| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Railway Rates: English and Foreign
Author: Grierson, J.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Railway Rates: English and Foreign" ***
Philatelic Digital Library Project at http://www.tpdlp.net
Libraries.)
RAILWAY RATES:
ENGLISH AND FOREIGN.
BY
J. GRIERSON,
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
SECOND THOUSAND.
LONDON:
EDWARD STANFORD, 55, CHARING CROSS.
1886.
PRINTED BY
WATERLOW AND SONS LIMITED, LONDON WALL, LONDON.
Transcriber's Notes:
Underscores "_" before and after a word or phrase indicate
_italics_ in the original text.
Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.
Obvious spelling mistakes have been corrected.
Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved.
In the sample contracts, the blank spaces to be filled in have
been replaced with underscores.
The caret character "^" indicates a superscript for the next
character or bracketed group of characters.
PREFACE.
A part of the information upon which these observations are founded
was obtained for my own guidance, in considering the complaints as
to Railway rates and the comparisons between railways in the United
Kingdom and abroad. At the suggestion of the representatives of some
of the Companies the subject was followed up. These observations
have expanded beyond my original intentions; but they have been
prepared for a limited object; they do not purport to exhaust the
subject. I have endeavoured to treat it fairly, and to pay due
regard alike to the interests of the traders, the public, and
the railway companies; interests which may, to a hasty observer,
occasionally appear conflicting, but which, looked at reasonably,
and in the light of full information, are seen to be identical.
Though solely responsible for the comments and conclusions, I am
indebted for the information upon which they are based to many
persons; among others, to several of the Presidents, General
Managers, and others connected with the control of the railways in
France, Belgium and Holland; to Sir Bernhard Samuelson, M.P. (who
placed at my disposal the voluminous and useful information which
he obtained as to the railways in Germany, Belgium and Holland); to
some of the General Managers and other Officers of the companies
in England, the United States, and Canada; and to many friends who
have been kind enough to supply much information and give valuable
assistance.
If the information thus collected helps to clear up some
misconceptions, to prevent the adoption of theories as to the fixing
of rates which would be most injurious to the trade of the country,
and to bring about an equitable and satisfactory settlement of
questions now so much discussed, my object will have been attained.
J. GRIERSON.
PADDINGTON,
_December 1st, 1886_.
CONTENTS.
SECTIONS PAGE
I. Introduction 1
II. The principle upon which Rates should be based 6
III. Cost of Service 8
IV. Equal Mileage Rates 13
V. Differential Rates 21
VI. Grouping, here and on the Continent 39
VII. Differential Rates on the Continent 45
VIII. The Interest of Consumers in Rates 62
IX. The Real Basis of Rates 68
X. New Classification 78
XI. Terminal Charges 93
XII. The Construction of Railways in England
and on the Continent 107
XIII. Working of English and Continental Railways--Comparative
facilities afforded by them 119
XIV. High Rates and their effect on trade 142
XV. Proposals for fixing rates by Railway
Commission.--Conciliation Courts 161
XVI. Railway Amalgamation 179
XVII. Railways and Canals 190
Conclusion 201
Appendix I. Comparison between English and Foreign Rates i
Appendix II. Comparison of Railway receipts from merchandise
and mineral traffic ix
Appendix III. Tariffs and Conditions for the conveyance of
merchandise Traffic in Holland xii
” ” Belgium xxvii
” ” Germany xliv
” ” France lv
Toll and maximum rate clauses in Railway Acts lxv
SECTION I.
INTRODUCTION.
For many reasons the failure to pass the Railway and Canal Traffic
Bill ought not to be regretted even by those who are dissatisfied
with railway companies, but who sincerely desire to benefit the
trade of the country. In the discussion of that Bill, and in the
debates on the subject of railway rates in recent sessions of
Parliament, the existence of many misconceptions were disclosed. As
to principles, there was little agreement; there was, if possible,
still less as to details. Charges which had often been explained or
refuted were repeated as if they were new, and as if they had never
been answered. One of the greatest defects of the discussion was
its fragmentary, one-sided character; it was carried on with far
too little regard to the interests of many classes, districts, and
ports which would have been seriously injured by some of the changes
hastily proposed. Many of those who professed to represent traders
ignored the interests of large sections of them; and what would
benefit consumers was, to a remarkable degree, lost sight of. The
delay may be useful; and it may be hoped that any future legislation
will be shaped according to the interests of all traders, and not of
a part of them only, and of the general public, to whom extended
and not restricted trade, cheapness, and a wide area of supply are
desirable.
The following observations do not attempt to correct or remove all
the misconceptions in circulation, or to answer all the charges
against English railway companies. Many of such charges are so
vague as to elude refutation; they appear formidable, but only
formidable because they are indefinite. Nor is this an attempt to
show that, with regard to railway working and rates, all is done
for the best by the companies. Considering the fact that the rates
are numbered by millions, and the variety of interests which they
affect--considering, too, the fact that this is an island with
numerous ports, companies and trading interests, all competing with
each other--it would be amazing if there were no anomalies and
defects. The present purpose is only to show that of the charges
brought against railway companies some are erroneous; that some
are exaggerated; that many are of a contradictory character; that
some are complaints of evils which railway companies did not create
and cannot alter; and that other supposed grievances could not be
removed without injury to the community. It has recently been stated
in Parliament that “this is the first time that traders have had
an opportunity of going before a tribunal and putting their views
fairly before it.”[1] This betrays forgetfulness of the fact that,
as lately as 1881 and 1882, during two sessions, a Select Committee
heard the complaints of all persons who believed that they had
grievances to relate. The statement, too, inadvertently ignores
the fact that, when the companies submitted in the session of
1885 Bills to Parliament, and thus offered a further opportunity
of inquiry, Chambers of Commerce and other persons professing to
represent trades refused to avail themselves of the opportunity,
and prevented the investigation taking place. English railway
companies need not dread a thorough examination of their working,
or a comparison with any foreign system. They need be apprehensive
only of a vague uninstructed notion that “something must be done;”
of legislation adopted, if not in a panic, in a time of greatly
depressed trade; of crude one-sided proposals made on behalf of a
part of the interests concerned by persons who have not sufficiently
examined and considered all the consequences of their schemes; and
of the application of a standard of perfection supposed to exist
somewhere, but in truth nowhere realized.
[1] Mr. Forwood. Debate on second reading of Railway and Canal
Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv. 446.
The continued depression of trade, the necessary efforts to
reduce the cost of production, jealousy of foreign competition,
misapprehensions fostered by agitation, as to the commercial effects
of “special,” “import,” and “transit” rates, have given birth to
vague, ill-considered proposals, some of which would be certain to
injure the cause which their authors have most at heart.
One point is at the outset very clear--the inconsistent nature of
many of the charges made against railway companies. Within the
last twenty years such complaints have been the subject of three
elaborate inquiries before Royal Commissions or Parliamentary
Committees[2]. Before all of them were submitted proposals
completely at variance with each other. With equal emphasis
railways are now asked to satisfy contradictory demands; and to a
large extent the multifarious charges made against them answer or
cancel each other. Many traders demand the very opposite of what
is a necessity to others, and of what consumers, naturally anxious
to enlarge the field of supply, earnestly desire. Some of the
former complain, for example, in language which seems borrowed from
mediæval times, that their “geographical” or “natural advantages”
are diminished. Other traders blame railway companies for not
sufficiently effacing natural disadvantages, and not offering
inducements for the development of trade in new districts. Exporters
want favourable terms; importers do the same; and another class
protests against concessions either in favour of exports or imports.
It is a remarkable fact that many of the proposals which were most
in fashion a few years ago have now been abandoned, and that in
Parliament and the Press we now hear chiefly of schemes totally
different from those which were formerly supported. Equal mileage
rates were once strongly advocated; and, probably owing to the great
success of the Penny Post and to the experiences of the advantages
of one uniform rate for all distances, there was a belief in some
minds that, with certain modifications, the same principle might
be applied to rates for goods. Ingenious schemes were devised for
equalizing within certain zones or areas, rates irrespective of
distance and other circumstances. There is a fashion in so-called
Railway Reform. Such schemes are now little heard of; they have
given place to proposals essentially different, which may in their
turn make way for others.
[2] See Report of Royal Commission, 1867; Report of Joint Select
Committee of House of Lords and Commons, 1872; Report of Select
Committee, 1881-2.
In all the recent discussions of rates much was heard of those who
were discontented, but very little of those who, being satisfied,
were silent. Most errors in Political Economy, it has been said,
come from not taking into account what is not seen. Especially true
is this of the question of railway rates, not the least important
problem of Political Economy. Of the trades and interests which are
dissatisfied with existing arrangements, people hear and see much.
Unfortunately they appear to take little heed of other interests,
equally important, which are contented, or comparatively so, which
do not send deputations to the Board of Trade, and which changes
such as have been from time to time proposed would injure or even go
far to ruin.
SECTION II.
THE PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH RATES SHOULD BE BASED.
The first condition of any useful discussion of railway rates is
that _all_ interests shall be considered--the interests of all
traders, and of all consumers, as well as of railway companies. To
every proposal this test--the golden rule--should be applied. How
would any projected change affect all concerned? Every one cannot
get such rates as he would desire; the utmost which is practicable
is to fix them in the manner, on the whole, most suitable to the
requirements of the community as a whole; and this will be found
in the long run to coincide with the interests of the companies.
In consequence of not applying this test, and owing to the fact
that persons may freely put forward proposals without explaining
what would be the consequences of a general application of their
principle, little progress is made in the discussion. A second
condition of any profitable consideration of the subject is obvious.
To argue about the propriety of this or that rate, the question
whether this town or that port is badly treated, or this or that
industry is made to pay too much, is of little use without agreement
as to the principle upon which rates ought to be framed. There is a
third condition no less reasonable. When English railway companies
are accused of imposing charges at haphazard, and in an arbitrary
fashion, what scientific principle, it may be asked, ought to be
followed? There is no escaping this question--not even if the task
of framing or controlling rates were committed, as has sometimes
been proposed, to the Board of Trade or the Railway Commissioners.
To this question rarely, however, is any answer given. When
one is attempted, very seldom is it made with reference to all
interests meriting attention.[3] How often do witnesses before
Royal Commissions or in Parliamentary inquiries merely deprecate in
general language what they object to as personally injurious, or
merely claim what would be advantageous for themselves! How often is
their proposal of reform merely a thinly veiled plan for securing
_protection_ against competition for some industry or some town or
port! How many proposals as to rates, propounded with facility and
confidence in Chambers of Commerce, would prove to be valueless or
even objectionable if their authors were always obliged to answer in
detail two questions. What would be the effect of the proposals on
consumers? How would they affect producers and traders generally?
[3] Gustav Cohn, the well known German writer on English railways,
while advocating many changes, complains of the limited, one-sided
knowledge of the subject shown by the chief English critics of
railways.--_Die Englische Eisenbahnpolitik_ (1883), p.88 and
elsewhere.
SECTION III.
COST OF SERVICE.
One favourite proposal, often refuted but constantly renewed, is
to base rates on the actual cost of conveyance _plus_ a reasonable
return on the capital invested. Whether this would benefit the trade
of the country we shall by and by consider.
But it is no light presumption against this principle that, though
so often proposed, especially by theorists, nowhere has it been
carried out. Obviously cost of conveyance bears no relation to
value of goods--the mere transit of some descriptions of very
valuable goods costs as little as that of low priced articles. It
will be generally found that when pressed, the advocates of this
theory are not prepared to maintain that for a cwt. of coals and
a cwt. of copper the charge should be the same. They shrink from
the application of their own principle, recognising, as is the
fact, that it is absolutely inconsistent with any classification of
goods, such as traders and the Board of Trade have been urging the
companies to adopt.
Inconsistent as such a principle is with any kind of classification
of goods, and leading to the consequence that a rate might be the
same for a bale of cotton as for high priced silks, its effect might
be to revolutionize trade. But there is a preliminary difficulty;
how is the cost of conveyance to be ascertained with anything like
accuracy? How is the cost of conveying a particular consignment or
even the average cost of every kind of traffic to be found? What
the transit of full loads of coal in this country, or of grain
in America, from point A to point B costs may be approximately
found. Allowances may be made for the maintenance of the permanent
way, for cost of engine power, and the wages of drivers, guards,
&c.; and calculations, more or less accurate, can be made as to
the cost of conveyance even over lines of varying gradients. The
solution even of this simple form of problem would be difficult.
When in cases before the Railway Commissioners it has been attempted
to discover the _actual_ cost of conveying a particular kind of
traffic, the operation has been laborious. The companies interested
have been compelled to incur great expense in procuring returns and
information, and the result has in general been only approximately
accurate. Very complex and difficult is the real problem. A large
portion of the traffic of the country is carried in trains which
pick up and set down wagons at intermediate stations. In the same
truck may be goods of all classes and different quality or bulk
for different destinations. One article of great bulk and light
weight may be carried in a truck by itself or along with articles
of great weight and small bulk.[4] There is a further difficulty
in the fact that, while certain fixed expenses remain much the
same, no matter what may be the volume of traffic, the movement or
operating expenses increase with the traffic. It may be confidently
stated that no trustworthy data as to the cost of conveying each
consignment or each class of goods in the actual intricacy of
business could be obtained. At best only estimates could be roughly
arrived at by arbitrarily making allowances and assumptions. Will
those who talk about cost of service reveal the formula by which
they can accurately calculate the cost of carriage of a particular
article carried in the same truck with a dozen others, all coming
from different places and destined for different stations over three
or four different lines, the cost of no two of which has been the
same, and the working expenses of which are totally dissimilar? If
they have discovered this formula, it remains to be stated how it
may be applied.
[4] NOTE.--See illustration of cubical contents in proportion to
weight, page 83.
So serious are the difficulties in the way of ascertaining the facts
as to cost of transport, so varied are the circumstances in this
country, that it is not surprising that in every instance in which
the principle has been brought before a Parliamentary Committee or
Royal Commission it has met with the condemnation expressed by the
Select Committee of 1872--“it is impracticable.”[5]
[5] For attempts to calculate cost of service, see A. Fink on “_Cost
of Railway Transportation_,” New York (1882); Hadley on “_Railway
Transportation_,” p. 261; _Sax’s Die Eisenbahnen_ 1.60 and 2.361;
_Lardner’s Railway Economy_; and the Italian Parliamentary Inquiry
(_Atti della Commissione d’Inchiesta sull’ Esercizio delle Ferrovie
Italiane_) part II., vol. II., 962.
If the use of each wagon were charged for, according to its
capacity, the cost of conveyance per truck could, no doubt, be
approximately known. Whether such a system is the best for railway
companies need not be here considered; certain it is that it is
extremely undesirable in the interest of the trader. According to
it, he must pay for a five or a ten ton wagon, whether he filled
it or not, and whether the merchandise which he sent was silk,
bales of cotton, or fruit. The system of charging so much a wagon
instead of so much a ton--_wagenraum tarif_, as it is called--is,
to a considerable extent, in force in Germany and Holland. In both
these countries, however, it has been found incompatible with the
necessities of commerce to abide strictly by this principle. One
curious result would be brought about by charging per wagon--there
would be a return to practices some forty years ago given up in
England as needlessly costly and unsuitable to business. Every
customer of a railway does not want a whole truck. He wishes to send
ten cwt. of bales or a cask weighing one hundredweight; he could not
send his goods if he had to pay for a full truck. To provide for the
wants of the great mass of traders and the ordinary requirements of
business, intermediaries between the railway companies have sprung
up in Germany and Holland. Indeed, the great bulk of the traffic in
the latter country is carried by carriers or forwarding agents in
full wagon loads. The company is practically only a toll taker. The
forwarding agents charge the consignor or consignee of the goods
sums over and above the tolls or rates paid to the companies. So
far as a large part of the public is concerned, the rates of the
companies are, in those countries, mere paper rates. Not being able
to take a full wagon, small traders must pay what the forwarding
agents demand, or make special terms with them. This is very much
the state of things which existed in England before 1844, when the
companies were, as a rule, merely owners of the road, locomotives,
&c., and when they left to private persons the business of carriers.
Those who can recall that time, or who reflect what the results of
such a system would be, will scarcely wish for its return; it would
be indeed a lamentable retrogression, injurious alike to the public
and the railway companies.[6]
[6] See the unqualified condemnation of the system in the Italian
Parliamentary Report already quoted: “The natural system was a
system eminently theoretical. To-day all doubt on the subject is
removed; this system was tried for five years, and it proved very
unsatisfactory.” Parte II., Vol. III., p. 954. It is pointed out
with truth that the so-called “natural system” is injurious to small
industries and small towns.
See also page 18.
SECTION IV.
EQUAL MILEAGE RATES.
Another proposal which, though always condemned by competent judges,
is still, in some form, very often brought forward, is to charge
equal mileage rates.[7] Admitting the impossibility or impropriety
of making rates vary according to the cost of conveyance of goods
without reference to their value or quality--recognising the
expediency of classification in some form--many persons think that
it would be well to charge for the same kind of goods the same sum
per mile universally. This plan is simple; it has an appearance
of being equitable; and, as such, it is attractive. But, on the
slightest consideration, it becomes apparent that exceptions which
mar this simplicity must be admitted. In fact, no one proposes that
this principle should be inflexibly carried out. Far from being
really equitable, equal mileage rates would often act most unfairly.
Mileage run is only one element out of many in cost of service; and
to compel companies to charge the same sum between points equally
distant, irrespective of the original cost of constructing the way,
the nature of the gradients, the amount and regularity of the
traffic to and fro, and the extent of back haulage of “empties,”
would be doing great injustice. Obviously an allowance must be
made to cover the cost of specially expensive undertakings, such
as the Runcorn, Tay and Forth Bridges, the Sol way Viaduct, or the
Severn Tunnel. So, too, allowance must be made for steep gradients;
manifestly the same paying load cannot be carried over gradients of
one in forty as over one in eight hundred. In Germany and Holland
an effort has been made to adopt the mileage system; and (subject
to exceptions for import, export and transit rates, referred to
afterwards) it is assumed to be carried out. But patent facts
could not be ignored; in these countries an extra mileage up to 12
kilometres (about 7½ miles) is taken into the calculation of
rates for expensive bridges and steep gradients. Speed, too, must
be taken into account; as it increases, a more than proportionate
increase in engine power is necessary.[8]
[7] The late Member for West Wolverhampton, in comparing the rates
for Coke between Staveley and Northamptonshire and Staveley and
Wolverhampton, practically advocated mileage rates, although,
probably, not intending to do so. (See debate on the second reading
of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, May 6th, 1886.)
[8] If an engine and tender weighing together 56 tons is capable of
drawing a maximum load of say forty loaded wagons weighing 560 tons
at 25 miles per hour on the level, it will only take the following
loads over the gradients named below, and, in addition to the
reduction in the load, the speed would also be considerably reduced.
Level. 40 wagons weighing 560 tons. Incline 1 in 100 20 ” ” 280 ” ”
1 ” 50 10 ” ” 140 ” ” 1 ” 30 6 ” ” 84 ”
See also Spon’s Dictionary of Engineering; Encyclopedia Britannica
“Railways,” and the elaborate work _Des Pentes Economiques en
Chemins, par M. Charles de Freycinet_.
Equality is here not equity. To all railway companies the result
of establishing a system of equal mileage rates would not be the
same. Much would depend on the question whether the rates were the
same over all parts of the same railway, or whether equal mileage
rates were in force throughout the country: a distinction not always
borne in mind by those who propose such rates. Undoubtedly to many
railways the loss of traffic as the result, of equal mileage rates
would be serious. Unless a very low scale of rates, entailing heavy
and unnecessary loss, were adopted, much of the long distance
traffic would cease to be carried. On other railways, however, the
present net revenue might be maintained by levelling up rates;
although the amount of traffic would be less, the working expenses
might be reduced. On the whole, the more the theory of equal mileage
rates is studied, the clearer it becomes that its adoption would
probably be much less injurious to some railway companies than to
colliery proprietors, manufacturers, traders, ports, and to the
country at large.[9]
[9] Before Mr. Cardwell’s Committee (23rd February, 1853) the late
Mr. Robert Stephenson, the eminent engineer, gave the following
illustration, which is not yet antiquated:--
“I referred to that in order to shew the Committee the great
impropriety of attempting anything like an equal mileage rate on
railways. I can elucidate that in a very remarkable manner, and shew
the injustice that the carrying out of the principle would inflict
upon some railway companies, especially where goods are concerned.
I will take the case of the Great North of England Railway, from
Newcastle coal-field towards York, and towards the rivers Tees and
Tyne. In one direction there were 5,450,000 tons of coals carried
over one mile, which was equal to 320,588 over one mile for each
engine; there having been employed by the York, Newcastle and
Berwick Company for the performance of that duty 17 engines. Towards
York, where the distance was greater, and the gradients were better,
and the loads heavier, and the work more uniform, 13 engines took
14,435,000 tons over one mile, which was equal to 1,110,000 tons
for each engine over a mile; in the other case, the duty that one
engine performed was carrying 320,588 tons over a mile; therefore in
this case one engine has done 3·466 more work than the other engine,
so that on the first line it cost the Company nearly four times as
much as it cost them for doing the same duty on the other line. On
the one line there are a number of collieries; the engines have to
stop and pick up the traffic, and the railway wagons do not average
perhaps more than seven or eight miles per day, whereas in the other
case they work for hours continuously, and with heavier loads and no
stoppages.”
To consumers, whose interest are so apt to be lost sight of in
the controversy, the change would be disastrous. Equal mileage
rates would seriously lessen or even destroy traffic now conveyed
long distances. By narrowing the area of supply, they would raise
the prices of provisions and commodities such as milk, fish, and
vegetables in and near great towns. The sustenance of a community
such as London, is, one might almost say, possible only because
it is not fed solely from the region immediately round it, but is
supplied from very distant points. If the London markets are able
to procure fish from remote parts of Scotland or Ireland, beef
from Aberdeenshire and adjacent counties, milk from farms within
100 miles, vegetables from Penzance, and the Channel Islands, eggs
and butter from Normandy, coals from the Midlands, Lancashire and
South Wales, the capital owes these advantages to the fact that
English railways have not been bound by equal mileage rates. Were
such a system strictly enforced, fuel, provisions, and most of the
necessaries of life would be raised in price. So far as consumers
are concerned, equal mileage freights by sea--the height of
absurdity in the eyes of all who know anything of commerce--would
be as reasonable as equal mileage rates by land.[10]
To manufacturers whose works and premises are not near densely
populated districts or ports--the great centres of consumption or
export--the change would be disastrous. They would be driven out
of the field by more favourably situated competitors, who would
acquire a monopoly. The pursuit of certain trades would become
impossible in districts in which they are now carried on with
success. Not a few manufactories would soon be closed, but for
the facilities which they now possess for procuring raw materials
from remote parts. To give a few illustrations out of many: South
Staffordshire is supplied with iron ore or pig-iron from Staveley in
Derbyshire, Westbury in Wiltshire, Fawler in Oxfordshire, Frodingham
in Lincolnshire, Ulverstone and Wigan in Lancashire, Middlesborough
in Yorkshire, and also from South Wales; and it receives limestone
from Froghall in North Staffordshire, Minera in Denbighshire,
Wirksworth in Derbyshire, Presteign in Radnorshire, and Porthywaen
in Shropshire.[11] Such are examples of the interdependence of
districts and industries, the co-operation of places far apart, with
which equal mileage rates would interfere. Even if originally they
would have been beneficial they would revolutionize the conditions
under which trade has been carried on in this country since the
introduction of railways.[12]
[10] See preface to Smiles’ Life of Stephenson, and, as to the
provisioning of Paris by means of railways, interesting details in
_La Transformation Des Moyens de Transport, par Alfred de Foville,
Chef de Bureau au Ministère des Finances_, p. 256.
[11] About thirty years ago, when the iron works at Westbury in
Wiltshire were constructed, it was anticipated that fuel would
be obtained from the Badstock district, about 14 miles distant.
But after sinking collieries it was found that the coke was not
suitable; so that it has now to be obtained from South Wales, a
distance of about 130 miles. The pig iron is sent to South Wales in
the return coke wagons, and also to South Staffordshire, a distance
of 140 miles. The coke and pig iron are carried at special low rates
below those in force for traffic to intermediate places. Without
such special rates, or if mileage rates were charged, the works
would have to be closed.
[12] An American writer points out that the following would be the
result of applying the principle of equal mileage rates, or of
basing rates on cost of service:--
1. “There would be little or no classification of freights.
Grain, lumber, coal, iron, shoes, dry goods, groceries, drugs and
chemicals, would all have to pay near about the same rate per 100
pounds per mile, and that rate would have to be something like an
average of the present rates charged upon the different classes of
freight. The higher classes of freight would be a good deal lowered,
and the lower classes would be materially raised. The result would
be that cheap and heavy products could be no longer transported over
the distances that are now carried.
2. “The rates on through freight would have to be proportioned very
nearly to the distance hauled. The rate from Chicago to Boston for
instance, would be materially higher, and the rate from Chicago to
Baltimore materially lower than the rates from Chicago to New York.
3. “Roads having the lowest grades, and most favourable alignment
would have lower rates than their competitors, and would monopolise
the business, to the entire exclusion of those lines which traverse
more difficult and expensive territory, and upon which the cost
of transportation was greater. And the tide once turned, the evil
would multiply itself; for the rates would decrease rapidly on the
favoured roads, with the increase of business, and would increase
on the unfortunately located roads, with the decrease in volume of
their freight, until the latter would be left with nothing but their
local business to support them, which would then have to be advanced
to the highest figures possible.”--_Railroad Transportation, by E.
P. Alexander, Vice-President of the Louisville and Nashville Railway
Company._
Some advocates of the theory of mileage rates may concede that
their adoption would entail loss on certain districts and to
some individuals, but deny that the community as a whole would
suffer.[13] Is this a reasonable view? Even if the home trade were
not injured, the result of equal mileage rates must be to increase
the cost of production of many articles manufactured at a distance
from ports of shipment. Would not this make competition with foreign
countries more difficult than it is? And must it not reduce the
demand for labour?
[13] Very recently the fishermen in the North of Scotland have been
asking that the same gross rates shall be charged from Wick to large
towns in the South as are charged from the fishing ports, such as
Grimsby, on the East Coast of England. What would they, or most
consumers of fish, say to equal mileage rates?
The principle of equal mileage rates, it may be added, has been
condemned by every Royal Commission and Parliamentary Committee
which has investigated the subject; and this condemnation has been
pronounced on grounds for the most part wholly independent of
the interests of railway companies. As pointed out by the Select
Committee of 1872, the principle would “prevent railway companies
from making perfectly fair arrangements for carrying at a lower
rate than usual goods brought in large and constant quantities,
or for carrying for long distances at a lower rate than for short
distances.”
“It would prevent railway companies from lowering their fares
and rates so as to compete with traffic by sea, by canal, or by
a shorter or otherwise cheaper railway, and would thus deprive
the public of the benefit of competition, and the company of a
legitimate source of profit.”
“It would compel a company to carry for the same rate over a
line which has been very expensive in construction or which from
gradients or otherwise is very expensive in working, at the same
rate at which it carries over less expensive lines.”
The Committee add--“It will be found that the supporters of equal
mileage, when pressed, often really mean, not that the rates they
themselves pay are too high, but that the rates which others pay are
too low.” In other words, they desire to apply the principle when it
works in their favour, and to reject it when it does not.[14]
[14] “We have nothing to do here with the study of the tariff
systems adopted on the Alsace-Lorraine lines, and extended with
some modifications to the generality of German lines. Seductive by
its simplicity, the principle of fixing the rate according to the
weight only, and without regard to the value of the object carried,
has not found numerous partisans in France. Such a radical reform
would overthrow our commercial habits, and would occasion results,
in a financial point of view, which would be impossible for us to
estimate.” Report of the French Commission of the Third System on
Railway Tariffs, by M. Richard Waddington. (Appendix 31 to Report
from the Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), 1881-2,
Vol. 11. p. 449).
SECTION V.
DIFFERENTIAL RATES.
While shrinking from advocating equal mileage rates, many persons
take up an intermediate position. They object to rates being much
out of proportion to distance; they do so although the traffic may
not be carried over the same parts or sections of a railway. The
rates to which objection is taken are of several kinds:--Special
rates for export traffic; special rates for import traffic; transit
or through rates; special rates generally--special rates for long
distance as distinguished from short distance or intermediate
traffic.
Such differential rates exist--and the circumstance is not
unimportant--in all countries in which railways have been developed;
and it will be found that, here as elsewhere, they have been
adopted, not solely or even chiefly with a view to benefit railway
companies, but mainly to meet the not unreasonable demands of
traders and consumers.
The following are a few instances of special import and export rates
charged by the railway companies in this country, viz.:--
-----------+-------------+-----------------------+----------+----------
| | | Import |
| | | and | Local
From | To | Article. | Export | Rates
| | | Rates | per Ton.
| | |per Ton. |
-----------+-------------+-----------------------+----------+----------
Manchester | London | Cotton Goods in Bales | 25/- | 40/-
| | | C. & D. | C. & D.
” | Southampton | ” ” | 25/- | 45/-
| | | C. & D. | C. & D.
| | | |
Birmingham | London | Hardware | 25/- | 27/6
| | | C. & D. | C. & D.
” | ” | Bedsteads | 22/6 | 28/4
| | | C. & D. | C. & D.
| | | |
London | Plymouth | Newspapers and | 24/2 | 37/6
| | Periodicals | C. & D. | C. & D.
| | | |
Leeds | Hull | Woolen and Worsted | 12/6 | 16/8
| | Goods | C. & D. | C. & D.
| | | |
Manchester | ” | Bale goods | 17/6 | 31/8
| | | C. & D. | C. & D.
| | | |
Liverpool | ” | Salt Provisions | 12/6 | 20/-
| | |Carted in | Hull.
” | London | Fresh Meat | 25/- a | 50/- a
| | | C. & D. | C. & D.
| | | 30/- b | 55/- b
| | | C. & D. | C. & D.
Bristol | ” | American Provisions | 20/- | 27/6 X
| | | C. & D. | C. & D.
” | ” | Fresh Meat | 20/- a |
| | | C. & D. | } 40/-
| | | 25/- b | } C. & D.
| | | C. & D. | }
| | | |
Hull | ” | Meat and other | 25/- | 40/-
| | Imported Goods | C. & D. | C. & D.
-----------+-------------+-----------------------+----------+---------
a. Exclusive of hampers.
b. Inclusive of hampers.
X Bacon in 1 ton lots 22/6 per ton C. & D.
Butter and Lard in 4 ton lots 22/6 per ton C. & D.
C. & D. In other words, collected and delivered.
In the interest of shippers transit rates have been adopted; and
as an illustration, may be mentioned the rate for tea from China,
Japan, and India, brought by water to London, and despatched to
Liverpool by rail for shipment to America or elsewhere, viz.:--
--------+------------+------------------------+----------+----------
| | | Export | Local
From | To | Article. | Rates | Rates
| | | per Ton. | per Ton.
--------+------------+------------------------+----------+----------
London | Liverpool | Tea from China, India, | 25/- | 37/6
| | Japan, under Bond | C. & D. | C. & D.
| | | |
” | Birmingham | Tea | -- | 34/2
| | | | C. & D.
” | Manchester | ” | -- | 40/0
| | | | C. & D.
--------+------------+------------------------+----------+----------
In the abolition of these rates the home trader or consumer can have
no direct interest; although the transit rate is lower than that for
home traffic, it cannot in any way prejudice the English trader.
If the special rate were withdrawn he would be no better off; the
traffic would simply go to its destination by water.
To reduced export rates the objections are few. They are generally
admitted to be useful; and at a time when on all hands it is
urged to be necessary to extend our trade abroad, they could not
be abolished without causing serious loss and loud complaints.
It is important to enable a colliery owner to export coal, or a
manufacturer without a port in the vicinity of his works, to export
his wares on such terms that he will not be at a heavy disadvantage
or be driven out of the field. Special lower rates enable the
manufacturers of exported goods, such as manufactured cottons from
Manchester, and hardware from Birmingham, to send them to London,
and to avail themselves of lines of steamers sailing from several
ports. But for such facilities exporters would be confined to one,
and that the nearest, port, and they would lose the benefit of the
competition in facilities and sea freights. The railway company
which happened to own the route to the nearest port would possess a
monopoly of the traffic, and might charge their full rates instead
of the present reduced rates.
Nor is the practice recently introduced in the interest of railway
companies. In the Act authorising the very first railway on which
steam was used, the Stockton and Darlington, the principle is
recognised. The tolls upon the coal shipped on board any vessel
for export were fixed at one halfpenny per ton per mile, while
the toll on all other coal was 4d. per ton per mile. Each of the
special export rates has been made, it may be truly said, at the
instance of some manufacturer or shipper who would be injured by
their withdrawal. In granting such terms, railway companies have
endeavoured to satisfy the urgent demands of customers. And if the
rate to one intermediate place is fair and reasonable in itself,
is it any substantial grievance that it is higher than the rate on
goods for shipment?[15]
[15] The rate for the carriage of flour from Minneapolis for
consumption at Milwaukee or Chicago is one-third higher than the
rate for flour for shipment.
Special import rates have been much more attacked; but when the
principle is fairly carried out, they are no less defensible than
export rates. Most of the objections to them come, it will be found,
from persons who believe that they have a vested interest in certain
produce and trades; often they are assailed by the very persons who
are the defenders of reduced export rates. The majority of special
import rates naturally arise out of sea competition. The existence
of the import rates for fresh meat and provisions from Liverpool and
Bristol to London, which have been especially condemned, is due,
not, as is assumed, to the arbitrary action of companies, but to the
demands and necessities of traders. Those who are interested in the
trade of Liverpool, the great seat of the American trade, and in the
steamers sailing between America and Liverpool, desire to compete
with the direct sea communication with London, or with other ports
near to it. In like manner the shipping companies and others who
are interested in the trade of Southampton claim special rates and
facilities in favour of that port. Naturally they wish that a part
of the traffic should go _viâ_ Southampton; and a compliance with
their wish benefits the public.
Special import rates are not charged on foreign goods merely because
they are foreign; the chief, though not the only, explanation of
their existence, is the desire of steamboat companies and merchants
that a part of the goods consumed in other places may be carried
through the port in which they are interested, instead of the goods
being all sent through ports nearer to or direct to the ultimate
destination. The railways have, in fact, complied with urgent local
demands.
Some rates for import traffic are less than for the same description
of goods going in the opposite direction. Such cases are probably
rare, and the circumstances of all of them are not fully known. The
following, however, was the origin of one of them: The millers in
the Eastern counties found that their trade suffered by reason of
the competition of millers situated on the Thames, who were able to
obtain by water foreign grain at low rates. The former urged upon
the railway companies the necessity of granting them reduced rates
from London for foreign grain to mix with English wheat, and thus
enable them to produce better and stronger flour than that produced
by home grown wheat alone. The millers pointed out that by so doing
the local industries in which the companies and the districts
have an interest would be benefited, and that there would be an
increased trade in foreign grain down from London and in flour up to
it. Admitting the force of these arguments, the railway companies
put in force lower rates. Here, as elsewhere, we find a collision
of interests, and conflicting demands. These rates have recently
been altered with the view of partially removing the grounds of
complaint in this case; it remains, however, an apt illustration of
the difficulties encountered in framing rates. Reduced rates are
complained of by one portion of the public; and yet, if they were
cancelled, other sections would consider themselves aggrieved. Such
are the difficulties with which railway companies have to contend;
bound to serve and accommodate classes at variance with each
other; subject to criticism and complaint if they do not satisfy
contradictory demands.
There has been much hostile comment on the conveyance at reduced
rates of foreign produce and merchandise from the Continent, through
English ports to places of consumption. The French traffic from
Cherbourg or Havre carried _viâ_ Weymouth or Southampton, and from
Boulogne or Calais, _viâ_ Dover or Folkestone, and the Dutch and
Belgian traffic from Rotterdam or Antwerp, _viâ_ Harwich, have been
especially the subject of unfriendly remark. But the explanation
of such rates is simple; they are due to no designs against the
English factor. French traffic carried _viâ_ Cherbourg may be sent
direct by sea to London. In order that it may be conveyed over a
portion of their systems, the London and South Western Company run
steamers between that port and Southampton; and until recently the
Great Western Company had a line of steamers between Cherbourg and
Weymouth. In order to compete with the sea communication, the South
Western and Great Western Companies necessarily fixed their rates
with reference to the sea freights from Cherbourg and other ports.
The distance between Southampton and London is 76 miles, while the
distance between Weymouth and London is 159 miles. Of course the
Great Western Company charged the same rates by the longer as the
South Western Company charged by the shorter railway route. Hence
the complaint that French goods were being carried cheaper from
Cherbourg to London than from places in Dorsetshire, past which,
when carried by the Great Western Company, they were conveyed. The
obvious answer was, that if the Great Western Company did not carry
at all, the traffic would be sent _viâ_ Southampton, and that if
the London and South Western Company ceased to carry, it would be
sent to London direct by sea. In fact, the Great Western Company
have recently given up the steamboat service, and ceased to carry
_viâ_ Weymouth; the grounds of complaint made in the name of the
Dorsetshire farmers have thereby been removed. But the competition,
such as it is, of French with English produce, continues all the
same, only all the traffic is carried, not through Dorsetshire,
but by other routes. Indeed, immediately after the service _viâ_
Weymouth was withdrawn a new service was established between
Paimboeuf and Newhaven; and by this route a portion of the traffic
previously sent _viâ_ Weymouth is now carried.
Irish produce from Waterford is carried to London by various routes:
direct to the latter by sea; by sea to Bristol, and thence by
rail, 119 miles to London; by sea to Milford, and thence by rail,
282 miles; and by sea to Liverpool, and thence by rail 201 miles.
The rates _viâ_ Bristol are, and must be, fixed with reference to
those charged by sea, and those _viâ_ Milford and _viâ_ Liverpool,
must be the same, or nearly so, as those charged _viâ_ Bristol.
Yet, according to the views of some persons, this competition is
unfair to intermediate towns between Milford and London, and between
Liverpool and London, between which intermediate places and London
the rates are higher, or higher in proportion, than those charged
between London and Waterford. There are complaints as to this
disparity, although the competition, if any exists, would continue,
even if no Irish traffic were carried _viâ_ Milford at all.
Similar observations apply to traffic between Dublin and Liverpool.
Between these cities there is daily steam communication; so that
goods carried by sea to Holyhead, and thence by rail, may be
conveyed throughout at lower rates than those charged for traffic
for places intermediate between Liverpool and Holyhead. Indeed, sea
competition influences the rates for traffic between Dublin and
Manchester. Traffic is carried by sea, _viâ_ Liverpool, and thence
by rail (31 miles) to Manchester, while the distance by rail from
the latter place to Holyhead is 122 miles. Consequently the rates
between Manchester and Dublin, _viâ_ Holyhead, are less than to some
intermediate places.[16]
[16] In the evidence given before the Select Committee in 1881,
the rates for foreign hops from Boulogne to London were compared
with the rates charged for home grown hops from the Ashford and
Canterbury districts to London. The former were complained of as
being an undue preference in favour of foreign produce. No doubt
there was a considerable difference. The rate from Boulogne to
London was 17s. 6d., and that from Ashford to London, 38s. It was,
however, shewn that the rate of 17s. 6d. per ton for foreign hops
from Boulogne to London was a station to station rate, while the
rate of 38s. per ton from Ashford to London included delivery and
all station services, and that owing to the difference in the mode
of packing the hops, 73 per cent. more foreign hops than English
hops could be loaded in a truck. The railway companies concerned
urged that the home producer was not prejudiced by the transit rate
complained of. While it enabled the railway companies to obtain the
conveyance of a portion of the foreign hops, an increase of the rate
from Boulogne would not be of any benefit to the English grower. The
foreign hops would still find their way to London direct by sea. The
rate of 17s. 6d. per ton from Boulogne to London was cancelled in
deference to the complaints. What is the result? The foreign hops
are imported as before; but they are now carried by the General
Steam Navigation Company. The railway companies have to some extent
suffered; the English producer has gained nothing.
Tea imported into London may be carried by sea direct to Newcastle
or Liverpool. Iron manufactured at Middlesboro’ or in South
Wales can be conveyed by water at low freights to London. So,
too, tin-plates may be conveyed by water from Glamorganshire to
Liverpool. If the importer or the manufacturer, therefore, desires
to send, or the companies desire to carry, any of those goods by
railway, special rates yielding only a small profit to the companies
must be quoted; otherwise the whole, or nearly the whole of such
articles, would be sent by sea. Such reduced rates are complained of
because of their being less in gross or per mile than those for the
same or similar articles carried for the like or less distances. But
grocers or consumers of tea, iron merchants or blacksmiths in inland
towns, or manufacturers whose works are near the port of shipment
would derive no advantage from all these goods being carried by sea
at the same or even lower rates than those now charged by railway.
The influence of the sea, “the great free trader” as it has been
called, is vast and far reaching. England and Scotland being an
island, there is all round the coast direct competition with the
sea. It exists for instance between London and Yarmouth, Hull,
Newcastle-on-Tyne, Leith, Aberdeen on the eastern coast; and between
London, Southampton and Plymouth, and the west coast ports, that is,
Bristol, the South Wales ports, Liverpool and Glasgow.
If railways in England did not compete with transport by the
sea they would in many cases be of comparatively little use to
manufacturers and merchants. Only by such competition do they fully
minister to the requirements of the trade of the country. If all
the intermediate rates were to be brought down to the level of
those charged between port and port what would be the result? The
companies would have to raise their port to port rates. The public
would lose the benefit of rail carriage for goods sent between port
and port, and the companies the profit they might have derived from
such goods. Who would be the gainer?[17]
[17] Lines of steamers carrying Belgian, Dutch, German, and French
goods and produce, run between Antwerp, Rotterdam, Amsterdam,
Boulogne, Havre and London. In competition with them the Great
Eastern, South Eastern, and London Chatham and Dover Companies carry
_viâ_ Harwich, Folkestone and Dover respectively, at such rates as
they can obtain in competition with those charged by steamer direct.
It has been a subject of complaint that these goods are conveyed at
lower rates than similar merchandise from places in Essex or Kent,
past which they are carried by rail. No doubt the regular and quick
services provided by the railway companies are of great advantage
to the senders and consumers. But so far as London is concerned,
a great part, if not the whole of the goods, not requiring quick
transit could be sent by sea direct, if the Harwich, Dover, and
other services were discontinued.
There are import rates to towns in the interior to which there is no
direct sea competition. If such rates are not based on the rates to
places to which there is such competition, _plus_ the local rates,
they may be open to question to an extent not applicable to the
rates to and from ports.
Many apparent anomalies in railway rates arise from competition of
the railways with the sea: others are the results of comparisons of
the rates charged by railway companies, which must carry, if they
are to carry the traffic at all, at the same rates as a company
having a shorter route. Inasmuch as competition between railway
companies is carried on extensively, many such disparities exist.
The apparent anomaly in tin plates being carried from South Wales
to Liverpool _viâ_ Stockport, near Manchester, at lower rates than
to Manchester, was referred to by Mr. Johnson Ferguson in the
debate on the second reading of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill.
This arises from the Midland Railway Company competing with two
shorter routes between these places, and from the rates by those
routes being so fixed as to meet the competition by sea; the former
company’s longer route is through Stockport (not Manchester), to
which latter place of course there is no export trade, and at which
there is no sea competition. This anomaly would be entirely removed
by the Midland Company ceasing to compete for the Liverpool traffic;
but the consumers of tin plates in Manchester would not in any
respect be benefited by the change. The distance by the shortest
railway route between London and Bristol is about 119 miles. There
are two other railway routes, the shorter of which is 161 miles;
there is also direct transport by sea; and by all of these routes
there is competition for the conveyance of merchandise traffic. To
suit the requirements of the trade between these ports, as well as
to contend with competition by water, special rates are charged.
Withdraw them, and either the interchange would not take place or
the goods would have to be sent by sea. Of course the other railway
companies carrying between the two places charge the same rates as
those in force by the shortest railway route, otherwise they would
obtain no share of the traffic; and these rates are necessarily less
for the throughout distance than those charged for like descriptions
of goods to some of the intermediate towns on the longer route.
To take one more illustration: steamboats ply between Liverpool
and Bristol. Goods carried by railway between these two places by
one or other of the three available routes must pass through some
one of the following places:--Birmingham, Worcester, Hereford,
Shrewsbury, Chester or Warrington. The local rates to all these
intermediate towns may appear disproportionate to those charged
between the extreme points. But is there any real injustice done?
Is it disadvantageous to the public that railway companies should
compete with sea carriage between different ports in the Kingdom?
Should not railway companies be allowed to accept in respect of
traffic so carried, which would otherwise be wholly lost to them,
a less percentage of profit without being compelled to reduce
all their rates to intermediate inland places to the same or
proportionately less amounts? What injustice is done to those whoso
goods are carried to and from intermediate inland places by the fact
that their rates are higher, or higher in proportion, than the
competitive rates, provided the rates to intermediate places are in
themselves fair and within the Company’s legal maximum?
A third source of complaint of disproportionate rates arises from
the competition between ports. Assume, for instance, port A to be
51 miles, port B 72 miles, and port C a greater distance from D,
one of the great seats of manufacture and commerce. The merchants
and shipowners at C and B desire to compete with A, and they induce
the railway company to carry from all three at the same rates. The
result is that the rates are lower for the throughout distance
than to and from some of the intermediate places. The grounds of
grievance would be removed by the railway company ceasing to carry
from C and B at the same rates as from A. But the importation
of foreign goods would continue; the only difference being that
they would be carried through one port instead of two or more.
And here a curious fact may be noted. If, in the case supposed,
the railways between A and D, B and D, and C and D belonged to
separate companies, in all probability no complaint would be
made of the rates from A, B, and C to D being the same. On the
contrary, competition being always desired by the public, it would
be considered in that case advantageous and in the interest of the
public. But because the lines between B and D and C and D belong
to the same company as that between A and D complaints are made on
account of the rates being equal. What is hailed in the one case as
a benefit is decried in the other as mischievous and unjust.[18]
[18] Many of the rates from Hull are affected by inland water
competition, or by those charged from Liverpool. On the other hand,
the rates from Hull govern those from Grimsby (as a competing port),
Harwich, West Hartlepool, Newcastle, Sunderland and Shields. In
fact, a large portion of the anomalies in railway rates arise from
the competition between ports. Although improvements in detail as
to such rates, no doubt, are possible, the interests of some ports
would be seriously affected by any change in the principle on which
railway rates are fixed.
The chief explanation of differential rates have been mentioned;
another cause less important is in operation. In carriage by
road, cost may be roughly measured by distance, though even as to
the expenses of cartage that is subject to exceptions. But this
test--admitted to be practically useless as regards freight by
sea--does not hold good of railway transport. Of the various kinds
of outlay on the part of a railway company, a large portion remains
fixed, whether the distance run by a train is ten miles or one
hundred. Such, for example, are the cost of terminal accommodation,
and the services of loading and unloading, and clerical work. Such,
too, speaking broadly, are the interest on cost of construction,
repairs of bridges and earthworks, the permanent staff of employés,
and of signalling. Another kind of expenditure increases directly
with the mileage run; for example, the provision of, and wear
and tear of locomotives, rolling stock and permanent way, and
liability for loss of or damage to goods in transit. Certain
kinds of expenditure increase with the distance run, but not in
the same ratio. Obviously wages, cost of locomotive power, and
cost of haulage generally are not four times as much in the case
of a train which has run a hundred miles as in one which has run
twenty-five. With the progress of railways, with improved economy in
the use of machinery, and in other ways, this tendency--recognised
to some extent by the Legislature in the rates for short distance
traffic--in expenditure not to increase in the same proportion as
mileage distance, becomes an important element. The result of all
this is to make mileage less a criterion of cost, and tends to place
large towns at a greater distance at an advantage as compared with
intermediate towns, and to give rise to differential rates.[19] It
is also obvious that from many intermediate towns the quantities
forwarded are not so large and regular as from terminal towns, and
that from the former there is not a constant traffic to and fro.
[19] See as to this Dr. Otto Michaelis’s _Differenzialtarife
der Eisenbahnen_, in which the natural and necessary rise of
differential rates in Germany is explained.
The urgent demands of traders and producers have created
differential rates; the interests of the public and consumers have
maintained them; interests, it may be added, which have been little
heard in any of the inquiries which have taken place, but which, if
any change were meditated, would probably be found to have more at
stake than the railway companies. They would ask,--Why should such
special rates be withdrawn? They would be losers by the change. The
railway companies also would be losers. So too would the public
interested, especially as regards perishable goods, in the more
rapid and regular conveyance of merchandise than is possible by
water. Who would be the gainer? Not, certainly, the home producer,
who would find foreign goods brought direct to London by sea; not
the consumer, who wishes cheap goods rapidly conveyed, and to whom
it is immaterial how they reach him. The fact is that differential
rates have arisen in no small degree out of the same causes as have
necessitated a classification of goods. Goods of small intrinsic
value will not be conveyed at all unless at low rates; only on
special terms can such goods produced at a great distance be brought
to market.
Sometimes it is urged as an objection to differential rates, that by
reason of them companies sustain, on long distance traffic, a loss
which is made up by charges on short distance traffic. Repeated, as
if it were an axiom, this statement is generally erroneous; though
producing, no doubt, a lower percentage of profits than the latter,
the former yields some profit, unless where undue competition
operates.
To carry traffic at a rate yielding a small profit, is better for
a railway company than to have its permanent way for many hours
unused, and its plant not fully employed. It may be expedient to
accept traffic producing only a small percentage of profit, if it
can be got on no better terms; such traffic will at least help to
defray the fixed charges, which must be incurred whether it is
carried or not. But is a company bound to do all its business on
such terms, or would it be desirable that it should do so? Can the
senders of other traffic paying only reasonable rates, yielding the
company what would otherwise be admitted to be only a fair profit,
justly object? and if a company be deprived of this long distance
traffic, will it not be forced to raise rates on other traffic in
order to maintain its revenue?[20]
[20] NOTE.--See Extract from Sir T. Farrer’s Evidence at page 66.
But, it is also objected, differential rates deprive the inhabitants
of certain towns of the natural advantages of their geographical
position. This argument would be more persuasive than it is if it
were not generally expressed in the very language of Protectionists,
if it were not so often a claim of an exclusive right to supply
certain markets, and a scarcely concealed dislike to the intrusion
of competition. Even supposing that low rates, which enable the
produce of remote parts of England and Scotland to be conveyed
throughout the length and breadth of the land may interfere with
the trade of manufacturers nearer London and other great towns; so
may the making of a railway. Places which have one, or districts
which are left without any, may be injured by railway communication
elsewhere being opened. The existence of any such right as is
claimed is questionable. Preserving the natural advantages of one
town means preventing the removal of the natural disadvantages of
others. In truth, the abolition of differential rates would deprive
many places of their natural advantages. That Liverpool is on the
sea, and that Birmingham is not, that there is sea communication
from the former to London, are circumstances which railways did
not create, and to which they must accommodate themselves. Railway
Companies are not answerable for the fact that certain kinds of
traffic come from a point having the advantage of a sea route; that
there is competition at one place and not at another; and that goods
may be conveyed from New York to London all the way by sea, or
partly by sea and partly by land.
If the rates for all traffic between intermediate places were
either made the same as or less than those to terminal points,
companies would be compelled to consider whether raising the export
and import rates, or reducing those on local traffic, would result
in the least loss. If the former course were adopted, as, in the
majority of cases it would be, the facilities which manufacturers
and merchants now enjoy would be withdrawn; it would be to their
interest to ship at the nearest port. The railways would suffer some
loss. The inhabitants of intermediate places and the port towns
would derive no advantage except the removal of what generally is
merely a sentimental grievance. What would a London draper gain
if the Manchester and London Shipping rate were withdrawn, and if
manufacturers shipped all their goods in Liverpool instead of a
portion of them being shipped from London? What would it avail an
Essex farmer if Dutch and Belgian produce were sent direct from
Rotterdam and Antwerp to London, instead of through Harwich? Would
farmers in the South of England be any better off if French eggs and
butter were sent by sea to London instead of through Southampton or
Newhaven?
SECTION VI.
GROUPING HERE AND ON THE CONTINENT.
“Grouping,” is the name of the familiar arrangement by which
collieries or works within a given area are charged equal rates,
and are thus enabled to compete on equal terms. In fixing the rates
for traffic carried long distances, grouping stations far apart is
carried out to some extent. For instance, the rates for tin plates
from South Wales and Monmouthshire to Liverpool are the same from
the works between Carmarthen on the west, and Monmouth on the east,
the distances varying from 160 to 206 miles. So, too, the rates
between Scotland and places in England, south of and inclusive of
Yorkshire, are divided into groups--22 in the former, and 39 in
the latter. Though the practice is not of the first importance to
railway companies, it is not without value to them. If “grouping”
were prohibited, and the nearest collieries or works could supply
all the coal or goods which were required, railway companies might,
in some cases, earn as much net profit on the traffic carried as if
grouping were adopted. No doubt, however, if the nearest collieries
or works charged the public enhanced prices, or if they could not
supply the commodities to the extent required by the public, the
railway companies would suffer. They would lose not only the traffic
which they might have carried, but they would also suffer from the
lessened prosperity of districts in which they had an indirect as
well as a direct interest.
The chief sufferers, however, from the giving up of “grouping”
would be the public; they distinctly gain by the practice, though
producers near great towns or sea-ports may lose the benefit of
“geographical position.” Collieries and works which are “grouped”
are enabled to contribute to the available supply. They enter
markets from which they would be otherwise shut out; the extent of
the trade is thereby increased; the price paid by the consumer may
be lessened. In fact, many traders admit, tacitly at least, the
value of the practice.
Its legality has lately been called in question. It has been
supposed to be prohibited by the decision of the Railway
Commissioners in the case of the _Denaby Main Colliery Company_ v.
_Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company_, which
came before them in January, 1880. The complaint was that the rates
and tolls charged to the owners of the Denaby Main Colliery, for
the conveyance of coal, both by railway and canal were an undue
prejudice and disadvantage to themselves and undue preference to
the others within the meaning of Section 2 of the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act, 1854. The railway rates from the Denaby Main
Colliery to Keadby, which is 25 miles, and to Grimsby, which is 56
miles, were 2s. 1½d. and 3s. 1d. per ton respectively. Similar
rates were charged from the other collieries in the same group,
although the distances between Keadby and Grimsby and the Denaby
Main Colliery were 15 miles less than the most distant of the other
collieries in the group. For all coal passing to certain places to
the eastward, the Denaby Main Colliery was grouped with 48 other
collieries in the same district. But, except in certain cases, the
collieries were not grouped for coal going to the west; on traffic
sent to places in that direction Denaby had to pay according to
its geographical position. With regard to some portion of their
traffic to the west, the Denaby Main Colliery had special rates. The
decision of the Railway Commissioners, which has not been reversed,
was that this particular grouping system did subject the proprietors
of the Denaby Main Colliery to undue and unreasonable prejudice and
disadvantage. But their decision was probably upon the facts, not
upon the law; and their finding really was that the group was too
large, and that the Denaby Main Colliery ought to be taken out of
it. The same question was to some extent discussed in the House of
Lords in the _Denaby Main Colliery Company Limited_ v. _Manchester,
Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company_ (L.R. 11, A.C. p. 97);
and the observations of the learned law lords do not confirm the
opinion that grouping is _per se_ illegal.[21] If the contrary were
the case--if all such arrangements were necessarily illegal--the
result would be somewhat serious to trade.
