Part 1

Transcribed by David Price, email [email protected]

RAILWAYS. REPORT of the RAILWAY DEPARTMENT of the BOARD of TRADE on the _London_, _Worcester_, and _Wolverhampton_, and on the _Birmingham_ and _Shrewsbury Districts_.

(_Presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's Command_.)

_Ordered_, _by_ The House of Commons, _to be Printed_, 28 _February_ 1845.

83--2.

_Under 2 oz._

Railway Department, Board of Trade, Whitehall, 28 February 1845.

The Board constituted by Minute of the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, for the transaction of Railway business, having had under consideration the different schemes deposited with the Railway Department for extending Railway communication between London, Worcester, and Wolverhampton, and in the district intermediate between the London and Birmingham and Great Western Railways, and also, in connexion with the above, the schemes for extending Railway communication between Birmingham and Shrewsbury, have determined on submitting the following Report thereon for the consideration of Parliament.

The object of the first class of schemes in question is to supply Railway communication to the great mining district of Staffordshire, lying south of Wolverhampton, to the towns of Kidderminster, Stourbridge, Stourport, Worcester, &c., and to the district north of Oxford, intermediate between the Great Western and London and Birmingham Railways.

For this purpose two competing schemes are proposed; one, which is promoted by the London and Birmingham Company, comprises a line from Rugby to Oxford, and another from Wolverhampton, through Worcester and Banbury, to join the London and Birmingham line at Tring; the other scheme consists of a line from Oxford to Rugby, which is proposed to be made by the Great Western Company; and of another line from Oxford to Worcester and Wolverhampton, which is undertaken by an independent Company, but in connexion with the Great Western Company, and which must be considered as forming, with the Oxford and Rugby line, one scheme, competing with the former.

For the sake of brevity we shall distinguish these as the "London and Birmingham or Tring Scheme," and the "Great Western or Oxford Scheme." Their general direction will be easily understood by reference to the accompanying map.

In their general features and objects the two schemes are so nearly identical that the two manifestly cannot stand together. A further scheme for the accommodation of the country between Worcester and Wolverhampton, was proposed by the Birmingham and Gloucester Company, but it is understood that arrangements have been made by which this scheme is withdrawn in favour of the London and Birmingham scheme, to which it was moreover inferior in several important respects, so that we may consider the question as reduced to one of competition between the schemes of the two great Companies.

The first point is, whether a sufficient public case can be established to justify the construction of any Railway at all throughout the districts in question. As regards the South Staffordshire district, this point has been disputed by various Canal interests, who urge that the district is already sufficiently well supplied by water communication, and that the introduction of Railways, by destroying the resources and crippling the efficiency of such water communications, will be productive of injury rather than of benefit to the Public. Various special reasons have been urged in support of this view, more especially with reference to the mineral district of which Dudley may be considered as the centre. It is said that the Birmingham Canal Company have, at a great expense, created a very complete and efficient system of water communication throughout this district; that a right is reserved of making branch Canals to all mines and works within certain limits, which right would be to a certain extent defeated by running a Railway parallel to the existing Canal, to the injury both of the Canal Company, and of the owners of the mines and works so cut off; that the management and charges of the Canal Company have always been of the most liberal description; and finally, that owing to the peculiar nature of the district, in which great excavations have been made for mining purposes, Railways cannot be carried through it without danger.

It will be readily conceded that the importance of the district in question is such as to entitle it to require the best means of communication, whether by Canal or Railway. Between Wolverhampton and Stourbridge there are at present about 100 blast furnaces in work, producing about 468,000 tons of pig iron annually. In order to produce this quantity, nearly 4,000,000 tons of coals, lime, ironstone, and other raw materials are consumed, which are raised from the mines of the district, and transported to the various furnaces, forges and founderies.

The export of iron from the district is about 240,000 tons annually, in addition to large quantities of heavy hardwares, tin plates, glass, and other goods. The export of coal is also very large, and might be greatly augmented by increased facilities of communication.

The population, depending for support on the iron-works, mines, and manufactories of the district, is estimated at not less than 230,000; and the total population of the respective towns and places between Wolverhampton and Worcester, which would be benefited by the proposed Railway communication, is believed to exceed 300,000.

