Motors and Railways. 



STRIKING ADMISSIONS BY MANAGERS AND SHAREHOLDERS. 



" This is a case where the wise man should remember that when one cannot agree with a 

 prophet, one can only listen to him." — Henry Forbes, Secretary, County Donegal Railways. 



*^HE article which we published in our 

 last number has attracted very great 

 interest, and it seems not unlikely 

 that it may assist in the realisation of 

 the wish expressed in the closing 

 lines and bring about an awaken- 

 ing of the railways to the first clanging 

 of their death-knell and thus secure for 

 them a reprieve. It is unfortunate that as yet 

 it has not been our good fortune to be able to 

 secure an authoritative reply from anyone com- 

 petent to speak for railways. All the general 

 managers of railways in the British Isles have 

 most certainly read the article, but not one has 

 responded to the request for public criticism. 

 We think, however, that it is only fair to them 

 to give as authoritative an opinion upwn the 

 questions which we hold to be the cause of the 

 present incapacity, sometimes bordering on 

 impotence, of the railways. To leave no manner 

 of doubt possible, however, we would reiterate 

 that we have never advanced the opinion that 

 the railways would not be always necessary for 

 long-distance traffic and for the haulage of coals. 

 In pointing out that the feeding of the railway 

 lines would necessarily devolve upon motors 

 using the public roads we were evidently quite 

 justified, since the railway companies are them- 

 selves beginning to use motor traction in many 

 instances. Even the Editor of the Raihvay 

 Times admits as much when he says :• — • 



" The sober and business view is that 

 motor lorries are already competing and will 

 probably further compete with railways for short- 

 distance goods traffic, but, on the other hand, 

 they will help the railways by the speedy trans- 

 port of goods to and from railway stations. 

 For the latter work the railway companies them- 

 selves nerd to be active, and it seems highh- 

 probable that a large field is open to the 

 companies in this direction." 



In our opinion transit is the raw matcri.il of 

 infiustry, ,\nd we do not see why the industry 

 and agriculture of this country should be 

 strangled in order to prove that there are a 

 certain number of men not too old at 70. For 

 that is the logical end and object of the absurdly 

 unnecessary numbers of railwav directors. The 



;£J'650,ooo paid annually to these directors 

 compares very unfavourably with the ;^2,50o 

 paid to the Secretary of State for the Post . 

 Office. Nor will the salaries of the permanent 

 officials who run that most complex of depart- 

 ments compare with those of general managers 

 of railways. Formerly ;£^3,ooo was considered 

 a good salary for a railway manager, now 

 ;£j5,ooo is considered an ordinary amount. 



With regard to directors there is no real rule 

 as to numbers in relation to length of line, 

 since we find the Great Eastern Railway, with 

 1,133 Tiiles of line, needs twelve directors; 

 while the London, Brighton and South Coast 

 Railway, with only 454 miles of line, has ten 

 directors. On the same proportion, the Great 

 Western, with its mileage of 2,993, would really 

 need a board of sixty-five directors, instead of 

 nineteen. 



That the freight rates have no relation to the 

 cost of haulage is proved by the fact that 

 between London and Li\erp()ol there are four 

 lines, each with a different mileage, yet the 

 freight rates are the same. This is, of course, 

 under an arrangement between the companies, 

 without reference to the public interest. 



Nor must another point be overlooked. This 

 is the bad effects of arrangements between com- 

 panies against the interests of the public. For 

 instance, no train may get down to Portsmouth 

 from London under two hours, although it 

 would be easily possible. Railways abandon 

 rights of running to a certain town on being paid 

 a fixed sum per annum by another company. 



Mr. L. E. Hennell, the assistant goods 

 manager of the Great Western Railway, when 

 asked before a Royal Commission whether he 

 was in favour of putting up the rates for 

 ordinary goods on boards at statif)ns, so that the 

 farmers could see them, replied th.it he was not, 

 liernuse it " would involve the multiplication of 

 the hundreds of millions of rates already in 

 operation on the British railways." His evi- 

 dence also showed that the rates were frequently 

 higher from a station to a centre when that 

 station had little traffic, even although the 

 district it served was much nearer to the centre. 

 When asked bv Lord ji-rscv on what terms a 