[21] “I think that even if it were distinctly found that the
differences in the charges actually made were so disproportioned
to the differences in the cost as to be undue and unreasonable, it
would not impose an obligation to charge equally.”--Lord Blackburn,
p. 122.
A few particulars as to grouping on the Continent may be mentioned.
It will be found that it has been adopted there for the same reasons
as led to it here.
In Germany and Holland grouping is recognised. There, as has been
previously mentioned, mileage rates is the principle on which the
tariffs are based, and the State practically controls the rates. But
some exceptional tariffs for coal and coke are not calculated upon
the distance from the place of origin to the station of destination.
Sending stations in certain cases, and sea-ports in others, are
formed into groups. In Germany, for instance, the sending stations
included in the exceptional tariff with Bremen, Hamburg, and other
ports in the North of Germany, are divided into seven groups. The
first three embrace all the stations in the Right Rhenish district
where coal mines exist. Group 1 contains about fifteen stations from
6 to 24 kilometres distant from each other, in a total distance
of 245 kilometres to Bremen and 359 kilometres to Hamburg. Group
2 contains about thirty-five stations from 1 to 19 kilometres
distant, and Group 3 seven stations at distances varying from 1 to
13 kilometres. The total distances to Bremen and Hamburg are 271
and 385 kilometres respectively. For all stations in the same group
there is one tariff, which is for one fixed consignment per week:--
Group 1 ... ... 49 marks per ton.
” 2 ... ... 50 ” ”
” 3 ... ... 51 ” ”
If there are two fixed consignments sent regularly every week for
one year, a reduction is made of one mark for every 10 tons, and for
3 Consignments weekly a reduction of 2 marks for every 10 tons.
4 ” ” ” 3 ” ”
5 ” ” ” 4 ” ”
6 ” ” ” 5 ” ”
The coal stations of the Rhine Province and Westphalia are also
grouped for Dutch, Belgian and French traffic. In the two last
cases, however, the differences of distance are very slight. For
Dutch traffic the differences of distance between the stations in
Group 1 vary from 1 to 16 kilometres in a total distance of 218
kilometres, in Group 2 from 3 to 20 in a total distance of 233
kilometres, and in Group 3 from 1 to 33 in 265 kilometres.
The grouping of the ports in the North of Germany, shows a much
greater difference in favour of certain ports. For instance, the
same rates are charged from the coal stations to Bremen as to
Hamburg, although the former is 114 kilometres (71 miles) further;
the distance from Dortmund to Bremen being 237 kilometres (147
miles), and to Hamburg 351 kilometres (218 miles.) The same rates
are also charged to the following ports as to Bremen, which is
distant from the various coal stations from 221 to 271 kilometres:--
Kilometres. Miles.
Bremerhafen 66 41 beyond Bremen.
Geestemünde 62 38½ ” ”
Harburg 103 64 ” ”
Hittfeld 94 58 ” ”
Nordenhamm 40 25 ” ”
Thus the “grouping” which is permitted, and indeed actually carried
out, by the German authorities, exceeds in degree anything of the
kind known on the railways in this country.
In France also, “grouping” of ports is sanctioned with a view to
promote competition. The special import and export rates from
Dunkirk, Calais, and Boulogne to Paris, which are equal in amount,
notwithstanding the differences in distance, may be taken as an
example:--
Dunkirk to Paris, 304 Kilometres.
Calais ” ” 296 ”
Boulogne ” ” 252 ”
SECTION VII.
DIFFERENTIAL RATES ON THE CONTINENT.
In France, Belgium, and Germany, there are fewer ports competing
with railways or with each other than in Great Britain. In each
of those countries the principle of mileage rates has been
nominally, and, to a large extent, in practice adopted. But in all
of them causes similar to those which have here created so-called
differential rates have been in operation. In each of them the fact
of competition by water is recognised as a reason for charging
reduced or special rates; such rates for export or import traffic
exist, although the special rates for the latter traffic are fewer
than for the former; and there are also special transit rates[22].
All these rates have been established after much consideration.
Writing of the discussion of the subject in the Corps Legislatif in
1863, M. Aucoc observes in his well-known work, “Since that solemn
discussion, the principle of differential tariffs has been placed
beyond question.” He adds: “It may be well to mention also that,
in the numerous judicial works on the working of railways, not
only the legality, but the necessity and equity of conditional and
differential rates have been almost unanimously recognised.”[23]
[22] See _décret_ of April 26, 1862, quoted by M. A. de Foville in
_La Transformation des moyens de Transport_ p. 68.
[23] The following are some of the opinions of French statesmen
and economists on the subject:--“_Dans ma conviction le tarif
différentiel est à la fois juste, conforme aux vèritables intérêts
économiques et nécessaires à la concurrence._” M. ROUHER.
“_Les industries de transport par eau, par terre ou par chemin de
fer ne vivent et ne prospèrent que par les tarifs différentiels.
C’est en différenciant sagement leurs tarifs qu’elle attirent les
marchandises et les voyageurs._” M. LEGRAND, _sous-secrétaire d’état
au Ministère des travaux publics_:
“_L’expérience a démontré aux compagnies la nécessité de superposer
au tarif réglementaire de nombreux tarifs à prix reduits.^{***} Il a
été reconnu que ceux là mêmes qui se plaignaient, le plus vivement
des tarifs différentiels en recueillaient indirectement le bénéfice.
Ce sont, en effet, ces tarifs qui fournissent au trafic des grandes
compagnies les masses de marchandises les plus considérables, et
ce sont ces masses qui rendent possible la réduction, au profit de
tous, des tarifs généraux._” M. DE FOVILLE. _La Transformation des
moyens de Transport_ pp. 66, 67.
In a report to the French Chamber of Deputies by a Railway
Commission in 1880, the Commissioners approved of special tariffs,
and added: “We are even inclined to suggest the development of
traffic of this nature, the importance of which is not at all in
proportion to the natural advantages which France derives from her
geographical position and her numerous ports.” _Appendix 31 to
Report from the Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares),
1882, Vol. II._
Take first the special rates in France. Wheat may be imported
either _viâ_ Marseilles, or _viâ_ Rouen and the Seine to Paris, the
distance from Marseilles being 863 kilometres, and from Rouen 134
kilometres. To compete with the sea and the Rouen route, the Paris,
Lyons, and Mediterranean Railway Company charges for imported goods,
special rates between Marseilles and Paris. These rates have been
complained of as encouraging foreign trade. The answer, however, is
that if not conveyed _viâ_ Marseilles such goods might be conveyed
_viâ_ Rouen and the Seine to Paris. The general tariff rates on
the French lines are based upon a uniform charge per kilometre,
irrespective of any special requirements of the locality. In order,
however, to remedy the disadvantages arising from such a system,
and to meet the various circumstances and requirements of particular
trades, numerous special tariffs are adopted with the sanction of
the Minister of Public Works. These special rates are not, as is
sometimes supposed, fixed upon any regular or uniform basis. Some
are adopted for the purpose of developing a new, or increasing an
existing trade which may be subjected to competition from other
districts; others are established to meet competition by sea, canal,
or otherwise. Under some circumstances reduced rates are arrived at
by adopting computed instead of actual distances; the former being
sometimes based on the distance by a shorter route either by rail,
road or sea. But in some cases an arbitrary distance is adopted.
The French railway companies have special import and export rates
for numerous articles in their classifications which are lower than
the ordinary class rates to the port town, and occasionally lower
than the class rates from intermediate stations; in which case the
special import and export rates may apply. The following table is a
comparison of a few import and export rates with the ordinary class
rates. The latter, it should be observed, are, in some instances,
based on computed, and not on actual, distances.
DUNKIRK AND PARIS.
---------------------------+------------------------------------------
| ACTUAL DISTANCE, 304 KILOMETRES.
| COMPUTED DISTANCE, 267 KILOMETRES.
+------+------+------+------+------+-------
CLASSES | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
| | | | | |
| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.
Ordinary Class Rates | 42·55| 36·55| 31·20| 25·85| 20·50| 12·35
| | | | | |
Import and Export Rates[24]| 30·00| 26·00| 23·00| 20·00|{18·00| 12·00
| | | | |{15·00|
---------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
[24] Until recently, the classification of imported and exported
goods, in force on the Northern of France Railway, was composed
of six classes. A new tariff is now in force, the rates for such
traffic varying from frs. 8 to frs. 30 per 1000 kilogrammes.
For the purpose of comparison, the rates charged for imported and
exported goods are shewn under the respective classes in which the
same articles are generally included when charged at the ordinary
class rates.
CALAIS AND PARIS.
--------------------------+------------------------------------------
| ACTUAL DISTANCE, 296 KILOMETRES.
| COMPUTED DISTANCE, 267 KILOMETRES.
+------+------+------+------+------+-------
CLASSES | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
| | | | | |
| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.
Ordinary Class Rates | 42·55| 36·55| 31·20| 25·85| 20·50| 12·35
| | | | | |
Import and Export Rates | 30·00| 26·00| 23·00| 20·00|{18·00| 12·00
| | | | |{15·00|
--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
BOULOGNE AND PARIS.
--------------------------+------------------------------------------
| ACTUAL DISTANCE, 252 KILOMETRES.
| COMPUTED DISTANCE, 252 KILOMETRES.
+------+------+------+------+------+-------
CLASSES | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
| | | | | |
| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.
Ordinary Class Rates | 40·30| 34·75| 29·75| 24·65| 19·60| 11·80
| | | | | |
Import and Export Rates | 30·00| 26·00| 23·00| 20·00|{18·00| 12·00
| | | | |{15·00|
--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
DIEPPE AND PARIS.
--------------------------+------------------------------------------
| ACTUAL DISTANCE, 166 KILOMETRES.
| COMPUTED DISTANCE, 166 KILOMETRES.
+------+------+------+------+------+-------
CLASSES | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
| | | | | |
| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.| f. c.
Ordinary Class Rates | 28·05| 24·75| 21·40| 18·10| 14·80| 9·80
| | | | | |
Import and Export Rates | 25·00| 19·00| 14·50|{10·75| 9·00| 7·00
| | | |{10·00| |
--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
In some instances the special rates apply both ways, _i.e._, for
import or export goods. But many of the export rates for certain
articles are lower than the import rates; for instance, the rate
for Cereals from Paris to Dieppe for export is frs. 7·50, while the
import rate from Dieppe to Paris is frs. 9.
In addition to special rates for export and import goods there
are also special tariffs for _transit_ goods subject to special
conditions which appear anomalous, and have given rise to
complaints. The following is an illustration:--Both Roubaix and
Rouen are spinning centres, and Epinal is a weaving centre. The rate
for a 5-ton load of Yarn from
Kilometres. fr. cts.
Roubaix to Epinal 462 is 47·60.
Rouen to ” 537 ” 57·40.
Antwerp to ” 467 ” 37·0.
The rate for Yarn from Dieppe to Bâle, a distance of 716 Kilometres,
is 47 frs. 30 cts. The explanation of these apparent anomalies is
that the rates from Roubaix and Rouen to Epinal are based on the
local ordinary tariffs; that the rate from Antwerp to Epinal is a
special import rate; whereas the rate from Dieppe to Bâle is a still
lower special tariff for transit goods. The following is an example
of transit or through rates from a town in Italy to a port in
France. The proportions of the receipts accruing to each Company and
the rates charged for goods carried locally between the respective
points are shown. It will be seen that the local rates from the
frontier to Paris are in excess of the charges from Milan to Paris.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | A. | B. |
| | D |-------------+-------------+--------------
| | i |Through Rates|Through Rates|
| | s | for lots of |for lots of 5|
| | t |100 kilos and| tons and |Ordinary Local
| | a | above | above |Rates between
From. | To. | n |-------------+-------------|the respective
| | c | In the proportions due to | points.
| | e | each distance. |
| | |---------------------------+--------------
| |km.| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd
| | |class.|class.|class.|class.|class.|class.
----------------|--------+---+------+------+------+------+------+-------
| | |f. c. |f. c. |f. c. |f. c. |f. c. |f. c.
Milan |Modane |238| 22.14| 18.42| 22.14| 18.42| 40.89| 36.03
Modane |Frontier| 12| 1.15| 0.95| 1.15| 0.95| 2.90| 2.50
Frontier |Paris |672| 68.10| 57.25| 53.50| 46.55| 94.20| 81.00
| |---|------|------|------|------| |
| |922| 91.39| 76.62| 76.79| 65.92| |
| | | | | | | |
Ceinture Railway| -- | 15| 3.10| 3.10| 3.10| 3.10| 3.10| 3.10
Paris |Havre |226| 23.05| 19.60| 17.55| 15.35| 32.00| 28.00
Terminal charges| -- |...| ...| ...| ...| ...| 1.90| 1.90
-----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
Totals per 1,000|Kilos 1163|117.54| 99.32| 97.44| 84.37|174.99|152.53
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.--The proportions accruing to the French Companies for lots under
5 tons remain the same for traffic from all the Italian stations
named in the Tariff.
B.--The French Railway proportions for lots of 5 tons and above vary
according to the distance of the Italian town from the frontier, as
will be seen from the examples below:--
Goods from
Cormons to Havre. 1st class. 2nd class.
P.L.M. 38.60 35.25
Ouest 8.45 7.80
Oulx to Havre. 1st class. 2nd class.
P.L.M. 72.75 62.40
Ouest 15.05 13.05
In respect of traffic for intermediate places, the French railway
companies may make higher charges than the rates for _transit_
traffic carried over the same portion of railway beyond those
places. But they may be required to charge the same sums for traffic
to or from any intermediate place as they charge for import or for
export traffic carried beyond.
In Belgium, also, differential rates are charged between certain
places for export and for local consumption. The following are a few
illustrations:--
--------------------+----------+-------+------------+------------
| | | | FOR
| | | FOR EXPORT | LOCAL USE.
| From | To |------------+------------
| | |10 ton lots.|10 ton lots.
| | | per ton. | per ton.
--------------------+----------+-------+------------+------------
Coal |Mons |Antwerp|Frs. 2·91 | 4·62
|Jemappes | ” | 3·04 | 4·67
|Charleroi | ” | 2·81 | 4·58
|Fountaine | | |
| l’Evêque | ” | 2·81 | 4·58
| | | |
Bar Iron and Girders|Liége | ” | 4·70 | 6·65
|Charleroi | ” | 4·57 | 6·39
|Marchienne| ” | 4·54 | 6·33
| | | |
| | | per 1000 kilogrammes.
Window Glass |Charleroi | ” | 6·30 | 8·28
--------------------+----------+-------+------------+------------
Neither private companies nor the State railways are permitted to
make concessions of any kind, or to depart from the official tariff
in favour of any particular firm or carrier. All general or special
tariffs must be approved by the Minister, and published in the
official paper, the “Moniteur.”
On the Prussian railways the maximum rates shewn in the tariff are
actually charged. But exceptions are made where trade requirements,
competition, and other similar circumstances appear to necessitate
a departure from the official rates. It is not considered that
railway companies are, in general, bound to adjust anomalies in the
carriage charged for traffic arising in different districts, for
one and the same destination, by reducing the rates from the more
distant sending station. But for the sake of uniformity the rates
are so adjusted if, for any reason, exceptional rates from any
particular district have been adopted, and if they are lower than
from intermediate stations nearer by rail to the same destination.
In Germany under the “_Seehafen Ausnahme Tarif_,” there are a very
considerable number of special rates. For instance, the rate for
grain from Bremen to Cologne, a distance of 324 kilometres, is
12 marks, while from Hemelingen, which is short of Bremen by six
kilometres, to Cologne (318 kilometres) it is 15 marks 50 pfenning.
For the purpose of stimulating the traffic from the Rheinisch
Westfälischen District with the German North Sea Ports, viz.,
Emden, Leer, Papenburg, Bremen, Bremerhaven, the competition of the
rates to the Dutch ports, to which the Rhine affords a cheap water
conveyance, had to be taken into consideration. Accordingly from
Essen to Bremen, 254 kilometres, the Amsterdam rates, which are
lower than the tariff rates from Dortmund to Bremen, 237 kilometres,
were adopted, although the traffic from Essen to Bremen has to pass
_viâ_ Dortmund, which is 17 kilometres nearer to destination. In
another instance the German State railways give a rebate of 5 marks
per truckload for coal exported from Hamburg.--“For consignments of
coal for Hamburg and Harburg a _rebate_ of 5 marks per 10,000 kilos.
is made when proof is given that the coal is destined for export
to Trannaine, places outside of Germany or for the German Baltic
Ports.” In other words, a rate of 5 marks less is charged to Hamburg
for coal for export than to the same place for coal to be consumed
in the town.
Exceptional Tariff No. 2 consists of special rates for goods
traffic between stations of the Royal Elizabeth Railway, &c., and
Gustavsburg. They, however, are only in force during the period when
vessels can ply on the Rhine, for instance:--For “Stückgut” or piece
goods from Vienna to Gustavsburg the transit rate is 7m. 24pf. per
100 kilos. 1st class, and 6m. 60pf. 2nd class, and the local rates
are 8m. 11pf. 1st class, and 7m. 73pf. 2nd class.
The effect of these special rates is to secure the traffic to the
Bavarian State and Hessian railways, and prevent its passing over
the Prussian and Dutch railways. The Rheinisch Westfälischen private
railways grant contract (Abonnements Special Train) tariffs for the
conveyance of coal from the Ruhr district to Nederlandish stations
in fixed consignments of at least 200 tons, and not exceeding 300
tons. The adoption of these rates has principally been prompted by
the competition of the water service on the Rhine. They include
haulage to the sidings or depôts; and they are granted only to
traders who contract to send at least once a week for one year a
consignment of from 200 to 300 tons to Nederlandish stations.
Thus it will be seen that in Germany the carriage of traffic in
large quantities is charged at special or reduced rates. A similar
principle has been recognised in this country also. It was held
by the Court of Common Pleas, in the case of Nicholson _v._ Gt.
Western, that “Clause 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 17
and 18 Vic., is not contravened by a railway company agreeing to
carry at a lower rate, in consideration of a guarantee of large
quantities and full loads at regular periods provided that the
real object of the railway company be to obtain thereby a greater
remunerative profit by the diminished cost of carriage, although
the effect may be to exclude from the lower rate those persons who
cannot give such a guarantee.” The effect of such a system, however,
has been complained of by smaller traders as favouring the larger
ones; and in this country, it is not in practice generally acted
upon.
The basis of through tariffs between Germany and other foreign
countries is the normal mileage rate to the German frontier; but
with the view of encouraging the export trades, reduced rates are
charged in favour of international traffic.
The Dutch are also desirous of developing their transit traffic;
and with that object so called “exceptional rates,” based upon
lower mileage rates than the ordinary tariffs, are charged from
places of production in Germany to the Dutch ports. Thus, there
are “exceptional rates” for, amongst other things, heavy iron and
steel goods from manufacturing towns in Westphalia to Amsterdam
and Rotterdam, and they are as much as 37 per cent. lower than the
ordinary rates. These German-Dutch rates are invariably lower than
the ordinary rates to inland towns lying between the forwarding
station and the port. The following are some of the exceptional
rates in force, compared with the ordinary rates to inland towns for
shorter distances:--
----------+-----------+--------------------+---------+--------+---------
| | | | |Rate per
From | To | Description | In lots |Distance| 1000
| | of Goods. | of |in kilo-| kilo-
| | | |metres. |grammes
| | | | | [25]
----------+-----------+--------------------+---------+--------+---------
| | | | | Marks.
Dortmund |Amsterdam |} Heavy iron and | | 231 | 6·30
” |Rotterdam |} steelgoods, bars, | 10 tons | 246 | 6·60
” |_Utrecht_ |} sheets, rails | | _194_ | _8·0_
| | | | |
Essen |Amsterdam |} | | 199 | 8·20
” |Rotterdam |} Hardware | 10 tons | 214 | 8·70
” |_Utrecht_ |} | | _162_ | _8·50_
” |_Gouda_ |} | | _194_ | _9·90_
| | | | |
Rotterdam |Dusseldorf |} Coffee, rice, | 10 tons | 234 | 9·20
_Utrecht_ | ” |} currants & sugar | | _182_ | _10·60_
| | | | |
Strasbourg|Rotterdam |} Machinery | 5 tons | 614 | 24·90
” |_Utrecht_ |} | | _571_ | _25·60_
| | | | |
Mannheim |Rotterdam |} | | 499 | 18·40
” |Amsterdam |} Grain | 10 tons | 504 | 18·40
” |_Boxtel_ |} | | _408_ | _19·40_
” |_Eindhoven_|} | | _388_ | _18·60_
| | | | |
Frankfort |Rotterdam |} | | 479 | 20·
” |_Arnheim_ |} Skins | 10 tons | _376_ | _23·80_
” |_Ede_ |} | | _392_ | _24·70_
| | | | |
Nuremberg |Flushing |} | | 715 | 31·84
” |_Arnheim_ |} Toys | 5 tons | _606_ | _42·60_
” |_Helmund_ |} | | _579_ | _40·80_
----------+-----------+--------------------+---------+--------+---------
[25] These rates are exclusive of cartage and of the extra charges
referred to in Appendix I. Page vii.
For traffic between Austrian and Hungarian towns and the Dutch
ports in certain articles there are also so-called “Seaport transit
rates.” For instance, for dried plums, apples and pears from Vienna
to Rotterdam, the export rate for lots of 10 tons is m. 41·50 per
ton of 1,000 kilogrammes, the local rate being m. 51·60 per ton;
for wool from Buda Pesth to Amsterdam the rate per ton of 1,000
kilogrammes in lots of 5 tons, is export m. 67·0, local m. 81·30.
These rates are only available for goods destined for export or
import; and, as will be seen, they are considerably lower than the
rates for the same description of goods for consumers in the port
of shipment. There are also exceptional rates for goods traversing
Germany to and from the German sea-ports and Austria and Hungary.
The following is a comparison between the rates from Bremen to a
station on the Danube, and the rates from the latter station to a
station situated between that station and the sea-port:--
------------------------+---------+---------+----------+------------
| | |Raw Cotton| Tobacco
|Distance |Distance |per 100 ks|per 100 ks.
|in Kilom.|in Miles.| (2 cwt.) | (2 cwt.)
+---------+---------+----------+------------
| | | Marks. | Marks.
Bremen--Regensburg | 683 | 427 | 2·46 | 2·49
Nienburg--Regensburg | 616 | 385 | 2·88 | 3·83
+---------+---------+----------+------------
Difference in favour of | | | |
the longer distance | (67) | (42) | 0·42 | 1·34
------------------------+---------+---------+----------+------------
In Holland no scale of rates is universally chargeable. Each railway
company is authorised by the Concession under which the railway was
constructed, to charge certain specified rates. But, as in England,
the existing rates actually charged are generally lower than the
maximum; and the fixing of them maybe controlled by the State. By
Article 31 of the Dutch Law the railway companies are required to
carry all goods (not excluded from transport) and passengers at the
rates set forth in the published tariffs, and under the conditions
determined by the regulations, without unduly favouring special
persons, Societies, Companies, or other bodies. By the existing law
the railway companies are forbidden to make special arrangements for
carriage at lower rates than those published in the tariffs, except
in the following cases:--
(_a_). For the carriage of large quantities;
(_b_). For the carriage of one or more truckloads
of goods at stated intervals;
(_c_). For the carriage of goods intended for
charitable purposes or for exhibition.
Notice of such exceptions has to be given to the Home Minister.
Those reductions must be available for all goods of the same class,
to be conveyed on the same line, and under the same conditions; they
must be immediately advertised; and they remain in force during the
existence of the contract.
By the strict letter of the law it is provided that the same rates
must, over the whole of the system of the railway, be charged by
the company for the like article for the same distance. But, in
consequence of the competition by inland navigation for traffic
to and from places in Holland, and also by the Rhine, and through
Belgium for German traffic, this requirement proved impossible
to carry out in practice. The Government have found it necessary
to allow the companies to enter into special contracts for the
conveyance of goods on such conditions as they might consider it
desirable to agree upon. Notice of any special contract must, as
before stated, be given to the Minister of Commerce after it is
entered into, and the official assent is subject to the company
agreeing to enter into a like agreement with any other person. While
such is the letter of the law, virtually enjoining equal mileage
rates, the practice is altogether different. For any description
of traffic, special agreements as to quantity to be forwarded and
time of delivery are made. The great object is to obtain traffic.
The published notices of such contracts contain, it may be added, no
information which can be utilized.
The following is an illustration of the special contracts entered
into and of the manner in which their existence is notified:--
[COPY OF SPECIAL CONTRACT.]
SPECIAL AGREEMENT for the carriage of slow train goods
from _________________________________
to _________________________________
between ______________________________
on the one hand, and the General Goods Manager of the
Railway Company, at ______________________________
contracting in the name of the Direction of the above-named
Company (or Companies), on the other hand.
ART. I.
The first-named contracting party binds himself to have all the goods
to be despatched or received by him during the current year,
estimated at ______________________________
truck loads (______________________________ kilogrammes),
from ______________________________
to ______________________________
carried over the lines of the ______________________________ Railways,
in accordance with the conditions in Article IV. of the
Law of Railway Companies (General Rules and Regulations), of 9th
January 1876 (Gazette No. 7), and with the Special Bye-Laws in force
for local traffic, as set forth in the tariff, for the conveyance of
fast and slow goods over the lines of the ___________________________
Railway Company, approved by order of the Minister of the
Interior, dated 1st March, 1877, and which tariff came into force on
the 1st April, 1877. On the other hand the last named contracting
parties bind themselves to carry the goods of the first-named
contracting parties during the year 1885 at the reduced rates shown
in the circular of the _____________________________
Railway Company, dated ______________________________ 1885.
No use may be made of these rates for the re-despatch of goods at
intermediate stations, so as to obtain a cheaper rate than the
direct rate.
Agreed to and signed in dupl. at
______________________________th ______________________________188_
Contracting party No. 1.
______________________________th ______________________________188_
Contracting party No. 2.
[COPY OF CIRCULAR.]
RAILWAY.
The Direction of the ______________________________ Railway begs to
inform those interested that the General Goods Manager
______________________________ of ______________________________
has been authorised to make special agreements for the carriage during
the current year of large quantities of Goods, or for regular
consignments of one truckload or more between Stations of the
______________________________ Railway, and between those Stations
and Stations of the ______________________________
on the following basis:--
(_a_) For large quantities: Per 100 kilos. and 10 km.
In consignment of 10 tons in 1 cent.
” ” 5 to 10 tons 1½ cent.
” ” 3 to 5 tons 2 ”
” ” 100 kilos. to 3 tons 2⅓ ”
with 8 cents per 100 kilos. terminal charges.
(_b_) For regular consignments in truckloads:
The charges as above for consignments of 10 and 5 tons.
Any fractional distances will be counted as for 10 kilometres, and
the weight per 100 kilogrammes, without distinction for different
classes of goods. Parts of 10 kilometres and 100 kilogrammes will
thus be taken as 10 kilometres or 100 kilogrammes.
With these exceptions the General and Special Rules and Regulations
of the ______________________________ Local Rate Book of 1st April,
1877, with the alterations and additions made therein later, apply
to these contract goods.
Consignments of 5,000 kilogrammes will be treated in the same manner
as goods of Class A, and consignments of 10,000 kilogrammes in the
same manner as goods belonging to the Classes B, C, D, and the
Special Tariff.
Further information can be obtained at all the Stations; or on
application to the Agent of the ______________________________ Railway.
______________________________
[COPIES OF NOTICES OF SPECIAL CONTRACTS.]
From the “_Dutch Guide_,” of 28th January, 1886.
HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
A contract has been entered into for the carriage of a large
quantity of goods over the Company’s lines.
Further information can be obtained at the Goods Office, at
the Central Administration Buildings, Droogbak, Amsterdam.
The ADMINISTRATOR.
AMSTERDAM, _25th Jan., 1886._
______________________________
From the “_Dutch Guide_,” of 25th February, 1886.
COMPANY FOR WORKING THE DUTCH STATE RAILWAYS.
Various contracts have been entered into for the carriage of large
quantities of goods on the Southern net of the State Railways.
Further information can be obtained at the Goods Manager’s Office,
Moreelselaan, No. 1, Utrecht.
The GENERAL MANAGER.
UTRECHT, _17th-24th Feb., 1886._
______________________________
CENTRAL RAILWAY.
A Contract for the carriage of cattle has been entered into.
Further information can be obtained at the Goods Manager’s Office,
Catharijne Kade 759, Utrecht.
The result is that a considerable portion of the traffic is carried
under special agreements, under conditions such as the following,
viz.:--
The sender agrees to forward between A and B special quantities, for
instance:--
80 tons Soap,
10 ” Sugar,
5 ” Pepper,
5 ” Tobacco,
or to forward the whole of his traffic between C and D estimated at
a specific quantity for a certain period, for instance:--
400 tons General goods,
10,000 ” Coal,
1,000 ” Coke.
In Italy, differential rates have been the subject of public
inquiry, and the representatives of some local interests have
asked for their abolition. But they exist; and the verdict upon
them of the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry in 1881 was: “It is
indisputable that the system of differential rates has helped to
strengthen and improve the national industries.”[26]
[26] Parte II., Vol. II., Sec. 32.
The fact of railways in other countries charging special rates for
import, export and transit traffic, is, of course, not a proof of
their being right in principle. But the foregoing information may
correct loose assertions or suggestions that differential rates are
unknown or rare elsewhere. It shows that the railway authorities and
the Governments who control the rates in those countries, even while
professing to charge mileage rates, have considered it necessary,
with the view of promoting and protecting the interests of their
trade, to charge differential rates.
In the United States, where there is much competition for the
conveyance of long distance interstate traffic, and where remarkably
low rates--“war rates,” as they are called--are charged, charges
for intermediate traffic are not lowered proportionately. In that
country differential rates have been much attacked; they have no
doubt occasionally been imposed without measure or reason. But they
still subsist, and are found useful. As an illustration it may be
stated that, at the present time, the rates for the conveyance of
flour from Minneapolis to Milwaukee, 335 miles, and to Chicago, 420
miles, are the same; while the rate to Duluth, 164 miles, is only 25
per cent. less.[27]
[27] NOTE--The _Montreal Gazette_, 1st April, 1886, writes thus on
the subject of the Railway Commission Bill:--“These rates are fixed
and determined by the Great American Trunk Lines, in competition
with which the Tariff of the Canadian roads is necessarily
regulated; to interfere with these rates would be to take away
from the Canadian Companies a large amount of the gross earnings
derived from a source which increases the volume of business in
Canada.... The discrimination which is complained of in particular
localities arises wholly out of an established competition between
lines reaching a favoured point. Destroy the natural consequences
and natural advantages of competition--lower rates--and you remove
all inducement to the provision of rival routes; put an end to
competition, and at once an increase in rates all round will
be established. The Railway Act prohibits interference by the
Government in the regulation of rates until a Company is proved to
earn 15 per cent. upon its invested capital. What Railway Company in
the Dominion to-day is earning that profit?... If competition is to
be made a positive disadvantage, if every inducement to particular
localities to promote rival enterprises is to be swept away, the
rates of existing lines will be run up in all directions to the
injury not only of every locality now favoured by competition, but
of those localities which consider themselves aggrieved by reason of
the absence of the low rates which competition enforces.”
It may be mentioned that one of the fiercest enemies of differential
rates, in a work recently published, declares that the only remedy
is to “restore the character of public highways to the railways by
securing to all persons the right to run trains over their tracks
under proper regulation!” “The Railways and the Republic” (1886), p.
372, by James T. Hudson.
SECTION VIII.
THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS IN RATES.
Of the causes which have prevented progress in the public discussion
of rates, chief has been the fact that the subject has been regarded
too exclusively from the point of view of a limited number of
traders or producers. The general interests of the country have
been overlooked, or it has been assumed that they are identical
with those of particular traders. Once the question is looked at
from several sides--as it appears to those who buy as well as to
those who sell, and to producers in different places--many of the
complaints made against the companies as to the existing system of
fixing rates are seen to be unfounded.
Those who buy commodities are interested in getting them to the
various markets cheaply and in abundance. They wish the charge for
transport to be small--they wish it to be small even if the distance
from which the goods are conveyed be great, because their sources of
supply are thereby increased. To the consumer the ideally perfect
state of things would be a tariff for the conveyance of merchandise
based on the same principle as the Penny Post; commodities would be
conveyed at a low price, and producers over an immense area would be
able to send them to market. To the consumer it would be in every
way desirable that all disadvantages of distance or “geographical
advantages” should disappear. Accordingly, as has been before
stated, plans have been brought forward for making uniform rates
for the same class of goods within a large area, or within certain
regions or zones. The attainment of this is impracticable--the
distance between various parts of the same country cannot be
ignored, as in the case of carrying letters or transmitting
telegrams. Consumers may fairly desire that the cost of transporting
articles from a great distance may be lowered so as to permit of the
influx of goods from remote parts. But unfortunately they cannot
altogether efface distance. The next best thing is that the cost
of transport shall not increase _pro rata_ with the distance. This
reasonable desire railway companies have sought to satisfy, and with
what results is well known.
London, for instance, formerly drew its chief supplies of food
from its immediate neighbourhoods. The extensive market gardens
which existed, especially in the eastern and western suburbs, sent
their produce to town by heavy road wagons, and to this day they
continue to do so. But as population increased, and the demand for
food became greater, the facilities, both in regard to conveyance
and charges, afforded by the railway companies, enabled farmers,
graziers, and market gardeners in distant parts of the kingdom to
compete with those in the immediate neighbourhood of London, to
the obvious advantage of the consumer. In this way fat cattle from
Norfolk, meat from Scotland and Devonshire, fish from Scotland,
Ireland, and the East and West Coast of England, broccoli and new
potatoes from the Scilly Islands, Penzance and the Channel Islands,
store potatoes from Lincolnshire and Scotland, and other articles
of food are conveyed by the railway companies at rates which,
although not proportionate to those charged for shorter distances,
are beneficial to traders and their customers. Meat is carried
from Yorkshire, about 189 miles, at 55s. per ton; from Aberdeen,
516 miles, at 67s. 6d.; and from Stromness, in Orkney, 776 miles,
at 90s. per ton. Potatoes from Yorkshire are carried at 15s.; from
Sunderland, 269 miles, 18s. 4d.; and from Aberdeen, 30s. per ton.
The effect is to open fresh markets to producers throughout the
country, and to supply the wants of an ever increasing population at
such reasonable prices as would not otherwise be possible.
“To move is practically to produce,” at least it often is so. The
consumer desires that commodities and materials should be conveyed
from places where they are produced cheaply or are abundant, to
places where they are more in demand; that coal, for instance,
should go to districts where there is ore without fuel available
for smelting; that timber, or excellent building stone, should be
conveyed to great cities; and that the small value of many raw
materials, rendering it impossible for them to bear more than the
lowest rate of carriage, should not prevent their being conveyed.
This demand, also, the railway companies have satisfied by charging
rates not always exactly varying with the distance. Writing of
the marvellous effects of railways, the late Mr. Newmarch, in
his edition of “Tooke’s History of Prices,” says: “Among their
greatest achievements are the opening up of new fields of supply,
and the deepening of old channels of consumption. They have brought
into profitable use mines, forests, quarries, arable and grazing
districts, fisheries, harbours, and rivers, previously inaccessible.
The produce arising from these various and numerous sources is so
much additional wealth placed at the command of the community.”[28]
Had equal mileage rates been universally enforced many of those new
sources of supply would still be useless; the articles would not
bear the cost of transport.
[28] Vol. 5, p. 376.
At any given time in a particular market there is a certain price
which an article such as milk, wheat, or iron will fetch. Assuming
that price to be 30s., the cost of production 20s., the rate of
conveyance 3d. a mile, A, B, C, D, to be four places, each 10 miles
distant from each other on the same railway, and each capable of
producing an “output” of 500 tons. The article can be economically
conveyed no further than (10 x 12) / 3 = 40 miles, that is from D.
In such circumstances consumers will have an available supply of
2,000 tons. Producers at A, 10 miles distant, will pay for transport
2s. 6d.; those at B, 5s., and so on. Those at A, B, and C, 10,
20, 30 miles distant, will possess a considerable advantage over
producers at D, the place 40 miles distant. This superiority would
be retained by those who have long leases; but in course of time,
by the action of competition, rents would rise, and the advantage
would tend to pass to the owners of the land at A, B and C. What
would be the result, if a railway company, desirous of enlarging
its traffic, established lower rates (say 2d. a mile) to E and F,
places on the same line, also 10 miles apart, and equally capable of
producing an “output” of 500 tons? The particular article might now
be conveyed from F, 60 miles distant. The consumer would benefit;
his available supply would now be 3,000 tons. In practice this
might be an understatement of the gain to him, for the result
might be to give access to districts in which the conditions of
production were altogether easier and cheaper. Producers at A, B
and C, might temporarily--the landowners at these points might
permanently--suffer; but the public and other landowners would
gain. They would gain indirectly and directly--directly in the
increased volume of supply, indirectly by the increase of traffic
enabling the company to keep down its general scale of charges;
and manufacturers and landowners at points E and F would benefit.
Such an illustration may serve to show how the interests of some
landowners and certain traders may sometimes be on one side, and
those of consumers, other landowners, the bulk of traders, and the
railway companies on the other.[29]
[29] NOTE.--The evidence of Sir Thomas Farrer, given in 1881,
is very deserving of consideration. In answer to the question,
“Now turning to the question of inequality of charges, of which
the Committee have had many complaints--in fact, the bulk of the
complaints have been with regard to the inequality of charges from
one place to another--in your opinion, is this inequality productive
of injury to the trade of the country?” He replies, “As far as I
can judge, it is not.” He is asked:--“I suppose you would say that
while on the one hand one portion of the country may be a loser,
another portion of the country is a gainer, and that the one may be
set against the other?”--He answers:--“I am not quite certain that
I should say that one portion of the country is a loser, but I am
quite certain that another portion is a gainer.”
Again, in reply to question: “Then looking at the question also from
the point of view of the public, the inland towns which are charged
higher than towns on the sea-coast are merely paying the natural
penalty of being inland towns, and not having an equally good
geographical position?”--He states, “Quite so; on the whole I should
think the inland towns were proportionately better off than before
the railways existed, because, before the railways existed, sea-side
towns had the water traffic to themselves, but now the railways
afford a kind of competition with that traffic, and bring a great
many places into communication with one another which could not have
been brought into communication before.”
In reply to the question, “On the whole, do you think the country
gains by these rival routes to the outports?” He says, “I do
distinctly.” And again, in answer to the question, “According to
your view, then, as far as the public is concerned, it is of no
consequence that a railway company should so destroy the natural
advantages of one place?” He replies:--“I think it is one purpose
of the railway companies to annihilate distance as far as they
can; I would certainly encourage the railway companies in bringing
Shetland fish to the London market, even although the effect of it
were to lower the price of the Grimsby fish.” Further, in reply to
the question, “As far as that is concerned, you would allow the
Railway Companies to make any differential charges they may please
for or against other localities?” He replies:--“I would certainly
not compel them to charge upon fish from Thurso and fish from
Grimsby in proportion to the distances of those two places. I have
been accustomed, as a free trader, to consider the interest of
the consumer very largely; but it seems to me that this claim for
regular mileage has proceeded upon the interest of one special class
of producers; but it is very much to the interest of the consumer
as well as to one class of producers, that the people at a distance
should be able to send to the consuming market.”
SECTION IX.
THE REAL BASIS OF RATES.
The Managers of English railways have not assumed that they could
fix rates on a “Scientific” or “Natural” basis. But they have
endeavoured, after consulting merchants, manufacturers and traders,
to fix such rates as were required to develop the largest amount
of trade; and it is submitted that they have been carrying out
principles which will, on the whole, bear the closest examination.
They probably have made mistakes, and in some cases entered into
undue competition with each other, or fostered it too much between
producers or ports. But the principles upon which they have
acted are sound; and the instances in which they have erred are
exceptional. It has been the aim of railway companies to make rates
conform to the requirements of trade, or, according to a popular
expression, to charge what the traffic will bear.[30] It is easy
to misrepresent this principle. The commonest misrepresentation
is to assume that it means charging what the traffic will _not_
bear. Rightly understood, this, it is contended, is the only fair
working principle; the only scientific rule, if that phrase has
any clear meaning. It is only another way of saying that rates
should be so fixed as to enable a manufacturer or a trader and
the railway company to obtain a reasonable profit, and that rates
should ultimately be determined by the law of supply and demand. The
value of conveyance, like the value of any other service, is not
necessarily what it costs, but what it is worth to him who wishes
his goods carried. On supply and demand, the available means of
transport and the demand for it depends what it is worth while to
give for carrying an article from A to B. Obviously the demand will
be affected by the nature of the merchandise. If it be of a costly
nature, such as manufactured articles, producers of it or dealers
in it can afford to pay a higher rate than if it were of low value;
a rate of 3d. a ton per mile, which might be prohibitive of the
carriage of sand or lime, would add to the value of silk or velvet
only an insignificant percentage.[31]
[30] In the Report made by M. Richard Waddington in the name of
the Commission of the Third System of Railway Tariffs, special
or differential rates are thus referred to. “These Tariffs are
established in compliance with a trade demand which varies, as
one can easily understand, according to the locality and district
concerned. Like intelligent merchants the administrators of the
railway companies have based their rate of charges on the law of
_Supply and Demand_....” The celebrated expression of M. Solacroup,
director of the _Orleans Company_, sums up the considerations which
led to the compilation of special tariffs. “_In the matter of
Transport Tariffs there is only one rational rule, viz., to ask of
merchandise all it can pay; any other principle is no principle._”
[31] It may be objected that under such a system companies might
extort exorbitant sums from traders who must send their goods. But
(1) the figures and returns referred to later on show that in fact
the companies have not made such charges, but have benefited every
industry as well as themselves; (2) the statutory maxima cannot
be exceeded; (3) at many points there is effective sea and canal
competition; (4) the result of increasing the rates to a height
which prevents the producer from earning a fair profit must, in
the long run, be to diminish the traffic of the railway; (5) there
is always a liability when, high rates exist that Parliament will
sanction a new line, even if the chances of its financial success be
not great.
The capital of English railways amounts to upwards of £800,000,000.
One of the problems to be considered is how to raise a revenue
sufficient to pay on this sum even a moderate rate of interest?
The Companies might perhaps obtain it by charging for conveyance
according to equal mileage rates or according to cost of service.
Following such a course they might probably levy charges which a
great portion of the traffic would not bear; they might charge, for
example, as much for a consignment of pig iron as for a consignment
of copper of equal weight carried equal distances--which is
generally what cost of service implies. If their sole object were
to obtain the necessary revenue, they might cease to regard the
effect of rates upon the interests of traders, districts, or ports,
and, while conforming to the statutory maximum, they might levy
rates detrimental to particular kinds of traffic. Their practice
has been altogether different: they have sought to give full effect
to the intention which Parliament had in view in framing the rude
statutory classifications. They have endeavoured to suit the charges
to the capacity of the traders, and in the words of Section 90 of
the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, “To accommodate
them (the rates) to the circumstances of the traffic.” Such is the
only sound principle working to the interest alike of railways and
their customers. If rates were too high, and the traffic could not
bear them, traders would suffer; the companies themselves would
also suffer; their traffic would diminish, or would not expand as
it might do. Such was the principle, speaking generally, on which
the classification in railway Acts was framed. Such, too, is the
principle of existing rates, only instead of being an hypothesis
as to what will suit particular kinds of traffic, the existing
classification and rates are based on facts carefully ascertained,
verified by long experience, and corrected from time to time.
It is not unimportant to bear in mind that much the same principle
as that which we have discussed is applied in regard to indirect
taxation, or the taxation of commodities.[32] What an article will
bear--in other words what the owner can with convenience pay--is
a rule alike applicable to taxation and railway rates. In more
civilised countries articles of prime necessity are not taxed, or
very little; articles of luxury and of great value are taxed more. A
distinction is made between wheat and tobacco, sugar and wine; and
whenever it is practicable, without opening the door to fraud, to
put indirect taxes on _ad valorem_ basis, it is done. A similar rule
is observed, so far as possible, with respect to direct taxation.
Income tax, for example, is payable only by those whose incomes
exceed £150. An endeavour is made to obtain the revenue of the
country from the persons who can best afford to pay, and to levy it
upon articles, the taxation of which will, to the least practicable
extent, be a burden on the trade of the country. To fix railway
rates on any other principle than that described above would be much
like raising the national revenue from all persons alike, rich or
poor, to impose the Customs and Excise upon all commodities, whether
articles of luxury or necessity, and irrespective of their value.
[32] See Ricardo (Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 3rd
Section, page 144): “Of all commodities none are perhaps so proper
for taxation as those which, either by the aid of nature or art,
are produced with peculiar facility. Taxes on luxuries have some
advantage over taxes on necessaries, they are generally paid from
income, and therefore do not diminish the productive capital of the
country.”
See also Leroy Beaulieu, _Science des Finances_, vol. i.
When railways were first authorised, it was everywhere anticipated,
strange though it may now appear, that the companies would be
merely toll takers, and that the public, or carriers, would use them
in the same manner as turnpike roads. Every railway was to be a
highway; every one of the King or Queen’s subjects was to be free to
use it. Many statutes bear traces of this, now apparently, curious
assumption. The private Acts, as a rule, contained no provision for
the companies themselves acting as carriers. The classification of
the articles to be carried and the tolls to be taken were borrowed
from the canal Acts. No very clear principle of classification ran
through the special Acts. The classification in the main, however,
probably accorded with the considerations pointed out by Adam
Smith, who drew attention to the inconvenience of levying tolls on
turnpike roads solely according to weight.[33] Speaking broadly,
the tolls were in accordance with the ideas as to indirect taxation
prevalent at the time when canals began to be largely constructed.
In the original classification one may trace a desire to encourage
agriculture, and the manufacture of iron, and such articles as
were, generally speaking, carried in large quantities. Articles of
general use in manufactures and raw materials were to be carried
cheaply. The omissions from the lists of articles are remarkable.
Such commodities as coal, iron ore, bricks, clay, manure, slates,
stone, bar and pig iron, heavy iron castings, anvils, chains,
timber, grain, flour, sugar, hides, dye-woods, earthenware, drugs,
cotton and wool, were enumerated. On the other hand, machinery,
hardware, hollow-ware, cutlery, glass, ale, wines and spirits,
grease, oils, soap, drysalteries, paints, colours, paper, leather,
floor-cloth, and textile fabrics, were not named; they came under
the general description of “manufactured goods, articles, matters or
things,” and might be charged the highest maximum rates. The special
Acts contained, as a rule, an enumeration of only 40 to 50 articles
in three to five classes.
[33] “A tax upon carriages in proportion to their weight, though a
very equal tax when applied to the sole purpose of repairing the
roads is a very unequal one when applied to any other purpose, or
to supply the common exigencies of the State. When it is applied to
the sole purpose above mentioned, each carriage is supposed to pay
exactly for the wear and tear which that carriage occasions of the
roads. But when it is applied to any other purpose, each carriage is
supposed to pay for more than that wear and tear and contributes to
the supply of some other exigency of the State. But as the turnpike
toll raises the price of goods in proportion to their weight, and
not to their value, it is chiefly paid by the consumers of coarse
and bulky, not by those of precious and light, commodities. Whatever
exigency of the State, therefore, this tax might be intended to
supply, that exigency would be chiefly supplied at the expense of
the poor, not of the rich; at the expense of those who are least
able to supply it, not of those who are most able.”--(_Wealth of
Nations._ Book 5 part 3.)
In a few years, experience proved that the theories on which
Parliament had proceeded were impracticable. In the first place,
the notion that railways could be used by all comers in much the
same way as canals or roads was found to be erroneous. Railway
companies accordingly applied, in their special Acts, for powers
not only to find locomotive power and wagons, but also to convey
traffic as common carriers. In 1845, the Railways Clauses Act (s.
86) authorised every company to convey on their railway all such
passengers and goods as might be offered to them for that purpose,
and to make such reasonable charges in respect thereof as might be
from time to time determined upon, not exceeding the tolls by the
special Act authorised to be taken. The special Acts contained,
as has been stated, imperfect classifications of merchandise, the
maximum rates chargeable for conveyance, and powers to charge for
loading, unloading, and other services incidental to the business of
a carrier. About 1845 a second great change in the mode of charging
for conveyance came to pass; and it is a circumstance worth noting
that about that date a similar change took place, without concert,
in France, Belgium and wherever railways existed. Up to that time
railways had, as a rule, acted on the principle of equal mileage
rates. This proved disadvantageous; it did not meet the requirements
of trade; it was particularly unsatisfactory to distant traders; it
prevented the opening up of new districts; and it needlessly limited
the amount of traffic.
About the time which we have mentioned, the imperfection of the
statutory classifications became manifest. Such rates as were
intended to be _ad valorem_ were not in fact on that basis; so
far as it was intended to favour raw produce this object was not
sufficiently accomplished. The advantages of differential rates, the
necessity of adapting charges to the traffic, the power of railways
to open up new districts, and develop new industries, began to
be understood. Accordingly the Legislature enacted the following
provision, the words of which merit attention:[34]
S. 90, “And whereas it is expedient that the company should
be enabled to vary the tolls upon the railway so as to
_accommodate them to the circumstances of the traffic_,
but that such power of varying should not be used for the
purpose of prejudicing or favouring particular parties,
or for the purpose of collusively and unfairly creating
a monopoly either in the hands of the company or of
particular parties, it shall be lawful, therefore, for
the company, subject to the provisions and limitations
hereinafter and in the special Acts contained, _from
time to time to alter or vary the tolls by the special
Act authorised to be taken, either upon the whole or
upon any particular portion of the railway as they shall
think fit_; provided that all such tolls be at all times
charged equally to all persons, and after the same rate,
whether per ton, per mile or otherwise, in respect of all
passengers, and of all goods or carriages of the same
description, and conveyed or propelled by a like carriage
or engine passing over the same portion of the line of
railway under the same circumstances, and no reduction or
advance in any such toll shall be made either directly or
indirectly in favour of any particular company or person
travelling upon or using the line.”
[34] In the same year a Statute (8 & 9 Vict. c. 28) was passed
giving canal companies powers to vary tolls in the same manner as
railway companies might. By 8 & 9 Vict. c. 42, which was passed the
same session, canal companies were authorised to become carriers on
their canals and “to make such reasonable charges for conveying,
warehousing, collection and delivery as they might respectively from
time to time determine upon, in addition to the several tolls or
dues which any such company or undertakers were then authorised to
take for the use of the said canals, navigations or railways.” Two
years later canal companies were authorised to borrow money for the
purpose of becoming carriers on their own waterways. (10 & 11 Vict.
c. 94.)
Personal preferences were forbidden. But the companies were to
accommodate their rates to the circumstances of the traffic, the
Legislature’s mode of expressing the rule that the traffic should
pay what it could bear; and within the statutory maxima, the
companies were to be free to alter their tolls as they thought fit.
How far this was altered by s. 2 of the “Railway and Canal Traffic
Act, 1854,” need not here be considered. It is enough to say here
that, so far as s. 90 was concerned, differential rates were not
only not prohibited, but distinctly sanctioned. S.90 required
equality only in regard to traffic “passing between the same points
of departure and arrival, and passing over no other part of the
line.”[35]
[35] Earl of Selborne in _Denaby Main Colliery Company_ v.
_Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company_.--L.R. 11
A.C. p. 113.
Consumers may profitably bear in mind the report of the Select
Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), of 1881-2. Whilst stating
“Your Committee cannot recommend any new legislative interference
for the purpose of enforcing upon Railway Companies equality of
charge.” They add: “Some of the inequalities of charges complained
of are to the advantage rather than to the disadvantage of the
public, where there is an _undue preference_ the law now gives a
remedy.” They also give the following illustration:--
“That Greenock sugar refiners should be in the same markets as the
sugar refiners of London, while it may be a grievance to London
refiners, must be an advantage to Greenock refiners, and cannot be a
disadvantage to buyers of sugar.”
It is added that the effect of interference with the freedom to fix
rates according to special circumstances would in this instance be
“to give a practical monopoly to the London sugar refiners who would
be the real gainers by the transaction. It does not appear to your
Committee that such a result would be either just or reasonable.”
For more than forty years railway companies have been conforming
to these principles. They have been developing long as well as
short distance traffic, and aiding the opening of new industries.
They have done so to their own advantage, for though the return
on the capital expended on railways has been small, it has been
obtained on a large volume of traffic. They have been able to
benefit the commerce of the country to a degree which would have
been impracticable if, instead of rates being elastic and freely
accommodated to traffic, the traffic had been forced to adapt
itself to the rates. Producers pay what they find it worth while
to pay; they pay no more. In framing the statutory classification,
the Legislature assumed that producers would probably find it worth
while to pay the authorised charges. The companies find out what
such producers can in fact pay, and what rates will best promote
traffic. What preferable rule could be substituted?
SECTION X.
NEW CLASSIFICATION.
One inconvenience incidental to the course taken by the railway
companies has been experienced. The actual classification in
use does not follow the meagre, and in many respects arbitrary,
statutory classifications; the latter may not be a guide to the
former. This was one of the grievances laid before the Railway
Rates Committee in 1881 and 1882. Traders, it was said, could only
with difficulty ascertain the companies’ powers to charge for goods
not enumerated in their Acts. The representatives of the railways
agreed with some of the witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of
the traders as to the original classifications in the Acts of the
companies having become obsolete. They explained that from time to
time they had been rectifying, in the manner already described,
the defects of the statutory classification, and that, acting on
information communicated by manufacturers and merchants, and guided
by their own experience, they had framed and generally adopted
the Railway Clearing House Classification, which embraces some
2,700 articles, and which is, on the whole, fairly adapted to the
requirements of trade. They added that the companies were prepared
to agree to a revised maximum classification in lieu of the original
classification.
Accordingly, the Committee recommended--
“That there should be adopted over the whole Railway system
one uniform classification of goods.”
“That terminal charges should be recognised, but be subject
to publication, and, in case of challenge, to sanction by
the Railway Commissioners.”
The Board of Trade thereupon intimated to the railway companies
their intention of introducing into Parliament a Bill with the view
of carrying out some of the recommendations of the Committee, and
requested them to prepare a standard maximum classification for
general adoption.
This was done. The companies were also prepared to assent to a
codification of their maximum rate clauses, having due regard
to their existing powers, so as to assimilate them to the new
classification. But they stipulated that certain, rights which at
that time were considered by some to be doubtful--in particular, the
right of the companies to charge for terminal services--should, as;
recommended by the Committee, be recognised. The Bill introduced in
the Session of 1883 by the Board of Trade was not proceeded with.
