THE "RAILWAY NEWS," THE INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY CONGRESS, AND A TRIP TO
SPAIN AND PORTUGAL
In Chapter XX I recorded the death of my old friend W. F. Mills, which
took place whilst I was writing that chapter. Now, as I pen these lines,
I hear of the loss of another old familiar railway friend; not indeed a
sentient being like you, dear reader, or him or me, yet a friend that
lacked neither perception nor feeling.
The _Railway News_ on Saturday, the 30th day of November, 1918, issued
its last number, and, as a separate entity, ceased to be, its existence
then merging into that of the _Railway Gazette_. I am sad and sorry for
I knew it well. For forty years it was my week-end companion; for ten
years or more, in the April of life, I contributed regularly to its
pages; and never, during all the years, have its columns been closed to
my pen. One of its editors, F. McDermott, has long been my friend, and
its first editor, Edward McDermott, his father, a grand old man, was kind
to me in my salad days and encouraged my budding scribbling proclivities.
He and Samuel Smiles, the author of _Self Help_ (then Secretary of the
South Eastern Railway), were, in 1864, its joint founders.
"Death," the Psalmist saith, "is certain to all." In 1893, the railway
world lost one whom it could ill spare. In the month of March, after a
short illness, Sir George Findlay died at the early age of 63. Gifted of
the gods, in the midst of his work, young in mind and spirit, his
faculties in full vigour, he was suddenly called away. His funeral, I
need not say, was attended by railway men from all parts of the kingdom.
I was one of those who travelled to London to follow his remains to their
resting place.
Further public railway legislation was enacted in 1893 and 1894, and four
important Acts were passed. The first was the _Railway Regulation Act_,
1893. It dealt with the hours of labour of railway servants, a subject
which for some time previously had been enjoying the attention of the
Press. It culminated in the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee. In
February, 1891, a Select Committee, consisting of 24 members, with Sir
Michael Hicks Beach as chairman, was formed, "To inquire whether, and if
so, in what way, the hours of railway servants should be restricted by
legislation." The Committee examined numerous railway servants and
officials, and reported to Parliament, in June, 1892. I was summoned by
the Committee to give evidence and appeared before them in London on 24th
March of that year. My business was to furnish facts concerning the
hours of duty of the employees on my own railway and the conditions of
their work. This I did pretty fully and embraced the opportunity of
showing how different were the circumstances of Irish railways compared
with English, and how legislation suitable to one country might be very
unsuitable to the other. It scarcely needed saying that England was an
industrial country whilst Ireland was agricultural; that England, with
620 people to the square mile, was thickly populated and Ireland with 135
sparsely; that population meant trains and traffic; that in England
railway traffic amounted to about 7,000 pounds per mile per annum and in
Ireland a little over 1,000 pounds; that in Ireland on many lines not
more than five or six trains ran each way daily, and on others only three
or four, whilst in England, on most lines, the _hourly_ number exceeded
these. When the Committee rose Sir Michael engaged me, informally, in
conversation for a little while. He was curious concerning some of the
facts I had adduced, particularly as to the Midland line and the country
it served.
In their report the Committee stated they had confined their inquiry to
the hours of duty of those classes of railway servants that were engaged
in working traffic, viz., drivers, firemen, guards, signalmen, shunters,
platelayers and porters, and had not dealt with other classes; a wise
distinction I thought. It was much easier, they said, to regulate the
hours of persons occupying fixed posts of duty within reasonable limits,
than those of the running staff on railways, on account of the variety in
the nature of the work. They reported also that they were unable to
recommend a "legal day," as they considered it would be found
impracticable owing to the number of cases which must necessarily be
admitted as exceptions to any fixed limit of hours, adding that the hours
of railway servants engaged in working traffic cannot be regulated like
those in a factory, which, I may add, experience has abundantly shown. I
believe, and have always believed, in reasonable working hours, and have
often worked unreasonably long hours myself in endeavouring to arrange
them for others; and more than once when I have re-arranged a rota for
drivers, firemen and guards, to my own satisfaction, I have been begged
by the men concerned not to make any change and to let well alone; not,
of course, because the new rota gave shorter hours, but because it
prevented the men from getting to their homes or interfered with
something else that suited them. Sometimes I gave way to the men and
sometimes I stuck to my revised rota. Every case varied and required
special consideration. The Committee also said: "It is universally
admitted that the railway service is very popular under existing
conditions; and several railway servants who appeared as witnesses
protested vigorously against any interference by Government or the
Legislature." State interference, I know, is the fashion now; but the
blind worship of _any fashion_ is but weakness and folly.
