Volltext Seite (XML)
that no one could come in from the adjoining compartment to rob or assault them whilst asleep. It is true, that on the continent, and especially in America, they have a free circulation throughout the trains, but the habits of Englishmen and Americans essentially differ; Captain Tyler, one of the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade considers, “ circulation to be at the root of the matter,” that is, to obtain security, we must be prepared to sacrifice privacy, but it is doubtful whether this change would be popular with English travellers—we know what opposition was offered to the introduction of the “ detestable window” between the compartments, and how little it has been adopted in consequence. Before very long, however, we shall probably have the means of judging how far a free circulation in the carriages will be popular, for on the completion of the bridge and viaduct at Runcorn Gap, which will shorten the distance between London and Liverpool by about 10 miles, it is pro posed to run express trains the whole distance, without stopping (taking up water at Rugby, whilst the train is in motion), and it is further proposed that these direct trains shall be of the American type, that is, 'with free circulation through out. At present, however, we may regard our 1st condition as most important, if not absolutely necessary. Next, it is essential that the guard shall be able to go to the passenger who has summoned him, without previously stopping the train ? Most undoubtedly it is. There is very great danger in stopping a train out of course, fast trains stopping at long intervals, and at different stations, with only a quarter of an hour between them, cannot be stopped without very great risk, unless under the protection of fixed signals, and in the case of a passenger signalling to a guard, it is not enough that the latter should know that something is the matter, but also what is the matter, for the probability is, that in ninety nine cases out of a hundred, no immediate stoppage of the train would be necessary. Without the power of first ascertaining the cause of the signal, a very grave responsibility would be thrown on the guard, and we do not believe that any railway company in England wouldissue a general order to their guards to stop the train immediately on receiving a signal from a passenger, and thus the utility of any means of communication would be seriously impaired on the one hand, and on the other, in our endeavour to provide a remedy for a class of accidents that but rarely occur, we should be creating far greater perils than at present exist, that is to say, under our present system. Supposing, what is called the block system of telegraphing at short intervals along the line—say two miles—to be universally adopted; the danger of stopping a'train out of course, would be very much mitigated. Until this is the case, however, our 2nd condition is indispensible. The 3rd condition, viz., that the guard shall have the power of signalling to the driver from the comparament to which he has been summoned is undoubtedly necessary. We therefore pass on to the 4th and 5th con ditions, viz., that the guard and driver shall at all times have the power of communicating with each other, and that in the event of one portion of the train breaking away from the rest, it shall automatically warn both guard and driver. The ne cessity of these two conditions is also beyond question, we have therefore remaining only the 6th condition, viz., that an Act of Parliament shall render compulsory, the adoption of one and the same system by all the railway companies throughout the kingdom, and impose very severe penalties on any person or persons, wantonly using the means of communication. If there is any subject on which all the witnesses in the exa mination before the Committee of the House of Lords last year are unanimous it is on this ; they all say if the legislature is to interfere at all to enforce any system it must be one and the same system. The great defect in the bill withdrawn about the same time was that it did not do so. The reasons for this requirement are obvious enough, although it may seem to put a check on any improvements taking place. We shall see, as we go on, that the only practical system that can be employed necessitate a line or wire of some sort or other along the whole train; this line or wire may be continuous, that is, wound off a drum or wheel in the guard’s van, and passed through rings along the train, or it may be coupled, that is joined together between the carriages, each carriage always carrying its own length of line or wire, the latter system being preferable in most cases. It is therefore evident that if every company adopted any system it thought proper, it would be impossible to connect the carriages differ ently fitted, meeting at junctions throughout the kingdom. The carriages of one company have to be constantly mixed up with the carriages of other companies and all must therefore cor respond, so far as the communication line or wire is concerned, if we would have a rapid and easy means of connection, which is indispensible. In the next place, Parliament must impose severe penalties on persons wantonly using the means of communication, for, with out this condition, the safety of the public could not be insured, and delays and inconveniences of all kinds would ensue from the folly, maliciousness, or timidity of passengers. It is true ques tions would arise regarding this latter class, and it would often be difficult to decide what to do in the case of persons actuated by excessive timidity, but it is no less true that it is absolutely necessary that railway companies should have the power of severely puishing persons making use of the signals out of pure mischief. Having thus considered the necessity of all our con ditions, let us now turn our attention to the question of prac tically carrying them out. First, then, as to the important requirement of enabling railway guards to make their way along a train in motion ; it is obvious they can only do so by one or two methods, viz., inside or outside the carriages. It would be perfectly practicable to open sliding doors from one carriage to another, bridging over the intermediate spaces, and it would also be possible to effect this, permitting the guard, and the guard only, to make use of these doors, and so get over the question of privacy, but we are immediately met by the very natural objection on the part of railway companies that such a thorough fare through the train would destroy one-third on their carriage room, and would probably lead to an increase in the width of carriage, already, in many cases, too wide for our existing per manent ways. Moreover, the bridging over the intermediate spaces would be exceedingly in the way and would increase the danger of coupling up the carriages. With regard to the out side passage of the guard the difficulties are greater still. It has been proposed to employ a truck running upon rails along the tops of the carriages, so that the guard in recumbent posture, by means of a rope, or otherwise, could draw himself along to the carriage where his presence was required. This proposal is far too unpractical for serious consideration, and would still be so even if all carriages that come together in the varied interchange of rolling stock, by different companies, were of the same height, which is very far from being the case. We have, there fore, only the sides of the carriages on which to operate. Foot boards and handrails to enable the guard to walk along the out side of a train in motion have been extensively used on the Continent, and partially in this country but the practice has been very generally discontinued and condemned on account of its danger. The plain fact is that as our railways have been constructed there is not space enough. If footboards could be used at all, it must of necessity be on the near side, that is between the two lines of rails, as on the off side, there are too many fixed obstructions, such as para pets of bridges and platforms, which would render the passage along the train on that side, impossible (and therefore impossible on both sides if we are dealing with a single line of way) ; but even on the near side, with a double line, we are exceedingly hard up for space when two carriages each projecting 1 foot 6 inches beyond the line (which is by no means uncommon) have to pass each other it leaves but a space of three feet out of the usual six feet of intermediate way. The passage of a guard would therefore be an exceedingly hazardous operation. Under ordinary circumstances two carriages with the doors open cannot pass each other. Moreover, independently of limited space, it is a very difficult matter for a man to make his way along a footboard in the gale of wind created by a velocity of forty or fifty miles an hour ; and we are inclined to agree with the manager of the Midland Railway. When giving evidence before the committee he says :—“ If it were compulsory upon the guards to go along the footboards we should kill more guards every year then the number of passengers who are likely to be killed, or even injured, in twenty years.” And further on he adds—“ Nothing would induce me to be the author of an order to the guards to go along the footboards with a train in motion at the rate of forty miles an hour.” Capt. Tyler, basing his calculation on a comparison with Belgian statistics, estimates that we should kill about twelve guards a year, and this without making any allowance for the greater speed at which our trains travel.