Acting therefore on a suggestion which was made to them, several of
the companies introduced Bills in the Session 1884-5, with a view
to consolidate the maximum rate clauses, and secure the adoption of
a general classification, and the recognition of terminals. But the
companies received from Government no such assistance as they had
reason to expect. The mere consideration of their Bills was strongly
opposed, the Board of Trade eventually joining in the opposition;
and the measures had to be withdrawn. Last Session the Board of
Trade introduced a Bill, not only to compel the companies to do what
they, by their Bills introduced in the Session of 1885 sought to do,
but also to make it obligatory on them to accept such altered rates
and tolls as the Board of Trade, with the subsequent sanction of
Parliament, might lay down, and to submit to periodical revisions
thereof--requirements so contrary to the conditions on which the
companies provided the capital for the construction of the railways,
that it is difficult to believe that the effects of the provisions
of the Bill could have been clearly understood. The companies
unanimously objected to a measure which amounted to confiscation.
It is probable that a satisfactory arrangement would have been
come to; but owing to the dissolution of Parliament the Bill was
not proceeded with. In view of the desire of the public for a new
classification, the recommendation of the Railway Rates Committee,
end the general assent of the companies, it may be assumed that in
the course of the next Session the subject will again be brought
forward; and it is therefore desirable to consider the principle on
which a classification should be framed.
In the earliest Canal and Railway Acts the basis of the
classification was the nature, bulk and value of the articles
carried. The lowest tolls were applicable to articles carried in
large quantities, such as lime, dung, coals, and rough stone; the
medium tolls to grain, timber, &c., and the higher to manufactured
goods, and the more valuable articles of merchandise, such as
wool, tea, wines and spirits, &c. On canals, this classification
was in force, notwithstanding the fact that they were at first
only toll takers, and did not incur any cost in conveyance or any
risk--services and liabilities for which the carriers charged the
public beyond the tolls. The numbers of articles enumerated in the
original Acts were, as previously stated, from 50 to 60, divided
generally into from three to five classes. The present Railway
Clearing House classification, which has been revised from time
to time, contains seven classes. The following is a comparative
statement of the number of different articles enumerated in it
during the last 34 years:--
1852 748
1860 816
1870 1,621
1880 2,373
1886 2,753
Judging from remarks which have been made[36] as to the
“inconsistency and want of classification,” it appears to be the
view of some persons that this classification has been framed by
the companies in an arbitrary manner and without regard to the
necessities of trade. Nothing could be more erroneous than this
assumption. Of necessity it is from the traders themselves that the
railway managers have primarily obtained the information by which
they have been guided in framing the classification. The questions
to be determined in fixing rates are not simple; the elements to be
taken into account are many. Whether the traffic is considerable,
whether the cubical contents are large or small in proportion to
the weight whether it is carried in large or small quantities,
whether the merchandise consists of raw materials or manufactured
goods, articles of necessity or luxury, must be considered. The
requirements of traders with conflicting interests, the different
views taken by the companies, and the desire to encourage special
industries must be studied. In practice what takes place is this.
When a new article of commerce or of manufacture is introduced, the
merchant or manufacturer calls on the railway company immediately
interested to have it classified and to fix the rates. Of course,
there is an endeavour to get it placed in the lowest possible class.
Such applications are carefully considered; and they are from time
to time discussed by the managers at their conferences. Thus the
classification is continually under consideration and revision;
there is a constant process of re-adjustment to the changing
circumstances of trade. So-called anomalies there no doubt are,
and departures from the basis on which a classification should be
framed. But the Railway Clearing House Classification, which is the
result of this continual effort to adapt charges to new conditions,
answers reasonably, if not perfectly, the requirements of trade.[37]
[36] “What is complained of by the traders is not so much the
high scale of the rates as their inconsistency and want of
classification, as well as the want of facilities given by the
railway companies for the development of the trade in a particular
locality. That before the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade,
not a single witness, except in the shipping interest, was examined
in reference to railway rates who did not complain of some act of
injustice on the part of the railway companies, not so much in
regard to the rates, although they were onerous and prohibitory in
some cases, as to the inconsistency of such rates.”--_Mr. L. Cohen,
House of Commons Debate, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol._ cccv., _pages
428-9_.
[37] NOTE.--The New Zealand correspondent of the “_Economist_”
(Oct. 23, 1886), writes from Wellington as follows: “The fact of
the railways being in the hands of Government is by no means an
unmixed good. A uniform system of rates is demanded everywhere. If a
concession is made to one district, the rest of the colony naturally
demand to be placed on the same footing, so that the Railway
Department rarely meet the wishes of the public. _A private Company,
if it found that the freight could be got by lowering the tariff on
some particular item, would do so at once, and if it paid, continue
it._ The cost probably would be merely a few tons of coals, and a
small amount for wear and tear. _Many trades, notably the timber
trade, are very much hampered by the Government tariff which does
not admit of differential rates._”
This is a sample of the inconveniences attending uniformity.
It must be borne in mind, in framing a new standard classification,
that it will be the maximum beyond which the companies must not go.
If adopted generally over all railways, the scales of maximum rates
must allow scope for the local necessities and peculiarities of
different districts of the country. Inverness-shire and Cornwall,
as well as Staffordshire, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, agricultural,
manufacturing, and mining districts, must all be considered. There
must be sufficient elasticity in the scale of maximum rates to
allow of the charges being remunerative on short distance traffic.
Goods coming under the same generic name often vary considerably
in cubical contents in proportion to weight, value, and risk of
damage, as well as in the extent to which they are carried; all
considerations not to be forgotten in constructing a uniform
classification. The following few examples, taken casually from
consignments actually carried, illustrate the remarkable variations
in the weights and bulk of some of the traffic:--
Cubic feet to the ton.
Agricultural Implements vary from 70 to 1316
Boots and Shoes 75 ” 108
Coal 34 ” 48
Copper 10 ” 165
Carpets 68 ” 159
Drain Pipes 99 ” 205
Furniture 142 ” 3501
Hay 364 ” 630
Holloware 106 ” 214
Hats 529 ” 1719
Iron (Bar) 7 ” 39
” (Scrap) 24 ” 165
Luggage 95 ” 971
Millinery 315 ” 986
Sewing Machines 104 ” 350
Straw 788 ” 1256
Tobacco 53 ” 165
Wool 266 ” 747
Ditto (Australian pressed) 93 ” 282
The value of goods coming under the same description, and the risk
in conveying them, frequently vary as much as the cubical contents.
No matter what pains are taken to frame a fair classification,
it is to be feared that any classification based on a careful
consideration of the nature and value of the articles carried, and
all the varying circumstances of trade--and an omission to consider
any such element would work injustice--must appear to some traders
to be more or less anomalous. Some will still consider they have a
grievance to lay before Chambers of Commerce.
It may be well to state how the problem has been dealt with on the
Continent. The particulars given may be instructive to those who
hastily recommend an adoption of the systems in force abroad.
In France the classification of goods and rates is in a transition
state; and a large portion of the trading and manufacturing classes
are discontented with the charges at present made by the railway
companies. With a view of simplifying the tariff, in 1879 the
Minister of Public Works took steps to frame for adoption on all
the French Railways a classification divided into six classes.
Subsequently an attempt was made to prepare a uniform scale of
railway rates diminishing according to distance. But after a long
enquiry, and full consideration, the proposal was abandoned. In
1883, the Paris, Lyons, and Mediterranean Railway Company proposed
the adoption of a revised tariff, which professes to afford, on
the whole, a reduction in the rates as compared with the former
tariff. It was sanctioned by the Minister of Public Works in
August, 1885. It consisted of six classes for general goods in any
quantities, and six for goods of the special classes, which are
generally carried in lots of one and five tons. The latter six
classes were in substitution for the many special tariffs formerly
existing. The Eastern of France Railway Company also revised their
tariff, re-adjusting the classification, and reducing the number
of their special tariffs to 28. An article formerly carried at a
special tariff between certain specified stations is now charged at
the fourth class rate. But when carried generally, and not between
particular stations, such an article remains, as before, in the
second class. The Northern of France Railway Company have also
revised their tariffs on a somewhat similar basis.
Long debates on the subject of the charges under the new tariffs,
and on the railways generally, took place in the Chamber of
Deputies, in February and March last. There were complaints that
the “reformed tariff,” and particularly that of the Paris, Lyons,
and Mediterranean Company, had not brought about the anticipated
reductions, and that, while in some cases lower rates for certain
goods carried in large quantities had been conceded, higher rates
had been fixed for similar goods sent in small quantities. The rate
for 5 ton lots, for instance, is lower; but that for lots under 5
tons is generally higher. The larger traders had derived a benefit
from the change; but the small traders and consumers compared with
what they were, are placed at a disadvantage. So far the other
companies have not made any alteration in their tariffs.
Thus it will be seen that in France there is no uniform
classification. The tariffs of the companies, with the exception
of the Ouest, Nord and Est, are composed of a different number
of classes, and the number of articles enumerated in the
classification also varies. Articles, too, are not included in the
same classes on all lines. For instance, the Ouest enumerates 1686,
the Nord 1519, and the Paris, Lyons, and Méditerranée, 1425. The
tariffs are divided--
by the Compagnie de l’Ouest into 6 classes.
” ” ” l’Est ” 6 ”
” ” ” du Nord ” 6 ”
” ” ” Paris, Lyons, } 6 general tariff classes.
” ” ” Méditerranée } 6 special ” ”
” ” ” d’Orleans ” 4 classes.
” ” ” du Midi ” 5 ”
” ” ” de l’Etat ” 9 ”
The following examples show how the classifications vary:--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |Paris- | | |
| | | |Lyons- | | |
ARTICLE. |Ouest.| Est.| Nord.|Medite-|Orleans.| Midi.|Etat.
| | | | ranee.| | |
------------------+------+------+------+-------+--------+------+------
|Class.|Class.|Class.| Class.| Class. |Class.|Class.
Ironmongery | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2
Colours (common) | | | | | | |
in Casks | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4
Manure | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 |Spec’l| 6
Flour | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4
Wool (raw) | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2
Machinery (packed)| 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3
China in Casks and| | | | | | |
Crates | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1
Raw Sugar | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4
Potatoes in Bags | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4
Window Glass | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Germany, Holland and Belgium there is no such classification
as is in force in this country. Generally speaking, goods of all
descriptions, except wagon loads of 5 and 10 tons, are charged
according to weight, irrespective of their nature or value. In
Germany the railway tariff consists of 8 classes, viz.:--
1. _Grande Vitesse_ which includes articles of all
descriptions carried by
passenger train.[38]
2. “_Stückgut_,” or Which includes articles of all
“Piece” Goods. descriptions of less than
5 tons carried by goods
train.
3^{A1}. Wagon Loads Articles of all descriptions in
truck loads of 5 tons not
mentioned in the special
classes.
4^B. ” ” Articles of all descriptions in
truck loads of 10 tons.
5^{A2}. ” ” Certain articles specified in
the classification, in truck
loads of 5 tons.
6. Special Tariff, I. }
7. ” ” II. } Ditto in 10 ton lots.
8. ” ” III. }
[38] _Grande Vitesse_ goods are not always carried by passenger
train. They can be carried by any train the railway company may
determine, provided the time allowed by law, which is half the time
for ordinary goods, is not exceeded.
The system actually existing in Germany is a compromise. Previous
to 1878 different systems existed in North and South Germany. The
classification in use in the former was governed by the value of the
goods; while that in force in the latter was framed with particular
reference to their weight and measurement. In that year, however, an
attempt was made to reconcile the two systems; the “Reform Tariff,”
as it is called, was established on all the German railways. There
was a concession to the Southern system; rates for goods in covered
trucks in five or ten ton lots were adopted. The North system, on
the other hand, was recognised by establishing the Special tariff
classes, in which the relative value of the goods has been taken
into consideration. The actual classification is therefore dual; it
is a compromise between two totally different systems. Obviously it
does not accord with the requirements which have been put forward
by, or on behalf of, traders in this country.
In Belgium, also, there is practically no classification except for
traffic in full truck loads. The tariff consists of--
Tariff No. 1 Articles of all descriptions
up to 5 kilogrammes (11 lbs.)
carried by passenger trains.
Tariff No. 2 Articles of all descriptions
carried by ordinary passenger
trains, but chiefly articles
of all descriptions up to 200
kilogrammes (4 cwt.) carried by
goods trains.
Tariff No. 3--Class I.--Goods of all descriptions from
8 cwt. and upwards, conveyed
by goods trains.
{Certain goods specified in
” II.--{ the classification, in truck
” III.--{ loads of 5 tons.
” IV.--Certain goods specified in
the classification in truck
loads of 10 tons.
For Tariffs 1, 2, and Class I. of tariff No. 3, there is practically
no classification. All goods up to the specified weights are
included, without reference to their value or nature. Only in
respect of the wagon-load classes of tariff No. 3 does any
classification exist. In this classification, which applies to all
the Belgian railways, about 639 articles are enumerated. It is
assumed to be framed with reference to the value of the goods, the
mode of transit, the amount of the company’s responsibility, and the
circumstance of the goods being carried in open or covered trucks.
In Holland, the classification is very similar to that which exists
in Germany. Goods are divided into two classes, i.e., “_Stückgut_”
or “Piece” goods, to which belong all consignments less than 5
tons carried by goods train; and “_Truck Load_” goods, which
includes goods in truck loads of 5 or 10 tons, or which pay as
for those weights. The “_Stückgut_” class is subdivided into two
classes, and the “_Truck Load_” class into four classes. The total
number of articles enumerated in the classification is about 242.
Although the bases of the tariffs charged for conveyance differ,
the classification is practically the same on all the railways in
Holland. The following is an example of the classification of goods
on the Dutch Rhenish Railway. It will be seen that such articles as
coffee, cheese, butter, in consignments of less than 5 tons, are
included in the same class as coal, coke, gravel and raw iron; a
feature not likely to be imitated by admirers of the “scientific
classification” supposed to exist abroad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| In Lots of
|-----------------------
DESCRIPTION OF GOODS. | Less | 5 Tons|10 Tons
| than | and | and
|5 Tons.| above.| above.
----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------
Bark, asphalt pipes, petroleum, vinegar, clay | | |
drain pipes, oils, paper, trees, butter, | | |
fresh meat, coffee, spirits, cheese, hair, | | |
dyeing earths, pencils, sugar, sumac | II. | A |
| | |
Raw tobacco, pitch, lithographers’ stone, | | |
cabbage and vegetables in bulk, herrings, | | |
window glass, dye-woods, cotton yarn, | | |
Glauber-salts, soda, cotton twist, wool, jute| II. | B |
| | |
Raw asphalt, ashes, potato meal, beetroot, | | |
seeds, sheet iron, iron pipes, iron wire, | | |
lime, linseed, cake, lead, parts of machines,| | |
pasteboard, corn and grain, raw sugar, iron | II. | C |
| | |
Guano, grindstones in the rough, stone | | |
troughs, coal tar, worked stones, sleepers, | | |
spath millstone, fuel, marble in blocks | II. | D |
| | |
Raw iron, cast iron, gravel, wood, coal, | | |
limestone, pebbles, raw chalk, clay, manure, | | |
coal, coke, turf, ore, tiles | II. | D | S R
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This diversity of system and practice will give some idea of the
difficulty experienced in framing a classification suitable to
each country, or, indeed, to various portions of the same country.
The difficulty will be still better understood by observing the
different manner in which goods placed in the 2nd Class, under the
Railway Clearing House Classification, are classified in other
countries.
CLASSES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | FRANCE. | | | |
| |-----------| | | |
DESCRIPTION OF |ENG- |Nord. |BEL- | HOL- | GER- | CANADA.
GOODS. |LAND.| |Ouest. |GIUM.|LAND. | MANY.|----------------
| | | |PLM| | | | Any | Car
| | | | | | | |Quantity| Loads.
---------------+-----+---+---+---+-----+------+------+--------+-------
Aerated Waters | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 1 | Gen. | Gen. | 3 | 4
| | | | | |Tariff|Tariff| |
Agricultural | | | | | | | | |
Machines| ” | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ” | ” |1, 1½ | ..
| | | | | | | | &D1 |
” Seeds | ” | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | B |S.T. 1| 2 | 5
Bacon and Hams | ” | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Gen. | Gen. | 2 | 4
| | | | | |Tariff|Tariff| |
Bedsteads | ” | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ” |S.T. 1| 1 | ..
Biscuits | ” | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ” | Gen. | 2 | 4
| | | | | | |Tariff| |
Cattle Food | ” | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | B |S.T. 2| 3 | 5
Cheese (Packed)| ” | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Gen. | Gen. | 3 | 4
| | | | | |Tariff|Tariff| |
Cider in Cases | ” | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | ” | ” | 3 | 4
Colours and | | | | | | | | |
Paints, Common| ” | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | ” | ” | 3 | 5
Confectionary | | | | | | | | |
in Casks | ” | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ” | ” | 1 | 4
Flax, Raw | ” | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | ” |S.T. 2| 3 | 5
Hemp, Raw | ” | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | ” | ” | 3 | 5
Leather, | | | | | | | | |
Undressed | ” | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | ” | Gen. | 3 | 5
| | | | | | |Tariff| |
Osiers | ” | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | B |S.T. 2| 2 | 6
Preserves, | | | | | | Gen. | Gen. | |
Casks | ” | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 |Tariff|Tariff| 2 | 4
Cotton Yarn for| | | | | | | | |
Weaving | ” | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ” | ” | 3 | 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a comparison of the number of articles included
in each classification, so far as such exists, in France, Germany,
Holland, and Belgium:--
CLASSES.
Chargeable
ENGLAND. Mineral Special First Second Third Fourth Fifth at Mileage
Scale, &c.
Railway Clearing
House 80 446 453 500 672 319 180 103
FRANCE. Sixth. Fifth. Fourth. Third. Second. First.[39]
Ouest 36 329 533 250 212 326
P.L.&M. 35 104 231 265 279 511
Nord 36 106 253 279 288 557
[39] The first class in France corresponds with the highest or fifth
class in England.
CLASSES.
BELGIUM.
Fourth. Third. Second. First.
168 177 294 Goods of all descriptions
in part loads.
HOLLAND.
B. C.
158 84
GERMANY.
Special Tariff 1. Special Tariff 2. Special Tariff 3.
314 119 176
The number of articles which the companies proposed to provide for
in the standard classification by their Bills deposited in the
Session of 1885, was 2,656, classified as under:--
CLASSES.
Mineral. Special. First. Second. Third. Fourth. Fifth.
86 389 469 483 682 334 213
Assuming that any maximum classification to be framed should comply
with the conditions which have been already stated, and that it
should accommodate trade in all districts of the country, the
classification suggested by the railway companies in their Bills
will bear the test of any fair inquiry. When the change which we
have indicated is carried out--when the maximum rate clauses of the
companies are consolidated and revised on an equitable basis having
regard to the present powers and to the new classification--traders
will be able easily to ascertain whether the charges made by the
companies are within their Parliamentary powers.
SECTION XI.
TERMINAL CHARGES.
We come to another common complaint against railway companies,--the
one which, next to that relating to differential and import rates,
has lately been most heard of. From time to time during the last
30 years, and especially of late, the right of railway companies
to make charges for what are known as terminal services beyond the
remuneration for actual conveyance has been challenged. On the part
of the railway companies there has been no change of practice.
No new kind of charges has been imposed; those in dispute have
been made from the very beginning of railways in this country.
Introduced by the common carriers upon the railways, they were
continued by the railway companies. On the strength of the right to
receive these charges, companies took upon themselves the carrying
business, constructed large goods stations, with vast siding and
other accommodation, and in providing land, premises and appliances,
expended an enormous amount of capital, not necessary for earning
the statutory mileage rates. The legality of such charges has been,
after full argument on appeal, upheld by the Court of Queen’s Bench
(_Hall v. London Brighton and South Coast Railway Company_, L. R.
15 Q. B. D. 505): their equitable character is not less clear,
and the contention to the contrary is, in the words of the joint
judgment of Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Mathew, “singularly
unreasonable.”[40]
“We have already mentioned the anticipation, in the early days,
that the railway companies would merely furnish the railway and
charge tolls for the use of it by carriers and others, who would
employ private locomotives, carriages and wagons. The notion was
borrowed from the experience as to canals and highways; and it has
been well said that ”no proper understanding of a good deal of our
railway legislation, and pre-eminently of clauses relating to tolls
or charges, can be arrived at, unless it (the theory) is firmly
grasped and steadily kept in view.”[41] On railways, as on canals,
there were three states of circumstances which it was considered
must be provided for: First a railway company, like a canal company,
might simply provide a highway, looking to the tolls alone for the
use of that highway for a revenue upon their capital; secondly,
without themselves being carriers, the railway company might provide
trucks and locomotive power, as the canal companies provided boats
and haulage power on the canal; or, thirdly, both the canal company
and the railway company might be carriers upon the highway which
they themselves had provided, and find the wharves, stations, other
necessary premises, accommodation and appliances, and the capital
for that purpose.
[40] Mr. Justice Manisty delivered a separate Judgment. See note at
foot of page 99.
[41] Wills, J., in Hall v. London Brighton and South Coast Railway
Company, p. 536. See also Field J. in Brown v. Great Western Railway
Company, L. R. 9 Q. B. D., p. 751.
The owners of lands along the banks of canals were entitled to
construct, in connection with them, wharves, basins and warehouses;
and we find in the earlier railway Acts, and in the Railways
Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (subject to which all railways since
that date have been, constructed), similar powers with respect to
railways conferred upon adjoining owners. They were authorised
to construct sidings and junctions for the purpose of making
communications between their own lands and the railway. It was
intended that a trader should load his wagons on his own premises,
carry them over the railway and take them off the railway again at
another siding or communication, paying the railway company a mere
toll for the use of the length of line over which the traffic was in
fact worked. Nor was this a mere theory. For many years upon some
of the railways in this country the work of carrying merchandise
was, to a considerable extent, actually performed by large firms
of carriers, such as Pickfords, and others, who provided their
own siding accommodation with the railways, and built or rented
their own stations and warehouses. During this period the railway
companies, so far as this part of their traffic was concerned,
merely provided the highways, the wagons and the engine power, and
hauled the traffic from its place of origin to its destination; and
they undertook no responsibility as common carriers in respect of
the goods. The carriers provided the station accommodation, loaded
and unloaded the goods, checked and weighed them, and handed over
the loaded or unloaded trucks to the railway company in a convenient
position for the engine to be attached to them. Of course, the
carriers, who undertook all liability as such, charged the public
not only the tolls which they paid to the railway company, but also
a considerable additional sum to cover the risk of their Common
Law liabilities, the cost of providing station and warehouse
accommodation, clerkage and invoicing of goods, and other services
beyond the haulage of the trucks.[42] Upon some lines the state
of things which we have described existed for many years. But
gradually the railway companies began to undertake the duties and
responsibilities of carriers. They purchased or built, often at
enormous expense, the necessary terminal accommodation which, under
the previous system, had been provided by private carriers; and
they made to the public charges similar to those which the carriers
themselves had before made for corresponding accommodation and
services. The companies raised the large sums required to furnish
this accommodation and for their working capital as carriers, upon
the faith that they were entitled to stand in all respects, in the
place of the carriers or forwarding agents, and to make reasonable
charges for accommodation and services not covered by, and obviously
having no relation to, the mileage rates for simple haulage from
point to point.
[42] Mr. William Pierssene, Manager to Messrs. Pickford & Co.,
stated in his evidence before the Railway Commissioners in the case
of Kempson v. The G. W. R. (4 N & M 426), that in addition to the
amount of the railway companies’ tolls, a sum varying from twelve to
_eighteen shillings_ a ton was paid by the customer for the services
which now form the subject of terminal and cartage charges.
This view has been sanctioned by the Legislature in almost all
Railway Acts passed since 1845. The charges which a company are
authorised to make are of three kinds--first, tolls for the use of
the railway as a highway; secondly, charges, in addition to the
tolls, for the use of carriages, wagons, and for locomotive power
where such of them are provided by the company--in other words, for
conveyance along the railway. A third class of charges becomes due
when the company not merely convey the goods, as they would for the
carriers who had their own station accommodation and staff, but
are themselves the carriers; cases where, in addition to providing
the highway, vehicles, and locomotive power, they perform “such
services as are incidental to the duty or business of a carrier.”
These services include the providing of stations, warehouses and
sheds, where goods are received, sorted, loaded, covered, checked,
weighed, and labelled, and trucks marshalled for convenient removal
to their various places of destination, and the maintenance of a
large staff of clerks, book-keepers, porters, workmen, engines and
horses necessary for these operations. In this last case the company
are entitled to make, in addition to the charges proper to highway,
rolling stock, and locomotive power, a reasonable charge for the
services, often costly and onerous, rendered in their totally
different capacity of carriers.
It is undisputed that if the railway companies were not carriers
and acted as toll takers only, they would be entitled to claim
their full tolls. But what would be the result if they put in force
such a right? The carriers or forwarding agents who would replace
them, naturally would, as they formerly did, levy such payments as
would cover the cost of station accommodation, and all the services
performed in respect of the carriage of goods beyond the mere
conveyance along the railway. Can it have been in the contemplation
of the Legislature that railway companies were not to be entitled to
make the same charges?
Suppose a Bill were before Parliament for the construction of a
railway, and a clause requiring that the mileage rates should cover
the cost of terminal accommodation were inserted, and the promoters
accepted the Bill with such a restriction. The construction of a
station at the terminus of the railway in a large town is very
costly, and it would be to the interest of the company to make the
station outside the town where land and works would be cheap. They
would thus save capital upon which they would obtain no return,
and, at the same time, they would be entitled to charge the public
the full cost of cartage, whatever the amount might be. The Great
Western Company, for instance, might have constructed their terminus
at Wormwood Scrubs--from which place the cost of cartage to the City
would probably be 7s. 6d. per ton, which the public would have to
pay. With the view of affording better accommodation and of reducing
the expense of cartage, they have erected a station under Smithfield
Market, at a cost, in interest on outlay, maintenance, and other
terminal expenses of an average of 3s. 8d. per ton. According to the
opponents of terminal charges the Great Western Company are only
entitled to be paid a mileage rate proportional to the distance from
Wormwood Scrubs to Smithfield, that is, as for seven miles, to cover
the use of the railway and the station. To take other illustrations,
could it be supposed that the London and North Western Railway
Company would have spent several millions of capital in providing
expensive station accommodation in the immediate vicinity of the
Docks in Liverpool, instead of receiving and delivering the traffic
at Edge Hill, or that companies would have constructed vast stations
in London, Manchester, Leeds, and many other important places,
unless the cost was to be covered by payments in addition to the
mileage rates? So inequitable and opposed to the real interests of
traders is this contention that it is difficult to understand how it
could ever be put forward.
One of the allegations before the Railway Rates Committee in 1881-2,
was, that the companies carried some traffic at too low rates,
and, to compensate themselves, imposed higher rates than otherwise
would be necessary on other traffic. Now, if railway companies were
not allowed to charge for terminal accommodation and services, one
effect would be that in consequence of the cost of the construction
and the expenses of stations, short distance traffic would be
actually carried at a loss.
In recent years terminal charges have been recognised in every Act
for the construction of new railways, by the introduction of a
clause of which the following is a copy:--
“No station shall be considered a terminal station in regard
to any goods conveyed on the Railway, unless such goods have
been received thereat direct from the consignor, or are
directed to be delivered thereat to the consignee.”
If the railway companies were not entitled to charge terminals for
the use of the stations, the insertion of such a clause in Acts
of Parliament would be meaningless; the intention of the clause
evidently was that the companies may not charge terminals in respect
of any intermediate station or junction, and the fair inference is
that they may do so at the sending or receiving station.[43]
[43] Hall v. L. B. & S. C. Railway. Manisty, J., L. R., 15 Q. B. D.
p. 544.
The equitable mature of the claim of the railway companies to make
terminal charges has been admitted on several occasions by some, if
not by all, of the railway commissioners. Their refusal to consider
terminal charges as legally justifiable has arisen only from the
doubt which existed in their minds as to the strict construction of
the words of the clauses; and that question has now been decided by
the Queen’s Bench Division in “_Hall_ v. _The London Brighton and
South Coast Railway Company_.” Some portions of the judgment of the
Court in that case deal only with the construction of the sections
of the particular Private Acts of the defendant company; but the
remarks of the Judges upon the general principles which govern
the railway companies, claim to make terminal charges, explain so
clearly their natural equity as well as their legality, that they
may not improperly be quoted:--
“This notion of the railway being a highway for the common use of the
public, in the same sense that an ordinary highway is so, was the
starting point of English railway legislation. It is deeply engrained
in it. In the early days of railways it was acted upon at least
occasionally, and in respect of goods traffic, and although it enters
but slightly into modern railway practice, _no proper understanding
of a good deal of our railway legislation, and pre-eminently of
clauses relating to tolls or charges, can be arrived at, unless it
is firmly grasped and steadily kept in view_. Those states of things
were from this point of view to be expected and to be provided for
by legislation. The company might be merely the owners of a highway
and toll takers for the use of it by other people with their own
carriages and locomotives. That state of things would be worked out
by the railway company possessing the mere line of railway from
end to end, and by the persons making use of it, buying or renting
contiguous land whereon to keep their rolling stock, and have their
offices, availing themselves of the powers of Section 76 of the Act
of 1845, and getting on to the railway by means of sidings connected
with the railway.
“A second state of things, as we know from the evidence in this case
to which by the consent of the parties we are at liberty to refer,
prevailed extensively for many years after the railway system was in
full operation, and for some years at least after the passing of the
Act of 1845. The railway company provided the line and provided the
engines and trucks, but they were not carriers. The large warehouses
and sheds wherein goods were received, sorted, loaded, covered,
checked, weighed and labelled, and trucks or carriages marshalled
and prepared for convenient removal to their various places of
destination--a corresponding work was done in respect of goods
arriving from a distance--the staff of clerks, book-keepers, porters,
workmen, and horses necessary for these operations were all provided
and maintained at the expense of the carrier, and no portion of them
fell upon the company. The company, on the other hand, as owners
of the rolling stock, for the use of which, as well as of their
railways, they received payment, provided whatever accommodation they
needed in order to keep in convenient proximity to the places where
the carrier had his depôts the necessary supply of rolling stock.
“The third state of things which might exist simultaneously with the
second, or might be the one prevailing exclusively on a particular
line, existed when the company were themselves the carriers of the
goods, and when as carriers they provided the accommodation and
performed the services above described.
“The company might thus be: 1, toll-takers and neither conveyers
nor carriers; 2, conveyers but not carriers; 3, carriers. It would
naturally be expected that in the first case they would have powers
to take tolls, and tolls only, and that in the second, they would
have power to make charges, which should include tolls and charges
for the use of rolling stock, and it would seem reasonable enough
that (inasmuch as they would probably have much greater facilities
for keeping and using their rolling stock to advantage and with
economy than any other person could have) where they provided both
trucks and locomotives as well as took tolls, the maximum charge
should be lower than the aggregate of the three separate charges
which they might make for, 1, use of railways; 2, use of carriages;
3, locomotive power.
“It would seem natural also to expect that where the company were
carriers, inasmuch as they performed the identical services which
they perform under the second head, and others besides, they should
be allowed to charge the same sums as they might charge when falling
under the second category, _plus_ those which are appropriate to
the extra services and liabilities which fall upon them when they
undertake the duties and business of a carrier.
“The contention of the applicants appears to us singularly
unreasonable. It was proved before the Railway Commissioners,
and is not disputed, that the actual cost to the company of the
accommodation and services, which, for many years after the railway
system was very largely developed, and all the principal lines in the
kingdom were at work, were on some of the most important railways
in England provided by independent carriers, and did not fall upon
the railway company, amounted to 1s. 5d. per ton; and it is admitted
that, even with the help of the six-mile clause, the company, if
the contention of the applicants is correct, would, in the case of
traffic carried not more than six miles, have to carry goods coming
under class 5, at a dead loss, which may be approximately stated as
8d. per ton for station services alone, besides getting nothing for
the use of railway and trucks and for providing power.
“The charges of and incidental to ‘conveyance,’ as we have explained
that phrase, are properly measured by the mile of distance travelled
over. The terminal services of station accommodation, loading,
watching, checking, and the like, have no common measure with the
distance run, and are the same, whether that distance be two or two
hundred miles....
“Our answer, therefore, is that the providing of station
accommodation, and work of the general nature indicated to us by the
Railway Commissioners, appear to us to be capable of falling under
the definition of ‘services incidental to the duty or business of a
carrier,’ and _prima facie_ to do so. Whether in any particular case
they do so, or to what extent they do so, must be a question of fact
for the Commissioners, the line we should draw being, that whatever
is necessary for ‘conveyance’ in the sense in which we have defined
it--being all capable of being measured by reference to the distance
travelled--is covered by the mileage rate. Whatever is properly
incidental, not to conveyance, but to the performance of the duty and
business of a carrier ... that is to say, is actually performed and
is done at a terminal station, may be made the subject of a separate
reasonable charge.
“How could the Legislature ever provide for every single station on
this line, for every terminal station, what was a proper charge? It
could only be done by limiting it, as it has done, by ‘a reasonable
sum,’ and it is for the Railway Commissioners to say what is a
reasonable sum, under the circumstances at each terminal station. ‘No
station is to be considered as a terminal station in regard to any
goods conveyed on the railways of the company unless such goods have
been received thereat direct from the consignor of such traffic, or
are directed to be delivered thereat.’ Therefore terminal stations
are recognised, and terminal charges are recognised distinctly.”
Sir Bernhard Samuelson observes that terminal charges are a
necessary corollary of the Foreign mileage rates,[44] the scientific
basis of which he so much approves; the equity of, and right to make
terminal charges is equally a corollary to the system upon which
the rates in this country have been fixed. The maximum charges for
the user of the road, the user of the truck, and the provision of
the engine are capable of being fairly measured by reference to the
distance travelled. They are, therefore, properly the subject of a
mileage rate. But the providing of station accommodation, and work
which the Railway Companies perform as carriers--as distinguished
from mere conveyance--have no relation to mileage. They must
reasonably be--as it has been held in the case of “_Hall_ v. _The
London Brighton and South Coast Railway Company_,” they legally
are--the subject of an additional charge.
We may here correct a common error. The opponents of terminal
charges are in the habit of speaking and writing of them as if the
companies claimed that they might at their own discretion demand
such payments as they thought fit.[45] The railway companies have
never contended that they were entitled to make arbitrary terminal
charges. Indeed, such a contention would be a legal absurdity.
On the contrary, they have always submitted that, while their
right to make those charges was undoubted, the amount must not
only be reasonable, but also be subject to review by the Railway
Commissioners under the 15th Section of the Regulation of Railways
Act, 1873. Sir Bernhard Samuelson is inaccurate in stating that
the railway companies proposed by their Bills of last Session to
make those charges subject only to their own discretion. While
strongly relying both upon their legal right and the justice of
their claim, the railway companies were willing to submit proposals
to the consideration of Parliament for a re-settlement of their
powers in this respect. But they expressly provided that the
Railway Commissioners should have power to hear and determine any
question or dispute which might arise with respect to the amount
or reasonableness of any terminal charge made by the company, and
that any decision of the Commissioners as to terminal charges should
be binding and conclusive on all Courts and in all proceedings
whatsoever;” words borrowed from s. 15 of the Regulation of Railways
Act, 1873.
[44] Report to Associated Chambers of Commerce.
[45] “The claim of railways to charge terminals would have to
be considered if mileage rates are adopted in principle. That
charge could in no wise be left to the discretion of the railways
themselves, as was proposed in the Bills of last Session.”--Sir B.
SAMUELSON.
A few details as to the law and practice on this subject in
Continental countries may be useful. And, first, as to Germany. When
the question of the introduction of a new tariff for the German
railways was under consideration, it was agreed that in previously
fixing the railway rates, sufficient consideration had not been
given to the expense incurred at the sending and receiving stations,
irrespective of the distance the traffic was carried. The result
of the calculations which were made was that those expenses should
be estimated at 12 marks per truck load of ten tons. This was
accordingly adopted as the standard figure for all goods carried
in wagon loads, while for small consignments the charge was fixed
at 20 marks. The addition of those normal allowances to the rates
on traffic to be carried short distances would have considerably
increased the charges previously made. It was accordingly agreed,
as a compromise, to graduate the terminal charges for short
distances; the graduation being simply the means of avoiding what
might have been considered a large increase in the railway rates,
in consequence of the adoption of the “reform tariff system.” These
terminals represent the working expenses at the forwarding and
receiving stations, the labour of receiving the goods from sender,
marshalling or shunting the trucks to the sidings set apart for the
delivery of the goods, and also the expense incurred by railway
companies for stationery and clerkage; but they do not include the
expense of loading and unloading, except in the case of _Grande
Vitesse_ and “_Piece Goods_,” They vary from 10d. per ton in full
truck loads of 10 tons, to 2s. per ton of general goods, and in the
special tariff classes, which include minerals, from 7¼d. in full
trucks of 10 tons to 1s. 2½d. per ton.
In Belgium there is a fixed charge of 1 fr. per ton of 1,000
kilogrammes for the use of station and for clerkage; but it does
not include loading and unloading, or booking, counting, or advice
of arrival of goods, for all of which services extra charges are
authorised and, in fact, made. This is practically a terminal charge.
In Holland the terminal charges vary from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 6d. per
ton in the truck load classes, and 2s. 6d. per ton in respect of
ordinary or “_piece_” goods in quantities of less than 5 tons. In
the latter case the cost of loading and unloading is included in the
terminal charge, but not in the truck load classes. In neither case
are weighing, counting, stamping freight note, labelling or advice
of arrival included. For all of these services extra charges are
made.
In France only small charges varying from 20 cents. per ton for
goods in full truck loads, to 35 cents. per ton for goods in less
quantities, are made for the use of stations, though there are
various charges for loading and unloading, booking, advice of
arrival, and other services. Either, therefore, the traffic for
short distances is carried at a loss, or no adequate return to cover
the use of station and conveyance is obtained--a course, which,
assuming the outlay upon a railway is entitled to a fair return, is
opposed to sound commercial principles.[46]
[46] NOTE.--The terminals authorised and charged in these countries
will be found fully set out in a tabular form in the Appendix III.
SECTION XII.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAYS IN ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT.
Sometimes it is asserted, although it is more often taken for
granted, that all railway rates on the Continent are more favourable
to traders than English rates. Upon this assumption is based the
contention that the reduction of the latter may fairly be demanded.
Whenever such statements have been carefully examined--_e.g._ in
the inquiry before the Joint Committee of 1872--they have been
proved to be erroneous. Nevertheless, they are still constantly
repeated. More than once it has been publicly stated that in
Germany, Holland, Belgium, &c., “rates are fixed on a scientific
basis, and an intelligible principle,” while in this country they
are “haphazard and estimates.” Seldom is there any attempt to make
good such assertions and criticisms. The report made by Sir Bernhard
Samuelson to the President of the Association of the Chambers of
Commerce of the United Kingdom on the “Railway Goods Tariffs of
Germany, Belgium, and Holland, compared with those of this country”
is an exception, and on that account is specially important. That
report endeavours to prove by figures that rates in this country
are excessive. It has been cited--though, probably, such was not
the intention of the author--as if it were an indictment of English
railways; and the purport of it is to show that English rates
ought to be reduced, and that, unlike the rates on the Continent
they are fixed on no proper basis. Now, even if the difference
between English and Continental rates were as great as Sir B.
Samuelson describes, no inference unfavourable to English railways
could be fairly drawn. No comparison could be useful which did not
take into account the fact that railways in Great Britain have
been constructed with private capital subscribed and expended
on the faith of definite powers conferred on the companies by
Parliament. Sir Bernhard Samuelson, however, passes lightly over
the dissimilarities which mar his comparison; the widely different
circumstances under which foreign lines were constructed; their much
smaller original cost per mile, and the fact that most of the lines
to which he refers were either constructed or assisted by the State,
have been purchased by it, or have received State guarantees. The
English railway companies obtained simply authority from Parliament
to purchase compulsorily the land required, and to construct
the necessary works.[47] On the other hand, the railways in the
countries to which his report relates were, to a great extent,
either originally constructed by the State, or the companies have
been assisted by contributions towards the cost of construction, or
a minimum rate of interest upon the capital provided and expended by
them has been guaranteed to them, or the lines have been afterwards
acquired by the State.
[47] There are some cases in Ireland in which Baronial Guarantees in
respect of portions of the capital of railways have been given.
It is remarkable that Sir Bernhard Samuelson’s report gives no
information as to the railways of France, though the nearest of the
Continental countries, and though many of her products compete with
ours. To correct this deficiency, it may be desirable to mention a
few facts. The French Government constructed the first railways
opened in that country or made advances for that purpose without
charging interest; and they have since made or purchased other
lines. In aid of the original lines for which concessions for 99
years were granted, the State in France contributed a vast amount,
as appears by the following statement:--
Amount contributed by the State as shewn at December
31st, 1882 £66,639,549
Divers contributions also given by towns to
the extent of 1,753,992
The Companies have themselves provided 340,421,032
------------
£408,814,573
Upon the State railways (that is, for lines now
worked by the Government) they have
expended to December, 1882 33,851,598
In addition to which divers subscriptions were
given by towns to the extent of 1,305,334
------------
£443,971,505
Out of which the State (as shown above) provided £100,491,147
============
The total amount was thus found in the following proportions:--
A.--By the State on lines
worked by the Companies 15 per cent.
On lines worked by the State 7·6 per cent.
----
22·6
Contributions made by towns, &c. 0·7 per cent.
B.--Capital provided by the Companies 76·7 per cent.
The total capital expended on French railways up to the end of
1884 had increased to £532,960,000,[48] of which sum the State had
provided £148,680,000, or 27·9 per cent.; in addition to which
the subscriptions given by towns amounted to ·8 per cent. Thus,
up to December 31st, 1884, the capital provided by the companies
themselves was not more than 71·3 per cent. of the whole. The
French Government have also guaranteed the dividend on four of the
great lines at rates varying from 7 to 12 per cent. Two other great
companies may pay 11 and 13·5 per cent. dividend respectively before
they can be called upon to construct any new lines; while all the
six companies may earn dividends varying from 10 to 22 per cent.
before they are bound to divide any surplus with the Government.
[48] This capital relates to the principal lines only.
A portion of the capital of each company is paid off annually beyond
the guarantee; and at the end of the period of concession the
railways will become the property of the State. The advances made to
the companies under the guarantees by the Government, with interest
at the rate of 4 per cent., are to be repaid out of any surplus
beyond the maximum dividends which may be paid. If at the end of 99
years, any of the companies still be in debt, the Government are to
be entitled to take without payment as much of the rolling stock
as may be required to repay the debt, as far as the value of the
stock may do so. By the conventions of 1883, the Government arranged
with the companies to which they had given guarantees, that when a
request to that effect is made by the State, new lines are to be
constructed up to the amount of their debts at the end of 1883.
In some cases this duty is incumbent only when the dividends paid
by the companies reach or exceed the maximum percentage already
mentioned. In addition to the large sum expended by the French
Government on, or towards the original construction of railways, the
total amount advanced to the companies to make up the guaranteed
dividends[49] amounted to December, 1883, to £23,592,000
and for the year 1884 to 2,250,000
-----------
£25,842,000
The interest on these advances amounted
to December, 1883, to 5,904,000
and for the year 1884 to 36,000
-----------
£31,782,000
===========
[49] The Report of the French railway Commission of Inquiry
appointed in 1880 states: “Our railway companies have been largely
subventioned for the construction of their lines, almost all receive
annual subsidies, without which they could not meet the charges of
their working expenses; all enjoy a monopoly which shelters them
from internal competition; we have the right to demand from them, to
force upon them, reforms that public and parliamentary opinion deem
indispensable.” And again--“ * * * * In certain countries, England
for example, where the system of liberty and commercial competition
is largely in vogue, it is right that the railway companies, who
have received nothing and from whom nothing is demanded by the
State, and who may be considered only as belonging to the category
of private merchants and manufacturers, should have greater freedom
in dealing with their traffic and tariffs than is enjoyed in this
country (France).”
But it is added: “It is not the same with Continental European
nations. The Governments of Belgium, Holland, Bavaria, the Grand
Duchy of Baden, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Russia, Sweden, and Norway
are wholly or in part proprietors of the railway system.”--_Appendix
31 to Report from the Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares)
1882, Vol. II., pages 453-4._
In France the State has not pursued in regard to railways a policy
strictly commercial. It has made great sacrifices to provide
railways, in the hope of securing to the country indirect ulterior
gains. For the sake of their development it has incurred great
expenses which excite in some minds grave anxiety.[50]
In Germany most of the railways are now the property of the
State.[51] In 1884, the various Governments owned 19,610 miles,
and they worked another 496 miles for the companies, leaving
only 2,505 miles out of a total of 22,611 to be worked by the
railway companies. Of the railways which are the property of the
State, about two-fifths were constructed, and the remainder were
purchased by it. Of the total capital outlay of £485,831,766 on
German railways, £437,728,471 has been expended by the State in
constructing or purchasing them, and £48,103,295 has been provided
by the companies themselves. The return upon the capital outlay of
the State railways has been--[52]
1880-1 4·87 per cent.
1881-2 5·01 ”
1882-3 5·22 ”
1883-4 4·86 ”
1884-5 5·06 ”
This shows an average for the five years of about 5 per cent. per
annum.
[50] “La dépense tout à fait stérile des 500 millions pour
racheter des lignes ferrées improductives, les exagerations du
projet Freycinet lors de sa naissance et les extravagances de
développements posterieurs qu’on lui a donnés, des sommes énormes
dépensées en des canals de transport, qui, pour beaucoup du moins,
font double emploi et jouissent d’aucun trafic, toute cette mauvaise
direction a absorbé les resources de l’État en sacrifices inutiles
et ne lui a pas laissé le loisir de supprimer l’impôt sur la
grande vitesse, les timbres sur les récepissés des chemins de fer,
et d’obtenir, par un juste retour, des réductions de tarifs qui
n’auraient été accompagnées d’aucune augmentation d’impôt.”--M.
LEROY-BEAULIEU in _L’Économiste Francais, February 27th, 1886_.
[51] It is generally assumed that the railways in Germany were
purchased with the view of more effectually utilising them, and the
rolling stock for military purposes. The Government in this country
are under no necessity to undertake the liability of acquiring the
railways and guaranteeing the dividends for such a reason; the
number of lines of railway and routes are so ample, and the number
of engines, carriages, and wagons so great, that any movement
required for the defence of the country can be carried out within
any reasonable time, while under the Regulation of the Forces Act,
1871, Her Majesty, by Order in Council, may empower any person or
persons, named in such warrant, to take possession of any railroad
and of the plant belonging thereto, and to use the same for Her
Majesty’s Service at such times and in such manner as the Secretary
of State may direct; and the directors, officers, and servants of
any such railroad, shall obey the directions of the Secretary of
State.
[52] See note, page 118.
In Belgium, out of a total mileage at the end of 1884 of 2,711
miles, the State owned 1,930, or more than 71 per cent. of the
railways. The outlay upon this mileage was as under:--
(_a_). Cost of railways actually purchased £36,668,915
(_b_). Amounts payable by annuities 12,442,804
(_c_). Capital expended on lines worked by State 3,900,653
-----------
£53,012,372
The interest paid by the Belgian Government on the above capital
outlay was--
(_a_). 4 per cent.
(_b_). 4, 4½ and 5 per cent.
(_c_). 4¾ per cent.
The gross receipts on the State railways for the year
1884 amounted to--Coaching £1,620,565
Goods 3,088,108
Sundries 98,971
----------
4,807,644
and the expenses to 2,871,268
----------
leaving net receipts £1,936,376
Upon a capital outlay of £53,012,372, these figures give an
average dividend of nearly 3¾ per cent. It would, therefore,
appear that the working of the State railways results in a loss
to the Government, which the public have to make up by increased
taxation.[53]
[53] In the Report of May 3, 1882, made by Sir H. Barron to the
then Minister for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) (part 4 of the
“Reports by Her Majesty’s Secretaries of Embassy and Legation on
Manufactures, Commerce, &c.,”) on the subject of the Belgian Budget,
the former stated that “The 5 years from 1876 each closed with a
deficit rising in 1881 to 6¼ million francs (£250,000), the main
explanation being the ever-increasing burden thrown on the Treasury
by the extension of the railway, which undertaking has ceased to
cover its charges and completely disturbed the financial equilibrium
of the State. The first lines constructed and worked by the State,
being great trunk lines, gave every year an increasing return
which enriched the Treasury. To these were first added conceded
lines, which had to be purchased from companies at high prices;
then secondary lines, whose traffic was unremunerative. After many
previous experiments, the accounts of the railway have been since
1878 drawn up on a new and presumedly more accurate principle. The
Treasury is now considered as the bankers of the railway; it is
assumed that all funds advanced by the former are chargeable with
an interest of 4 per cent., and repayable within ninety years.
According to this new method of book-keeping, it appears that the
railway contributed largely to the revenue until 1872 inclusively,
but that since that year it has, on the contrary, entailed an annual
loss. Thus, the deficit of 1881 is for the greater part (4,861,725
fr.) due to the insufficiency of the railway revenue. Fortunately
Belgium has a resource at hand.”
“The Minister of Finance in the debate on the Budget of Public
Works, points to that resource in the following pregnant words:
It is proved that the railway fails to cover its charges by
about five millions (£200,000). We are informed that this year
the deficiency may be seven millions; in 1883, possibly even ten
millions. What will it be in 1884? No one knows, but the progression
is ascending. Must we follow it without counting the cost? Must we
raise the tariffs or throw on the Treasury the burden caused by the
insufficiency of the railway receipts? _Either the railway must be
worked on a principle which shall allow it to cover its charges or
the taxpayers must make up the difference._”
He further added that in his report of 1876 he recommended “_a
raising of the tariff_.” Sir H. Barron goes on to state “_that
the inferior productiveness of the Belgian Railway was due to the
inadequate tariff, which, for passengers and merchandise, was much
lower than those prevailing in the rest of Europe_.” He further
remarks, however, that “notwithstanding all this _it has been
held_ that the experiment is a great success, and bears evidence
in favour of State ownership, because, as the railway is worked in
the interest of trade, &c., it is considered that the benefit thus
indirectly accruing to the public at large, is greater than that
which might be realised by aiming at a commercial profit for the
direct and immediate benefit of the taxpayers.”
The construction of railways in Belgium has, no doubt, developed
the commerce and industry of the country to a remarkable extent.
It was stated by Sir Bernhard Samuelson (page 9 of Report) that
the receipts of railways had increased from £1,815,000 in 1870 to
£4,880,000 in 1883, or 168 per cent.; but he omitted to point out
that the length of the railways had increased by more than 250 per
cent.
See the observation of M. Leon Say as to the tendency to reduce
railway tariffs to an unremunerative point when the State is the
owner.--_Le Rachat des Chemins de Fer, Journal des Economistes,
1881, p. 343._
In Holland also, the railways are owned to a large extent by the
State, to which belong 797 miles out of a total of 1,617 miles.
The State does not, as in Germany or Belgium, work its own lines.
It leases them upon certain conditions to companies, viz., to a
Company for working the State railways and to the Holland Company.
The companies provide the rolling stock and staff, and maintain the
line; but they do not execute “works of art” or repairs arising from
circumstances over which they have no control, such, for instance,
as war, inundations, landslips, &c. Materials for the execution of
works have to be conveyed at a very low rate. All rates must be
submitted to the Minister of Public Works for his approval; and
the mails must be carried free. From the gross receipts are made
deductions at the rate of £67 per mile of single, and £134 per mile
of double line per annum, which serve as a fund to cover repairs.
Eighty per cent. of the remainder is retained by the company. The
balance of the receipts belongs to the State. If, however, the
company’s percentage, plus the deductions, do not amount to £644 per
mile, the gross receipts are so apportioned as to yield that amount.
If the net profit of the company exceeds 4½ per cent. upon their
capital, the surplus up to 5 per cent. is divided equally between
the State and the company; and any further surplus, is distributed
in the proportion of four-fifths to the State and one-fifth to the
company. The total capital expenditure on the Dutch State Railways
to the 30th June, 1885, was:--
On lines worked by the Company for
working the State Railways £15,958,328
” ” Holland Company 3,477,914
-----------
£19,436,242
===========
The amount received in respect of dividend or interest for the year
from both working companies was £158,170 or about ·81 per cent on
the capital involved.
There is a remarkable difference in the cost of construction of
English and Continental lines--a fact of which Sir B. Samuelson
takes no adequate account when he says “the average cost of
construction has been considerably less in the case of German
railways than in that of our own.” Without citing many figures on
the point, it may be stated that at the end of 1884 the amount of
capital expended in the construction of railways in the United
Kingdom was £801,464,367, or £42,486 per mile of line opened; and in
England and Wales alone £665,055,879, or £49,854 per mile. If the
rates for carriage of goods and passengers were based solely on cost
per mile, those in force in the United Kingdom and England and Wales
respectively would exceed the rates of other countries to the extent
shown in the following table:--
--------------------------------------------------------------
|On the average cost in|On the average cost in
| the United Kingdom. | England and Wales.
----------------+----------------------+----------------------
France | By 45·41 per cent. | 70·62 per cent.
Germany | By 97·73 per cent. | 132·02 per cent.
Belgium (State) | By 54·67 per cent. | 81·13 per cent.
Holland | By 121·42 per cent. | 159·82 per cent.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not only has the construction of the railways in this country been
more costly, but private companies have accomplished a task which
has not yet been fulfilled in some Continental countries, even with
all the aid of the State, and which, if ever fully carried out, must
entail further liabilities upon the Governments of those countries.
In England private companies have not only made trunk lines, but,
to a degree unknown abroad, they have constructed branch lines,
penetrating into sparsely-peopled districts of the country, yielding
little traffic, and necessarily involving heavy working expenses and
loss of interest. Official figures show that private enterprise has
hitherto given one mile of railway to every
6·41 square miles in the United Kingdom,
4·36 ” ” England and Wales,
as compared with
10·42 ” ” France,
9·38 ” ” Germany,[54]
4·2 ” ” Belgium,
7·82 ” ” Holland.
It further appears from official statistics that the capital outlay
for every 1,000 inhabitants has been
£22,287 in the United Kingdom.
24,512 ” England and Wales,
13,977 ” France,
10,593 ” Germany,
11,365 ” Belgium,
7,252 ” Holland.
[54] NOTE.--The figures relating to the capital, revenue and
working expenses of the German Railways have been taken from the
“Statistische Nachrichten von den Eisenbahnen des Vereins Deutscher
Eisenbahn-Verwaltungen,” which differ in some respects from those
contained in statements obtained after going to press from the
Department of the German State Railways; the latter giving the
revenue for the working year 1884-5 as £50,735,165, the expenses as
£29,057,889, or 57·27 per cent. of the receipts. The balance would
yield a return of 4·51 per cent.
SECTION XIII.
WORKING OF ENGLISH AND CONTINENTAL RAILWAYS--COMPARATIVE FACILITIES
AFFORDED BY THEM.
So much for the strikingly different modes in which the English and
continental railways have been constructed; the one system a history
of unaided private enterprise, the other a history of a policy
pursued by great States with the resources of Imperial Exchequers,
and with English experience as a guide. Had railways in this
country received the same assistance as foreign lines, the cost and
working expenses being the same, the demand that the former should
have rates as low as the latter would not be unreasonable. But a
comparison of the facilities afforded here and on the Continent
to trades and production will not be unfavourable to the English
companies. It will be seen that, in the words of the late Professor
Stanley Jevons, “Taking all circumstances into account, England and
Wales are better supplied with railways than any other country in
the world,” whether we have regard to extent or efficiency.
