CHAPTER II.

ADVANTAGES OF THE SCHEME.

If this scheme is practicable financially (and one object of this pamphlet is to prove that this is so), then it seems almost superfluous to point out the great advantages of its adoption.

It has been well said that “=transport is the life-blood of a nation=.” If circulation is impeded or restricted the whole country must suffer, and, conversely, if all obstructions and restrictions are removed the whole country must benefit. This scheme will, in effect, remove the principal obstruction to free circulation of passengers and goods, namely, expense. Cheapness of transport is “twice blessed; it blesseth him that gives and him that takes”--in other words, it enables the producer, whether agriculturist, manufacturer or merchant, to increase his market for goods, and enables the consumer who requires those goods to purchase at a lower price. It is common knowledge that agriculture in particular in this country is hampered and restricted by heavy charges for freight.[2] Under our present system the carriage of goods from abroad to London is cheaper than from the Midlands, and the foreigner has a great preference (so far as freight is concerned) over our own farmers. Fruit and fish is often thrown away on account of the cost of carriage being more than the value of the goods. On the other hand, the price of food and every commodity has been gradually increasing. With the removal of this obstruction of expense of carriage there must be an increase in the supply of goods, and increased supply means lower prices.

As to passenger traffic, traders will appreciate the great benefit of nominal fares for themselves and their commercial travellers. So also will the greater part of the population, namely, those of very moderate means who are now prevented, solely on account of expense, from travelling any considerable distance, either on business or pleasure, or from visiting friends and relatives.

These are some of the general advantages attending cheapness of transport, but it may be as well to point out in detail some of the very substantial economies and other special advantages to be obtained by adopting the proposed scheme.

1. ECONOMICAL ADVANTAGES.

A few examples of the waste attending the present system, both of money and time will illustrate some of these advantages.

=In the Strand, London=, within a few yards of each other, are the following premises:--

No. 168, Strand.--The Strand Station of the Piccadilly and Finsbury Park Tube Railway.

No. 170, Strand.--Great Western Railway Receiving Office.

No. 173-4, Strand.--East Strand Post Office.

No. 179, Strand.--Great Northern Railway Receiving Office.

No. 4, Norfolk Street, Strand, almost adjoining No. 179, Strand.--Inland Revenue Office.

No. 183, Strand.--Midland Railway and London and North Western Railway Receiving Office.

Within sight, at the other end of Norfolk Street, is the Temple Station District Railway, and at 6, Catherine Street, about the same distance from the other side of the Strand, is a Labour Exchange.

It is assumed that the rents of shops in the Strand would average about £500 per annum. Under the proposed scheme, the whole of the business transacted at the above eight premises could, with greater convenience, be carried on at the two railway stations, possibly with some extensions, but with a saving not only of rent but also of rates, taxes and other outgoings.

=At Bexhill-on-Sea=, with a population of only about 15,500, there are two large railway stations, one belonging to the South Eastern & Chatham Railway Company, the other to the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway Company, and situate about a mile apart. Half a mile from each is the Head Post Office, within a few doors from one of the stations is a branch Post Office, and within a small radius are Government offices for Inland Revenue and other purposes.

Letters posted at a pillar box outside the station are collected there, taken to the Head Post Office for sorting, then returned with others to the railway for the Mail train leaving the same station. The majority of the passengers are for London, and go by the two different routes, but the fares are identical, and the time occupied is about the same, no advantage being gained by the public through the so-called competition.

If both stations were amalgamated one staff only would be required, there would be ample room on the premises to accommodate the Head Post Office with sorting rooms, etc. (the branch office now near the station would not be required), and there would be plenty of room also for the Government Offices. In addition to the saving of expense, there would also be the great convenience and saving of time in the transport of, and dealing with, mails, passengers and goods.

These two examples with many others have come under my personal observation, and they may be multiplied ten thousand times throughout the United Kingdom. Where is there a railway station, whether a great London terminus, or small provincial station, where postal facilities are available; while just outside rents are paid, in some cases very heavy ones, for other premises, to and from which the mails have to be conveyed?

Other examples of waste under the present system, although not so apparent to the public, are well-known to the railway expert, and involve much greater expenditure of time and money.

I refer in particular to the =waste of rolling stock=, especially of goods wagons, occasioned by the multiplicity of goods stations, the transfer of rolling stock to and from the lines of different railway companies, the shunting of trains, and the large number of road vans used by the various companies. In London alone there are 74 goods stations, used for goods only, and 700 goods trains per day travel between these 74 stations, doing nothing but transferring goods from one of these stations to another! Goods consigned to one warehouse in London from places on, say, seven different railway companies’ lines are sent by seven different vans, one belonging to each company. Under my proposed scheme one or two central goods stations of large area would not only suffice, but would provide a far more efficient and speedy transport service, and yet with the nominal rates referred to.

