight, are carried at special reduced rates.

Goods in the Special Class must be in lots of 10,000 kilos. (10

Tons.) If a consignment weighed 11,000 kilos., the first 10,000

kilos, would be charged at the Special Rate, and the remaining 1,000

kilos. at the rate for Class I.

Goods in classes A, B, and C, are only charged at those rates if the

consignments exceed 5 tons.

Goods belonging to Classes B, C, and D, and to the Special Class are

carried in open wagons, the railway not being compelled to provide

covers; but the consignor may cover the trucks _at his own expense

and risk_, or give instructions in the freight-note for having the

goods rated according to Class A, in which case they are treated in

the same manner as goods belonging to that class. An exception is

made, however, in the case of those goods which, according to law,

must be carried in open trucks.

The consignor may also give directions that the goods belonging to

Class A are to be carried at the rates of Class B, in which case

they are conveyed in open trucks. Those goods, which although paying

the rates of Class A, must be carried in open trucks, are excluded

from this regulation.

At the special request of senders, tarpaulins are supplied by some

of the railway companies, if there are any available, upon payment

of fl. 1.60 (2s. 8d.) each, for distances up to 225 kilometres, with

an additional charge of fl. 0.80 (1s. 4d.) for each additional 225

kilom. The DUTCH RHENISH and HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANIES do not supply

tarpaulins under any circumstances.

The railway companies undertake no responsibility whatever for

damage arising from goods being carried in open trucks.

* * * * *

The following charges are allowed by law in addition to the

foregoing rates and terminals: and with few exceptions they are the

same on all railways.

For loading or unloading goods carried under the conditions

of the truck load classes, if the service is performed by the

railway company--

DUTCH STATES AND CENTRAL RAILWAYS, 5d. per ton.

HOLLAND RAILWAY, 4d. per ton for ordinary sized goods, for

articles weighing 1 ton or more 1s. 2d. per ton.

DUTCH RHENISH Railway, 4d. per ton.

Goods which are of unusual size or weight, or for the loading

and unloading of which special arrangements have to be made,

must always be loaded and unloaded by consignor or consignee at

their own cost and risk.

For the use of cranes and other hoisting tackle, when the owner of

the Goods finds the labour, the following are the charges:

DUTCH STATES AND CENTRAL RAILWAYS, 10d. per ton.

DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY. Per ton

for loading

or unloading

s. d.

For articles weighing 1 to 5 tons 0 10

5 to 10 ” 1 3

10 to 12 ” 1 8

* * * * *

For tipping coals in quantities of--

100 tons and above 1d.6 per ton.

50 to 100 tons 1d.8 ”

Up to 50 tons 2d. ”

On the STATES RAILWAY the charge is reduced to 1d.2 per ton if

20,000 tons per year are tipped.

* * * * *

For counting general goods--Per package, 0d.2, with a minimum of

1d.2.

The HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANY make no charge for counting ordinary

goods, but for truck loads they charge 1d.2 per 10 packages, with a

minimum of 1s. per truck load.

* * * * *

For stamping duplicate freight note--1d.2 each.

The STATES, CENTRAL AND HOLLAND RAILWAYS make no charge.

* * * * *

For delivery of general goods--

(_a_) Under ordinary circumstances 1d. per cwt.,

with a minimum charge per consignment of 6d.

(_b_) Under unusual circumstances, such as closed

water, snow in street, etc., 2d. per cwt., with

a minimum per consignment of 1s.

For collection--

(_a_) Under ordinary circumstances 1d. per cwt.,

with a minimum charge per consignment of 10d.

(_b_) Under unusual circumstances 2d. per cwt., with

a minimum charge per consignment of 1s. 8d.

The HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANY make charges for collection and delivery

varying according to the Station.

The DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY COMPANY raise the charge only under

unusual circumstances.