In the first place, it is well known that the time occupied in
the conveyance of goods is less in this country than on foreign
railways. In France, for instance, the time allowed by the orders of
the Minister of Public Works, before forwarding for the purpose of
loading, is one day; for the transit of goods over a distance of
93 miles, there is another clear day--making two days; and for a
distance of 170 miles, three days, exclusive of the time necessary
for collection and delivery. In other words, traffic delivered at
a station on a Monday, must be at the disposal of the consignee on
the Thursday morning following at any station within 150 kilometres
(93 miles) distant from the sending station. If the goods have to
be “delivered to domicile”--that is, at the consignee’s residence
or place of business--the time allowed by the tariff for delivery
is one day--that is, in the case supposed, they must be “delivered
to domicile” during the Thursday. No doubt, goods requiring speedy
transit can be forwarded by _grande vitesse_ (ordinary passenger
train), a service which is equivalent in respect of speed to a large
portion of the goods trains in England. But the rates charged for
conveyance by _grande vitesse_ in France are about three times as
much as the highest class rate by goods train.
In Germany, the general regulations prescribe the maximum time
for delivery of goods as follows: for “_Eilgut_” (goods carried
by passenger train), one day for loading and forwarding, and one
day for every 300 kilometres (186 miles) or part thereof. For
“_Frachtgut_” (goods train traffic), two days may be taken for
loading and forwarding, and for the first 100 kilometres (62
miles) one day; for every part of each subsequent 200 kilometres
(124 miles) one day. The time of transit is assumed to commence at
midnight following the date of the stamp on the consignment note.
In Holland, the time allowed for “express goods” before forwarding
is 24 hours, and for conveyance for each 186 miles or part thereof,
another 24 hours.[55] For general goods the time allowed before
forwarding is 48 hours and for the conveyance, 48 hours for each 186
miles or part thereof. As in Belgium, the time allowed for transport
commences at midnight following the stamping of the consignment note.
[55] For further particulars see Appendix III.
In Belgium all goods carried under the conditions of tariff No.
3[56] (which applies to consignments exceeding 4 cwt. in weight)
are due at the receiving station three full days after delivery of
the goods to the company. This does not apply if there is a glut
of traffic; and another full day is allowed if the railway company
deliver by cart.
[56] For particulars see Appendix III.
Goods may by law be kept in some of the countries which have been
mentioned for two days before being despatched; two clear days are
allowed for 186 miles or part thereof; and when rapid transit is
required, as in case of express goods, the rates are much higher
than those charged by goods train. In this country, on the other
hand, goods are, as a rule, forwarded on the day or during the night
of the day on which they are brought to the station; and between
important places within 200 miles, goods are usually delivered
the following day. As a matter of general practice, the maximum
time allowed abroad is not fully occupied; but it is recognised
by law. This advantage which the foreign railways possess implies
others, which can only be fully appreciated by persons practically
acquainted with the mystery of railways. The ample time allowed
before forwarding and in transit permits of considerable economy in
the use of wagons. Opportunities are afforded for making full wagon
and full train loads. This circumstance, too, reduces train mileage.
A further consequence is the diminution of claims for compensation
and in other items of expense. The speed of the trains being slow,
and the time allowed in transit being great, larger loads are
practicable.
Liability for compensation for delay or damage in transit is
another element to be taken into consideration in any comparison
of rates. In Belgium and Holland, where rates are especially low,
the liability to pay compensation is very limited. Belgian railway
companies are not responsible in the case of goods carried under the
conditions of tariff No. 2, unless specially insured, for a delay
of one day after the time allowed for delivery, or in the case of
goods carried under tariff No. 3 (all consignments above 4 cwts.),
for a delay of two days after the time allowed for delivery. Their
responsibility for delay in excess of these times is, moreover,
limited to one-tenth of the carriage for every day’s delay. Goods
are considered to be lost if not delivered after the expiration
of fifteen days. For loss or damage to merchandise, carried by
goods train, the companies are responsible only to the extent of
75 cents. per kilogramme (3½d. per lb.). The responsibility of the
companies in Holland, for delay to ordinary goods beyond 24 hours,
after the time allowed for delivery, is, up to 72 hours, limited to
one-fourth, up to 8 days one-third, and beyond that period one-half
of the freight. For whole or partial loss the maximum liability is
£2 10s. per cwt. To enable the public to recover, either in the case
of delay or loss, the full value of goods, they must be insured at
specified rates. These particulars show the advantages of foreign
railways in this respect; the difference may be made still clearer
by citing a few figures as to the working of this system of legal
limitation of liability in Belgium and Holland and of the virtually
unlimited liability in force in this country. In Belgium the amount
paid for compensation for delay or damage to merchandise traffic
carried on the State railways in the year 1884 was £7,772, or ·25
per cent. on a revenue of £3,088,109, and on the Dutch Rhenish
Railway it was £274, or ·16 per cent., on a revenue of £173,079.
In the United Kingdom the amount was £202,400, or, ·54 per cent.,
and in England and Wales £17,140, or, ·55 per cent., on a revenue
from merchandise and mineral traffic of £37,670,592 and £31,973,011
respectively. Of these last amounts £15,528,656 and £13,398,433 were
in respect of minerals on which no compensation is, in practice,
payable.[57]
[57] In Germany and France the law as regards liability is
practically the same as in this country.
The rates for merchandise in Holland and Belgium are the lowest
of any of the countries. Independently of the construction of the
lines being cheaper, the wages paid to servants less, and the
State being the principal proprietors, natural causes favour this.
From the flatness of those countries and their consequently having
exceptionally level railroads, the average loads far exceed what
can be carried in the United Kingdom. In Holland 450 to upwards of
500 tons are the usual train loads. Even on the Northern Railway
of France an average load of 400 to 450 tons is common. Owing
to the gradients of the lines and the speed of the trains, such
weights are rarely carried in this country. The consequence of the
paying load being less is, of course, that the working expenses are
proportionately greater.
Branch lines in this country have, as has been already stated, been
carried into sparsely populated districts to an extent unknown in
France, Germany, Belgium or Holland, and the English railways afford
greater facilities by reason of a larger proportion of the lines
being double.
The following table shows the state of things in 1884:--
-----+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------
| | Double Line. | Single Line. |
Year.| |--------+--------+--------+--------+ Total
| | Length.| Per | Length.| Per | mileage.
| | |Centage.| |Centage.|
-----+-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----------
1884 |United Kingdom | 10,239 | 54·28 | 8,625 | 45·72 | 18,864
1884 |England and Wales| 8,504 | 63·75 | 4,836 | 36·25 | 13,340
1884 |France | 7,470 | 38·84 | 11,765 | 61·16 | 19,235
1884 |Germany | 6,724 | 29·74 | 15,887 | 70·26 | 22,611
1884 |Holland[58] | 435 | 26·90 | 1,182 | 73·10 | 1,617
1884 |Belgium | 943 | 34·80 | 1,768 | 65·20 | 2,711
-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----------
It is well known that train service in this country is much more
frequent than in any other country. How great is the difference will
be seen by comparing the average number of train miles run per mile
of railway, per square mile of country, and per 1,000 people.
TRAIN MILES.[59]
----+------------------+---------------+--------+------+---------------
| | PER MILE | PER SQUARE | PER 1,000
| | OF RAILWAY. | MILE. | PEOPLE.
YEAR| +---------------+-------+-------+-------+-------
| |Pssngr.| Goods.|Pssngr.| Goods.|Pssngr.| Goods
----+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
1884| United Kingdom | 7,588 | 6,715 | 1,185 | 1,048 | 3,981 | 3,523
1884| England and Wales| 9,114 | 7,991 | 2,090 | 1,832 | 4,481 | 3,929
1884| France | 4,644 | 2,792 | 415 | 250 | 2,222 | 1,336
1884| Germany | 3,997 | 2,610 | 426 | 278 | 1,971 | 1,287
1884| Holland | 4,941 | 1,752 | 600 | 213 | 1,773 | 629
1884| Belgium | 4,819 | 4,783 | 1,149 | 1,140 | 2,258 | 2,241
----+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------
[58] Including 90 miles on German and Belgian Frontier.
[59] The mixed train mileage introduces a disturbing element, but
the calculations have been made as accurately as possible.
In comparing the results of the working of the German and English
railways, Sir B. Samuelson states in the report already quoted,
that “The proportion of net to gross receipts is not unfavourable to
the German lines.” He adds that “it is all the more remarkable when
it is considered that the tariffs for both passengers and goods are
much lower; the cost of materials, generally speaking, higher; and
that large sums are in Germany defrayed out of revenue, which would
here be charged to capital.”[60] The meaning, apparently, of these
observations is that railways in this country ought to be worked
more cheaply than in Germany; that passenger fares and merchandise
rates are lower in that country, that nevertheless the receipts
are satisfactory; that the rates for goods should be here reduced;
and that, thereby, better results would ensue. Let us put these
statements to the test of figures,[61] and, first, as to cost of
working, no doubt a material element in the comparison of rates. For
the year 1884 the gross receipts of all the railways in the United
Kingdom and in England and Wales respectively amounted to--
-------------------+------------+------------
| UNITED | ENGLAND AND
RECEIPTS. | KINGDOM. | WALES.
-------------------+------------+------------
| £ | £
Coaching | 30,030,450 | 25,584,196
Goods and Minerals | 37,670,592 | 31,973,011
Miscellaneous | 2,821,601 | 2,541,804
+------------+------------
Total | 70,522,643 | 60,099,011
-------------------+------------+------------
[60] See page 5 of Sir B. Samuelson’s report. It is not known to
what the observation as to charges to capital can refer. The larger
(if not all) companies in this country charge to revenue portions
of the cost of improvements to stations, sidings, &c., which might
strictly be charged to capital. In the published returns of the
working of German railways, there is nothing to show to what extent,
if any, the cost of new works is charged to capital.
[61] The number of passengers, or tons of goods are not reliable for
the purpose of comparison, inasmuch as a passenger or a ton of goods
carried over two railways appears as two passengers or two tons,
and therefore after various lines are amalgamated, the returns may
show an apparent decrease when in fact there may have been an actual
increase in traffic.
United England and
Kingdom. Wales.
The working expenses to £37,217,197, £31,732,486
or 52·77 and 52·80 per
cent. respectively; and the
net receipts to £33,305,446, £28,366,525,.
The gross receipts yielded an average of--
------------------+-------------------+--------------------
| UNITED KINGDOM. | ENGLAND AND WALES.
------------------+---------+---------+---------+----------
| |Per Train| |Per Train
|Per Mile.| Mile. |Per Mile.| Mile.
------------------+---------+---------+---------+----------
| £ | s. d. | £ | s. d.
Coaching Receipts | 1,592 | 4 2 | 1,918 | 4 2½
Goods and Minerals| 1,997 | 5 11 | 2,397 | 6 0
------------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------
The gross receipts of all the French railways, except the small
local lines, for the same year amounted to:--
Coaching £16,214,240
Goods and Minerals 24,743,480
Miscellaneous (about) 960,000
-----------
41,917,720
The expenses to 56·45 per cent. of
the receipts 23,662,160
-----------
and the net receipts to £18,255,560
The results of the working of the French railways for the year may
be briefly shown thus:--
Per mile. Per train mile.
Coaching £889 3s. 10d.
Goods and Minerals 1,356 9s. 8½d.
The results of the working of the German railways for the year 1884
were as under:--
Total of
State Railways. Private Railways. all Railways.
Gross receipts £44,621,504 £4,127,569 £48,749,073
Expenses 24,267,185 2,206,937 26,474,122
----------- ---------- -----------
Net receipts £20,354,319 £1,920,632 £22,274,951
The expenses being 54·38, 53·47, and 54·31 per cent., respectively,
on the receipts--
The average amount per mile and per train mile of the following
receipts:--
Coaching receipts £12,989,912
Goods and Mineral 33,591,675
Miscellaneous 2,167,486
-----------
£48,749,073
being
Per mile. Per train mile.
Coaching receipts £575 3s. 4¼d.
Goods, &c. £1,486 9s. 10¾d.
The private railway companies in Belgium are not required to furnish
the Government with returns similar to those supplied to the Board
of Trade in this country. It is, therefore, difficult to obtain
complete information on this head. But the results of the working of
the State railways, which, as has been explained, form more than 71
per cent. of the whole system of the country, are accessible, and
may for this purpose be taken as fairly representative.
Gross receipts of the State railways for the year 1884, viz.,
Coaching £1,620,565
Goods and Minerals 3,088,109
Miscellaneous 98,970
----------
£4,807,644
and the expenses to 59·72 per cent. £2,871,268
----------
leaving net receipts £1,936,376
Thus, the average amount of the gross receipts per mile, and per
train mile respectively, is
Per mile. Per train mile.
Coaching £840 3s. 1¾d.
Goods and Minerals £1,600 5s. 11½d.
On the State, Holland, Dutch Rhenish, Dutch Central, and Brabant
Railways, which comprise more than 90 per cent. of the whole railway
system of Holland, the gross receipts for the year amounted to--
Coaching £1,137,687
Goods and Minerals 859,797
Miscellaneous[62] 90,270
----------
2,087,754
the working expenses to 1,137,595
or 54·49 per cent. ----------
and the net receipts to £950,159
The gross receipts yielded an average of--
Per mile. Per train mile.
Coaching £744 3s. 0¼d.
Goods and Minerals 562 6s. 4¾d.
[62] It is assumed that some receipts for cattle traffic are
included in this item.
The foregoing figures are summarised for convenience of comparison
in the following tabular form:
----------------+-----------------------------+--------------+--------
| GROSS RECEIPTS. | |
+--------------+--------------+ PER CENTAGE |
COUNTRIES. | | per train | OF GROSS | % of
| per mile. | mile. | RECEIPTS.[63]|Expense
+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+ on
| [64]| | [65] | | [66] | |Receipts
|Coach-| Goods,|Coach- |Goods,|Coach- |Goods,|
| ing. | &c. | ing. | &c. | ing. | &c. |
----------------+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+--------
| £ | £ | | | | |
United Kingdom | 1,592| 1,997 | 4/2 |5/11 | 42·58 | 53·42| 52·77
England & Wales | 1,918| 2,397 | 4/2½ |6/0 | 42·57 | 53·20| 52·80
France | 889| 1,356 | 3/10 |9/8½ | 38·68 | 59·03| 56·45
Germany | 575| 1,486 | 3/4¼ |9/10¾ | 26·79 | 67·29| 54·31
Belgium (State) | 840| 1,600 | 3/1¾ |5/11½ | 33·71 | 64·23| 59·72
Holland. State, |} | | | | | |
Dutch Rhenish, |} | | | | | |
Holland, Dutch |} 744| 562 | 3/0 ¼ |6/4¾ | 54·49 | 41·18| 54·49
Central and |} | | | | | |
Brabant |} | | | | | |
Railways. |} | | | | | |
----------------+------+-------+-------+------+-------+------+--------
[63] In calculating these per centages, the “Miscellaneous” receipts
have been included in the gross receipts.
[64] Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such
other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be
classified.
[65] Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such
other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be
classified.
[66] Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such
other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be
classified.
From the above table it appears that the percentage of the working
expenses upon the gross receipts on all the railways in Germany
is 54·31 per cent., and on the State lines in Belgium 59·72 per
cent. as compared with 52·77 per cent. in the United Kingdom. But
analysing these figures, we find that the relative proportion of the
whole receipts from the passenger traffic of the German railways
is 26·79 per cent., and of the Belgian State railways 33·71 per
cent., as compared with 42·58 per cent. in the United Kingdom. This
difference, due to the greater development of passenger traffic in
this country, considerably affects the comparison of the results of
working. The ratio of working expenses in the United Kingdom, where
the proportion of net revenue from passenger traffic is greater, and
that from goods is less than in Germany or Belgium, is reduced to
the advantage of the goods traffic. If the revenue from passenger
traffic in the year 1885, on the railways in the United Kingdom,
had only been the same per train mile as in Belgium, the working
expenses in the case of the former would have been raised to 59
per cent. The profits derived from passenger traffic are not only
advantageous to the shareholders, but beneficial to the trade of the
country. They have enabled the companies to pay moderate dividends,
and also to carry merchandise traffic at a less profit. Any
reduction in the revenue from passengers would cripple the railway
companies, and prevent them being in as good a position to provide
the accommodation, afford the facilities, and charge such rates as
are required to develop the trade of the country.
Sir Bernhard Samuelson’s reference to passenger fares calls only
for a few remarks. Taking the average fares charged in this country
per mile to be 2d. first, 1½d. second, and 1d. third class,
with a reduction in return tickets, there is no very substantial
difference between those fares and the fares charged in Holland and
Germany (except that in the latter country there is a fourth class
on some trains). Nor do fares here (including the Government duty),
materially differ from those charged on the railways in France. The
fares in Belgium are, for the reasons already stated, lower than
those in this country. But if to the nominal fares is added the
charge which would be made for the same weight of luggage as that
which is carried free in this country, the difference is reduced.[67]
The receipts per train mile from coaching traffic are 3s. 1¾d.
and 3s. 4¼d. in Belgium and Germany respectively, as against
4s. 2d. in the United Kingdom; a difference which, assuming that
only the same receipts per train mile on the present train mileage
were earned by the railways in this country, would involve a loss of
revenue from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 per annum. On the other hand,
the receipts per train mile, from merchandise and mineral traffic,
in the other countries, compare very favourably with those in the
United Kingdom; they are 9s. 8½d. in France, and 9s. 10¾d.
in Germany, as compared with 5s. 11d. in the United Kingdom. Even
in Belgium and Holland, where rates are low, the receipts are 5s.
11½d. and 6s. 4¾d. respectively; results which, considering
the low transit and other rates in the former, and the transit and
special bargain rates in the latter, are satisfactory. Such figures
show that, in addition to the advantages of better gradients and
slower speed of trains, wagons and trains are more fully loaded
than in this country; they show, too, that notwithstanding the low
tariff rates in many cases, the additional charges referred to in
Appendix I., page vii--over and above the tariff rates--must yield
a substantial revenue. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that
traffic receipts in this country include, to a much greater extent
than in those countries, charges for loading and unloading.
[67] The passenger fares, excluding and including the charges for
luggage, are:--
SCALE PER MILE OF PASSENGER FARES,
Excluding charge for luggage.
----------+--------------+-----------------------------
Distances.| FRANCE. | BELGIUM.
----------+----+----+----+--------------+--------------
| | | | Express. | Ordinary.
| | | +----+----+----+----+----+----
| 1st| 2nd| 3rd| 1st| 2nd| 3rd| 1st| 2nd| 3rd
| | | | | | | | |
10 Miles | 191| 143| 105| 150| 110| 080| 117| 095| 065
50 Miles | 191| 143| 105| 148| 109| 073| 116| 088| 059
100 Miles | 191| 143| 105| 147| 109| 073| 116| 087| 058
----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
----------+--------------+----------------------------------
Distances.| HOLLAND. | GERMANY.
----------+----+----+----+--------------+-------------------
| | | | Express. | Ordinary.
| | | +----+----+----+----+----+----+----
| 1st| 2nd| 3rd| 1st| 2nd| 3rd| 1st| 2nd| 3rd| 4th
| | | | | | | | | |
10 Miles | 160| 130| 080| 176| 129| 091| 153| 117| 082| 017
50 Miles | 160| 130| 080| 169| 127| 089| 150| 113| 075| 038
100 Miles | 160| 130| 080| 169| 127| 089| 150| 113| 075| 038
----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----
Including charge for luggage.
----------+--------------+-----------------------------
Distances.| FRANCE. | BELGIUM.
+----+----+----+--------------+--------------
| | | | Express. | Ordinary.
| | | +----+----+----+----+----+----
| 1st| 2nd| 3rd| 1st| 2nd| 3rd| 1st| 2nd| 3rd
| | | | | | | | |
10 Miles | 225| 177| 105| 197| 157| 127| 165| 142| 112
50 Miles | 216| 160| 105| 176| 129| 083| 145| 107| 069
100 Miles | 215| 159| 10 | 175| 129| 078| 145| 107| 063
----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
----------+--------------+----------------------------------
Distances.| HOLLAND. | GERMANY.
+----+----+----+--------------+-------------------
| | | | Express. | Ordinary.
| | | +----+----+----+----+----+----+----
| 1st| 2nd| 3rd| 1st| 2nd| 3rd| 1st| 2nd| 3rd| 4th
| | | | | | | | | |
10 Miles | 220| 180| 110| 204| 148| 094| 181| 136| 082| 047
50 Miles | 202| 165| 101| 197| 146| 089| 179| 132| 075| 038
100 Miles | 202| 165| 101| 197| 146| 089| 178| 132| 075| 038
----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
In the passage which we have quoted it is said that “the cost of
materials” on the Continent is, “generally speaking, higher.” One
cannot help observing the inconsistency of maintaining that the
competition of the other countries by enjoying low railway rates
injures the export trade of this country, and that the railways
here have the advantage of obtaining fuel and rails cheaper. Is
the latter statement clearly well-founded in view of the fact that
German rails have been laid on some of the English lines, and that
engines have also been supplied by Continental firms competing with
home makers? The truth, probably, is that for the purposes of the
present comparison the prices of coal and materials at the pits
and works in each country may be taken to be about the same; that
here, as abroad, there is great diversity of circumstances; that
in each country some companies, whose railways are near collieries
and ironworks, have the benefit of the lowest prices, while others
obtain their supplies by sea or rail at an enhanced cost.
The chief item of expense in the working of railways, and that which
is of the greatest importance in making any comparisons intending
to show that railway rates in this country should be reduced,
is that of wages; an item of expenditure ignored in the above
statement. Here they are generally higher, and the hours of labour
are fewer, than in any of the other countries referred to. It is
difficult to make an absolutely trustworthy comparison of the actual
sums paid in salaries and wages. Different systems of payment exist;
the allowances made to the staff on the Continental lines in the way
of house rent, &c., and the amounts contributed by the companies
to the superannuation and other benevolent funds ought not to be
forgotten; such contributions, especially in France, amount in a
year to a considerable sum. On the whole, however, we may arrive at
an approximately correct estimate by taking the total amounts paid
in salaries and wages and the average amount paid per man per year.
The following is the percentage of wages as compared with the total
working expenses.[68]
[69] England 60·33 per cent.
[70] France 46·75 ”
[71] Belgium 57·92 ”
[72] Holland 48·57 ”
[68] GERMANY.--The “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen”
shows the expenses for salaries and wages paid by the German
railways (exclusive of 38,166,114 marks under the heading of
shunting expenses, as it is not known whether this item includes
anything for wages) to be 48·46 per cent. of the gross working
expenses, but as this information differs from that otherwise
obtained, and it is not known whether the latter includes any staff
expenses in respect of new works, it is not considered desirable
to base any conclusions on either set of figures until they are
verified.
[69] These figures may not be absolutely accurate, but every effort
has been made to make a fair comparison. To obtain them, each of the
twelve largest companies, owning in the aggregate 11,538 miles, have
supplied the information.
[70] The six great companies.
[71] The State railways, from the published report.
[72] The State, Holland and Dutch Rhenish railways, from information
kindly supplied by them.
The hours of labour are an element in the matter. We do not go into
detail, or endeavour to make a precise comparison. But it will
not be disputed that, as a rule, they are fewer here than on the
Continental lines. Here, too, there is, comparatively speaking, very
little Sunday duty, which is far from being the case abroad. On
most of the railways in this country it is the practice to provide
at the company’s own cost clothing for such of their staff as wear
uniform. The Dutch companies also supply some members of their
staff with clothing. But in France, Belgium, and, generally, in
Germany, the cost of clothing supplied to the uniform staff, which
has been omitted in the comparisons, is deducted from their wages by
instalments.
For the reasons already stated, there is no small difficulty in
comparing the rate of wages per day or per week. Although in this
country annual allowances such as bonuses for good conduct are
known, wages are, as a general rule, fixed sums per day or per
week, increasing according to the importance of duties and service.
On some of the Continental railways the allowances are in some
instances a considerable percentage of the fixed wages.[73]
The following table has been prepared from the best information that
could be obtained on the subject, and it may fairly be taken as an
approximate estimate of the average wages paid:--[74]
[73] See Note on page 136.
[74] NOTE.--There is a difference between the statements of revenue
receipts and working expenses given in the “Statistische Nachrichten
Von den Eisenbahnen” and those otherwise obtained, but not of a
material character for the present purpose.
---------------------------+--------------+---------------
GRADE. | ENGLAND. | FRANCE.
---------------------------+--------------+---------------
Engine Drivers per day | 5/0 to 7/6 | 4/0 to 4/8
| |
Firemen ” | 3/0 to 4/6 | 3/0 to 3/4
| |
Guards, Passenger per week | 21/0 to 40/0 |}
| |} 20/0 to 38/6
Guards, Goods ” | 22/0 to 32/6 |}
| |
Signalmen ” | 18/0 to 30/0 | 18/6 to 32/0
| |
Porters, Passenger ” | 15/0 to 17/6 |}
| |} 14/0 to 17/0
Porters, Goods ” | 18/0 to 24/0 |}
| |
Shunters ” | 16/0 to 26/0 | 14/0 to 17/0
| |
Platelayers ” | 15/0 to 23/0 | 12/8 to 20/0
---------------------------+--------------+---------------
--------------------------+--------------+---------------+--------------
GRADE. | GERMANY. | BELGIUM. | HOLLAND.
--------------------------+--------------+---------------+--------------
Engine Drivers per day | 3/3 to 5/0 | 3/3 to 3/7 | 3/4 to 4/2
| | |
Firemen ” | 2/6 to 3/3 | 2/0 to 2/5 | 2/2 to 2/11
| | |
Guards, Passenger per week|} | |
|} 15/0 to 26/0| 18/6 to 34/0 | 13/0 to 21/0
Guards, Goods ” |} | |
| | |
Signalmen ” | 16/0 to 23/0 | 12/0 to 17/6 | 14/0 to 22/0
| | |
Porters, Passenger ” |} | |
|} 16/0 to 20/0| 13/0 to 17/6 | 14/0 to 17/6
Porters, Goods ” |} | |
| | [76]|
Shunters ” | [75] | 15/0 to 29/0 | 15/0 to 22/0
| | |
Platelayers ” | 12/8 to 14/6 | 12/0 to 17/6 | 12/0 to 14/0
--------------------------+--------------+---------------+--------------
[75] Shunting Masters 20/0 to 26/0.
[76] Includes Foremen.
Passing over the fact that in this country porters to attend
to passengers’ luggage are provided by the companies, that the
class goods rates here include loading and unloading, which they
frequently do not abroad, and that, generally speaking, a greater
number of men are employed on the railways in this country, there
remains the fact, that the difference between the percentage of
wages paid on foreign railways, as compared with the total cost
of working the railways, and the percentage of wages paid in the
United Kingdom is upwards of £4,000,000. There is, moreover, a
great difference in the amount paid per person in England, as is
shown by the returns of the twelve companies who have supplied the
information, viz.:--[77]
£ s. d.
England 62 10 0
France 47 12 0
Belgium 41 2 3
Holland 34 3 10
[77] NOTE.--ENGLAND--On some railways the 1st Class drivers are
allowed a premium of £10 a year for good conduct, and both drivers
and firemen are allowed lodging money, and also Sunday labour at
the rate of 8 hours per day. Signalmen are allowed bonuses for good
conduct from £1 to £5 per annum, and guards are allowed travelling
expenses from 1/6 to 2/6 per day and night.
FRANCE--Premiums to drivers and firemen are allowed for economy of
fuel, regularity of service, and lodging expenses. Guards receive
lodging money when they have to sleep out and a percentage on the
excess fares collected, amounting together to about £4 15s. a year.
Sums varying from £2 to £10 per annum are allowed to the inferior
grades of staff who have to reside in Paris and other large towns
where living is dear.
GERMANY--The staff are classified into 5 divisions, all of which
(except Class 1, which includes Ministers, Presidents, &c., who do
not receive allowances), in addition to their fixed wages, receive
allowances for house rent, which vary according to the town in which
they reside. The towns are also classified into six divisions as
under:--
---------------+----+---------+-------+-------+-------+-----
| A | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
---------------+----+---------+-------+-------+-------+-----
Staff in Class | £ | £ s. d.| £ s.| £ s.| £ s.| £
Do. 2 | 60 | 45 0 0 | 36 0 | 30 0 | 27 0 | 27
Do. 3 | 45 | 33 0 0 | 27 0 | 24 0 | 21 0 | 18
Do. 4 | 27 | 21 12 0 | 18 0 | 15 0 | 10 16 | 9
Do. 5 | 12 | 9 0 0 | 7 4 | 5 8 | 3 12 | 3
---------------+----+---------+-------+-------+-------+-----
Head guards are in the 4th Class, under guards 5th, 1st Class
Signalmen 4th, and Porters and shunters 5th. Engine drivers, firemen
and guards are allowed expenses when away from home. Porters are
not paid by the railway companies, but are allowed to charge the
passengers fixed fees.
BELGIUM--Engine Drivers and firemen are allowed premiums for economy
of fuel and regularity of working, amounting to as much as £20
a year for drivers and £10 for firemen. Guards are also allowed
bonuses for regularity of working.
HOLLAND--Enginemen and firemen are allowed premiums for economy in
fuel, varying from 3d. to 2/-per day; and a mileage allowance in
addition. Guards also receive an allowance over a certain number
of miles travelled. Porters are not employed by the companies; but
in return for the privilege of being allowed on the stations, they
clean windows, sweep offices, &c., and perform other services for
the companies.
The amount paid per person by the English railway companies, whose
lines comprise 11,538 miles, a gross revenue of £52,904,920, and
the total aggregate expenses of which amount to £27,731,876, would
probably be too high an average for the United Kingdom. Assuming,
however, the difference in the amount per person paid in England as
compared with the other countries to be an average of only £10,
and that the cost of wages in this country could be reduced to that
extent, there would be a saving of about £3,500,000 per annum.[78]
So much for the grounds put forward to justify a reduction of rates.
Far from proving that working expenses are less on lines in this
country, and that this forms grounds for reducing the rates, these
figures clearly prove the opposite to be the case.
[78] The “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” shows an
average of £39 6s. 5d. per person on the German railways, whereas
the other information, referred to at foot of page 133, gives the
following average per person:--
Traffic and General Services. £ s. d. Superintendence, Clerks, &c.
76 18 0 Workmen 34 4 0 Workshops. Superintendence, Clerks, &c. 95 0
0 Workmen 45 12 0 An average of £53 8s. 0d. per person.
NOTE.--In Great Britain the costly systems of interlocking and
signalling, and the block working, so as to interpose between trains
an interval of space instead of time, are in operation to a very
much greater extent than on the Continent, thus involving a larger
staff of trained men.
_Rates and Taxes on Railways in England and on the Continent._
A large item in the expenses of railway companies in this country is
the amount paid for rates and taxes other than the Government duty.
The matter is too important to be passed over in general terms. In
the United Kingdom the amount paid by all the railway companies
for rates and taxes in the year 1884 was no less than £1,937,691.
This is exclusive of Government duty to the extent of £398,577 and
of income tax on the net receipts amounting to about £800,000.
Including these items the total sum paid for rates and taxes for the
year was £3,136,268. In England and Wales alone the amount paid for
that year was for
£
Rates and Taxes 1,664,660
Government Duty 369,677
Income Tax (about) 700,000
----------
£2,734,337
==========
From the year 1871 inclusive to the end of 1884, the following sums
were paid in the United Kingdom for
£
Rates and Taxes 19,995,570
Government Duty 9,313,678
Income Tax (about) 7,600,000
-----------
£36,909,248
===========
No such payments as these are made to the Governments or parishes
by the railway companies in Belgium or Holland, or in respect of
the State lines, in Germany. In Belgium, for instance, the railway
companies pay no rates and taxes of any kind except small sums to
towns for local rates (which amounted in the aggregate to only
£1,468 for the year 1884), and a license duty or income tax to the
State of 2 per cent. on the annual profits amounting for the same
year to £4,406, a total of £5,874 for the year.
In Germany the whole amount paid by the railways for rates and taxes
in the same year was £261,221, together with a State tax of £26,209,
paid under the head of “tax on profits,” by the independent and
semi-independent companies only, and not by the State railways. This
made a total for the year of £287,430.
The railway companies in Holland do not pay any rates and taxes,
except a license duty to the State of 2 per cent. on the dividends
paid to the shareholders. Indeed, Article No. 8 of the Convention of
the 24th and 25th May, 1876, for the working of the State railways
by the Dutch Company, stipulates that the railways shall be exempt
during the period of the Concession, from all Government taxation or
payments to towns or parishes.
In France the condition of things is different.[79] Although there
is no taxation on merchandise traffic, the payment in respect of
passenger and _grande vitesse_ traffic, which is added to and levied
with, the railway charges, is heavy, and amounted in the year to
£4,683,937.
The other taxes paid by the railway companies themselves, or by the
holders of shares, &c., amounted to £1,490,415, making together a
total for the year of £6,174,352.[80]
[79] See “Aucoc, Cours d’Administration,” vol. 3, p. 345.
[80] The taxes in France consist of:--
1. A duty of frs. 23·20 per cent. on passenger fares and _grande_
_vitesse_ traffic, added to the railway charges, amounting to
£3,436,164. 2. A stamp duty of 35 cents. on “_recépissés_” and 70
cents. on consignment notes, also charged in addition to the rates,
amounting to £1,116,588. 3. A stamp duty of 10 cents, for every
receipt of 10 frs. and above, amounting to £60,328. 4. A charge of
15 cents. for postage of advice note of arrival of goods, amounting
to £70,857. 5. A tax of 10 frs. per kilometre for double lines and 5
frs. per kilometre for single lines, plus 5 per cent. on the value
of the premises occupied by Agents, and 2 per cent. on warehouses,
workshops, &c. 6. License, excise, stamp, customs, and bond duties.
7. A tax of 120 to 150 frs. per kilometre worked, for the expense of
auditing and superintendence. 8. A stamp duty on shares and bonds of
1 per cent. of the nominal capital. 9. An income tax of 3 per cent.
on interest and dividends.
Such are a few of the differences in the position and rights of
English and Continental railways, and those who depreciate the
former should explain whether they wish to adopt all the practices
of foreign lines--the features unfavourable to traders as well as
the advantages, slow transit, very limited liability for loss of
goods or damages to them, and exemption from fiscal burthens which
English railways bear--and how the cost of working, especially in
the item of wages, can be reduced.
SECTION XIV.
HIGH RATES AND THEIR EFFECT ON TRADE.
It is not uncommon to attribute much of the existing depression of
trade to rates charged by railways. Before the Royal Commission
which lately investigated the subject, many statements to that
effect were made. Against their accuracy there is a strong
presumption in the fact that trade has been in recent years
depressed elsewhere, and in countries supposed to enjoy lower rates
than exist here. When particulars of the exact nature of these
complaints are furnished--which is seldom done--it is found for
the most part that there is no real connection of cause and effect
between railway charges and depression in trade; that the latter
revives or declines independently of the former; that for the most
part, the evils complained of are beyond the power of railway
companies to remove; and that the complaints are contradictory. Two
of the forms which these complaints have taken may be noted. One is
the statement that[81] differential rates operate in favour of the
foreign producer, and that works are being removed from inland to
seaboard towns to save carriage.[82] Obviously this grievance could
be wholly abated only by free carriage; producers on the sea coast,
near points of shipment, inevitably possess certain advantages.
These again could only be materially reduced by differential rates
somewhat lessening the inland producer’s geographical disadvantages;
and to this remedy the persons loudest in their complaints most
strongly object. Another form which such complaints take may be
noted. The following extract is from a paper sent in by the Mining
Association of Great Britain to the Royal Commission on Trade:--
“The heavy trades of coal and iron are also unduly burdened by the
high rates and tolls charged by the Railway Companies. They are
slowly but surely killing the trade of the country by their high
charges and by the preference given to foreign countries.”[83]
[81] Mr. L. Cohen--Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th
May, 1886.--Hansard, vol. cccv., 428.
[82] See Second Report, Minutes of Evidence, Mr. Muller, page 38, Q.
1889.
[83] Compare Sir Lowthian Bell’s statement. “The results of my
enquiry on the continent of Europe, and in the United States,
justify the assertion that foreign iron manufacturers as a rule
possess no advantage over ourselves in these respects ... That
railway accommodation for the transport of fuel, ore, and limestone
is afforded on terms somewhat cheaper in Great Britain than those
charged on the Continent for like distances.” (_Appendix to part 1
of Second Report of the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade,
pages 345-361._)
Charges against Railway Companies are, generally, of a vague
character. But this statement is sufficiently definite to make it
possible to test its accuracy by comparing the rates charged for
conveying the articles referred to, viz., iron and coal, to some of
the chief ports in this country, with the corresponding rates of
other neighbouring countries. The following is a comparison of a
few of the rates charged for coal and iron in England with those to
Belgian and German Ports:--
COMPARISON OF RAILWAY RATES CHARGED FROM VARIOUS BELGIUM AND
-----+-----+--------------+------------+--------+--------------------
| | | | Rate |
|Arti-| From | To | per | Remarks.
| cle.| | | ton. |
-----+-----+--------------+------------+--------+--------------------
| | | | s. d. |
ENG- |Coal |Cwmbran |Newport | 0 4⅜ |In owner’s wagons.
LAND | | | | |
| |Risca |Newport }| 0 6 |In owner’s wagons.
| | | (Old Dock)}| |
| | | | |
| |Flimby |Maryport | 0 6⅔ |In Company’s wagons,
| | | | | including tipping.
| | | | |
| |Camerton |Workington | 0 7 |In owner’s wagons,
| | | | | including tipping.
| | | | |
| |Cockett |Swansea | 0 9 |In owner’s wagons,
| | | | | including tipping.
| | | | |
| |Gilgarran |Whitehaven | 0 10 |In Company’s wagons,
| | | | | including tipping.
| | | | |
| |Dynevor |Swansea | 0 10 |In owner’s wagons,
| | | | | including cost of
| | | | | shipment.
| | | | |
| |Coedcae |Cardiff | 0 11½ |In owner’s wagons.
| | | | |
| |Mountain } |Cardiff | 1 0 |In owner’s wagons.
| | Ash } | | |
| | | | |
| |Felling |Monkwear- }| 1 0¾ |In Company’s wagons,
| | | mouth Dock}| | including cost of
| | | | | shipment.
| | | | |
| |Abertillery |Newport }| 1 1 |In owner’s wagons.
| | |(Old Dock) }| |
| |Londonderry } |Tyne Dock | 1 2½ |In Company’s wagons,
| | Colliery } | | | including cost of
| | | | | shipment.
| | | | |
| |Burradon | ” ” | 1 4¾ |In Company’s wagons,
| | | | | including cost of
| | | | | shipment.
| | | | |
| |Collieries in}| | |
| | St. Helen’s }|Garston | 1 5 |In owner’s wagons,
| | District }| | | including use of
| | | | | dock and tipping.
-----+-----+--------------+------------+--------+--------------------
COALFIELDS TO THE NEAREST PORTS IN ENGLAND, GERMANY.
-------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------------+---------
| | | | Rate per ton |
| | | | of 1000 |
| | | | Kilogrammes. |
|Article.| From | To +--------+--------+
| | | | 100 | 10 | Remarks.
| | | | tons. | tons. |
-------+--------+-----------+------------+--------+--------+---------
| | | | s. d. | s. d. |
BELGIUM|Coal |Bascoup |Antwerp | 1 7¼ | 2 1¼ |including
| | | | | | wagons.
| | | | | |
| | ” |Ghent | 1 7¼ | 1 10 |
| | | | | |
| |Jemappes |Antwerp | 1 11 | 2 5½ |
| | | | | |
| |Mons |Antwerp | ... | 2 4 |
| | | | | |
| |Charleroi |Antwerp | ... | 2 3 |
| | | | | |
| |Fontaine- |Antwerp | 2 | 3 |
| | l’Evêque | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | 50 | 10 |
| | | | tons | tons |
| | | | | |
GERMANY|Coal |Piestag |Bremen | 3 5 | ... |
| | | | | |
| |Gelsenkir- |[84] | | |
| | chen | Amsterdam | 4 11 | 5 9 |For quan-
| | ” |[85]Antwerp | 5 3 | 6 6 |tities of
| | | | | |200 to 300
| |Gelsenkir- |Hamburg | 5 7 | 7 7 | tons
| | chen | | | |forwarded
| | | | | |day or by
| | | | | |one train,
| | | | | |the rate
| | | | | | from
| | | | | |Gelsen-
| | | | | |kirchen to
| | | | | |Amsterdam
| | | | | |is 4/6 per
| | | | | |ton, and
| | | | | |to Antwerp
| | | | | | 5/-
| | | | | | per ton.
| | | | | |
| | GROUP I. | | | |
| | | | | |
| |Camen, &c. |Bremen and | | |
| | | Hamburg. | 5 6 | 7 1 |
| | | | | |
| | GROUP II. | | | |
| | | | | |
| |Bochum, &c.|Bremen and | | |
| | | Hamburg. | 5 7 | ... |
| | | | | |
| | GROUP III.| | | |
| | | | | |
| |Meiderich |Bremen and | | |
| | &c. | Hamburg. | 5 8 | ... |
| | | | | |
FRANCE |} | | | | |
HOLLAND|} No Coal exported. | | |
-------+--------+-----------+------------+--------+--------+--------
[84] For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one
train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and
to Antwerp 5/-per ton.
[85] For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one
train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and
to Antwerp 5/-per ton.
COMPARISON OF RATES FOR
----+--------+--------------+------------+-------+--------------------
| | | | Rate |
|Article.| From | To | per | Remarks.
| | | | ton. |
----+--------+--------------+------------+-------+--------------------
| | | | s. d.|
ENG-|Iron |Workington |Whitehaven | 1 2 |In Company’s wagons.
LAND|(Class A.) | | |
| | | | |
| |Cwmbran |Newport | 1 4 |In Company’s wagons.
| | | | |
| |Merthyr |Cardiff | 2 2 |In Company’s wagons.
| | | | |
| |Darlington |Middlesboro’| 1 9 |In Company’s wagons.
| | | | |
| |Ebbw Vale |Newport }| 1 9⅛|In Owner’s wagons.
| | | (Old Dock)}| |
| | | | |
| |Dowlais |Cardiff | 2 7½|In Company’s wagons.
| | | | |
| |Briton Ferry |Swansea | 2 6 |
| | | | |
| |Cwmbran |Cardiff | 2 10 |
| | | | |
| |Tondu |Cardiff | 3 4 |In Company’s wagons.
| | | | |
| |Darlington |Tyne Ports | 3 4 |(4-ton lots.) Ditto.
| | | | |
| | ” |Gateshead | 3 9 |In Company’s wagons.
| | | | |
| |Tondu |Swansea | 3 9 |In Company’s wagons.
| | | | |
| |Briton Ferry |Cardiff | 3 9 |In Company’s wagons.
| | | | |
| |Darlington |Sunderland | 3 9 |In Company’s wagons.
----+--------+--------------+------------+-------+--------------------
IRON AND STEEL GOODS.
----+-----+-----------+-------+----------------------------------------+
| | | | Rate per Ton of 1,000 Kilogrammes. |
----+-----+-----------+-------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|Art- | From | To | | 10 | 5 | >5 | | 10 | 5 | >5 |
|icle.| | | |tons|tons|tons| |tons|tons|tons|
| | | |s.d.|s.d.|s.d.|s.d.| |s.d.|s.d.|s.d.|
----+-----+-----------+-------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
BEL-|Iron |La Louvière|Antwerp| |3 7 | | |Ghent|3 5 | | |
GIUM| |Charleroi | ” | |3 8 |5 1 |8 9 | ” |3 8 | | |
| |Liege | ” | |3 9 |5 4 |9 9 | ” | | | |
| |Marcinelle | ” | |3 8 | | | | | | |
| | 10% added if loaded in covered trucks | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
O.= Open. C.= Covered.
-----------+-----------+----+---------+---------+---+---------+--------+
Steel in | | | 10 Tons.| 5 Tons. | | 10 Tons.| 5 Tons.|
bars and | | | O.| C.| O.| C.| | O.| C.| O.| C.|
bundles. +-----------+----+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+---+
Iron in | |Ant-| | | | | | | | | |
in bars |Chatelineau|werp|3 8|4 4|5 2|6 9| ” |3 8|4 1|5 2|6 9|
and sheets|Marchienne | ” |3 8|4 0|5 1|6 7| ” |3 7|4 0|5 1|6 6|
unpolished,|Acoz | ” |3 9|4 1|5 4|7 0| ” |3 9|4 2|5 4|7 0|
Bandages |Seraing | ” |3 10|4 3|5 5|7 3| ” |4 1|4 6|5 8|7 9|
for wheels|Thy-le-Chateau ”|3 9|4 2|5 4|7 2| ” |3 10|4 2|5 4|7 1|
Castings, |Athus | ” |4 11|5 4|6 5| | ” |4 11|5 6|6 7| |
Rails,
Castiron Tubes,
Nuts, Bolts,
Fish-plates, &c.
-------------+-------------------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| From | To | 10 | 5 | | 10 | 5 |
| | |tons |tons | |tons |tons |
-------------+-------------------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Anchors and |Clabeg |Antwerp|4 3 |5 4 |Ghent|4 4 |5 6 |
Cables, |Tubize | ” |4 3 |5 4 | ” |4 3 |5 4 |
Carriage |La Louvière | ” |5 0 |6 4 | ” |4 8 |5 11 |
brakes, |Monceau-sur-Sambre | ” |5 0 |6 6 | ” |5 0 |6 5 |
Springs, |Marchienne | ” |5 1 |6 7 | ” |5 1 |6 6 |
boilers, |Chatelineau | ” |5 2 |6 9 | ” |5 2 |6 9 |
Ironmongery,|Acoz | ” |5 4 |7 0 | ” |5 4 |7 0 |
&c. &c. |Liege | ” |5 4 |7 0 | ” |5 8 |7 8 |
|Angleur | ” |5 5 |7 2 | ” |5 8 |7 9 |
|Seraing | ” |5 5 |7 3 | ” |5 8 |7 10 |
|Thy-le-Chateau | ” |5 5 |7 2 | ” |5 4 |7 1 |
|Tilleur | ” |5 5 |7 2 | ” |5 8 |7 9 |
COMPARISON OF RATES[86] FOR IRON AND STEEL GOODS--_continued_.
-------+--------+-----------+------------+-----+-----+-----+------------
| | | | 10 | 5 | |
|Article.| From | To |tons.|tons.|Under|
| | | +-----+-----+ 5 | REMARKS.
| | | |Open.|Open.|tons.|
-------+--------+-----------+------------+-----+-----+-----+------------
| | | |s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|
HOLLAND|Iron |Gouda |Rotterdam | ... |2 0 | ... |Excl loading
|Rails, | | | | | and unloading.
|Bar, | ” | ” | ... | ... |3 0 |Incl ”
|Steel, |Haarlem |Amsterdam | ... |2 0 | ... |Excl ”
|Iron, | ” | ” | ... | ... |2 4 |Incl ”
| &c. | ” |Rotterdam | ... |3 6 | ... |Excl ”
| | ” | ” | ... | ... |4 2 |Incl ”
| |Utrecht |Amsterdam | ... |2 4 | ... |Excl ”
| | ” | ” | ... | ... |4 4 |Incl ”
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |Under|
| | | | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| | | |tons.|tons.|tons.|
GERMANY|Iron |Peine |Bremen | 6 8| 9 1|19 5|
|(Bar, |Oberhausen |Amsterdam | 5 4|10 4|16 6|
|Sheet, |Dortmund | ” | 6 4|11 0|20 11|
|Coarse | ” |Bremen | 6 5|13 1|28 1|
|Iron and|Oberhausen | ” | 6 11|14 0|30 2|
|Steel |Dortmund |Rotterdam | 6 7| ... | ... |
|Goods |Cologne |Antwerp | 7 6| ... | ... |
|Tin |Dusseldorf |Antwerp | 8 5| ... | ... |
|Plates, |Benrath | ” | 8 10| ... | ... |
|Galvan- |Duisbourg | ” | 9 4| ... | ... |
|ized |Schwerte |Bremen | 6 6| ... | ... |
|Iron |Essen |Antwerp | 9 10| ... | ... |
|Wire, |Schalke | ” |10 0| ... | ... |
|&c. |Herdecke |Bremen | 6 8| ... | ... |
| |Bochum |Antwerp |10 4| ... | ... |
| |Haspe |Bremen | 6 10| ... | ... |
| |Herdecke |Hamburg | 9 1| ... | ... |
| |Dortmund |Antwerp |11 0| ... | ... |
| |Schwerte |Bremerhafen | 7 11| ... | ... |
| |Bochum | ” | 8 2| ... | ... |
| |Schwerte |Hamburg | 8 11| ... | ... |
| |Essen | ” | 9 2| ... | ... |
| |Haspe | ” | 9 2| ... | ... |
| |Osnabruck |Antwerp |14 7| ... | ... |
| |Dillingen |Bremerhafen |15 3| ... | ... |
| |Castrop |Stettin |15 10| ... | ... |
| |Burbach |Bremerhafen |15 10| ... | ... |
| |Brebach | ” |16 0| ... | ... |
| |Herdecke |Stettin |16 2| ... | ... |
| |Essen | ” |16 4| ... | ... |
| |Dillengen |Hamburg |16 5| ... | ... |
| |Duisbourg |Stettin |16 8| ... | ... |
| |Nerdingen | ” |17 4| ... | ... |
| |Hanover |Antwerp |18 0| ... | ... |
| |Rothe Erde |Stettin |19 6| ... | ... |
| |Neunkirchen| ” |20 2| ... | ... |
| |Burbach | ” |20 8| ... | ... |
| |Dillengen | ” |21 4| ... | ... |
FRANCE | No export traffic. | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[86] NOTE. The truck load rates are for open trucks. Extra is
charged for tarpaulins if the goods are required to be covered.
Such figures are a conclusive answer to charges of the sweeping
character we have quoted. They are a warning of the peril of
generalizing from a few hastily collected local instances.
The owners of some inland collieries and manufactories, not
so favourably situated as their rivals, might have reason to
complain--there would be plausibility in the statements we have
quoted--if English coal and iron were inferior to foreign, and could
not bear the same charges as foreign products, or if collieries and
iron works, near the sea, were unable to supply more coal and iron
than they now do. Neither supposition is true. The house and steam
coal raised at some of the English collieries named in the foregoing
tables is probably the best in the world. The iron and steel are
equal, if not superior, to any produced; and the districts in which
the collieries and works are situated can (if only there were the
demand, which, unfortunately, there is not) produce much more than
they do. In these circumstances, with rates so favourable as those
which are quoted, there appears to be absolutely no ground for the
crude allegation that railway rates are the cause of the diminished
exportation of either coal, iron, or steel.[87]
[87] The inflated prices charged in 1873-4 led to the establishment
of new collieries in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, which raise
about 6,000,000 tons per annum; this, with the increased output of
the then existing collieries, is equal to an increase of about 50
per cent. of the previous tonnage raised in these counties which,
with about 30 per cent. increase in other parts of the country, has
prevented colliery proprietors obtaining a reasonable profit since
1875, and probably will do so until the demand overtakes the supply.
As regards the conveyance of minerals and goods, there is no sign of
decline of trade, far less that it is “slowly, but surely killed by
high rates and tolls.” Taking three tests: receipts from minerals
and goods, tonnage conveyed and amount produced--it will be seen
that the figures stated in Appendix II. indicate no decline. The
volume of trade is larger, lower prices may rule; but this will
scarcely be attributed to the action of rates.
Even when foreign rates seem lower, the difference is often more
apparent than real. With few exceptions the English rates for
merchandise traffic include the charges for loading and unloading,
collection and delivery, and all the other services connected with
conveyance. On the other hand, the foreign rates are exclusive
of collection and delivery, and of the various other services of
booking, weighing, advising, stamping freight note, &c., and also of
the cost of loading and unloading, except in the case of part loads
in Belgium, where the rates include compulsory charges for loading
and unloading.[88]
[88] See Appendix I., page vii.
In judging of the effect of rates in encouraging foreign
competition, one circumstance must not be lost sight of. If railways
in this country do not carry all species of merchandise traffic at
as low rates per ton per mile as some of those charged on railways
in countries where, not only has the cost of construction been less
than here, but where the lines are owned or subsidised by the State,
such a fact is not conclusive. To determine how far rates charged in
this country really affect the ability of manufacturers to compete
with foreign rivals, the charges per ton per mile must not alone be
considered. The _gross rate per ton_ from the place of production
to the port of export is important. A manufacturer cannot fairly
say that he is prevented from competing with his foreign rivals by
rates less in the aggregate than those paid by the latter. Otherwise
one whose works were situated within 20 miles of a sea-port, and
who paid 1¼d. per ton per mile for the conveyance of his goods,
might with equal justice say that he could not compete with another
manufacturer whose works were 50 miles from the port of shipment,
and who paid only a 1d. per ton per mile. 2s. 1d. is less than 4s.
2d., however the sums may be made up. Now, such superiority of
situation English manufacturers, as a rule, must from the nature of
things enjoy. A glance at a map will show that in England no such
distances have to be traversed to get to the seaboard as in Germany,
France, and, in some instances, Belgium. In England there is no
place 100 miles distant from the coast, and so numerous are the
ports, and so near to them, relatively speaking, are the great coal
districts and centres of other industries and manufactures, that
producers of coal are more favourably situated, and other producers
are, in general, more favourably situated than those on the
Continent, especially as compared with those of France and Germany.
To illustrate this fact, a few examples of various manufacturing
centres may be given.
------------------------+---------------------------------------------
| ENGLAND.
+---------------------------------------------
| PORTS.
+---------------------------------------------
|Liverpool.
| |Hull.
| | |Grimsby.
| | | |Goole.
Places | | | | |Barrow.
of | | | | | |London.
Production. | | | | | | |Bristol.
| | | | | | | |Harwich.
-------------+----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----------
| | | | Miles. | | | |
Hardware, |Birmingham| 97 | .. | .. | 112| .. | 111| 90 |
Cutlery, &c.|Sheffield | 73 | 58 | 69 | 36| .. | 161| |
| | | | | | | | |
Agricultural |Ipswich | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 21
Machinery | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Cotton, |Manchester| 31 | 90 | .. | 68 | 88 | 183| |
Woollen, |Leeds | 75 | 51 | 90 | 38 | 94 | 186| |
Drapery, and |Bradford | 71 | 60 | 82 | 44 | 85 | 191| |
Cloth Goods |Trowbridge| | | | | | | 24 |
-------------+----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----------
------------------------+---------------
| HOLLAND.
+---------------
| PORTS.
Places +---------------
of |Amsterdam.
Production. | |Rotterdam.
-------------+----------+----+----------
| | Miles.
