A short time ago (October 13) we took occasion, in speaking of the
present railway system, to hint at the possibility of constructing
a class of useful railways, auxiliary to the great lines, at a very
moderate expense. Our observations have drawn the attention of the
conductors of 'Herapath's Railway Journal' to the subject, which is
discussed by them in two able articles (Nov. 3 and 10), of which we
take the liberty of offering an analysis, along with some general
remarks.
The first thing noticed by Herapath is the unnecessarily large cost
at which most of the existing railways have been constructed. While
the railway mania lasted, cost was of inferior consideration. In the
inordinate hurry of the moment, engineers gave only a rapid glance
at the proposed route; they thought nothing of tunnelling hills and
crossing deep valleys, rather than go a mile or two out of their way;
and then, to avoid local opposition, or to promote local jobbing in
land, enormous sums were recklessly promised or expended. 'To show how
lines are projected,' says Herapath, 'we remember that there was one
for which a bill was actively and zealously prosecuted in parliament
in the eventful year 1845, which tunnelled and cut nearly all the way
from Liverpool to Leeds. From the extent of its works, this line,
though not a very long one, would have taken fifteen or twenty years
to make. At the head of this hopeful project was an engineer ranking
high amongst the talents of the day, a gentleman who had made one of
our longest railways, and in support of it as a feasible project it
numbered amongst its directors or committeemen gentlemen of the first
respectability. It narrowly escaped the sanction of the legislature,
which would no doubt have been granted had not a strong opposition
been raised to it by parties interested in a competing line. But
even where there is opposition to expose merits and demerits, it
is not always that parliament can be depended upon to sanction the
better of two lines proposed; the best line remains most likely
undiscovered by engineers. In the case of the Brighton line, of three
proposed, parliament actually selected the worst, the most expensive,
and the shortest only by a trifling distance. There was a route
proposed, which, passing through a natural gap in the hills, avoided
the necessity of tunnelling, and the enormous outlay and permanent
inconvenience consequent upon it. This superior route parliament
discountenanced, and favoured the present long-tunnelled and costly
line.' The parliamentary expenses, caused by the opposition of rival
companies and landowners, told also most seriously on the initiatory
cost of the lines. 'There probably never was a bill passed without
having to encounter great opposition, because there probably never was
a bill for a railway prosecuted in quiet ordinary times. There must
be, it would seem, a _mania_ to bring forth railways, and then all the
world comes out with railway schemes. It is opposition which engenders
expense; and a mania is the hotbed for the raising of opposition. One
of our railway companies had to fight so hard for their bill, that
they found, when at length they reached the last stage--namely, that
of receiving the royal assent--that their parliamentary expenses had
mounted up to half a million of money. Half a million of money spent
in barely acquiring from parliament the _right_ of making a line of
railway which is to confer a benefit on the nation! Such is the fact.
Without opposition, the same bill would have been passed into an act at
a cost not worth naming by the side of that enormous sum.'
The result of all this was, that the cost of constructing railways
went far beyond what was warranted by prospects of traffic; and in
point of fact, had the traffic not turned out to be greater than was
contemplated by the projectors, scarcely a railway in the country
would ever have paid a shilling of profit. The usual expense of
construction and putting in working order--all outlays included--was
L.30,000 to L.40,000 per mile; some lines were executed at L.20,000
per mile; but in several instances the cost was as high as L.300,000
per mile. The mere parliamentary expenses of some lines were L.5000
per mile; and a railway got well off at L.1000 per mile for expenses
of this nature. But the primary cost of railways is only one element
of calculation as respects the chances of profit: another large item
is the expense of working. It is now discovered that a railway cannot
be worked, to be at all efficient, under the present heavy locomotive
system, at a less cost than L.700 per mile per annum. 'Several branch
lines owned by wealthy companies,' says Herapath, 'do not receive
more than L.500 per mile per annum, while the expense of working them
cannot be less than L.700 per mile per annum. Here the loss is L.200
per mile per annum in addition to the loss of the capital expended' for
construction. 'The [present] locomotive railway system is of too costly
a character to admit of every town having its railway. It is too costly
in _working_ as well as in _construction_. A vast number of places have
not traffic sufficient to support railways, though the capital cost of
them should be nothing. The working of trains is too expensive to allow
of any profit being derived from the traffic conveyed.'
