CHAPTER XXVII.

COMPARATIVE COST OF WATER AND LAND TRANSPORT. There is no matter connected with the trade and commerce of a country that is of greater importance to its welfare than cheap transport. The business of transportation, both by land and by sea, is now one of the most gigantic in the history of the world. The railways of the United Kingdom received in 1887, for the transport of goods and passengers together, not less than 71 millions sterling, which is approximately about 6 per cent. of the whole national income from all sources. The railways of the United States in the same year had a total income of about 1000 millions of dollars, or 200 millions sterling, which is probably a still larger percentage of the total income of that country. It is the same in other European countries. Transportation is becoming a larger factor than before in the income and expenditure of all civilised nations. The same considerations apply to the over-sea trade. The tonnage of vessels that entered and cleared from British ports in the foreign trade of 1889 was over 67 millions of tons, which would probably represent at least as many millions sterling for freights. In addition to this enormous business in the over-sea trade, our coasting trade was represented in 1889 by over 90 million tons of entrances and clearances, which would probably add 20 to 25 millions additional to the gross income of our shipping interest, bringing up the total tonnage that entered and cleared from our ports in 1889 to 157 millions, and the gross income resulting from the business of transportation by sea to, approximately, about 90 millions sterling. The United States have no such record as this to show for their foreign trade, their foreign entrances and clearances for 1888 having amounted to only 31 millions of tons. But the internal trade of the United States, on the lakes, rivers, and canals, will probably be at least double this figure, so that the traffic dealt with is enormous. The foreign trade of the United States has more than trebled since 1864, and is still increasing at a very rapid rate. These figures are quoted in order that the vast character of this business of transportation, and its consequent importance, may be duly appreciated. Manifestly, it is of great moment that the technical conditions which influence the cost of transport should be as perfect as possible, and that the most economical methods of carrying on the business of a country from this point of view, should be put into operation. There is, however, a great absence of agreement, even among experts, as to what those conditions are, resulting, no doubt, from the great variety of circumstances by which they are governed. On land, the cost of haulage is necessarily determined by such considerations as the cost of fuel, the proportions of tare to live load, the character of the gradients, the adaptability of the rolling stock to the traffic, and other elements of a more or less technical description. These introduce so much variety of experience, and such conflict of results, that the cost of transport is seldom or never in any two cases exactly the same; and the figures that would be given by one authority on the subject would probably be disputed by another, so that it is to this day, after the railway system has been at work for over sixty years, and has become the dominating factor in our commercial, social, and political organisation, an extremely difficult matter to arrive at reliable data, or, at any rate, at such data as would be generally accepted as correct, relative to the actual cost of transport under given conditions. It may, of course, be argued that the actual charges imposed by the railway companies is a likely criterion of the cost of the service. But there could hardly be a greater fallacy. In the United Kingdom the railway companies openly proclaim that the amount that a particular traffic will bear, and not the cost of the services rendered, is their basis of charge.[234] In no two countries, moreover, are the charges even approximately the same, and finally the charges vary in the same country, and vary considerably from year to year. As an example, it may be remarked that in the United States the average freight charge per ton per mile in 1887 was only 1·06 cents, or roughly a halfpenny per ton per mile, for all kinds of traffic, whereas in 1868 it was as much as 2·45 cents, or 1·22_d._ per ton per mile.