Among these towns may be mentioned Kidderminster, a place of considerable manufacturing importance, and great intercourse with different parts of the kingdom; Droitwich, with its extensive salt works; Stourbridge, Stourport and Worcester.

The construction of a Railway in this direction will also lead, in all probability, to extensions into the fertile agricultural district on the west of the Severn, towards Leominster and Ludlow.

The claim of the district, therefore, to the most improved mode of communication can hardly be disputed; and whatever claims Canal Companies may have from benefits previously conferred, or from past liberality of management, such claims cannot be considered by us in any other light than those of other private interests, unless in so far as they may be based upon public considerations.

Our Report will not, in any way, prejudice or affect the right of those Canal Companies to have their vested interests, if any, carefully considered by the Legislature.

Upon public grounds, therefore, we have merely had to consider the allegation that the interests of the district will not be promoted by the introduction of Railways, and that Railways cannot be constructed through it without danger.

Upon the first point it seems sufficient to refer to the unanimous opinion of the parties principally interested, and who have the best opportunities of judging of the effects likely to follow from the introduction of Railways. The only difference of opinion has arisen from the anxiety of the parties to obtain a Railway of some description or other, which has led them to support different competing schemes; but all parties have united in the strongest representations of the vital importance to the district of obtaining a good Railway communication, in addition to those afforded by the Canals. A memorial signed by the representatives of 46 iron-works, 57 furnaces, and 98 collieries, in the Staffordshire mineral district, including the trustees of Lord Ward, from whose estate alone upwards of 1,000,000 tons of coal and iron are raised annually, in favour of the London and Birmingham scheme; and another memorial, representing 37 iron-works, and 9 collieries, in favour of the Great Western scheme, were presented to us; the memorialists in each case urging in the strongest manner the advantages of Railway communication to the district.

It is stated, that without such communication, they have to compete at a great disadvantage with the iron districts of South Wales and Scotland, which, from their readier access to the sea, can convey their products to market at a cheaper rate. The Canals are stated to be not only more tedious and expensive, but subject to serious interruptions, often for weeks together, from frost in winter and drought in summer. In short, it is urged that the apprehensions of the Canal Companies are the best test of the further advantage of a Railway; since unless the latter obtained a large proportion of the heavy traffic, which it could only do by affording the public a better and cheaper means of transport, the interests of the Canals could not be prejudiced.

With so strongly expressed a wish on the part of such an important district for Railway communication, and with two great Companies competing with one another to afford it, we do not think that, upon public grounds, we should be justified in reporting that it ought to be withheld on account of any apprehended interference with existing water communications. In the case of one Canal Company, special reasons existed which might have weighed more strongly than those derived solely from private considerations; viz. that a guarantee had been given to assist the Severn Navigation Commissioners to raise money for the purpose of carrying out a great public improvement authorized by Parliament. From this difficulty, however, as well as from the apprehension of that great improvement being impeded by the introduction of Railways into the district, we are relieved by the offer made by the Railway Company to whose scheme we recommend that a preference should be given, to take upon themselves the burden of the guarantee to the extent of any loss sustained in consequence of the construction of the Railway, subject to any reasonable conditions and arrangements.

With regard to the remaining point, that of safety, it is admitted that portions of the soil being undermined, subsidences occasionally take place; but there appears no reason to apprehend any peculiar degree of danger to a Railway from this source, beyond what equally affects the Canals, Roads, Tramroads, Founderies, Mills, and other buildings of the district, and which has never been considered an impediment to the introduction of Railways in other mining districts. Some of the most eminent engineers of the day, among whom may be mentioned Sir J. Rennie, Mr. Brunel, and Mr. R. Stephenson, have proposed the lines which pass through the district in question, and are clearly of opinion that they may be worked without any unusual degree of danger.

We are of opinion, therefore, that some one line of Railway is required, and may be properly sanctioned, for the accommodation of the district in question, between Wolverhampton and Worcester. This being conceded, the sanction of a line in connexion with it, to connect Worcester more directly with London, and to give communication to the large intermediate district, appears to follow almost as a matter of course. The supply of coals to this district, where a great reduction of price will be effected, is alone an important object; and, on the other hand, an outlet will be afforded for agricultural produce. A population of about 128,000 between Worcester and Tring would be accommodated by the line in that direction; and on the whole, taken in connexion with the Worcester and Wolverhampton Junction, the traffic seems sufficient to justify a fair expectation of return on the capital to be invested, as also on the Rugby and Oxford portion of the line, which will complete a chain of direct Railway communication from the Northern and Midland to the Southern and South Western counties, and will afford to those counties a valuable supply of coal from the Derbyshire collieries.