The announcement of these truths brings us to the consideration of
a new and cheaper kind of railway system. It will naturally occur
to every one that there are towns and districts which might find a
paying traffic for some species of thoroughfare superior to what is
afforded by a common road. A road is a general pathway on which so many
cart-loads of stones are laid down to be ground to mud annually, at
great labour to horses, and no small pain and loss of time and money
to passengers. The way they are supported by toll-bar exactions is in
itself a pure barbarism. It is not an advance beyond the rudest stage
of social economy. We pity towns that are cut off from the general
intercourse of the world by so miserable a class of thoroughfares;
and the question we propound is--whether something better, yet not so
stupendous as ordinary railways, could be brought into operation? We
think there could; yet only provided certain concessions were made. The
following is what we propose:--
Railways to be constructed with only one line. The rails to be of a
somewhat lighter make than those ordinarily employed. The routes to
be accommodated, as far as possible, to the nature of the country.
Tunnels, deep cuttings, high embankments, and expensive viaducts, to
be avoided. The best levels to be chosen, even although the route
should be some miles divergent. No sidings of any kind, so that local
superintendence to shift points would be altogether avoided. Small
locomotives, of not more than ten-horse power, to be employed. Light
omnibuses for passengers, and light wagons for goods, only to be used.
On the supposition that the lines of this nature shall be made only of
from ten to twenty miles in length (larger lines not being immediately
contemplated), there ought on no account to be more than one locomotive
in use: if there were a second, it should only be as a reserve in
case of accidents. This rule for locomotives to form a main feature
in the whole plan. The locomotive, with its one or two omnibuses for
passengers, or its short train of wagons, or with omnibuses and wagons
mixed, to be kept almost constantly going. Instead of standing during
long intervals doing nothing, with its steam ineconomically escaping,
and its driver idle, let it be on the move, if necessary, the whole
twenty-four hours. As soon as it comes in at one terminus, let it
return to the other. Let it, in short, do all the work that is to be
done; and as by this means there can be only one train at a time in
operation, so there can never be any collisions, and sidings would
be useless. The speed to be regulated according to circumstances.
Trains with coal, lime, or other heavy articles, may go at the rate of
six or eight miles an hour; those with passengers may proceed at an
accelerated rate of twelve to fifteen miles, which we anticipate to be
a sufficient maximum speed for railways of this kind, and more would
not be expected. The width or gauge might be that commonly employed,
and the lines might be in connection with the existing railways. But we
would not consider it indispensable for the light trains here spoken of
to run into the main lines. It might be proper to run the same wagons
on both; but the shifting of passengers would be of less importance.
At present, people shift into stage-coaches at certain stations, and
they would have no greater trouble in shifting into the omnibuses on
the single branch lines. To leave nothing untried as regards saving
in the working expenses, it might be preferable to have no station
clerks. Stations need only be covered sheds, to afford shelter from the
weather; and instead of a class of clerks and porters fixed to a spot,
a conductor to sell tickets, and a porter as an assistant, might travel
with every train.
Such are the leading features of a plan for establishing cheap
railways. If no fallacy lurk under our calculations, the expense
of working such lines would be comparatively small. The number of
attendants would be on the most moderate scale, and so likewise would
be the amount of the engines and carriages in active operation.
