RAILWAY ECONOMY.
1 Adam Street, Adelphi, 12th September 1853.
Srn—The late collisions on our railways have given rise to much dis- cussion as to who is in fault. Some assert that drivers and guards are not sufficiently careful. Others, like Lord Enfield, contend that the fault is in management. For my part, after many years watching the system, I come to the conclusion that neither the one nor the other are so much to blame as the system itself; which is based upon unavoidable risk, which no care can wholly obviate, and in which the thing to be surprised at is, not the acci- dents, but the comparative fewness of accidents. It may be remembered that the first railway, practically illustrating to the public mind a new mode of travelling—the Liverpool and Manchester—was originally intended for the transit of goods at some ten miles per hour ; and that the greatly-increased speed attained by the experimental locomotives— not contemplated by the public, but only by George Stephenson and his co- mates—that increased speed gave rise to the transit of passengers at twenty miles per hour over rails of thirty-five pounds per yard. The result was, that the transit of goods was regarded by managers with something of the contempt formerly felt by the proprietors of mails and long stages for broad-wheel road-waggons. The managers of subsequent lines went on the same principle; and some of them, in order to compensate in time for the loss by curvilinear routes, increased their speed, and in- creased also the size of their cylinders, and, consequently, the weight of their engines. They did more. They competed with each other, as did the old stage-coaches; and a new element—the broad gauge—competed with the narrow for speed. The notion obtained, that for great speeds it was essen- tial to have very large cylinders and boilers, and, consequently, very heavy engines. But the speed did not increase in the same proportion. The fact was, the deficiency was not in the propelling power, but in the want of foot- hold for the propelling power to act on. Dlr. Robert Stephenson was the first to point out to a Committee of the House of Commons, that if the in- sane contest was persisted in, it would be necessary to relay the lines. The first locomotive and tender weighed less than eight tons : there is one Dow weighing fifty-eight tons, too heavy to use; but a common weight is fifty-three tons. The first rails were 35 pounds per yard : some now exist- ing weigh 12,5 pounds per yard; but common weights are from 65 to 85 and 92 pounds per yard. Notwithstanding the great increase in passengers over the estimated num- bers, the working expenses also largely increased, and a goods-traffic was sought after. For a long time the goods on the London and Birmingham were charged 3d. per ton per mile, and coals were altogether refused. Coals are now earned on many lines under id. per ton per mile. Competition both for passengers and goods became the prevalent custom, and lines were bought up and amalgamated to get rid of competition, at a costly sacrifice. Some bad lines were guaranteed a ten per cent dividend on the whole capital, both applied and wasted, while not likely to earn two; presenting the remarkable feature of being quoted at the highest prices in the market while earning the smallest proportion of income. But all this would not do, because new lines constantly sprung up to defeat the mono- poly, as they are ever likely to spring up. Still more competition, and an ever-increasing number of trains, and an ever-increasing weight of trains, ensued. The passenger-trains were timed to forty and more miles per hour, the goods-trains to twenty and less miles per hour. But irregularities would occur, and to avoid collisions it was constantly necessary to accele- rate the goods-trains. But multiplied departures multiplied the risks of collision ; and when passengers as well as goods and machinery began to sus- tain damage, the public began an outcry, because that became practical which all common-sense theory might have foreseen. Collisions increased, because the sources of collision—heavy and dtrained engines, imperfectly rolling wagons and carriages, bent and crushed and damaged rails, and junctions without joints—increased. The more powerful the engines, the greater is the probability of the degradation of the rails, sleepers, and sub- structure.
Ballast of a given quality will sustain a certain weight per square foot. Sleepers of a given surface will sustain a certain weight on the surface of rails. Rails, if of sufficient vertical depth, will sustain a certain weight on each wheel without crushing or deflecting. If the weight be in excess of these limits, it is evident that the whole ought to break down, as it does. If not so, whence arises the annual large expense incurred in "maintenance of way " ?