Hardware |Gouda | 32 | 13
Manufactured |Haarlem | 14 | 42
Iron |Utrecht | 22 | 33
Goods and |Tilburg | 70 | 44
Machinery | | |
| | |
Cotton, |Deventer | 70 | 95
Woollen |Hengelo | 94 | 113
Goods, &c. |Enschede | 99 | 118
|Almelo | 97 | 116
|Oldenzaal |161 | 120
|Amersfoot | 27 | 47
|Leiden | 32 | 24
|Eindhoven | 76 | 67
-------------+----------+----+----------
------------------------+---------------------------------------------
| FRANCE.
+---------------------------------------------
| PORTS.
+---------------------------------------------
|Treport.
| |Havre.
| | |Dunkirk.
| | | |Boulogne.
Places | | | | |Rouen.
of | | | | | |Dieppe.
Production. | | | | | | |Honfleur.
| | | | | | | |Calais.
| | | | | | | | |Bordeaux.
-------------+----------+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---------
| | | | Miles. | | | | |
Cotton, |Amiens | 51 | .. | .. | 76 | | | | |
Woollen, |Roubaix | .. | .. | 56 | | | | | |
Velveteen, |Tourcoing | .. | .. | 58 | | | | | |
Drapery, |Paris | .. |142 |189 |156 | 83|103|143|184|
and Fancy |St. | | | | | | | | |
Goods. | Quentin |106 | .. |125 |131 | ..| ..| ..| ..|140
|Rheims | .. | .. | .. |176 | | | | |
|Elbeuf | .. | 55 | | | | | | |
-------------+----------+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---------
------------------------+---------------
| BELGIUM.
+---------------
| PORTS.
Places +---------------
of |Antwerp.
Production. | |Ghent.
-------------+----------+----+----------
| | Miles.
Hardware, |Acoz | 73 | 74
Cutlery and |Clabecq | 44 | 45
Agricultural |Chatelin- | |
M’chin’ry, | eau | 69 | 69
&c. |Marchienne| 65 | 64
|Angleur | 76 | 97
|Louvain | 31 | 51
|Liége | 74 | 95
|Tubize | 44 | 44
|Charleroi | 66 |
Cotton, |LaLouvière| 61 | 53
Woollen |Monceau- | |
Drapery | sur- | |
Goods, &c. | Sambre | 63 | 62
|Verviers | 90 |110
|Dinant | 72 | 90
|Loth | 38 | 43
|Courtrai | 67 | 30
|Alost | 31 | 18
-------------+----------+----+----------
----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------
| | GERMANY.
| +----------------------------------
| | PORTS.
| +----------------------------------
| |Bremen.
| | |Hamburg.
| | | |Bremerhafen.
| | | | |Stettin.
| | | | | |Antwerp.
| | | | | | |Amsterdam.
| | | | | | | |Rotterdam.
| Places | | | | | | | |Gust-
| of | | | | | | | |avs-
|Production.| | | | | | | |burg.
----------------------+-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
| | Miles.
| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
Hardware, Iron, Steel,|Dortmund |147|217|186|381|164|143|153|191
Goods, Cutlery, &c. |Essen |158|227|196|403|147|124|133|180
|Solingen |190|259|229|424|144|156|165|154
|Oberhausen |159|229|197|412|141|116|125|176
|Dillingen |359|428|397|566|262|307|304|137
| |
Agricultural Machinery|Dusseldorf |179|248|217|425|124|136|145|157
and other Machinery |Strasbourg |449|490|487|563|304|384|381|156
|Vienna |632|619|670|496|745|759|759|300
|Darmstadt |311|351|349|440|278|305|302| 19
| |
Cotton, Woollen Goods,|Elberfield |176|245|214|409|142|152|161|160
&c. |Barmen |173|242|211|406|144|154|163|162
|Berlin |187|178|234| 84|485|394|414|289
|Crefeld |184|253|222|435|117|132|130|163
----------------------+-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
Such natural disadvantages foreign countries have, by special rates,
sought to diminish, but they cannot be wholly effaced.
It is a curious circumstance that in the discussion of the problem
of railway rates on the Continent, wholly different language is
employed with reference to English railways. Here, it is common to
hold up foreign railways as models of cheapness and efficiency;
there, in the discussions which have taken place in France and Italy
on the same subject, the opposite course has been pursued. English
railways have been extolled as worthy of imitation; they have often
been praised for the very qualities in which it has been alleged
in recent discussions that they are wanting. Can both views be
right? Is not this deprecation of home railways, this vague praise
of foreign lines, sometimes an example of a common artifice of
controversy? Is it not often an illustration of the tendency to
treat _omne ignotum pro magnifico_? Very different from this loose,
unverified deprecation is the opinion of those foreign observers who
have carefully examined the question. This might be illustrated by
many official documents; but the following quotation from a report
of M. Richard Waddington to the Chamber of Deputies may suffice:--
“Comparison between the French and foreign rates has often been made
in Parliament, and the defenders of our tariff have presented it as
favourable to our French companies; but this comparison can only
justly be made, provided the conditions of delay and distance are
taken into consideration. Now, in England, the delays are extremely
short, merchandise which leaves Manchester in the evening being
delivered in London next day, slow goods trains hardly existing, and
the consignee placed rapidly in possession of his goods, avoiding
the loss of interest which, under the French system, tends to
increase the amount of charges. On the other hand, in view of a
well-known principle, the longer the distance the lower the charge
per kilometre, but the average distance of 135 kilometres (84 miles)
in the French system is greater than the average distance travelled
on the railways of Great Britain, of Belgium, and of Alsace-Lorraine.
From the figures which have been already quoted, and the documentary
evidence which we attach, we are led to conclude that the conditions
and rate of carriage of merchandise in France are less favourable
than those by which our nearest neighbours are benefited; therefore,
far from being able to share the optimist view to which we have
already alluded, we fear that we can only report that the comparison
is really unfavourable.”[89]
[89] _Appendix 31 to Report from Select Committee on Railways (Rates
and Fares), 1881-2, Vol. II._
Such facts are familiar to foreign merchants and traders; and it
might be well in future discussions of the comparative merits
and efficiency of English and Continental railways, to gather
information as to the latter from persons who are conversant with
their working, and not from those who can know them only imperfectly
and indirectly, and who may have an interest in praising them to the
disadvantage of the former.
If high rates impede the progress of trade it must be by raising the
prices of commodities, and so diminishing the demand for them, or by
seriously reducing the profits of producers. Have those who complain
of the effect of rates on prices established the existence of either
of these results? They have had before them, as a rule, only a few
special instances of unfavourable rates. They have ignored the mass
of cases in which the charge for conveyance is a trifling element
in price. They have not, as would be but fair, taken a large group
of articles, and noted how insignificant is the cost of transport
as compared with other charges, how small is the rate of profit of
the railways as compared with the charges of the manufacturers and
distributors. Here it is not right to stand merely on the defensive;
we are well warranted in saying that if, fortunately, trade is not
more depressed than it is, we owe this in no small degree to the
efficiency of the railway system which has aided the manufacturer
and producer in their difficulties. Economists are agreed that wages
and salaries must bear some relation to cost of living, and must
eventually rise if that becomes permanently dearer. Everywhere, but
in great towns especially, railways have prevented the rise in the
cost of provisions. They have made it possible for people to obtain
food from great distances at low prices, and thus for employers to
obtain labour at prices which might not have been possible but for
the cheapness of provisions. The few figures given in the following
table may be instructive:--
FRESH MEAT is carried to London from:--
Distance. Rate per Rate per Rate per
Miles. ton. stone of 8 lbs. lb.
d. d.
Aylesbury 42 20/- C. & D. 0·857 ·107
Grimsby 154 40/- 1·714 ·214
Castle Cary 120 40/- 1·714 ·214
Norwich 115 40/- 1·714 ·214
Ipswich 70 29/2 1·250 ·156
York 188 55/- 2·357 ·295
Aberdeen 516 67/6 2·893 ·362
Stromness 776 90/- 3·857 ·482
POTATOES (Old), CARROTS, PARSNIPS, TURNIPS, are carried to London
from:--
Distance. Rate per ton, Rate per Rate per
Miles. S to S. cwt. lb.
d. d.
Banbury 76 8/9 5¼ ·047
York 188 15/- 9 ·080
Selby 174 13/4 8 ·071
Chippenham 94 10/10 6½ ·058
Aberdeen 516 30/- 1/6 ·160
Sunderland 269 18/4 11 ·098
GREEN VEGETABLES are carried from Cookham to London, 27 miles, at
11/8 per ton, C. & D. in one ton lots, or 7d. per cwt.
BACON is carried from Calne to London, 99 miles, in one ton lots
at 22/6 per ton; 1/1½d. per cwt., or ·12d. per lb.
CHEESE is carried from Chippenham to London, 94 miles, at 27/6
per ton, 1/4½ per cwt., or ·147d. per lb.; and from
Cirencester to London, 95 miles, at 23/4 per ton, 1/2 per
cwt., or ·125d. per lb.
MILK is carried from
Shrivenham to London, 72 miles } for 1d. per imperial
Swindon ” 77 ” } gallon.
FISH is carried to London at the following rates (per lb.):--
-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------------
| WICK. | WHITBY. | GRIMSBY. |
| 749 Miles.| 244 Miles.| 154 Miles.|
|-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------------
| By | | By | | By | |
|Pass-| By |Pass-| By |Pass-| By |
Description. |enger|Goods|enger|Goods|enger|Goods|
|Train|Train|Train|Train|Train|Train|
-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------------
| d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d. |
Class 1. Cured }| | | | | | |
Cod, Ling and }| | | | | | |
White Herrings }| ... | 0·27| ... | 0·16| ... | 0·14|minimum 1 cwt.
in brine }| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Class 2. Cured }| | | | | | |
Red Herrings and}| | | | | | |
all other salted}| | | | | | |
or dried fish }| ... | 0·27| ... | 0·18| ... | 0·16|
(except Cod }| | | | | | |
and Ling) }| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Class 3. Crabs, }| | | | | | |
Fresh Cod, Ling,}| | | | | | |
Haddocks, }| | | | | | |
Whiting, Skate, }| | | | | | |
Halibut, }| | | | | | |
Mackerel, Plaice}| ... | 0·29| ... | 0·21| ... | 0·18|The rates for
and Coal Fish; }| | | | | | | classes 1,
Eels, Flounders,}| | | | | | | 2, 3, and
Sprats in any }| | | | | | | 4 include
state }| | | | | | | collection
| | | | | | | and delivery
Class 3a.--Ditto | 0·43| ... | 0·21| ... | 0·18| | The rates
| | | | | | | for classes
Class 4.--Salmon }| | | | | | | 3a, 4a, and
(in boxes) and }| | | | | | | 5, are S.
Soles, Oysters, }| | | | | | | to S.
Lobsters, and }| ... | 0·40| ... | 0·29| ... | 0·25|
Shellfish, not }| | | | | | |
otherwise }| | | | | | |
classified }| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Class 4a.--Ditto | 0·54| ... | 0·29| ... | 0·25| ... |
| | | | | | |
Class 5.--Fresh }| | | | | | |
Fish of all }| | | | | | |
descriptions, }| 0·70| ... | 0·29| ... | 0·25| ... |
not otherwise }| | | | | | |
classified }| | | | | | |
-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------------
We now touch a question which comprehends most of those already
discussed. When it is stated, as it often is, that the rates charged
by the railway companies in this country are generally too high,
what exactly is meant? Is it contended that shareholders should be
content with smaller dividends than they receive? Let us note the
facts. The average dividend in the year 1884 was only 4¼ per
cent.; in 1844 it was considered by the Legislature that, at least,
10 per cent. should be earned by the shareholders. In the United
Kingdom the average rate of dividend paid during the last 14 years
on the capital expended on the construction of railways--which, as
already shown, was, at the end of 1884, £801,464,367, and in England
and Wales £665,055,379--was only 4·38 per cent. For the year 1884,
out of a total of £298,980,000 of ordinary capital, £48,000,000
paid no dividend at all. As an illustration of the moderate return
on the shareholders’ capital, it may be mentioned that the Great
Western Railway Company, which owns, or jointly owns, 2,496 miles of
railway, has during the last 30 years only paid an average dividend
of £3 15s. per cent. per annum.
The meaning of the statement cannot be that, as compared with the
dividends of other industrial companies, those of railways are too
high. The facts are all the other way.
If a comparison is made of the percentage on capital earned by
Banks, Insurance, Gas and Water Companies, some of which possess
monopolies in a strict legal sense, and not merely in the loose
popular acceptation of the word, as applied to railways, it will
be seen that these returns are far in excess of those derived
from railway capital; that not only is the average dividend, but
the maximum dividend higher, and that there are fewer instances
of shareholders obtaining no returns. Upwards of sixty Banks pay
dividends ranging from 10 to 15 per cent., and twenty from 15 to 20
per cent.; thirty-four Insurance Companies pay from 10 to 15 per
cent., and twenty-three over 15 per cent.; and ninety-three Gas
and Water Companies pay dividends ranging from 5 to 15 per cent.
The average dividends of Banks are 11·83 per cent., of Insurance
Companies 12·45 per cent., of Gas Companies 10 per cent., and of
Water Companies 5·73 per cent. In face of the above figures, and of
the prospects which were held out to those who invested the capital
with which the railways have been constructed, it will probably not
be directly contended that the present dividend of less than 4¼
per cent, is a sufficient return on railway property. Nor is such an
income fixed. There is no inconsiderable uncertainty affecting the
income and the net return from the working of railways.
It is alleged that the railway system is not properly managed, and
that in some way--how it is rarely explained--the railways might
be more profitably worked; that even if considerably reduced rates
were charged, as good, or a better, dividend might be earned; or
that as a consequence of reducing rates such additional traffic
would be carried that the loss would be more than covered by the
increased trade. Now, no doubt undue competition between companies
exists. The largest possible amount of net revenue is not always
obtained. But such an admission affords little encouragement. Here
something more than vague general statements are needed; it is
incumbent on those who call for a great change to produce facts
justifying an expectation that, consistently with a reasonable
dividend, a considerable reduction can be made in the rates for
merchandise. No attempt has ever been made to show that this can
be done, and experience is against it. The most plausible argument
is, that by reducing rates the present trade would be considerably
increased, that new sources of traffic would be created, and that
the companies would be more than recouped the loss which they would
sustain by any falling off in the receipts on their traffic. This
prospect was held out by the late President of the Board of Trade
in introducing the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill. He justified his
expectations by stating that the companies who had adopted a cheap
passenger system, had reaped great advantages therefrom. Few of them
will consider this illustration to be fortunate. Even, however, if
the result of the changes in passenger fares had been generally as
beneficial as Mr. Mundella seems to have supposed, no comparison can
be drawn between carrying a greater number of passengers in trains
only partly filled, and conveying additional mineral and goods
traffic by trains which must necessarily entail additional mileage
and all the attendant expenses. Take, for instance, coal carried at
·50d. per ton per mile and that the rate is reduced to ·45d.; that
is a reduction of 10 per cent. in the rate. Assume a train of 240
tons and 1s. 6d. per train mile each way--that is for the loaded and
return empty wagons--as the average cost of haulage and maintenance
of way, it would require an increase of 16·6 per cent. in the
traffic, to leave a railway in the same position as it was before.
The result of such a course as is recommended would be, to say
the least, problematical, as the suggested reasons for it are
not unknown to the managers of railway companies, and have been
carefully considered by them.
SECTION XV.
PROPOSALS FOR FIXING RATES BY RAILWAY COMMISSION--CONCILIATION
COURTS.
One of the many proposals for fixing, or controlling rates was
contained in a clause in the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill of last
session. It was intended to confer on the Board of Trade the power
at any time, “on the application either of a railway company, or of
any Local or Harbour Board, any Council of a City or Borough, any
representative County body which might hereafter be created, and
Justices in Quarter Sessions assembled, any Public Local Authority
which is now or might hereafter be established, any Association of
Traders or Freighters, or any Chamber of Commerce or Agriculture,
who should obtain a certificate from the Board of Trade that they
were entitled to make such application, to revoke, amend or vary
the maximum rates.” This would have been a totally new departure
in legislation. Such statutes as the Railway and Canal Traffic
Act of 1854, and the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, exhibit
an inclination on the part of Parliament to jealously limit the
powers granted to the companies. The tendency of the Courts of
Law has been to construe the Acts strictly against companies and
give the public the benefit of all doubtful points.[90] But it had
never before been supposed that the powers to charge the rates and
tolls contained in the original Acts, under which the companies
undertook the construction of the railways, could be indefinitely
altered, as proposed in the above clause. No such recommendation
was made by the Railway Rates Committee of 1882. After what took
place in the discussion of the Bill, both in Parliament and out of
it, and the announcement of the then Attorney General, “that no one
contemplated a perpetually recurring revision,”--which the clause
provided for--it is not probable that any such suggestion will again
authoritatively be made.[91]
[90] NOTE.--The following remarks, contained in the report of the
Joint Committee of 1872, on the subject of periodical revision of
rates, are worth reading--
“The difficulty has been felt by many of the witnesses, and they
have accordingly suggested that there should be a periodical
revision of rates and fares.
“Here, again, we are met in the first instance by the same
difficulty as before. The companies will, if experience is any
guide, constantly, for their own sakes, charge less than their legal
maxima. Is this revision to take effect on their legal maxima, or
on the actual rates as they voluntarily reduce them? If the former,
its results will be small; if the latter, it will be difficult to
effect, and may bear hardly upon the companies in stereotyping a
temporary or experimental reduction. In fact, the proposals for
revision of rates, if they are to be effectual, really presuppose
some such determination of rates according to a fixed standard as
we have considered above. If there are no special rates, it is a
comparatively simple thing to make a general reduction. If there
are special rates it becomes a very difficult task. But a still
more serious question with respect to periodical revision is the
question--On what principle is it to be performed, and by whom?
If it is to be purely arbitrary, if no rule is to be laid down to
guide the revisers, the power of revision will amount to a power
to confiscate the property of the companies. It is not likely that
Parliament would attempt to exercise any such power itself, still
less that it would confer such a power on any subordinate authority.
Accordingly the witnesses have suggested that the revision should
take effect under conditions which would reserve to the companies a
reasonable amount of profit, and to some revision founded on this
principle, it appears from the evidence that some, at least, of the
principal railway companies would not object.
“This leads to the further consideration of the important question,
whether it is possible or desirable to fix by law a maximum of
profit, or dividend. If it is not possible or desirable to do so,
any periodical or systematic revision of charges by any authority
subordinate to Parliament, may be pronounced impracticable.”
[91] See the language of Lord Penzance in _Pryce_ v. _Monmouthshire
Canal and Railway Company_, L. R. 4 A. C., p. 206.
Another proposal of a somewhat similar character is, that the
Railway Commissioners, or some other special tribunal, should fix
the rates. Were a Court for the control of rates established with
the consent of all concerned, there would remain the question on
what principle are the rates to be framed? Are they to be according
to equal mileage, or, if not, in what other manner? What better mode
can be suggested than the past practice, which, as has been shewn,
has been beneficial to the community? Nor is it easy to understand
how any Court could fix all the incalculable number of rates, and
hear and determine all the practical questions certain to arise.
Even if a trifling proportion of the rates were fixed in this
manner, and the task in those cases were performed, with reference
to all the many circumstances now governing rates, complications and
difficulties must arise, and the Court would be placed in a position
of great, if not insurmountable, difficulty. So many anomalies
must be authorised that it would be impracticable for the Court to
decide consistently with precedents. In all probability the control
would either become nominal, or the whole system would have to be
recast. Nor must the serious loss of time by the staff of railways
in attending to such inquiries, and the consequent diminution of
the efficiency of their work in the actual regulation and conduct
of railway traffic be lost sight of. The costliness of inquiries
before such a Court is a secondary, but not an unimportant, matter.
In the hope of obtaining reduced rates, or of compelling a company
to raise the rates of a competitor in trade, or to raise the rates
to and from competing ports, some traders and merchants, separately
or combined, might risk the expense of applications to such a
Court.[92] But the general interest could not be promoted by the
creation of any such arbitrary and anomalous Court.
[92] In the case of the application of the North Wales Colliery
proprietors to the Railway Commissioners against the Great Western
Railway Company, on the ground that they charged coal from South
Wales to Birkenhead, 159 miles, at the rate of ·454d. per ton per
mile, as against ·893d. per ton per mile for their coal for 28
miles, the expense incurred by the Great Western Company, exclusive
of the time occupied by their own staff, was £1,433; and the time
which was taken up in preparing for, and in attending, the hearing
was very serious.
Reference is often made to the experience of the United States
in regard to the supervision of railways as if it should be a
guide to us. There each State may legislate with reference to the
construction and regulation of its own railways. At first everything
was done to facilitate their construction. They were proceeded with
in advance of, or concurrently with, immigration and settlement.
Many States have made large grants of land to railway companies.
In some States a few individuals, from five upwards, may form
themselves into a railway company, and under general laws construct
railways between any two places, regardless of the wishes of others
and the considerations which here form the subject of Parliamentary
inquiry. No scale of maximum rates, as a rule, governs the charges
for conveyance; and great variations in them are in fact made. Only,
however, in recent times, when railways have become numerous and
their extension is not so urgently needed, have State Legislatures
interfered with their management.[93]
[93] The rates for “interstate” traffic in the United States are
not at present subject to any Government control, but are made at
the discretion of the companies to meet the requirements of trade,
competition by rail and water, and of cities. Two Bills for the
regulation of the interstate traffic of railways have recently been
before Congress; one, the “Reagan” Bill, which proposes to fix the
charges, to prohibit any discrimination, and to make it illegal for
railway companies “to combine or to pool” their receipts without
stringent provisions and penalties. The other Bill, entitled the
“Cullom” Bill, proposed the appointment of an Interstate Commission
consisting of five members, but did not provide for any specific or
maximum rates for the transportation of passengers or merchandise,
except that they should be reasonable and that there should be no
unfair discrimination; while laying down the principle that the
rates should be in proportion to the distance carried, it proposed
to give to the Commissioners power, in their discretion, to allow
lower rates to be charged for long, as compared with short distance
traffic. The former Bill passed the House of Representatives and was
rejected by the Senate; the “Cullom” Bill passed the Senate, and was
rejected by the House of Representatives.
The expediency of establishing maximum rates has been discussed in
some States. But another course has also been tried; Commissioners
have been appointed for the purpose of fixing reasonable charges.
Where maximum rates have been fixed, in no case, so far as can be
ascertained, have the Legislature altered, or the Commissioners
interfered with the powers conferred if the rates charged are
within such maximum. Some of the Commissioners fixed rates on so
unremunerative a basis as to defeat their object and to prevent
the introduction of capital, and the construction of railways. The
result was that in one State after a trial of about two years, the
law establishing such a tribunal was hastily repealed.[94]
[94] Report of the Committee of Commerce, House of Representatives
of the United States, March 8th, 1886.
“The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bills (H. R.
309) to establish a Board of Commissioners of interstate commerce,
and for other purposes; (H. R. 770) to regulate interstate commerce
through a national court of arbitration (H. R. 1,572) to create
an interstate commerce commission, and to regulate its powers and
duties; (H. R. 1,669) to establish a bureau of transportation
in the Department of the Interior; (H. R. 2,412) to regulate
interstate commerce and to prevent unjust discriminations by common
carriers; and (H. R. 3,929) to establish a Board of Commissioners
of interstate commerce, and to regulate such commerce, beg leave to
report said bills back to the House, and ask that they be laid on
the table, and to report the accompanying bill as a substitute for
H. R. 2,412, and recommend its passage.
“The subject matter of these bills has been so fully and elaborately
discussed for several years past, that it is not deemed necessary in
this report to enter into an elaborate explanation of the provisions
of the bill reported to the House. Your committee may state,
however, that the several bills referred to them rest upon three
different theories.
“House bills 309, 1,572, 1,669 and 3,929 are framed upon the idea
of providing a governmental commission, and of making detailed
regulations of freight rates. The theory of these bills did not need
the approval of the committee.
“House bill 770, ‘To Regulate Interstate Commerce through a National
Court of ‘Arbitration,’ looks to the establishment of a court with
power extending in some measure to the regulation of commerce
between States, with provisions extending to the regulation of
subjects not believed to be within the jurisdiction of Congress, and
not embracing in its provisions matters of regulation believed to be
necessary in a bill of this kind; and a single court to be held at
Washington City, as provided in this bill, would not be sufficiently
convenient to the people.
“The bill which we report to the House, and which is an amendment
of House bill 2,412, is based upon the theory of furnishing civil
remedies in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction to parties for the
most conspicuous grievances complained of in railroad management,
prohibiting what should not be done, and commanding what should
be done; proposing remedies for the violation of its provisions,
and avoiding any attempt at detailed regulation of freight rates.
This was deemed best as the first effort at legislation upon this
subject. The interests involved are so large, and their successful
management so important to the country, that it was not deemed
advisable to run any risk of embarrassing the management of the
railroads of the country, and at the same time it was deemed
necessary for the protection of the interests of the people to
control and circumscribe the exercise of the monopoly powers of
these corporations, to prevent them from making extortionate charges
and unlawful exactions upon the people.
“The examination of this subject will show that the attempt to
establish a system of legislative rates is impracticable, for the
reason that what would be a reasonable rate for one road would be
ruinous, perhaps, to others, as the charges for the transportation
of freights are largely controlled by the amount of business done by
the several roads.
“For instance, what would be a reasonable rate of charges on the
Pennsylvania Railroad would not be a reasonable rate upon a road in
the new States and in a sparsely settled portion of the country.
“The same difficulty lies in the way of attempting to protect the
people by the adoption of maximum rates. What would be a reasonable
maximum upon one road would not be reasonable upon others. A maximum
high enough to protect the railroads against harm would be too
high to benefit the people on most of the roads, and a maximum low
enough to protect the people on some roads would be ruinous to the
interests of many other roads, so that it is not believed best to
attempt to protect the interests of the public by the legislative
rates or by the maximum rates.
“The bill which we report to the House, instead of adopting either
of these plans, provides that the charges of the railroads shall be
reasonable; that persons engaged in the transportation of interstate
commerce by railroads shall furnish without discrimination the
same facilities for the carriage, receiving, delivery, storage
and handling of property of a like character, and shall perform
with equal expedition the same kind of services connected with
contemporaneous transportation.
* * * * *
“These constitute a portion of the leading features of the bill
which we report to the House. It is believed that the enactment and
enforcement of such a law will provide for the just and necessary
abridgment of the monopoly powers of these corporations, and
protect the people against unreasonable charges and extortionate
exactions, and will at the same time not interfere with or embarrass
the management of railroad corporations in anything which it is
reasonable and just they should do. And the Committee believe it
wiser and better to provide for the enforcement of the provisions
of such a law through the instrumentality of the ordinary courts of
justice, and by the judges and juries of the country than by the
orders of a commission. The machinery of the courts is already in
existence, and will require no additional expense, and is within
convenient reach of the people everywhere, and is fully able to
adjudicate all cases which may arise under this bill and by methods
with which the people are familiar, while no plan of a commission
which has been proposed could be conveniently accessible to all
the people, and if a plan should be presented which would provide
a jurisdiction convenient to all the people it would necessarily
be cumbrous and very expensive. In this view a commission is
unnecessary, unless it is the purpose of Congress to enter upon the
detailed regulation of freight rates.”
The rates charged in the United States are mainly governed
by competition with water carriage, or between the companies
themselves. Occasionally they are so reduced over large districts
as to be totally unremunerative. As soon, however, as the struggle
between competitors is ended, and an arrangement is arrived at,
the rates are suddenly raised. The circumstances of England and the
United States are so unlike that, even were those tribunals suited
to the latter, no case would be made out for establishing here a
Court armed with such powers. Here railway companies can make
charges only within their statutory maxima; there, as a rule, no
statutory maxima, or prohibitions of undue preference, similar to
those enacted here, are known. Here no municipalities have largely
subscribed to the capital of railways, no grants of public lands
have been made to them, as have been freely done there.[95]
[95] Poor’s Manual of Railroads for 1885 (page xv.) gives a list of
Railroads of the United States sold under foreclosure. The following
is a brief summary:--
Mileage. Capital Stock. Funded Debt. Floating Debt. m. $ $ $
1882 668 20,751,457 23,999,065 10,073,769 1883 1,190 24,587,704
38,197,926 2,481,608 1884 714 12,894,000 13,061,000 422,533
To legislation in Continental countries as to the fixing of rates,
we only briefly refer; in Appendix III. are full details as to
the law on this subject of Prussia and the German Empire. It may,
however, be here observed that the Prussian General Railway Law of
1838 provided for a reduction of rates when the net profits exceeded
10 per cent.; that the concessions to private companies stipulate
for the control of the Government over rates; but that, in recent
concessions, greater freedom is accorded to the companies, which
may, within certain maximum limits, modify rates at pleasure. Such
legislation is well worthy of attention; only it may be suggested
that it is not reasonable to pick out for commendation this or that
provision without regard to its concomitants--to propose to adopt
provisions to the disadvantage of railways, and to ignore those
which recompense them.
In Germany exist District Consultative Councils or Conciliation
Courts, which deal with all questions relating to conveyance of
goods on railways, and with the application of existing tariffs and
the introduction of new local tariffs. It has been stated that those
Councils or Courts are of great practical utility. Whether this be
so or not the circumstances under which Conciliation Boards are
appointed in Germany are very dissimilar to those of the railways
in this country. Their constitution is peculiar; similar elements
do not exist here. These Boards are composed of representatives of
the Government as workers of the railways and representatives of
the traders as users of them. Both, however--the nominees of the
Government and the traders--may be said to represent the owners
(in reality--the public) of 85 per cent. of the lines, who are
liable for any loss in working them. In this country neither the
Government nor the traders are the owners.[96] Moreover, in Germany
the representative of the Government which controls the working of
the railways, has, in fact, the power of fixing any rate by his
final decision, whatever may be the views of the traders or the
Conciliation Boards. In the last resort the owner of the lines
controls the rates.
[96] The railways in this country are governed by directors who
have shares in the respective undertakings, and represent the
shareholders (assumed to be about 500,000), but generally their
interest in the railways is relatively small compared with that
which they possess in land, manufactories, collieries, ironworks,
and commerce &c., besides which from their local connections,
and as public men, they are keenly alive to the requirements of
agriculture, trade and commerce, and in reality represent those
interests to a much greater extent than is sometimes assumed to be
the case.
Were such Councils established here their duties would not be so
light as those which fall to them in Germany. There the questions
to be considered must be few, the time occupied in deciding them
short, owing to there being practically no competition, and to the
great bulk of the rates being based on a mileage scale. Much more
complex questions would arise here, much longer time must be taken
up in deciding them in England, where rates are adapted to all the
requirements of trade and competition in its many forms.
In Holland, Belgium, and France, railways have been constructed
with, in some cases, considerable financial assistance from the
Governments, and under concessions for certain periods. Not
unnaturally or unreasonably the Governments have reserved the right
to control the rates and charges to be made while a concession is
in existence, or when it ends. It will be found, however, that when
there is power to reduce the rates before the expiration of the
concession, the State guarantees the dividend in the event of loss
arising from the compulsory reduction. Such is the case in Holland.
The Dutch Law (Article 29) provides that reductions in the tariff
can at all times be ordered by the State. But if, in consequence
of such reductions, the net gain of the company be diminished,
compensation is to be paid out of the State Treasury, and any
dispute as to the amount of compensation is decided by a Court of
Justice. In no case, however, must the amount of compensation raise
the net profits of the year or years for which it is demanded above
8 per cent. of the Company’s capital. Thus the right to control
rates is part and parcel of a system wholly unlike our own. It
exists in a country where the State has helped to construct, and to
a very large extent actually constructed, railways. It is alien to
this country, where capital for the whole of the railways has been
provided by private individuals, on the faith of the powers to levy
the tolls and rates fixed in their private Acts.
In the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill (1886) was also embodied a
proposal to the effect that any person who was of opinion that a
company was charging an unfair or unreasonable rate might make a
complaint to the Board of Trade, who were to be entitled to call
on the company for an explanation and to appoint one of their
officers, or a competent person, to communicate with the company
and the complainant, and to endeavour to settle the difference
amicably between the parties. The Board of Trade were from time to
time to submit to Parliament reports of the complaints so made, the
results of their proceedings, and such observations as they should
think fit. The effect of this provision would have been startling.
Even where a rate was within a company’s powers--although undue
preference was not alleged--at the instance of a trader desirous
of obtaining a reduced rate which had been refused by a company
and believing that either his own circumstances or those of other
traders entitled him to communicate with the Board of Trade, the
railway company would be called upon to prove to the Board of Trade
that the claim of the trader ought not to be granted. It would be,
in effect, litigation made easy and cheap, whether the complaint
was good or bad. The President, Vice-President, Secretary, or
Assistant-Secretary of the Board of Trade could not spare the time
necessary to master the numerous difficult questions and details as
to the rates.[97] Notwithstanding the great ability with which that
department is conducted, these officials could not deal with such
questions in the same way or within the same time as the traders
and the representatives of the companies are able. The companies
would probably be burthened with correspondence and discussions on
matters already fully gone into in negotiation. The discussion would
be necessarily carried on through subordinates or nominees of the
Board of Trade, who, it is not presumptuous to say, would be neither
interested in, nor specially trained to deal with, such questions.
Suppose that the representatives of the Board of Trade and the
railway companies disagreed as to the necessity or reasonableness of
a reduction in rates, the former would have no authority to compel
the companies to comply with their views. Would not the result
probably be a cry that Parliamentary powers should be conferred on
the Board of Trade to enforce their conclusions? Such a policy would
in the end place the railway companies of the country, whose capital
has entirely been raised by private enterprise, in a worse position
than the railway companies in Holland where the State has done so
much for them, or in France, where it has guaranteed the dividends.
[97] In a case of the kind referred to, which was brought before the
Board of Trade when the Bill was before Parliament, as a skilled
officer of the company was occupied 150 hours, in preparing the
information alone to reply to the Board of Trade, irrespective of
the time occupied by others in analysing the information, and in
corresponding with the Board of Trade on the subject, all of which
had no practical result.
When we are invited to place in the hands of a tribunal the control
of the rates, it is expedient to note the difficulties which the
Railway Commissioners seem to have felt in dealing with the various
questions raised before them, and the manner in which they have
dealt with them.
In determining under the Traffic Act questions of alleged undue
preference, they have been obliged to express their opinion on the
reasonableness of particular rates. As to the legal correctness
of their decisions, nothing need here be said; for the present
purpose it may be assumed that they are open to no legal exception,
and we fully recognise the ability and care which they manifest.
Only their economical effects are here considered. There would be
no difficulty in showing that they have acted upon principles, so
far as they have acted upon any, which have not merely not been
sanctioned, but have been condemned, by every Royal Commission or
Select Committee which has inquired into the subject, and by almost
every economist of eminence. On the part of the Commissioners there
have been--not unnaturally--some waverings in opinion. But on the
whole, they appear to have attempted to frame rates according to
cost of service; and they appear not to admit that the existence
of competition is a reason for varying them. Now, in the first
place they apply--it may be added, necessarily apply--the cost of
service principle in an imperfect fashion. They deal only with
undue preference in regard to the same or very similar articles.
They do not say, what consistent adherence to the theory would
compel them to say, that a ton of coals and a ton of tin ingots
must be carried at much the same rate; they are bound by the
existing classification, which forbids this. Occasionally their
decisions are indeed curiously inconsistent in many respects, as
was probably inevitable, where they were called upon to face the
commercial results which would have followed a too rigid adherence
to some of the principles by which they felt themselves bound.[98]
In the case of the _Nitshill and Lesmahagow Coal Company_ v.
_Caledonian Railway Company_,[99] the defendant company claimed to
charge more for carrying cannel coal, which, it was alleged, cost
38s. a ton, than they charged for carrying splint, which cost 15s.
6d. On the principle on which the classifications in most special
Acts were framed, this would be reasonable; the more valuable
article could bear more, and ought to pay more. But the Railway
Commissioners decided differently. “As the quality of coal does not
affect the cost of carriage to the railway company,” they said,
“we are of opinion that the two kinds of coal ought to receive the
same treatment.” If this principle had been carried out since the
beginning of railways, if rates had been settled without regard
to the value of merchandise, the prosperity of many districts and
industries would never have been developed. In the second place,
the cost of carriage is, inevitably, sometimes guessed at rather
than calculated. We have already stated the nice calculations
which must be entered into in order to determine the exact cost of
carriage; calculations in which it is practically impossible to
attain accuracy. Many elements in cost, the Commissioners cannot
accurately measure; the data do not exist. In the third place, the
effect of their later decisions is to exclude, practically, if not
theoretically, competition from the considerations to be taken
into account. This is, not only for the reasons already stated,
contrary to sound commercial principles; it is contrary to the
language of the early decisions of the Court of Common Pleas, which
distinctly recognised competition as rightly taken into account
in fixing rates. In _Garton_ v. _Bristol & Exeter Railway Co._
(1 N. & M. 1859, p. 218), for example, the Court of Common Pleas
decided, among other reasons against the validity of a certain
charge, because, in the words of Byles, J., “it is not shown that
it is rendered necessary for the purpose of meeting and overcoming
competition”.[100] The early judgments of the Railway Commissioners
themselves recognised the right to take into account the existence
of competition. In _Foreman_ v. _Great Eastern Railway Co._, decided
in 1875 (2 N. & M. 202), the point in dispute was the validity of
a scale of charges for the carriage of coal from Peterborough to
Norwich and Great Yarmouth and intermediate stations. The Great
Eastern Company were alleged to give an undue preference to coal
consigned to such stations, as compared with the carriage of
sea-borne coal from Great Yarmouth to Norwich and the stations
between it and Peterborough. The Commissioners observed: “Nor does
the Traffic Act prevent a railway company from having special
rates of charges to a terminus to which traffic can be carried by
other routes, or other modes of carriage with which theirs is in
competition,” a dictum inconsistent with the view “that cost of
service is the necessary measure of rates.” In a case decided the
same year, _Thompson_ v. _London and North Western Railway Co._, 2
N. & M. (1875) 115, the Commissioners speak dubiously. They observe
with respect to the argument that “the Traffic Act prohibits only
undue advantages, and that an advantage given by a railway company
to obtain traffic for which it competes with another railway company
is not undue” (p. 120). “Such a proposition cannot, in our opinion,
be laid down unreservedly. It may be true in certain circumstances;
it would not be so in others, and what degree of favour can be
lawfully shown to some person to the prejudice of others under
the pressure of competition can only be decided in any case that
arises by reference to its special circumstances.”[101] In still
later judgments there is a faint recognition of the fact that the
existence of competition ought to be taken into account; _e.g._, in
_Richardson_ v. _Midland Railway Company_, decided in 1881 (4 N. and
M. 1) the Commissioners say: “The difference (between the Burton and
Newark rates) or part of it, may possibly be required by the route
from the same district, not being the same all the way to the two
places, and by the separate portions of line passed over being more
costly to work or construct in the one case than in the other; or,
again, may be required by a competition for the conveyance of the
particular traffic between the two termini, existing in one case but
not in the other. They proceed to speak of “due allowance for such
causes of difference,” which implies that allowance must be made
for both of such causes. But in the _Broughton Coal Company’s_ case
(4 N. and M. p. 191, 1883) the Commissioners use somewhat different
language. They observe that “if goods of the same kind are carried
to the same destination over the same railway for distances that are
not the same, and the gross charge from the intermediate distance
is as great as from the more distant one, there is a preference of
one traffic over the other within the meaning of the Traffic Act of
1854; and that it is not sufficient to rebut this presumption to show
that the charge for the longer distance has been reduced to meet a
competition from another route.” Lately the Commissioners have, to say
the least, lost sight of the element of competition in determining
rates; and in all the applications to them, there is no clear instance
in which they have found the circumstances in which it ought, in their
opinion, to operate.
[98] In Lees _v._ Lancashire & Yorkshire, 1 N. & M. 352, the
Commissioners relied to some extent upon a principle which they do
not appear to have since put in force. The question was whether
the company gave an undue and unreasonable preference to the
Corporation. The Commissioners said that undoubtedly a preference
had been given, but they declined to say it was unreasonable (1)
because the Corporation did not compete with the complainants; (2)
because _the preference was for the public benefit and convenience_
(p. 367); (3) because of the nature and magnitude of the coal
traffic of the Corporation.
[99] 2 N. & M. 39.
[100] See the head note on the case, and the language of Williams,
J.; also the observations of Cockburn, C. J. in Harris _v._
Cockermouth and Workington Railway Company, I. N. and M., p. 703.
The latter judge, referring to “fair and sufficient reasons” for
differences in rates, says, “As, for instance, in respect of
terminal traffic, there might be competition with another railway.”
[101] The reporters append the following note to the case.
“It appears that competition between two railways, or by sea or
canal, is sufficient justification for a railway company reducing
its fares to the public, who are affected by such competitions, and
can take advantage; but that a railway company cannot, merely for
the sake of increasing their traffic, reduce their rates in favour
of individuals unless there is a sufficient consideration for such
reduction, which shall lessen the cost to the company of conveyance
or other services rendered to them by such individuals,” vol. 2,
p. 121. Probably this represented the general opinion of the legal
profession in 1875.
In the report for 1883 the Commissioners refer to “the fair
pecuniary interests generally of the company carrying” (p. 1.) as if
they might be taken into account.
Among the multifarious complaints against railway companies is
one to the effect that companies, instead of competing with and
underbidding each other, combine to charge equal rates. This is an
illustration of the curious inconsistencies of some of those who
criticise the working of railways. Such a practice would be, as will
be seen in the next chapter, opposed to the ideas of others who urge
that rates should be based on scientific and uniform principles.
Such competition, too, would inevitably lead to valid grounds
for complaints, in the opinion of others, of undue preference in
contravention of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854. The fact
is, the practice has been tried and abandoned. In the days of road
carriers, competition in quoting low rates generally ended in the
submission or ruin of one of the parties. Here, and in the United
States, experience shews that all such competition on the part of
railways must end in combination. However severe the contest may
be, and however great the losses in carrying it on, each of the
railways continues to exist; they do not disappear like private
traders engaged in a disastrous war of competition; and in the
end they come to terms. In thus acting, they only do what is done
in other industries. In the principal trades of the country are
associations which arrange the prices of their products. Colliery
proprietors, for example, agree as to the price of coal. Although
the hardware merchants seldom vary their price lists, they agree
from time to time as to the rate of discount to be allowed. The
steel rail manufacturers of Germany, Belgium, England, and Scotland,
had recently an arrangement regulating, if not the proportion to be
produced by each country and district, the price at which rails were
to be sold.
SECTION XVI.
RAILWAY AMALGAMATION.
We now come to a class of criticisms and proposals wholly different
from those which have hitherto been considered. In the report by
Sir Bernhard Samuelson (page 22) is a recommendation that railway
companies should either amalgamate, or make agreements between
themselves, for the division of the receipts from competitive
traffic, so as to reduce the working expenses.[102] Probably for the
first time has this suggestion come from such a quarter. Manifestly
it is beginning to be understood that undue competition between
railways is injurious to the companies without being beneficial
to the public, and that, in the interests of both, it should be
moderated.
[102] “The loss arising from the unnecessary multiplication of
train services, as well for the passengers as for the goods, the
avoidance of which was one of the principal motives which decided
the Prussian Government to purchase their railways, may be obviated
in this country, by a more intimate fusion of the interests of the
various railways, either by amalgamation or by the consolidation of
their interests in some other way, under the sanction of Parliament;
care being taken that the interests of the public in regard to
accommodation and charges are duly safeguarded. I have reason to
believe that, so far as the railways north of the Thames and west
of the metropolis are concerned, the more active and enlightened
directors are by no means unprepared for a step of the kind.”
Hitherto, the public and Parliament have looked with jealousy on
arrangements between railway companies intended to lessen the waste
caused by undue competition. The statements so often put forward
by companies that the expenditure of capital in the construction
and working of unnecessary competing lines is not beneficial to the
public, have been disregarded. Any scheme which professed to meet
“public requirements,” and promised multiplication of trains and the
carriage of railway traffic at a high rate of speed, has met with
favour in and out of Parliament.
Whether the particular line could only be worked at undue cost, or
could yield a proper or, indeed, any return upon the capital to be
expended, has rarely been considered. The Legislature has fostered
new schemes, and has favoured competition, not economy; it has
not recognised how much interested the public were in the prudent
expenditure of capital on railways. Had the reports prepared under
the guidance of Lord Dalhousie, in order that railways might be
constructed according to a definite plan, been acted upon, or had
he been able to carry out here his ideas as to railway extension,
as he did in India, the rapid growth of railways might have been
retarded.[103] But, undoubtedly, the want of any plan has entailed
the outlay of a much larger amount of capital than would otherwise
have been required. Upon this excess, interest, if it can be earned,
is paid; a fact not to be overlooked by those who now desire that
the companies should reduce their rates. Such errors are repeated.
Even in recent years Parliamentary Committees have authorised on
the most trifling grounds new competing lines. True, they expressed
no opinion as to the success of such schemes. But it must have
been known that, if the capital were subscribed, it must come
from people who were under the impression that only schemes of
substantial value would be authorised by Parliament.
[103] See the late Mr. R. Stephenson’s evidence before Mr.
Cardwell’s Committee, 25th February, 1853. Q. 987-9.
Of the many schemes of this description, two or three illustrations
may be given. Within the last 13 years, authority was obtained to
construct a local line for the accommodation of a sparsely inhabited
agricultural district. In this form it was favoured by the companies
in whose district it was. The prospect of a return on the capital,
however, was so small that comparatively little money could be
raised. A scheme was, therefore, got up for obtaining Parliamentary
powers to extend the line on the plea that it would thus become a
through competitive line connecting two important existing systems;
a scheme which quite ignored the fact that the two systems had
already a means of communication, which it was their interest and
desire to develop to the utmost against any hostile scheme. A large
portion of the capital was procured on the faith of statements
contained in carefully framed prospectuses, for the issue of which
the financiers were paid £60,000. A considerable portion of the
capital came from persons residing in remote parts of the country.
Some money was borrowed for a time at the rate of 16 per cent.
per annum. Although about £1,200,000 in cash and paper has been
expended, the receipts do not cover the working expenses, including
the rent of stations and expenses of junctions; the line must be
imperfectly worked; and of course not a farthing of interest or
dividend can be paid on any portion of the capital.
A second illustration may be given. About twenty-five years ago a
branch railway of 6 miles in length was promoted and sanctioned by
Parliament as part of a line to compete with an existing railway.
The original cost was estimated at £42,000, and the total amount of
capital authorised was £60,000. Not until 20 years after the Act
was obtained was the line opened for traffic. During this period no
fewer than eleven applications for increased capital or other powers
were made to Parliament; and three schemes of arrangement were
entered into with creditors and confirmed by the Chancery Court. The
total capital expended has been upwards of £157,000, of which 44 per
cent. has been raised by loans, 46 per cent. by preference shares,
and 10 per cent. only by ordinary stock. What need there was of the
line may be inferred from the fact that, although it has now been
open for some five years, the gross receipts are not sufficient even
to pay the locomotive expenses.
One more case may be mentioned. An application was made to
Parliament for powers to construct a line about 7 miles in length,
which was estimated to cost not far short of £120,000. After four
years a further application was made for extension of time and for
power to raise more than half the share capital by the issue of
preference stock and to pay interest out of capital. It was then
given in evidence that upwards of one-fourth of the estimated cost
of the line had already been expended, although no works had been
constructed, and only £1,000 paid towards the acquisition of land.
In such cases the diversion of traffic from existing railways
usefully serving the public, the loss of interest on the outlay if
the line is in the end purchased by them, and the expense of working
it, are so much dead weight which the railway system has to bear.
Thus the companies are so much less able to reduce rates.
Many similar cases could be stated. Notwithstanding the absorption
of this class of schemes, there is still upwards of £61,000,000
of capital which has paid no dividend at all. An inquiry into the
promotion and construction of many of the railways authorised during
the last 25 years, would probably bring to light facts as startling
as those elicited by the Foreign Loans Committee. The established
companies oppose such schemes. But their opposition is generally
looked upon as arising solely from selfish objects. They are told
that it is not their money which is to be expended, and that though
they may have a nominal, they have no substantial, right to oppose.
It is a common observation that, if a new line afford accommodation
for a part of the traffic carried by the opposing company, it will
be useful to the public, and that if it will not carry any such
traffic the objections of the opposing company are groundless. Such
arguments succeed; the Bill is passed; and what happens? From long
experience the existing companies know that nearly all the schemes
which are at first brought out as independent competing lines will
sooner or later be pressing to be worked or leased, or be in the
market, and that the promoters of any of them not taken over, will
be continually making applications to Parliament or to the Railway
Commissioners, posing, not as an aggressive, but as an ill-used
company, and harassing its neighbours with a view to be purchased or
to levy blackmail.
The present position of railways is largely due to the action
of Parliament and to the public, though some blame is no doubt
attributable to the companies themselves. A great improvement has
taken place in the relations of the companies, and in the conduct of
railways in recent years. But there has been too much readiness,
indeed anxiety, to invade districts accommodated by neighbouring
companies. In the working of their lines exaggerated importance
is too often given to competition without regard to its utility.
Frequently passenger trains are run without sufficient regard to
whether or not they are fairly remunerative. Wagons containing only
a small quantity of goods are often sent long distances at little
profit, if not at a loss. Goods trains are run at an excessive
speed, and therefore do not and cannot carry such remunerative loads
as in other countries, notwithstanding some of the undoubtedly low
rates charged there. So-called “concessions,” not really essential,
are made to trading or other interests, when it would be better that
the companies should earn on the traffic a reasonable income to go
into the pockets of the shareholders, or be expended, as suggested
by Sir Bernhard Samuelson, in improved accommodation.
While there has been too much proneness to favour competing
schemes, there has been an unreasonable jealousy of agreements
between companies. Traces of the jealousy with which Parliament
has regarded agreements between companies, even for merely working
branches in extension of parent lines, are shewn by the provision
that agreements shall be reviewed every ten years. It also appears
in the views of the Railway Commissioners as expressed in section 6
of their twelfth report (1885). They state that it is the practice
of some companies to get such agreements confirmed by means of
a schedule to their private Bills, which gives the public no
opportunity of knowing what those agreements are about, and that the
agreements are confirmed, either for long terms, or in perpetuity,
without any provision for a periodical revision in the interests of
the public. And yet it is not known that the public have derived any
advantages from the periodical revision of agreements for working
branch lines, and whenever application has been made to Parliament
for absorbing a branch line it has been authorised without any
difficulty.
In the last session of Parliament, the Midland Company applied for
power to enter into, and carry into effect, agreements with certain
other railway companies with respect to the provision of joint
terminal accommodation at towns and stations on their respective
systems; the alteration and enlargement of existing stations for
joint purposes; the providing at joint expense of train services
between towns and places served by their respective systems, and of
locomotive engines and stock for such joint trains; the appointment
of joint staff and the fixing of rates, fares and charges in respect
of traffic using such joint stations, or carried by such joint
trains, and the division of the receipts therefrom. Any agreements
made under these powers were to be subject to the approval of the
Board of Trade. With the present view held by Parliament and by a
section of the traders as to railways, it is, however, questionable
whether such agreements would be confirmed, except on terms which it
would be impossible for the companies to accept.
In this country--which is unlike the United States in this
respect--agreements to charge equal rates for competitive traffic
have been, on the whole, adhered to. Arrangements for the division
of such traffic are therefore not so much required here as there.
The great desiderata of the companies are the limitation of
competition within reasonable bounds, stopping the waste which it
now causes, and fully affording to each other and to the public and
traffic all practicable facilities and accommodation.
Agreements for the division of traffic, or for “pooling,” as they
are termed in the United States and Canada, are not unknown in
this country. Some have been sanctioned by Parliament; others have
been made between the companies without any express Parliamentary
authority, and have been carried out. For instance, Mr. Gladstone
made, in 1851, an award apportioning, for a period of five years,
the receipts for traffic carried between, London, York, Leeds,
Sheffield, and several other places, between the Great Northern, and
London and North Western, and Midland Railways. In the year 1857 he
made a further award determining, for a period of fourteen years,
the proportions in which the proceeds from the passenger and goods
traffic between the same and other places, including Hull, Halifax,
Bradford, &c., were to be divided between these companies and the
Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company.
Parliament has sanctioned agreements for the division of traffic
receipts between the South Eastern and London Chatham and Dover,
and between the London Brighton and South Coast and South Eastern
Companies. But it is more than doubtful whether the parties to these
agreements have derived all the advantages which, consistently with
the interests of the public, they might have obtained.
It is well known that nowhere on the Continent has the construction
of competing lines been carried out to the same extent as in this
country; it is one of the great permanent advantages possessed by
Continental railways.[104] In France the companies have districts
within which they exclusively afford railway accommodation. The
Government recognise and sanction agreements between the companies
for the prevention of undue competition where it inevitably arises,
and for an apportionment of the receipts from competitive traffic.
The following is an instance:--An agreement made 31st March, 1885,
between the “Western of France Railway and the Orleans Railway
Companies, provided that the receipts in respect of traffic carried
between Paris and Angers, Nantes, Montoir, St. Nazaire, Redon and
stations beyond, after deducting taxes (“Impôts”) and terminals
should be apportioned thus:--
1. Traffic between Paris and Redon and stations beyond as far as
Plaermel and Pontivy--
55 per cent. proportion to the Western Company.
45 ” ” ” Orleans Company.
2. Traffic carried between Paris and Angers, Nantes, Montoir, St.
Nazaire, and branches leading out of the latter two stations, as
well as Pont Chateau, by whatever route the traffic may have
been carried--
49 per cent. proportion to the Western Company.
51 ” ” ” Orleans Company.
3. Traffic carried between Paris and stations beyond Angers or Martre
d’Ecole on the States Railway--
230/304 to the Western Company.
74/304 ” Orleans ”
[104] The General Prussian Railway Law of 1838 (S. 44) under which
many of the Prussian railways were constructed, expressly declared
that “no railway running in the same direction as the first one
between the same principal points shall be allowed to be constructed
by any undertakers other than the undertakers of the first railway,
within a space of 30 years from the opening of such railway,
provided that improvements of the communications between the points
and in the same direction by other means shall not be interfered
with.”
In Belgium there is practically no such competition as exists
in this country. The Government have had to face the difficult
questions respecting it: they have solved them in a manner different
from that adopted here. They have entered into an agreement for the
division of competitive traffic between the State railways and the
Grand Central Belge. Under this arrangement the route over which the
traffic is conveyed is credited with the whole of the terminals, and
50 per cent. of the carrying receipts. The remaining 50 per cent. is
apportioned between the two competing routes on the following basis,
viz:--
Each route is credited with 25 per cent. if the
mileage is equal.
The longest route is credited with
22½ per cent. if the mileage does not exceed the
shortest route by 5 per cent.
18 ” ” ” ” 10 ” ”
13½ ” ” ” ” 15 ” ”
9 ” ” ” ” 20 ” ”
4½ ” ” ” ” 25 ” ”
The route selected by either the State railways or the Grand Central
Belge must not exceed the distance by the shortest route by more
than 25 per cent.; above which limit all competition ceases.
