THE PIONEER ELECTRIC RAILWAYS
Electric tramways have reached a period of middle age in which they
are more concerned about their internal economy than the prospect of
enterprise in new directions. Such development as they feel capable
of making under present legislative conditions is only by proxy and
tentatively, with the aid of the trolley omnibus.
Electric railways, however, have still many worlds to conquer. They
are now in much the same position as electric tramways held about the
year 1896. That is to say, they have already given practical proof of
their capabilities and enabled engineers to point out the directions
along which they are certain to develop. In the railway world there
is a growing conviction that the adoption of electric traction on all
suburban and inter-urban railways must be simply a matter of time. For
main line traffic the possibilities of using electricity are as yet
only an article of faith among electrical engineers.
Although the earliest experiments in electric traction were made in
the railway form, the first electric lines could hardly be regarded
as railways in the ordinary sense. They were really light railways,
in which the traffic conditions approximated to those of tramways.
The routes were short, the cars small, and the traffic of modest
dimensions. They contained the germ of both the tramway and the
railway; but, in the case of the railway, many years of technical
development had to pass before the problem of applying electricity
to the handling of large masses of traffic under standard railway
conditions was solved.
The fact that the first electric railway in the United Kingdom was
constructed at the Giant's Causeway (in 1883) is significant. The
Giant's Causeway is one of the few places in our islands where water
power is available close to a district with a demand for traffic
facilities. In 1885 another electric railway deriving its energy from
water-driven turbines was built between Bessbrook and Newry. At that
period it was considered that waterfalls provided the only really
feasible source of cheap electricity on a large scale. Even yet the
impression survives that electric power stations using steam cannot
produce current so cheaply as those which 'harness' waterfalls. Many
people, in fact, are inclined to attribute the comparative backwardness
of electrical development in Great Britain, not to legislative
conditions, but to the lack of large waterfalls.
There might have been more active progress in the pioneering days
if the presence of water power at convenient points had encouraged
electrical engineers to repeat the experiments at Portrush and
Bessbrook. But at an early stage in electrical history it became clear
to engineers that coal was just as feasible a source of cheap power
as water. The idea that a waterfall provides power 'for nothing'
is one of those superficial conceptions which make the hardiest of
fallacies. To 'harness' a waterfall requires a heavy expenditure of
capital on conduits, pipe-lines, dams, and other works. The interest
upon that capital is a heavy item, apart from the cost of maintenance
and repairs. Waterfalls are situated in mountainous country, generally
remote from the centres of industry; the water-power station,
therefore, has to face the cost of transmission mains and the loss
of energy involved in conveying the power to the place where it is
wanted. Further, waterfalls and the adjacent ground belong either to
individuals or to the State; and payment is generally exacted for the
right to use them.
All these items have to be covered in the price charged for current to
the public or to railway undertakings. Nature may provide the 'head' of
water 'free,' but man has to spend money in utilising it, just as he
has to do in mining and in obtaining heat from the coal which is also
provided 'free.' Anything which is obtained 'for nothing' is generally
worth nothing.
The full economies of generating electricity by steam power are
not, however, realised until business is done on a large scale. As
the first essential of a successful electric railway is a plentiful
supply of cheap power, development from the experimental stage of
Portrush had to wait until engineers mastered the art of producing
electricity from large generators. They gained the necessary experience
with electric tramways and in electric lighting. We have seen how,
as regards tramways, legislation delayed and hampered progress. A
similar cause was at work in connection with electric lighting. In
1882 an Act was passed regulating electric lighting on lines modelled
upon the principles of the Tramways Act, 1870. Capitalists declined
to work under this Act; and it was not until after 1888, when the
Act was amended, that any money could be found in Great Britain for
electric lighting schemes. This delay was a serious handicap not
only to electric lighting but to the business of British electrical
manufacturing, as there was, comparatively speaking, no demand for
electrical plant for over six years. Meanwhile, matters had been
advancing on normal lines in other countries; and when the demand came
at last, the manufacturers on the Continent and in America were the
only ones organised and ready to meet it.
These points must be touched upon in order to understand why so long
a period elapsed between the pioneer electric railways and the real
electric railway movement as we know it to-day. They also serve to
explain the prominent part which American and German firms took in
electrical developments here. Engineering and legislative conditions
combined to retard electric railway enterprise so that it did not begin
to take firm root in Great Britain until about 1890, and did not attain
to any conspicuous growth until the beginning of the twentieth century.
Until after 1890 the only electric railways in Great Britain taking
power from steam dynamos were those at Brighton Beach, Ryde Pier
(Isle of Wight) and Southend Pier, opened in 1883, 1886 and 1890
respectively. These were all, of course, of short length. The Brighton
Beach railway, designed and constructed by Mr Magnus Volk, was a unique
piece of work. The rails were laid on heavy concrete blocks below
high-water mark; and the cars were platforms raised on a light iron
structure. Power was conveyed to the cars from wires hung on posts like
the standards of a tramway on the trolley system. The unusual sensation
of travelling over the water was enjoyed by hundreds of people until
the difficulty of maintaining the track (owing to the erosive action of
the waves) led to the railway being abandoned and another line of more
ordinary character being laid on the level of the undercliff roadway.