Omnibuses and carriages are drawn on one aide to get out of each other's way in the streets and high-roads. They are light and easily moved. But trains on rails cannot get out of each other's way, save by travelling on the same line, one ahead of the other—unless when put into sidings, which is not done at speed. If, therefore, there be on any line a rapid succession of trains' the risks of collision are very considerably increased, the more cape- daily if the trains be heavy. To minimize these risks, the trains should—
First, Travel all with the same intervals of departures; Secondly, They should all travel at the same rates of speed ; Thirdly, They should all be of the same dead weight ; Fourthly, The engines should be of the same construction and power ; Fifthly, They should not be overpowered ; Sixthly, A sufficient time should elapse between each departure, to pull up easily in ease of accident; Seventhly, The rails should be so strong vertically and laterally as not to detect beneath or laterally to the rolling loads ; • Eighthly, The weight should not approach within certain limits the ultimate resistance of iron to lamination either in rails or wheel- tyres; Ninthly, The rails should form as nearly as possible continuous bars, to make the traction equal, and to prevent violent blows at bad joints. Under such conditions travelling might go on with almost absolute safety. But this supposes that goods-trains should be equally well constructed and no heavier than passenger-trains, or that passenger-trains shall be reduced in speed to that of goods-trains. As far as we can at present judge, goods-trains, as at present constructed, cannot travel, to pay, at a rate exceeding twenty to twenty-five miles per hour.
'Will the public be content with that speed, while they know it to be a practicable and verified thing to travel at fifty to sixty miles per hour with almost absolute safety ? Certain portions of the public will, certain others will not. In proportion to the value of a man's time, or to the amount of his income, so till be his desire for speed in travelling. But mere speed of movement is not the whole question : the teal question is as to the time occupied in getting from one place to another. A train may travel very fast, and yet waste so much time in intervals of retardation as to be only equivalent to a slow train in constant movement. These retard- ations on long lines do practically amount to converting express-trains into ordinary trains. Therefore, on long lines with very frequent trains the conclusion arrived at is, that there can be no fast travelling without very great risk—very con- aiderably greater than with slow travelling. In cases of engines getting off the lines of rail, the cause is rarely ac- counted for. It is treated as a mystery. No indication exists after the acci- dent to point out the defect. Yet it is very plain.. 'Where two rail-ends meet in a chair, there is ex- ternally a lateral wooden key forcibly driven in and confining the rails to the chair. The lateral pressure of the wheel-flanges, striking against the rails, compresses the wooden key, which shakes hose, and drops out after a time, if not continually looked to. The rails then have a space of two inches lateral slide in the chair. The tendency of the engine-wheels while running is to force the rail sideways—i. e. to widen the gauge. 'While one sail is thus pressed out, the rail in front of it presents a butt-end to the wheel-flange, which mounts the rail and escapes from the line. Or if the space for sliding be sufficient, the flange gets between the two rails, and by the weight breaks the chair and escapes. This is especially likely to occur on a curved line where the outer rail is kept at a higher elevation than the inner, in order to counteract the centrifugal force.
Supposing that the public determine that they will have travelling at high speeds it appears to be only practicable with safety on a line with sufficient intervals between the trains.
Either, therefore, goods-trains must be reduced in number, in order to accommodate fast passenger-trains, on existing lines, or new lines mustbe made express for their accommodation. If goods-trains are reduced in number, still their damaging powers must be lessened, to keep the line in good order for the expresses.
The questions arising are—
First, Is it worth while for the existing lines to run express-trains at all at the sacrifice of other traffic ?
Secondly, Can the public afford to pay for especial passenger lines ?
In answer to the first question, it is probable that existing lines would be glad to get rid of express-trains altogether, if it could be shown that their annual incomes would not thereby be lessened—i. e. their dividend diminish- ed. There is probably no pleasanter thing to Directors than to meet their shareholders with " money in both pockets," whether East Indian or Eastern or Western Counties Directors. And I think that express-trains on lines of heavy business are as unprofitable as long stage-coaches compared with omnibuses.
With regard to the second question, it is clearly demonstrable that on short lines passenger traffic without goods will pay ; as witness the Blackwell and Dock junction lines, constructed for the express purpose of carrying goods, and to which lines goods are more a nuisance than an advantage. 'Though the passengers be less on the long lines, the cost of construction may be less also. This discussion must be left to another day.
Previous page