Under the present system goods trains, having been unloaded, must be returned in order to clear the line, so that it is not uncommon to find goods trains belonging to the various companies returning empty for long distances on each line, on the G. W. R. as far as Bristol, on the S. W. R. to Basingstoke, on the G. C. R. to Banbury, and so on. It has been estimated that of the 1,400,000 goods wagons now on the railways of the United Kingdom, no more than 3 per cent. are actually in effective use at one time, the remaining 97 per cent. being either stationary or running empty![3] One reason for this, no doubt, is the use of merely hand labour for loading and unloading.

With a view to avoiding this waste the New Transport Company, Limited was registered in 1908, for the purpose of introducing new and ingenious machinery, invented by Mr. A. W. Gattie and Mr. A. G. Seaman, for handling goods, including the adoption of movable “containers” on trucks and wagons, and a scheme for a “Goods Clearing House” occupying a site of about 30 acres, in Clerkenwell, to be connected by rail with all the lines coming to London.

It is, of course, necessary, in order to carry so important a scheme into effect to negotiate with all the various railway companies interested, as well as to obtain an Act of Parliament. Besides this, a large amount of capital is required for the acquisition of the site, the construction of the connecting lines, installation of the machinery, etc.

Notwithstanding the large cost, estimated by Mr. Edgar Harper, F.S.S., late Statistical Officer of the London County Council, at £14,000,000, he shows that such a system would more than pay for itself in a year by the economies in transport which it would effect directly or indirectly.

No estimate, however, is given, nor probably can be given by anyone, of the time that will be occupied in carrying such a scheme into effect, so long as this present system of numerous companies and conflicting interests continues. Five years have already gone by since the Company was registered.

If, however, the scheme of nationalisation and amalgamation with the Post Office be adopted, there should be no difficulty in providing as part of such scheme for the system and machinery of the New Transport Company already referred to, not only in London but in every other traffic centre. It might also be possible to avoid the expense of acquiring a new site for a “Goods Clearing House” by utilising some portion of the large area occupied by the three large termini and approaches thereto of King’s Cross, St. Pancras and Euston.

There will then be no conflicting interests, no multiplicity of companies, and no difficulty in raising the necessary capital for establishing the system, and what is still more important, no difficulty, as will be shown hereafter under the heading of “Finance,” in producing the necessary revenue to repay the capital and interest, by reason of the progressively increasing traffic which will result from the adoption of the small uniform average rates advocated.

The following, then, are some of the very substantial economies which will be effected by my scheme:--

=I. Expenditure which would be entirely abolished=:--

(_a_) The Railway Clearing House, the sole object of which is to apportion receipts and payments between the various companies, about 217 in number, and requiring for its work a large and expensive staff, not only of clerks, but also of inspectors at every junction, and a large establishment at Seymour Street, Euston.

(_b_) The separate Boards of Directors, officers, and clerical staff of all the separate companies.

(_c_) The legal and parliamentary expenses incurred in disputes between the various companies, and in opposing rival companies’ new lines.

(_d_) Advertisements by rival companies of their own routes.

=II. Expenditure and waste which would be diminished=:--

=1. By reason of unification of systems.=

(_a_) Competing receiving offices and their staffs would be reduced to one in each locality.

(_b_) Rolling stock, which is now often idle because owned by different companies, could be used solely according to the requirements of the traffic.

(_c_) Competing trains now running on different lines at the same time between London and other large towns could be run at different times with largely increased numbers of passengers at same cost.

(_d_) Adjoining stations belonging to competing companies would be amalgamated.

=2. By reason of the adoption of uniform rates and fares.=

(_a_) The abolition of the elaborate book-keeping and staffs needful for the present complicated system of passengers’ fares and goods rates, especially the latter, with the waste not only of expense but also of time.

(_b_) The saving of the expense of printing and advertising various priced tickets and fare tables, also of the large staff of booking clerks, inspectors and others.

(_c_) The saving of the legal expenses now incurred by the Railway and Canal Commission Court in appeals and disputes between the companies and traders as to rates, etc.

=3. By reason of the amalgamation of railways with the Post Office.=

(_a_) The rent and expenses of numerous Post Offices in the neighbourhood of railway stations would be saved, all stations being used for postal purposes.

(_b_) All postal sorting and other offices could be situate on railway premises in or near the stations, and besides thus saving the rent would be in closer touch with the railway.