[235] It is not pretended, of course, that this striking difference represents the difference that has, in the interval, occurred in the actual cost of transport. That the cost of transport has been reduced goes without saying, but the American railways are also now content to accept much smaller profits than formerly. In the United Kingdom, however, the average ton-mile rates for the transport of railway traffic are much higher than in the United States, or in any of the principal countries of the Continent. This higher rate of charge is defended on the ground that the cost of railways has in England been much higher than in any other country. The charges are fixed, therefore, not according to the actual cost of the haulage and working of the traffic, but according to the amount required to perform that operation, plus the payment of dividends upon an abnormally, and, as some think, unnecessarily and unjustifiably, large capital outlay.[236] Under these circumstances, there has been a constant conflict between the traders and the railway companies relative to traffic charges. The trading community has naturally been desirous of paying only for services actually rendered, and have sought to ascertain what those services have cost. The railways, however—at any rate in the United Kingdom—have withheld this information, and as they have also declined, in the main, to bring down their charges to a level that would give traders more chance in competition with foreign countries, the latter have in some directions sought to fall back upon water transport, which is generally believed to be a cheaper mode of transport than that provided by any railway, however cheaply constructed or well managed. Even, however, in the matter of water transport there are differences that appear to render perfectly hopeless any attempt to ascertain what is the actual cost of working per unit of traffic, and what is, accordingly, the charges that the traffic ought to be called on to pay. It will be found that this cost, like that of railway transport, is affected by many elements—by the size of the canal and of the vessels employed, by the number of locks and their mechanical arrangements, by the rate of speed, by the system of traction employed, and by other obvious differences that we shall refer to later on. It is these differences, and their effect on the cost of working canal traffic, and on the consequent rates charged, that we now propose to consider. In the annals of transportation, there is no more interesting chapter than that which deals with the contest that has been carried on for nearly half a century, between the railways and the lakes and canals for the grain traffic between Chicago and New York. This contest is interesting, not only to Americans, as the people who are engaged in it, and whom it more directly concerns; but also to the people of Europe, and of Great Britain in particular, the cost of whose food supplies is affected thereby. Up to the end of 1874, the rate charged by railways for the transport of grain from Chicago to New York was seldom under 50 cents per 100 lbs., which is equivalent to about ·58_d._ per ton per mile—taking the distance at 950 miles. Ten years previously the average rate was rather more than double this amount. But from 1875 onwards there commenced what is called a “war of rates,” in the course of which the cost of transportation was subject to the most sudden and violent fluctuations, apparently without the slightest reason or excuse, except that of the caprice of the competing companies. Thus, in 1879, the year started with a rate of 85 cents, which fell in February to 20, in April to 15, and in May to 10 cents per 100 lbs., the latter rate being exactly sixteen times more than the rate which obtained in January 1865. By the end of the year, the rate had risen again to 40 cents, and in 1880 it never fell below 30 cents. In 1881 the maximum was 40 and the minimum 12 cents; in 1882 the extremes were 30 and 12½cents; in 1883 there was only a difference of 5 cents in the recorded maximum and minimum; and in 1884 the fluctuations ranged between 15 and 30 cents.[237] At the lowest rate quoted over this period—the 10 cent rate of May 1879—the railways were actually carrying grain between Chicago and New York for rather over 0·11_d._ per ton per mile. At the same rate of transport, goods should be carried between London and Edinburgh for 3_s._ 8_d._ per ton, a fact which will perhaps bring home to the British trader what such a low rate would mean to him. The average rate over the last three or four years has, however, been about double this figure, while for the American railways as a whole it has been nearly four times as much. The promoters of the improved Erie Canal claim that the cost of transport of wheat between Chicago and Buffalo by the large steamers that now navigate the lakes is now only 2 cents a bushel, or 8_d._ per quarter for a distance of about 800 miles. The remainder of the distance between Chicago and New York being by canal, the cost of transport has been over 4 cents per bushel for about 400 miles, being more than twice the cost, with more than twice the time in transit, for only one-half the distance. The circumstances of the Erie Canal are, however, exceptional. Seldom, indeed, do railway freights run so low as they do on the 950 miles of railway that separate Chicago from New York. Over this distance, the great trunk lines have recently been carrying freight at the rate of 15 cents, or 7½_d._ per 100 lbs.