RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES, THE BLOCK, THE BRAKE, AND LIGHT RAILWAYS
Until the autumn of 1888 nothing occurred to disturb the even tenor of my
way, and I pursued in peace my daily work at the County Down. It was
interesting work and pleasant to become personally acquainted with the
customers of the company, many of whom lived in towns and villages some
distance from the railway, and to gain their good will. It was
interesting and also satisfactory to gradually establish an improved and
efficient train service and to watch the traffic expand. It was
exhilarating to engage in lively competition with carriers by road who,
for short distance traffic, keenly competed with the railway. It was
good to introduce economies and improvements in working, and gratifying
to do what one could to help and satisfy the staff--a thing, I need
scarcely say, much easier to accomplish then than now.
And so the time passed until August, 1888, when the railway world was
deeply moved by the introduction of the _Railway and Canal Traffic Act_.
This Act was the outcome of the Report of the Select Committee of 1881,
before which Mr. James Grierson gave such weighty evidence. One of the
most important measures Parliament ever passed, it imposed on railway
companies an amount of labour and anxiety, prolonged and severe, such as
I hope they may not have to face again.
The Act, as I have stated before, altered the constitution of the Railway
Commission, and also effected minor alterations in the law relating to
railways and canals, but its main purpose was the revision of Maximum
Rates and Charges. It ordered each company to prepare a revised
classification of goods and a revised Schedule of Maximum Rates, and
submit them to the Board of Trade, who, after considering objections
lodged against them, were to agree (if they could) with the companies
upon a classification and schedule for adoption; and if they failed, to
determine a classification and schedule themselves. Public sittings at
Westminster, Edinburgh and Dublin, occupying 85 days, took place, but no
agreement was reached; and in their Report to Parliament the Board of
Trade embodied a Revised Classification and a standard Schedule of
Maximum Rates for general adoption. The Schedule included Terminals. In
accordance with the Act, it then became necessary for this Revised
Classification and Schedule to be confirmed by Parliament. Against them
petitions were lodged by both railways and traders, and the whole matter
was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. This Committee sat in
1891 from April till July; but it was not until January, 1893, that all
was completed and the Revised Classification and the new rates brought
into force. Little time was afforded to the companies for their part of
the work. The whole system of rates was changed. New rates had to be
calculated on the new scale; thousands of rate books had to be compiled,
and millions of rates altered and revised. It was a colossal task;
impossible of fulfilment in the time allowed. The application of the new
Schedule forcibly reduced many rates, inflicting much loss upon the
companies, and because the companies advanced other rates (within the
limits of the new maximum powers of course) to meet this loss, or to meet
it to some extent, a storm of abuse arose and swept across the land. A
trader from Berwick-on-Tweed, more frank than most, wrote the following
"characteristic" letter as it was called at the time:--
"What we want is to have our fish carried at _half_ present rates. We
don't care a --- whether it pays the railways or not. Railways ought to
be made to carry for the good of the country, or they should be taken
over by the Government. That is what all Traders want and mean to try to
get."
Perhaps they would not be happy if they got it! In his clear, and most
interesting book _Railways and Their Rates_, my friend Edwin A. Pratt
says this letter was quoted in the Report which the Board of Trade made
to Parliament after their 85 days' Inquiry. The railway companies
announced that the new rates were in no sense final, that the time
allowed them was insufficient for proper revision, that they would give
an assurance that no increase would be made that would interfere with
trade or agriculture or diminish traffic and that, unless under
exceptional circumstances, no increase would in any case exceed 5 per
cent. But all was in vain, and Parliament passed an Act which provided
that any increase whatever (though within the limits of the new statutory
maximum) if complained of, should be heard and decided upon by the
Railway Commissioners, and that the onus of proving the reasonableness of
the increase should rest on the railway company. Sir Alexander (then
Mr.) Butterworth, in his book on _The Law Relating to Maximum Rates and
Charges on Railways_, published in 1897, says this remarkable result is
presented: that Parliament, "after probably the most protracted inquiry
ever held in connection with proposed legislation, decided that certain
amounts were to be the charges which railway companies should for the
future be entitled to make, and in 1894 apparently accepted the
suggestion that many of the charges, sanctioned after so much
deliberation, were unreasonable, and enacted that to entitle a company to
demand them, it should not be sufficient that the charge was within any
limit fixed by an Act of Parliament." Thus Parliament, yielding to
popular clamour, stultified itself, and in feverish haste to placate an
angry and noisy public tied the hands of the railway companies, doing, I
believe, more harm than good. This legislation naturally made the
companies very cautious in reducing a rate because of the difficulties to
be encountered should circumstances require them to raise it again, and
railway rates thus lost that element of elasticity and adaptability so
essential to the development of trade. Many a keen and enterprising
business man have I heard lament the restrictions that Parliament imposed
and declare that such interference with the freedom of trade was short-
sighted in the extreme and bad for the country.
