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

FRENCII AND ENGLISH RAILWAYS.

That thereis 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
,rdinary 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
ban 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 wh4t circum-
stances such a contrast was established. The whole
-übject was admirably reviewed on Tuesday last at the
Institution 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
from competition. The absence of rivalry enabled the
managers of the lines to bestow great attention cm their
own interests, and trains accordingly were net very
frequent, nor was the rate of speed maintained very
great. Every train, as a rule, was pretty well filled,
and moderation of pace saved the wear and tear of stock.
In England all these conditions were reversed. Govern.
ment not only did not protect railway enterprise from
competition, but it is said even to have encouraged the
rivalry of contending projectors. Landowners got
enormous prices for land, Parliamentary contests
occasioned immense sacrifices of money, the duplication
of actual lines perpetuated the results of competition,
trains were multiplied, fares reduced, and the impatience
of Englishmen gratified by express speed. Of course,
with such items 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 side 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-
htiycaob er
owein t hLi
es g cs ol
aut nu trrey
is thatby nt ho e
meanssyste ma n
spwuerrsanbeee
for the whole of the evil experienced, and that the
position of the shareholding body might be so improved
oy their own effects as to bring them very nearly to a
level 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 in 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,
and that such means of communication are vastly above
those previously in use ; but they have not got all they
might 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 accommodation to be
provided was measured by these requirements. The
principle has no doubt succeeded, but it has been at the
public cost, for the railways in France are fewer, slower,
and dearer than they might have been. This state of
things may very naturally appear agreeable to the
owners of railway property, but it would be less so to
advocates of the public interest. In fact, if the French
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
public meeting in that country and show by a con-
tract of railway i ervioe in France and England how
very much Frenchmen bad lost by the institution of
monopolie 'instead of the action of competition.
It will be asked, however, which of these two prin-
ciples is the proper one ? No doubt the public gets sb
better bargain here than in France ; but has it any
right to such advantage at the expense of private con-
tributors I Can any man reasonably require to be
served at a loss to those by whom the service is per.
formed This question obviously opens an infinite sphere
of inquiry, but the results of ten years' experience appear
to unto prove that the proprietors of English railways 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—viz.,
the unction 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 thet there really is room for more than
one railway between two pl ices. What would have
been the condition of passengers er traffic in this country
if the communication between north and south had been
limited to a single " arterial" line Even as it is, the
lines are all so gorged with work that the most fertile
rseonudrceereodf anceceiedsesnarty, a
accidents is sought e
ne in
grtehaet
company,multiplictty
noof
ttwraitinha.
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 the 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
fur 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-
fore, of these undertakings in duplicate was perfectly
jt ;los
nt i fisanbd the
l e Cokonsoldwen expensesrirgeknoowf nweoorsktsingo_f ceexnpsetnrseese-
which Mr Looks tells us are less, notwithstanding our
wmeirgehtit
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
bneotreidouretehdi:
rt ue
ha
shareholders
"dead weight of primary debt," which hangs like a
paid
indeed,
remunerated,
millstone about the necks of the great companies. That
afarndesshaac
this debt was incurred in A great measure from the costs
maintainbeen
ts
made
ueaest
snnan t
order
oh ohet
oepptr
that
to
otli i
uteri shouldghp the path
pispecula-
given
incidental to rivalry and contention is perfectly true, but
ch
ohti
otfarwvps have been
uubdl e:enhnbeeeedetevopiori
mightinyw e
audshe much
nfvtoieott pse
oer
cwahrirci he
at
shistiur mTpheetri tei owna
swraesacl
layrrpi
ae
sdt,uarne de,nwo
uegmh
by the Legislature to competition as in the excess to
but each wanted it all, and the truth of this p ratooyproamsdidany,
ion
is to be found in the fact, which no one would controvert,
that if all the existing railways in England had been
successively sanctioned, without 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,
as compared with the advantages of the public, are not,
to a most material extent, unreal and removable. It
has 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 facts, and that publicity and
certainty in accounts would rapidly improve it. Com-
panies, moreover, if they cat each other's throats to start
with,need not go on doing so'now. If two lines choose to
lower their fares in malignant rivalry till both run at a
loss, they can blame no system nor principle but their
own. Railways are encumbered with large debts, but
so is the nation itself. Like the nation, they are fortu-
nate in their earnings, and are doing au burnous:
amount of trade, nor do we see why they sbanldu p.OO
thrive also in despite of their capital account. Tie
bblia,
in most localities enjoys very good ape°
arm% holds;
it also pays pretty good fares, and if
__t wow,
less than their due—as we do not deny--it so sot
travellers get more—Ton"-