[238] This is equivalent to about 14_s._ per ton, or exactly 0·174_d._ per ton per mile. There is probably no such low rates for railway transport in the world. But this low rate is due entirely to the competition of the lakes, rivers, and canals. It is very exceptional even in the United States. The average rate charged for transport in the United States in 1888 was ·45_d._ per ton per mile,[239] which is 164 per cent. more than the Chicago to New York rate already quoted. The railway companies do not admit that the competition of the canals was the cause of the remarkable difference here shown, but allege that it was due to “the very active competition that existed among the three main lines of railroad all striving for the business.” This has been an element in the case, without doubt; but no one who is familiar with railway pools, conferences, and arrangements, is likely to suppose that if the water route had been closed, the railways would have continued rates that were most probably highly unremunerative, notwithstanding that 1131 tons of paying freight have been brought from Buffalo to New York in one train.[240] Mr. W. Shelford points out[241] that in the United States one half of the exports of wheat are from districts whose nearest point is 1400 miles from the Atlantic seaboard. This wheat is carried by water and rail, which are in independent hands, and form alternative routes. The routes between Chicago and New York are:—Rail, 912-990, say 950 miles; water, lakes, 985 miles; river and canal, 420-1405 miles; that is, the water route is 50 per cent. longer than the railway. Yet the water route rules the rate, because the water transport costs ⅛_d._ per ton per mile, while the railway transport costs nearly ⅕_d._ per ton per mile, and the total rate by water between Chicago and New York is two-thirds of the rate by rail. So far, there is a _prima facie_ case in favour of canals. But if the cost of transport by water be taken separately for the lakes and Erie Canal, it appears that the cost on the lakes is 1/12_d._ per ton per mile, and the cost on the Erie Canal and Hudson River is ⅙_d._ per ton per mile, so that the cost of transport on the Erie Canal is double that on the lakes, and is nearly the same as the transport by railway. Notwithstanding the very low rates charged for transport on the canals of the United States, the Interstate Commerce Commission reported in 1887 that “the experience of the country has demonstrated that the artificial waterways cannot be successful competitors with the railways upon equal terms.” The transport of wheat grown in the Western States of America, between Chicago and New York is the largest business of its kind in that country. There are in the United States between 35 and 40 millions of acres of land under wheat crops, an area about one-half that of the whole surface of England, Ireland, and Scotland. On this vast area there was grown, in 1886, 459¼ millions of bushels of wheat, and of this quantity 129½ millions of bushels were transported from Chicago, the great warehousing centre, to New York, in the proportions of over 46 millions by canal and river and over 80 millions by railway. For many years there has been a great scramble for this traffic between the two rival systems of transportation. The predominance has lain now with the railway and then with the canal, and both, as we have seen, have had to reduce their rates from time to time in order that they might have their share of the traffic. The fluctuations in the quantities carried by the two systems within recent years have been remarkable. In 1881 only 38 millions of bushels out of a total of 139¾ millions were carried by canal, but in 1887 the canals carried 46 millions out of 127½, showing a remarkable advance in the interval. This advance is, no doubt, mainly due to the fact that in 1883 the tolls on the New York State canals were abolished.[242] Appended is a table showing the estimated cost of transportation of freight between Buffalo and New York (400 miles) by different systems of water conveyance, inclusive of tolls,[243]—(From the Report of State Engineer of New York for 1878.) ───────────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────┬────────── │ Cost per │ Mills. │Per Bushel │ Ton. │ │ of Wheat. ├──────────┼──────────┼────────── │ │ per │ │ dols. │ ton mile.