Volltext Seite (XML)
March 1, 1868.] THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT’S JOURNAL. 75 tingly abandoned, excepting in such special cases as do not affect the general question. I illustrate this in detail by a reference to the published accounts of the London and North Western Railway Company, for the half-year ending June, 1866, which I have selected because it is comparatively low in the per-centage of working expenses, and almost the best paying of all our railways. The gross earnings are at a rate of about 5s per train per mile for passengers ; and for merchandise 6s 3fd. To give share holders the return to which they are justly entitled from this class of investment, I consider that the gross earnings neces sary for this purpose ought not to be less than 7s 6d per mile for passenger trains at 20 miles speed, and increasing in amount to 10s. for 30 miles ; 14s. for 40 miles ; 20s. for 50 miles ; and 30s. for 60 miles. It is absurd for companies to make so little difference in their charge between high and low speeds as they do, knowing that whether in respect to the road, plant, or fuel, the cost increases in proportion to the velocity, and the charges should, therefore, be proportionate. I was much struck when looking over the London and Brighton Railway accounts, to find that the gross earnings were under 4s. lOd. per train per mile, although, of my own knowledge, I am aware that many of their express trains, to and from Brighton, consist of some 20 carriages, each containing about 20 passengers, whose fares (allowing 25 per cent, for season ticket holders) must realise not less than about £3 per mile. It is clear, therefore, that the Brighton Company arc running a large number of trains at a positive loss, else the average would not be so seriously reduced. If 4s. lOd. be a fair and remunerative rate (which it is not) no train should be run under that standard; and the maximum of jg3 per train mile is as much beyond what is necessary as the minimum is below it; the medium between the two to be arrived at, by an aban donment of all unpaying trains, would produce to the company a handsome accession to its revenue on the one hand, a permit of a large reduction in the charges to the public on the other. I may be told that the cutting off of the unremuncrative trains would be an invasion of the public convenience ; but the best test of this is the patronage bestowed on particular trains, and the neglect of others which consequently do not pay. I am not forgetful that many of those unremunerative trains have been run, some from a spirit of rivalry, and some from a fear of competition : but rivalry must disappear in an effort to restore prosperity, and competition has found its level. Be sides, the public are not so unreasonable as to expect that companies are to carry them without a proper return; the in terests of both are identical, and neither is advantaged by a condition of things which has resulted in so much loss and misfortune. The expenditure part of the question is equally of vital importance, and I beg now to call attention to the amazing folly of railway engineers in overweighting the trains with that unnecessary and cumbersome appendage, the tender. The average gross weight of passenger trains may be stated at 70 tons; the average weight of a tender is over 25 per cent, of that and invariably is over 200 per cent, in excess of the whole paying portion of the load carried. Now, when we know that not only is the tender costly, unnecessary, and cumbersome, but that the load of fuel and water which it con veys for supplying the engine can be made available for in creasing the power and efficiency of the engine itself, I ask, what is to be thought of the persistency in continuing such an improvident system? There are at this moment working with great success, on a Welsh railway, engines with no tender, and where the fuel and water are in the highest degree conducive to the increase of power, economy, and safety. In their case the weight is distributed equally upon a large number of wheels, thus increasing the adhesion upon the rails whilst the weight per wheel is proportionately re duced. (See Figs 1, 2, and 3, the latter being section of Fig. 1 through bogie pin, to show the pivoting centre.) These ad vantages must at once be apparent, and, I believe, will lead to an entire revolution in our locomotive arrangements ; besides, the enormous economy which is effected in the maintenance of both engine and road is of the highest importance in the em barrassed condition of our railways. As respects the cost of tenders, and how they affect the dividends of railways, the following is given by way of illustration :—The London and North-Western Railway, which has the most uniform, and therefore the best paying, merchandise traffic of any line in the kingdom shows by its balance sheet, already quoted, 7,333,371 tons of goods and minerals carried during that half-year, being about 46,800 tons net for each working day; the tare of this tonnage would not be less than a like amount, giving the gross tonnage per day at about 93,600. The average gross weight of each train, exclusive of the locomotive and tender, may fairly be set down at 300 tons ; therefore the number of trains per day would amount to 312, but from the fact, as stated in the balance-sheet, that the gross earnings of those trains per Fig. 1. Elevation of the Fairlie Double Boiler Engine on two groups of six wheels coupled. Fig. 2. Plan showing the Fairlie Double Boiler Engine on a curve of two chains radius.