In Germany exist arrangements practically amounting to a division
of traffic. For instance, the shortest route from Elberfeld to Bâle
is viâ Coblenz-Strasburg. The traffic to Bâle is carried every
alternate month by the Right Rhenish route over the Badisch State
railway, and by the Left Rhenish route over the Alsace-Lorraine
railways. As regards traffic with Austria-Hungary arrangements are
made which ensure to each line a certain percentage. In the event of
the returns showing that one company have not carried their fixed
share, they are entitled to a money compensation.
Undoubtedly the suggestion of Sir B. Samuelson that reductions
should be made in the expenses of working railways, and that
undue competition should be avoided by arrangements between the
companies, is important and well worthy of consideration. To
commerce generally, and to the traders using railways, it might
clearly be advantageous. It may, however, be premature to expect
that at present such agreements as he suggests would be sanctioned
by Parliament, except upon onerous conditions. If such agreements
were favourably regarded by the representatives of commerce and
agriculture in Parliament, the companies would more willingly enter
into them. In many cases greater economy and improved working would
undoubtedly result, and there is no reason why such arrangements
should not be made beneficial to the public as well as fair to the
railway companies.
SECTION XVI.
RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Great stress is laid on the importance of canals. Railway companies
have been accused of preventing them from competing with railways,
of improperly getting possession of them, not maintaining them, and
so acting as to force the traffic on to their lines. In Parliament
and elsewhere they have been charged with purchasing canals and
then deliberately killing them, either by ceasing to keep them in
repair or by reducing rates upon their lines to a point which makes
competition by the canals impossible. These assertions have been
made before Royal Commissions and Select Committees. In no official
report or other authoritative document, however, have they been
declared proved; and it is submitted that facts do not warrant them.
Not to the artifices of railway companies, but to altered conditions
of trade is due, in the main, the inability of many canals to hold
their own against railways. The necessity for rapid transit, the
disinclination to keep large stocks, the growth of the practice of
applying to the producer or manufacturer as orders come in, and
as occasion requires, and the low rates by railway for articles
which canals can convey, have all been unfavourable to the latter.
It is not unimportant to note that no Commission or Committee has
been able to point out any mode in which the decline of canal
traffic--“the creeping paralysis of our inland waterways”--could be
arrested. We may, too, incidentally note the considerable diversity
of opinion as to the importance of canals generally. Some complain
that great injury has been done to the trading community by the
absorption of the canals by railway companies.[105] Others will have
it that too much importance is attached to canals; they have been
even described as “_those wretched little waterways which could
never compete successfully with the great railway companies_.”[106]
In 1883, a Committee was appointed by Parliament to enquire into the
condition and the position of the canals and internal navigation of
the country, to report thereupon, and to make such recommendations
as might appear necessary. It sat during the greater part of the
Session. Many charges were made against railway companies which
owned canals. They could not be answered in that Session for want
of time. So little importance seems to have been attached to them
or indeed to the subject of canals, that the Committee was not
re-appointed in the following Session. No report was therefore ever
made.
The subject affords a valuable illustration of the railway
legislation in this country, and of the prejudice and
misapprehension which exist in some quarters as to the conduct of
railway companies. Far from there being an inordinate desire to
absorb canals, it will appear that those which belong to railway
companies have, as a rule, been forced upon them, either to remove
the opposition of the canal companies, or as a condition of railway
Bills being passed.
[105] Mr. Mundella, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th
May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 461.
[106] Sir B. Samuelson, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill,
1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 441.
Let us give an instance of the treatment which the promoters of
railways, when opposed by the representatives of waterways, have
received at the hands of Parliament. In respect of the Severn
navigation, the Great Western Company are at the present time
under a heavy liability. This liability was forced upon their
predecessors, the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway
Company, when applying for powers to construct their railway, which
did not really compete with the navigation to any serious extent, if
at all. Clause 94 of the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway
Act of 1845 recites that the Severn Commissioners had raised the sum
of £180,000 upon the security of the tolls on the Severn navigation,
in the expectation that those tolls would reach the sum of £14,000 a
year. It provides that the Great Western and the Oxford, Worcester
and Wolverhampton Railway Companies should, from the opening of the
Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway for traffic between
Worcester and Wolverhampton, and so long as the principal moneys
raised by the Severn Commissioners, or interest thereon, remained
due, make up to the Severn Commissioners any deficiency between the
actual amount of the tolls for any year, and the sum of £14,000. The
Great Western Company do not possess or even control the navigation.
Yet this liability was forced on the promoters as a condition of
obtaining their Bill; and in respect of it the Great Western Company
actually now pay between £6,000 and £7,000 per annum!
How much truth there is in the allegation that the canals owned by
railway companies are not properly maintained by these companies,
but that on the contrary the railway companies obstruct the trade on
them, may be shown by the case of the Kennet and Avon canal, which
is also the property of the Great Western Company.[107]
[107] The Clause in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, as to the
maintenance of canals is as follows:--
Every Railway Company owning or having the management of any canal
or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal
or part, and all the reservoirs, works and conveniences thereto
belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged, and in good working
condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water to the same
so that the whole of such canal or part, may be at all times kept
open and navigable for the use of all persons desirous to use and
navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption,
or delay.
This canal was authorised by an Act of 1794. The canal is
between Newbury and Bath, a distance of 57 miles. But the water
communication is extended beyond Newbury on the one side to Reading
by means of the River Kennet, and from Bath to near Bristol on
the other side by means of the River Avon. The total navigable
distance between the points named is 86½ miles. This canal is
joined by the Wilts and Berks canal (which is connected with the
Thames by the Thames and Severn canal) and the Somersetshire Coal
canal. Thus the Kennet and Avon canal forms part of an extensive
system of waterways, by communicating direct with the Thames on
the one hand and the Severn on the other. The total cost of the
Kennet and Avon canal was £1,011,589. It was opened in 1810, from
which date, up to 1813, no separate accounts of capital and revenue
were kept. But the returns from 1813 show that the receipts of the
canal gradually increased from £22,075 gross and £11,843 net in
1813 to £58,820 gross and £39,113 net in 1840. The opening of the
Great Western Company’s line between Reading and Bath in 1840-41
seriously affected the canal revenue. The canal company applied
to Parliament for powers to construct a railway alongside their
canal. Failing in that project, they in 1848 availed themselves of
the powers of the General Canal Act, and entered upon the carrying
business, from which, however, they derived little profit. In fact
the first year was the only year when the revenue derived from the
carrying business exceeded the expenses. The opening of the line of
railway between Chippenham and Trowbridge in 1848-50 still further
injured the canal traffic. The canal company offered to transfer
their undertaking to the Great Western Company; and the terms for
such transfer were agreed and approved by Parliament in 1852. In
sanctioning the arrangement, Parliament, however, imposed upon
the Great Western Company the condition that, if at any time the
canal tolls were complained of as, in comparison with those of the
railway, prejudicially affecting traders on the canal, the Board of
Trade should make such regulations and fix such tolls as they might
think fit. In 1867-1868 the traders using the canal memorialized
the Board of Trade to reduce the tolls. An Arbitrator, who was
appointed, reported in favour of a reduction, which was accordingly
carried out. The tolls thus fixed were charged up to 1877, when
the traders again memorialized the Board of Trade. The matter was
referred to the Railway Commissioners, before whom it was given in
evidence that if further reductions were made on certain articles
constituting the chief trade of the canal, the traffic would
materially increase. The Railway Commissioners thereupon reduced the
tolls upon those articles from 1d. per ton per mile with a maximum
of 6s., to ½d. per ton per mile with a maximum, for the whole
distance of 86½ miles, of 2s. But the statements of the traders
that an increase of the traffic would follow upon a reduction of the
tolls have been found to be entirely baseless. Notwithstanding this
great reduction, the traffic had fallen from 159,190 tons in 1876,
to 125,807 in 1885.
The gross receipts in the year 1840 were, as already stated,
£58,820; in 1848 they had fallen to £33,205; in 1852, when the
canal was taken over by the Great Western Company, to £24,291, and
in 1885 to £4,237. The canal has been maintained in an efficient
state of repair by the Great Western Company, in accordance with
the obligation imposed upon them by their Act of 1852, and the
navigation has been always kept open. Notwithstanding the large
reductions in the tolls, the traffic has year by year diminished,
until in 1885 the expenses considerably exceeded the receipts,
without taking into account the interest (between £7,000 and £8,000
a year) which the company have to pay upon the capital expended in
acquiring the canal undertaking. These are weighty facts. Although
the Great Western Company purchased the Kennet and Avon canal, pay
interest on the purchase money, and maintain it, and although they
are deprived of the power to fix the tolls upon the canal, and
have had to submit to two reductions--the maximum under the latter
arrangement being for the whole length of the canal little more
than one farthing per ton per mile in respect of any description
of goods--the traffic has continued to fall off. The tolls do not
yield sufficient to pay the salaries and wages of the working staff,
or even the actual cost of the labour and materials necessary for
maintenance and repairs.
The foregoing illustration, may help to correct the statements
which have been made as to the conduct of railway companies in the
capacity of owners or workers of canals. Not only the Kennet and
Avon canal, but, it is probable, all the other canals which have
been taken over by the Great Western Company, must have been closed
years ago if they had remained in the possession of the canal
companies. The public have, in fact, had the opportunity of availing
themselves of the water carriage when it was to their interest to do
so, just because the railway company took over the canals and kept
them in working order.
Though every railway company owning or managing a canal may be
compelled under the Section cited on page 193 to keep it in
repair, only one application for that purpose has been made to the
Railway Commissioners. This is scarcely consistent with the loose,
unverified accusations as to the shortcomings of railway companies.
Besides, it is not true that the whole canal system has passed under
the influence of railways. Of the 3,029 miles of canals in Great
Britain, 1,592½ miles are owned or managed by other than railway
companies.[108] An examination of the map prepared by Mr. Abernethy,
C.E., for the Select Committee of 1883, shows, that south of a line
passing through Worcester, Birmingham, Nottingham and Hull, there is
scarcely a canal of any importance, with the exception of the Kennet
and Avon canal, between Bath and Reading, permanently, temporarily,
or partially in the hands of a railway company.
[108] Appendix to Report of Select Committee on Canals, page 214,
“These lengths are exclusive of the River Thames, Severn, Wye,
Humber, Wear, and Tyne in England; the Rivers Clyde, Forth, Tay,
and the Caledonian Ship Canal in Scotland; the Shannon and other
navigations in Ireland.” According to Mr. Taunton’s Report, the
canals and navigable rivers in England, Wales, and Scotland under
control of railways are 1,447 miles as against 2,335, which are
independent of railway companies (Appendix 228.)
The fact appears to be that canals flourish only where certain
conditions exist. Where a large traffic can be conveyed in full
boatloads; where the country is flat, and there are consequently
few locks; where large vessels propelled by steam can be used;
where works are so situated that the cost of collection or delivery
can be saved; in such circumstances, canals are suitable for coal,
chalk, cotton, stone, bricks, pig-iron, round timber, grain, &c.,
and such like goods carried in large quantities, or for short
distances. They can, no doubt, when such conditions exist, be
beneficially used at a low cost for carriage; but for traffic not
large, or composed of a great variety of articles, which have to
be collected in small quantities from different places, or to be
distributed all over the country, canals cannot successfully compete
with railways. Want of water in dry summers, interruptions from
ice in winter, and diversity of gauges in locks and tunnels--all
matters which add to cost--are great inconveniences, and grave
objections to water carriage. Often carriage by canal necessitates
the erection of warehouses for storing goods, which is saved by the
transit of traffic by rail. The speed and despatch demanded by the
modern necessities of trade have tended to throw upon the railway
more and more of the traffic which formerly went by canals, as well
as the increase in the traffic of the country. In Staffordshire,
canal boats meet from all the principal towns such as Manchester,
Liverpool, and parts of Yorkshire in the North, and London and
Bristol in the South; _but no through traffic is exchanged_. All
the traffic of Staffordshire in iron, hardware, chains, anchors,
nails, &c., outwards, and grain, timber, spelter, bone, manures, &c.
inwards, requiring speed, is carried by railways. Where the canal
charges are equal to, or lower than, the railway rates, the railways
and canals divide the traffic. Newly-opened collieries and works
are now, as a rule, laid out for loading into railway wagons, not
into boats, because railway stations and railway trucks give greater
facilities for distribution of coal to all parts of the country.
No doubt certain large canals--for example, the Aire and Calder,
Bridgwater, and the Leeds and Liverpool--can be profitably worked
in their exceptional circumstances, as they possess a plentiful
supply of water, and traverse a long stretch of comparatively level
country. Where such conditions exist for distances of fifty to
sixty miles, canals may compete successfully for heavy traffic with
railways.
Nor have the proprietors of canals done the utmost to overcome
inherent disadvantages. The existing inland system, with only 7-feet
locks, is inadequate. The canals are too shallow; they are wasteful
in the consumption of water; and they cannot be worked economically.
The cost of working larger boats of 300 tons on suitable canals,
hauled by steam, and loaded and unloaded by the best appliances of
steam cranes would, of course, be much less expensive than that of
working the boats of, say 30 to 60 tons, now used.
The cost of haulage on the narrow canals is much in excess of
the cost of conveyance by rail, and the difference remains,[109]
notwithstanding all efforts to improve the canals; efforts which,
to be really useful, it was estimated would cost about £12,000 a
mile. Mr. F. Morton, a canal carrier, stated that his firm lost from
£100 to £150 per boat, per year, on certain of their “Fly” or quick
boats, which were worked as an auxiliary to their general business
with a view to compete with the railways, and help to retain that
portion of the “Slow” traffic which they still have.
[109] See evidence before the Select Committee on Canals, in 1883.
In countries possessing a large network of canals and other
waterways--in France, Holland, and Germany (the Rhine provinces)
for example--and where railway accommodation is not so complete
as in this country, canals are necessarily important channels of
communication. In France the waterways consist of--
Miles
Navigable rivers 4,627
Canals 2,967
-----
7,594
Except 534 miles the whole of the mileage is the property of the
State, and canals have been artificially fostered by it. According
to a report prepared by M. Krantz, in 1872, and submitted to the
Select Committee on Canals in 1883, the expenditure upon the
waterways in France was on that date £32,738,715 on canals, and
£13,557,867 on rivers, a total of £46,296,582, while the cost of
maintenance for the year was upwards of £336,000[110].
[110] M. de Foville says (1880) “_Sur les canaux de l’Etat, la
suppression totale des droits de navigation sera peut être bientôt
un fait accompli_” p 134.
In Belgium the aggregate length of the canals and navigable rivers
is 1,254 miles, seven-eighths of which belong to the State. On
a great portion no toll is charged; and on the remainder, sums
varying from 3¼d. to 1s. 1d. per ton per 100 miles.
In Holland there are nearly 3,000 miles of canals and waterways, the
former of which practically belong to the State.
If the explanation which has been given be not correct--if the great
obstacle to the success of canals in this country be not their
inferiority, as compared with railways, in the carriage of goods
to answer the needs of trade--why have no new canals been made for
some fourteen or fifteen years? They cost much less per mile than
railways, and their maintenance expenses are not so heavy. That they
are falling into decay in this country when left in private hands,
is due, in the main, to the fact that this country is well supplied
with railway accommodation, and that for most kinds of merchandise
they are not such an efficient mode of transport as railways.[111]
[111] There is a large mileage of canals belonging to canal
companies, and considering the views expressed by some as to the
use which could be made of the canals which belong to the railway
companies, it would have been instructive if the proprietors of all
the independent canals had shown by the manner in which they had
maintained and worked them, that the railway companies’ canals could
be more profitably and usefully worked than they now are.
CONCLUSION.
The chief complaints which have been discussed fall under two heads;
first, the statements expressed in many forms that rates on the
Continent are lower than rates here, that this difference injures
our trade, and that English railway rates ought therefore, to be
reduced; secondly, that rates are based on no principle, that a
scientific system ought to be adopted, and that import, transit, and
certain other special rates, as the greatest anomalies, ought to be
prohibited. A few words remain to be said to summarise my arguments
as to each of these statements.
The facts and figures mentioned at pages 144-8, and elsewhere have
shown, it is hoped, that for instance, the exportation of iron or
coal--the articles more often mentioned in the controversy--is not
prejudiced by the railway rates charged in England as compared with
those charged abroad. There has been, undoubtedly, some loss of
trade in particular markets. For instance, coal was formerly sent
from this country to Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam. It is now
replaced by Belgian and German coal. Is this very surprising? Is
it reasonable to expect that colliery proprietors on the Continent
would not supply coal, or the Governments, the proprietors of the
railways, not convey it at anything above cost price rather than
allow foreign coal to be imported, their collieries to stand idle,
and their people to be unemployed? Coal of superior quality can be
shipped at Newport and Cardiff at from 6½d. to 1s. per ton. What
abatement could reasonably be expected from rates based on such a
very low scale? What effect, if a reduction were made, could it have
upon the alleged foreign competition, and upon the depression in
trade?
The prices of coal are low because of over production, and undue
competition between colliery owners. The extravagant prices obtained
by colliery proprietors in 1873-4 led to the opening of many new
collieries in the South Wales, Northern and Midland districts of
England, as well as in Germany and elsewhere. The result was to
create a capacity of output far beyond the demand--160,000,000 tons
per annum now as compared with 127,000,000 tons in 1873. The desire
which exists in every district for reductions in railway rates is
not so much to meet foreign, as home competition; the strength of
that desire is ascribable to the activity and intensity of the
latter competition.
In regard to export trade, the inland producers of manufactured
goods must be at a disadvantage as compared with their rivals on the
sea coast. But no complaint that the railway companies had diverted
traffic from England abroad by exorbitant rates was made out before
the Railway Rates Committee. The Royal Commission on the Depression
of Trade have heard much evidence to that effect, but they have
not thought it necessary to call upon the railway companies for
any reply. To very different causes--some of them far reaching and
deep--is due the depression which interested persons would attribute
on superficial grounds to the operation of rates.
Upon the policies pursued by foreign Governments in regard to the
construction and working of railways, it is unnecessary to pass
any opinion. No trustworthy judgment is possible without fully
considering all the circumstances--especially the difficulties to
be encountered and the objects which the Governments had in view.
It is enough to point out how radically different are the railway
systems here and abroad--how much at variance are the policies
pursued by our Government and by those of Continental States. Here
the sole principle running through railway legislation has been to
depend upon private enterprise, and to encourage competition between
the companies.[112] Parliament has afforded no assistance to them,
except indeed conferring the power to purchase, often on payment
of exorbitant prices, the necessary land. Even when property of
the State has been required by a railway company, the Government
have, as a rule, been as exacting in their terms as any of the
now maligned landowners, wholly different has been the policy of
Governments abroad. Not only have railways been saved the payment
of extravagant compensation or legal expenses in obtaining powers
to construct the railways or acquire property, but inasmuch as the
public in France did not, as in England, come forward to provide the
necessary capital, the State supplied large portions of the capital
of some railways, and contracted heavy obligations to promote the
construction of others. In Germany, the State is responsible for
the interest on the capital, the Government alone bearing any loss
arising from charging low rates or otherwise. That also is the
position of the Government in Belgium, which is responsible to
the extent of 71 per cent. of the railway system in that country.
The principles which have guided the Belgian Government in fixing
railway rates appear from the extract from the report of the Debate
to be found on page 115. At an interview which M. Vandenpeereboom,
the Belgian Minister of Railways, Post and Telegraphs, was good
enough to grant the writer, this was confirmed. Asked “what had been
the object which the Government had in fixing the tariff; whether
they had in view the obtaining of a fair interest on the outlay
as a commercial undertaking, or whether the object was to develop
the resources of the country, looking to a return on the outlay
as a secondary consideration,” M. Vandenpeereboom replied “_that
the object had been to develop the resources of the country_, and
therefore a return on the capital was not of primary importance.”
These fundamental differences cannot be disregarded; the fruits of
systems so radically dissimilar cannot be expected to be the same.
[112] “Monopoly” is at present the favourite word of the adversaries
of railways; everything is permissible because railway companies
have a “monopoly.” This word has at least three senses. Monopoly in
the strict legal sense in which the Bank of England is guaranteed
by statute, the exclusive right of issuing notes within a certain
area; monopoly in the sense of being able to exclude other
competitors, because in a commercial point of view there is no room
for competition, or because the work could not be done more cheaply
or better by others. Messrs. W. H. Smith may be said to possess
a monopoly in this sense; monopoly is equivalent to property. No
railway company possesses a monopoly in the first sense. No company
is guaranteed against competition within any area, as many of them
know to their cost. Most attacks against railways are justified by
using the word, true in the second or third sense, as if true in the
first; and persons in eminent positions occasionally condescend to
sanction the use of this fallacy.
If the State here, as in France, had provided without charging
interest towards the capital expended upon the railways in this
country, the same proportion as was so provided by the State in
France (say upwards of £200,000,000), and guaranteed from 7 to 11
per cent. dividend on the remainder of the share capital; if it
had, as in Holland, found three-fifths (£480,880,000) of the total
sum expended on British railways, and accepted less than one per
cent. interest upon the advance, the railway companies in this
country could have afforded to carry at rates considerably lower
than they now carry. It would not have been unreasonable in that
case on the part of traders to have called on them to do so.
But the benefits, such as they are, of the Continental system cannot
be fairly claimed without bearing the cost. Other countries, having
in view advantages from railways, have paid for them with public
money, and are prepared to pay still further for them at the expense
of the taxpayer; it would be an unreasonable and scarcely honest
policy to try to get indirectly the same rights and advantages
without payment.
Our Government have been called upon to reduce the rates of the
railway companies upon the complaint of traders that they have to
compete with French, German, and Belgian traders, who are served
by what, speaking generally, may be termed “subsidised lines.” To
such an application the answer of the Government of this country,
who have hitherto declined to aid the sugar manufacturers in their
competition with those in France, supported though the latter are by
State bounties, cannot be doubtful. Nor would purchase by the State
remove all the differences which have been mentioned. Some of them
cannot now be overcome. If the Government did purchase the railways,
and by reducing the accommodation to something like that given on
the Continent, were enabled to diminish the working expenses; if
they placed the railways on the same footing as regards duties and
taxes as the Government lines in Germany, the fact would remain
that the railways in this country have cost from 45 to 120 per cent.
more than those on the Continent, and that in wages alone there is a
disparity which they would not be able materially to alter.
The volume of trade in England, it may be said, is greater in
proportion to that of other countries; this should be considered, it
may be argued, as an equivalent for the greater cost of construction
and working of the railways. The fact that the average dividend is
only 4·02 per cent.--that is, two-fifths of the dividend which in
1844 it was considered the railways should pay--is one of several
answers to this contention.
A few remarks may be made with respect to the second class of
complaints--those which relate to the mode of fixing rates.
The chief question is, What rates will at once yield a fair return
on the capital of railways and best accommodate and develop the
trade of the country? The early Acts provided that they should be
fixed according to mileage. This, as we have seen, was altered by s.
90 of the Railway Clauses Act 1845. Are railway companies no longer
to carry out the provision of that Act, and continue to charge rates
“so as to accommodate them to the circumstances of the traffic?”
That principle has guided them for forty years, and certainly ought
not to be altered without good cause and full consideration. Instead
of merely inveighing against the present mode of fixing rates as
unscientific, those who are dissatisfied should explicitly state
what mode they would substitute, and make clear by full explanation
that it would be at once fair to the companies, and not injurious
to the trade of the country. To charge according to actual cost of
conveyance, or on a strictly mileage basis, has been shown to be
impracticable and impolitic. What other modes can be suggested?
If the mode of fixing rates adopted in France, Holland, Belgium and
Germany--systems which differ from each other--are suited to those
countries they would be inapplicable here. In practice they have
to be modified. In Holland, for instance, the theory is mileage
rates, but the greater portion of the traffic conveyed by railways
is, in fact, carried on under special contracts wholly inconsistent
with the principle upon which the railway rate system is nominally
based, which, if imitated in this country, would afford continuous
occupation for the Railway Commissioners.
The main complaint against the English companies is that they so
charge differential rates as to encourage foreign competition. The
effect of these rates is apt to be overestimated or misunderstood.
The benefits which the manufacturers derive from the low export
rates--based upon exactly the same principle--are entirely ignored.
It may be a matter of doubt whether it has been prudent on the
part of railway companies to consent to some of the import rates
complained of. Indeed, this doubt may be entertained, even if there
is no substantial grievance, and it may be desirable that Parliament
or the Board of Trade should institute an inquiry into the subject,
which affects not only the interests of railway companies,
agriculturists, and manufacturers, but also those of consumers,
steamboat proprietors, merchants, and sea-ports.
No system of rates can be suggested, much less adopted, which
would satisfy the desires of all traders. When the recommendation
of the Railway Rates Committee is carried out--when one uniform
classification is adopted over all the railways, and the maximum
rate clauses of the Companies are consolidated and revised on the
basis of their existing powers--any difficulty in ascertaining
whether the charges are within the companies’ powers will be
removed. The reasonableness of the charges for terminal services
will be determined by the Railway Commissioners.
Instead of the many scales of tolls now in force on all large
systems of railways--due to their being built up of originally
independent lines--one or at most two scales of tolls will govern
the entire systems of companies. By this process a great improvement
will be effected. Many of the anomalies in the rates will be
removed. But it is to be hoped, in the interest of the trade of the
country as a whole, that no legislation affecting railways, while
preserving the existing provisions against undue preference, will
interfere with the right of the companies to charge, within their
maxima, differential rates such as the traffic will fairly bear; a
power which has enabled them to meet the requirements of producers
and consumers in varying circumstances.
These observations have not been written with a view to prove that
there is no scope for criticism in the management of railways in
this country, but are made with every desire to comprehend and
appreciate all reasonable objections. They do not pretend to solve
all difficulties of the railway problem; but they may, at least,
show the serious dangers which would arise if some of the crude and
popular proposals often put forward were adopted, and may aid in
arriving at a safe and equitable settlement.
APPENDIX I.
COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLISH AND FOREIGN RATES.
The figures and facts which have been stated prove that, as a rule,
no fair, or even useful, comparison can be made between rates per
ton per mile on railways in England, and those charged on railways
in continental countries. A multitude of circumstances--original
cost of construction, difference in gradients, nature of services
performed, speed in transit, limited liability of foreign companies,
opportunities for getting full loads, immunity from taxation--must
all be taken into account before a just comparison can be
established.
But even assuming due regard is not given to these striking
differences the inference to the extent drawn by Sir B. Samuelson is
not accurate; the rates on the Continent are not universally lower.
Sir B. Samuelson’s report contains many errors of detail; and some
of them are worth noting, because they are frequently repeated.
Comparisons throughout have been made without due regard to the
conditions attaching to the rates, or the different circumstances
under which the traffic is carried. We give a few instances of the
errors; errors, it may be observed, not merely in calculation but in
the very bases of the comparison.
An effort has been made to reduce the English rates (which include
collection and delivery) to station to station rates, with the
object of comparing them with similar rates in other countries. But
many of the deductions are inaccurate and misleading. Instead of
adding to the continental station to station rates the charges for
cartage, which in Brussels is 4s. per ton, and in other Belgian
towns about 2s. 5d. at each end, Sir B. Samuelson has apparently
made arbitrary deductions of sums varying from 3d. and 4d. to 1s.
and 2s. per ton for cartage from British rates. These are manifestly
insufficient deductions. It is impossible that services could
be performed for such sums, especially in London. We cite a few
illustrations of this class of errors.
For IRON WIRE packed from Birmingham to London the rate is
shown as 24s. 4d. per ton; the actual rate is 28s. 4d. per ton,
including collection and delivery. Apparently 4s. per ton has
been deducted for cartage at both ends; that is _merely 2s. per
ton_ for cartage in London, although the cost of delivery in
such a city as Brussels would be 4s. per ton.
Similar remarks apply to the rates for unpacked iron wire from
Birmingham to London and Manchester, which have been treated in
the same way.
COTTON GOODS from Manchester to Oxford.--The rate shewn on
page 32 is 42s. per ton, station to station; the correct rate,
including collection and delivery, being 42s. 6d. per ton, so
that 6d. per ton, _or 3d. per ton only at each end_, has been
apparently allowed for collection and delivery.
WOOLLEN, WORSTED AND STUFF GOODS from Bradford (Yorks) to
Norwich.--The rate shown on page 32 is 41s. per ton, station
to station, while the correct rate, including collection and
delivery, is 41s. 8d. per ton; 8d. per ton being apparently
allowed in this case for the two services of collection and
delivery.
GENERAL MACHINERY from Leeds to Newcastle.--The export rate is
12s. 6d. per ton, including both collection and delivery, but
11s. 6d. is shewn on page 33 of report; that is, 1s. per ton
only has been deducted for the two services of collection and
delivery.[113]
[113] Some difficulty has been experienced in checking the rates
contained in Sir B. Samuelson’s report owing to the distances not
being given, and from the name of the district being used instead
of the names of the places between which the rates are shewn. For
instance, although the South Wales Coalfields extend over a very
large area, a rate of 7s. 3d. per ton for coke is referred to as
from “South Wales to Darlaston,” on page 24 of the report; and in
like manner on pages 27 and 28 the rates for pig iron are given as
from “Cleveland and Northamptonshire.”
These errors make many of the comparisons valueless.
A still graver error has been repeatedly committed. Notwithstanding
the remark (page 19) that the cost of collection and delivery has
been deducted, Sir B. Samuelson has in numerous cases assumed
British rates, which include either collection or delivery, and in
some cases both those services, to be station to station rates, and
compared them as such with station to station rates on the foreign
lines. Here are a few examples of this class of mistakes.
GENERAL MACHINERY.--Leeds to Hull, the export rate of 12s. 6d.
per ton is shown on page 33 as station to station, whereas it
includes both collection and delivery.
Though all the following rates for BUTTER include collection
and delivery, they are shewn on pages 38 and 39 as station to
station, viz.:--
s. d.
Hull to Manchester 21 8 per ton.
” Birmingham 21 8 ”
” Leeds 13 4 ”
Newcastle to Manchester 23 4 ”
” Birmingham 21 8 ”
” Leeds 14 2 ”
An unfortunate omission may be mentioned. In some cases there are
alternative rates on the English railways, _i.e._, a higher rate
when the company undertakes the risk of conveyance, and a lower
rate when the risk is borne by the owner. In no single instance has
Sir B. Samuelson taken in his comparisons the lower owner’s risk
rate chargeable at the option of the consignor. Yet in Holland,
for instance, the goods are carried practically at the risk of the
owner. On some goods no compensation for damage or delay is payable,
while on the others the compensation is limited, in some cases, to
simply a return of a portion, or, at the utmost, the whole of the
freight. We give a few examples of this class of errors.
The rate for iron wire packed from Birmingham to London is shown
on page 29 as 24s. 4d. per ton station to station; there is no
reference to the fact that there is an owner’s risk rate of 19s. 2d.
per ton, collected and delivered.
In like manner the rates for agricultural implements shown in the
first column of the following table are given on pages 33 & 34 of
the report, although there are the special rates shown in the other
columns, all notice of which has been omitted.
AGRICULTURAL MACHINES.
------------------+--------------+--------------------------------------
| | SPECIAL RATES.
| +------------+---------+---------------
| Rates |Agricultural| Machines| Machines
FROM TO | per ton in | Engines, | in cases|not in cases at
|report reduced| Steam | and iron| owner’s risk
| to station to| Ploughs, | harrows | collected and
| station. |&c., station|collected| delivered.
| | to station.| and |
| | |delivered|
------------------+--------------+------------+---------+---------------
| per ton. | per ton. | per ton.| per ton.
Banbury London | 26/2 to 32/- | 14/8 | 24/2 | 25/- to 29/7
” Lynn | 28/8 ” 34/6 | 19/8 | 26/8 | 27/1 ” 32/1
” Shrewsbury| 25/4 ” 30/4 | 16/2 | 23/4 | 24/2 ” 28/4
| | [114]| [115]| [116]
” Liverpool | 35/4 ” 43/8 | 28/6 | 31/8 | 32/6 ” 39/7
” Bridgwater| 34/6 ” 40/4 | 24/- | 29/2 | 31/3 ” 36/8
Bedford London | 18/8 ” 22/- | 11/- | 17/6 | 18/4 ” 21/3
------------------+--------------+------------+---------+---------------
[114] Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in
Liverpool in 10 ton lots.
[115] Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in
Liverpool in 10 ton lots.
[116] Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in
Liverpool in 10 ton lots.
These are not the only misleading omissions; it is incumbent to
mention others not less important.
In Holland bulky articles pay double the fast goods or ordinary
goods rates, or as for a minimum truckload of 5,000 or 10,000
kilogrammes respectively. An actual instance of a consignment from
Rotterdam to Munich will illustrate the system:--2 machines and 7
packages of appurtenances, the actual weight of which was 6,762
kilogrammes (6 tons 13 cwt.) were charged as for 10,000 kilogrammes
(9 tons 16 cwt. 3 qrs.) under the conditions of special tariff No.
3. This special rate is ignored.
In almost every instance, Sir B. Samuelson has taken the lowest
rates in Germany, Belgium and Holland, which are applicable only to
full truckloads of 5 and 10 tons, and in some cases, viz., Belgium,
to a minimum weight of 8 cwt. These he has used for the purpose of
comparison with English rates for any quantities over 500 lbs.
The rate for hardware from Birmingham to Newcastle for
export--206 miles--is 27s. 6d. per ton, including collection
and delivery, but it is shewn as 25s. 6d. per ton, station to
station, overlooking the special owner’s risk rate of 25s. per
ton, which also includes collection and delivery. The German
rate for the same distance (331 kilometres) is incorrectly given
as 18s. 7d. per ton; the lowest station to station rate is 19s.
per ton for full truckloads of not less than 5 tons, the rate
for smaller quantities, including collection and delivery, being
45s. 2d. per ton.
In Belgium again, the station to station rate of 18s. 11d. per
ton (which should be 19s. 4d.) is for a minimum of 8 cwt., the
rate, including collection and delivery for the same minimum,
being 24s. 3d. per ton.
The Dutch station to station rate of 14s. 10d. per ton (which
should be 15s. 7d.) is for full truck loads of not less than
5 tons, the rate, including collection and delivery for any
quantities, being 30s. 4d. per ton.
In the German tariff the rate is 2·15d. per ton per mile for goods
of every description in lots of less than 5 tons, with a lower
tariff divided into six classes for goods in full truckloads of
5 and 10 tons. The latter have been compared with the rates on
English railways applicable to consignment of 500 lbs. and over,
or of 2 tons. The higher foreign tariff for such traffic, in like
circumstances, is not shown. To arrive at a proper comparison, the
English rate should, in many instances, have been compared with
the rates charged for “_Eilgut_” (or fast goods service) on the
continental lines. Of course, the general public in Holland and
Germany cannot avail themselves of the rates for 5 and 10 ton lots.
They must deal with carriers or forwarding agents, who perform many
of the services included in the rates on English railways, and who
fill up, or partially fill up, truckloads. The agents who pay the
railway transit charges are free to make their own charges to the
public without limitation. What would be instructive--what, however,
is not supplied--would be a comparison between what is actually paid
in England, and what the majority of the public pay in Germany;
it is of little interest to know _what the carriers or forwarding
agents pay_ to the railway companies. The comparison, such as it is,
does not show the rate of conveyance per ton, because the carriers
have to pay as for five or ten tons, even if that quantity is not in
a wagon. They must make charges to the public beyond the ordinary
profits to cover deficiencies in the loads per wagon, as well as for
all the services performed by them.[117]
In some instances, Sir B. Samuelson has not included in the foreign
rates the charge for loading and unloading. Bar-iron is a case in
point. In every other case he has omitted to include in those rates
the charges for weighing, counting, labelling, booking, use of
cranes, and advice of arrival of goods--all of which are authorised
additional charges beyond the tariff rates. In this country, as
is well known, such services are included in the collected and
delivered railway rates.[118]
[117] The observation made in the report that the higher rates
in Germany are avoided by the intervention of forwarding agents,
who collect from small consignees, and make up the minimum load,
charging somewhat higher rates than for 5 or 10 ton lots, shows that
it was seen that, although the comparison of British rates is made
with them, the general public cannot obtain the advantage of the low
rates, because of the heavy minimum quantities.
[118] The following are the charges authorised to be made for such
services in addition to the mileage rate and terminals in Germany,
Holland, and Belgium:--
---------------+---------------------+------------------+--------------
| GERMANY. | HOLLAND. | BELGIUM.
---------------+---------------------+------------------+--------------
{| 1·2d. per 20 pieces.| |
{| 1s. 0d. per truck | |
Counting {| minimum. | 0·2d. per packge.| 1d. per ton.
{| 3s. 0d. per truck | |
{| maximum. | |
| | |
{| Stückgut 0·6d. per | |
{| 2 cwt. | |
Weighing {| Wagon Loads 0·48d. | from 0·2d. to | 5d. per ton.
{| per 2 cwt. if each | 0·6d. per 2 cwt. |
{| piece is weighed | |
{| separately; 1s.0d. | |
{| per truck. | |
| | |
Booking | ... | ... | 2d. per con-
| | | signment.
| | |
Labelling | 0·6d. per piece. | 0·6d. per packge.| 2d.
| | |
Stamping | ... | 1·2d. each note. | ...
| | |
Use of Cranes | 0·36d. per 2 cwt. | 10d. to 1s. 8d. | 3d. per ton.
| 9d. minimum. | per ton. |
| | |
Advice of Goods| About ½d. | 1d. | 1d.
| | |
Tarpaulins | 2s. 0d. each. | 2s. 8d. each. | 1s. 7d. each.
| | |
Disinfecting | 1s. per truck. | 1s. per truck. | 1s. per truck
---------------+---------------------+------------------+--------------
Such are some examples of the errors vitiating the comparison. We
have by no means exhausted them; they might be greatly multiplied.
It is not intended to suggest that Sir B. Samuelson has been
more inaccurate than other critics. On the contrary, his report,
notwithstanding its inaccuracies, shows that a considerable
amount of labour has been expended in endeavouring to obtain the
information. It is a favourable specimen of such criticisms, and for
this reason it is deserving of notice. It is, of course, difficult
for any person, even when practically acquainted with railway
business, to appreciate the practical effect of the different
conditions under which traffic is carried on Foreign and English
railways. It is not surprising that Sir B. Samuelson has evidently
not become fully acquainted with all the conditions of carriage,
or that he has omitted to give them their proper value in the tables
which he has prepared. Unfortunately, owing to the omissions, the
conclusions which he draws are, in some cases, erroneous,
and in others misleading.
APPENDIX II.
COMPARISON OF RAILWAY RECEIPTS FROM MERCHANDISE AND MINERAL TRAFFIC.
It may be useful to enquire how far it is true that the heavy trades
of coal and iron, or the general trade of the country, are being
“slowly, but surely killed by high rates and tolls,” or otherwise.
That trade in all countries is subject to fluctuation is undoubted,
and the causes are many and various. The conveyance of minerals and
goods upon the railways of the United Kingdom is one test. Let us
take periods of three years:--
RAILWAY RECEIPTS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
Average per Year.
Years. For minerals. General merchandise.
1875 to 1877 £13,560,096 £18,922,238
1878 ” 1880 13,891,326 19,181,927
1881 ” 1883 15,742,615 20,801,075
{ 2 years }
1884 & 1885{ of } 15,387,443 20,631,066
{depression}
According to the test of railway receipts for conveyance of minerals
and goods, the killing process seems very slow indeed, and it is
not even sure, because in 1885 the railway receipts for minerals
were in some instances reduced. The average receipts for minerals
were about 2¼ per cent. less on the average of the past two years
as compared with those of the previous three years. In the case
of goods traffic this percentage was only 0·82 per cent. But, as
against the above average receipts for 1884 and 1885, let us place
the average for the preceding nine years. For minerals, £14,398,012;
for goods, £19,635,080, which shows an increased receipt on the
average of the past two years--on minerals of £989,431; on goods
of £995,986. Certainly these results are the reverse of decay in
traffic or trade.
Another and better test is the tonnage of minerals and goods
conveyed on the railways of the United Kingdom for the like period.
Years. Minerals. Goods.
Tons. Tons.
1875 to 1877, average 141,910,505 64,094,565
1878 ” 1880 ” 152,528,097 65,548,450
1881 ” 1883 ” 182,310,041 74,204,559
1884 ” 1885 ” 183,696,151 74,612,020
This test contradicts the theory of decaying trade in an
unmistakable manner, but it may be urged that these averages are
insufficient to show the great depression in 1885. The fact is, that
in 1885 there was a larger tonnage of minerals conveyed than in any
year, with the exception of 1883, and a larger tonnage of goods than
in any year except 1882, 1883 and 1884.
But a third test, that of production, may be applied. In 1884, the
quantity of coal raised in the United Kingdom
was 160,758,000 tons.
and in 1885 159,351,000 ”
-----------------
Decrease 1,407,000 tons.
or about ·88 per cent.
In 1884 the tonnage of iron ore raised was 16,138,000 tons,
And Iron Ore imported 2,730,800 ”
-----------------
18,868,800 tons.
In 1885, 15,418,000 tons of Iron Ore were raised
Add 2,822,600 ” imported.
----------
18,240,600 ”
being a decrease of 628,200 tons, or a decrease of 3·33 per cent.
In 1883, the quantity of pig iron produced in Great
Britain was 8,529,000 tons.
” 1884 7,812,000 ”
” 1885 7,415,000 ”
The fact is, that 1883 was an exceptional year. The tonnage of
minerals conveyed by railway in 1883 was 8,075,101 tons greater than
in 1882, 13,451,612 tons greater than in 1881, and 23,815,308 tons
greater than in 1880.
And in like manner the tonnage of general merchandise conveyed in
1883 was 2,192,034 tons in excess of 1882, 5,886,356 tons in excess
of 1881, and 7,262,031 tons in excess of the tonnage of 1880.
The production of pig iron is not a real test, inasmuch as large
stocks accumulate at certain periods, and the ratio of production is
lessened in order to reduce the quantity in stock.
No doubt depression of trade may arise from lower prices. The years
1876 and 1877 were probably those during which the highest possible
prices ruled for coal, iron, &c. What were the quantities conveyed
by railway?
Minerals. Merchandise.
Tons. Tons.
In 1875 137,087,713 62,981,938
” 1876 141,779,393 64,185,671
” 1877 146,864,410 65,116,085
” 1880 165,670,304 69,635,325
” 1883 189,485,612 76,897,356
” 1885 183,776,745 73,511,709
If lower prices now rule, it is clear there is a very much larger
volume of trade now than in the years of high prices. That there has
been depression in some branches of the trade of the country may be
a fact, but it is only natural to overrate and overstate its reality
and importance, and to cast blame upon the wrong parties.
APPENDIX III.
TARIFFS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF MERCHANDISE TRAFFIC.
HOLLAND.
There is no scale of rates universally chargeable in Holland; each
railway company is authorised by the Concession under which the
railway was constructed to charge certain specified rates. The
rates actually charged are, as in England, generally lower than the
maximum, and they are controlled by the State.
Although the same maximum rates do not govern all the railways
in Holland, and the classifications also vary, the basis of a
mileage scale is practically the same throughout, viz.:--a rate per
kilometre and per ton according to distance, and a fixed charge for
Station terminals according to class. The terminal charges on Fast
and “Piece” (ordinary) goods include loading and unloading, but in
the wagon load classes the terminals do not include those services.
The tariff for the conveyance of through Goods Traffic--_i.e._,
traffic exchanged between all Dutch Railways--is divided into the
following classes, viz.:--
1. Fast Goods, carried by ordinary Passenger Trains.
2. “Piece” (Ordinary) Goods, or consignments under 5 tons
carried by Goods Trains.
3. Truck loads--Classes A, B and C.
Mileage rates per kilometre and per ton of 1,000 kilos.:--
--------------------+------+---------+---------------------------
| |Ordinary | Truck Loads.
| Fast | Goods +--------+--------+---------
DISTANCES. |Goods.|less than|Class A.|Class B.|Class C.
| | 5 tons. | | |
--------------------+------+---------+--------+--------+---------
|Cents.| Cents. | Cents. | Cents. | Cents.
1 to 50 kilometres| 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02
51 to 150 ” | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01
151 to 250 ” | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01
251 and upwards | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01
--------------------+------+---------+--------+--------+---------
NOTE.--One cent. per 1,000 kilogrammes per kilometre equals 0.327d.
per ton per mile.
Terminal charges per 1,000 kilos.:-- s. d.
Fast Goods Fl. 2.50 { Including loading } (4/2)
Ordinary Goods ” 1.50 { and unloading } (2/6)
Class A. ” 0.90 (1/6)
” B. ” 0.80 (1/4)
” C. ” 0.70 (1/2)
Consignments of Fast Goods and Piece Goods weighing less than 50
kilos. (1 cwt.) are charged as for 50 kilos.--the minimum charge per
freight note being 60 cents. (1s.) by Fast Train; 30 cents. (6d.) by
Goods Train.
To the “Ordinary Goods” class belong all goods in lots of less than
5 tons carried by Goods Train; to the “Truck Load,” class A--all
goods in 5 ton lots, or paying as for 5 tons, which, according to
the classification, do not belong to classes B or C. Classes B and C
comprise Truck Loads of 5 and 10 tons respectively of such goods as
are specified in the classification.
On the DUTCH STATES AND CENTRAL RAILWAYS the mileage rates for
local traffic are the same as the foregoing scale for through
traffic; but the terminals vary as under:--
Terminals
per Ton of
1,000 Kilos.
Fast Goods Fl. 1.40 { including loading } (2/4)
Ordinary Goods ” 0.90 { and unloading } (1/6)
Class A. ” 0.70 (1/2)
” B. ” 0.70 (1/2)
” C. ” 0.70 (1/2)
On the HOLLAND RAILWAY the mileage rates and the terminals for local
traffic are as follows:--
Mileage rates Terminals
per Ton, and per Ton of
per Kilometre. 1,000 Kilos.
Fast Goods Fl. 0.08 Fl. 1.20 { Including } (2/-)
Ordinary Goods ” 0.05 ” 1.20 { loading and } (2/-)
{ unloading }
Class A. ” 0.02½ ” 0.80 (1/4)
” B. ” 0.02 ” 0.80 (1/4)
” C. ” 0.013 ” 0.70 (1/2)
On the DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY the following are the mileage rates
charged:--[119]
------------------+--------+-----------+-----------------------+--------
| | GENERAL | BULK GOODS. |
| FAST | GOODS. | | SPEC’L
| GOODS. |-----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ CLASS.
| | I. | II. | A. | B. | C. | D. |
------------------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------
| [120] |[121]| | | | | |
| | (_Per 1000 Kilogramme in Cents._) |
| cts. | cts.| cts.| cts.| cts.| cts.| cts.| cts.
Rate per Kilometre| 13·3 | 6·7| 5·3| 4 | 3·3| 2·7| 2 | 1·3
| | | | | | | |
Terminals |fl. 1·20| 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 72
| | | | | | | |
| |(_In English Money. Pence_) | |
| d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d.
Rate per mile | 4·28 |2·156|1·7 |1·288|1·056|0·87 |0·64 |0·418
| s. d. |s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.
Terminals | 2 0 |1 0 |1 0 |1 0 |1 0 |1 0 |1 0 |1 2·5
------------------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------
[119] NOTE.--By agreement the Holland Railway Company are bound
to adopt the same basis as the local rates on the States Railway,
unless their own scale is lower.
[120] The terminals for Fast, and General Goods Classes 1 and 2,
include loading and unloading.
[121] The terminals for Fast, and General Goods Classes 1 and 2,
include loading and unloading.
The tariff of the DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY is divided into the
following classes:--
(_a_) Fast goods, which are usually forwarded by mixed Goods and
Passenger trains and by Fast Goods trains.
(_b_) General Goods in quantities of less than 5 tons not mentioned
in the classification as belonging to another class. (Class I.)
(_c_) General Goods in quantities of less than 5 tons which pay less
according to classification. (Class II.)
Goods of these two Classes in lots of at least 5 tons pay the rate
of Class A.
(_d_) Bulk Goods which in quantities of at least 5 tons, or
quantities which are charged as if for that weight, are carried at
reduced rates. These are subdivided into Classes A, B, C and D.
Goods belonging to Class A, in quantities of 10 tons in one truck
are carried at the rates of Class B.
(_e_) Special class--Goods which in consignments of 10 tons, or
paying for that weight, are carried at special reduced rates.
Goods in the Special Class must be in lots of 10,000 kilos. (10
Tons.) If a consignment weighed 11,000 kilos., the first 10,000
kilos, would be charged at the Special Rate, and the remaining 1,000
kilos. at the rate for Class I.
Goods in classes A, B, and C, are only charged at those rates if the
consignments exceed 5 tons.
Goods belonging to Classes B, C, and D, and to the Special Class are
carried in open wagons, the railway not being compelled to provide
covers; but the consignor may cover the trucks _at his own expense
and risk_, or give instructions in the freight-note for having the
goods rated according to Class A, in which case they are treated in
the same manner as goods belonging to that class. An exception is
made, however, in the case of those goods which, according to law,
must be carried in open trucks.
The consignor may also give directions that the goods belonging to
Class A are to be carried at the rates of Class B, in which case
they are conveyed in open trucks. Those goods, which although paying
the rates of Class A, must be carried in open trucks, are excluded
from this regulation.
At the special request of senders, tarpaulins are supplied by some
of the railway companies, if there are any available, upon payment
of fl. 1.60 (2s. 8d.) each, for distances up to 225 kilometres, with
an additional charge of fl. 0.80 (1s. 4d.) for each additional 225
kilom. The DUTCH RHENISH and HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANIES do not supply
tarpaulins under any circumstances.
The railway companies undertake no responsibility whatever for
damage arising from goods being carried in open trucks.
* * * * *
The following charges are allowed by law in addition to the
foregoing rates and terminals: and with few exceptions they are the
same on all railways.
For loading or unloading goods carried under the conditions
of the truck load classes, if the service is performed by the
railway company--
DUTCH STATES AND CENTRAL RAILWAYS, 5d. per ton.
HOLLAND RAILWAY, 4d. per ton for ordinary sized goods, for
articles weighing 1 ton or more 1s. 2d. per ton.
DUTCH RHENISH Railway, 4d. per ton.
Goods which are of unusual size or weight, or for the loading
and unloading of which special arrangements have to be made,
must always be loaded and unloaded by consignor or consignee at
their own cost and risk.
For the use of cranes and other hoisting tackle, when the owner of
the Goods finds the labour, the following are the charges:
DUTCH STATES AND CENTRAL RAILWAYS, 10d. per ton.
DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY. Per ton
for loading
or unloading
s. d.
For articles weighing 1 to 5 tons 0 10
5 to 10 ” 1 3
10 to 12 ” 1 8
* * * * *
For tipping coals in quantities of--
100 tons and above 1d.6 per ton.
50 to 100 tons 1d.8 ”
Up to 50 tons 2d. ”
On the STATES RAILWAY the charge is reduced to 1d.2 per ton if
20,000 tons per year are tipped.
* * * * *
For counting general goods--Per package, 0d.2, with a minimum of
1d.2.
The HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANY make no charge for counting ordinary
goods, but for truck loads they charge 1d.2 per 10 packages, with a
minimum of 1s. per truck load.
* * * * *
For stamping duplicate freight note--1d.2 each.
The STATES, CENTRAL AND HOLLAND RAILWAYS make no charge.
* * * * *
For delivery of general goods--
(_a_) Under ordinary circumstances 1d. per cwt.,
with a minimum charge per consignment of 6d.
(_b_) Under unusual circumstances, such as closed
water, snow in street, etc., 2d. per cwt., with
a minimum per consignment of 1s.
For collection--
(_a_) Under ordinary circumstances 1d. per cwt.,
with a minimum charge per consignment of 10d.
(_b_) Under unusual circumstances 2d. per cwt., with
a minimum charge per consignment of 1s. 8d.
The HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANY make charges for collection and delivery
varying according to the Station.
The DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY COMPANY raise the charge only under
unusual circumstances.
* * * * *
For advising the consignee of the arrival of his goods a charge of
1d. is made in all cases, except--
(_a_) In the case of goods to be called for;
(_b_) If consignee signs an agreement releasing
the Company, not only from advising arrival, but also
from all responsibility for detention of goods arising
from notification of arrival not having been made.
The HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANY charge 0d.6 if the advice is sent by
post.
* * * * *
LABELLING.--All goods in consignments of less than 5 tons
must be labelled or marked with the name of the receiving
Station. If the goods are tendered without this having been
done, a charge for labelling of 0d.6 per package, with a minimum
of 2d.4 is made by the Company. The HOLLAND RAILWAY COMPANY do
not show any such charge in their rate book.
COMMISSION FOR COLLECTING PAID-ONS.--A commission of 1% with
a minimum of 1d. for ordinary paid-ons, and ¼%, for amounts
paid for duty, &c., and for all costs incurred in connection
with the last-named, is charged.
* * * * *
WAREHOUSE RENT.--All goods other than truck loads which are
left till called for, are subject to the following charges if
they are not taken away within 24 hours after receipt of advice
of arrival:--
Dutch Dutch
Rhenish States Holland.
per 2 cwt. and
Central.
(a) If warehoused in the
sheds per day 1d.2 0d.4 1d.2
With a minimum of 2d.4 2d. 4d.
(b) If left in the Company’s
yard per day 0d.6 0d.2 0d.6
With a minimum of 2d.4 2d. 4d.
* * * * *
DEMURRAGE.--If trucks are not unloaded within eight hours
after receipt of the notice of arrival a charge is made of 2d.4
per hour and truck, with a minimum of 1/-; or the Company may
unload the goods at the owner’s expense, and warehouse them,
charging rent.
The same amount of demurrage is charged if the trucks, which
are to be loaded by consignors themselves, are not ready within
the appointed time. If the consignor receives notice that the
trucks are at his disposal in the morning, the loading must be
effected on the same day; if notice is given in the afternoon,
the loading must be over before 2 p.m. on the day following.
WEIGHING.--On the DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY a charge of 0d.6 per
2 cwt., with a minimum of 1d.2 for each item included in the
freight-note, is made for weighing. On the DUTCH STATES and
CENTRAL RAILWAYS the charge is 0d.2 per cwt., with a minimum of
4d. per consignment, and on the HOLLAND RAILWAYS 0D.8 PER 2 CWT.
WITH A MINIMUM OF 4D.
(_a._) If the goods are weighed at the request of the consignor or
consignee.
(_b._) If the weight is not given in the freight note, but has to be
filled in by the Company.
(_c._) If the Company load the goods on behalf of consignor.
If the goods are weighed in full truck loads, the charge on the
DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY is 3d. per ton on the net weight; on the
DUTCH STATES, CENTRAL and HOLLAND, 2s. If each article is weighed
separately the charge is 0d.5 per 2 cwt.