│ cents. By animal power │ 8·96 │ 4·53 │ 7·37 By Baxter steamers[244] │ 9·04 │ 4·58 │ 7·45 By Belgian system[245] │ 8·32 │ 4·21 │ 6·91 Do. do.[246] │ 7·76 │ 3·92 │ 6·48 By steamer and consort[247]│ 7·68 │ 3·88 │ 6·41 Do. do.[248] │ 7·56 │ 3·83 │ 6·34 ───────────────────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴─────────── The economists and engineers of Germany have devoted a considerable amount of attention to the question of the cost of transport by water as compared with the cost of railway transport. For such an inquiry they have had ample facilities, having not only an economically-worked railway system, but having also several navigable rivers, on which a large traffic is carried, in addition to their system of canals. The results which have been brought out by these inquiries are instructive, if they are not final. Their effect has been to create a very considerable agitation in Germany on behalf of additional waterways, which are described as essential to the transport of heavy traffic, and which the Government has taken up as a measure of State. Hitherto, however, the amount of traffic carried on the waterways of Germany has been very much less than the traffic carried upon the railways, thus confirming the experience of the United States, Great Britain, and France, in so far as it shows that cheapness of cost of transport is not the one thing needful. The quantity of traffic carried over the German navigable ways in 1884 is estimated to have been close on 19½ millions of tons.[249] In the same year the total quantity of traffic carried over the railways of Germany amounted to 107 millions of tons, so that the railways carried 5½ times more than the waterways. For other countries the proportions of the total traffic carried in the same year were as follows:— ┌──────────────┬─────────┬────────────┐ │ │Railways.│ Waterways.│ │ ├─────────┼────────────┤ │ │ tons. │ tons. │ │United States │ │ │ │France │ .. │ 30,000,000 │ │Belgium │ .. │ 20,000,000 │ └──────────────┴─────────┴────────────┘ There does not exist any exact information as to the quantity of traffic carried on English canals. C. von Scherzer has put the quantity at 30 to 35 millions of tons.[250] This, however, is only conjecture. There is no authoritative record of the extent of canal traffic in this country, and no estimate of the tonnage actually carried was even attempted by the Canal Committee of 1883. A canal from the Westphalian coal district to Emden having recently been projected, a German economist was led to compare the cost of carriage upon canals and on a single-line mineral railway with few stations and a small staff. Assuming eight trains of sixty loaded waggons per day to the port, of which twelve are returned loaded, and a cost of 6000_l._ per kilometre for building the line, as actually incurred for similar lines in the district, he calculated the cost per train-kilometre as follows:— _d._ Repairs and renewals of locomotives 1·20 Fuel 2·40 Cleaning, oil, &c. 0·54 Repairs, and renewals of wagons 2·88 Lighting and heating of guard’s van 0·02 Drivers’ wages, including mileage 1·41 Guards and brakesmen’s wages, including mileage 2·46 Inspection, &c., of rolling stock 0·13 Station-service 3·12 Permanent-way, repairs, and signalmen 4·32 General management 1·56 Interest on capital account for line, locomotives, and wagons, at 4 per cent. 14·52 ────── Total 34·56_d._ 34·56 or ────── = 0·096_d._ per ton-kilometre = 0·16_d._ per ton mile. 3·60 The carriage on the Elbe canals costs 0·35_d._ per ton-mile, and on the canal from the Belgian coalfields to Paris the rate was 0·29_d._ in the spring and 0·34_d._ in the autumn of 1883, without paying interest.[251] These figures do not, however, appear to agree with those found to work out in similar cases elsewhere. On the Aire and Calder Canal, for example, steamboat trains of barges, recently introduced by Mr. Bartholomew, have reduced the cost of haulage with a speed of 4½ to 6 miles per hour to 1/119th of a penny per ton per mile for minerals, and 1/34th of a penny per ton per mile for general merchandise, including return empties.