We proceed, therefore, to investigate the subject, on the assumption that one or other of the competing schemes promoted by the London and Birmingham, and Great Western Companies, will be sanctioned, and that the question is reduced to one of preference between them.

In regard to distance, the two schemes are as nearly as possible equal, the distance from Worcester to London being 122 miles by the Tring line, and 119 by the Oxford line; the former, however, terminating at the Euston Square Station, and the latter at Paddington. The number of miles of new Railway to be constructed in either case is also nearly the same; nor does there appear to be anything in respect of gradients or engineering character calculated to give one scheme a decided preference over the other. The course of the Tring line accommodates a larger population between Worcester and London than the Oxford line; but the importance of the districts traversed by either line, and left out by its competitor, is hardly sufficient to give a decided superiority on a question of such magnitude.

A far more important feature of comparison is derived from a consideration of the question of gauge.

The Great Western scheme is proposed to be constructed on the wide gauge of seven feet, used upon the different Railways of the Great Western system; while the scheme of the London and Birmingham Company is proposed to be constructed on the narrow gauge of 4 feet 8.5 inches, common to all the other Railways of the kingdom.

In order to estimate fully the importance of this question, it must be borne in mind that the Bristol and Gloucester Railway is on the wide, while the Birmingham and Gloucester is on the narrow gauge, and that the inconvenience resulting from the break of the two gauges at Gloucester has been so great as to lead to an amalgamation of the two Companies, with a view to obviate it, by introducing uniformity of gauge throughout between Bristol and Birmingham. From the arrangements which have been made with this view, it is perfectly evident that upon the question of the Worcester lines depends whether this uniformity will be proposed to be attained, by the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway adopting the wide gauge, or the Bristol and Gloucester adopting the narrow.

The question, therefore, upon which we have had to form an opinion is, whether it is better for public interests that the wide gauge should come up to Birmingham and Rugby, or that the narrow gauge should go down to Bristol and Oxford?

It would be difficult to overrate the importance of this question in a national and commercial point of view. If there is one point more fully established than another in the practice of Railways, it is that the inconvenience occasioned by a break upon a line of through-traffic, occasioned by want of uniformity of gauge, is of such a serious description as to detract most materially from the advantages of Railway communication.

The following description of what has actually occurred at Gloucester during the last few months, furnished to us by a gentleman who has been practically engaged in the management of the traffic, will give some idea of the working of the system:--

"We experience the greatest possible inconvenience from the change, both as regards passengers and goods; coals we have not attempted to tranship.

"In the first place as regards passengers and passenger trains:

"The passengers and their luggage have to be hurried across from one train to the other, when there is a chance of the luggage being misplaced. Gentlemen's carriages and horses have to be changed, a process uniting time and risk. Valuable parcels have to be handed out in the confusion, and handed in.

"The result is a delay, with the Mail-trains, for instance, of half an hour sometimes, just sufficient if the coming-in train is after time, to miss the Manchester or other train from Birmingham, or the Exeter or Bath train from Bristol; annoyance to the passengers, who are anxious about their parcels and luggage; risk, and expense, as a large body of porters have to be maintained, who are not fully employed, in order that no more time than is necessary should be lost in the change of trains.

"With regard to goods, the inconvenience attending the change is far more serious.

"Up to this day a great number of waggons laden with goods of all descriptions have been lying at Gloucester, which we have been unable to remove in spite of every exertion. We keep an establishment of clerks and porters to superintend and effect the transhipment, but, in the hurry of business, mistakes occur; goods destined for Hull are perhaps put into the Manchester truck; boxes are bruised, packing torn, furniture and brittle articles damaged. There is the chance of mistake in the re-invoicing of goods; the other day, for instance, a bale for Bristol was laid hold of by a carrier at Gloucester and taken to Brecon, a claim for some 30_l._ being instantly made upon us.