* * * * *

For advising the consignee of the arrival of his goods a charge of

1d. is made in all cases, except--

(_a_) In the case of goods to be called for;

(_b_) If consignee signs an agreement releasing

the Company, not only from advising arrival, but also

from all responsibility for detention of goods arising

from notification of arrival not having been made.

The HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANY charge 0d.6 if the advice is sent by

post.

* * * * *

LABELLING.--All goods in consignments of less than 5 tons

must be labelled or marked with the name of the receiving

Station. If the goods are tendered without this having been

done, a charge for labelling of 0d.6 per package, with a minimum

of 2d.4 is made by the Company. The HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANY do

not show any such charge in their rate book.

COMMISSION FOR COLLECTING PAID-ONS.--A commission of 1% with

a minimum of 1d. for ordinary paid-ons, and ¼%, for amounts

paid for duty, &c., and for all costs incurred in connection

with the last-named, is charged.

* * * * *

WAREHOUSE RENT.--All goods other than truck loads which are

left till called for, are subject to the following charges if

they are not taken away within 24 hours after receipt of advice

of arrival:--

Dutch Dutch

Rhenish States Holland.

per 2 cwt. and

Central.

(a) If warehoused in the

sheds per day 1d.2 0d.4 1d.2

With a minimum of 2d.4 2d. 4d.

(b) If left in the Company’s

yard per day 0d.6 0d.2 0d.6

With a minimum of 2d.4 2d. 4d.

* * * * *

DEMURRAGE.--If trucks are not unloaded within eight hours

after receipt of the notice of arrival a charge is made of 2d.4

per hour and truck, with a minimum of 1/-; or the Company may

unload the goods at the owner’s expense, and warehouse them,

charging rent.

The same amount of demurrage is charged if the trucks, which

are to be loaded by consignors themselves, are not ready within

the appointed time. If the consignor receives notice that the

trucks are at his disposal in the morning, the loading must be

effected on the same day; if notice is given in the afternoon,

the loading must be over before 2 p.m. on the day following.

WEIGHING.--On the DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY a charge of 0d.6 per

2 cwt., with a minimum of 1d.2 for each item included in the

freight-note, is made for weighing. On the DUTCH STATES and

CENTRAL RAILWAYS the charge is 0d.2 per cwt., with a minimum of

4d. per consignment, and on the HOLLAND RAILWAYS 0D.8 PER 2 CWT.

WITH A MINIMUM OF 4D.

(_a._) If the goods are weighed at the request of the consignor or

consignee.

(_b._) If the weight is not given in the freight note, but has to be

filled in by the Company.

(_c._) If the Company load the goods on behalf of consignor.

If the goods are weighed in full truck loads, the charge on the

DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY is 3d. per ton on the net weight; on the

DUTCH STATES, CENTRAL and HOLLAND, 2s. If each article is weighed

separately the charge is 0d.5 per 2 cwt.

* * * * *

TIME ALLOWED BY LAW FOR TRANSPORT.--The time occupied by the

conveyance of goods, carriages, &c., may not exceed the following

maxima, which are in force on all the Dutch Railways, and also on

all the Railways forming part of the German Union:--

(_a_) Express Goods--

1. Time for forwarding 24 hours.

2. Time for conveyance for each 186

miles or part thereof 24 ”

(_b_) General Goods--

1. Time for forwarding 48 ”

2. Time for conveyance--

(_a_) For distances up to 62 miles 24 ”

(_b_) For each 124 miles, or part

thereof, above 62 miles 24 ”

(_c_) Horses, cattle, or other large animals--

(_a_) If carried by Passenger Train--

1. Time for forwarding 24 ”

2. Time for conveyance for each 186

miles or part thereof 24 ”

(_b_) If carried by Goods Train--

1. Time for forwarding 48 ”

2. Time for conveyance for each 186

miles or part thereof 48 ”

The time allowed for forwarding may only be reckoned once,

irrespective of the number of railways over which the goods have

to pass. On occasions of pressure of traffic caused by fairs,

closed water, &c., these limits may be extended by the Minister of

Railways. The time allowed for transport commences at the midnight

following the stamping of the freight note, and it is not exceeded

if the goods are delivered to consignee before the prescribed

time has expired, or, in the event of the goods not having to be

delivered, if notice is given in writing to consignee of their

arrival before the expiration of the prescribed time.

AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY THE COMPANY IN CASE THE TIME ALLOWED BY LAW IS

EXCEEDED, AND NO VALUE IS INSURED.

(_a_) For General Goods, if the delay amount to more than 24 hours;

or in the case of horses and other animals to more than 48 hours: up

to 72 hours, ¼ of the freight; up to 8 days ⅓ of the freight;

beyond 8 days, ½ of the freight.

(_b_) For Express Goods: beyond 12, and up to 24 hours, ¼ of the

freight; up to 3 days, ⅓ of the freight; beyond 3 days, ½ of the

freight.

(_c_) For Parcels: beyond 6, and up to 12 hours, ¼ of the freight;

up to 24 hours, ⅓ of the freight; beyond 24 hours, ½ of the

freight.

INSURANCE.--A premium is charged for insurance if the declared value

of the goods, cattle, &c., exceed that allowed by Article 33 of

General Regulations, as compensation in case of damage or loss.

The value allowed is £25 for a horse, £10 10s. for a fat ox, £7 10s.

per head for other cattle, £1 for a calf, £3 for a fat pig, £1 5s.

for a lean pig, 13s. 4d. for a sheep or goat, 7s. 8d. for a dog, and

£1 10s. per cwt. for other animals. If the value exceeds these sums,

and the consignor wishes to insure such value being paid to him in

case of damage, the premium is 1 per 1,000 of the sum insured for

every 93 miles with a minimum of 4d.

The maximum value allowed for carriages and carts, including the

articles placed in them, is £42. If the value exceeds that sum the

premium payable is the same as for animals, with a minimum of 3d.

The value allowed for goods is assumed by law not to exceed £2 10s.

per cwt. (30 fl. per 50 kilos). In case of whole or partial loss,

the commercial value of the goods--which has to be proved--is taken

as a basis. In the absence of data for arriving at the commercial

value, the value which similar goods would have at the time and

place of delivery is taken as the standard, deducting the amount

of duty and other costs not paid owing to loss. If the goods are

insured, the premium payable is one-tenth per 1,000 of the value

declared, for each 93 miles (parts of that distance reckoned as 93

miles), with a minimum of 2d.

In case of wilful misconduct on the part of the Company or their

servants, the liability is not limited to the normal or declared

value.

To recover from the Railway Company the full amount of damage

sustained, if delivery is not effected within the time allowed by

law, the following premiums have to be paid:

For horses and other animals 0·2d. per 9 miles and £8. 6s. 8d.,

parts of this distance and amount reckoned as 9 miles and £8. 6s.

8d., with a minimum of 3d.;

For carriages, carts, &c., 0·4d. per 9 miles and £8. 6s. 8d., with a

minimum of 3d.;

In respect of goods for the first 94 miles, 1 per 1,000 of the sum

declared; for the following 140 miles, not more than ½ per 1,000;

for each succeeding 234 miles, not more than ½ per 1,000, with

a minimum of 2d., parts of 94, 140, and 234, reckoned as 94, 140,

and 234. This premium is charged per each 10fl. (16s. 8d.) of the

declared value.

* * * * *

On the STATES, CENTRAL and HOLLAND RAILWAYS bulky goods, consisting

of such goods as come in the classification under special tariff No.

1, or are enumerated in the rate book, are charged double the fast

goods or piece goods rates, as the case may be, unless it is more

advantageous to pay as for 5 tons at class A rate.

Grain, vegetables, meal, seed, and the like, which are classified

under special tariff No. 2, are carried in box or covered trucks at

the rates of class B.