The Act of 1893 was the outcome of the Report. It provided that on
representation being made to the Board of Trade that the hours of any
railway servants were excessive, the Board might inquire into the
complaint, and order the company concerned to submit an amended schedule
of time and duty for such servants, and if the railway company failed to
comply with the order the matter might then be referred to the Railway
Commisioners whose order the company must obey under a penalty of 100
pounds a day. I do not think any company was ever fined; nor do I,
indeed, remember the Commissioners services being required. If they
were, the occasions were few and far between, as the companies generally
loyally carried out the provisions of the Act.
In 1894 was passed the _Notice of Accidents Act_. Where any person
employed in the construction, use, working or repair of any railway,
tramroad, tramway, gas works, canal bridge, tunnel, harbour, dock or
other work authorised by Parliament, suffered (it said) an accident
causing loss of life or bodily injury, the employer must notify the Board
of Trade, and if the Board of Trade considered the case of sufficient
importance, they may (it provided) direct the holding of a formal
inquiry; a report of such inquiry to be presented to the Board of Trade,
which may (it stated) be made public in such manner as they think fit. As
far as accidents to railway servants were concerned, I can vouch that
these inquiries were pretty often held, and the companies, concerned
always for the safety of their employees, never did other than welcome
them.
The _Railway and Canal Traffic Act_, 1894, was an Act to _amend_ (save
the mark!) _The Railway and Canal Traffic Act_, 1888. Its effect, in
fact, was to embitter instead of amend. It was, as I have previously
indicated, panic legislation yielded in haste to unreasonable clamour,
unfair to the railways, and of doubtful advantage to traders. I will say
no more lest I say too much.
The fourth of these enactments was the _Diseases of Animals Act_, 1894.
It invested the Board of Agriculture with further powers to make orders
and regulations respecting animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia or foot-
and-mouth disease, particularly with regard to markets, fairs, transit
and slaughter houses; for securing the providing of water and food; and
for cleansing and disinfecting vessels, vehicles and pens. As regards
Ireland the powers were vested in the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council,
and on the establishment of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, in
the year 1899, were transferred to that body.
The International Railway Congress Association is an interesting if not
an ancient body. It dates back to the year 1885. Gallant little Belgium
was its parent. In 1885, the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the
first public railway on the Continent of Europe (the line between
Brussels and Malines) was celebrated at Brussels by a Congress convened
on the invitation of the Belgian Government, and this meeting was the
beginning of the now worldwide association. At the first assembly at
Brussels "the study of technical and administrative questions for
railways" was the avowed object in view; and it has been the serious
purpose of every Congress since. But gradually pleasant relaxations,
such as lunches, dinners, dances and excursions, for wives and daughters
accompanying husbands and fathers graced these gatherings of railway
wisdom. During the first ten years the sessions were bi-annual, but
since 1895 have been held every five years. Brussels, Milan, Paris, St.
Petersburg, London, Washington and Berne have each been the scene of
their celebration, and Paris has been favoured twice. For 1915 Berlin
was the capital selected, but the war decided against that; and when
Berlin shall see the world's railway representatives assembled within her
gates only a very bold man will venture to prophesy.
The Congress is composed of some 420 railway systems represented by
nearly 1,500 delegates; and any railway company, the wide world over,
that possesses a mileage of 62 miles or more is competent for membership.
In addition to holding Sessions the Congress publishes a monthly Bulletin
(or did prior to the war), containing, besides original articles on all
questions relating to the construction, operation, and organisation of
railways, reproductions of interesting articles published in the railway
and engineering papers of any nation, as well as notices of books and
pamphlets on railway questions. The Bulletin contains also all reports
prepared for the various Sessions of the Congress and minutes of the
discussions. It was a great gathering that the late King Edward (then
Prince of Wales) opened on June the 26th, 1895, when the Congress was in
London. The scene was the Imperial Institute, and the meetings lasted
till July the 9th. From all parts of the globe delegates came. All was
not dull routine for British hospitality abounded and the companies vied
with each other in worthy entertainments, and Her Majesty the Queen saw
fit to signalise the occasion by giving a garden party in its honour.