"In short, all the inconvenience, delay, and expense attending an unloading and reloading of goods have to be encountered, and there is nothing the senders of goods so much dread as this. The expense involved is very considerable: there is the expense of porterage, which varies from 3_d._ to 6_d._ per ton: the expense of clerks employed in inspecting and invoicing the goods, the expense of shunting the waggons, the waste of premises, the additional carrying stock it obliges the Companies on each gauge to maintain, and, above all, the loss of trade which is sure to result from the delay and risk attending the change, and the advantage which uninterrupted communications, whether by Water or Railway, are sure to have over you in competition.

"Much of this expense and delay, it may be said, can be obviated by better arrangements and more care; by ample station accommodation, by abundant carrying stock. No doubt some of it may be prevented, but this is only another name for expense. The care, too, which is required must not be confined to the Railways immediately affected, but must commence on a Railway a long way off. The goods from Leeds for Bristol, for instance, must be duly placed together at Leeds, packed in such a manner as will enable you at Gloucester to get at them in the best manner. They must be forwarded from Leeds, and again from Birmingham, in such quantities as will be convenient at Gloucester. The arrangements, in short, by which our interests at Gloucester will be best consulted, will have to be made by another Company, often not interested in the matter, and whose convenience may suggest another course. You cannot, therefore, look forward to remedying many of the difficulties attending on change of gauge, which are of this nature."

To the above summary of the practical inconveniences mentioned, we have only to add, that the numerous representations addressed to us by the principal carrying and commercial interests which have been concerned in the traffic affected by the change of gauge at Gloucester, have fully borne out the statement of the evils experienced, more especially with reference to the loss, delay, and misdirection of goods. The principal Railway Companies north of Birmingham have also made strong representations as to the obstacle thrown in the way of a proper development of the traffic by the break of gauge; an obstacle which, as regards coal, iron, salt, corn, and every description of heavy goods, they consider as amounting to a virtual prohibition.

The question may be raised how far it is possible to obviate the inconvenience of two different gauges by mechanical arrangements? These arrangements may consist either--

1. Of contrivances for transferring the bodies of waggons from the wheels and axles adapted for one gauge to those adapted for the other; or--

2. The laying down of additional rails, so as to permit trains of either gauge to run on without interruption.

With regard to the first, it is stated that the experiment has been repeatedly tried on the Liverpool and Manchester, the Newcastle and Darlington, the Leicester and Swannington, and other Railways, where crossed by local coal Railways of a narrower gauge, and has never succeeded. The practical difficulties also are obvious, of securing with waggons constructed with moveable bodies, the rigidity and solidity requisite for safety, and to prevent excessive wear and tear, and damage to the articles conveyed. Even if we were to suppose, however, all mechanical difficulties overcome, the serious objection would still remain, that in addition to the expense of transfer, a large additional stock would require to be kept by all Railway Companies, owners of mines, and other parties who had occasion to send traffic sometimes in the direction where the gauge was uninterrupted, and sometimes in the direction where waggons of a special construction were required. This consideration is the more important as, under the system of the clearing- house, the whole stock of the narrow-gauge Railways of the country may be considered as becoming more and more common property, available wherever there may be a press of business, and for as great distances as may be required, in order to avoid the inconvenience of unloading.

The second arrangement, of laying down additional rails, may be practicable under peculiar circumstances, and to a limited extent, but it is open to great objections.

It is very doubtful how far the addition of a single rail only would be consistent with safety, as in this case the centre of gravity of the carriages of different gauge in the same train would not be in the same straight line. If a complete double set of rails were laid down the expense would be very considerable.

The complication of switches and crossings that would be necessary would involve considerable additional risk and great expense. The difficulty and expense of maintaining the permanent way, and of keeping the double set of rails in proper adjustment, would be greatly increased; and on the whole, the expense, inconvenience, and risk, would probably be so great as to prevent the experiment from being tried to any extent.

We cannot therefore consider the plan of laying down additional rails as applicable, unless perhaps to a limited extent and under special circumstances, such as enabling, for instance, mineral waggons constructed for the narrow gauge to pass for a short distance and at a slow speed over a wide-gauge Railway; with which view alone it is proposed to lay down extra rails upon the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line, for a few miles south of Wolverhampton.

On the whole, therefore, we cannot consider any of the mechanical arrangements which have been proposed for obviating the inconvenience of a meeting of different gauges (even if we could assume their practicability, which in the present state of experience we should not be warranted in doing,) as anything better than partial and imperfect palliatives of a great evil.