THE BACKWARDNESS OF ELECTRIC TRACTION IN GREAT BRITAIN
Popular objections to the overhead system are not, of course, quite
dead. Every tramway proposal in districts where the trolley has not
already penetrated is still opposed on the ground of disfigurement
and danger. This opposition serves as an index to the severity of the
struggle which the advocates of the trolley system had to encounter
before they made it almost universal in large cities. But the dislike
of the public for a questionable novelty was not the sole reason why
electric tramway enterprise was backward in Great Britain.
It is not strictly accurate to say that electric tramway _enterprise_
was backward. The enterprise was there, in spirit, but circumstances
were very much against it. Tramway schemes are controlled by special
legislation which was passed before electric traction was contemplated;
and this legislation has not been amended in any material degree to
suit the altered conditions brought about by the use of electricity.
The Tramways Act, 1870--which is the master Act of the situation--was
framed at a time of reaction against public monopolies. Before that
time, gas, water, railway, and other companies had been granted
statutory powers in perpetuity; and when a local authority wanted to
take the supply of gas or water into its own hands, it had to buy the
existing undertakings at the valuation put upon them by the owners
themselves. There were frequent complaints about excessive purchase
terms, and also about extortionate rates charged by the monopolist
companies. Consequently, when horse tramways came on the scene, the
legislature determined to put the new 'monopoly' on quite a different
basis. The Tramways Act provided, first, that no application for
tramway powers would be so much as considered if it did not gain the
consent of the local authorities interested; second, that the period
of tenure should be limited to twenty-one years; and third, that the
local authorities should have the option, at the end of the period or
at seven-year intervals afterwards, of buying the tramway undertaking
at the 'then value' of the plant (rails, horses, cars, depots, etc.)
without any allowance for compulsory purchase, goodwill, future profits
or any other consideration whatsoever.
This Act was passed with the very best of intentions. It had the
advantage of substituting, for the costly and clumsy procedure by
Private Bill, the simple and cheap process of applying to the Board
of Trade for a 'Provisional Order' which would acquire the full
force of an Act when ratified (in a more or less automatic way) by
Parliament. But in spite of its good intentions it proved a serious
stumbling-block, especially when electric traction was proposed.
The effect of the limited tenure system, with compulsory expropriation
on what were called 'scrap-iron' terms, was to make the companies very
reluctant to spend one penny more than was absolutely necessary during
the concluding years. Capital expenditure on improvements in equipment
was regarded as out of the question, since there was not sufficient
time to recoup the difference between first cost and the 'then value'
at the purchase period. Money was grudged for the upkeep of track, the
repair and painting of cars, and the hundred and one items of expense
which are essential to a well-conducted tramway. System after system
fell into a state of shabby gentility, hoarding money against its
inevitable end.
This was the condition when, in the middle eighties, electric traction
was suggested. The public, suffering from the decay of the tramway
service, but not realising that the cause lay with an Act devised for
the public benefit, expected the tramway companies to adopt the new
mode of propulsion. But as the conversion to electric working involved
track-work costing several thousands of pounds per mile, and new cars
costing several hundreds each, together with a large generating plant
and new car depots, the change was commercially impossible to companies
which were forced to retain their old horse equipment in order to
realise something for the shareholders in the day of expropriation.
From these causes there arose a demand that the municipalities should
take over the tramway systems and do what the companies appeared too
slow to undertake.
Thus a strong impetus was given to municipal tramway enterprise. But
this impetus did not remove the causes of delay. The local authorities
had good economic reasons for waiting until the existing tramway leases
ran out and so enabled purchase to be made upon the most advantageous
terms. They were also obliged to move very cautiously in adopting so
radical and so novel a change as electric traction. Municipalities are
not speculative traders, who are ready to take risks after a rapid
expert investigation of a new policy. Further, no municipality likes to
accept the decision of another as valid for its own district.
The consequence was that each municipality thought it necessary to
get its own expert report on the subject and, in many cases, to send
its own deputation to inspect Continental tramway systems. These
preliminary studies, with debates in Council chambers and newspaper
columns, with public meetings of encouragement or protest, and with the
erection of experimental lines, took up so much time that little of a
substantial nature was done until several years after engineers were
ready and willing to carry out the conversion of large systems of horse
tramways to electric working.