Mr. W. M. Acworth, the well-known writer on railway economics, and a keen
but friendly critic of railway affairs, was appointed Secretary to the
English Section of the Congress, and to him fell the principal work
connected with the Session. His scholarly and linguistic attainments and
his varied travels, fitted him well for the task. My eldest son, then a
youth of 18, just entered the railway service, had the good fortune to be
selected as one of Mr. Acworth's assistants. He had not long finished
his education in France, and spoke the language fluently, which, of
course, was a recommendation. It was valuable experience to him as well
as delightful work. He conducted several parties of delegates through
various parts of England and Ireland in connection with the many
excursions that were arranged for their pleasure and profit. The weather
was very hot, and railway travelling at times oppressive, even to
delegates from the sunny land of France, and _shandy-gaff_, a beverage
new to most of the visitors, was in great request. Said a French
delegate one day to my son, as the train was approaching Rugby: "Oh!
M'sieu Tatlow, the weather it is so hot; will you not at Rugby give us
some of your beautiful _char-a-banc_?" On another occasion he was asked
if he would "be so kind as to give the _recipe_ for making that beautiful
toast."
At the close of the session in London, a number of the foreign delegates,
at the invitation of the Irish Railway Companies, visited Ireland, and
were shown its railways, and its beauty spots from east to west, from
north to south. It is not too much to say they were greatly impressed.
The splendid scenery that surrounds the island like a beautiful frame,
delighted them, and the excellence of the Irish railways was no little
surprise. They did not expect to see such fine carriages, such handsome
dining saloons, nor such permanent way and stations. Of course we showed
them our best and the best was very good. Ireland is often accused of
neglecting her opportunities, but never her hospitality. On this
occasion, personified by her railway companies, she neglected neither,
and in the latter surpassed herself.
In the autumn of this year I was able to gratify my taste for travel by a
longer excursion than usual. Hitherto my furthest flights had been to
Paris, Belgium, and Holland, but now I went as far as Spain and Portugal.
F. K. was my pleasant companion and we travelled, _via_ Paris, straight
through to Madrid, where we stayed for a week at the Hotel de la Paix, in
the bright and busy and sunny Puerto del Sol. In Madrid we visited the
Royal Palace (or so much of it as was shown to the public--principally
the Royal stables); the Escurial; the Art Galleries and Museums; drove in
the Buen Retiro; witnessed a bull fight, which rather sickened us when
the horses, which never stood a chance in the contest, were ripped up by
the bull; admired dark-eyed senoritas, their mantillas and coquettish
fans, enjoyed the southern sunshine and the Spanish wines; and then left
for Lisbon by an _express_ train that stopped at nearly every station. At
Lisbon three or four days were pleasantly passed, though we were annoyed
sometimes by the crowd of persistent beggars that thronged the streets,
and who, we were told, pursued their calling by license from the
authorities. This was a small matter, however. He who travels should be
proof against such minor annoyances. Then Oporto was visited, and the
Douro valley, the very centre of the port wine industry. A young
Englishman, a wine merchant, accompanied us in our journey through this
sultry valley and was our cicerone. Under his guidance we visited many
famous "wine lodges," sampled wonderful vintages in most generous
glasses, drank old port, green port, tawny port, and I am sure too much
port, and when, at last, we reached the port of Biarritz, where we stayed
for several days, we blessed its lighter wines and refreshing breezes.
After Biarritz Bordeaux detained us for a day or two, and so did Paris,
which we found very attractive and refreshing in early November.
This year also had for me a delightful week's interlude, in the month of
June, in the Committee Rooms at Westminster. A certain Bill was promoted
by an Irish railway company, which we considered an aggressive attempt to
invade our territory, and, of course, we vigorously opposed it. Again I
had the pleasure of giving evidence and of being crossed-examined by Mr.
Pembroke Stephens; but the Bill was passed and became an Act. Further
sign of vitality it never showed as the line was never made. It is one
thing, by the grace of Parliament to obtain an Act, but quite another by
the favour of the public to obtain capital. Parliament is often more
easily persuaded than the shrewd investor, as many a too sanguine
promoter knows.