The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-09 00:00:00

PERIODICAL TICKETS.

Sir,—As I presume the statement which appeared
in your paper of Tuesday last may be taken as an exposition
of the views of the directors on the questions pending between
them end the passengers, you wilt not, I am sure, refuse to
give pubiicity to a few remarks in reply.
With re ant to the prop-sed season tickets, although the
charge of 21. 10e. per mile by the year is higher than on any
other line in the kingdom where the plan has been intro-
duced, it may, perhaps, be said that the passengers have the
option of taking them or not; hut from the rise in the daily
fares they have no escape, and are entirely at the mercy of
the directors. I shall be told, perhaps. that the directors
have not actually increased the fares. They have only re
duced the drawback on return tickets, which used to be one-
third—and in some instances a fourth of the double fares to
one-sixth. As if that were not substantially the game thing.
Bat even to this principle they have not adhered, for at
Kingston, which has the largest traffic of any single station
on the lines, the driwhack no the second-class tickets is just '
one seventh of the double fare.
The director take mace credit to themselves for the bees
they have given to the public in the mason tickets, and this Is
made the pretext for altering the double journey fang,
which had already been twice raised within the last ten
mouths. So far, however, as the se.ond clam piesengere Sr.
concerned, the directors have trended to them the penalty,
but not the boon. They have raised their fans, but allowed
them no season tickets It was upon this point chic fiy that
a committee of the passenger, was deputed to request a
conference with the directors, which has been declined. 01
this, I think, the committee have fair reason to complain,
and that a respectable body of gentlemen, who are all ens.
stunt customers of the company to the event of from 301. SO
401. a year each upon au average, had a right to expect this
they would at least be allowed a hearing upon a subject
seriously affecting their interests.
Possibly the price suggested by the pamengen for the
season tickets might be thought as much too low, se that
fixed by the directors was too high ; but if the p irties could
have met, it is probable that =vital concessions would have
been made. And I have reason to believe that if the oom-
piny would have consented to grant yearly tickets at the rate
of 21. per mile for the first class, and 11. 10s. for the second,
leaving the daily fares without alteration, the plan would
have been very generally accepted, and would have produced
a large return.
For a long time, when the fares were considerably loner
than they were even before the late rise, the comrimy psid
a dividend of 7 per cent., and sometimes more, and they
are, therefore, on the horns of this dilemma: either the low
fares then yielded them a fair return for their capital, or
they paid a dividend which their profits did not warrant. If
the latter, why are the public to pay for their improvidence ?
If they have since expended a large additional capital in
various extensions which were of no benefit to the old tra-
veller on the line, why are the latter to suffer for their
imprudent speculations ?
The extension to Waterloo bridge alone has been of any ser-
vice to the regular paseengen on the line, and for this they have
already paid in the two additions to the fares which I have
alluded to. But the great advantage which the company
have derived from this exteruion is that they have thereby
been enabled to compete with the Great Western in a line
to Windsor, which would have had no chance while the
terminus was at Nine Elms. And yet will it be believed,
that while this immense outlay has been incurred princi-
pally with a view to the Windsor and Richmond traffic,
the fares on that line, though considerably lower than on the
main line, have not been raised in anything like the same
proportion, and in some instances have even been reduced !
The follow* table will give some notion of the glsring
difference between the double journey fares cn two lines
under the same maangemest
wanes tin... _ f SOCTILUIPSOS MS!.

-lot 2nd
Clem ClaaL Claw Clem
Nike. Ld. ad. Minn d. u.
hatchet 24 .. .. 4 . Woking..... ZS .. 8 4.. 6
Winstbury b .. 6 .. 4 Onertary.... 21 .. 70.. 6
Staines
Teckc¢hao ll+ .. 3 .. 2 Marton .... 12 .. 42 ..
Rkhinond .. .. Weldon ...... 10; .. 2 4 ..
Mortlake
Wen.l.T °Kb 8 .. 1 .. 1 Clapham .... 6 .. 18.. 1
Is this fair Or Just towards the regular trav,llers on the
main line ? And tea any reason be given for it, except the
competition which exists on ens line and not on the other ?
Railway directors are indignant if it is suggested that com-
petition is a thing to be desired.
It seems, however, that we are indebted to the director
for another bo-al. At this fedive season they have put on
" Theatre trains," which start three times a week at mid-
night. Bowe most be content to pay Weber fares all the
year round, If we are allowed En extra train in the " festive
B season." ut here again :he indulgence is all for the Rich-
mond line. I have heard of no such favour for the inhabi-
tants of Htneston and Wimbledon, nor am I aware that they
with it, bat I cannot understand why this is to ba thrown
in their teeth, or why they are to pay an extra charge ke
allowing the Richmond puseorre to see a Christmas panto-
Inisne.—A SIIIOIITON PASS/EMIL