The Sun.
London, England, 1858-01-16 00:00:00

FRENCH AND ENGLISH RAILWAYS.

That there is a considerable difference between a French
and an English Railway is what a good many of our
readers will have discovered for themselves, and have
drawn, perhaps, a certain moral from their conclusions;
but there is one particular point of distinction on which
ordinary passengers are not very likely to reflect. In
France Railways are profitable to the proprietors as well
as to the public ; in England the public comes off better
than in France, but the proprietors far worse. Gene.
rally speaking, these great speculations have proved
remunerative across the Channel, but unremunerative in
these islands ; and the question is under what circum-
stances such a contrast was established. The whole
subject was admirably reviewed on Tuesday last at the
Inetitution of Civil Engineers by Mr. Joseph Locke,
president of that body, and we yesterday transferred to
our own columns a complete report of the address. In
some parts the investigation necessarily assumed rather
a technical complexion, but its leading deductions can
be readily understood.
Railways are more profitable in France than in Eng-
land because the action of the State in the former country
was exerted to prevent extravagant and calamitous out-
lay at the first period of construction. Government
decided on the best line, adjudged it to the most promis•
ing bidders, assisted the work in many cases from
national funds, and protected the proprietary throughout
train competition. The absence of rivalry enabled the
managers of the lines to bestow great attention on their
own interests, and trains accordingly were net very
frequent, nor was the rate of speed maintained very
greet. Every train, as a rule, was pretty well filled,
and moderation of pace saved the wear and tear of stook.
In England all these conditions were reversed. Govern-
ment not only did not protect railway enterprise from
c tropetition, but it is said even to have encouraged the
rivalry of contending projectors. Lauclowuers got
enormous prices for land, Parliamentary contests
occasioned immense sacrifices of money, the duplication
of actual lines perpetuated the results of competition,
trains wore multiplied, fares reduced, and the impatience
of Englishmen gratified by express speed. Of course,
with such item, on the respective sides of the account
there is no great wonder about the nature of the balance
as far as shareholders are concerned, nor is it at all
surprising that the " Railway interest" should conceive
itself somewhat aggrieved on this aide of the Channel.
As a matter of fact, the average dividend upon our
railway property is lower than its owners might justly
expect, nor is any fair proportion discoverable between
the advantages accruing to the public, and the remu-
neration of those at whose cost these advantages
were created. We believe, however, that the
French system would have been absolutely imprac-
ticable in this country— that the system pursued
by our own Legislature is by no means answerable
(or the whole of the evil experienced, and that the
position of the shareholding body might be so improved
try their own effects as to bring them very nearly to a
levt I with their brethren in France.
We must take leave to observe that there are two
parties to transactions of this kind. The public is en-
titled to consideration as well as the proprietors, and
this consideration iu France has evidently been concen-
trated upon the latter to the prejudice of the former. It
is true enough that the French have got their railways,
anti that such means of communication are vastly above
those previously in use ; but they have not got all they
mielet have got. " The service to the public," says
Mr. Locke, "is still very limited." The aim of the
French Government, in fact, was to secure itself and
the contributors together, and the accomnaodmien to be
provided was measured by these requirements. The
principle has no doubt succeeded, but it has been at the
public coat, for the railways in France are fewer, slower,
(
ta
hn
id.
gdseamr,
aro,
yaf
it
itliwvhae,anryyptuhey
property,
naturallypmie r tgy
interest. might t
but
appearl ia v
it
been.
Ttnwiaa would itr,de
iabfaTetbhhi
lieaes 8
Fssttorasetonet
cht ohoef
ao ,wivr (7crast eosf
people were as restless and impatient in such matter
as ourselves, and adopted the same vent for their
emotions, it would be quite possible to get up at a
puhlic meeting in that country and show by a con-
trast of railway , ervioe in France and England how
very much Frenchmen had lost by the institution of
monopolies instead of the action of competition.