On the DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY bulky goods (_i.e._, goods weighing

less than 340 lbs. per cubic yard) and goods of unusual weight,

the size of which does not admit of their being passed through the

door of an ordinary covered truck (5 ft. 3 in. by 5 ft), will not

be carried in consignments of less than one ton, unless the freight

for this weight, with a minimum of 4s. 2d. is paid, provided the

conveyance can take place without an extra truck being necessary.

Articles which prevent space being occupied by other goods are

charged for at the rate of 340 lbs. per cubic yard occupied.

For articles totally unsuitable for loading with others, the freight

for at least 5 tons must be paid for each truck used.

If a single consignment of bulky goods occupies less than 35 cubic

feet, double freight is charged for the actual weight. An ordinary

covered wagon is assumed to be capable of containing goods weighing

at least four tons; the freight, therefore, for this weight must be

charged for each wagon used.

* * * * *

CATTLE RATES.--The rates for through cattle traffic from a Station

of one Railway to a Station of another Railway in Holland, are, if

carried by Goods Train, as follows.--

(_a_) For large cattle (oxen, cows, large calves, heifers,

horses, donkeys, and foals) fl. 0·12 per square metre truck room

per 10 kilometres (2½d.) 6·21 miles with fl. 5 (8s. 4d.)

terminals for all trucks of all sizes.

The size of the trucks being from 12 to 18 square metres

(about 14½ to 21½ square yards).

For a truck of 15 square metres (about 18 square yards) for a

distance of 108 kilometres (67 miles) the charge would be--

Mileage rate fl. 19·44 32s. 5d.

Terminals fl. 5 8s. 4d.

Disinfecting fl. 0·60 1s. 0d.

--------- --------

fl. 25·04 41s. 9d.

========= ========

(_b_) For small cattle (pigs, small calves, sheep, goats,

&c.) the rates are:--

Fl. 0·09 (1.8d.) per square metre per 10 kilometres if

carried in trucks with one floor.

Fl. 0·15 (3d.) per square metre per 10 kilometres if carried

in trucks with two floor stages, with fl. 5 (8s. 4d.) terminals

in every case.

If carried by passenger trains the above rates are increased by

one-third.

In addition to the rates a charge of fl. 0·60 (1s.) per truck is

made for disinfecting the wagon.

There are no rates per head for through traffic between the various

railways of Holland, except between the DUTCH RHENISH and DUTCH

CENTRAL RAILWAYS. If, for instance, a cow is carried from a Station

on the STATES RAILWAY to a Station on the DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY,

the charge would be as for a full truck, unless it would be cheaper

to charge the consignment from Railway to Railway at the local

rates. In the case of traffic between the DUTCH RHENISH and CENTRAL

RAILWAYS, for which traffic rates per head exist, the following

rates would be charged (by goods train only):--

With a minimum of

fl. 4 (6s. 8d.)

per consignment.

From the Hague

to Amersfoort, 83 kilometres

(51 miles) per cow fl. 1·29 (2s. 2d.)

From the Hague

to Amersfoort, 83 kilometres

(51 miles) per sheep fl. 0·33 (6½d.)

From the Hague

to Amersfoort, 83 kilometres

(51 miles) per horse fl. 1·90 (3s. 2d.)

From Rotterdam

to Zwolle, 142 kilometres

(88 miles) per cow fl. 3·14 (5s. 3d.)

From Rotterdam

to Zwolle, 142 kilometres

(88 miles) per sheep 0·80 (1s. 4d.)

From Rotterdam

to Zwolle, 142 kilometres

(88 miles) per horse 4·15 (6s. 11d.)

For local traffic on the DUTCH STATES RAILWAYS, rates per head and

per truck load exist. Such rates per head are only available per

goods trains; full truck loads are carried by passenger train.

I.--BY GOODS TRAINS.

(_a_) For full truck loads 1 cent. per square metre per

kilometre, with terminals fl. 5 (8s. 4d.) (irrespective of size

of truck). No difference is made for large or small cattle.