[252] On the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, however, the cost of steam haulage, towing two 40-ton barges, fully loaded, has been given at ⅙ penny per ton per mile, and on the Gloucester Canal the charge for steam towing is given at 1/10th penny per ton per mile. _Cost of Horse Towing._—On two Belgian canals, the Louvain and the Charleroi, horses are employed for towing. The Louvain Canal is semi-maritime, with 3½ metres = 11½ feet depth of water, and runs north-west from Louvain to the river Senne, which flows into the Rupel about 1 kilom. or ⅝th of a mile further north-west. Its length is 30 kilom. = 18¾ miles, divided into five levels; the total tonnage of the boats and ships passing through it in 1878 was estimated at 273,000 tons, and the charge for towing averages 6 millimes per tonne-kilom. = 0·093 penny per ton per mile. The Charleroi Canal, winding northwards from Charleroi to Brussels by a circuitous route of 75 kilom. = 47 miles, is of small section, and its boats carry only 70 tons; hence the charge for towing is higher, amounting to 8 millimes per tonne-kilom. = 0·125 penny per ton per mile. Including the return of empties, a recent writer has estimated that horse towing might be done on free canals for 5 millimes per tonne-kilom. = 0·078 penny per ton per mile. _Cost of Steam-towing._—On the Willebroeck Canal, which runs north from Brussels past Willebroeck and enters the river Rupel opposite Boom, all boats, except steamers, are towed by a steam tug working on a chain. The length of the canal is 28 kilom. = 17½ miles, divided into five levels; and the locks are large enough to take in six or seven boats at a time, along with their tug. The towing is done by a company, from whose scale of charges and year’s balance-sheet a recent writer has calculated 0·078 penny per ton per mile as the price paid for towing, the total annual traffic amounting to about 15,400,000 ton-miles. But if the actual dividends were reduced to the rate of four per cent., which prevails for Belgian Government securities, and if certain economies were effected which are believed to be practicable, the charge for towing might be brought down to 0·047 penny per ton per mile, including empties.[253] The 110-ton boats in general use by the carriers on the Willebroeck Canal make weekly the double journey from Brussels to Antwerp and back. The distance by the canal, the Rupel, and the Scheldt, is 45 × 2 = 90 kilom. = 56 miles there and back. The boatman gets 70 francs = 56_s._ per week for himself and his boat. With a full load both ways, this would give 7 millimes per tonne-kilom. = 0·109 penny per ton per mile. When the Charleroi Canal is enlarged, a large traffic right through from Charleroi to Antwerp is anticipated, a distance of 120 kilom. = 75 miles. A single journey per week would then bring the cost down to 5·2 millimes = 0·081 penny. German estimates by Dr. Meitzen range from 4·8 to 6·4 millimes = 0·075 to 0·100 penny; whence 5 millimes per tonne-kilom. = 0·078 penny per ton per mile has been calculated as the cost of boats and boatmen, with a full load both ways, travelling 17 kilom. or 11 miles per day, including all stoppages. After all, however, there is no case of cheap transport rates abroad that is more remarkable than the rate of sixpence per ton charged for the transport of salt on the river Weaver, between Northwich and the Mersey—a distance of thirty-six miles. This corresponds to an average of ·17_d._ per ton per mile. In 1888, 265 vessels were trading on the river Weaver, not including canal boats, 65 of these being steamers. These made an average of 25 trips per day, carrying a gross tonnage of 1,300,000 tons per annum, chiefly salt. The rates charged vary from a penny per ton for cinders and gravel, to a shilling per ton for white salt—rock salt, which is the staple, being charged sixpence per ton. No charge is made for dock dues, and vessels are towed up the Mersey free of cost. _Sea-transport._—There is, of course, no system of transport that is so cheap as that of ocean carrying. The rates of freight now ruling for ocean transport, low though they be, are not by any means a true criterion of the actual charges involved. Thus, it appears that at a recent date, a large quantity of grain was carried between European and United States ports for 10_s._ per ton, or ·04_d._ per ton per mile. Between Newcastle-on-Tyne and German ports, coal cargoes have been carried rather largely for about 4_s._ 10_d._ or ·12_d._ per ton per mile. Between North Sea and Baltic ports freights have ruled over considerable periods at 5_s._ per ton, or between ·04_d._ and ·08_d._ per ton per mile. The daily expenses of a large steamer may be taken at about sixpence per ton register, and as such a steamer will run from 190 to 250 miles per day, the actual cost of transport will probably not exceed ·03_d._ per ton per mile, which, however, will be increased by port stoppages, and other inevitable circumstances to ·05_d._ Mr. Bailey has ascertained that the transport of a cargo of 2360 tons of cargo, in an ordinary steamer, allowing for interest, depreciation, insurance, fuel, wages, and food, was only one penny per forty miles of journey.