It will be asked, however, which of these two prin-
ciples is the proper one I No doubt the public gets a
better bergein here than in Frauce ; but has it any
right to such advantage at the expense of private con-
tributors ? Can any man reasonably require to be
served at a loss to those by whom the service is per-
formed I This question obviously opens an infinite sphere
of inquiry, but the results of ten years' experience appear
to us to prove that the proprietors of English rail ways have
really less complaint against the Legislature than against
their own boards of management, and that, of the two
systems, that adopted in this country was not only
better adapted to our national habits, but better in
' principle too. We will take at once the strongest and
most salient point in illustration of the argument—via.,
the sanction of more than one line to a particular ter-
minus. Nothing, at the outset, could seem more
wanton than this, yet nothing, in the present day, can
be clearer than that there really is room for more than
one railway between two places. What would have
been the condition of passengers or traffic in this country
if the ccnamunication between north and south had been
i limited to a single " arterial" line ? Even as it is, the
I lines are all so gorged with work that the most fertile
( source of accidents is sought in the multiplicity of trains
I rendered necessary, and one great company, notwith-
standing all competition is laying down a third line of
rails on account of the positive insufficiency of the
original way. Travelling of every description has been
increased beyond conception, nor do we believe there is
a single instance of any trunk line, whether with or
without a direct rival, on which ie traffic has not
surpassed the most sanguine estimates of the original
project. It would be hard to prove that there are too
many railways in England for the public service, nor
can it be summarily asserted that there are too many
for the interest of the proprietors. No doubt, the
average value of the property is too low ; but is there
nothing to be said on this point beyond appealing to the
system of Sir R. Peel
We think it plain from actual facts that more than
one line may run from one terminus to another,_ and
pick up a fair profit as it goes ; and the sanction, there.
costs of construe-
jcorseti,fiaobfle.thesceaau
sn
iddear
rtai
akgi n
theg s in
knownduplicatewas perfectly
rion and the known expenses of working—expenses
which Mr Locke tells us are less, notwithstanding our
rate of travelling, in England than in France—it
cannot be said that the accommodation actually fur.
Dished to the public is greater than is merited by the
prices might be reduced,
remunerated,stillnriieamedkaesreydo
andfar e s
shareholders
ot,
bfe p;
" d
millstoneead
Thata
havetincidentalawv ee
übl
been
e nb et
do
tooeprirvi
muchavlerdy and
ofdebt,"
this debt was incurred in a great measure from the costs
tiot 8
maintaincporno tsepnetci :an thati ins perfectlyort dh
order
rpthu ab
that
itc true,hseh path
uatlbutah
of prudence might have been made smoother to specula-
tors. The evil was not so much in the opening given
by the Legislature to competition as in the excess to
which this competition was carried, and, we may add, is
carried still. There was really pasture enough for many,
but each wanted it all, and the truth of this proposition
is to be found in the fact, which no one would controvert,
England had been
thatsuccessive
eiefeaivllelytheee
nexisting, railways
being
allowed to expend
money upon objecting to each other, there would at this
moment be excellent profits for every line among them.
The lines are not one bit too numerous, but each cost
too much to start with, owing to the jealousies of the
rest.
After all, too, it admits of very great doubt whether
the disadvantages of the proprietaries in this country,
ae compared with the advantages of the public, are not,
to a most material extent, unreal and removable. It
bas been more than once maintained by correspondents
of great ability in these columns, that notwithstanding
all the waste irretrievably incurred, railway property is,
in truth, more valuable than it appears ; that its depres-
sion is not warrantable by fasts, and that publicity and
certainty in accounts would rapidly improve it. Com-
panies, moreover, if they cut each other's throats to start
o
with,need not go on doing so now. If two lines choose t t
lower their fares in malignant rivalry till both_ ruuntheir
lobs, they can blame no system nor
largeprincfpl b t
so is the nation itself. Like the natal: hase, hens:
own. Railways are encumbered with t
nate in their earnings, and area
wd.
_C.,,, shoo d
amount of trade, nor do we s' .
_goirni: The public bet
in also in despite of the:r oggadoss is
"°°rnnutaldere et
in most localities enjoyi!
fuse,
-and if mbar °t
b g
it also pays pretty gagooa
yed
_ebetlifo,
rtbau.t
travellers get iwis'.....rimsveffdo not denp—it is 130 emus.
less than their due—