Railways
From LoveToKnow 1911
RAILWAYS. Railways had their origin in the tramways (q.v.) or wagon-ways which at least as early as the middle of the 16th century were used in the mineral districts of England round Newcastle for the conveyance of coal from the pits to the river Tyne for shipment. It may be supposed that originally the public roads, when worn by the cartage of the coal, were repaired by laying planks of timber at the bottom of the ruts, and that then the planks were laid on the surface of special roads or ways' formed between the collieries and the river. " The manner of the carriage," says Lord Keeper North in 1676, " is by laying rails of timber. .. exactly straight and parallel, and bulky carts are made with four rowlets fitting these rails, whereby the carriage is so easy that one horse will draw down four or five chaldrons of coals " (from io-6 to 13.2 tons). The planks were of wood, often beech, a few inches wide, and were fastened down, end to end, on logs of wood, or " sleepers," placed crosswise at intervals of two or three feet. In time it became a common practice to cover them with a thin sheathing or plating of iron, in order to add to their life; this expedient caused more wear on the wooden rollers of the wagons, and, apparently towards the middle of the 18th century, led to the introduction of iron wheels, the use of which is recorded on a wooden railway near Bath in 1734. But the iron sheathing was not strong enough to resist buckling under the passage of the loaded wagons, and to remedy this defect the plan, was tried of making the rails wholly of iron. In 1767 the Colebrookdale Iron Works cast a batch of iron rails or plates, each 3 ft. long and 4 in. broad, having at the inner side an upright ledge or flange, 3 in. high at the centre and tapering to a height of 22 in. at the ends, for the purpose of keeping the flat wheels on the track. Subsequently, to increase the strength, a similar flange was added below the rail. Wooden sleepers continued to be used, the rails being secured by spikes passing through the extremities, but about 1793 stone blocks also began to be employed--an innovation associated with the name of Benjamin Outram, who, however, apparently was not actually the first to make it. This type of rail (fig. i) was known as the plate-rail, tramway-plate or barrowway-plate - names which are preserved in the modern term " platelayer " applied to the men who lay and maintain the permanent way of a railway.
Another form of rail, distinguished as the edgerail, was first used on a line which was opened between Loughborough and Nanpantan in 1789. This line was originally designed as a " plateway " on the Outram system, but objections were raised to rails with upstanding ledges or flanges FIG. I.- being laid on the turnpike road which was crossed Plateat Loughborough on the level. In other cases Rail. this difficulty was overcome by paving or " causewaying " the road up to the level of the top of the flanges, but 1 " Another thing that is remarkable is their way-leaves; for, when men have pieces of ground between the colliery and the river, they sell leave to lead coals over their ground " (Roger North).
on this occasion William Jessop, of the Butterley Iron Works, near Derby, proposed to get over it by laying down two plates of iron, perfectly flat and level with the road but each having on its outside a groove 4 in. wide and 4 in. deep to control extra guiding wheels which were to be of somewhat larger diameter than the bearing wheels and to be affixed to them. The rest of the line was laid with what were substantially plate-rails placed on their edge instead of flat. These were cast in 3 ft. lengths, of a double-flanged section, and for the sake of strength they were " fish-bellied " or deeper in the middle than at the ends. At one end of each rail the flange spread out to form a foot which rested on a cross sleeper, being secured to the latter by a spike passing through a central hole, and above this foot the rail was so shaped as to form a socket into which was fitted the end of the next rail. Each length was thus fastened to a sleeper at one end, while at the other it was socketed into the end of its fellow. This method, however, was not found satisfactory: the projecting feet were liable to be broken off, and in 1799 or 1800 Jessop abandoned them, using instead separate cast-iron sockets or chairs, which were fastened to the sleepers and in which the rails were supported in an upright position. In the first instance he proposed to place the guiding wheels outside the bearing wheels, and the Nanpantan line was laid on this plan with a width of 5 ft. between the guide wheels; but before it was opened he decided not only to cast the guiding wheels and bearing wheels in one piece but also to put the former inside the rails, arguing that with this arrangement the edge-rails themselves would keep the wheels in position on the axles, whereas with that first contemplated fastenings would have been required for them (fig. 2). Jessop thus produced what was virtually the flanged wheel of to-day, having the flanges inside the rails,. and further, it is said, established what has become the standard gauge of the world, 4 ft. 82 in., or 5 ft. minus the width of two of his rails.
Railways-1.jpg
Railways-2.jpg
These two systems of constructing railways - the plate-rail and the edge-rail - continued to exist side by side until well on in the 19th century. In most parts of England the plate-rail was preferred, and it was used on the Surrey iron railway, from Wandsworth to Croydon, which, sanctioned by parliament in 1801, was finished in 1803, and was the first railway available to the public on payment of tolls, previous lines having all been private and reserved exclusively for the use of their owners. In South Wales again, where in 1811 the railways in connexion with canals, collieries and iron and copper works had a total length of nearly 150 miles, the plate-way was almost universal. But in the north of England and in Scotland the edge-rail was held in greater favour, and by the third decade of the century its superiority was generally established. The manufacture of the rails themselves was gradually improved. By making them in longer lengths a reduction was effected in the number of joints - always the weakest part of the line; and another advance consisted in the substitution of wrought iron for cast iron, though that material did not gain wide adoption until after the patent for an improved method of rolling rails granted in 1820 to John Birkinshaw, of the Bedlington Ironworks, Durham. His rails were wedge-shaped in section, much wider at the top than at the bottom, with the intermediate portion or web thinner still, and he recommended that they should be made 18 ft. long, even suggesting that several of them might be welded together end to end to form considerable lengths. They were supported on sleepers by chairs at intervals of 3 ft., and were fish-bellied between the points of support. As used by George Stephenson on the Stockton & Darlington and Whitstable & Canterbury lines they weighed 28 lb per yard. On the Liverpool && Manchester railway they were usually 12 ft. or 15 ft. long and weighed 35 lb to the yard, and they were fastened by iron wedges to chairs weighing 15 or 17 lb each. The chairs were FIG. 2.- Rail.
in turn fixed to the sleepers by two iron spikes, half-round wooden cross sleepers being employed on embankments and stone blocks 20 in. square by io in. deep in cuttings. The fishbellied rails, however, were found to break near the chairs, and from 1834 they began to be replaced with parallel rails weighing 50 lb to the yard.
The next important development in rail design originated in America, which, for the few lines that had been laid up to 1830, remained content with wooden bars faced with iron. In that year Robert Livingston Stevens (1787-1856), devised for the Camden & Amboy railway a rail similar as to its top to those in use in England, but having a flat base or foot by which it was secured to the sleepers by hook-headed spikes, without chairs (fig. 3); he had to get the first lot of these rails, which were 15 ft. long and weighed 36 lb to the yard, manufactured in England, since there were then no mills in America able to roll them. This type, which is often known as the Vignoles rail, after Charles Blacker Vignoles (1793-1875), who re-invented it in England in 1836, is in general use in America and on the continent of Europe. The bridge-rail (fig. 4) - so called because it was FIG. 3. - FlatFIG. 4. - Bridge Bottomed Rail. Rail.
first laid on bridges - was supported on continuous longitudinal sleepers and held down by bolts passing through the flanges, and was employed by I. K. Brunel on the Great Western railway, where, however, it was abandoned after the line was converted from broad to standard gauge in 1892. In the double-headed rail (fig. 5), originated by Joseph Locke in 1837, and first laid on the Grand Junction railway, the two tables were equal. This rail was more easily rolled than others, and, being reversible, was in fact two rails in one. But as it was laid in cast-iron chairs the lower table was exposed to damage under the hammering of the traffic, and thus was liable to be rendered useless as a running surface. In consequence the bull-headed rail (fig. 6) FIG. 5. - DoubleFIG. 6. - Bull Headed Rail. Headed Rail.
was evolved, in which the lower table was made of smaller size and was intended merely as a support, not as a surface to be used by the wheels. There was a waste of metal in these early rails owing to the excessive thickness of the vertical web, and subsequent improvements have consisted in adjusting the dimensions so as to combine strength with economy of metal, as well as in the substitution of steel for wrought iron (after the introduction of the Bessemer process) and in minute attention to the composition of the steel employed.
It was found, naturally, that the rails would not rest in their chairs at the joints, but were loosened and bruised at the ends by the blows of the traffic. The fish-joint was therefore devised in 1847 by W. Bridges Adams, the intention being by " fishing " the joints to convert the rails into continuous beams. In the original design two chairs were placed, one under each rail, a few inches apart, as in fig. 7. The joint was thus suspended between the two chairs, and two keys of iron, called " fishes," fitting the side channels of the rails, were driven in on each side between the chairs and the rails. In subsequent modifications the fishes were, as they continue to be, bolted to and through the rails, the sleepers being placed rather further apart and the joint being generally suspended between them.