The charge for a truck of 15 square metres for 108 kilometres

(67 miles) would be--

Mileage rate fl. 16·20 27s. 0d.

Terminals fl. 5 8s. 4d.

Disinfecting fl. 0·60 1s. 0d.

--------- --------

fl. 21·80 36s. 4d.

========= ========

The rate per head for 124 kilometres (77 miles)--

Per cow fl. 2·88 (4s. 9½d.)

” sheep ” 0·72 (1s. 2½d.)

” horse ” 3·70 (6s. 2d.)

With a minimum of--

Up to 100 kilometres fl. 2·0 (3s. 4d.)

” 200 ” ” 3·0 (5s. 0d.)

Above 200 ” ” 4·0 (6s. 8d.)

BELGIUM.

The basis on which the rates are fixed in Belgium is:--

(_a_) A fixed charge of one franc per ton, irrespective

of distance, which is practically equivalent to a structural

terminal charge for the use of stations and for clerkage.

(_b_) A mileage scale, graduated according to distance.

On all lines worked by the State, whether constructed by it,

purchased by, or the subject of a concession, the local tariff of

the State Railways is applied generally. Before 1884, the Grand

Central Belge had a distinct classification and a tariff of rates

on the whole higher than that of the State Railways, but the rates

charged on the independent lines are now based on those adopted by

the State Railways, and sanctioned by the Minister.

The rates for traffic with France are framed by assimilating the

Belgian to the French scale, based on the shortest route; for

certain important kinds of traffic there are exceptional tariffs, by

which each Company make a reduction from their ordinary rates.

In addition to the weight and distance, the value, and bulk of the

goods are taken into consideration in the classification, if it can

be said that any classification exists.

The tariff of the State Railways contains a classification which

divides the _Petite Vitesse_ goods into four classes. Besides these,

twenty special tariffs have been adopted.

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT SHEWS THE BASIS OF THE TARIFFS FOR LOCAL

AND INTERCHANGED INLAND TRAFFIC EXISTING ON THE 1ST JANUARY, 1886,

DIVIDED INTO GENERAL AND SPECIAL TARIFFS:--

A.--LOCAL TARIFFS.

UNIFORM RATES IN FRANCS FOR PARCELS BY PASSENGER AND GOODS TRAINS,

FOR “BULLION” BONDS, &c.

