SECTION XIII. WORKING OF ENGLISH AND CONTINENTAL RAILWAYS— COMPARATIVE FACILITIES AFFORDED BY THEM.
Reading edition
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.
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.
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]
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. Length. Per Centage. Length. Per Centage. Total mileage.
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]
Year Per Mile of Railway. Per Square Mile. Per 1,000 People.
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
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—
Receipts. United Kingdom. England and 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
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 Mile. Per Train Mile. Per Mile. Per Train 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:—
State Railways. Private Railways. Total of 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.
The foregoing figures are summarised for convenience of comparison in the following tabular form:
GROSS RECEIPTS. Per Centage of Expenses on Receipts.
per mile. per train mile. PER CENTAGE OF GROSS RECEIPTS.[63]
£ £
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 Central and Brabant Railways. } } } 744 } } 562 3/0¼ 6/4¾ 54·49 41·18 54·49
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.
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]
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]
Grade. England. France. Germany. Belgium. Holland.
Engine Drivers per day 5/0 to 7/6 4/0 to 4/8 3/3 to 5/0 3/3 to 3/7 3/4 to 4/2
Firemen ” 3/0 to 4/6 3/0 to 3/4 2/6 to 3/3 2/0 to 2/5 2/2 to 2/11
Guards, Passenger per week 21/0 to 40/0 } 20/0 to 38/6 15/0 to 26/0 18/6 to 34/0 13/0 to 21/0
}
Guards, Goods ” 22/0 to 32/6 }
Signalmen ” 18/0 to 30/0 18/6 to 32/0 16/0 to 23/0 12/0 to 17/6 14/0 to 22/0
Porters, Passenger ” 15/0 to 17/6 } 14/0 to 17/0 16/0 to 20/0 13/0 to 17/6 14/0 to 17/6
}
Porters, Goods ” 18/0 to 24/0 }
Platelayers ” 15/0 to 23/0 12/8 to 20/0 12/8 to 14/6 12/0 to 17/6 12/0 to 14/0
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
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.
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]
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.