The iron tramway or railway had been known for half a century and had come into considerable use in connexion with collieries and quarries before it was realized that for the carriage FIG. 7. - The original Fish-Joint of W. Bridges Adams.
of general merchandise it might prove a serious competitor to the canals, of which a large mileage had been constructed in Great Britain during that period. In the article on " Railways " in the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, published in 1824, it is said: "It will appear that this species of inland carriage [railways] is principally applicable where trade is considerable and the length of conveyance short; and is chiefly useful, therefore, in transporting the mineral produce of the kingdom from the mines to the nearest land or water communication, whether sea, river or canal. Attempts have been made to bring it into more general use, but without success; and it is only in particular circumstances that navigation, with the aid either of locks or inclined planes to surmount the elevations, will not present a more convenient medium for an extended trade." It must be remembered, however, that at this time the railways were nearly all worked by horse-traction, and that the use of steam had made but little progress. Richard Trevithick, indeed, had in 1804 tried a high-pressure steam locomotive, with smooth wheels, on a plate-way near Merthyr Tydvil, but it was found more expensive than horses; John Blenkinsop in 1811 patented an engine with cogged wheel and rack-rail which was used, with commercial success, to convey coal from his Middleton colliery to Leeds; William Hedley in 1813 built two locomotives - Puffing Billy and Wylam Dilly - for hauling coal from Wylam Colliery, near Newcastle; and in the following year George Stephenson's first engine, the Blucher, drew a train of eight loaded wagons, weighing 30 tons, at a speed of 4 m. an hour up a gradient of 1 in 450. But, in the words of the same article, " This application of steam has not yet arrived at such perfection as to have brought it into general use." The steam locomotive, however, and with it the railways, soon began to make rapid progress. On the Stockton & Darlington railway, which was authorized by parliament in 1821, animal power was at first proposed, but on the advice of Stephenson, its engineer, steam-engines were adopted. This line, with three branches, was over 38 m. in length, and was in the first instance laid with a single track, passing-places being provided at intervals of a quarter of a mile. At its opening, on the 27th of September 1825, a train of thirtyfour vehicles, making a gross load of about go tons, was drawn by one engine driven by Stephenson, with a signalman on horseback in advance.. The train moved off at the rate of from to to 12 m. an hour, and attained a speed of 15 m. an hour on favourable parts of the line. A train weighing 92 tons could be drawn by one engine at the rate of 5 m. an hour. The principal business of the new railway was the conveyance of minerals and goods, but from the first passengers insisted upon being carried, and on the 10th of October 1825 the company began to run a daily coach, called the " Experiment," to carry six inside, and from fifteen to twenty outside, making the journey from Darlington to Stockton and back in two hours. The fare was is., and each passenger was allowed to take baggage not exceeding 14 lb weight. The rate for carriage of merchandise was reduced from 5d. to one-fifth of a penny per ton per mile, and that of minerals from 7d. to ti-d. per ton per mile. The price of coals at Darlington fell from 18s. to 8s. 6d. a ton.
Railways-3.jpg
| INTRODUCTORYj |
The example of the Stockton & Darlington line was followed by the Monklands railway in Scotland, opened in 1826, and several other small lines - including the Canterbury & Whitstable, worked partly by fixed engines and partly by locomotives - quickly adopted steam traction. But the Liverpool & Manchester railway, opened in 1830, first impressed the national mind with the fact that a revolution in the methods of travelling had really taken place; and further, it was for it that the first high-speed locomotive of the modern type was invented and constructed. The directors having offered a prize of £500 for the best engine, trials were held on a finished portion of the line at Rainhill in October 1829, and three engines took part - the Rocket of George and Robert Stephenson, the Novelty of John Braithwaite and John Ericsson, and the Sanspareil of Timothy Hackworth. The last two of these engines broke down under trial, but the Rocket fulfilled the conditions and won the prize. Its two steam cylinders were 8 in. in diameter, with a stroke of 162 in., and the driving wheels, which were placed in front under the funnel, were 4 ft. 82 in. in diameter. The engine weighed 44 tons; the tender following it, 3 tons 4cwt.; and the two loaded carriages drawn by it on the trial, 9 tons i 1 cwt.: thus the weight drawn was 124 tons, and the gross total of the train 17 tons. The boiler evaporated 184 cub. ft., or 114 gals., of water an hour, and the steam pressure was 50 lb per square inch. The engine drew a train weighing 13 tons 35 m. in 48 minutes, the rate being thus nearly 44 m. an hour; subsequently it drew an average gross load of 40 tons behind the tender at 13.3 m. an hour. The Rocket possessed the three elements of efficiency of the modern locomotive - the internal water-surrounded fire-box and the multitubular flue in the boiler; the blast-pipe, by which the steam after doing its work in the cylinders was exhausted up the chimney, and thus served to increase the draught and promote the rapid combustion of the fuel; and the direct connexion of the steam cylinders, one on each side of the engine, with the two driving wheels mounted on one axle. Of these features, the blast-pipe had been employed by Trevithick on his engine of 1804, and direct driving, without intermediate gearing, had been adopted in several previous engines; but the use of a number (25) of small tubes in place of one or two large flues was an innovation which in conjunction with the blast-pipe contributed greatly to the efficiency of the engine. After the success of the Rocket, the Stephensons received orders to build seven more engines, which were of very similar design, though rather larger, being four-wheeled engines, with the two driving wheels in front and the cylinders behind; and in October 1830 they constructed a ninth engine, the Planet, also for the Liverpool & Manchester railway, which still more closely resembled the modern type, since the driving wheels were placed at the fire-box end, while the two cylinders were arranged under the smoke-box, inside the frames. The main features of the steam locomotive were thus established, and its subsequent development is chiefly a history of gradual increase in size and power, and of improvements in design, in material and in mechanical construction, tending to increased efficiency and economy of operation.
In America the development of the locomotive dates from almost the same time as in England. The earliest examples used in that country, apart from a small experimental model constructed by Peter Cooper, came from England. In 1828, on behalf of the Delaware && Hudson Canal Company, which had determined to build a line, 16 m. long, from Carbondale to Honesdale, Pennsylvania, Horatio Allen ordered three locomotives from Messrs Foster & Rastrick, of Stourbridge, and one from George Stephenson. The latter, named the America, was the first to be delivered, reaching New York in January 1829, but one of the others, the Stourbridge Lion, was actually the first practical steam locomotive to run in America, which it did on the 9th of August 1829. The first American-built loccmotive, the Best Friend, of Charleston, was made at the West Point Foundry, New York, in 1830, and was put to work on the South Carolina railroad in that year. It had a vertical boiler, and was carried on four wheels all coupled, the two cylinders being placed in an inclined position and having a bore of about 6 in. with a stroke of 16 in. It is reported to have hauled 40 or 50 passengers in 4 or 5 cars at a speed of 16-21 m. an hour. After a few months of life it was blown up, its attendant, annoyed by the sound of the escaping steam, having fastened down the safety-valve. A second engine, the West Point, also built at West Point Foundry for the South Carolina railroad, differed from the Best Friend in having a horizontal boiler with 6 or 8 tubes, though in other respects it was similar. In 1831 the Baltimore & Ohio Company offered a prize of $4000 for an American engine weighing 32 tons, able to draw 15 tons at 15 m. an hour on the level: it was won by the York of Messrs Davis & Gartner in the following year. Matthias W. Baldwin, the founder of the famous Baldwin Locomotive Works in Philadelphia, built his first engine, Old Ironsides, for the Philadelphia, Germantown & Morristown railroad; first tried in November 1832, it was modelled on Stephenson's Planet, and had a single pair of driving wheels at the firebox end and a pair of carrying wheels under the smoke-box. His second engine, the E. L. Miller, delivered to the South Carolina railroad in 1834, presented a feature which has remained characteristic of American locomotives - the front part was supported on a four-wheeled swivelling bogie-truck, a device, however, which had been applied to Puffing Billy in England when it was rebuilt in 1815.
The Liverpool & Manchester line achieved a success which surpassed the anticipations even of its promoters, and in consequence numerous projects were started for the construction of railways in various parts of Great Britain. In the decade following its opening nearly 2000 m. of railway were sanctioned by parliament, including the beginnings of most of the existing trunk-lines, and in 1840 the actual mileage reached 1331 m. The next decade saw the " railway mania." The amount of capital which parliament authorized railway companies to raise was about 42 millions on the average of the two years 1842-1843, 174 millions in 1844, 60 millions in 1845, and 132 millions in 1846, though this last sum was less than a quarter of the capital proposed in the schemes submitted to the Board of Trade; and the wild speculation which occurred in railway shares in 1845 contributed largely to the financial crisis of 1847. In 1850 the mileage was 6635, in 1860 it was 10,410, and in 1870 it was 15,310. The increase in the decade1860-1870was thus nearly 50%, but subsequently the rate of increase slackened, and the mileages in 1880, 1890 and 1900 were 17,935, 20,073 and 21,855. In the United States progress was more rapid, for, beginning at 2816 in 1840, the mileage reached 9015 in 1850, 30,600 in 1860, 87,801 in 1880, and 198,964 in 1900. Canada had no railway till 1853, and in South America construction did not begin till about the same time. France and Austria opened their first lines in 1828; Belgium, Germany, Russia, Italy and Holland in the succeeding decade; Switzerland and Denmark in 1844, Spain in 1848, Sweden in 1851, Norway in 1853, and Portugal in 1854; while Turkey and Greece delayed till 1860 and 1869. In Africa Egypt opened her first line (between Alexandria and Cairo) in 1856, and Cape Colony followed in 1860. In Asia the first line was that between Bombay and Tannah, opened in 1853, and in Australia Victoria began her railway system in 1854 (see also the articles on the various countries for further details about their railways).
| [GENERAL STATISTICS |
| Table of contents |
Transcontinental Railways
A railway line across North America was first completed in 1869, when the Union Pacific, building from the Missouri river at Omaha (1400 m. west of New York), met the Central Pacific, which built from San Francisco eastwards, making a line 1848 m. long through a country then for the most part uninhabited. This was followed by the Southern Pacific in 1881, from San Francisco to New Orleans, 2489 miles; the Northern Pacific, from St Paul to Portland, Ore., in 1883; the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, from Kansas City to San Diego; and the Great Northern from St Paul to Seattle and New Westminster in 1893. Meanwhile the Canadian Pacific, a true transcontinental line, was built from Montreal, on Atlantic tide-water, to the Pacific at Vancouver, 2906 m. But these lines have been dwarfed since 1891 by the Siberian railway, built by the Russian government entirely across the continent of Asia from Cheliabinsk (1769 m. by rail east of St Petersburg) to Vladivostok, a distance of 4073 m., with a branch from Kharbin about Soo m. long to Dalny and Port Arthur. The main line was finished in 1902, except for a length of about 170 m. in very difficult country around the south end of Lake Baikal; this was constructed in 1904, communication being maintained in the interval by ferry-boats, which conveyed all the carriages of a train across the lake, more than 40 m., when the ice permitted. A transcontinental line was long ago undertaken across South America from Buenos Aires to Valparaiso, where the continent is only about goo m. wide. The last section through the Andes was finished in 1910. (H. M. R.) General Statistics Mileage.-At the close of 1907 there were approximately 601,808 miles of railway in the world, excluding tramways. On the whole, the best statistical source for this information is the annual computation published by the Archiv fiir Eisenbahnwesen, the official organ of the Prussian Ministry of Public Works; but the figure quoted above utilizes the Board of Trade returns for the United Kingdom and the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission for the United States. In the United States and in certain other countries, a fiscal year, ending on the 30th of June or at some other irregular period, is substituted for the calendar year.