+-----------------------+--------------------------+

| | No. 1 Tariff. |

| | Parcels by Passenger |

| | Train. |

| | |

| | |

| +--------+--------+--------+

| | | | |

| | |6 to 10 | Over |

| DISTANCES. |Prepaid | Kilos | 10 |

| |Packages|and non-| Kilo. |

| |weighing|prepaid +--------+

| |5 Kilos |Packges.|Minimm. |

| | and |weghng. |Charge |

| | under. |5 Kilos | per |

| | |& under.|parcel |

+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+

| 1 to 25 {Uniform | | | |

| { Rates | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.70 |

|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | |

| {Consignee’s| | | |

| { Address | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.40 |

| | | | |

| {Uniform | | | |

| 26 to 75 { Rates | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.80 |

|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | |

| {Consignee’s| | | |

| { Address | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.40 |

| | | | |

| {Uniform | | | |

| 76 { Rates | 0.60 | 0.80 | 0.80 |

|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | |

| and over {Consignee’s| | | |

| { Address | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.40 |

+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------------+

| | No. 2 Tariff. | No. 4 Tariff. |

| | Parcels by Goods Train. | Bulln., |

| | | Bnds.,&c., |

| | | by Passngr. |

| | | Train. |

| +--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+

| | | | Over | | |

| | |6 to 10 | 10 | | |

| DISTANCES. |Prepaid | Kilos | Kilos. | | |

| |Packges.|and non-+--------+--------+ |

| |weighing|prepaid |Minimum |Minimum | Per |

| |5 Kilos |Packges.|Charge |Charge |1,000 |

| | and |weighing|per con-|per |francs.|

| | under. |5 Kilos | sign- |consign-| |

| | |& under.| ment. | ment. | |

+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+

| 1 to 25 {Uniform | | | | | |

| { Rates | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.20 |

|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | | | |

| {Consignee’s| | | | | |

| { Address | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.05 |

| | | | | | |

| {Uniform | | | | | |

| 26 to 75 { Rates | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.25 |

|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | | | |

| {Consignee’s| | | | | |

| { Address | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.05 |

| | | | | | |

| {Uniform | | | | | |

| 76 { Rates | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.30 |

|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | | | |

| and over {Consignee’s| | | | | |

| { Address | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.05 |

+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+

RATES IN FRANCS FOR GOODS, CARRIAGES AND HORSES BY PASSENGER AND

GOODS TRAINS, AND CATTLE BY GOODS TRAIN.

-------------------------------+---------+---------+

| No. 1 | No. 2 |

| Tariff. | Tariff.|

+---------+---------+

| Pass- | Goods |

| enger | Train. |

| Train. | |

+---------+---------+

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| Per | Per |

DISTANCES. | 100 | 100 |

| Kilo- | Kilo- |

|grammes. |grammes. |

| [122] | [123] |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

-------------------------------+---------+---------+

| TERMINAL CHARGES. |

| 1.05 | 0.40 |

| MILEAGE RATES. |

1 to 25 kil. per Kilomètre | 0.03 | 0.02 |

| TERMINAL CHARGES. |

| 1.05 | 0.40 |

| MILEAGE RATES. |

26-75 kil.,extra per kil. | 0.03 | 0.02 |

76-100 ” ” ” | 0.02 | 0.016 |

101-125 ” ” ” | 0.02 | 0.016 |

126-150 ” ” ” | 0.02 | 0.016 |

151-200 ” ” ” | 0.016 | 0.012 |

201-350 ” ” ” | 0.012 | 0.008 |

351 and over ” ” | 0.012 | 0.008 |

-------------------------------+---------+---------+

[122] The charge for delivery to domicile is compulsory, and amounts

to 3 francs per 100 Kilog.

[123] The charge for delivery to domicile is compulsory, and amounts

to 30 cents. per 100 Kilog.

--------------------+------------------------------------------------+

| No. 3 Tariff. |

| |

+------------------------------------------------+

| |

| Goods Train. |

| |

+-----+-------------------+---------+------------+

| | | | Furniture |

| | Per 1,000 | | Vans per |

|Mini-| Kilogrammes. | Railway | Vehicle |

|mum +----+----+----+----+Carriages+-----+------+

| |1st |2nd |3rd |4th | and |P o P|P b R |

DISTANCES. |per | | | | |Trucks on|r f a|r y a |

| | C | C | C | C | Wheels.|o r|o i |

|Con- | l | l | l | l | Rate per|p P t|v t l |

|sign-| a | a | a | a | Carriage|e r i|i h w |

|ment.| s | s | s | s | or Truck|r i e|d e a |

| | s. | s. | s. | s. | on 2 |t v s|e y |

| | | | | | Axles. |y a .|d . |

| | | | | | | t | |

| | | | | | | e | |

--------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+---------+-----+------+

