Volltext Seite (XML)
there is only one mile for every 3,260 persons, so that Ireland is over 123 per cent, behind Scotland in this respect. I have the greatest possible objection to monopoly uncontrolled ; but if unification of management and concentration of control do not involve monopoly, while experience has shown that they are indispensable to the success of railway enterprise, and that they act and re-act to the public advantage, I am therefore an advocate for concentration of management, because it secures and combines moderation in fares with profit to the share holders. It would be idle to point out what steam intercommunication has done for mankind in a thousand ways, and how important it is to devise means to increase its usefulness. I must be content with suggesting for consideration a few of the questions upon which I think railway reform and railway economy mainly depend. It would be of no avail to refer to the waste of past expen diture in construction, except to say that the teachings of the past are the only safe guide to the policy of the future. As an engineer I am proud to confess that our English railways, apart from the wastefulness, constitute a magnificent monument to the constructive talent of the age. But utility and economy with due regard to safety must now be studied above all other considerations. The palatial stations of Charing Cross and Can non Street I admire as much as any one from an architectural point of view (although there is no more convenient, elegant, but unpretending, or cheaper metropolitan station than that at London Bridge, which cannot have cost but a very small fraction of either of the former), but I want to earn dividends for the shareholders, and to give the greatest accommodation to the pub lic at the lowest possible remunerative rate. I do not hesitate to assert that the cost of no provincial railway should exceed £10,000 per mile, including land, works, and plant, for a double line ; but in many parts of England, and particularly in Ire land—where 60-mile velocities, for instance, are wholly out of the question—£3000 per mile should amply suffice for subsidiary single lines, including rolling-stock, but exclusive of land, which I take for granted will freely be given for purposes so beneficial to the public and advantageous to the landowners themselves. One remark I cannot help making here with reference to the most gigantic and most improvident of all the metropolitan stations,—I mean that in course of erection for the Midland Railway, near King’s Cross. This station, with its approaches, will cost a sum almost fabulous. I will only say that this outlay is a melancholy exhibition of railway extrava gance, and that it goes far to explain the troubles into which railway enterprise has fallen. I believe this is the last erection of the kind that we are likely to see, and that the ambition of railway officials must, in the future, be confined to the prudent development of branch lines constructed upon a wholly new principle, which will render them a blessing instead of a reproach to our generation. In making new railways, whether at home or in the colonies, the question of economical construction transcends all others in importance. I hold a strong opinion that the natural configuration of any country will, as a general rule, permit the working of railways upon what I shall here term the principle of surface construction, securing the public safety and convenience on the one hand, and a fair return for the capital invested on the other. Then, as to the question of maintenance,—it has never been properly treated, and it never will be honestly met so long as capital accounts remain open as a ready resource for every chairman out of which to bolster up dividends, and of every manager by which to maintain fictitious appearances. Had companies been kept face to face with only one source of supply, and that from revenue profits, they never could have fallen to their present depth of ruin and disaster. With an open credit, which we call capital, always at command, the opportunity, I rday say the temptation, is ever present of debiting capital with all sorts of charges, which ought properly to have been placed against revenue. It is easy to conceive how, under such cir cumstances, directors of the highest honour and integrity have been led into errors which they now deplore; but their chief misfortune, in my opinion has been the facility with which they have permitted themselves to be led away by officials with personal objects which do not appear to have harmonised with the true interests of the proprietary. All such charges ,as those for renewals of road, stock, and stations, ought un doubtedly to be charged without any reserve whatever; and I venture to think it would be well for a Society like this to devote some portion of its wide influence to making it clear beyond a question where the line should be drawn between capital and revenue. The closing of accounts is, I confess, no light matter in respect of existing companies. There can be no doubt that every new work of an original kind ought to be provided for by a special capital, if in itself of sufficient mag nitude, and if not, in combination with other - amounts, and in respect of any sudden or unlooked for expenditure of any con siderable sums for way, stock, or works, I would have the amount carried to a suspense account, the redemption to be spread over a seasonable period, and to be made out of surplus annual revenue. If this or some analogous system be not speedily adopted, it requires no soothsayer to predict what must happen; “ Coming events cast their shadows be fore,” and with regret I say, that before many years have passed away there will be but few solvent railway companies left. It is not only the difficulty they are now experiencing in their finances, but every day is ageing the entire of their pro perty, which must be renewed and kept alive by an outlay which will tax the solvency and ability of the best of them. Everything connected with a railway is subject to the usual law of decay, every item has a certain life, whether it be taken in itself or forming part of a whole, whether rails, bridges, stations, plant or anything connected with them, and although chargeable to revenue, I am not aware of any case where a redemption fund has been provided for these inevitable occur rences. In future, I would imperatively close every capital account of a new line, with the authorisation of the Board of Trade, permitting the line to be opened for public traffic; this of course implies the necessary and sufficient amount of rolling stock and stations. All else, not accompanied by the creation of new mileage, ought rigidly to go to the debit of revenue. One word as to the mode which has recently been adopted of raising capital. The Brighton Company has on two occa sions, issued ordinary stock at 55 per cent, discount, thus saddling the concern for ever after with £100 of liability for every £45 received. This is the worst possible mode of raising money, because it more than doubles every expense attending the line, including employes, stores, maintenance, and renewals. This I fear will be no solitary instance. A much more ra tional way of meeting necessities would be the adoption of the system pursued by foreign governments, of contracting loans redeemable half-yearly, by drawing out a fixed per centage to be set aside from surplus profits. Working expenses are the first natural charge upon gross revenue, then interest upon debenture stock, which stock ought to be made perpetual, like the national debt; then should follow the formation of a fund for the half-yearly drawings to which I have referred, the share capital (preferential and ordinary) absorbing the re mainder. There is not time to enlarge upon these views, nor do I claim the merit of novelty for them ; but this statement will prove that in what I have further to say with respect to railway enterprise and management, I have only two objects in view; one is to increase the security of the companies as investments of capital, and the other to assure the public that, notwithstanding the mistakes and the extravagances of a gene ration, the benefits of this indispensable aid to civilization and progress may be secured fully and widely. We now come to that which is no less important than all that has gone before—-I mean the working of railways. Wo cannot recall the outlay of the past, but I firmly believe that even the most unfortunate railways can be redeemed by a wise and well-arranged system of working. I shall endeavour to show that revenues can be increased concurrent with a large reduction of expenses, and I would not be here this evening soliciting your attention unless I felt myself in a position to satisfy you how this can be done. As to the revenue, I do not believe that railway managers, as a rule, trouble themselves to know the return derived from each train run as compared with the expense of the same. I would have a debtor and creditor account with every train despatched; showing on the one side the whole of the expenses incidental to it, and on the other the total amount earned. The experience of the last 35 years provides us with very reliable figures of the cost of the train mileage, in regard of every description of expenditure ; and every train that would show a deficit in balancing the account should be unhesita-