The partition of this total between the principal geographical divisions of the world is given in Table I.
Table I.-Mileage Of The World Miles. Miles.
Europe. 199,371 Africa 18,516 America ... 309,974 Australia 17,766 Asia 56,181 Table II., classifying the mileage of Europe, shows that Russia has taken the lead, instead of Germany, as in former years. If the Asiatic portions of the Russian Empire were given in the same table, the total Russian mileage would appear nearly as large as that of Germany and Italy together.
| Miles. | |
| Portugal | 1,689 |
| Denmark | 2,141 |
| Norway | 1,607 |
| Sweden | 8,322 |
| Servia . | 379 |
| Rumania | 1,995 |
| Greece . | 771 |
| European Turkey, Bul- garia, Rumelia | 1,968 |
| Malta, Jersey, Isle of | |
| Man. . | 68 |
Table Ii.-Railways Of Europe In 1907 Total. 199,371 In the United States railway mileage now tends to increase at the rate of slightly over 5000 miles a year, which is about 2 ° o on the present main line mileage. In the ' eighties, the country passed through a period of competitive building, which was productive of much financial disaster. Thus, in 1882, 11,569 in. were built-an addition equivalent to more than I I % of mileage then existing-and in 1887, 12,876 m. were built. Unjustifiable railway expansion had much to do with the American commercial panics of 1884 and 1893. After the reconstruction period of the 1893 panic, however, the tendency for a number of years was to spend larger sums in bettering existing railways rather than in new extensions. The decade from 1896 until 1905, inclusive, saw huge sums spent on yards, passing tracks, grade reduction, elimination of curves, substitution of large locomotives and cars for small ones, &c. During those ten years, the route mileage increased 34,991 m., or 17%, while the mileage of second, third, fourth and yard tracks and sidings increased 32,666 m., or nearly 57%. The number of locomotives increased 12,407, or 35%, and the number of freight cars, 545,222, or 42%. Moreover, the average tractive power per locomotive and the average capacity per freight car advanced greatly in this period, although specific figures cannot be given.
Thus it may fairly be said that the railway system of the United States was reconstructed between 1896 and 1905, so far as concerns rails, sleepers, ballast and the general capacity of a given group of lines to perform work. About 1905, however, a new tendency became apparent. At that time the so-called transcontinental railways, connecting the Pacific coast of the United States with the central portions of the country, and thus with the group of railways reaching the Atlantic seaboard, consisted of five railways within the borders of the United States, and one in Canada. In Canada the Canadian Pacific was the only transcontinental line, extending from St John, on the bay of Fundy, and from Quebec, on the river St Lawrence, to Vancouver, on the strait of Georgia, the distance from St John to Vancouver being approximately 3379 m. Within the boundaries of the United States the northernmost of the transcontinental lines was the Great Northern railway, extending from a point opposite Vancouver, B.C., and from Seattle, Wash., to Duluth, on Lake Superior, and to St Paul and Minneapolis, Minn., where connexion through to Chicago was made over an allied line,. the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, owned jointly by the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific.
Next, south of the Great Northern, lay the Northern Pacific railway, starting on the west from Portland, Ore., and from Seattle and Tacoma, Wash., and extending east to Duluth, St Paul and Minneapolis by way of Helena, Mont. The Central Pacific-Union Pacific route to the coast, with its important affiliated companies, the Oregon Short Line and the Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company, extended from San Francisco, Cal., and Portland, Ore., to Omaha, Neb., by way of Salt Lake City; the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe extended from San Francisco and Los Angeles, Cal., to Chicago and to Galveston, Tex.; while the Southern Pacific had. its line from San Francisco and Los Angeles to Galveston and New Orleans, running for the greater part of the distance just north of the Mexican border.
Thus it will be observed that the five great cities of the Pacific coast-Seattle and Tacoma, Wash., Portland, Ore., and San Francisco and Los Angeles, Cal.-were already well supplied with railways; but the growth of the fertile region lying west of the transcontinental divide was most attractive to American railway builders; and railways serving this district, almost all of them in trouble ten years before, were showing great increases in earnings. In 1903 the Gould lines determined to enter this Pacific territory. Hitherto the western terminus of this group of lines had been Salt Lake City, Utah; by the exceedingly bold construction of the Western Pacific from Salt Lake City to Oakland, Cal., opposite San Francisco, an additional line to the Pacific coast was provided, having low grades and being in all respects well adapted for cheap operation.
Shortly after the plans were announced for building the Western Pacific, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul also decided to extend west. Before that time the St Paul had been a great local railway, operating primarily in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois; but by the construction of a long arm from the Missouri river to Spokane, Seattle and Tacoma, it became a transcontinental line of the first importance, avoiding the mistakes of earlier railway builders by securing a line with easy gradients through the most favourable regions.
At the same time that these two extensions were being undertaken by old and well-established railways, a new company-the Kansas City, Mexico && Orient-was engaged in constructing a line almost due south-west from Kansas City, Mo., to the lower part of the gulf of California in Mexico; while an additional independent line was under construction from Denver in a north-westerly direction towards the Pacific coast. The guarantee for this activity may be illustrated by a single fact: the combined building operations, in 1908, of San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Spokane and Salt Lake City exceeded the combined building operations of Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Kansas City, Boston, Baltimore and Cincinnati during the same year. San Francisco spent more in new permanent structures than Philadelphia, and Seattle spent more than Pittsburg.
Recent American railway development, viewed in its larger aspects, has thus been characterized by what may be described as the rediscovery of the Pacific coast. How far this movement will extend it is impossible to say; it is certain, however, that it will be enormously important in re-aligning trade conditions in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Table III. illustrates the railway mileage in the continent of America at the close of 1907.
| Miles. | Miles. | ||
| United States . | 236,949 | Dutch Guiana | 37 |
| Canada . | 22,452 | Ecuador | 186 |
| Newfoundland . Mexico . | 666 13,612 | Peru . Bolivia | 1,332 2 |
| Central America. | 1,392 | Brazil . | 10,714 |
| Greater Antilles. | 2,430 | Paraguay | |
| Lesser Antilles . | 336 | Uruguay | 1,210 |
| Colombia. . | 449 | Chile . | 2,939 |
| Venezuela. . | 634 | Argentina | 13,673 |
| British Guiana . | 104 |
Table Iii.-Railways Of America In 1907 Total. 309,974 Outside the United States and Canada, the most interesting American developments are in Mexico and Argentina, these countries Miles.
| GENERAL STATISTICS] |
Germany 36,066 Austria-Hungary,including Bosnia and Herzegovina 25,853 GreatBritain and Ireland 23,108 France 29,717 EuropeanRussia, includ ing Finland 36,280 Italy.. 10,312 Belgium. 4,874 Holland. 2,230 Switzerland. 2,763 Spain 9,228 having nearly the same amount of railway mileage. In Mexico the national government is carrying out a consistent policy of developing its railway lines. It has succeeded in restoring the credit of these enterprises, and is proceeding with care and skill to form the lines into an efficient transportation system. In Argentina about 15% of the railways are owned and operated by the government, the balance being in the hands of private companies, largely controlled in England. Development of these lines has been primarily an extension from the large cities in the East to the agricultural districts in the West, but a change of great importance was brought about in 1910 by the completion of the last tunnel on the Argentine Transandine Railway, which serves to connect Santiago, Valparaiso and the other great cities of the west coast with Buenos Ayres, Montevideo, Bahia, Rio de Janeiro and the other great cities of the east coast. Naturally the company named does not reach all of these points, but its line across the Andes supplies the indispensable link of communication, in the absence of which the east coast towns and the west coast towns have hitherto been as widely separated as if they had been located on different continents-indeed, far more widely separated in point of time and of freight charges than Great Britain and the United States.
Table IV. shows as closely as possible the railway route mileage open in Asia at the close of 1907.
Table Iv.-Railways Of Asia In 1907 Miles.
Central Russia in Asia. 2,808 Siberia and Man churia . 5,565 China.. 4,1624,162 Korea . 688 Japan. 5,013 British India. 29,89329,893 Persia. 33 Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia and Cyprus 2,930 Portuguese East Indies 51 Total. 56,181 Although more than half of the total mileage of Asia is in British India, it is probable that the greatest proportionate gains in the near future will be in China, Siberia and Manchuria, and Central Russia in Asia. In proportion to its population China has the least railway development of any of the great countries of the world; the probability that its present commercial awakening will extend seems large, and in that case it will need a vast increase in its interior communications.