The municipalities, however, were not the only forces at work. Towards
the year 1896, when a large number of tramway leases were running out,
a considerable amount of business was done by private capital in buying
up horse tramways with a view to conversion and also to extension far
beyond the limits of the existing routes. The essential condition of
the success of such enterprise was, of course, the renewal of the
tenure of the tramways for at least another twenty-one years. Here--and
in the accompanying applications for extensions of route--the true
inwardness of the Tramways Act was shown. Everything was in the hands
of the local authorities. They had only to withhold their consent, and
nothing could be done. And this power of veto enabled them to drive any
bargain they pleased with the promoters of tramway schemes.
Most electric tramway proposals covered the areas of several local
authorities, so that negotiations had to be entered into with each in
turn. The municipalities, being the guardians of the public interests,
considered it their duty to impose the heaviest conditions which
the promoters could be induced to accept, rather than abandon the
enterprise. It was a case of Hobson's choice in every parish. In some
instances direct payments for wayleaves were demanded. In others the
promoters were forced to bear the cost of street widenings and other
'public improvements' which were not always necessary for tramway
purposes. In nearly every town the fares and stages were determined by
the local authority--on the strength of the veto, not on commercial
principles. The cost of construction was frequently increased by
onerous conditions regarding the standard of overhead wire and track
work. Under the Tramways Act, tramway companies were compelled to
maintain the roadway between the rails and also outside for a space of
eighteen inches--a provision which was sensible enough when horses were
used. But the condition was not only enforced within these statutory
limits when the promoters were about to use a form of traction which
spared the road surface; it was extended in numerous cases to an
obligation to pave the entire roadway and to maintain it--often with
expensive wood paving where macadam had previously been considered
quite good enough for the traffic.
One effect of this state of affairs was delay. The preliminary
negotiations with local authorities--the interviews with mayors,
aldermen, councillors, town clerks, and borough surveyors, to say
nothing of the 'frontagers' along the line of route--usually occupied
far more time than the actual construction of the tramways. They were
also much more troublesome, since it was within the power of a single
local authority in a central position to 'hold up' a complete scheme,
while most districts had strong local patriotism and wanted a municipal
system to themselves. Very little is known by the general public of
the anxiety, difficulty, and expense attending such negotiations
with local bodies divided into parties or cliques and furnished with
an absolute power of veto. Looking back on the history of electric
traction, it really seems extraordinary that engineers and financiers
had the patience to undertake this work and carry it through. Their
reward, as will be seen, was not great in a pecuniary sense; and, as
regards reputation, they are generally accused of being extravagant,
avaricious, and wanting in enterprise.
The ultimate effect was that the actual cost of electric tramways
exceeded the estimates prepared on the basis of Continental and
American experience. The more prolonged and difficult the negotiations
preliminary to a scheme became, the greater the expense. And the
conditions imposed by local authorities as the price of their consent
loaded the capital account of electric tramway undertakings with items
which had no direct concern with the tramway. The Board of Trade
assisted the increase in cost by prescribing a standard of construction
which was higher than that allowed in other countries. The net result
has been that while electric tramways were expected to cost about £9500
per mile, they have actually cost over £12,000 per mile.
The revenue side of the account has also been affected by the power
of veto. A local authority has no hesitation in imposing low fares
and long stages (with high wages and short hours for employees) upon
a tramway company seeking its consent. The standard usually adopted
is that of large urban systems with dense traffic, so that systems in
scattered districts are often unfairly treated. In municipal systems
themselves the fares are apt to be determined by the promises of
councillors at election times rather than by the simple consideration
of a fair price for improved traffic facilities. Workmen's fares, for
instance, are a dead loss on practically every tramway system. Every
now and again there is an agitation for halfpenny fares, for the
extension of stages, for cheap rates for school children, for free
transport for the blind, and so on. A leading municipal tramway manager
once remarked that it was almost impossible for men in his position to
resist the pressure for such concessions, especially at local election
periods. The chairman of the Highways Committee of the London County
Council recently stated that never a day passes without some appeal for
concessions in tramway fares.
Most of the large urban systems are under municipal control, and
therefore they have the rates in reserve, as well as the most
favourable traffic conditions, to encourage them in giving the public
more and more for less money. But the tramway companies, working for
the greater part in less thickly populated areas, with no extraneous
means of making up losses, are put in a difficult position when similar
concessions are forced upon them. The upshot is that the average return
on the capital of electric traction companies amounts to only 3·41 per
cent. Better profits were, in fact, made in the horse tramway days; and
the electric traction industry is a fine example of the way in which
the enterprise of engineers and capitalists may bring little comfort
to themselves but enormous benefit to the public, which shows its
gratitude by asking for greater blessings at their expense.