Omaha daily bee., 1888-08-28

These results are practically equal,
for we suspect that the time allowance
for stops was computed in a manner
which gave a slight advantage to the
West Shore. But certain parts OF the
West Shore run were better han any
thing in that of the London and North
western, sixty-one miles, from Buffalo
to Genesee Junction, being made in
t~ifty-six minutes actual time, or at rate
Of from eighty-three to eighty-seven
miles per hour, while the maximum at
tanned in the English run vas only
about seventy-tive miles an hour. Two
hundred and one and seven-tenths
miles, from Buffalo to Frankfort, with
eight full stops, (besides five partial
ones), were made in an actual
time but slightly greater than
that required in England for
the same run with one stop, and at an
barely under sixty miles an hour. This
record, though ignored in some English
accounts of running speed, is thor
oughly we'll attested. 1t is decidedly
the best we have. A Grand Trunk
special of June, 1885, is said to have
| made 229t miles in 237 minutes, exclud-
ing stops, or 5St miles an hour; but this,
even if thoroughly well established,
does not equal the record of the West
| Shore.
But of regular trains we have none
which can come anywhere near the
English record in this matter. The best
| for the distance in question is the Chi
cago limited, from New York to Buffalo,
| which takes ten hours and forty-five
minutes to run 440 miles-a weak show
ing as compared with the 400 miles
| within eight hours on the London &
| Northwestern. The best of the WASH
ington expresses now take five hours
| and eighteen minutes to make the 226
| miles between Jersey City and Wash
| ington. But the distance in this case is
much shorter, and the time record far
| from equals that of the best English
trains. For short distances, especially
between New York and Philadelphia
and between Baltimore and Washing
ton, we have had trains scheduled to
run at rates above fifty miles an hour;
but the conditions of short distance
running are more favorable for high
speeds.
1t seems clear that we can make as
good time as they 10 in England; it is
also clear that we do not. The reason
is not one of engineering but of finance.
AS far as construction goes, the English
nave not so great an advantage over
our best roads as is commonly supposed.
Their one distinct point of superiority
is freedom from grade crossings. A
large part of the enormous cost OF Eng
lish track has been due to this cause.
1t is questionable whether their track
is s~traightor or more level than ours.
In the absence of accessible statistics,
no one can speak positively, but it is
pretty certain hat the profile and align
ment of the English roads are not so
good as is generally supposed, and prob
ably not as easy as those of many Amer
lean lines. In finish Of track the Eng
lish of course have a great advantage,
as well as in many OF the details of
operation; but it is open to doubt
whether their equipment is as good as
ours, except for a very narrow range OF
purposes. On the whole, the advan-
tages and disadvantages are not far
from equal.
But the English are willing to pay for
fast trains, while we are not. Let it be
observed that this is not merely a ques-
tion of rates of fare, or even OF passen-
ger train receipts, but a general ques-
ton of traffic economy. The direct eX-
pense of running "A fast train, large as 1t
is, by no means measures the total cost.
Other traffic is incon venlenced and rem
dered more ~expensite. The labor of
trackmen is indirectly increased. If
the community wishes to have fast
trains, all this must be somehow paid
for. England does pay for it; Amer
lea does not.