Immediately after the passing of the Act of 1888 the railway companies
vigorously attacked the work imposed upon them. A special meeting on the
subject was held at the Irish Railway Clearing House in Dublin for the
purpose of preparing a revised Classification and Schedule of Rates. This
was a rare opportunity for me and I eagerly availed myself of it. Before
I left Glasgow it will be remembered I had been entrusted with an
examination of the statutory charging powers of the Glasgow and South-
Western company, and with the drawing up of a suggested scale of maximum
rates. No similar work had yet been done in Ireland, and it was
altogether new to the Irish companies. I produced copies of the
statements which I had prepared in Glasgow, and they served as a basis
for what had to be done, saved much time and trouble and gained for me no
little _kudos_. But more than this resulted. As I have hinted before,
and as will hereafter appear, this bit of Glasgow work led to my
promotion to a greater charge than the busy little County Down, which
though I loved it well, I had begun to feel I was now outgrowing. Many
other meetings at the Clearing House followed in which I took part with
increasing confidence, and in which Walter Bailey also prominently
figured. He and I were hand and glove. Cotton, who soon discovered that
Bailey was an authority on the subject, as indeed he was on most railway
matters, was not slow to profit by his knowledge and ability. He brought
him to all our meetings, and valuable was the help that Bailey gave.
In 1889 there came into operation the _Regulation of Railways Act_. It
invested the Board of Trade with power to order any company to adopt
block working, to interlock all points and signals, and to use on all
trains carrying passengers automatic continuous brakes. Before issuing
the order the Board consented to hear any representations which the
railways desired to make. The smaller companies, upon which the
expenditure involved would press very hardly, and the circumstances of
whose traffic seemed scarcely to require the same elaborate precautions
for safety in working as the bigger and more crowded systems, banded
together and waited on the Board of Trade. Upon me devolved the duty of
presenting the case for the smaller Irish companies, and upon Conacher,
of the Cambrian, for the smaller English lines. How finely Conacher
spoke I well remember. He had an excellent voice, possessed in a high
degree the gift of concise and forcible expression, and his every word
told. But our eloquence accomplished little--some small modification
regarding mixed trains, and that was all. Many of the lines in Ireland
serving districts where population is scanty, traffic meagre, and trains
consequently infrequent, could well have been spared the costly outlay
which the Act involved. Three or four trains each way per day represent
the train service on many of these small railways, and some of the
sections of the larger lines warrant little more. Take, for instance,
the case of the Midland Great-Western. On 330 out of its 538 miles not
more than six trains each way in the 24 hours are required, and they
could probably be reduced without hurting anyone. These figures relate
not to the exceptional war time in which I pen these lines, when stern
necessity has sweepingly reduced the train service, but to pre-war days
when normal conditions prevailed. Half a dozen trains each way per day!
In England there are as many, or more, in the hour!
The Act of 1889 also dealt with the working hours of railway men whose
duty involved the safety of trains or passengers, and required each
company to make periodical returns of those employed for longer hours
than were to be named from time to time by the Board of Trade; and it
contained further a useful clause to the effect that the fares were in
future to be printed on passenger tickets. I should not be surprised if
this simple little clause has not brought more real satisfaction to the
minds and hearts of the people of the British Isles than all the laboured
legislation on railway rates and charges.
In the year 1889 a great fillip was given to the extension of railways in
Ireland by the passing of the _Light Railways (Ireland) Act_. It was
familiarly known as "Balfour's Act." Mr. Balfour was then Chief
Secretary of Ireland, and it was due to him that it was passed. The Act
was designed "to facilitate the construction of Light Railways in
Ireland," and embodied various recommendations of the Allport Commission.