* * * * *
TIME ALLOWED BY LAW FOR TRANSPORT.--The time occupied by the
conveyance of goods, carriages, &c., may not exceed the following
maxima, which are in force on all the Dutch Railways, and also on
all the Railways forming part of the German Union:--
(_a_) Express Goods--
1. Time for forwarding 24 hours.
2. Time for conveyance for each 186
miles or part thereof 24 ”
(_b_) General Goods--
1. Time for forwarding 48 ”
2. Time for conveyance--
(_a_) For distances up to 62 miles 24 ”
(_b_) For each 124 miles, or part
thereof, above 62 miles 24 ”
(_c_) Horses, cattle, or other large animals--
(_a_) If carried by Passenger Train--
1. Time for forwarding 24 ”
2. Time for conveyance for each 186
miles or part thereof 24 ”
(_b_) If carried by Goods Train--
1. Time for forwarding 48 ”
2. Time for conveyance for each 186
miles or part thereof 48 ”
The time allowed for forwarding may only be reckoned once,
irrespective of the number of railways over which the goods have
to pass. On occasions of pressure of traffic caused by fairs,
closed water, &c., these limits may be extended by the Minister of
Railways. The time allowed for transport commences at the midnight
following the stamping of the freight note, and it is not exceeded
if the goods are delivered to consignee before the prescribed
time has expired, or, in the event of the goods not having to be
delivered, if notice is given in writing to consignee of their
arrival before the expiration of the prescribed time.
AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY THE COMPANY IN CASE THE TIME ALLOWED BY LAW IS
EXCEEDED, AND NO VALUE IS INSURED.
(_a_) For General Goods, if the delay amount to more than 24 hours;
or in the case of horses and other animals to more than 48 hours: up
to 72 hours, ¼ of the freight; up to 8 days ⅓ of the freight;
beyond 8 days, ½ of the freight.
(_b_) For Express Goods: beyond 12, and up to 24 hours, ¼ of the
freight; up to 3 days, ⅓ of the freight; beyond 3 days, ½ of the
freight.
(_c_) For Parcels: beyond 6, and up to 12 hours, ¼ of the freight;
up to 24 hours, ⅓ of the freight; beyond 24 hours, ½ of the
freight.
INSURANCE.--A premium is charged for insurance if the declared value
of the goods, cattle, &c., exceed that allowed by Article 33 of
General Regulations, as compensation in case of damage or loss.
The value allowed is £25 for a horse, £10 10s. for a fat ox, £7 10s.
per head for other cattle, £1 for a calf, £3 for a fat pig, £1 5s.
for a lean pig, 13s. 4d. for a sheep or goat, 7s. 8d. for a dog, and
£1 10s. per cwt. for other animals. If the value exceeds these sums,
and the consignor wishes to insure such value being paid to him in
case of damage, the premium is 1 per 1,000 of the sum insured for
every 93 miles with a minimum of 4d.
The maximum value allowed for carriages and carts, including the
articles placed in them, is £42. If the value exceeds that sum the
premium payable is the same as for animals, with a minimum of 3d.
The value allowed for goods is assumed by law not to exceed £2 10s.
per cwt. (30 fl. per 50 kilos). In case of whole or partial loss,
the commercial value of the goods--which has to be proved--is taken
as a basis. In the absence of data for arriving at the commercial
value, the value which similar goods would have at the time and
place of delivery is taken as the standard, deducting the amount
of duty and other costs not paid owing to loss. If the goods are
insured, the premium payable is one-tenth per 1,000 of the value
declared, for each 93 miles (parts of that distance reckoned as 93
miles), with a minimum of 2d.
In case of wilful misconduct on the part of the Company or their
servants, the liability is not limited to the normal or declared
value.
To recover from the Railway Company the full amount of damage
sustained, if delivery is not effected within the time allowed by
law, the following premiums have to be paid:
For horses and other animals 0·2d. per 9 miles and £8. 6s. 8d.,
parts of this distance and amount reckoned as 9 miles and £8. 6s.
8d., with a minimum of 3d.;
For carriages, carts, &c., 0·4d. per 9 miles and £8. 6s. 8d., with a
minimum of 3d.;
In respect of goods for the first 94 miles, 1 per 1,000 of the sum
declared; for the following 140 miles, not more than ½ per 1,000;
for each succeeding 234 miles, not more than ½ per 1,000, with
a minimum of 2d., parts of 94, 140, and 234, reckoned as 94, 140,
and 234. This premium is charged per each 10fl. (16s. 8d.) of the
declared value.
* * * * *
On the STATES, CENTRAL and HOLLAND RAILWAYS bulky goods, consisting
of such goods as come in the classification under special tariff No.
1, or are enumerated in the rate book, are charged double the fast
goods or piece goods rates, as the case may be, unless it is more
advantageous to pay as for 5 tons at class A rate.
Grain, vegetables, meal, seed, and the like, which are classified
under special tariff No. 2, are carried in box or covered trucks at
the rates of class B.
On the DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY bulky goods (_i.e._, goods weighing
less than 340 lbs. per cubic yard) and goods of unusual weight,
the size of which does not admit of their being passed through the
door of an ordinary covered truck (5 ft. 3 in. by 5 ft), will not
be carried in consignments of less than one ton, unless the freight
for this weight, with a minimum of 4s. 2d. is paid, provided the
conveyance can take place without an extra truck being necessary.
Articles which prevent space being occupied by other goods are
charged for at the rate of 340 lbs. per cubic yard occupied.
For articles totally unsuitable for loading with others, the freight
for at least 5 tons must be paid for each truck used.
If a single consignment of bulky goods occupies less than 35 cubic
feet, double freight is charged for the actual weight. An ordinary
covered wagon is assumed to be capable of containing goods weighing
at least four tons; the freight, therefore, for this weight must be
charged for each wagon used.
* * * * *
CATTLE RATES.--The rates for through cattle traffic from a Station
of one Railway to a Station of another Railway in Holland, are, if
carried by Goods Train, as follows.--
(_a_) For large cattle (oxen, cows, large calves, heifers,
horses, donkeys, and foals) fl. 0·12 per square metre truck room
per 10 kilometres (2½d.) 6·21 miles with fl. 5 (8s. 4d.)
terminals for all trucks of all sizes.
The size of the trucks being from 12 to 18 square metres
(about 14½ to 21½ square yards).
For a truck of 15 square metres (about 18 square yards) for a
distance of 108 kilometres (67 miles) the charge would be--
Mileage rate fl. 19·44 32s. 5d.
Terminals fl. 5 8s. 4d.
Disinfecting fl. 0·60 1s. 0d.
--------- --------
fl. 25·04 41s. 9d.
========= ========
(_b_) For small cattle (pigs, small calves, sheep, goats,
&c.) the rates are:--
Fl. 0·09 (1.8d.) per square metre per 10 kilometres if
carried in trucks with one floor.
Fl. 0·15 (3d.) per square metre per 10 kilometres if carried
in trucks with two floor stages, with fl. 5 (8s. 4d.) terminals
in every case.
If carried by passenger trains the above rates are increased by
one-third.
In addition to the rates a charge of fl. 0·60 (1s.) per truck is
made for disinfecting the wagon.
There are no rates per head for through traffic between the various
railways of Holland, except between the DUTCH RHENISH and DUTCH
CENTRAL RAILWAYS. If, for instance, a cow is carried from a Station
on the STATES RAILWAY to a Station on the DUTCH RHENISH RAILWAY,
the charge would be as for a full truck, unless it would be cheaper
to charge the consignment from Railway to Railway at the local
rates. In the case of traffic between the DUTCH RHENISH and CENTRAL
RAILWAYS, for which traffic rates per head exist, the following
rates would be charged (by goods train only):--
With a minimum of
fl. 4 (6s. 8d.)
per consignment.
From the Hague
to Amersfoort, 83 kilometres
(51 miles) per cow fl. 1·29 (2s. 2d.)
From the Hague
to Amersfoort, 83 kilometres
(51 miles) per sheep fl. 0·33 (6½d.)
From the Hague
to Amersfoort, 83 kilometres
(51 miles) per horse fl. 1·90 (3s. 2d.)
From Rotterdam
to Zwolle, 142 kilometres
(88 miles) per cow fl. 3·14 (5s. 3d.)
From Rotterdam
to Zwolle, 142 kilometres
(88 miles) per sheep 0·80 (1s. 4d.)
From Rotterdam
to Zwolle, 142 kilometres
(88 miles) per horse 4·15 (6s. 11d.)
For local traffic on the DUTCH STATES RAILWAYS, rates per head and
per truck load exist. Such rates per head are only available per
goods trains; full truck loads are carried by passenger train.
I.--BY GOODS TRAINS.
(_a_) For full truck loads 1 cent. per square metre per
kilometre, with terminals fl. 5 (8s. 4d.) (irrespective of size
of truck). No difference is made for large or small cattle.
The charge for a truck of 15 square metres for 108 kilometres
(67 miles) would be--
Mileage rate fl. 16·20 27s. 0d.
Terminals fl. 5 8s. 4d.
Disinfecting fl. 0·60 1s. 0d.
--------- --------
fl. 21·80 36s. 4d.
========= ========
The rate per head for 124 kilometres (77 miles)--
Per cow fl. 2·88 (4s. 9½d.)
” sheep ” 0·72 (1s. 2½d.)
” horse ” 3·70 (6s. 2d.)
With a minimum of--
Up to 100 kilometres fl. 2·0 (3s. 4d.)
” 200 ” ” 3·0 (5s. 0d.)
Above 200 ” ” 4·0 (6s. 8d.)
BELGIUM.
The basis on which the rates are fixed in Belgium is:--
(_a_) A fixed charge of one franc per ton, irrespective
of distance, which is practically equivalent to a structural
terminal charge for the use of stations and for clerkage.
(_b_) A mileage scale, graduated according to distance.
On all lines worked by the State, whether constructed by it,
purchased by, or the subject of a concession, the local tariff of
the State Railways is applied generally. Before 1884, the Grand
Central Belge had a distinct classification and a tariff of rates
on the whole higher than that of the State Railways, but the rates
charged on the independent lines are now based on those adopted by
the State Railways, and sanctioned by the Minister.
The rates for traffic with France are framed by assimilating the
Belgian to the French scale, based on the shortest route; for
certain important kinds of traffic there are exceptional tariffs, by
which each Company make a reduction from their ordinary rates.
In addition to the weight and distance, the value, and bulk of the
goods are taken into consideration in the classification, if it can
be said that any classification exists.
The tariff of the State Railways contains a classification which
divides the _Petite Vitesse_ goods into four classes. Besides these,
twenty special tariffs have been adopted.
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT SHEWS THE BASIS OF THE TARIFFS FOR LOCAL
AND INTERCHANGED INLAND TRAFFIC EXISTING ON THE 1ST JANUARY, 1886,
DIVIDED INTO GENERAL AND SPECIAL TARIFFS:--
A.--LOCAL TARIFFS.
UNIFORM RATES IN FRANCS FOR PARCELS BY PASSENGER AND GOODS TRAINS,
FOR “BULLION” BONDS, &c.
+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| | No. 1 Tariff. |
| | Parcels by Passenger |
| | Train. |
| | |
| | |
| +--------+--------+--------+
| | | | |
| | |6 to 10 | Over |
| DISTANCES. |Prepaid | Kilos | 10 |
| |Packages|and non-| Kilo. |
| |weighing|prepaid +--------+
| |5 Kilos |Packges.|Minimm. |
| | and |weghng. |Charge |
| | under. |5 Kilos | per |
| | |& under.|parcel |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1 to 25 {Uniform | | | |
| { Rates | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.70 |
|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | |
| {Consignee’s| | | |
| { Address | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.40 |
| | | | |
| {Uniform | | | |
| 26 to 75 { Rates | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.80 |
|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | |
| {Consignee’s| | | |
| { Address | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.40 |
| | | | |
| {Uniform | | | |
| 76 { Rates | 0.60 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | |
| and over {Consignee’s| | | |
| { Address | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.40 |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------------+
| | No. 2 Tariff. | No. 4 Tariff. |
| | Parcels by Goods Train. | Bulln., |
| | | Bnds.,&c., |
| | | by Passngr. |
| | | Train. |
| +--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| | | | Over | | |
| | |6 to 10 | 10 | | |
| DISTANCES. |Prepaid | Kilos | Kilos. | | |
| |Packges.|and non-+--------+--------+ |
| |weighing|prepaid |Minimum |Minimum | Per |
| |5 Kilos |Packges.|Charge |Charge |1,000 |
| | and |weighing|per con-|per |francs.|
| | under. |5 Kilos | sign- |consign-| |
| | |& under.| ment. | ment. | |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| 1 to 25 {Uniform | | | | | |
| { Rates | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.20 |
|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | | | |
| {Consignee’s| | | | | |
| { Address | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.05 |
| | | | | | |
| {Uniform | | | | | |
| 26 to 75 { Rates | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.25 |
|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | | | |
| {Consignee’s| | | | | |
| { Address | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.05 |
| | | | | | |
| {Uniform | | | | | |
| 76 { Rates | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.30 |
|Kilometres {Delivery at| | | | | |
| and over {Consignee’s| | | | | |
| { Address | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.05 |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
RATES IN FRANCS FOR GOODS, CARRIAGES AND HORSES BY PASSENGER AND
GOODS TRAINS, AND CATTLE BY GOODS TRAIN.
-------------------------------+---------+---------+
| No. 1 | No. 2 |
| Tariff. | Tariff.|
+---------+---------+
| Pass- | Goods |
| enger | Train. |
| Train. | |
+---------+---------+
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Per | Per |
DISTANCES. | 100 | 100 |
| Kilo- | Kilo- |
|grammes. |grammes. |
| [122] | [123] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
-------------------------------+---------+---------+
| TERMINAL CHARGES. |
| 1.05 | 0.40 |
| MILEAGE RATES. |
1 to 25 kil. per Kilomètre | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| TERMINAL CHARGES. |
| 1.05 | 0.40 |
| MILEAGE RATES. |
26-75 kil.,extra per kil. | 0.03 | 0.02 |
76-100 ” ” ” | 0.02 | 0.016 |
101-125 ” ” ” | 0.02 | 0.016 |
126-150 ” ” ” | 0.02 | 0.016 |
151-200 ” ” ” | 0.016 | 0.012 |
201-350 ” ” ” | 0.012 | 0.008 |
351 and over ” ” | 0.012 | 0.008 |
-------------------------------+---------+---------+
[122] The charge for delivery to domicile is compulsory, and amounts
to 3 francs per 100 Kilog.
[123] The charge for delivery to domicile is compulsory, and amounts
to 30 cents. per 100 Kilog.
--------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| No. 3 Tariff. |
| |
+------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Goods Train. |
| |
+-----+-------------------+---------+------------+
| | | | Furniture |
| | Per 1,000 | | Vans per |
|Mini-| Kilogrammes. | Railway | Vehicle |
|mum +----+----+----+----+Carriages+-----+------+
| |1st |2nd |3rd |4th | and |P o P|P b R |
DISTANCES. |per | | | | |Trucks on|r f a|r y a |
| | C | C | C | C | Wheels.|o r|o i |
|Con- | l | l | l | l | Rate per|p P t|v t l |
|sign-| a | a | a | a | Carriage|e r i|i h w |
|ment.| s | s | s | s | or Truck|r i e|d e a |
| | s. | s. | s. | s. | on 2 |t v s|e y |
| | | | | | Axles. |y a .|d . |
| | | | | | | t | |
| | | | | | | e | |
--------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+---------+-----+------+
| TERMINAL CHARGES. |
|0.40 |1.00|1.00|1.00|0.50| 5.00 |6.00 |7.02 |
| MILEAGE RATES. |
1-25 kil. |0.04 |0.10|0.08|0.06|0.06| 0.20 |0.60 |0.702 |
per Kilomètre | TERMINAL CHARGES. |
|0.40 |1.00|1.00|1.00|1.00| 5.00 |6.00 |7.02 |
26-75 kil., | MILEAGE RATES. |
extra per kil.|0.04 |0.10|0.08|0.06|0.04| 0.20 |0.60 |0.702 |
76-100 ” ” ” |0.032|0.08|0.04|0.03|0.02| 0.10 |0.48 |0.5616|
101-125 ” ” ” |0.032|0.08|0.04|0.02|0.01| 0.05 |0.48 |0.5616|
126-150 ” ” ” |0.032|0.08|0.02|0.01|0.01| 0.05 |0.48 |0.5616|
151-200 ” ” ” |0.024|0.06|0.02|0.01|0.01| 0.05 |0.36 |0.4212|
201-350 ” ” ” |0.016|0.04|0.02|0.01|0.01| 0.05 |0.24 |0.2808|
351 and over ” |0.016|0.04|0.02|0.01|0.01| 0.05 |0.24 |0.2808|
--------------------+-----+----+----+----+----+---------+-----+------+
------------------------+---------+------------------------------+
| No. 5 | |
| Tariff. | |
+---------+ No. 6 Tariff. |
|Ordinary | |
|Passenger| |
| Train. | |
+---------+---------+--------------------+
| | | |
| | | Horses and Cattle |
| | Horses | by Goods Train. |
| | by +------+------+------+
| Carri- |Ordinary | | | |
DISTANCES. | ages. |Passenger| | | |
| | Train. | 1st | 2nd | 3rd |
| (each.) | Rate | | | |
| | per | Cate-| Cate-| Cate-|
| | every | gory.| gory.| gory.|
| | 3 | | | |
| | heads. | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | . | . | . |
------------------------+---------+---------+------+------+------+
| TERMINAL CHARGES. |
| 6.00 | 6.00 | 3.00 | 4.50 | 6.00 |
| MILEAGE RATES. |
1-25 kil. per Kilomètre| 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.24 |
| TERMINAL CHARGES. |
| 6.00 | 6.00 | 3.00 | 4.50 | 6.00 |
26-75 kil., | MILEAGE RATES. |
extra per kil. | 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.24 |
76-100 ” ” ” | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 0.135| 0.18 |
101-125 ” ” ” | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 0.135| 0.18 |
126-150 ” ” ” | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 0.135| 0.18 |
151-200 ” ” ” | 0.36 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.12 |
201-350 ” ” ” | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.08 |
351 and over ” ” | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.08 |
------------------------+---------+---------+------+------+------+
B--TARIFF FOR INTERCHANGED INLAND TRAFFIC.
The General Tariff comprises two Standard Scales, viz.:--Scale _A_
and Scale _C_.--Scale _A_ is the same as the Local Tariff except as
regards the 4th Class rates for distances from 1 to 4 kilometres,
for which a minimum of 5 kilometres per ton has been fixed.
Scale _C_ differs from Scale _A_ only by an increase of--Franc 0.10
per 100 kilogrammes on the Tariff Rates Nos. 1 and 2, and Franc 0.10
per 1000 kilogrammes on the rates of Tariff No. 3[124] (except in
the case of Railway Carriages and Trucks on wheels), which latter
charge is credited to the Western of Flanders Railway Company.
[124] The rates for Furniture Vans belonging to private parties
represent the charge for 6,000 kilog. at 1st Class. In the case of
Furniture Vans provided by the Railway Company, the above mentioned
prices are increased by 17 per cent.
The following tables show, in English money, the terminal charge per
ton, and the mileage rate per ton per mile:--
-----------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+------------
| 1ST CLASS. | 2ND CLASS. | 3RD CLASS. | 4TH CLASS.
+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----
TERMINALS. | Per | | Per | | Per | | Per |
| 1000 |Per | 1000 |Per | 1000 |Per |1000 |Per
| kilos.|ton. | kilos.|ton. | kilos.|ton. |kilos. |ton.
-----------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----
Station terminals| | | | | | | |
to 25 kilom. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. .50| 5d.
(15 miles) | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Station terminals| | | | | | | |
above 25 kilom. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d.
(15 miles) | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Loading and | | | | | | | |
Unloading | | | | | | | |
charged in | | | | | | | |
addition |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d. |fc. 1.0|10d.
-----------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+----
----------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------
| 1st Class.| 2nd Class.|3rd Class. |4th Class.
+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------
Basis of Rates. | General | | |
| goods | | |
| under | 5-ton | 5-ton | 10-ton
| 5 tons, | lots. | lots. | lots.
| minimum | | |
| charge as | | |
| for 8 cwt. | | |
+-----+------+----+------+----+------+-----+-----
| Per | Per |Per | Per |Per | Per |Per | Per
|1000 | ton |1000| ton |1000| ton |1000 | ton
| kg. | per |kg. | per |kg. | per |kg. | per
| per | mile.|per | mile.|per | mile.|per | mile.
| km. | |km. | |km. | |km. |
----------------------+-----+------+----+------+----+------+-----+-----
miles.|cts. | d. |cts.| d. |cts.| d. | cts.| d.
Up to 25 kiloms. (15) | 10 | 1·56 | 8 | 1·25 | 6 | 0·94 | 6 | 0·94
” 75 ” (46) | 10 | 1·56 | 8 | 1·25 | 6 | 0·94 | 4 | 0·62
” 100 ” (62) | 8 | 1.25 | 4 | 0·62 | 3 | 0·47 | 2 | 0·31
” 125 ” (77) | 8 | 1·25 | 4 | 0·62 | 2 | 0·31 | 1 | 0·15
” 150 ” (93) | 8 | 1·25 | 2 | 0·31 | 1 | 0·15 | 1 | 0·15
” 200 ” (124) | 6 | 0·94 | 2 | 0·31 | 1 | 0·15 | 1 | 0·15
” 350 ” (217) | 4 | 0·62 | 2 | 0·31 | 1 | 0·15 | 1 | 0·15
Over 350 ” | 4 | 0·62 | 2 | 0·31 | 1 | 0·15 | 2 | 0·31
----------------------+-----+------+----+------+----+------+-----+-----
The foregoing Tariffs do not include the following various
additional charges which are authorised and are, in fact, charged
over and above the ordinary tariff rates:--
----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------
|Tariff|Tariff|Tariff|Tariff|Tariff|Tariff
|No. 1.|No. 2.|No. 3.|No. 4.|No. 5.|No. 6.
+------+------+------+------+------+------
|Frs.C.|Frs.C.|Frs.C.|Frs.C.|Frs.C.|Frs.C.
| | | | | |
Booking per consignment, | | | | | |
compulsory | | | 0.20 | | 0.20 | 0.20
| | | | | |
Collection from domicile, | | | | | |
per 100 kilos.[125] | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | | |
| | | | | |
Collection from domicile | | | | | |
for Bullion per 1,000 | | | | | |
francs (£40), with a | | | | | |
minimum of 30 cents. | | | | | |
(3d.) per consignment | | | | 0.15 | |
| | | | | |
Collection of Furniture Vans| | | | | |
provided by the Railway | | | 10.00| | |
| | | | | |
Delivery to domicile | | | | | |
per 10 kilos.-- | | | | | |
_a_ ” | | | | | |
in Brussels ” ” [126]| | | 0.05 | | |
| | | | | |
_b_ ” in | | | | | |
other | | | | | |
localities ” ” [127]| | | 0.03 | | |
| | | | | |
Delivery to domicile after | | | | | |
9 p.m. of Express parcels,| | | | | |
per consignment | 0.25 | | | | |
| | | | | |
Delivery to domicile | | | | | |
by Express any distance | | | | | |
of prepaid parcels not | | | | | |
exceeding 5 kilos. (11 | | | | | |
lbs.) any distance within | | | | | |
5 kilometres (3.10 miles) | | | | | |
beyond the ordinary | | | | | |
radius of delivery | 1.00 | | | | |
| | | | | |
Delivery to domicile of | | | | | |
Furniture Vans belonging | | | | | |
to the Railway | | | 10.00| | |
| | | | | |
{Maximum charge | | | | | |
{ per 100 | | | | | |
{ kilos.-- | | | | | |
Delivery to { _a_ Goods in | | | | | |
consignees’ { casks [128] | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | | |
cellars. { | | | | | |
{ _b_ Goods in | | | | | |
{ sacks, cases | | | | | |
{or baskets[129]| 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | | |
| | | | | |
Loading and Unloading, per | | | | | |
100 kilos.[130] | | | 0.10 | | |
| | | | | |
Numbering of packages, per | | | | | |
100 kilos. | | | 0.01 | | |
| | | | | |
Postage for the advice of | | | | | |
goods consigned to wait | | | | | |
at the Station | | | 0.10 | | |
----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------
[125] The Rates for these services do not apply to packages weighing
more than 500 kilos. (10 cwt.) each.
[126] The Rates for these services do not apply to packages weighing
more than 500 kilos. (10 cwt.) each.
[127] The Rates for these services do not apply to packages weighing
more than 500 kilos. (10 cwt.) each.
[128] These Charges must be paid direct to the Carman.
[129] These Charges must be paid direct to the Carman.
[130] The Rates for these services do not apply to packages weighing
more than 500 kilos. (10 cwt.) each.
TARIFF NO. 1 applies to parcels carried by Passenger Trains, and
includes all charges for terminal services and delivery to domicile,
but not collection.
Parcels up to 5 kilos. (11 lbs.), the carriage of which is prepaid,
are carried at an uniform rate of franc 0.80 (8d.), irrespective of
distance, but if the carriage is not prepaid, they are charged as
for 10 kilos. (22 lbs.)
Parcels 6 to 10 kilos., whether the carriage is or is not prepaid,
are charged as for 10 kilos.
Parcels above 10 kilos. (22 lbs.) and up to 20 kilos., are charged
as 20 kilos.; above 20 kilos. fractions of 10 kilos. are charged as
10 kilos.
Parcels of no declared value sent by Passenger Train must in all
cases be prepaid.
In towns where there are cartage arrangements, delivery to
“domicile” takes place immediately after arrival of the trains up to
9.0 p.m.
Parcels to be delivered between 9.0 p.m. and 7.0 a.m. are charged
franc 0.25 extra each parcel.
TARIFF NO. 2 applies to packages up to 200 kilos. (4 cwt.) in weight
to be forwarded by Goods Train, unless a written order is given for
them to be sent by Passenger Train, under conditions of Tariff No.
1, or by Goods Train, under Tariff No. 3.
Prepaid parcels not exceeding 5 kilos. (11 lbs.) are carried at
an uniform rate of franc 0.50 (5d.) each parcel, irrespective of
distance.
Above 5 kilos. in weight the carriage is charged on the weight of
the consignment consisting of one or more packages, any fraction of
10 kilos. being charged as for 10 kilos.
Prepaid parcels of 5 kilos. and less, are delivered to “domicile”
on the morning following the day of forwarding, provided they
be handed to the Railway at least one hour before the departure
of the train. Other packages and goods sent under this tariff
are generally forwarded on the evening of the day they have been
accepted. They are delivered to “domicile,” in towns where there are
cartage arrangements, within six hours of the arrival (night hours
excluded), and provided this be not prevented by glut of traffic.
The rates of this Tariff include the loading charges, booking, and
delivery to “domicile,” but not collection.
TARIFF NO. 3 applies to goods traffic, and is divided into four
classes according to the nature and value of the goods as well as to
other considerations.
All goods not specified are charged at the first-class rate (the
highest), with a minimum of 400 kilos. (8 cwt.), as also are all
consignments of goods, irrespective of class, the weight of which
is less than 5 tons, unless it is more advantageous to pay as for
5 tons at the rate fixed for consignments of that weight. The
exceptions are:--Empty vehicles used at fairs the minimum charge for
which is as for 4,000 kilos. (4 tons) each. Flax and Hemp (raw),
4,000 kilos. (4 tons) per truck.
The minimum charges for the 2nd and 3rd classes are as for 5,000
kilos. (5 tons), and for the 4th class 10,000 kilos. (10 tons).
Consignments under 10 tons are charged 3rd class rate, unless they
pay as for 10 tons 4th class. The exceptions are for mining timber,
which is charged at 4th class rate, with a minimum of 5,000 kilos.
(5 tons). Above the minimum weights, fractions of 10 kilos. (22
lbs.) are charged as 10 kilos. Goods sent in bulk are accepted only
in lots of 5,000 kilos. (5 tons) for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Classes,
and in lots of 10,000 kilos (10 tons) for the 4th Class.
If a consignment, carried under the conditions of Tariff No. 3,
consists of goods of different classes, the highest of such classes
is charged for the whole consignment.
Goods of the 4th class are carried in open trucks only; but if, at
the request of the consignors, they are carried in box or covered
trucks, they are charged at 3rd class rate unless the consignor
himself supplies the tarpaulin, or pays for hire thereof at the rate
of 2 frs. (1s. 7d.) each. Tarpaulins provided by Consignors are
returned free of charge, except 5d. for booking fee.
In the case of a sender requiring three trucks, he must give two
full days’ notice to the railway of such requirement.
Provided forwarding be not prevented by a glut of traffic,
consignments forwarded under this tariff are due at the arriving
station three full days after acceptance. Another full day is
required if the goods have to be carted to “domicile.”
Bulky goods weighing less than 200 kilos. per cubic metre, are
charged 50 per cent. in addition to the ordinary rate, with a
minimum of 200 kilos. per cubic metre, or half the tonnage capacity
of the truck used; the exceptions to the rule being in favour of
1. Flax and hemp, raw, the maximum charge for which is 4 tons
for a truck of 10 tons capacity.
2. Eggs, wool (except combed or carded), sheep skins, cotton
and wool waste, oakum, flax and waste thereof pressed in bales
or bundles, and live plants, which are charged at actual weights.
Goods sent in full truck loads may be loaded and unloaded at option
by Senders and Consignees respectively, but if loaded by Senders
they _must_ be unloaded and carted by Consignees. Consignments under
5 tons and goods insured against damage or loss _must_ in all cases
be loaded and unloaded by the Railway.
The charge made by the Railway for loading and unloading is 10d. per
ton of 1,000 kilos. If cranes or other loading appliances belonging
to the Railway are used by Consignor or Consignee, a charge of 3d.
per ton is made for their use.
The Railways on demand will verify the weight of the consignment as
far as the appliances of the station will admit, a charge of franc
0.05 per 100 kilos. being made if the difference in the declared
weight does not exceed 2 per cent. and the original charges are
maintained.
TARIFF NO. 4 applies to the conveyance of Bullion, Bonds,
Bank-notes, Title Deeds, &c., a false declaration of which, either
in regard to weight, value, or nature of contents, is considered a
fraud.
Carriage is charged upon 1,000 francs (£40) in value, any fraction
of which sum is charged as for 1,000 francs, but if the charge so
calculated is lower than it would be under the conditions of Tariff
No. 2 the latter will be charged.
Additional services, viz., loading, unloading, booking and delivery
to “domicile,” are included in the Tariff Rates.
TARIFF NO. 5 applies to carriages forwarded by Passenger Train;
but at the option of the Sender, Carriages, as also Vans, Carts,
Omnibuses, Tramway Cars, Engines and Threshing Machines, can be sent
by Goods Train at the 2nd Class rate of Tariff No. 3, the minimum
weight being:--
For 1 Vehicle--in pieces or on wheels--on one Truck 2,500 kilos.
” 2 Vehicles ” ” ” 4,000 ”
” 3 ” ” ” ” 5,500 ”
” 4 ” ” ” ” 7,000 ”
Vans, Carts, Omnibuses, &c., can also be charged at the 1st Class
rate of Tariff No. 3, with 50 per cent. added as for bulky goods, if
the latter is more advantageous to the Sender.
Loading and unloading are included in the Passenger Train rate, but
are performed at Sender’s risk. In the case of Goods Train, those
services are performed at the risk and expense of the Owner.
Carriages conveyed in covered Trucks specially provided for such
traffic are charged 25 per cent. over and above the Ordinary rates,
both by Passenger and Goods Train.
TARIFF NO. 6 applies to HORSES, CATTLE AND DOGS. Cattle is carried
exclusively by Goods Train; Horses, Colts, Mules and Ponies are
admitted for conveyance by Passenger Trains (Express Trains
excepted), only in the two following cases, viz.:--
_a._ When the distance of the journey is 75 kilometres (46
miles) or more.
_b._ When the departure and arrival stations form the extreme
points between which the Train runs.
The minimum charge for Horses, Colts, Mules or Ponies by Passenger
Train is as for three heads.
The Goods Train rates are divided into three categories, viz.:--
1ST CATEGORY.--One Horse or one Mule, one or two Colts,
Ponies, Oxen, Cows or Donkeys, one to five Pigs or Calves, one
to ten Sheep, one to thirty Sucking Pigs.
2ND CATEGORY.--Two Horses or two Mules, three or four Colts,
Ponies, Oxen, Cows or Donkeys, six to ten Pigs or Calves, eleven
to twenty Sheep, thirty-one to sixty Sucking Pigs.
3RD CATEGORY.--Three Horses or three Mules, five or six Colts
or Ponies, a Truck load[A] of small or large Cattle, sixty-one
to one hundred Sucking Pigs.
Colts or Ponies exceeding 1 metre 30 (15 hands) in height are
considered and charged as Horses.
Senders may load as many head of Cattle into the Trucks as they
please, but the Railways are exonerated from all responsibility for
injuries, accidents on the road and loss of Cattle.
The rates of Tariff No. 6, 3rd Category, are increased by 25 per
cent. if a larger number of Cattle is loaded into a Truck[131] than
the quantity shown hereunder.
-------+-------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------
Oxen. | Cows. | Donkeys. | Heifers. | Pigs or | Sheep or | Sucking
| | | | Calves. | Goats. | Pigs.
-------+-------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------
Number.|Number.| Number. | Number. | Number. | Number. | Number.
-------+-------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------
8 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 100
-------+-------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------
[131] The bottom floor of a Belgian Cattle Truck generally measures
14 square metres, equal to 16·75 square yards.
The loading and unloading of animals, whether carried by Goods
or Passenger Trains, is effected at the expense and entire
responsibility of Senders and Consignees respectively.
Horses and Cattle must be accompanied by a man in charge. One man
per consignment or per truck is conveyed free in the horse box or
cattle trucks, but if he travels in another carriage, he pays the
ordinary Passenger fare.
Dogs, irrespective of size, accompanying Passengers are charged 3rd
Class Passenger fare.
Small animals in cases, baskets or crates, are conveyed by ordinary
Passenger Trains on the conditions of Tariff No. 2.
The Company do not deliver to “domicile,” and undertake no
responsibility whatever in respect of these consignments.
SPECIAL TARIFFS.
The following statement shows the bases of the special tariffs:--
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 1--For coal, coke, stones and earth sent direct
from pits for export.
1 to 84 kilometres, francs 2.20 per 1000 kilos. (minimum charge).
85 to 187 kilometres, franc 0.026 extra per kilometre.
188 to 300 kilometres, rate of 4th Class, Standard Scale, 1867.[132]
[132] See Note on pp. xl and xli.
301 kilometres and over, franc 0.02 extra per kilometre.
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 2.--For coal, coke, stones, earth, iron, ore,
paving stones, gravel sand in bulk and 10 ton lots, for export
provided the sending stations are situated at least 100 Kilometres
(62 miles) from the Sea ports.
1 to 100 kilometres, francs 2.00 per 1000 kilos. (minimum charge).
101 kilometres and over, franc 0.02 extra per kilometre.
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 3.--For paving stones, gravel, common bricks and
lime in 10 ton lots or more for export.
1 to 30 kilometres, rate of 4th Class, General Standard Scale.
31 to 84 kilometres, francs 2.20 (uniform rate).
85 kilometres and over, rate of Special Tariff No. 1.
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 4.--For general export goods:--1st Category in 5
ton lots., 2nd Category in 10 ton lots.
1st Category, average between rates of 1st and 2nd Class of General
Standard Scale.
2nd Category, rate of 2nd Class, General Standard Scale.
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 5.--For certain export traffic, such as beer in
casks, metal refuse, &c.
Average between 2nd and 3rd Class rates, General Standard Scale.
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 6.--For castings, girders, zinc, &c., for export.
Rate of 3rd Class, General Standard Scale.
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 7.--For rough steel, grindstones, sheet iron,
chalk, &c., for export.
Rate of 4th Class, General Standard Scale.
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 8 (Import).--Marble in blocks, Sulphate of Soda.
Lots of 10,000 kilos. 4th Class Rate General Standard Scale.
Iron Ore--10 tons, 4th Class Rate, Standard Scale, 1867.[133] 100
tons, 4th Class Rate (reduced by 75 cents.) 200 tons, 4th Class Rate
(reduced by 1 franc).
Zinc, lead ores, pyrites--10 tons, 4th Class Rate, Standard Scale,
1867.[134] 100 tons, 4th Class Rate, Standard Scale, 1867 (reduced
by 50 cents.) 200 tons, 4th Class Rate, Standard Scale, 1867
(reduced by 75 cents.)
[133] See Note on pp. xl and xli.
[134] See Note on pp. xl and xli.
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 9 is for import goods as per classification.
1st Category--Average between 1st and 2nd Class Rates.
2nd Category--Average between 2nd and 3rd Class Rates--General
Standard Scale.
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 10.--All goods sent for Exhibition.--First
Journey--full rate. Return Journey--free.
SPECIAL TARIFF NO. 11.--For iron between certain specified stations--
1st Category, 4th Class Rate, General Standard Scale.
2nd Category, Terminal charge 1 franc. Mileage rate franc 0.03 per
ton per kilometre.
SPECIAL TARIFF, NO. 12.--For iron ore between certain specified
stations, in consignments of 10 tons, terminal charge, 1 franc.
Mileage rate franc O.02 per kilom. per ton, or at 4th Class rate,
General Tariff, whichever is more advantageous.
For consignments of 100 tons, 4th Class rate, General Standard
Scale, reduced by 1 franc 25 centimes.
For consignments of 200 tons, 4th Class rate, General Standard
Scale, reduced by 1 franc 50 centimes: Minimum charge being fr. 1.35
and 1.10 respectively.
SPECIAL TARIFF, NO. 13.--For iron ore and pyrites between certain
specified stations in consignments of 10 tons, 4th Class rate,
Standard Scale, 1867.[135] In consignments of 100 tons, 4th Class
rate, reduced by franc 0.50. In consignments of 200 tons, 4th Class
rate, reduced by franc 0.75.
SPECIAL TARIFF, NO. 14.--For coal between certain specified
stations, same basis as for Special Tariff No. 13.
SPECIAL TARIFF, NO. 15.--For coal from certain stations, for
shipment, uniform Rates without fixed basis.
SPECIAL TARIFF, NO. 16.--For coal from certain mines in 10 ton lots,
4th Class rate, Standard Scale, 1867.[136]
[135] The bases for 4th Class, General Standard Scale, 1867, are as
follows:--
1 to 25 kilometres, terminal charge franc 0.50, mileage rate franc
0.60 per kilometre.
26 to 50 kilometres, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc
0.04 per kilometre extra.
51 to 76 kilometres, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc
0.03 per kilometre extra.
76 and over, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc 0.01 per
kilometre extra.
[136] The bases for 4th Class, General Standard Scale, 1867, are as
follows:--
1 to 25 kilometres, terminal charge franc 0.50, mileage rate franc
0.60 per kilometre.
26 to 50 kilometres, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc
0.04 per kilometre extra.
51 to 76 kilometres, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc
0.03 per kilometre extra.
76 and over, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc 0.01 per
kilometre extra.
SPECIAL TARIFF, NO. 17.--For goods from certain stations in 5 ton
lots, Terminal Charge, franc 0.50. Mileage Charge franc 0.06 per
kilometre per ton.
SPECIAL TARIFF, NO. 18.--For articles of all descriptions sent
from or to the pits of Bascoup, the same rate of the four Classes
of the General Tariff, calculated according to distances fixed for
Mariemont, with franc 0.20, added apply.
SPECIAL TARIFF, NO. 19.--For traffic passing to and from a certain
branch line, 4th Class rate, General Standard Scale, reduced by
franc 0.20.
SPECIAL TARIFF, NO. 20.--For the conveyance of Goods to works
connected with the railway by a siding, _A._ Carriage in Trucks
provided by the Railway. Rate for the four Classes, franc 0.56 per
ton. _B._ Carriage in Owners’ Trucks. Rate for the four Classes,
franc 0.20 per ton.
SPECIAL CONTRACT TARIFFS, Nos. 22, 23 and 24, consist of rates for
import traffic from Belgian Ports to certain inland stations.
The Special Tariffs for export and import traffic interchanged
between different Belgian Railways are the same as those charged for
local export and import traffic Nos. 1 to 16, 20 and 22, with the
following two exceptions:--
(_a_) The rates of the Special Tariffs in which the Western
of Flanders Railway Company is concerned are uniformly increased
by the addition of franc 0·10, which is specially credited to
them, except in the case of Special Tariff, No. 7, the rates of
which are not increased.
(_b_) Whenever the Special Tariffs involve the application
of the 4th Class rates, the rates fixed for the 5th kilometre
have been adopted (the same way as in the case of the General
Standard Scales) for distances of from 1 to 4 kilometres.
LIABILITY.
The Belgian Railway Administration undertake no responsibility for a
delay of six hours or less to horses and cattle, beyond which their
responsibility is limited to the amount of the carriage; provided
that the delay does not arise from any accidents, accumulation of
traffic, or circumstances beyond the Companies’ control. For Goods
Traffic they are not responsible for
Tariff No. 1. (Passenger Train), a delay of six hours or less.
” 2. (Goods Train), a delay of one day or less.
” 3. (Goods Train), a delay of two days or less.
Their responsibility is limited to one-tenth of the carriage for
every day’s delay beyond the fixed time of transit. After the
expiration of 15 days the goods are considered lost. If they are
subsequently found Consignee is entitled to take delivery on
returning to the Railway three-fourths of the indemnity paid to him.
Senders may insure their goods against delay by payment of a premium
of 50 centimes per 1,000 frs. (5d. per £40), on the value upon which
they wish to be indemnified in case of delay.
In case of loss of, or damage to goods carried by passenger train on
the conditions of Tariffs Nos. 1 and 2, the Railways are responsible
to the extent of 4 frs. per kilogramme (1s. 6d. per 1 lb.), and in
respect of goods carried by goods train at the conditions of Tariff
No. 3, 75 centimes per kilogramme (3½d. per 1 lb.) The goods
can, however, be insured for their actual value, the premium for
insurance against damage or loss being 50 centimes per 1,000 frs.,
the same as for insurance against delay.
On payment of the two premiums the goods may be insured at the same
time against delay, damage or loss, but the indemnity is in no case
to exceed the actual loss sustained by the owner through the delay,
damage or loss.
The Railway Administration decline all liability for damage:--
(_a_) Unless it be stated at the time of delivery, or within
24 hours of advice of arrival of goods to order, or if the goods
are refused by consignee.
(_b_) If the case or packing shows no outward trace of
breakage or wet.
They decline all liability for chafage, waste or leakage, or for
rust to iron, steel or zinc goods.
Live animals, perishables and provisions of all kinds, chemical
products, works of art (more especially pictures), goods not packed
or imperfectly packed, are only carried at owner’s risk without any
guarantee whatsoever on the part of the Railway.
GERMANY.
The Tariff of Rates for the conveyance of Goods Traffic in Germany
is divided as follows:--
EILGUT.--Goods carried by Passenger Train.
STÜCKGUT.--Goods carried in consignments of less quantities than
Wagon loads.
CLASS A1.--General Goods in Wagon loads of 5 tons.
” B.--General Goods in Wagon loads of 10 tons.
SPECIAL TARIFF A2.--Goods in 5 ton lots included in Special Classes
I., II. and III.
Special Tariff I. }
” ” II. } Certain Goods specified in the Classification
” ” III. } in Wagon loads of 10 tons.
The rates for conveyance are based on a mileage scale per 100
kilogrammes and per kilometre.
In addition to the tariff rates a fixed charge called “Terminals” is
also made per 100 kilogrammes.
For local traffic carried over the Prussian State Railways or over
the railways worked by the State, the following rates and terminals
are charged:--
TARIFF RATES.
For the Eastern and Western Districts of the State Railways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per 100 kilos and per kilometre in Mark Pfenning.
---------------+-------------+-----------+----------------------+-------
| | Wagon | |Excptl.
| Stückgut | Loads. | Special Tariff. |Tariff
Eilgut. | (or small | | | Wood.
|consignments)+-----+-----+----+----+----+-------+-------
(Passenger | (by Goods | | | | | | | Incl.
Train.) | Train.) | A1 | B | A2 | I. | II.| III. | in
| | | | | | | |ST.II.
---------------+-------------+-----+-----+----+----+----+-------+-------
| In Mark Pfenning per 100 Kilos per Kilometre. |
| | | | | | | |
Double the | | | | | | | |
Rates | | | | | | | |
for Stückgut | | | | | | | [137]|
or Piece Goods| 1·1 | 0·67|0·60 |0·50|0·45|0·35|0·26 | 0·30
| | | | | | | [138]|
| | | | | | |0·22 |
| | | | | | | |
|In English money per ton of 1000 Kilos per mile.|
d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d.
| | | | | | | [139]|
4·246 | 2·123 |1·293|1·162|·966|·869|·676|·502 | ·579
| | | | | | | [140]|
| | | | | | |·425 |
| | | | | | | |
---------------+-------------+-----+-----+----+----+----+-------+------
[137] _Up to 100 Kilometres_
[138] _101 Kilometres and more._
[139] _Up to 100 Kilometres_
[140] _101 Kilometres and more._
The terminals charged in the Districts of the Eastern States Railway
are as under:--
-----------------+--------------------------------------------------
| Per 100 kilos in Mark Pfenning.
+----+-----+---------+----------------------+------
| E | S | Wagon | Special |Exctnl
| i | t g | Loads. | Tariff. |Tariff.
| l | ü u +----+----+----+----+----+-----+--------
| g | c t.| | | | | | | Wood
| u | k | A1 | B | A2 | I.| II.| III.| Special
| t.| | | | | | | |Trff.II.
-----------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+--------
1 to 10 Km. | 20 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6
11 ” 20 ” | 22 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6
21 ” 30 ” | 24 | 12 | 12 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6
31 ” 40 ” | 26 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6
41 ” 50 ” | 28 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6
51 ” 60 ” | 30 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
61 ” 70 ” | 32 | 16 | 16 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
71 ” 80 ” | 34 | 17 | 17 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
81 ” 90 ” | 36 | 18 | 18 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
91 ” 100 ” | 38 | 19 | 19 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
101 and over | 40 | 20 | 20 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12
-----------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+--------
In English money and miles per ton of 1,000 kilos.
-----------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+--------
Up to 6·21 miles|2/- | 1/- |1/- |-/9½|-/7¼|-/7¼|-/7¼| -/7¼| -/7¼
” 12·42 ” |2/2½| 1/1¼|1/1¼|-/11|-/7¼|-/7¼|-/7¼| -/7¼| -/7¼
” 18·63 ” |2/5 | 1/2½|1/2½|1/- |-/7¼|-/7¼|-/7¼| -/7¼| -/7¼
” 24·84 ” |2/7¼| 1/3¾|1/3¾|1/1¼|-/7¼|-/7¼|-/7¼| -/7¼| -/7¼
” 31·05 ” |2/9½| 1/5 |1/5 |1/2½|-/7¼|-/7¼|-/7¼| -/7¼| -/7¼
” 37·26 ” |3/- | 1/6 |1/6 |1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11| -/11
” 43·47 ” |3/2½| 1/7¼|1/7¼|1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11| -/11
” 49·68 ” |3/5 | 1/8½|1/8½|1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11| -/11
” 55·89 ” |3/7¼| 1/9½|1/9½|1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11| -/11
” 62·10 ” |3/9½| 1/11|1/11|1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11| -/11
over |4/- | 2/- |2/- |1/2½|1/2½|1/2½|1/2½| 1/2½| 1/2½
-----------------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+--------
The Rates on the Western States Railway, and for Traffic passing
between the Eastern and Western States Railway system, are--
-----------------+----------------------------------------------------
| Per 100 kilos in Mark Pfenning.
+-----+-------+---------+-------------------+--------
| E | | Wagon | Special |Excptnal
| i | S | Loads. | Tariffs. | Tariff.
| l | t g +----+----+----+----+----+----+--------
| g | ü u | | | | | | | Wood
| u | c t. | A1 | B | A2 | I. | II.|III.| Special
| t. | k | | | | | | | T. II.
-----------------+-----+-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+--------
1 to 10 km. | 20 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8
11 ” 20 ” | 22 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
21 ” 30 ” | 24 | 12 | 12 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
31 ” 40 ” | 26 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
41 ” 50 ” | 28 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
51 ” 60 ” | 30 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
61 ” 70 ” | 32 | 16 | 16 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
71 ” 80 ” | 34 | 17 | 17 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
81 ” 90 ” | 36 | 18 | 18 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
91 ” 100 ” | 38 | 19 | 19 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9
101 and over | 40 | 20 | 20 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12
-----------------+-----+-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+--------
In English money and miles per ton of 1,000 kilos.
-----------------+-----+-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+--------
Up to 6.21 miles| 2/- | 1/- |1/- |-/9½|-/9½|-/9½|-/9½|-/9½| -/9½
” 12.42 ” | 2/2½| 1/1¼ |1/1¼|-/11|-/11|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11
” 18.63 ” | 2/5 | 1/2½ |1/2½|1/- |-/11|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11
” 24.84 ” | 2/7¼| 1/3¾ |1/3¾|1/1¼|-/11|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11
” 31.05 ” | 2/9½| 1/5 |1/5 |1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11
” 37.26 ” | 3/- | 1/6 |1/6 |1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11
” 43.47 ” | 3/2½| 1/7¼ |1/7¼|1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11
” 49.68 ” | 3/5 | 1/8¾ |1/8¾|1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11
” 55.89 ” | 3/7¼| 1/9½ |1/9½|1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11
” 62.10 ” | 3/9½| 1/11 |1/11|1/2½|-/11|-/11|-/11|-/11| -/11
over 62.10 ” | 4/- | 2/- |2/- |1/2½|1/2½|1/2½|1/2½|1/2½| 1/2½
-----------------+-----+-------+----+----+----+----+----+----+--------
All consignments under 20 kilos. are charged as 20 kilos., any
fraction of 10 kilos. above 20 kilos. being charged as 10 kilos.
The tariff rates are charged according as the goods are consigned,
viz.:--
1. As Eilgut (Ordinary Passenger Train Service).
2. As Stückgut (by Goods Trains).
3. As Wagenladungen (full wagon loads).
I. EILGUT.--(Passenger Train).
Goods of all descriptions, in less quantities than wagon loads,
consigned by Passenger Train are charged at the rates set out in the
tariff, but Goods forwarded by Passenger Train in wagon loads are
charged at double the general class rates for wagon loads by Goods
Train.
The minimum charge by Passenger Train is 0·50 mark (6d.) per
consignment.
For goods sent by Express Trains double the Passenger Train rates
are charged, with a minimum of 1 mark (1s.) per consignment.
II. STÜCKGUT.--(General Merchandise).
This tariff applies to all goods traffic not forwarded by Express or
Passenger Train, or in Wagon loads.
The minimum charge for Stückgut is 0·30 mark per consignment.
III. WAGON LOADS.
_A.--General Tariff._
The tariff rates provided for Classes A1 and B are charged for all
goods forwarded in wagon loads, which are not included in any of the
special tariffs or subject to special regulations. For consignments
of 5 tons or paying as for 5 tons per wagon, the rates of Class A1
are charged, and for 10 ton lots or paying as for 10 tons per wagon,
the rates of Class B.
_B.--Special Tariffs, I., II., and III._
The rates of the Special Tariffs are for certain goods specified in
the classification, if forwarded in 10 ton lots. The same goods, if
despatched in 5 ton lots or paying as for 5 tons, are charged at the
rates of Class A2, unless it is more advantageous to pay carriage as
for 10 tons at the rates of Special Tariff I., II., or III., as the
case may be.
Wagon loads may be made up by grouping goods included in different
classes, as far as their nature will permit, when forwarded by the
same sender to the same consignee, in one consignment; in which case
the tariff for the goods which pay the highest rate is charged for
the total weight of the consignment, unless it is more advantageous
to pay carriage, calculated on actual weight, and at the rate
provided for each class of goods.
Explosives and dangerous articles are charged at double the rates
of the general tariff for piece goods or wagon loads; the minimum
charge per consignment being the carriage for five tons of the
tariff rate of Class A1.
Milk, beer in casks, bread, fresh fruit, also grapes (except costly
hot-house fruits, or fruits imported from southern countries at
unusual seasons, which are considered as delicate fruit, and
chargeable at Eilgut rates) and returned milk cans, when consigned
by goods train, are conveyed by passenger train at goods rates, as
far as the train service and working arrangements will allow of such
traffic being so carried.
For the conveyance of Live Stock, the following rates are charged on
the Prussian State Railways:
Small animals in cages, crates, cases, sacks, &c., are charged
either in accordance with the Goods Tariff, or if forwarded by
Passenger Train, at the Parcels Rates. Dogs belonging to Passengers
are charged at 0·015 m. per head, and per kilometre, with a minimum
charge of 0·10 m. (1d·2) for each dog.
For Horses in Horse Boxes, the charge is:--
Per Kilometre. Per Mile.
d.
for 1 horse 0·30 m 5·79
” 2 ” 0·40 ” 7·72
” 3 ” 0·50 ” 9·66
For each additional horse carried in same truck 0·10 m. per
kilometre, plus a fixed charge of 1·00 m. (1s.) per head for
terminals, the minimum charge for each consignment being 3 marks
(3s.).
In cases where the ordinary tariffs do not apply, the carriage
for the conveyance of Live animals in wagon loads is calculated
according to the space of the Railway Trucks. Any fractions up
to and including half a square metre (0·598 square yard) are not
charged for, but anything exceeding half a square metre is charged
as for one square metre.
The charge per square metre (1·196 square yards) per kilometre is--
d. {In the district
For horses--0·025 m. (0·30) {of Berlin and
{Bromberg.
d.
” 0·03 m. (0·36) In other districts
For other live stock--
d.
0·020 m. up to 100 kilometres (0·24)}
0·0175 m. 101 to 200 ” (0·21)} In the districts
0·015 m. 201 to 300 ” (0·18)} of Berlin and
0·010 m. over 300 ” (0·12)} Bromberg.
0·020 m. (0·24) In other districts.
For small live stock in composite trucks the above tariff of charges
are increased by 33⅓ per cent. The fixed charge for terminals is
0·40 m. (4d·8) per square metre of the floor of the trucks.
Among other exceptional tariffs which are in force on all German
Railways, there is one for European wood, which is charged at 0·30
pf. per 100 kilos, per kilometre (or 0·579d. per ton of 1,000 kilos
per mile), plus the terminals shewn in the foregoing table. There
is also an exceptional tariff for coal from the Ruhr district, as
under:--
Tariff rate 0·22 pf. 100 kilos per kilometre (0·425d. per ton of
1,000 kilos per mile) with terminals of--
1 to 10 kilometre 6 pf. equivalent to 6·21 miles 7·2d. per ton.
11 ” 20 ” 7 ” ” 12·42 ” 8·4d. ”
21 ” 30 ” 8 ” ” 18·63 ” 9·6d. ”
31 ” 40 ” 9 ” ” 24·84 ” 10·8d. ”
41 ” 50 ” 10 ” ” 31·05 ” 1s. ”
51 ” 60 ” 11 ” ” 37·26 ” 1s. 1d. ”
61 & over ” 12 ” ” and over ” 1s. 2·4d. ”
For services which are distinct from the actual conveyance, such
as marking, weighing, counting, warehousing, demurrage of wagons,
and use of tarpaulins, the railway companies are entitled to make
separate and additional charges. For the hauling of wagons to or
from sidings, connecting coal pits or other works with the railway
system, a special charge also is made by agreement.
* * * * *
LOADING AND UNLOADING OF GOODS.--The loading and unloading of
_grande vitesse_ and piece goods are effected by the railway
company, those services being included in the tariff rates.
