New-York tribune., 1901-07-22
ENGLISH AND AMERICAN RAILWAYS.

When the methods and results of railway
| management In Great Britain and the United
States are compared it is not difficult TO under
stand WHY the Americans outstripping their
| rivals In the commercial race. The conduct of
! the great business of transportation is doubt
| less typical of the spirit and enterprise of the
| two countries When freights are unduly high,
and railroads run without economy because
their equipment is behind the times manufact-
| ures and trade are bound TO be put at dlsad-
vantage no matter how well conducted. and in
all probability they are III conducted and slow
10 appreciate opportunities CT they would com
pei the abolition of outworn methods and the
faciiitation of their traffic How far the Eng
lislI railways have fallen behind those OF the
United States Is clearly shown by Colonel NJ. X.
Jeferds in a recent number of THE Financial
News" of London.
In 1870 he says the New-York Centrars
working expense ton mile was IL per cent
less than that of the London and North West
ern. In the twenty years following, the Amer
can company reduced its expenses from IA
cents to 0.54 cent a ton mile, or over 50 per
cent Since 1890 the New York Central has still
further reduced its expenses from 0.54 to O.235
cent ton mile, or 40 per cent, while the Eng
lish companies have made practically no reduc
tion at all in these thirty years. In 1892 Sir
of working expenses had been reached and the
present average expense Of moving ton OF
freight a mile on the London and North West
eru is 1.3S cents, against 0.235 cent OH the
New York Central. 0.364 cent on the Pennsyl-
yania and only O.4S5 cent the Great North
ern road through a sparsely settled country,
where the hauls are long and Oftentimes the
bulk OF freight is all one way. The freight
rates tell the same story OF American econ
omy. The New York Central rate ton a mile
has been reduced from 1.SS cents in 1870 to
ore cent in 1900. which is only about half what
II would actually cost an English railway to do
the same work without making any profit at
ALL The London and North Western freight
rate in 1900 was 234 cents ion a mile, or
over three times that of the NewYork Central.
Nor Is the lower American rate due to- cheap
| labor The average wage paid by the New
| York Central, according to Colonel Jeffcrds, is
| double that paid by the London and North West
ern Moreover, the English roads cost more
| TO build than the American. and with their
! better roadbeds they should be able to handle
| traffic less expense yet with all their outlay
for equipment and their low wages they are
| hopelessly outciassed
A fair specimen of their wastefu manage
ment is seen In the character of their freight
| cars. They weigh about eight tons each and
carry a load not To exceed two tons. The aver
nge American freight weighs twelve tons
and carries load of eighteen tons So for
every ton of paving freight the English road
| carries IT draws four tons Of dead weight
while the American only draws two-thirds of
a ton OF dead weight. No wonder the cost of
| carrying freight is high when every locomotive
is thus handicapped. 1t Is easy to understand
why al charge Of 234 cents ton a mile
| for freight and 176 cents mile a passen-
| ger, each locomotive OF the London and North
Western earns only s22,5gO year, while with
q charge OF 054 cent for freight and / 9S cents
| for passengers each Pennsylvania locomotive
| earns S4sJoo year. Naturally our locOmo-
tiyes. adapted 10 do twice AS much work as the
! English are found TO use more fuel and oil than
| the latter when put TO work English trains
The London and North Westerns total tonnage
OF freight last year was Al ,22a $50. 10 carry
! that traffic ii drew IFS road 2ol l49 $50
| tons, or 1fG9l9,4 400 tons Of dead weight while
| the Americans would have moved the same
/ amount OF freight with n carriage OF only 90
| 4s6.o66 tons OF dead weight thus saving the
expense of hauling 14I, ,432 S54 tons, besides the
| wear and tear OF tha. unnecessary burden on