The first indication of the genuine electric railway movement was given
in 1893, when the Liverpool Overhead Railway was opened. This line was
constructed to afford communication along the line of docks fringing
the Mersey. The track was carried on a continuous bridge in order to
avoid obstruction between the docks and the streets behind; and being
overhead, there were serious disadvantages attached to the use of steam
locomotives. Electric locomotives were therefore employed.
In this case, it should be noted, electricity was not adopted because
it was more economical or efficient than steam. The reason lay with
the peculiar situation of the railway. A similar reason decided
the promoters of the City and South London Railway to try electric
locomotives on their line. This railway, which was opened in 1890, was
the first deep level or 'tube' railway in the world. Moreover, it was
constructed and equipped throughout by British engineers, and at a time
when the art of tunnelling was much less advanced than it is now. In
the later and more imposing development of tube railways in London,
the foresight and enterprise displayed by the pioneers of the City and
South London Railway are apt to be overlooked. It was, however, the
success of the original line from the Monument to Clapham which made
it possible to raise capital for the Central London Railway (opened
in 1900) and for the extensive tube railway system organised by the
Underground Electric Railways Company of London.
On a deep-level railway, steam is, of course, out of the question. Even
on the old 'Underground,' built close to the surface and furnished with
frequent openings at the stations, and by means of ventilating shafts,
the atmospheric conditions were abominable. The sulphurous fumes were
indeed recommended for asthma and other complaints, but on a tube
railway they would have been sufficient to cure every human ailment.
Therefore the choice lay between electric traction and haulage by
cables, compressed air, or some other innocuous system. Within these
limits electricity was chosen on its merits.
The first railway in Great Britain to undertake conversion was one
in which both the physical and economic troubles were exceptionally
serious. The Mersey Railway is little more than a tunnel under the
river, and it is distinguished by heavy gradients and by the continuous
necessity of pumping out the water which drains into it. With steam
traction the difficulty of ventilating the tunnel was an added trouble.
Owing to these various causes the working expenses were abnormally
heavy, and led ultimately to a receivership. Electric traction was
adopted as the only possible cure. The pumping and ventilation
arrangements were both reorganised for electric power; and the trains
were equipped with electric traction on the 'multiple-unit' system, an
arrangement--to be described in the next chapter--which is well suited
to the economical handling of steep gradients. The practical result was
a great increase in traffic, with a marked decrease in the proportion
of expenses to receipts.
No other British railways, happily, were in so desperate a condition
as the Mersey line, but all of them were, at the end of last century,
feeling the effect of certain disquieting tendencies. These tendencies
were most marked in connection with suburban and short-distance
inter-urban traffic, which is quite distinct in character from the
main-line traffic. We talk glibly enough of railway traffic as if
it were a unity, but it is clear that very different considerations
govern the traffic on a main line between, say, London and Glasgow,
and those which control the traffic on London suburban routes or on a
railway connecting the adjacent towns of the Potteries. Some railways
have to deal with all three classes at the same time and occasionally
on the same lines of rails. Electric traction has, so far, made itself
felt only where the suburban or similar inter-urban traffic has been
separable from the main line traffic.
The growth which took place in suburban traffic before and after
the end of the century ought to have brought increased prosperity
to the railway companies, but it did not always do so. Competition
between the various companies led to a reduction in fares; Parliament,
by establishing workmen's fares, forced the companies to carry an
ever-increasing number of passengers at a loss, or at least without
profit; wages tended to increase and hours of working to decrease--both
affecting the cost of operation; rates and taxes became heavier and
heavier with the growth of municipal expenditure; and a higher standard
of comfort and efficiency was demanded by the public. In some instances
the situation was aggravated by the competition of electric tramways
along routes parallel to the railways. This competition was limited to
point-to-point traffic, its maximum range being about three miles; but
it was a grievance against which the railway companies protested very
loudly, especially when the tramways were owned by local authorities to
which the railways paid large sums in rates.
The general effect of all these factors was to reduce the margin of
profit on which the railways were working. We have seen, in the case of
tramways, how easy it is for a slight change in a frequently-recurring
expense to have a serious effect in the aggregate. Railways are in
much the same position; and the various influences at work upon the
suburban traffic brought them face to face with the importance, if not
the necessity, of finding some means of dealing with larger volumes
of traffic on a basis more economical than that provided by steam
locomotives.