[254] This figure seems, no doubt, to be exceptionally low, but of course much would depend upon the condition of the steamer and the character of the cargo. The Erie Canal charges for sea transport are only 1/18 penny per ton per mile, as compared with ¼ penny on the canal. This may, perhaps, be accepted as the measure of the differences in the cost of transport, and, if so, it would mean that the cost of working canal traffic is about four and a half times that of working such traffic on the sea. This figure is verified by many others, which are worthy of consideration. On lakes like Erie, Ontario, and Superior, the traffic costs more to work than on the sea, but less than it costs on canals. The Erie Canal charge for lake transport is 1/9_d._ per ton per mile, being twice the amount charged for sea transport Theoretically, there is no sound reason why a modern steamship on a sufficiently large tide-level canal should not transport traffic almost at the same rate as it can do on the ocean. The resistance on the canal would be less than that usually met with at sea, but, on the other hand, the dangers of steaming too quickly compel a slow rate of speed. The actual cost of transport at sea has been variously put at from 0·03 to 0·07 per ton per mile. This does not probably include interest on capital and wear and tear, although the steamers in the Transatlantic trade were content over a long period to accept rates of freight which averaged no more than 0·04_d_. per ton per mile. If this rate of freight were possible on inland waterways for our heavy traffic, it would make a wonderful difference in the total cost of transport in the United Kingdom. In 1888, there were 200 millions of tons of minerals carried in the United Kingdom alone. The total receipts from this traffic amounted to rather over 16 millions sterling, which, taking an average of a penny per ton all round, would be equivalent to 3700 millions of ton miles. If this enormous traffic were carried by canal, as it possibly might be (or at least the greater part of it) for ·25_d._ per ton per mile, there would be a possible gain to the trade of the country of 7¾ millions sterling per annum. As things are at present, the trader who desires to make use of canal navigation in Great Britain is compelled to deal with a number of small companies, every one of which has its own rate of toll, and none of which is disposed to give too much facility to the others. Thus, a trader desiring to send iron-work from London to Liverpool, or _vice versâ_ by canal, would have to deal with no fewer than six canals, who charge tolls varying from 2_d._ to 1_s._ 9_d._ per ton[255] to Preston Brook within 20 miles of Liverpool. If, however, the traffic is to be carried 20 miles further, it has to be transhipped into larger craft, and carried on the Bridgwater Canal, the owners of which charge 7_s._ 6_d._ per ton, or more by 2_s._ 4_d._ than the other six companies charge for the whole of the distance of 220¼ miles over which they have carried the goods. It is not, therefore, surprising that the canals compare unfavourably with railways, instead of being more favourable to the trader. For the transport of iron-work, the canal companies now make a charge of 20_s._ or more per ton between London and Liverpool,[256] which is at the rate of over a penny per ton per mile. This is not only a prohibitory rate, but it is one that is quite unjustifiable. The actual cost of transport, including all charges, is seldom, as we have seen, more than three-tenths of a penny on English waterways. In the case of steam colliers it has been given as 0·15_d._; in the case of steam barges on the river Lea, it is 0·33_d._; and on the French canals it is 0·38_d._[257] In the case of ocean steam navigation, the cost of transport is so much lower that an ocean steamer often conveys cargo across the Atlantic for about one half the price at which cargo is carried from London to Liverpool by canal, although the distance in the former case is about seventeen times that in the latter. In Germany again, where much more effectual use is made of the inland waterways than in England, the rate varies from ·18 to ·48 of a penny per ton per mile.[258] Hence, it is not surprising that in Germany “for valuable goods a preference is shown for water over railway transport.” There, we are told, that “artificial waterways carry the mass of cheap goods for two-thirds of the regular railway tariff, and valuable goods for one-third or two-thirds of this tariff.