Possibly, in some instances, horse-power would be preferable to that of
steam; but on this point it is needless to say much, for the question
would be determined by circumstances. Herapath seems to indicate that
horse-power might be deemed sufficient in the first instance. He
observes, 'It is probable that on railways of the character recommended
for local purposes the average traction would be about one-tenth of
the common road traction. One horse on a local railway would therefore
draw as much as ten on a common road, perhaps more. But even this gives
a great advantage over the common road. Horses, in the room of the
heavy locomotives now in use, would effect great saving, in carrying
a limited amount of traffic, in working, as well as in the repairs of
the permanent way. Should the traffic of these local lines increase
much, it may then become advisable to put on light locomotives equal
to the duty. Improvements are every day being made in the locomotive;
and it is highly probable that in course of time we shall have light
locomotives fit for the working of branch lines, where there is but a
meagre supply of traffic, and where the expense of the giant locomotive
now in use cannot be borne.'
The only matters remaining to be discussed are the mode and cost
of construction. It may be as well to say at once, that unless the
landowners and general inhabitants of a district cordially concur in
establishing such lines, they cannot be made, and the whole project
falls to the ground. It must be regarded in every instance as assumed,
that the parties locally interested wish for the lines, and will
earnestly, and without selfishness, promote their execution. It
will, we believe, be very generally found that on a line of ten to
twenty miles in length there are not more than six to eight principal
landowners. We could mention instances in which lines would go six
miles over one person's property. In a variety of cases the lines might
run for certain distances alongside the public roads, so as to cause
the least possible damage to property or general amenity. In any case,
supposing that nothing more than the fair price of the land taken is
to be paid for--no contest in parliament, and no great works to be
attempted--it is reasonable to conclude that the first cost of the
lines would be little more than a tenth of what is ordinarily charged.
According to Herapath--'instead of L.30,000, L.40,000, or L.50,000 a
mile, the cost of a town's or landowner's branch line, constructed on
the above principle, would only be a few thousands--probably as low
as L.2000, L.3000, or L.4000 a mile. The expense, however, would vary
according to the nature of the country to be traversed. Where the
ground is flat and sound (not boggy) the expense would be lightest.
But in each case an estimate could ascertain--not to a nicety, but
nearly--what a line would cost. We should advise that, prior to
entering upon the construction of a line, the parties should carefully
estimate the cost of construction, the charges for working--say by
horses--and thus see, before they commenced, that there was no chance
of their being on the wrong side. We imagine that lines constructed and
worked so cheaply as these would be, would pay well; in dividend far
outrival their more costly connections, the great locomotive lines.
A wide field is here opened for legitimate and safe speculation; for
benefiting all parties, if it be only properly carried out. To raise
funds for this purpose, the townspeople and landowners could form
themselves into partnerships or companies. We have no doubt they would
amply benefit their pockets in a direct manner, by the profitable
return such a railway would make upon its capital, as well as obtain
railway communications which would enhance the value of their estates
and the importance of their towns.'
With these explanations, the subject may be left in the hands of
the public. Only one obstacle seems to present itself--and that is
the present disheartened condition of the country respecting all
railway schemes whatever. On this account projects such as we speak
of would have a difficulty in obtaining a hearing. At the same time,
the penalties of neglecting opportunities must be borne in mind. To
conclude in the words of Herapath:--'The local parties interested in
lines of this description should not delay directing their attention
to the subject; for while they are waiting and dreaming, the trade
of their towns may permanently pass away from them, and centre in
places provided with railway accommodation. Trade remains with a place
for a long time after another place has possessed itself of superior
advantages for carrying it on; but when it _has_ passed away, owing to
neglect to retain it, it is almost impossible to regain it. Certainly,
it may be said, the sooner the inhabitants of isolated places in want
of railway communication bestir themselves in this matter, the better
for their own interests. In self-defence they will be called upon in
the course of years to do so; when they find their trade slipping
through their fingers they _must_ have railways; and as railway
companies will never be allowed to do it for them, they must needs make
the lines themselves. Is it not better to set about this work before it
is a matter of necessity, before they lose their business, and before
others take it away? To our mind there is not a doubt of the propriety
of local parties attending to this notice at once; not in haste, but
with deliberate judgment, reviewing the local position in which they
stand, the capability of forming a cheap line, and the advantages of it
both directly and indirectly to themselves.'