This means they found in electric traction; but it may be noted that
even railway engineers took some time to realise exactly what electric
traction offered them. They were looking for something to reduce
their annual expenses; and when they made calculations about electric
traction they found that, when the expense of providing the electrical
equipment was taken into account, the total cost of hauling the trains
electrically on the existing schedule might be greater instead of less
than the cost of steam haulage. They were therefore inclined to look
upon the economic benefits of electric traction as an illusion.
In course of time, however, it came to be recognised that the function
of electricity is not to act like a blue pencil on the debit side of
the revenue account. Its essential purpose is to increase the volume of
traffic. From the public point of view this is very much more valuable.
Passengers are not directly concerned with means of reducing working
expenses, but they are closely interested in the improvement of the
frequency and speed of the service. The adoption of electricity on
suburban lines has really been dictated by the demand for increased
facilities. At the 'rush' hours of the morning and evening, when
the great tide of workers flows and ebbs, the capacity of the steam
lines was taxed to the utmost. And with the growth of population the
difficulty of running sufficiently frequent trains became almost
insuperable.
Apart from these particular necessities, the general features of
railway economics point to the supreme advantage of increasing the
volume of traffic in every possible way. In a railway, as in a tramway,
the preponderating item is the cost of construction and maintenance;
and unless a certain minimum of traffic is carried, the most economical
working in the world will not secure a profit. The standing charges
fall upon the idle hours as well as upon the busy; for every minute
that a line of rails stands empty there is a loss of money. Railway
progress depends upon reducing the proportion of idle hours; and that
can only be done where there is scope for the growth of traffic, and
where there is means--such as electric traction--of dealing with that
growth on an economical basis.
In the succeeding chapter it is explained how electric traction
enables a more frequent service to be run with advantage even on
systems which were worked to the maximum limit possible under steam
conditions. But in the meantime it will be interesting to trace the
effect itself on a railway which soon followed the Mersey Railway in
making the change from steam to electricity--the Metropolitan District
Railway.
[Illustration: Fig. 11. An electric train on the Metropolitan District
Railway, equipped by the British Thomson Houston Company. The front
and rear cars and one intermediate car are equipped with electric
motors, all controlled from the 'cab' at the end of the train. The
controller handle may be seen close to the nearest window of the first
car. The rail immediately in front of the foot of the guard is the
conductor rail which conveys the current to the train. The rail
between the track rails carries the return current.]
Throughout the steam age the finance of the District Railway Company
was as unattractive as the physical conditions of the railway itself.
No dividend was ever paid on the ordinary shares; and even with the
growth of London there was little prospect of any dividend ever being
paid. When--about ten years ago--the late Mr C. T. Yerkes came over
from America and obtained a controlling interest in the District
Railway Company with a view to converting it to electric traction, he
was regarded as a philanthropic enthusiast. Many of the shareholders
themselves were reluctant to give their assent to the change; they
preferred to bear the ills they knew than fly to others which might be
introduced by an American financier.
But Mr Yerkes and those who worked with him had something more in
view than the improvement of traffic on the District Railway. They
acquired control of several tube railway schemes and obtained powers
for new lines, so as to organise a comprehensive system of underground
electric transport in London. They had sufficient faith in the traffic
possibilities of London to find the enormous capital required to
construct these tube railways and also to convert the whole District
Railway to electric traction. The constructional work occupied several
years; and after the lines were opened one by one, arrangements had to
be developed for through-bookings among the various lines and between
them all and the existing underground railways like the Central London
Railway, the Metropolitan Railway (closely linked with the Metropolitan
District) and the City and South London Railway. A systematic attempt
was also made to develop the travelling habit in London by persistent
advertising of the railway services and by increasing the frequency
and rapidity of the trains. From these points of view the organisation
of the network of lines comprehensively known by the title of
'Underground' is certainly unsurpassed.
The difficulties which had to be overcome in this great work were
enormous, but there has been no break in the thread of progress.
The 'tubes' are paying dividends which, though modest, are an
encouragement to further developments. The finance of the District
Railway has lost its element of chronic despair. Considered as a
whole, the results prove that where there is the potentiality of large
traffic, electricity is the instrument which must be applied. During
the steam days, the most crowded part of the District Railway (the
'Inner Circle') carried a maximum of 16 trains per hour. With electric
traction that figure has been raised to 40 trains per hour. And the
remarkable thing is that with each increase in the service the traffic
grows. Many people welcomed the electrification of the District as a
measure of relief from the overcrowding on the steam trains during the
busy hours. But with a service of trains more than doubled in frequency
and also increased in capacity per train, overcrowding continues and
the 'straphanger' has become an established institution.
It may be accepted as substantially proved that, on suburban and
inter-urban railways in populous districts, electric traction is a
means of increasing traffic and diminishing the proportion of working
costs. Moreover, these results have been achieved in conjunction with
substantial reductions in fares and with marked improvements in the
comfort of travelling.
The engineering aspect of these changes has now to be considered.