[259] It is the same in other continental countries. At present, our canal traders are paying four times the amount they require to do for the carriage of their heavy goods between our largest centres of population. The case of the traffic between London and Liverpool is only typical of the trade of the country generally. Between the Lancashire coalfield and the metropolis, the railway charge for transport is about 7_s._ per ton. By the canal it should, as we have seen, be brought, with a profit of 25 per cent. to the transportation agency, for a fraction over 2_s._ 6_d._; and when we consider that the metropolis now receives about eight million tons of coal annually by railway, this difference should exercise a sensible influence on the trade of that part of the kingdom. The great secret of cheap transportation is to handle and carry large quantities. It is this, and this only, that has enabled the United States to achieve such remarkably cheap transport, both on railways and canals—on land and on water. In 1850 the capacity of the trains which carried grain from Chicago to New York was only twenty-five cars or waggons, carrying eight tons each, or a total train-load of about 200 tons. It is now, however, no uncommon thing to see train loads of 1000 to 1200 tons between Buffalo and New York. In 1850 the largest craft employed for transporting traffic on the lakes and rivers between Chicago and New York did not exceed 600 tons, whereas now the maximum is not less than 3000 tons.[260] In both cases the maximum load has been increased to five times as much as it was in 1850. Mr. Conder[261] has pointed out that a feature of prime importance in which the economy of transport by canal differs from that by railway, is the incidence of the expenses of maintenance. The cost of railway maintenance, as soon as anything like an adequate amount of traffic is brought on a line, is remarkably steady, rising and falling, to a certain extent, with the increase or diminution of the volume of transport. On canals, the fixed expenses demand, in any case, a certain cost, and this cost is very little increased by a large increase of traffic. The annual cost of maintenance in the Suez Canal was actually less from 1876 to 1881 than it had been from 1871 to 1876. But the traffic had considerably more than doubled, so that the cost of maintenance per ton per mile fell from 0·35_d._ to 0·134_d._ Bearing in mind this peculiar feature of water traffic, it is necessary, in speaking of the cost of transport by canal, to indicate the approximate amount of transport for which the calculation is made. Mr. Conder[262] holds that a traffic of 600,000 units of net load may be taken for this purpose, though it is far beneath the capacity of a canal of very moderate size. At this amount of duty, in order to allow a dividend of 4¼ per cent. on the capital cost, the rate of freight on an ordinary English canal comes to 154_l._ per 100,000 units, or 0·37_d._ per ton per mile. On the French canals, providing for sinking fund as well as interest, the cost of freight is 0·33_d._ per ton per mile. In Belgium it is reduced to 0·20_d._, and on the lake and large canal navigations of the United States to 0·10_d._ But on the Aire and Calder Canal, where very special arrangements have been made for the transport of coal, it was stated in evidence before the Select Committee on Canals, that the cost of freight has been reduced to the very low figure of 0·05_d._ per ton per mile. On English railways coal transport is charged for at the rate of 0·5_d._ to 1_d._ per ton per mile. Mr. Conder has further estimated that in order to obtain the mean return of 4¼ per cent. on capital, which is all that the English railways have secured since they stopped the canal traffic, the normal charge must be, for passengers 0·67_d._ each, for goods 1·164_d._, and for minerals 1·838_d._ per ton per mile.[263] He adds that the charge at which the long coal traffic is conveyed to London from Wales, over the Great Western Railway, is 0·43_d._ per ton per mile; the loss to the Company being to some extent recouped by charges of from 1·5_d._ to 1·75_d._ per ton per mile made to those towns which have no alternative means of supply. The positive loss to the Company is thus about 0·4_d._ per ton per mile, and about one-half that loss is inflicted on the purchasers or freighters.