In Africa, it will be seen by Table V. that the railway mileage in the British possessions amounts to almost five-sixths of the total.
| ' FABLE V -RAILWAYS Miles. | OF AFRICA IN 1907 | Miles. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Egypt. . | 3,445 | British Provinces,except | |
| Algiers and Tunis | 3,049 | South Africa . | 1,235 |
| Congo States . | 399 | French Provinces. . | 1,246 |
| Abyssinia . | 192 | Italian Provinces. . | 71 |
| British South Africa . | 7,028 | Portuguese Pro - | |
| German Provinces . | 1,148 | vinces . | 703 |
Total. 18,516 The so-called Cape-to-Cairo route shows occasional extensions, particularly in the opening up of new country in Central Africa by the Rhodesian railway system. The Rhodesian railway system in 1910 had penetrated north of Broken Hill, which is just above the fifteenth parallel of south latitude, while the Egyptian railway system had reached Gondokoro, located close to the fifth parallel of north latitude. The intervening distance, through country exceedingly unhealthy for white men, and therefore promising no traffic except raw materials, does not seem a likely field for rapid railway extension.
In Australia the increase in railway mileage in the five years ending December 31st, 1907 was about 7%-a small proportion as compared with America, Asia or Africa. The greatest increase, both relative and absolute, was in Queensland; the smallest in South Australia, which added only 24 m. during the five years. Yet the mileage open per Io,000 inhabitants in Australia, as a whole, far surpasses that in any other of the broad geographical divisions.
Table Vi.-Railways Of Australia In 1907 Miles. Miles.
| New Zealand. . | 2,571 | Queensland . | 3,405 |
| Victoria. | 5,517 | Tasmania | 620 |
| New South Wales | 3,471 | West Australia . | 2,259 |
| South Australia . | 1,924 | Hawaiian Group . | 88 |
Total 19,855 Table VII. illustrates the mileage open to the end of 1907 per loo sq. m. of territory and per 10,000 inhabitants. It will be observed that Belgium leads all the countries of the world in what may be called its railway density, with the United Kingdom a far-distant second in the list, and Persia last. In railway mileage per io,000 inhabitants, however, Queensland, in the Australian group, reports a figure much greater than any other country; while at the other end of the list Persia holds the record for isolation.
| Per 100 Per 10,000 sq. miles. inhabitants. | ||
|---|---|---|
| Germany . | 17.2 | 6.4 |
| Austro-Hungary | IO.O | 5.5 |
| United Kingdom | 19.0 | 5.6 |
| France. . | 14.2 | 7.6 |
| Russia in Europe, including Finland | I 8 | 3'4 |
| Italy | 9.3 | 3.2 |
| Belgium | 42.8 | 7.3 |
| Holland | 15.0 | 3.9 |
| Switzerland | 17.2 | 8'3 |
| Spain | 4.8 | 5.2 |
| Portugal | 4.7 | 3.1 |
| Denmark | 14.3 | 8.7 |
| Norway | 1.3 | 7.2 |
| Sweden | 4.8 | 16.2 |
| Servia | 2 I | 1'5 |
| Rumania | 3.2 | 3.4 |
| Greece . | 3 I | 3.2 |
| Turkey in Europe, Bulgaria, Rumelia | 1.9 | 2.0 |
| Malta, Jersey, Man | 16.1 | 9 |
| Total | 5.3 | 5.1 |
Table Vii.-Miles Open At The End Of 1907 Europe America, 1907 Per 100 Per 10,000 sq. miles. inhabitants.
| United States Canada Newfoundland Mexico . Colombia . | 6.4 o 6 I 6 1 8 o 08 | 26.8 42'1 31'1 9.4 I.0 |
| Venezuela . | 0.16 | 2 6 |
| British Guiana | 0.11 | 3.5 |
| Ecuador | 0.16 | 1'3 |
| Peru | 0.32 | 2'9 |
| Bolivia | 0.16 | 3.1 |
| Brazil | 0.32 | 7 I |
| Paraguay | 0.16 | 2.5 |
| Uruguay | 1.8 | 13.0 |
| Chile | I o | 8.9 |
| Argentina | 1.3 | 28 o |
Asia, 1907 Per loo Per 10,000 sq. miles. inhabitants.
Central Russia in Asia. P3 3.6 Siberia and Manchuria 0-II 9.8 China 0 I 0.12 Korea. 0.8 o.68 Japan I I British India. 1.4 I.0 Ceylon.. 2.3 1.6 Persia 0.005 0.04 Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, Cyprus 0.5 1.5 Portuguese Indies. 3.5 0'9 Malay Archipelago. 1.9 8.8 Dutch Indies o 6 0.5 Siam 2.. 0.16 o 6 Africa, 1907 Per 100 Per 10,000 sq. miles. inhabitants.
Egypt Algiers and Tunis Cape Colony .
Natal . .
Transvaal.. Orange Colony Complete estimates for the balance of ' No accurate returns for Central America, Greater and Lesser Antilles and Dutch Guiana.
2 Estimates of area and population incomplete for Cochin China, Cambodia, Annam, Tonkin, Pondicherry, Malacca and Philippines.
Miles. Malay States. 636 Dutch East Indies 1,5091,509 Siam. 571 Ceylon. 561 Cochin China Cambodia Annam Tonkin 1,761 Pondicherry Malacca Philippines. Po o 8 I 3 3.5 I I. I.8 Africa not available.
3.5 216 .
| Per Too Per 10,000 sq. miles. inhabitants. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | . 2.4 30.9 | ||
| Victoria | 3.9 | 28.5 | |
| New South Wales . | . | I 1 | 25'4 |
| South Australia | . | 0.16 | 53.o |
| Queensland | . | 0.5 | 70.2 |
| Tasmania | . | 2 4 | 36.0 |
| West Australia | . | o 16 | 54'8 |
| Hawaiian Group . | . | 1.3 | 8 I |
| Total . | o 6 | 35'9 | |
12.6 15.7 42.6 Australia. 1907 Capital. - The total construction capital invested in the railways of the world in 1907 was estimated by the Archiv fur Eisenbahnwesen at £8,986,150,000; the figure is necessarily incomplete, though it serves as a rough approximation. This total was divided nearly evenly between the countries of Europe and the rest of the world. The United States of America, with a capital of £3,059,800,000 invested in its railways on the 30th of June 1906, was easily ahead of every other country, and in 1908 the figure was increased to £ 3,443, 02 7, 68 5, of which £2,636,569,089 was in the hands of the public. On a route-mileage basis, however, the capital cost of the British railway system is far greater than that of any other country in the world, partly because a vast proportion of the lines are double, treble or even quadruple, partly because the safety requirements of the Board of Trade and the high standards of the original builders made actual construction very costly.
The total paid-up railway capital of the United Kingdom amounted, in 1908, to £1,310,533,212, or an average capitalization of £56,476 per route mile, though it should be noted that this total included £196,364,618 of nominal additions through " stock-splitting," &c. Per mile of single track, the capitalization in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the United Kingdom, is shown in Table VIII.
| Paid-up | Paid-up | ||||
| Rout | Single- | Capital | C apital | ||
| Miles. | Track | Capitall..' | per | Single- | |
| Miles. | Route | T rack | |||
| Mile . | Mile. | ||||
| England and | |||||
| Wales. . | 1 5,999 | 2 9,74 81 | £1,080,138,674 | £ 6 7,5 1 3 | £36,309' |
| Scotland. . | 3, 8 43 | 4,53 11 | 18 5,345,494 | 48,229 | 33,5101. |
| Ireland | 3,363 | 4, 0 37 | 45,049,044 | 1 3,39 6 | 11,159 |
| United Kingdom | 23,205 | 39,3 16 | 1,310,533,212 | 5 6 ,47 6 | 33,333 |
Table Viii.-Paid-Up Capital, 1908 The table excludes sidings, because they cannot fairly be compared with running tracks, mile for mile. Yet the mileage of sidings in the United Kingdom amounted to 14,353 in 1908, and the cost of constructing them was probably not far from £60,000,000.
On a single-track-mile basis, the following comparison may be made between apparent capital costs in Great Britain and the United States: - Single-Track Paid-up Capital Mileage. per Mile.
United Kingdom, 1908.39,316 £ 33,333 United States, 1908.254,192 10,372 2 1 he figures for the United States are from the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission for the year ended 30th of June 1908, and comprise mileage of first, second, third and fourth tracks, and paid-up capital in the hands of the public only. The British figures are from the Board of Trade returns for the calendar year 1908. In comparing the figures, it should be noted that main line mileage in the Eastern states, as for example that of the Pennsylvania railroad and the New York, New Haven & Hartford, does not differ greatly in standards of safety or in unit cost from the best British construction, although improvement work in America is charged to income far more liberally than it has been in England. But there are long stretches of pine loam in the South where branch lines can be, and are, built and equipped for £2400 or less per mile, while the construction of new main line in the prairie region of the West ought not to cost more than £4000 per single-track-mile, under present conditions.
The problem of the early railway builders in the United States was to conquer the wilderness, to build an empire, and at the same time to bind the East to the West and the North to the South. There can be little doubt but that the United States would long ago have disintegrated into separate, warring republics, had they not been bound together by railways, and standards of safety were 1 These figures are derived from a total. They are not exact, but may be taken as representing an approximation correct within one per cent.
2 Dollars to pounds sterling @ 4.87. 4.87.
rightly subordinated to the main task to be accomplished. Conquest is not usually bloodless, whether achieved at the van of a marching column or at the head of a hastily-built railway, and the process under which the American railway system took form left the way open for a distressing record of accidents to the traveller and the railway servant. But as traffic becomes more dense, year by year, the rebuilding process is constant, and American railway lines are gradually becoming safer.