(_c_) The whole of the railway tracks would be available without rent for laying of telegraph and telephone wires, either over or underground.

(_d_) Surplus land of the railways, in particular where adjoining to stations, would be available for other Government purposes, such as Inland Revenue Offices, Labour Exchanges, Military, Naval or Civil Service purposes, Police Stations, Fire Stations, County Courts, Police Courts, Land Courts, as well as Courts for dealing with questions arising out of the railways themselves.

2. GENERAL ADVANTAGES.

Unification enables each part of the country to have as good a service of trains as every other part, notwithstanding differences of population and resources. The Companies now operating on the South Coast cannot provide so good a service as the Northern Companies owing to the lack of the great mining and industrial centres which are served by the latter.

One of the most conspicuous examples of this is =Ireland=. A Royal Commission was sitting for many years on the question of Irish railways, and ultimately reported in favour of State acquisition. Even this, it is clear, would not entirely solve the difficulty, which arises from the natural causes of being an island with (compared to the rest of Great Britain) a small population, mostly agricultural. If, however, the Irish railways were amalgamated with all the others of the United Kingdom under the proposed scheme the problem is solved. In the estimate given in considering the finance of the scheme the Irish railways are included.

The conversion of the railway system into Government property will, apart from the question of economy already referred to, provide a most important advantage to the State. For example, the War Office can make use of the railway system, not only for the purposes of transport, but for the erection on surplus land throughout the country of barracks, stores, and other buildings, for wireless telegraph stations and for aviation purposes. The Admiralty will have the use of the great docks and wharves now owned by railways. The Civil Service will also find ample space for additional office accommodation, often in the most convenient spots both in town and country.

Still more important even than these advantages is the fact that by the removal of all money restrictions from transport, not only an immediate but a =progressive increase of traffic= will result. That this will be so is shown hereafter when considering the question of the finance of the scheme, but it is referred to here as one of the most important advantages of the scheme, apart from the benefits to the nation already referred to of free circulation of passengers and goods.

In the first place, the increase of traffic will require in all probability the whole of the staff now employed, who would otherwise be thrown out of employment by reason of the economies referred to above. It will be noticed that in the estimates given under the heading of “Finance of the Scheme” no decrease, but on the contrary, a slight increase has been estimated for in the working expenses, notwithstanding the enormous saving to be anticipated by the abolition and reduction of wasteful expenditure under the present system. My reason for so doing is partly to err on the side of caution in the estimates, but also to provide for the probability of having to retain the whole of the existing staff, and possibly increasing their wages and reducing their hours of labour. Most of the economies referred to must necessarily be effected gradually; for instance, the clerical staffs of the various railway companies and of the Railway Clearing House would be required for some considerable time in the process of winding-up, and by the time this is finished the traffic will have still further increased and their work will then be required in the more necessary departments of, say, the Goods Clearing Houses throughout the country.

Secondly, the progressive increase of traffic will produce a corresponding increase of revenue which will be available for extensions and additions, for electrification of lines, and other improvements in means of transport, and ultimately even in still further reduction in charges, but last and by no means least in the adoption of appliances and inventions for the safety of life and limb both of passengers and railway servants.

Unlike the present companies, the Government will have no difficulty in raising the capital required for any such purposes, and in relying upon the inevitable increase of traffic, as now is the case of the Post Office, for repayment.

Take the case of automatic couplings. These were invented 40 years ago[4] and their adoption has been urged on the companies ever since, not only on the merciful ground of saving life and limb, but also on the financial ground of saving waste of time in shunting; but the initial expense of fitting these to every truck and carriage has been too much for the directors of the Companies to risk.

Many inventions for automatic signalling, instantaneous brakes, and other life-saving appliances have been from time to time submitted to railway companies, but the initial expense of installation throughout the many miles of railway of each company has been so great that one hardly wonders at the hesitation of directors in laying out money belonging to the shareholders, especially when, notwithstanding a small normal increase of traffic, the working expenses have increased to a greater degree.

FOOTNOTES

[2] See “The Rural Problem,” by H. D. Harben (Constable & Co., 1913, 2s. 6d.). Mr. Balfour Browne, K.C., also, in addressing the London Chamber of Commerce, February, 1897, said, “I am not exaggerating when I say that the Agricultural question … is nothing else but a question of Railway Rates.”

[3] Lecture by A. W. Gattie, at London School of Economics, 11th March, 1913.

[4] “Mammon’s Victims,” by T. A. Brocklebank, published by C. W. Daniel, 1911--Price 6d.