[264] It is only right to point out that Mr. Conder’s calculations are not accepted by railway managers, nor endorsed by independent experts. Mr. Price Williams, a well-known railway engineer, who has very closely investigated this subject, has come to the conclusion that railway companies can carry coal on an ordinary road at about 0·25_d._ per ton per mile, including return empties. This, however, is merely the cost of haulage, and it must, of course, be added to the cost of management, depreciation, interest, &c., before the exact figure is capable of ascertainment. There is, however, even more authoritative evidence as to the actual cost of mineral traffic to the railway companies. Sir James Allport has had the candour to admit[265] that on the Midland Railway it is about 2_s._ 6_d._ per train mile with a train of 320 to 350 tons, which corresponds to rather under 0·2_d._ per ton per mile. This has been confirmed from other railway quarters. FOOTNOTES: [234] Mr. Grierson, in his work on ‘Railway Rates’ (p. 68) remarks that the railway companies aim at making rates conform “to the requirements of trade, or according to a popular expression, to charge what the traffic will bear.” [235] Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1888, pp. 185-188. [236] In 1888 the average capital per mile of railway open in the United Kingdom was 43,210_l._, but for England and Wales alone the expenditure per mile was about 50,00_l._ In the United States the cost of construction and equipment per mile of railway open in 1888 was 52,699 dollars, or roughly, 10,600_l._ [237] The rates have been taken from an interesting table published in the _Railroad Gazette_—an admirable and ably conducted paper—of January 9th, 1885. It is to be observed that down to 1879 the rates were quoted in a depreciated and fluctuating currency. [238] Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. xiv., p. 44. [239] According to the returns published by Poor, the total tonnage carried was 589½ million tons, and the number of ton miles was 70,423 millions. The gross receipts from freight were 639½ million dollars, and by dividing the ton-miles into the gross receipts, we get at the approximate ton-mile average. [240] Trans. Am. Soc. C. E., vol. xiv., p. 50. [241] Report of the Conference on canal navigation at the Society of Arts, 1888. [242] According to the “Statistical Abstract of the United States” for 1887, the rates on the principal trunk railroads and the New York State canals at different periods were respectively:— ┌───────┬──────────┬─────────┐ │ Year. │ Railroad.│ Canal │ │ │ Average. │ Average.│ ├───────┼──────────┼─────────┤ │ │ cents. │ cents. │ │ 1868 │ 2·45 │ ·87 │ │ 1878 │ 1·40 │ ·42 │ │ 1880 │ 1·29 │ ·49 │ │ 1882 │ 1·18 │ ·42 │ └───────┴──────────┴─────────┘ [243] Tolls, 1·04 cent.; elevating at New York, ½ cent.; trimming, 15/100 cent. [244] Simple steamers propelled by screws. [245] Cable in bottom of canal; steamer and tow. [246] Cable in bottom of canal; steamer and tow. [247] Screw steamer pushing consort ahead, both loaded. [248] Screw steamer pushing consort ahead, both loaded. [249] The details are as under:— Tons. Basin of East Prussia, Niemen, Vistula, Pregel, and Passarge 2,227,000 Basin of the Oder 861,000 ” ” Elbe 7,767,000 ” ” Weser 218,000 ” ” Ems 176,000 ” ” Rhine 7,565,000 Lake of Constance 338,000 Basin of the Danube 210,000 ────────── 19,362,000 ══════════ [250] C. von Scherzer’s ‘Economic Life of Nations.’ [251] Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 78, p. 485. [252] Ald. Bailey’s address to the Manchester Association of Engineers, January 1886. [253] Pro. I.C.E., vol. 78. [254] Address to the Manchester Association of Engineers, p. 19. [255] The tolls are as under:— ───────────────┬───────┬────────┬────────── │ │ │ Total Canal. │ Per │ Miles. │ per Ton │ Ton. │ │ per Mile. ───────────────┼───────┼────────┼────────── │_s. d._│ │ _d_. Grand Junction │ 1 8 │ 96 │ ⅕ Oxford │ 0 8 │ 24 │ ⅓ Coventry │ 0 5½ │ 22¼ │ ¼ Birmingham │ 0 5¼ │ 5½ │ 1 Coventry │ 0 2 │ 5½ │ ⅓ North Stafford │ 1 9 │ 67 │ ⅓ ├───────┼────────┤ Total │ 7 6 │ 220¼ │ ───────────────┴───────┴────────┴────────── [256] The principal elements of this charge are:— Per Ton. _s. d._ Actual cost of transport 10 0 Tolls from London to Preston Brook 5 2 Bridgwater Company’s charges 5 _s._ 6 _d._ to 7 6 [257] Appendix to ‘Report of Select Committee on Canals,’ p. 236. [258] The inland navigation rates of Germany are established according to the following scale (‘Journal of Statistical Society, 1888,’ p. 391):— Per Ton per Mile. (_a_) Goods in bulk, loaded in boats and towed in trains ·18_d._ to ·29_d._ (_b_) Goods in bales, towed in trains ·24_d._ to ·38_d._ (_c_) Goods in bales, carried by steam carriers ·39_d._ to 1·0_d._ [259] ‘Bulletin du Ministère de travaux publics,’ Nov. 1887. [260] ‘Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,’ vol. xiv. p. 55. [261] Paper on “Inland Transport in the Nineteenth Century by Land and by Water,” ‘Journal of the Society of Arts,’ 1888. [262] Ibid. [263] Report on Wilts and Berks Canal, 1882. [264] Paper on “Inland Transport in the Nineteenth Century by Land and by Water.” By F. R. Conder. [265] Select Committee on Canals, Report, 1883.