In Europe the average route-mile capital is £27,036, and Table IX. shows the differences between various countries.
| Germany (1907) . | . | £22,298 | |
| France (1905) | . | 25,285 | |
| Belgium (State railways 1906) | . | 35,381 | |
| Italy (State railways 1906-7) | . | 26,008 | |
| Denmark (State railways 1907-8) | 10,433 | ||
| Norway (1907-8) | 8,027 | ||
| Sweden (1905) | 6,647 | ||
| Russia (excluding Finland; 1905) | 16,534 | ||
| Finland (State railways 1907) | . | 7,300 |
Table Ix.-Route-Mile Capital In Europe Statistical Study of Railway Operation. - The study of railway operation through statistics has two distinct aspects. It has been well said that statistics furnish the means by which the railway manager disciplines his property; this is the aspect of control. On the other hand, the banker, the government official and the economist use railway statistics to obtain information which may be characterized as static rather than dynamic. Both uses ultimately rest upon comparison of the observed data from a certain property with the observed data from other properties, or with predetermined standards of performance.
In general, the British working unit supplied as public information has always been the goods-train-mile and the passengertrain-mile, these figures being the products of the number of trains into the number of miles they have travelled. In America, the basic units have been the ton-mile and the passenger-mile, and these figures are now required to be furnished to the Interstate Commerce Commission and to most of the state commissions as well. Both the British manager and the American manager, however, are supplied with a considerable number of daily, weekly and monthly reports, varying on different railways, which are not made public. The daily sheets usually include a summarized statement of the performance of every train on the line, covering the amount of business done, the destination of the loads, &c. For a number of years there has been a movement in Great Britain to require the inclusion of ton-mile statistics in the stated returns to the Board of Trade, but most railway managers have objected to the change on the ground that their own confidential information was already adequate for purposes of control, and that ton-mile statistics would require additional clerical force to a costly extent. The Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade, sitting in 1909 to consider railway accounting forms, while recommending ton-miles to the careful consideration of those responsible for railway working in Great Britain, considered the question of their necessity in British practice to be still open, and held that, at all events, they should not be introduced under compulsion.
| LEGISLATION] |
References.-A nnual Reports of the Interstate Commerce Commission; Poor's Manual of Railroads (annual, New York); Statistical Abstract of the United States (annual, Washington, published by the U. S. Bureau of Statistics); A. T. Hadley, Railroad Transportation, Its History and Laws (New York, 1885); E. R. Johnson, American Railway Transportation (New York, 1908); L. G. McPherson, Railroad Freight Rates (New York, 1909); S. Daggett, Railroad Reorganization (Boston, 1908); M. L. Byers, Economics of Railway Operation (New York, 1908); E. R. Dewsnup (ed.), Railway Organization and Working (Chicago, 1906); Interstate Commerce Commission; Rate Regulation Hearings before the U.S. Senate Committee (Washington, 5 vols., 1905); and on current matters, The Official Railway Guide (monthly, New York, the Railroad Age Gazette (weekly, New York) and the Commercial and Financial Chronicle (weekly, New York). (R. Mo.) Economics And Legislation It was at one time an axiom of law and of political economy that prices should be determined by free competition. But in the development of the railway business it soon became evident that no such dependence on free competition was possible, either in practice or in theory. This difficulty is not peculiar to railways; but it was in the history of railway economy and railway control that certain characteristics which are now manifesting themselves in all directions where large investments of fixed capital are involved were first brought prominently to public notice.
For a large number of those who use a railway, competition in its more obvious forms does not and cannot exist. Independent carriers cannot run trains over the same line and underbid one another in offering transportation services. It would be practically impossible for a line thus used by different carriers to be operated either with safety, or with economy, or with the advantage to the public which a centralized management affords. It is equally impossible for the majority of shippers to enjoy the competition of parallel lines. Such duplication of railways involves a waste of capital. If parallel lines compete at all points, they cause ruin to the investors. If they compete at some points and not at others, they produce a discrimination or preference with regard to rates and facilities, which builds up the competitive points at the expense of the non-competitive ones. Such partial competition, with the discrimination it involves, is liable to be worse for the public than no competition at all. It increases the tendency, already too strong, towards concentration of industrial life in large towns. It produces an uncertainty with regard to rates which prevents stability of prices, and is apt to promote the interests of the unscrupulous speculator at the expense of those whose business methods are more conservative. So marked are these evils that such partial competition is avoided by agreements between the competing lines with regard to rates, and by divisions of traffic, or pools, which shall take away the temptation to violate such rate agreements. The common law has been somewhat unfavourable to the enforcement of such agreements, and statutes in the United States, both local and national, have attempted to prohibit them; but the public advantage from their existence has been so great as to render their legal disabilities inoperative. In those parts of the continent of Europe where railways are owned and administered by state authority, the necessity for such agreements is frankly admitted.
But if rates are to be fixed by agreement, and not by competition, what principle can be recognized as a legitimate basis of railway rate-making? The first efforts at railway legislation were governed by the equal mileage principle; that is, the attempt was made to make rates proportionate to the distance. It was, however, soon seen that this was inadmissible. So much of the expense of the handling, both of freight and of passengers, was independent of the length of the journey that a mileage rate sufficiently large for short distances was unnecessarily burdensome for long ones, and was bound to destroy long-distance traffic, if the theory were consistently applied. The system has been retained in large measure in passenger business, but only because of the conflict which inevitably occurs between the authorities and the passengers with regard to the privilege of breaking and resuming a journey when passenger rates are arranged on any other plan. In freight schedules it has been completely abandoned.
A somewhat better theory of rate regulation was then framed, which divided railway expenditures into movement expense, connected with the line in general, and terminal expense, which connected itself with the stations and station service. Under this system each consignment of freight is compelled to pay its share of the terminal expense, independently of distance, plus a mileage charge proportionate to the length of the journey or haul. There has been also a further attempt in England to divide terminal charges into station and service terminals, according to the nature of the work for which compensation is sought. But none of these classifications of expense reaches the root of the matter. A system of charges which compels each piece of traffic to pay its share of the charges for track and for stations overlooks the fundamental fact that a very large part of the expenses of a railway - more than half - is not connected either with the cost of moving traffic or of handling traffic at stations, but with the cost of maintaining the property as a whole. Of this character are the expenditures necessary for maintenance of way, for general administration and for interest on capital borrowed, which are almost independent of the total amount of business done, and quite independent of any individual piece of business. To say that all traffic must bear its share of these interest and maintenance charges is to impose upon the railways a rate which would cut off much of the longdistance traffic, and much of the traffic in cheap articles, which is of great value to the public, and which, from its very magnitude, is a thing that railways could not afford to lose. It is also a fact that with each recurring decade these general expenses (also called indirect, undistributed or fixed charges) have an increased importance as compared with the particular (direct, distributed or operating) expense attaching naturally to the particular portions of the traffic. For with increased density of population it becomes profitable to make improvements on the original location, even though this may involve increased charges for interest and for some parts of its maintenance, for the sake of securing that economy of operation, through larger train-loads, which such an improved location makes possible.
Whatever the ostensible form of a railway tariff, the contribution of the different shipments of freight to these general expenses is determined on the principle of charging what the traffic will bear. Under this principle, rates are reduced where the increase of business which follows such reduction makes the change a profitable one. They are kept relatively high in those cases where the expansion of business which follows a reduction is small, and where such a change is therefore unprofitable. This theory of charging what the traffic will bear is an unpopular one, because it has been misapplied by railway managers and made an excuse for charging what the traffic will not bear. Rightly applied, however, it is the only sound economic principle. It means taxation according to ability - that ability being determined by actual experiment.
In the practical carrying out of this principle, railways divide all articles of freight into classes, the highest of which are charged two or three, or even four times the rates of the lowest. This classification is based partly upon special conditions of service, which make some articles more economical to carry than others (with particular reference to the question whether the goods are offered to the companies in car-loads or in small parcels), but chiefly with regard to the commercial value of the article, and its consequent ability to bear a high charge or a low one. For each of these classes a rate-sheet gives the actual ratecharge per unit of weight between the various stations covered by the tariff. This rate increases as the distance increases, but not in equal proportion; while the rates from large trade centres to other trade centres at a great distance are not higher than those to intermediate points somewhat less remote; if the law permits, there is a tendency to make them actually a little lower. Besides the system of charges thus prescribed in the classification and rate-sheet, each tariff provides for a certain number of special rates or charges made for particular lines of trade in certain localities, independently of their relation to the general system. If these special rates are published in the tariff, and are offered to all persons alike, provided they can fulfil the conditions imposed by the company, they are known as commodity rates, and are apparently a necessity in any scheme of railway charges. If, however, they are not published, and are given to certain persons as individual favours, they become a prolific source of abuse, and are quite indefensible from the standpoint of political economy.