It was the first introduction of the principle of State aid by free money
grants. Such aid was conditional upon the light railway being
constructed or worked by an existing railway company, except in cases
where the Baronies guaranteed dividends upon a portion of the capital.
The amount which the Treasury was authorised to grant was 600,000 pounds.
In 1896 this was increased by a further sum of 500,000 pounds, and both
were, in addition to a capital sum, represented by 40,000 pounds per
annum which had been granted under previous legislation. Under this Act
and Acts of 1890 and 1896, over 300 miles, comprising 15 separate lines,
were constructed at a total cost, exclusive of what the railway companies
contributed, of 1,849,967 pounds, of which the Government contribution
was 1,553,967 pounds. Although the lines were promoted under Light
Railway Acts, and the Government grants were based upon light railway
estimates, Parliamentary power was obtained to construct, maintain, and
work them as other than light railways. This was taken advantage of by
some of the working companies who, in eight instances contributed
themselves a considerable amount of capital, in order that the lines
should be made sound and substantial, of the usual gauge, and such as
could be worked by the ordinary rolling stock of the company. The
Midland Great-Western, for instance, so expended no less than 352,000
pounds of their capital on "Balfour Lines" in the west. It was a
spirited thing to do.
Of the 309 miles of "light" railways, made under the 1889 and subsequent
Acts, 194 were constructed on the ordinary gauge of the country, 5 feet 3
inches, and the remainder on a 3-foot gauge.
Several Light Railway or Tramway Acts were passed in Ireland between 1860
and 1883, under which 295 miles of light railways at a cost of 1,389,784
pounds were constructed. With the exception of the small sum of 144,804
pounds, the interest on the whole of this capital was guaranteed by the
Baronies, the Treasury repaying the Baronies one-half but not to exceed
two per cent.
The lines constructed under "Balfour's Act" are situated mostly in
Connemara, Kerry, Mayo and Donegal, serving districts remote and thinly
populated, where as commercial ventures they could not have been
projected. That they have proved to be of great benefit to the country
is beyond question. They have developed fishing and agriculture, and
have brought the tourist into districts little visited before. Live
stock and farm produce are able to reach their market, and places before
isolated are in touch with the outer world.
One of the first of the railways made under the 1889 Act was a short line
of 8 miles from the County Down line at Downpatrick to the little fishing
village of Ardglass. It stood first on the list of lines recommended for
construction in the Report of the Allport Commission. Primarily it was
intended for the development of the herring traffic which for years had
abounded on the coast, but no sooner was the line opened, than that
perverse migratory fish sought other seas, and did not return to Ardglass
for I don't know how long.
The promotion of the Ardglass railway, and the steps necessary for
obtaining an Order in Council for its construction and working,
familiarised me with the Light Railway Legislation of Ireland, with which
in subsequent years I was often concerned.
In the autumn of 1889, in company with Mr. Jackson (afterwards Lord
Allerton), then Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Andrews and other
directors of the County Down, I visited Ardglass. Under the new Act the
Treasury, in connection with the projected railway construction, held the
purse strings, and the Treasury, so far as we were concerned, was Mr.
Jackson. We of the County Down were keen on getting the line sanctioned,
and were very anxious concerning Mr. Jackson's visit. He was a man who
drove a hard bargain, so it was said. Certainly he was an able man, and
I greatly admired him that day. Later in life, when he was Lord
Allerton, and Chairman of the Great Northern Railway of England, I met
him again and liked him well.
In 1889 there were no _light railways_ in Great Britain, or practically
none. Except in Ireland they are of modern growth. What really
constitutes a light railway it is not easy to say. Commonly it is
thought to be a matter of gauge, but that is not so. Mr. Acworth says:
"such a definition is in the nature of things impossible," but that, "a
light railway must be something simpler and cheaper than an ordinary
railway." Mr. Cole says that "the natural demand for a definition must
he frankly met with the disappointing reply that a hard and fast
definition, at once concise, exact, and comprehensive is not forthcoming,
and that a partial definition would be completely misleading." As such
authorities are unable to furnish a definition I shall not attempt it,
and will content myself with suggesting that the most recognisable
feature of a _light_ railway is its _light_ traffic.