Packages which weigh more than 750 kilos (15 cwt.) or the dimensions
of which exceed the space of a truck, may, at the discretion of the
railway company, be required to be loaded by the sender and unloaded
by the consignee.
The loading and unloading of all other goods has to be performed
by senders and consignees respectively, unless the service is
undertaken by the railway company, for which a charge of 10d. per
ton is made; in which case however the staff who perform the service
are considered as employed by the sender or consignee respectively,
with whom all responsibility rests.
* * * * *
COVERING OF GOODS IN OPEN TRUCKS.--It is understood that the railway
company, in the absence of instructions to the contrary, convey
the goods included in the Special Tariffs--except certain articles
specially provided for--in open wagons, the railway being exempted
from all responsibility in case of damage arising from such mode
of transit. If instructions are given on the consignment note to
forward in covered wagons, such goods as the railway company is
entitled to convey in open wagons, the tariff rates are increased by
10 per cent.
Senders may supply their own tarpaulins for the covering of the
goods, and they are returned free of charge, at owners’ risk, or at
the company’s risk on payment of the ordinary carriage.
* * * * *
ARTICLES OF UNUSUAL SIZE.--Articles which, owing to their
extraordinary size, cannot pass the side doors of the wagons, are
charged at the ordinary rates for _grande vitesse_, if forwarded
by Passenger Train, and at the piece goods rates if sent by Goods
Train, with a minimum as for one ton for every wagon used, unless
the charge calculated at the rates of the tariffs for wagon loads is
more advantageous.
* * * * *
BULKY GOODS are charged 50 per cent. above the ordinary rates both
by _grande vitesse_, and by Goods Train. In the case of timber,
girders, and such articles which necessitate the use of guard
wagons, a charge 15 pf. (1¾d.) per wagon per kilometre is made
in addition to the mileage rates; but no part of the articles must
actually rest on the guard wagons.
The general regulations of the Goods Tariff in Germany prescribe the
maximum time for delivery of goods as follows:--
(A.) For EILGUT (Goods carried by Passenger Train), one day
for forwarding, and one day for every 300 kilom. (186 miles) or
part thereof.
(B.) For Goods Train traffic (STÜCKGUT), two days for
forwarding, and for the first 100 kilom. (62 miles), one day;
for every part of each subsequent 200 kilometres (124 miles),
one day.
The time of transit commences at midnight following the date of the
stamp on the consignment note; and the Companies are relieved from
responsibility if within the stipulated time, delivery is made to
the consignee’s “domicile,” or if an advice note of the arrival of
the goods is posted or otherwise sent to the consignee. The time
allowed for delivery does not include the time occupied for Customs’
formalities or other delay over which the Railway Companies have no
control.
THE PRUSSIAN AND GERMAN LAW AS TO RATES.
By Article 33 of the Prussian Law relating to railway undertakings,
dated 3rd November, 1838, the Commissioners were empowered, in
certain events, to fix the maximum tariff. If after deducting
working expenses and a fixed amount for the reserve fund, as
sanctioned by the Ministers, the net profits yielded more than 10
per cent. on the capital expended, the railway rates were to be
reduced so that the net receipts should not exceed 10 per cent. If,
on the other hand, the receipts did not reach the maximum of 10
per cent. (Article 39), railway rates might be increased by 10 per
cent. until the receipts yielded 10 per cent. on the total capital.
Subject to these conditions, the fixing of the tariff rates was left
to the railway companies.
Article 45 of the Constitution of the German Empire (dated 16th
April, 1871) provides that the Government should secure, as much as
possible, the adoption of uniform and reduced tariffs, especially
for long distances for the carriage of coal, coke, wood, ore,
stones, salt, rough iron, manure, and similar goods, and that such
low rates should be adopted as might be required to further the
interests of the trade of the country. Article 46 enacts that the
railway companies in case of need, as for instance, the outbreak
of a famine, should carry provisions, such as grain, flour, and
potatoes, &c., at such a reduced rate as circumstances might
require, and as directed by the Bundesrath Auschuss. Such special
rates are not, however, to be below the lowest rates charged by the
respective railways for “raw materials.”
By the terms of the early Concessions granted to railway companies
the greater part of the private railway companies in Prussia had
no power to fix or alter the tariff rates; reductions have to
be sanctioned by the Minister. For instance,--Clause 10 of the
regulations of the Crefeld-Threis-Kempener Industrie Railway Company
(concession granted 6th October, 1868) provides that--
“The State reserve a right to control the tariff rates for
goods, as well as passengers, and the alteration of the same.”
In the same way Article 5 of the concession for the Dortmund Granan
Euscheder Railway Company of the 8th January, 1872, stipulates--
“That the Ministers of the Royal State reserve their right to
control the fares and rates for goods and passenger traffic, as
well as any subsequent modifications in respect of the same.”
Clause 3 of the regulations of the Bergish-Märkische Railway, which
was transferred to the State on the 1st January, 1882 (concession
dated 12th February, 1884), states that--
“The tariff for goods, as well as passengers, must undergo
no alteration without the sanction of the Royal Ministers of
Finance.”
In the more recent concessions the same rights have been reserved
to the State Ministers; but greater freedom is now granted to the
railway companies than was permitted during the first years of
working the lines. Maximum rate tariffs are fixed by the Minister
of Public Works for the various classes; and, as in England, the
companies may adopt rates, and modify them as they please, as long
as the maximum figures, fixed by the State, have not been exceeded.
For the Prussian States railways the tariffs are now fixed by the
Royal Railway Administration, which is a species of a Provincial
Court; but before they can be put in force they must be submitted
for the approval of the Minister of Public Works. The Railway
Administration consist of a Chairman and eleven Directors, and
there are eleven Boards of Directors to manage the Prussian States
railways. For private railways the arrangements are of a similar
character. The application for rates and conditions other than those
published in the official tariffs is prohibited by Prussian Law of
the 3rd November, 1838, relative to the working of railways. The
granting of special conditions to any particular sender or consignee
is therefore legally inadmissible. Any alterations in the tariff
system must be submitted to the Permanent Tariff Commissioners of
the German Railway Administration, appointed to study the interests
of trade. They consist of thirteen members of German railways, four
elected members for the protection of agriculture and trade, and (in
accordance with stipulations made by Bavaria) of, a representative
of the Bavarian trade interests. On the proposals discussed at these
Assemblies resolutions are passed by the General Conference of
German Railway Administration, and the resolutions are submitted for
the approval of the Courts of Judicature.
FRANCE.
There is no uniform scale of rates in France; each railway has its
own tariff and classification. The following tables, however, are
illustrations of the basis of the old tariff in force on the Western
of France Railway, and of the reformed tariff adopted by the Paris,
Lyons and Mediterranean Railway.
WESTERN OF FRANCE RAILWAY.
----------------------+------------------------------------------
| CLASSES.
+------+------+------+------+------+-------
Distances, Kilometres.| I. | II. | III. | IV. | V. | VI.
+------+------+------+------+------+-------
| Rate per 1,000 Kilos. per Kilometre.
----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
|Cents.|Cents.|Cents.|Cents.|Cents.|Cents.
Up to 100 Kilometres | 16 | 14 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 8
” 300 ” | | | | | | 5
Above 300 ” | | | | | | 4
----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
MILES. | Rate per ton per Mile.
----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
Up to 62 miles | 2d.50| 2d.19| 1d.88| 1d.56| 1d.25| 1d.25
” 186 ” | | | | | | 0d.78
Above 186 ” | | | | | | 0d.62
----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-------
PARIS, LYONS, AND MEDITERRANEAN RAILWAY.
-------------+-----------------------------------------
| Rate per 1,000 Kilos. per Kilometre.
DISTANCES. +--------------------------------
| CLASSES.
+------+------+------+------+------+------
Kilometres. | I. | II. | III. | IV. | A | V.
-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------
|Cents.|Cents.|Cents.|Cents.|Cents.|Cents.
Up to 25| 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.08
26 ” 30| 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.08
31 ” 50| 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.08
51 ” 100| 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.08
101 ” 150| 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08
151 ” 200| 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07
201 ” 300| 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.065| 0.04
301 ” 400| 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.065| 0.04
401 ” 500| 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.04
501 ” 600| 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.04
601 ” 700| 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.04
701 ” 800| 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04
801 ” 900| 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04
901 ” 1000| 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04
1001 ” 1,100| 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04
-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------
-------------+-------------------------------------------
| Rate per 1,000 Kilos. per Kilometre.
DISTANCES. +-------------------------------------------
| CLASSES.
+------+-------+-------+------+------+------
Kilometres. | B | C | D | VI. | E | F
-------------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------
|Cents.|Cents. |Cents. |Cents.|Cents.|Cents.
Up to 25| 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08
26 ” 30| 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04
31 ” 50| 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.0425| 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04
51 ” 100| 0.06 | 0.045 | 0.0425| 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02
101 ” 150| 0.06 | 0.045 | 0.0425| 0.035| 0.025| 0.02
151 ” 200| 0.06 | 0.045 | 0.0425| 0.035| 0.025| 0.02
201 ” 300| 0.04 | 0.0375| 0.04 | 0.035| 0.025| 0.02
301 ” 400| 0.035| 0.0325| 0.0325| 0.03 | 0.025| 0.02
401 ” 500| 0.035| 0.0325| 0.0325| 0.03 | 0.025| 0.02
501 ” 600| 0.035| 0.0325| 0.0325| 0.03 | 0.025| 0.02
601 ” 700| 0.035| 0.0325| 0.0325| 0.025| 0.025| 0.02
701 ” 800| 0.035| 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.025| 0.025| 0.02
801 ” 900| 0.035| 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.025| 0.02 | 0.02
901 ” 1000| 0.03 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02
1001 ” 1,100| 0.03 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02
-------------+------+-------+-------+------+------+-----
PARIS, LYONS AND MEDITERRANEAN RAILWAY.
----------------+-----------------------------------------
| BASIS OF TARIFF PER TON PER MILE.
DISTANCES. +-----------------------------------------
| CLASSES.
----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------
Miles. | I. | II. | III. | IV. | A | V.
----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------
Up to 15 miles| 2d.50| 2d.19| 1d.88| 1d.56| 1d.41| 1d.25
16 ” 18 ” | 2d.50| 2d.19| 1d.88| 1d.56| 1d.41| 1d.25
19 ” 31 ” | 2d.50| 2d.19| 1d.88| 1d.56| 1d.41| 1d.25
32 ” 62 ” | 2d.50| 2d.19| 1d.88| 1d.56| 1d.41| 1d.25
63 ” 93 ” | 2d.35| 2d.04| 1d.72| 1d.41| 1d.25| 1d.25
94 ” 124 ” | 2d.35| 2d.04| 1d.72| 1d.41| 1d.25| 1d.10
125 ” 186 ” | 2d.35| 2d.04| 1d.72| 1d.41| 1d.02| 0d.62
187 ” 248 ” | 2d.19| 1d.88| 1d.56| 1d.25| 1d.02| 0d.62
249 ” 310 ” | 2d.19| 1d.88| 1d.56| 1d.25| 0d.78| 0d.62
311 ” 372 ” | 2d.04| 1d.72| 1d.41| 1d.10| 0d.78| 0d.62
373 ” 435 ” | 1d.88| 1d.56| 1d.25| 0d.94| 0d.78| 0d.62
436 ” 497 ” | 1d.72| 1d.41| 1d.10| 0d.78| 0d.62| 0d.62
498 ” 559 ” | 1d.56| 1d.25| 0d.94| 0d.62| 0d.62| 0d.62
560 ” 621 ” | 1d.41| 1d.10| 0d.78| 0d.62| 0d.62| 0d.62
622 ” 683 ” | 1d.25| 0d.94| 0d.78| 0d.62| 0d.62| 0d.62
----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------
----------------+-----------------------------------------
| BASIS OF TARIFF PER TON PER MILE.
DISTANCES. +-----------------------------------------
| CLASSES.
----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------
Miles. | B | C | D | VI. | E | F
----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------
Up to 15 miles| 1d.25| 1d.25| 1d.25| 1d.25| 1d.25| 1d.25
16 ” 18 ” | 1d.25| 1d.25| 0d.78| 0d.62| 0d.2 | 0d.62
19 ” 31 ” | 1d.25| 1d.25| 0d.66| 0d.62| 0d.62| 0d.62
32 ” 62 ” | 0d.94| 0d.70| 0d.66| 0d.62| 0d.47| 0d.31
63 ” 93 ” | 0d.94| 0d.70| 0d.66| 0d.54| 0d.39| 0d.31
94 ” 124 ” | 0d.94| 0d.70| 0d.66| 0d.54| 0d.39| 0d.31
125 ” 186 ” | 0d.62| 0d.58| 0d.62| 0d.54| 0d.39| 0d.31
187 ” 248 ” | 0d.54| 0d.51| 0d.51| 0d.47| 0d.39| 0d.31
249 ” 310 ” | 0d.54| 0d.51| 0d.51| 0d.47| 0d.39| 0d.31
311 ” 372 ” | 0d.54| 0d.51| 0d.51| 0d.47| 0d.39| 0d.31
373 ” 435 ” | 0d.54| 0d.51| 0d.51| 0d.39| 0d.39| 0d.31
436 ” 497 ” | 0d.54| 0d.47| 0d.47| 0d.39| 0d.39| 0d.31
498 ” 559 ” | 0d.54| 0d.39| 0d.39| 0d.39| 0d.31| 0d.31
560 ” 621 ” | 0d.47| 0d.39| 0d.39| 0d.31| 0d.31| 0d.31
622 ” 683 ” | 0d.47| 0d.39| 0d.39| 0d.31| 0d.31| 0d.31
----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------
Classes A, B, C, D, E, F, apply generally to full truck loads only,
and for Classes I, II, III, IV, V, and VI. The minimum charge is
as for 40 kilos. (88 lbs.), fractions of 10 kilos. being charged
as 10 kilos. For consignments under 40 kilos. the rate charged is
25 cents. per 1,000 kilos. per kilometre, including terminals,
irrespective of distance, equal to 3d.92 per ton per mile; but
the charge so calculated must not exceed what would be charged
for 40 kilos. at the ordinary Class rates. The minimum charge for
consignments up to 40 kilos. is 25 cents. (2½d.), and above 40
kilos. 40 cents. (4d.), inclusive of loading and unloading and
station terminals.
Plated Goods, Quicksilver, Embroidery, Lace, Articles of Art
(Statues, Paintings, Bronze Figures) are charged at the highest
Class rates, plus 50 per cent.
Explosives, Inflammable and Dangerous Articles, for the conveyance
of which special precautions have to be taken, are charged the
highest Class rate plus 50 per cent.
* * * * *
BULKY GOODS, specified in the Classification, which do not weigh
200 kilos. (4 cwt.) per cubic metre (1.308 cubic yard), are charged
50 per cent. in addition to the ordinary Class rates. The carriage
so calculated must not, however, exceed the amount chargeable at a
computed weight of 200 kilos. per cubic metre.
* * * * *
PACKAGES OF EXTRAORDINARY SIZE OR WEIGHT.--The Class rates are
increased by 50 per cent. for packages weighing from 3 to 5 tons,
and by 100 per cent. for packages weighing over 5 tons, but not
exceeding 10 tons, with a minimum in the latter case of 25 cents.
per 1,000 kilos. per kilometre (3d.92 per ton per mile). Packages
which weigh over 10 tons, or the dimensions of which exceed those
of the ordinary rolling stock, are not carried except under special
contract.
The loading or unloading of packages weighing over 5 tons must be
performed by the sender or consignee respectively, and at their own
risk and expense at stations which are not provided with hoisting
gear.
* * * * *
TERMINALS.--The charges for the two services of loading and
unloading and station terminals are:--
---------------------------+--------------------+--------------------
| GOODS CARRIED IN |
| TRUCK LOADS. | IN LESS QUANTITIES.
+----------+---------+----------+---------
| Per 1000 | Per ton.| Per 1000 | Per ton.
| kilos. | | kilos. |
+----------+---------+----------+---------
| cts. | s. d. | cts. | s. d.
Loading at sending station | 30 | 0 3 | 40 | 0 4
| | | |
Unloading at destination | 30 | 0 3 | 40 | 0 4
| | | |
Station terminals at | | | |
sending station | 20 | 0 2 | 35 | 0 3¼
| | | |
Station terminals at | | | |
destination station | 20 | 0 2 | 35 | 0 3¼
+----------+---------+----------+---------
Per 1000 kilos. |fcs. 1·0 | 10d. |fcs. 1·50 | 1 2½
---------------------------+----------+---------+----------+---------
Fractions of 10 kilos. are charged as 10 kilos.
Full truck loads may be loaded or unloaded by sender and consignee
respectively at their option, risk and expense; in which case a
reduction is made in the terminal charges of 30 cents. per ton, for
each service, either loading or unloading. The station dues are
charged in any case, viz.: 20 cents. per ton at sending station, and
20 cents. at destination station.
If the traffic passes over different lines a further charge of 40
cents. per ton is made for transfer at the junction, which amount is
apportioned in equal proportions to the two Companies between which
the traffic is exchanged.
* * * * *
BOOKING.--A charge of 1d. is made for each consignment.
WEIGHING.--Goods, which at the request of sender or consignee have
to be weighed in addition to, and irrespective of the weighing by
the railway company for the purpose of calculating the carriage, are
subjected to a charge of 10 cents. (1d.) per 100 kilos. (2 cwt.)
or part thereof. If weighed over the weigh-bridge, the charge is
30 cents. (3d.) per ton with a minimum of frs. 1·50 (1s. 2½d.)
per truck or cart. If the re-weighing proves that an error in
the invoiced weight was committed by the railway company to the
prejudice of sender or consignee, the above charges are not made.
* * * * *
WAREHOUSING.--For the Warehousing of Goods, consigned to wait orders
at the station, the delivery of which for some cause or other is
not taken within 48 hours from the time the advice note is posted,
the following charges are made:--5 cents. (one halfpenny) per 100
kilos. (2 cwt.) or part of 100 kilos. per day for the first three
days after the expiration of the time fixed above, minimum charge 10
cents. (1d.), and for every subsequent day 10 cents. (1d.) per 100
kilos. or part of 100 kilos. per day.
Goods consigned to “domicile,” and which are not delivered in
consequence of consignee being absent or unknown or refusing to
accept delivery, are subject to the same warehouse charges, provided
an advice of the cause of the non-delivery is immediately addressed
by the railway company to the sender. In this case the company are
entitled to charge return cartage of the goods to the station.
The same warehouse charges are made at sending stations if the goods
for some cause or other cannot be despatched within 24 hours after
delivery to the station; besides which, the Railway Company can
decline to receive goods at their stations or quays unless they are
ready for immediate dispatch.
DEMURRAGE.--For truck loads, which may be loaded or unloaded by
sender and consignee respectively at their option, the following
regulations apply:--At sending stations the trucks must be loaded
within 24 hours from the time they are held at the disposal of
sender, after which 10 frs. (8s.) per truck per day is charged. At
destination stations, the trucks must be released during the day
following the date of the advice sent by the railway company to
consignee, provided such advice can be delivered before 5.30 p.m.
on the day it is sent, failing which one day more is allowed. After
the time allowed has elapsed, the railway company can at their
discretion unload the trucks, and make a charge of 30 cents. (3d.)
per ton, the goods unloaded being subject to the general regulations
and warehouse charges; or the goods may be allowed to remain in the
trucks and a charge made, after the stipulated time allowed, of 10
frs. (8s.) per truck per day. Sundays and fête days are not taken
into account in the time allowed for the loading or unloading of the
trucks.
* * * * *
CARRIAGES.--The rates charged for the conveyance of carriages are as
follows:--
Per carriage.
Per kilometre. Per mile.
Carriages with 2 or 4
wheels, and one seat in the
interior 0·25 cents. (3d.85.)
Carriages with 2 seats in
the interior, omnibuses, stage
coaches, &c. 0·32 ” (4d.94.)
Furniture vans empty are
charged at the rate of 0·20 ” (3d.08.)
If loaded, an additional charge is made of 14 cents.
per 1,000 kilos. per kilometre (2·16d. per ton per mile)
for the contents of the van.
HORSES AND CATTLE.--The following rates apply to the conveyance of
horses and cattle by goods train:--
Per head Per
Per kilometre. mile.
Oxen, cows, bulls, horses,
mules, donkeys, and ponies 10 cents. (1d.54.)
Calves and pigs 04 ” (0d.61.)
Sheep, ewes, lambs, and
goats 02 ” (0d.30.)
Drovers, who accompany the cattle, pay the
ordinary 3rd class fare.
Animals, the declared value of which is over
5,000 frs. (£200), are charged 50 per cent. in addition
to the ordinary rates.
In case of any accident the Company’s
liability is limited to 5,000 frs. (£200) per head,
unless a higher value is declared on the consignment
note.
Small animals such as Sucking Pigs, Cats, Rabbits,
&c., packed in crates or baskets, are charged at 1st
class rate calculated on double the actual weight.
Dogs, even if in crates, are carried by Passenger
Train only.
* * * * *
For Carriages, Horses, and Cattle the following terminals are
charged:--
Booking 10 cents. (1d.) per consignment.
Loading and unloading, for carriages, frs. 2
(1s. 7d.) each.
For Oxen, Cows, Bulls, Horses, Mules,
Donkeys, and Ponies, fr. 1 (10d.) each.
For Calves and Pigs, 40 cents. (4d.) each.
For Sheep, Lambs and Goats, 20 cents. (2d.)
each.
No charge is made for station dues.
For carriages, which for some cause or other are not taken delivery
of within 48 hours from the time of the advice being posted by the
Railway Company, a charge of fr. 1 (10d.), per carriage per day is
made for warehousing.
Cattle and horses, which cannot be delivered on arrival at the
destination, are fed and taken care of by the Railway Company at the
risk and expense of the Owner.
* * * * *
The time allowed for the conveyance of traffic by Goods Train on
French Railways is calculated at the rate of 24 hours for every
125 kilometres (77½ miles), or a fraction thereof. Any fraction
of and including 25 kilometres (15½ miles) in excess of this
distance (125 kilometres), is not taken into account. Thus 150
kilometres are calculated as 125 kilometres, as shewn hereafter.
-----------------------------+-------------+------------+--------------
| | |Total number
DISTANCES. | Time | Time | of days,
| allowed | allowed | station to
---------------+-------------+ for loading | for | station,
| | and | conveyance | exclusive of
Kilometres. | Miles. | dispatch. | by rail. | day of
| | | | delivery.
---------------+-------------+-------------+------------+--------------
| | Days. | Days. | Days.
1 to 150 =| 1 to 93 | 1 | 1 | 2
151 ” 275 =| 94 ” 170 | 1 | 2 | 3
276 ” 400 =| 171 ” 248 | 1 | 3 | 4
401 ” 525 =| 249 ” 326 | 1 | 4 | 5
526 ” 650 =| 327 ” 403 | 1 | 5 | 6
651 ” 775 =| 404 ” 481 | 1 | 6 | 7
776 ” 900 =| 482 ” 559 | 1 | 7 | 8
901 ” 1,025 =| 560 ” 637 | 1 | 8 | 9
1,026 ” 1,150 =| 638 ” 714 | 1 | 9 | 10
1,151 ” 1,275 =| 715 ” 792 | 1 | 10 | 11
1,276 ” 1,400 =| 793 ” 870 | 1 | 11 | 12
1,401 ” 1,525 =| 871 ” 947 | 1 | 12 | 13
1,526 ” 1,650 =| 948 ” 1,025 | 1 | 13 | 14
---------------+-------------+-------------+------------+--------------
For the conveyance of animals and goods paying the two highest class
rates to stations on the main lines, the time of transit is fixed as
follows:--
----------------------------+-------------+------------+--------------
| | | Total number
DISTANCES. | Time | Time | of days,
| allowed | allowed | station to
--------------+-------------+ for loading | for | station,
| | and | conveyance | exclusive of
Kilometres. | Miles. | dispatch. | by rail. | day of
| | | | delivery.
--------------+-------------+-------------+------------+--------------
| | Days. | Days. | Days.
1 to 200=| 1 to 124 | 1 | 1 | 2
201 ” 400=| 125 ” 248 | 1 | 2 | 3
401 ” 600=| 249 ” 372 | 1 | 3 | 4
601 ” 800=| 373 ” 497 | 1 | 4 | 5
801 ” 1,000=| 498 ” 621 | 1 | 5 | 6
1,001 ” 1,200=| 622 ” 745 | 1 | 6 | 7
1,201 ” 1,400=| 746 ” 869 | 1 | 7 | 8
1,400 ” 1,600=| 870 ” 994 | 1 | 8 | 9
1,601 ” 1,800=| 995 ” 1,118 | 1 | 9 | 10
--------------+-------------+-------------+------------+--------------
For traffic which has to pass from one line to another one day in
addition to the time specified above is allowed for transfer if the
transfer station is a joint station, and two days if the transfer
stations are apart from each other.[141]
[141] NOTE.--In converting Foreign money and distances into English
money and miles, the following have been taken, viz.:--
25 francs £1 1 mark 1s. 100 pfenning 1s. 1 florin 1s. 8d. 1
kilometre ·621 of a mile. 1,000 kilogrammes 2,200 lbs.
TOLL AND MAXIMUM RATE CLAUSES IN RAILWAY ACTS.
The following are illustrations of the Tolls and Rates which Railway
Companies have been authorised to charge in this country:--
Tolls authorised by the Stockton and Darlington Railway Act, 1821--1
and 2 Geo. IV., cap. 44, s. 62.
“And in consideration of the great Charge and Expense which the
said Company of Proprietors must incur and sustain in making
and maintaining the said Railways or Tramroads, and other
the works hereby authorised to be made and maintained: be it
further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the said
Company of Proprietors, from time to time, and at all Times
hereafter, to ask, demand, take, recover, and receive, to and
for the Use and Benefit of the said Company of Proprietors
for the Tonnage of all Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, and
other Things which shall be carried or conveyed upon the said
Railways or Tramroads, or upon any part thereof, the Rates,
Tolls, and Duties hereinafter mentioned: (that is to say),
“For all Limestone, Materials for the Repair of Turnpike Roads
or Highways, and all Dung, Compost, and all sorts of Manure,
except Lime, which shall be carried or conveyed upon the
said Railways or Tramroads, such sum as the said Company of
Proprietors shall from time to time direct or appoint, not
exceeding the Sum of Fourpence per Ton per Mile.
“For all Coal, Coke, Culm, Cinders, Stone, Marl, Sand, Lime,
Clay, Ironstone, and other Minerals, Building Stone, Pitching
and Paving Stone, Bricks, Tiles, Slates, and all gross and
unmanufactured Articles, and Building Materials, such sum
as the said Company of Proprietors shall from time to time
direct and appoint, not exceeding the Sum of Fourpence per
Ton per Mile.
“For all Lead in Pigs or Sheets, Bar Iron, Wagon Tire, Timber,
Staves, and Deals, and all other Goods, Commodities, Wares
and Merchandises, such Sum as the said Company of Proprietors
shall from time to time direct and appoint, not exceeding the
Sum of Sixpence per Ton per Mile.
“For all the Articles, Matters, and Things for which a Tonnage
is hereinbefore directed to be paid, which shall pass the
Inclined Planes upon the said Hail ways or Tramroads, such
Sum as the said Company of Proprietors shall appoint, not
exceeding the Sum of One Shilling per Ton.
“And for all Coal which shall be shipped on board of any vessel
or vessels in the Port of Stockton-upon-Tees aforesaid, _for
the purpose of exportation_, such Sum as the said Company
of Proprietors shall appoint, not exceeding the _Sum of One
Halfpenny per Ton per Mile_.”
By the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Act, 1826, that Company were
empowered to charge maximum rates for the whole distance, 31 miles 6
chains, viz.:--
“For all Lime, Limestone, and all sorts of Dung, Compost, and
Manure, and all materials for the repair of the public roads
and all Stone, Sand, Clay, Building, Pitching and Paving
Stones, Tiles and Slates, and also for all Timber, Staves and
Deals not exceeding Eight Shillings per Ton.
“For all Sugar, Corn, Grain and Flour, Dyewoods, Lead, Iron, and
other metals not exceeding Nine Shillings per Ton.
“For all Cotton and other Wool, Hides, Drugs, Groceries and,
manufactured goods not exceeding Eleven Shillings per Ton.
“For all Wines, Spirits, Vitriol, Glass, and other hazardous
goods not exceeding Fourteen Shillings per Ton.
“And for any distance short of the whole length, not exceeding
a rateable proportion of such several sums according to
distance.
“And for all Coals, Coke, Culm, Charcoal and Cinders carried
or conveyed along the same or any part thereof any sum not
exceeding Twopence Halfpenny per Ton per Mile.
“And for all Persons, Cattle and other Animals, such reasonable
charge as shall from time to time he determined by the said
Company.”
In 1835 the Toll Clauses sanctioned by Parliament were generally as
follows:--
Great Western Railway Act, 1835, 5 and 6 William IV., cap. 107, s.
164, 166, 167.
“And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the
said Company to demand, receive, and recover, to and for the
Use and Benefit of the said Company, for the Tonnage of all
Articles, Matters and Things which shall be conveyed upon or
along the said Railway, any Rates or Tolls not exceeding the
following: (that is to say,)
“For all Dung, Compost, and all sorts of Manure, Lime, and
Limestone, and Salt, and all undressed materials for the
Repair of Public Roads or Highways, the Sum of One Penny per
Ton per mile;
“For all Coals, Coke, Culm, Charcoal, Cinders, Building,
Pitching, and Paving Stones Dressed, Bricks, Tiles, Slates,
Clay, Sand, Ironstone, Iron Ore, Pig, Bar, Rod, Hoop, Sheet,
and all other similar Descriptions of wrought Iron and
Castings not manufactured into utensils or other Articles of
Merchandise, the Sum of Three Halfpence per Ton per Mile;
“For all Sugar, Grain, Corn, Flour, Dyewoods, Earthenware,
Timber, Staves, and Deals, Metals (except Iron), Nails,
Anvils, Vices, and Chains, the Sum of Twopence per Ton per
Mile;
“For all Cotton and other Wools, Hides, Drugs, manufactured
Goods, and all other Wares, Merchandise, Articles, Matters,
or things, the Sum of Threepence per ton per Mile.
“And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said
Company, and they are hereby empowered to provide Locomotive
or Stationary Engines or other Power for the drawing or
propelling of any Articles, Matters, or Things, Persons,
Cattle, or Animals, upon the said Railway, and also along
and upon any other Railway communicating therewith, and to
receive, demand, and recover such Sums of Money for the Use
of such Engines or other Power as the said Company shall
think proper, in addition to the several other Rates, Tolls,
or Sums by this Act authorised to be taken.
“And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said
Company, and they are hereby authorised, if they shall think
proper, to use and Employ Locomotive Engines or other Moving
Power, and in Carriages or Wagons drawn or propelled thereby
to Convey upon the said Railway and also along and upon any
other Railway communicating therewith, all such Passengers,
Cattle and other Animals
Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, Articles, Matters and Things, as
shall be offered to them for that Purpose, and to make such
reasonable Charges for such Conveyance as they may from Time
to Time determine upon, in addition to the several Rates or
Tolls by this Act authorised to be taken: Provided always,
that it shall not be lawful for the said Company or for any
Person using the said Railway as carriers to charge for the
Conveyance of any Passenger upon the said Railway any greater
Sum than the Sum of Threepence Halfpenny per Mile, including
the Toll or Rate hereinbefore granted.”
By the Great Western Railway Company’s Act, 1847, the power of the
Company in regard to rates and charges was reduced and limited,
“For all Coals, Coke, Culm, Cannel, Ironstone, Iron Ore, Pig
Iron, Bar Iron, Rod Iron, Sheet Iron, Hoop Iron, Plates
of Iron, Slabs, Billets and Rolled Iron, Limestone, Lime,
Bricks, Salt, Sand, Fire-clay, Cinders, Slag and Stone, per
ton per mile One Halfpenny; and if conveyed in carriages
belonging to the Company an additional sum per ton per mile
not exceeding One Farthing.
“For all Dung, Compost, and all sorts of Manure, and all
undressed materials for the Repair of Public Roads or
Highways, Charcoal, Stones for building, pitching, and
paving, Tiles, Slates, and Clay (except Fire-clay), and for
Wrought Iron not otherwise specifically classified herein,
and for heavy Iron Castings, including Railway Chairs per
ton per mile, not exceeding One Penny; and if conveyed in
carriages belonging to the Company an additional sum per ton
per mile not exceeding One Farthing.
“For all Sugar, Grain, Corn, Flour, Hides, Dyewoods,
Earthenware, Timber, Staves, Deals and Metals (except Iron),
Nails, Anvils, Vices and Chains, and for light Iron Castings
per ton per mile Twopence; and if conveyed in carriages
belonging to the Company an additional sum per ton per mile
not exceeding One Halfpenny.
“For Cotton and other Wools, Drugs and Manufactured Goods, the
sum of Twopence Halfpenny per ton per mile; and if conveyed
in carriages belonging to the Company an additional sum per
ton per mile not exceeding One Halfpenny.
“For Fish and all other Wares, Merchandise, Articles, Matters
or Things, per ton per mile not exceeding Threepence; and if
conveyed in carriages belonging to the Company an additional
sum per ton per mile not exceeding One Halfpenny.
“And be it enacted, That the Toll which the Company may demand
for the use of Engines for propelling the Carriages of other
parties on the said Railways shall not exceed One Penny per
mile for each Passenger or Animal or for each Ton of Goods
or other Articles, in addition to the several other tolls or
sums by this Act authorised to be taken for the use of the
said Railways.
“And with respect to the conveyance of Goods, the maximum rates
of charge to be made by the Company for the conveyance
thereof along the said Railways, including the Tolls for
the use of the said Railways, and Wagons or Trucks, and
Locomotive Power, and every expense incidental to such
conveyance, except a reasonable sum for loading, covering
and unloading of Goods, and for Delivery and Collection,
and any other services incidental to the Business or Duty
of a Carrier, where such services or any of them are or is
performed by the Company, shall not exceed the following sums
(that is to say):--
“For every Horse, Mule, and other Beast of Draught or Burden,
Threepence per mile.
“For Horned Cattle, the sum of One Penny Three Farthings per
Head per Mile.
“For Calves, Pigs, Sheep and small Animals, One Halfpenny each
per Mile.
“For every Private Carriage, Fourpence per mile.
“For all Coal, Coke, Ironstone and other Articles hereinbefore
classed therewith, conveyed any distance not exceeding Fifty
Miles, the sum of One Penny and One-eighth per ton per mile;
and the sum of Seven-eighths of a Penny per Ton per Mile
for the whole distance travelled, if conveyed a Distance
exceeding Fifty Miles.
“For all Dung, Compost and other Articles hereinbefore classed
therewith, conveyed any distance not exceeding Fifteen miles,
the sum of One Penny Halfpenny per Ton per Mile, and the sum
of One Penny and One-eighth per Ton per Mile for the whole
distance travelled, if conveyed a distance exceeding Fifteen
Miles.
“For all Sugar, Grain, and other Articles hereinbefore
classified therewith, conveyed any distance not exceeding
fifty Miles, the Sum of Twopence Halfpenny per Ton per Mile,
and the Sum of Twopence per Ton per Mile for the whole
distance travelled, if conveyed a distance exceeding Fifty
Miles.
“For all Cotton and other Articles hereinbefore classified
therewith, conveyed any distance not exceeding Fifty Miles,
the Sum of Threepence per Ton per Mile; and the Sum of
Twopence Halfpenny per Ton per Mile for the whole distance
travelled, if conveyed a distance exceeding Fifty Miles.
“For Fish and all other Wares, Merchandise, Articles, Matters
and Things conveyed any distance not exceeding Fifty Miles,
the Sum of Threepence Halfpenny per Ton per Mile; and the
Sum of Threepence per Ton per Mile for the whole distance
travelled, if conveyed a distance exceeding Fifty Miles.”
By the Regulation of Railways Act, 1844 (7 and 8 Vic. cap. 85), the
Government were given the right, on certain conditions, to _revise_
the scale of Tolls, Rates and Charges as follows:--
“Be it enacted, by the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and
temporal, and Commons in this Parliament assembled, and by
the authority of the same, That if at any time after the
end of twenty-one years from and after the first day of
January next, after the passing of any Act of the present,
or any future Session of Parliament for the construction of
any New Line of Passenger Railway, whether such New Line
be a Trunk, Branch, or Junction Line, and whether such New
Line be constructed by a New Company, incorporated for
the purpose, or by any existing Company, the clear annual
profits divisible upon the subscribed and paid-up Capital
Stock of the said Railway upon the average of the three then
last preceding years shall equal or exceed the rate of _Ten
Pounds_ for every _Hundred Pounds_ of such paid-up Capital
Stock, it shall be lawful for the Lords Commissioners of Her
Majesty’s Treasury, subject to the provisions hereinafter
contained, upon giving to the said Company three calendar
months’ notice in writing of their intention to do so, _to
revise the scale of tolls, fares and charges_, limited by
the Act or Acts relating to the said Railway, and to _fix
such new scale of tolls, fares and charges_, applicable to
such different classes and kinds of Passengers, Goods, and
other Traffic on such Railway as in the judgment of the said
Lords Commissioners, assuming the same quantities and kinds
of traffic to continue, shall be likely to reduce the said
divisible profits to the said rate of Ten Pounds in the
Hundred: provided always that no such revised scale shall
take effect, unless accompanied by a guarantee to subsist as
long as any such revised scale of tolls, fares, and charges
shall be in force, that the said divisible profits, in case
of any deficiency therein shall be annually made good to the
said rate of Ten Pounds for every Hundred Pounds of such
Capital Stock, provided also that such revised scale shall
not be again revised or such guarantee withdrawn otherwise
than with the consent of the Company for the further period
of twenty-one years.”
When the earlier Railway Acts were passed, Parliament provided that
the rates were to be charged equally throughout the railway.
The following is a copy of one of the Clauses that were inserted:--
“Provided always, and be it further enacted, that the aforesaid
rates and tolls to be taken by virtue of this Act shall at
all times be charged equally, and after the same rate per ton
per mile throughout the whole of the said Railway in respect
of the same description of articles, matters or things, and
that no reduction or advance in the said rates and tolls
shall, either directly or indirectly, be made partially or
in favour of or against any particular person or Company, or
be confined to any particular part of the said Railway, but
that every such reduction or advance of rates and tolls upon
any particular kind or description of articles, matters or
things, _shall extend to and take place throughout the whole
and every part of the said Railway_, upon, and in respect
of the same description of articles, matters and things
so reduced or advanced, and shall extend to all persons
whomsoever using the same or carrying the same description
of articles, matters and things thereon, anything to the
contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding.”
In the year 1845, however, Parliament by a Public Act cancelled the
prohibition against differential rates by the following Clause.
“And whereas it is expedient that the Company should be enabled
to vary the tolls upon the Railway, _so as to accommodate
them to the circumstances of the traffic_, but that such
power of varying should not be used for the purpose of
prejudicing or favouring particular parties, or for the
purpose of collusively and unfairly creating a monopoly,
either in the hands of the Company or of particular parties;
it shall be lawful, therefore, for the Company, subject to
the provisions and limitations herein and in the special Act
contained, from time to time, to alter or vary the tolls by
the special Act authorised to be taken, _either upon the
whole or upon any particular portions of the Railway as
they shall think fit_: provided that all such tolls be at
all times charged equally to all persons and after the same
rate, whether per ton, per mile or otherwise, in respect of
all passengers, and of all goods or carriages of the same
description, and conveyed or propelled by a like carriage or
engine, passing only over the same portion of the line of
Railway under the same circumstances; and no reduction or
advance in any such tolls shall be made either directly or
indirectly in favour of or against any particular Company or
person travelling upon or using the Railway.”
By Clause 15 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1873, it was
provided that:--
“The Commissioners shall have power to hear and determine
any question or dispute which may arise with respect to
the terminal charges of any Railway Company, where such
charges have not been fixed by any Act of Parliament, and to
decide what is a reasonable sum to be paid to any Company
for loading and unloading, covering, collection, delivery
and other services of a like nature; any decision of the
Commissioners under this section shall be binding on all
Courts and in all legal proceedings whatsoever.”
* * * * *
RAILWAY RATES:
ENGLISH AND FOREIGN.
BY
J. GRIERSON,
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.--The principle upon which Rates should
be based--Cost of Service--Equal Mileage Rates--Differential
Rates--Grouping, here and on the Continent--Differential
Rates on the Continent--The Interest of Consumers in
Rates--The real Basis of Rates--New Classification--Terminal
Charges--The Construction of Railways in England and
on the Continent--Working of English and Continental
Railways--Comparative facilities afforded by them--High Rates
and their effect on Trade--Proposals for fixing Rates by Railway
Commission--Conciliation Courts--Railway Amalgamation--Railways
and Canals--Conclusion--Appendices--Comparison between English and
Foreign Rates--Comparison of Railway receipts from Merchandise
and Mineral traffic--Tariffs and Conditions for the conveyance of
Merchandise traffic in Holland, Belgium, Germany and France--Toll
and maximum rate clauses in Railway Acts.
LONDON:
EDWARD STANFORD, 55, CHARING CROSS, S.W.
1886.
PRICE 5s.
* * * * *
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
“There may be a difference of opinion as to some of the conclusions
expressed in Mr. Grierson’s interesting book; there can be but one
opinion as to its value and its opportuneness.... The vast foreign
literature relating to railways, of which too little is known in
this country, has been made use of. Obviously, the volume is by
far the best statement of one side of the railway problem; it is
in every respect the clearest and ablest exposition of the railway
companies’ case.... To members of Parliament and others interested
in this subject the volume will be very valuable. It may not alter
their present opinions; but henceforth the subject must be discussed
with somewhat new arguments and in the light of new facts.... It
is enough to say that the book will probably be consulted by all
persons claiming a right to speak on these questions; that the
critics of railway administration in England will be ready to own
that they have profited by it; and that the case of the railway
companies has never before been stated so clearly, consecutively,
and reasonably.”--_Times, December 14th, 1886._
“To an economic question which yields to few in its pressing
importance, a valuable contribution has been made in a work by Mr.
Grierson, General Manager of the Great Western Railway Company,
entitled ‘Railway Rates: English and Foreign.’ (Edward Stanford.)....
Whether in regard to argument or statistics the volume is one which
no railway reformer can afford to neglect.”--_Daily Telegraph,
December 10th, 1886._
“Certainly no better contribution could be readily made from the
side of the Railways, so clear is the writing of this little book,
and so well arranged are the facts.... On the whole, the book will
no doubt serve its purpose of hastening a reasonable settlement.
The sooner the public understand that the point of view of the
directors is tenable, the sooner will the inevitable compromise be
sanctioned.”--_Daily News, December 15th, 1886._
“It would be an advantage if, before the question of railway rates
is again brought before Parliament, as it will be in the course
of next session, all who are to take part in its discussion would
read with care the case for the railway companies as it has been
presented by Mr. Grierson in the book now before us.... Mr. Grierson
writes with such an abundant knowledge of his subjects, and sets
forth so clearly the difficulties attending any attempt to regulate
rates, that no one who reads it intelligently can fail to rise from
the study of his book with a better understanding of the complex
problem with which it deals, and better able to assist in its
solution.... Of Mr. Grierson’s book as a whole, it may be said that,
although it is not a vindication of the railway companies, it shows
that, in the main, they are serving the country well, and abundantly
proves that any active interference by outside authorities in the
details of their management is far more likely to prove harmful than
beneficial.”--_Economist, 18th December, 1886._
“As the best that can be said on behalf of the Companies, this
volume is invaluable: it is the ablest statement of the case which
we have seen.... It is full of useful information, and by reason of
its facts, figures, and appendices, it is a volume which we cannot
too highly esteem.”--_Bullionist, 25th December, 1886._
“Mr. Grierson’s book on ‘Railway Rates: English and Foreign,’
cannot be regarded as other than a valuable contribution to a most
important subject. The book bristles with facts and figures, that
are of unquestionable interest.”--_Scotsman, December 20th, 1886._
The much vexed question of terminals, mileage and uniform rates,
differential and other charges in connection with railway management
are discussed from a thoroughly practical point of view, and the
facts and conclusions brought forward cannot but have a most
salutary effect in removing unfounded prejudice, and creating a
sounder public opinion with respect to the railways of the United
Kingdom.... The work now before us will, at all events, leave the
critics without excuse if they are not better informed on the
subject upon which they speak and write with such copious fluency
and limited knowledge.”--_Railway News, December 11th, 1886._
“In the mass of publications on the subject of railways, both
at home and abroad--the magnitude and character of which tend
to bewilder rather than enlighten--this book of Mr. Grierson’s,
although conceived in a spirit of defence simply, has developed into
a powerful instrument in the cause of justice--a careful compilation
of facts, many of which have hitherto been inaccessible, and an
exponent of opinions which cannot fail to carry weight, even though
it may be said that they emanate from an interested source. Such
is the wide survey which the author makes of the situation, that
although he disclaims any idea of removing the many misconceptions
in circulation, or of affording an answer to all the charges which
have been made against railway companies, he has taken a step which
will go far towards accomplishing both these objects.... We may
commend the work with its appendix to the careful reading of all
who are desirous of arriving at a sound and equitable solution of
the great railway problem, which at this moment is a matter of
importance and interest to all sections of society.”--_Railway
Times, December 18th, 1886._
“The publication of a volume entitled ‘Railway Rates: English
and Foreign,’ by Mr. J. Grierson, the General Manager of the
Great Western Railway, in which the case for the Railway
Companies is fully and ably stated, is a matter for genuine
satisfaction.”--_Manchester Guardian, December 21st, 1886._
“On all such points as terminal charges, high rates, and their
effect on trade, railway amalgamation, equal mileage rates, grouping
here and on the continent, Mr. Grierson’s volume will be found of
much value, while it will undoubtedly help to clear up certain
misconceptions, and ought to prevent the adoption of theories as to
the fixing of rates, which could only be injurious to trade, as well
as contribute to an equitable and satisfactory settlement of many
railway questions now much discussed.”--_Liverpool Mercury,
December 25th, 1886._
“Mr. J. Grierson, General Manager of the Great Western Railway,
has just rendered a really excellent service to the mercantile
community and to those outside that category--if there be any
such--who are interested in the question of railway rates and
charges and the numerous cognate subjects which evolve out of that
vastly important question.... To appreciate the work that the author
has accomplished, the book requires to be studied in its entirety,
especially by all who aim at thoroughly comprehending one of the
most important subjects of the day.”--_Glasgow Herald,
December 17th, 1886._
“Mr. Grierson’s book will be useful to all who desire to understand
what can be said in favour of the existing system,”--_Bristol
Evening News, December 10th, 1886._
“Under this title Mr. Grierson publishes an exhaustive, able and
dispassionate _resumé_ of all the conflicting statements, claims,
and interests verging round the much vexed question of Railway
Rates.... We have drawn freely on the materials which Mr Grierson
has so seasonably brought together, and we can only hope that the
many who take an interest in the question will thereby be tempted to
seek the further information at first hand.”--_Herapath’s Journal,
December 11th, 1886._
“No doubt he will fail to satisfy all who believe that the present
rates require revision, but he must convince every reasonable
person--everybody who is not blinded by ignorant prejudice--that
there is a great deal to be said on behalf of the railway
companies.”--_Figaro, December 25th, 1886._
“This is not an attempt to prove that all is for the best in the
best possible of railway systems; but simply to shew that some of
the charges brought against the companies are erroneous, others
exaggerated, and many of a contradictory character. We are further
reminded that the question of reform is extremely complicated, and
warned against that ‘vague, uninstructed notion’ that ‘something
must be done,’ which has been the bugbear of statesmen as well as
directors. Hasty legislation should the more be deprecated that
there is ‘a fashion in so-called railway reform’.... As to details,
Mr. Grierson certainly brings out a number of facts which make for
caution in drawing conclusions. Thus the figures quoted on pp.
144-48 seem to offer reasonable evidence that the exportation of
iron and coal is not prejudiced by the railway rates charged in
England as compared with those charged abroad.... Another fact to
be borne in mind: the average dividend on English railways amounts
to no more than 4·02 per cent., or two-fifths of the dividend which
in 1844 it was considered the railways should pay.”--_St. James’s
Gazette, January 1st, 1887._
“His figures have been procured from many sources at home and
abroad, and they are so handled as to afford very material support
to the case of the British Companies. As a defence of these
companies Mr. Grierson’s book is by far the best statement of
that side of the question which has appeared, consequently it is
entitled to respectful and serious consideration at the hands of
those who are not counted amongst the thick-and-thin partisans
of such companies as at present managed. In saying this, we do
not desire to convey the impression that Mr. Grierson’s facts and
figures represent solely _ex parte_ advocacy of the companies; on
the contrary, the book contains a large amount of information as to
foreign rates, which has not previously been succinctly presented to
English readers.”--_Ironmonger, December 26th, 1886._
“In his able and exhaustive work just issued Mr. Grierson has stated
the case for the companies completely, though concisely. He has,
in fact, produced a book which must take rank as an authority upon
the subject, and one with which it behoves everyone who pretends to
an opinion upon the matter to be well acquainted.... There are in
this book arguments which must be answered, and facts and figures
that will have to be faced by those who urgently call for measures
of railway reform and reduction of railway rates. The work, indeed,
though full is fair, and its publication should and will do much
towards settling a long-vexed question upon some reasonable terms
of compromise.”--_Liverpool Guardian Society’s Weekly Circular,
December 31st, 1886._
“The work which Mr. Grierson, the General Manager of the Great
Western Railway Company, has just published on railway rates is
a particularly able production, and its appearance now is very
opportune.... Mr. Grierson’s contribution to the discussion of the
question abounds in facts and arguments, stated with a clearness
and fairness which do much to prepossess the reader in favour of
the cause which is so ably and reasonably represented. Many people
will on reading this book obtain for the first time something like a
correct view of the position really taken up by Railway Companies,
and the arguments with which they are prepared to support it. Many
misconceptions will be removed, and the most energetic opponent of
the present policy of the Companies will feel that there are, at any
rate, two sides to many phases of the controversy.... On the whole a
strong case for the Railway Companies is made out.”--_British Trade
Journal, 1st January, 1887._
“The most effective contribution to the controversy that has yet
been made from the Railway Managers’ point of view, is a work on
‘Railway Rates, English and Foreign,’ by Mr. James Grierson, the
General Manager of the Great Western Railway, recently issued by
Mr. Stanford. Mr. Grierson, it is needless to say, is a skilled
exponent of official views, and he has fortified himself with an
immense mass of information drawn from Germany, France, Belgium and
Holland, which he marshals in the most effective manner possible,
with a view to rebutting the arguments of those who hold up the
continental systems as models for England to copy, or who contrast
continental railway rates with British rates to show under how much
more favourable conditions continental manufacturers work than
their competitors in England. It may be frankly confessed that Mr.
Grierson shows that no close comparison can with justice be made
between the charges upon railway systems that have been brought into
existence, and are worked under conditions differing widely in every
respect from those that have prevailed in England.... Mr. Grierson’s
comments and criticisms are weighty and practical, and in the matter
of differential rates and terminal charges, those who dissent from
his opinions will not find his arguments easy to meet.”--_Liverpool
Daily Post, 8th January, 1887._
“This is a very fine work by Mr. J. Grierson, General Manager of
the Great Western Railway. It is essentially a merchant’s and
shipowner’s book, and a copy of it should be in every counting
house. If such works were studied by merchants and merchants’
clerks a little more, a good deal of ignorance which prevails on
the subject of British and Foreign Railway rates would be cleared
away.... We cannot too highly commend this work to the mercantile
community.”--_Hull Times, 8th January, 1887._
“Now the public have the opportunity of hearing the Railway
Companies’ counsel. Mr. Grierson’s position enables him to back his
arguments with a copious array of facts.... On the _audi alteram
partem_ principle all the assailants of the present rates and
working should make it a point of duty to read what Mr. Grierson has
to say, for those who undertake to judge a righteous judgment it is
absolutely essential to be acquainted with his facts and references,
and even for those who prejudge, it is convenient to know what is
the line of defence.”--_Birmingham Daily Post, 7th January, 1887._
“Quite worthy of the position and traditions of the line he manages
is Mr. Grierson’s recent book on ‘Railway Rates, English and
Foreign,’ which from its admirable arrangement, lucid language
and courteous if vigorous tone of controversy, deserves to become
a commercial classic.”--_Birmingham Daily Gazette,
10th January, 1887._
“To an economic question which yields to few in its pressing
importance a valuable contribution has just been made by Mr.
Grierson, General Manager of the Great Western Railway, entitled
‘Railway Rates, English and Foreign.’”--_Wednesbury Herald,
18th December, 1886._
“Mr. Grierson now comes forward in a new character, the literary
champion of British Railway Companies in reply to the severe
criticisms on our own Railway Rates, in comparison with those
prevailing on the Continent.... He has said much and said it well;
and indeed he has shewn himself an able advocate for the great
interest he represents. The volume is a complete storehouse of facts
and figures.... He has clearly defined the lines of the controversy,
he has told with admirable effect what the Companies have to
say.”--_Weekly Bulletin, 25th December, 1886._
“Mr. Grierson’s contribution to the controversy respecting Railway
Rates is of a valuable character, stating the case on behalf
of the Companies plainly and clearly, and adducing very strong
arguments and a vast array of facts and figures in support of the
position they have taken up.... The subject of differential rates
is treated most exhaustively.... The question of Terminal Charges
is exhaustively discussed by Mr. Grierson.”--_Bristol Mercury,
8th January, 1887._
Mr. J. Grierson has written a most interesting defence of the
present system of Railway Management.... It is seldom that so
readable a work is issued on a subject so apparently dry.... There
are many other interesting features in this work, and none more
so than the comparisons of the workings of English and Foreign
Railways.”--_Bristol Times and Mirror, 6th January, 1887._
“I should advise all who can to obtain this little work and read
it. It is quite a text book of railway management, and I must say
that while I sat down to read it with a strong prejudice against
the railways, I found it had gone long before I had finished it.
It gives, in very fair style, that ‘_other side_’ which Englishmen
always like to hear.”--“_H. F. M. Farmer’s Column_,” _Bristol Times
and Mirror, 15th January, 1887._
“Mr. Grierson has done excellent service to the railway interest as
well as to the public, by the preparation of this very useful and
complete work.... The opinions expressed as to the principle upon
which railway rates should be based are indisputably sound.... For
more complete information and facts upon other matters of great
importance to the railway companies and the public generally,
we commend to our readers--notably to those who profess to be
dissatisfied with the present state of affairs--a careful study of
this work. Some chapters on the comparison of the working of English
and Continental railways are specially deserving of attention, and
the facts given are well calculated to remove much misapprehension
which appears to exist on the subject.”--_Railway Record,
15th December, 1886._
“Mr. James Grierson has laid the railway world under a deep
obligation by the publication of ‘Railway Rates, English and
Foreign.’ ... The facts and arguments, presented in clear, firm,
incisive language, cannot fail to impress, instruct, and interest
whoever this vast question in any way affects.”--_Railway Official
Gazette, January, 1887._
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Railway Rates: English and Foreign" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.