While the superficial appearance of the railway tariff is different for different countries, and sometimes for different parts of the same country, the general principles laid down are followed in rate-making by all well-managed lines, whether state or private. It is a mistake to suppose that the question of public or private ownership will make any considerable difference in the system of rate-making adopted by a good railway. A state system will be compelled, by the exigencies of the public treasury, to arrange its rates to pay interest on its securities; a private company will generally be prevented, by the indirect competition of railways in other parts of the country which it serves, from doing very much more than this. The relative merit of the two systems depends upon the question how we can secure the best efficiency and equity in the application of the principles thus far laid down. There are three different systems of control: I. Private operation, subject only to judicial regulation, was exemplified most fully in the early railway history of the United States. Until 1870 railway companies were almost free from special acts of control; and, in general, any company that could raise or borrow the capital was allowed to build a railway wherever it saw fit. In the United Kingdom there was almost as much immunity from legislative interference with charges, but the companies were compelled to secure special charters, and to conform to regulations made by the Board of Trade in the interests of public safety. The advantage of this relatively free system of railway building and management is that it secures efficient and progressive methods. Most of the improvements in operation and in traffic management have had their origin in one of these two countries. The disadvantage attendant upon this system is that the courts are reluctant to exercise the right of regulation, except on old and traditional lines, and that in the face of new business methods the public may be inadequately protected. There is also this further disadvantage, that in the gradual progress of consolidation railway companies take upon themselves the aspect of large monopolies, of whose apparently unrestricted power the public is jealous. As a result of these difficulties there has been, both in the United Kingdom and in the United States, a progressive increase of legislative interference with railways. In the former the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854 specially prohibited preferences, either in facilities or in rates. The Regulation of Railways Act of 1873 provided for a Railway Commission, which should be so constituted as to take cognizance of cases on the investigation of which the courts were reluctant to enter. Finally, the legislation of 1888 put into the hands of a reorganized Railway Commission and of the Board of Trade powers none the less important in principle because their action has been less in its practical effect than the advocates of active control demanded. In the United States the years from 1870 to 1875 witnessed sweeping and generally ill-considered legislation (" Granger " Acts) concerning railway charges throughout the Mississippi valley; while the years from 1884 to 1887 were marked by more conservative, and for that reason more enforceable, acts, which culminated in the Interstate Commerce Act, prohibiting personal discrimination and gradually restricting discrimination between places, and providing for a National Commission of very considerable power - not to speak of the pooling clause, which was extraneous to the general purpose of the act, and has tended to defeat rather than strengthen its operation.
2. Operation by private companies, under specific provisions of the government authorities with regard to the method of its exercise, has been the policy consistently carried out in France, and less systematically and consistently in other countries under the domination of the Latin race. It was believed by its advocates that this system of prescribing the conditions of construction and operation of lines could promote public safety, prevent waste of capital and secure passengers and shippers against extortionate rates. These expectations have been only partially fulfilled. Well trained as was the civil service of France, the effect of this supervision in deadening activity was sometimes more marked than in its effect in preventing abuse. Moreover, such a system of regulation almost necessarily carries with it a guarantee of monopoly to the various companies concerned, and not infrequently large gifts in the form of subsidies, for without such aid private capital will not submit to the special burdens involved. These rights, whether of monopoly or of subsidy, form a means of abuse in many directions. Where the government is bad, they are a fruitful source of corruption; even where it is good, they enable the companies to drive hard bargains with the public, and prevent. the expected benefits of official control from being realized.
3. State operation and ownership is a system which originated in Belgium at the beginning of railway enterprise, and has been consistently carried out by the Scandinavian countries and by Hungary. Since 1860 it has been the policy of Australia.. It has generally come to be that of Germany and, so far as the finances of the countries allow, of Austria and Russia; British India also affords not a few examples of the same method. The theory of state ownership is excellent. So large a part of the railway charge is of the nature of a tax, that there seem to be a priori reasons for leaving the taxing powers in the hands of the agents of the government. In practice its operation is far more uncertain. Whether the intelligence and efficiency of the officials charged by the state with the handling of its railway system will be sufficient to make them act in the interest of the public as fully as do the managers of private corporations, is a question whose answer can only be determined by actual experience in each case. If they fail to have these qualities, the complete monopoly which a government enjoys, and the powers of borrowing which are furnished by the use of the public credit, increase instead of diminishing the danger of arbitrary action, unprogressiveness and waste of capital. Even in matters like public safety it is by no means certain that government authorities will do so well as private ones. The question is one which practical railway men have long since ceased to argue on general principles; they recognize that the answer depends upon the respective degree of talent and integrity which characterize the business community on the one hand and the government officials on the other.
| B RITISH LEGISLATIO` ] |
Authorities
- On economics of construction and of operation, see Wellington, The Economic Theory of Railway Location (5th ed., New York, 1896). On principles governing railway rates in general, and specifically in England, see Acworth, The Railways and the Traders (London, 1891). On comparative railway legislation and the principles governing it, see Hadley, Railroad Transportation; its History and its Laws (New York, 1885). On the history of railway legislation in England, see Cohn, Untersuchungen fiber die Englische Eisenbahnpolitik (Leipzig, 1874-83). On practice concerning rates in continental Europe, see Ulrich, Des Eisenbahntarifwesen (Berlin, 1886). (Since this was published, continental passenger rates havefallen. The French translation - Paris, 1898 - gives Russian tariffs.) On the question of " nationalization " (i.e. state ownership and operation), see an article by Edgar Crammond in the Quarterly Review (London) for October 1909, which cites, among other works on the subject, Clement Edwards's Railway Nationalization (1898); Edwin A. Pratt's Railway Nationalization (1908), and E. A. Davis's Nationalization of Railways (1908). (A. T. H.) British Railway Legislation The first thing a railway company in Great Britain has to do is to obtain a special or private act of parliament authorizing the construction of the line. Not that the mere laying or working of a railway requires parliamentary sanction, so long as the work does not interfere with other people's rights and interests. An example of a railway built. without any legislative authority is the little mountain railway from Llanberis to the summit of Snowdon, which was made by the owner of the land through which it passes. Such a railway has no statutory rights and no special obligations, and the owner of it is liable to be sued for creating a nuisance if the working of the line interferes with the comfort of those residing in the neighbourhood. When, however, a company desires to construct a line on a commercial scale, to acquire land compulsorily, to divert rivers and streams, to cross roads either on the level or by means of bridges, to pass near houses, to build tunnels or viaducts, and to execute all the other works incidental to a. railway, and to work the line when completed without interference, it is essential that the authority of parliament should be obtained. The company therefore promotes a bill, which is considered first by select committees of the two houses of parliament, and afterwards by the two houses themselves, during which period it faces the opposition, if any, of rival concerns, of local authorities and of hostile landowners. If this is successfully overcome, and the proposals meet with the Con approval of parliament, the bill is passed and, after securing the Royal Assent, becomes an act of parliament. The company is then free to proceed with the work of construction, and at once becomes subject to various general acts, such as the Companies Clauses Act, which affects all joint-stock companies incorporated by any special act; the Land Clauses Act, which has reference to all companies having powers to acquire land compulsorily; the Railway Clauses Act, which imposes certain conditions on all railways alike (except light railways); the various Regulation of Railways Acts; the Carriers Protection Act; acts for the conveyance of mails, parcels, troops; acts relating to telegraphs, to the conveyance of workmen and to the housing of the labouring classes; and several others which it is unnecessary to specify. From the early days of railways parliament has also been careful to provide for the safety of the public by inserting in the general or special acts definite conditions, and by laying upon the Board of Trade the duty of protecting the public using a railway.
The first act which has reference to the safety of passengers is the Regulation of Railways Act of 1842, which obliges every railway company to give notice to the Board of Trade of its intention to open the railway for passenger traffic, and places upon that public department the duty of inspecting the line before the opening of it takes place.. If the officer appointed by the Board of Trade should, after inspection of the railway, report to the department that in his opinion " the opening of the same would be attended with danger to the public using the same, by reason of the incompleteness of the works or permanent way, or the insufficiency of the establishment for working such railway," it is lawful for the department to direct the company to postpone the opening of the line for any period not exceeding one month at a time, the process being repeated from month to month as often as may be necessary. The company is liable to a fine of twenty pounds a day if it should open the line in contravention of such order or direction. The inspections made by the officers of the Board of Trade under this act are very complete: the permanent way, bridges, viaducts, tunnels and other works are carefully examined; all iron or steel girders are tested; stations, including platforms, stairways, waiting-rooms, &c., are inspected; and the signalling and " interlocking " are thoroughly overhauled. A code of requirements in regard to the opening of new railways has been drawn up by the department for the guidance of railway companies, and as the special circumstances of each line are considered on their merits, it rarely happens that the department finds it necessary to prohibit the opening of a new railway. The Regulation of Railways Act of 1871 extends the provisions of the above act to the opening of " any additional line of railway, deviation line, station, junction or crossing on the level " which forms a portion of or is connected with a passenger railway, and which has been constructed subsequently to the inspection of it. This act further defines the duties and powers of the inspectors of the Board of Trade, and also authorizes the Board to dispense with the notice which the previous act requires to be given prior to the opening of a railway.
It' may be remarked that neither of these acts confers on the Board of Trade any power to inspect a railway after it has once been opened, unless and until some addition or alteration, such as is defined in the last-named act, has been made. When a line has once been inspected and passed, it lies with the company to maintain it in accordance with the standard of efficiency it originally possessed, but no express statutory obligation to do so is imposed upon the company, and whether it does so or not, the Board of Trade cannot interfere.
The act of 1871 further renders it obligatory upon every railway company to send notice to the Board of Trade in the case of (1) any accident attended with loss of life or personal injury to any person whatsoever; (2) any collision where one of the trains is a passenger train; (3) any passenger train or part of such train leaving the rails; (4) any other accident likely to have caused loss of life or personal injury, and specified on that ground by any order made from time to time by the Board of Trade. The department is authorized, on receipt of such report, to direct an inquiry to be made into the cause of any accident so reported, and the inspector appointed to make the inquiry is given power to enter any railway premises for the purposes of his inquiry, and to summon any person engaged upon the railway to attend the inquiry as a witness, and to require the production of all books, papers and documents which he considers important for the purpose. The inspector, after making his investigation, is required to make a report to the Board of Trade as to the causes of the accident and the circumstances attending the same, with any observations on the subject which he deems right, and the Board " shall cause every such report to be made public in such manner as they think expedient." The usual mode of publishing such reports is to forward them to railway companies concerned, as well as to the press, and on application to any one else who is interested. The reports are subsequently included in a Blue-book and presented to parliament. It should be noted that although the inspecting officer may in his report make any recommendations that he may think fit with a view to guarding against any similar accident occurring in the future, no power is given to the Board of Trade, or to any other authority, to compel any railway company to adopt such recommendations. This omission is sometimes held to be an error, but as a fact it is an advantage. The moral effect of the report, with the criticisms of the company's methods and recommendations appended thereto, is great, and it rarely happens that a company refuses to adopt, or at any rate to test, the recommendations so made. If, on the other hand, the company is of opinion that the suggestions of the inspecting officer are not likely to prove beneficial, or are for any reason unadvisable, it is at liberty to reject them, the responsibility of doing so resting entirely upon itself. The effect of this latitude is to give the company ample discretion in the matter, and to enable the act to be administered and the object of it to be attained without undue interference.