| TERMINAL CHARGES. |

|0.40 |1.00|1.00|1.00|0.50| 5.00 |6.00 |7.02 |

| MILEAGE RATES. |

1-25 kil. |0.04 |0.10|0.08|0.06|0.06| 0.20 |0.60 |0.702 |

per Kilomètre | TERMINAL CHARGES. |

|0.40 |1.00|1.00|1.00|1.00| 5.00 |6.00 |7.02 |

26-75 kil., | MILEAGE RATES. |

extra per kil.|0.04 |0.10|0.08|0.06|0.04| 0.20 |0.60 |0.702 |

76-100 ” ” ” |0.032|0.08|0.04|0.03|0.02| 0.10 |0.48 |0.5616|

101-125 ” ” ” |0.032|0.08|0.04|0.02|0.01| 0.05 |0.48 |0.5616|

126-150 ” ” ” |0.032|0.08|0.02|0.01|0.01| 0.05 |0.48 |0.5616|

151-200 ” ” ” |0.024|0.06|0.02|0.01|0.01| 0.05 |0.36 |0.4212|

201-350 ” ” ” |0.016|0.04|0.02|0.01|0.01| 0.05 |0.24 |0.2808|

351 and over ” |0.016|0.04|0.02|0.01|0.01| 0.05 |0.24 |0.2808|

--------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+---------+-----+------+

------------------------+---------+------------------------------+

| No. 5 | |

| Tariff. | |

+---------+ No. 6 Tariff. |

|Ordinary | |

|Passenger| |

| Train. | |

+---------+---------+--------------------+

| | | |

| | | Horses and Cattle |

| | Horses | by Goods Train. |

| | by +------+------+------+

| Carri- |Ordinary | | | |

DISTANCES. | ages. |Passenger| | | |

| | Train. | 1st | 2nd | 3rd |

| (each.) | Rate | | | |

| | per | Cate-| Cate-| Cate-|

| | every | gory.| gory.| gory.|

| | 3 | | | |

| | heads. | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | . | . | . |

------------------------+---------+---------+------+------+------+

| TERMINAL CHARGES. |

| 6.00 | 6.00 | 3.00 | 4.50 | 6.00 |

| MILEAGE RATES. |

1-25 kil. per Kilomètre| 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.24 |

| TERMINAL CHARGES. |

| 6.00 | 6.00 | 3.00 | 4.50 | 6.00 |

26-75 kil., | MILEAGE RATES. |

extra per kil. | 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.24 |

76-100 ” ” ” | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 0.135| 0.18 |

101-125 ” ” ” | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 0.135| 0.18 |

126-150 ” ” ” | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 0.135| 0.18 |

151-200 ” ” ” | 0.36 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.12 |

201-350 ” ” ” | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.08 |

351 and over ” ” | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.08 |

------------------------+---------+---------+------+------+------+

B--TARIFF FOR INTERCHANGED INLAND TRAFFIC.

The General Tariff comprises two Standard Scales, viz.:--Scale _A_

and Scale _C_.--Scale _A_ is the same as the Local Tariff except as

regards the 4th Class rates for distances from 1 to 4 kilometres,

for which a minimum of 5 kilometres per ton has been fixed.

Scale _C_ differs from Scale _A_ only by an increase of--Franc 0.10

per 100 kilogrammes on the Tariff Rates Nos. 1 and 2, and Franc 0.10

per 1000 kilogrammes on the rates of Tariff No. 3[124] (except in

the case of Railway Carriages and Trucks on wheels), which latter

charge is credited to the Western of Flanders Railway Company.

[124] The rates for Furniture Vans belonging to private parties

represent the charge for 6,000 kilog. at 1st Class. In the case of

Furniture Vans provided by the Railway Company, the above mentioned

prices are increased by 17 per cent.

The following tables show, in English money, the terminal charge per

ton, and the mileage rate per ton per mile:--

-----------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+------------

| 1ST CLASS. | 2ND CLASS. | 3RD CLASS. | 4TH CLASS.

+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----

TERMINALS. | Per | | Per | | Per | | Per |

| 1000 |Per | 1000 |Per | 1000 |Per |1000 |Per

| kilos.|ton. | kilos.|ton. | kilos.|ton. |kilos. |ton.

-----------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----

Station terminals| | | | | | | |

to 25 kilom. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. .50| 5d.

(15 miles) | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

Station terminals| | | | | | | |

above 25 kilom. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d.

(15 miles) | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

Loading and | | | | | | | |

Unloading | | | | | | | |

charged in | | | | | | | |

addition |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d.

-----------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----