In 1889 a very important act was passed placing upon the Board of Trade the obligation to call upon railway companies throughout the United Kingdom (1) to adopt upon all passenger lines the " block " system of working; (2) to " interlock " their points and signals; (3) to fit all trains carrying passengers with some form of automatic continuous brake. Prior to this some companies had, to a certain extent, done these things, but few, if any, were completely equipped in these respects. A reasonable period was afforded them, according to circumstances, to comply with these requirements, and at the present time the work is practically complete. In this respect the lines of the United Kingdom are far ahead of those of any other country, and a diminution of accidents, particularly of collisions, has resulted therefrom. America is now following the lead thus set, and all the most important lines in the United States have adopted block working and interlocking, but a great deal still remains to be done. In certain respects, on the other hand, America has gone further than the United Kingdom, especially in the matter of automatic signalling, and in the operating of points and signals by electrical power or air-pressure instead of manual labour. In America, also, freight trains are fitted with an automatic continuous brake, whereas in the United Kingdom this appliance is required by law only in the case of passenger trains, and in fact is not fitted to goods and mineral trains except in a few isolated instances.
The above-named acts enable the Board of Trade to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the safety of passenger trains is sufficiently guarded. More recently legislation has beenassed to safeguard the lives and interests of Hours of P g Lab ur. railway servants. In 1893 an act was passed by parliament giving the Board power to interfere if or when representations are made to them by or on behalf of any servant or class of servants of a railway company that the hours of work are unduly long, or do not provide sufficient intervals of uninterrupted rest between the periods of duty, or sufficient relief in respect of Sunday duty. In such cases the company concerned may, after inquiry, be called upon to submit such a schedule of the hours during which the man or men are employed as will bring those hours within limits which appear to the department reasonable. In the event of the company failing to comply with the demands of the department, the latter is empowered to refer the case to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, who form a special Court constituted by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 2888, for deciding, among other things, questions relating to rates and charges, for protecting traders from undue charges and undue preference, for regulating questions of traffic, and for deciding certain disputes between railway companies and the public. The Commissioners are then empowered to deal with the matter, and if " a railway company fail to comply with any order made by the Railway and Canal Commissioners, or to enforce the provisions of any schedule " approved by them, it is liable to a fine of a hundred pounds for every day during which the default continues. This act has been the means of effecting a considerable reduction in the hours worked by railway men on certain railways, and no case has yet arisen in which a reference to the Commissioners has been necessary. Such modifications of the hours of work have not only been beneficial to the men, but have improved the discipline of the staff and the punctuality and regularity of the train service, particularly in respect of the goods trains.
The Notice of Accidents Act of 1884, which obliges employers of labour to report to the Board of Trade, when "there occurs in any employment " as defined by the schedule of the act, " any accident which causes to any person employed therein, either loss of life or such bodily injury as to prevent him on any one of the three working days next after the occurrence of the accident from being employed for five hours on his ordinary work," affects railways in course of construction, but not, as a rule, otherwise. Although the administration of the above-mentioned acts of parliament has had a beneficial effect upon the safety of the public, and has enabled an enormous volume of traffic Safety to be handled with celerity, punctuality and absence Y? P Y of risk, it has during recent years come to notice that the number of casualties among railway servants is still unduly great, and in 1899 a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the causes of the numerous accidents, fatal and nonfatal, to railway men. As a consequence of the report of this Commission the Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act of 'goo was passed, putting upon the Board of Trade the duty of making " such rules as they think fit with respect to any of the subjects mentioned in the schedule to this act, with the object of reducing or removing the dangers and risks incidental to railway service." Rules may also be made in respect to other matters besides those mentioned in the schedule, and companies may be called upon to adopt or reject, as the case may be, any appliance, the use or disuse of which may be considered desirable in the interest of the men. Before, however, the rules so made become binding upon the companies, the latter have the right of appealing against them to the Railway Commissioners. Failure to comply with any of the rules renders a company " liable for each offence, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or in the case of a continuing offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for every day during which the offence continues after conviction." Rules drafted by the Board of Trade under this act came into force on the 8th of August 1902, the subjects referred to being (I) labelling of wagons; (2) movements of wagons by propping and tow-roping; (3) power-brakes on engines; (4) lighting of stations and sidings; (g) protection of points, rods, &c.; (6) construction and protection of gauge-glasses; (7) arrangement of tool-boxes, &c., on engines; (8) provision of brake-vans for trains upon running lines beyond the limits of stations; (9) protection to permanent-way men when relaying or repairing permanent way. The final settlement of a rule requiring brake-levers to be fitted on both sides of goods-wagons was, however, deferred, owing to objections raised by certain of the railway companies.
Other acts which are of importance in connexion with accidents are the Accidents Compensation Act of 1846, the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, and the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897.
The public acts of parliament referring to British railways are collected in Bigg's General Railway Acts. (H. A. Y.) American Railway Legislation Before 1870. - The earliest legislation is contained in charters granted by special act, for the construction of railways. These special acts gradually gave way to general statutes under which railway corporations could be created without application to the legislature. In the east, where, as a rule, charters had been uniform and consistent, the change to general incorporation law was due to a desire to render incorporations speedier and less expensive. In the west, general laws came rather as a result of the abuses of special legislation. By 1850, general incorporation laws were found in nearly all the eastern states, and by 1870 in those of the west.
Early legislation was confined almost entirely to matters of construction. In cases where statutes did touch the question of regulation, they had to do with the operation of trains and with the provision of facilities for shippers and passengers, rather than with questions of rates. It was natural that this should be so, for the new transportation agency was so much more efficient than anything previously available that the people were eager to take advantage of its superior service. As a rule, the making of rates was left to the corporations. If the maximum rates were prescribed, as they sometimes were, the limit was placed so high as to be of no practical value for control. Such crude attempts as were made to prevent rates from being excessive concerned themselves with profits, and were designed to confiscate for the state treasury any earnings beyond a certain prescribed dividend. Publicity of rates was not generally required, and provisions against discrimination were rare. In the period before 1850 there was but little realization of the public nature of the railway industry and of the possibilities of injury to the public if railway corporations were left uncontrolled.
In regions where capital was lacking eagerness for railway facilities led the people to demand the direct co-operation of the state, and many projects, most of which ended in disaster, were undertaken either by the state itself or through the aid of the state's credit. For example, Michigan, in 1837, in the first session of its state legislature, made plans for the construction of 557 miles of railway under the direct control of the state, and the governor was authorized to issue bonds for the purpose. The unfortunate results of this policy led many of the states, from about 1850, to put constitutional limitations upon the power of their legislatures to lend the state's credit or to involve the state as stockholder in the affairs of any corporation.
As railway building increased in response to traffic needs, and as the consolidation of short lines into continuous systems proceeded, legislation applicable to railways became somewhat broader in scope and more intelligent. About 1850 there began to appear on the statute books laws requiring publicity of rates and the submission of annual reports to the legislature, prescribing limits to corporate indebtedness, and also making provision for safety in operation and for the character and quality of railway service. Consolidation and leasing were commonly permitted in the case of continuous lines, but were regularly prohibited in the case of parallel and competing lines. The practice of pooling seems not to have attracted the attention of the legislature. In general it may be asserted that legislation of this period was ill-considered, haphazard, and on a petty scale. Moreover, it was of little practical importance even within its narrow range, for it does not appear to have been generally enforced.
1870-190o
Railway legislation first assumed importance in connection with the " Granger Movement " in the middle west. There the policy of subsidies for railway building had been carried to a reckless extreme. Roads had been constructed in advance of settlement, and land-seekers had been transported to these frontier sections only to become dependent upon the railways for their very existence. To the unusual temptations thus offered for favouritism and discriminations in rates, the railways generally yielded. This preferential and discriminating policy, combined with other causes which cannot here be discussed, resulted in 'the Granger legislation of. the 'seventies. In the first instance laws were enacted prescribing schedules of maximum freight and passenger rates with stringent penalties against rebates and discriminations. These measures proving unsatisfactory, they were soon superseded by statutes creating railway commissions with varied powers of regulation. The commission method of control was not a new one. Such bodies, established to appraise land for railway purposes, to apportion receipts and expenditures of interstate traffic, and in a general way to supervise railway transportation, had been in existence in New England before 1860, one of the earliest being that of Rhode Island in 1839. In 1869 Massachusetts had instituted a commission of more modern type, which was given only powers of investigation and recommendation, the force of public opinion being relied upon to make its orders effective. Western commissions, the offspring of the Granger movement, were of a more vigorous type. Most of them had power to impose schedules of maximum rates; practically all of them had authority to prescribe rates upon complaint of shippers; and they could all seek the aid of the courts to enforce their decrees. Their power to initiate rates, conferred upon them by their legislatures, was sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court reserving to itself only the power to decide whether the prescribed rates were reasonable.
But the jurisdiction of the state commissions was, by judicial interpretation, limited to commerce beginning and ending within the limits of the single state. The most important part of railway transportation, that which was interstate in character, was left untouched. It was this impotence of the state commission that furnished the strongest incentive to Congressional action. The result was the passage, in 1887, of the Interstate Commerce Act, which was directed towards the extirpation of illegal and unjust practices in commerce among the states. Its primary purpose was to embody in statutory form the commonlaw principle of equal treatment under like circumstances, and to provide machinery for enforcement. It aimed at the prohibition of discrimination between persons, places and commodities. It made provision for publicity of rates and for due notice of any change in rates; it forbade pooling of freight or earnings, and required annual reports from the carriers. For its enforcement, it created an Interstate Commerce Commission of five members, with powers of investigation, and with authority to issue remedial orders upon complaint and after hearing. Findings of the Commission were to be prima facie evidence in any court proceeding for the enforcement of its orders.
In this connexion, reference should be made to the Anti-Trust Act of 1890, which, by its judicial interpretation, has been held to include railways and to forbid rate agreements between competing carriers.
The act of 1887 remained in force without substantial amendment until 1906, although with constantly diminishing prestige, a result largely due to adverse decisions concerning the powers of the Commission. Ten years after the passage of the law, the court decided that the Commission had no power to prescribe a rate, and that its jurisdiction over rates was confined to a determination of the question whether the rate complained of was unreasonable. The Commission had much difficulty at the beginning in securing the testimony of witnesses, who invoked the Constitution of the United States as a bar against selfincrimination, and the immunity clause of the act had to be amended before testimony could be obtained. The so-called " long-and-short-haul clause," which forbade a greater charge for a long than for a short haul over the same line, if circumstances were substantially similar, was also robbed of all its vitality by court decision. The section requiring annual reports, while it led to the creation of a Bureau of Statistics, did not give the Commission power to compel complete or satisfactory answers to its requests for information. The only element of real strength that the statute acquired during the first twenty years of its history came from the Elkins Act of 1903, which stipulated that the published rate should be the legal rate, and declared any departure from the published rate to be a misdemeanour. It held shipper as well as carrier, and corporation as well as its officer or agent, liable for violations of the act, and conferred upon United States courts power to employ equity processes in putting an end to discrimination. Conviction for granting rebates was by this law made easier and more effective.
Since 1900
The movement in favour of more vigorous railway regulation became pronounced after 1900. Twenty years of experience and observation had revealed the defects of the earlier legislation, and had concentrated public attention more intelligently than ever before upon the problem of strengthening the weak spots. The state commissions, since their establishment in the 'seventies and the 'eighties, had increased their functions and influence. Many of them, beginning only with powers of recommendation, had obtained a large extension of authority. By 1908, thirty-five of the forty state commissions were of the mandatory type, and thirteen of these had been created since 1904. They had been given power to require complete annual reports from carriers, with a consequent great increase in public knowledge concerning railway operation and practice. The most recent type of state commission is the so-called Public Utility Commission, of which the best examples are those of New York and Wisconsin, established in 1907. In both states, the Commissions have power over electric railways and local public utilities furnishing heat, light and power, as well as over steam railway transportation, and the Wisconsin Commission also has control over telephone companies. In both states the consent of the Commission is necessary for the issue of corporate securities.
Mention should be made of the mass of general legislation passed, principally by western states, since 1905, in response to a popular demand for lower rates. This demand has in many instances led to ill-considered legislation, has frequently ignored the prerogatives and even the existence of the state commissions, and has brought about the passage by state legislatures of maximum freight and passenger rate laws, with rates so low in many cases that they have been set aside by the courts as unconstitutional. The numerous laws limiting the fare for passengers to two cents per mile are an illustration of this tendency.
In the field of federal legislation, no significant change took place until the passage of the Hepburn Act of 1906, which was an amendment of the act of 1887. While failing to correct all the defects in the original statute, the amended law was a decided step in the direction of efficient regulation. It increased the jurisdiction of the Commission by placing under the act express companies, sleeping-car companies and pipe lines for the transportation of oil. It extended the meaning of the term " railroad " to include switches, spurs and terminal facilities, and the term " transportation " to include private cars, and all collateral services, such as refrigeration, elevation and storage. The Elkins Act of 1903 was incorporated in the statute, and an imprisonment penalty was added to the existing fine. It forbade the granting of passes except to certain specified classes, - a provision entirely absent from the original measure. It expressly conferred upon the Commission the power to prescribe maximum rates, upon complaint and after hearing, as well as to make joint rates, and to establish through rates when the carriers had themselves refused to do so. It enacted that published rates should not be changed except on thirty days' notice, whether the change involved an increase or a decrease, and it required annual reports to be made under oath, penalties being prescribed for failure to comply with the Commission's requests for information. Power was also given to prescribe uniform systems of accounts for all classes of carriers, and to employ special examiners to inspect the books and accounts. Carriers were forbidden to keep any accounts, records or memoranda other than those approved by the Commission.
Orders of the Commission became effective within such time, not less than thirty days, as the Commission should prescribe, and penalties began to take effect from the date fixed by the Commission, unless the carrier secured an injunction from the Court suspending the order. Such injunction might not issue except after hearing, of which five days' notice must be given. Decisions of the Commission were not reviewable by the Court unless the Commission had exceeded its authority, or had issued an unconstitutional order.
A new and important act was signed by the President on the 18th of June 1910. It created a Commerce Court (composed of five judges nominated by the president of the United States from the Federal circuit judges), transferred to it jurisdiction in cases instituted to enforce or set aside orders of the Inter-State Commerce Commission, and made the United States instead of the Commission a party in all such actions. The law forbids a railway or any other common carrier to charge more for a short haul than for a long haul over the same line, unless, in special cases, it is authorized to do so by the Commission. It forbids a railway which has reduced its rates while in competition with a water route to raise them again when the competition has ceased, unless the Commission permits it to do so because of other changed conditions. It extends the initiative of the Commission from the investigation of complaints to the investigation of rates on its own motion; authorizes it to suspend rates in advance of their going into effect, pending an investigation which may be continued for ten months, and to establish through routes; and provides for a special commission, appointed by the President, to investigate questions pertaining to the issuance of railway securities.
Bibliography. - See A. T. Hadley, Railroad Transportation (New York, 1885); B. H. Meyer, Railway Legislation in the United States (New York, 1903); F. A. Cleveland and F. W. Powell, Railroad Promotion and Capitalization in the United States (New York, 1909); L. H. Haney, A Congressional History of Railways (2 vols., Madison, Wis., 1908 and 1910); Elkins Committee Report (1905); F. H. Dixon, " The Interstate Commerce Act as Amended," Quarterly Journal of Economics, xxi. 22 (Nov. 1906); F. H. Dixon, " Recent Railroad Commission Legislation," Political Science Quarterly, xx. 612 (Dec. 1905). (F. H. D.*) Accident Statistics Statistics of railway accidents may be divided into three classes: casualties (a) to passengers, (b) to servants or employ& and (c) to other persons; and again into (t) train accidents, (2) accidents to persons doing work on or about trains and (3) other accidents.
Such statistics are studied mainly with the object of learning the lessons which they may afford as to preventive measures for the future; and from this point of view the most important element is the single item of passengers killed in train accidents (a 1). The number injured is, indeed, a fact of interest, no less than the number killed, but comparisons under this head are unsatisfactory because it is impracticable or unprofitable to go into sufficient detail to determine the relative seriousness of the injuries. The statistics of the killed usually afford all necessary stimulus to improvement. Accidents to passengers other than those caused by collisions or derailments of trains are very largely due to causes which it is fair to class either as unavoidable or as due mainly to the fault or carelessness of the victim himself. That this is so is indicated by the fact that, although the railways - always made to suffer severely in pecuniary damages for injuries for which their officers or servants are held responsible by the courts - have for years taken almost every conceivable precaution, the number of accidents, in proportion to the number of persons travelling, diminishes but slowly - so slowly that, in view of the variety of conditions to be considered, it would hardly be safe to conclude that the diminution is due to any definite improvement in the safeguards provided. Collisions, on the other hand, are preventable, and derailments nearly so, and the records of deaths and injuries in this class in successive years are therefore justly taken as an index to the efficiency with which the railways are managed.
The number of servants killed in train accidents is the next in importance. The safety of passengers is, indeed, the first care of the railway manager; but the employes, exposed to many risks from which the passengers are protected, must be looked after. On the British railways the men who run the trains are safeguarded very efficiently, and the collisions and derailments which are serious enough to do injury to the trainmen or the enginemen are really rare. The roadway, tracks and rolling stock are so well maintained that those causes which lead to the worst derailments have been eliminated almost completely, and the record of serious collisions has been reduced nearly to zero by the universal use of the block system and by systematic precautions at junctions. In America the record is far less satisfactory. The best railways of the United States and Canada have, indeed; been greatly improved, and their main lines approach the high standards of safety which prevail in Great Britain, both as regards maintenance and care of roadway and vehicles (as a preventive of derailments) and the use of the block system (as a preventive of collisions); but when the inquirer looks at America as a whole - the total length of lines in the United States being over 230,000 m., ten times the total of the United Kingdom - he is considering a figure which includes an enormous mileage of railway lying in thinly settled regions where the high standards of safety maintained on the best railways have scarcely been thought of. The duty of a railway with deficient plant or facilities would seem to be to make up for their absence by moderating the speeds of its trains, but public sentiment in America appears so far to have approved, at least tacitly, the combination of imperfect railways and high speeds.
Apart from collisions and derailments, a large proportion of all accidents is found to be due primarily to want of care on the part of the victims. Accidents to workmen in marshalling, shunting, distributing and running trains, engines and cars, may be taken as the most important class, after train accidents, because this work is necessary and important and yet involves considerable hazard. On British railways the duty of the companies to provide all practicable safeguards and to educate and caution the serv