| Distance. Miles. | Rate per ton, S to S. | Rate per cwt. | Rate per lb. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banbury | 76 | 8/9 | 5¼ | ·047 |
| York | 188 | 15/- | 9 | ·080 |
| Selby | 174 | 13/4 | 8 | ·071 |
| Chippenham | 94 | 10/10 | 6½ | ·058 |
| Aberdeen | 516 | 30/- | 1/6 | ·160 |
| Sunderland | 269 | 18/4 | 11 | ·098 |
Green Vegetables are carried from Cookham to London, 27 miles, at 11/8 per ton, C. & D. in one ton lots, or 7d. per cwt.
Bacon is carried from Calne to London, 99 miles, in one ton lots at 22/6 per ton; 1/1½d. per cwt., or ·12d. per lb.
Cheese is carried from Chippenham to London, 94 miles, at 27/6 per ton, ¼½ per cwt., or ·147d. per lb.; and from Cirencester to London, 95 miles, at 23/4 per ton, ½ per cwt., or ·125d. per lb.
Milk is carried from Shrivenham to London, 72 miles } for 1d. per imperial
” Swindon ” 77 ” } gallon.
Fish is carried to London at the following rates (per lb.):—
A = By Passenger Train
B = By Goods Train.
| Description. | Wick. 749 Miles. | Whitby. 244 Miles. | Grimsby. 154 Miles. | ||||
| A | B | A | B | A | B | ||
| d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | ||
| Class 1.—Cured Cod, Ling and White Herrings in brine. | 0·27 | 0·16 | 0·14 | minimum 1 cwt. | |||
Class 2. Cured Red Herrings and all other salted or dried fish (except Cod and Ling) | 0·27 | 0·18 | 0·16 | ||||
Class 3. Crabs, Fresh Cod, Ling, Haddocks, Whiting, Skate, Halibut, Mackerel, Plaice and Coal Fish; Eels, Flounders, Sprats in any state. | 0·29 | 0·21 | 0·18 | The rates for classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 include collection and delivery. The rates for classes 3a, 4a, and 5, are S. to S. | |||
Class 3a.—Ditto ditto | 0·43 | 0·21 | 0·18 | ||||
Class 4.—Salmon(in boxes) and Soles, Oysters, Lobsters, and Shellfish, not otherwise classified. | 0·40 | 0·29 | 0·25 | ||||
Class 4a.—Ditto ditto | 0·54 | 0·29 | 0·25 | ||||
Class 5.—Fresh Fish of all descriptions, not otherwise classified. | 0·70 | 0·29 | 0·25 | ||||
We now touch a question which comprehends most of those already discussed. When it is stated, as it often is, that the rates charged by the railway companies in this country are generally too high, what exactly is meant? Is it contended that shareholders should be content with smaller dividends than they receive? Let us note the facts. The average dividend in the year 1884 was only 4¼ per cent.; in 1844 it was considered by the Legislature that, at least, 10 per cent. should be earned by the shareholders. In the United Kingdom the average rate of dividend paid during the last 14 years on the capital expended on the construction of railways—which, as already shown, was, at the end of 1884, £801,464,367, and in England and Wales £665,055,379—was only 4·38 per cent. For the year 1884, out of a total of £298,980,000 of ordinary capital, £48,000,000 paid no dividend at all. As an illustration of the moderate return on the shareholders’ capital, it may be mentioned that the Great Western Railway Company, which owns, or jointly owns, 2,496 miles of railway, has during the last 30 years only paid an average dividend of £3 15s. per cent. per annum.
The meaning of the statement cannot be that, as compared with the dividends of other industrial companies, those of railways are too high. The facts are all the other way.
If a comparison is made of the percentage on capital earned by Banks, Insurance, Gas and Water Companies, some of which possess monopolies in a strict legal sense, and not merely in the loose popular acceptation of the word, as applied to railways, it will be seen that these returns are far in excess of those derived from railway capital; that not only is the average dividend, but the maximum dividend higher, and that there are fewer instances of shareholders obtaining no returns. Upwards of sixty Banks pay dividends ranging from 10 to 15 per cent., and twenty from 15 to 20 per cent.; thirty-four Insurance Companies pay from 10 to 15 per cent., and twenty-three over 15 per cent.; and ninety-three Gas and Water Companies pay dividends ranging from 5 to 15 per cent. The average dividends of Banks are 11·83 per cent., of Insurance Companies 12·45 per cent., of Gas Companies 10 per cent., and of Water Companies 5·73 per cent. In face of the above figures, and of the prospects which were held out to those who invested the capital with which the railways have been constructed, it will probably not be directly contended that the present dividend of less than 4¼ per cent, is a sufficient return on railway property. Nor is such an income fixed. There is no inconsiderable uncertainty affecting the income and the net return from the working of railways.
It is alleged that the railway system is not properly managed, and that in some way—how it is rarely explained—the railways might be more profitably worked; that even if considerably reduced rates were charged, as good, or a better, dividend might be earned; or that as a consequence of reducing rates such additional traffic would be carried that the loss would be more than covered by the increased trade. Now, no doubt undue competition between companies exists. The largest possible amount of net revenue is not always obtained. But such an admission affords little encouragement. Here something more than vague general statements are needed; it is incumbent on those who call for a great change to produce facts justifying an expectation that, consistently with a reasonable dividend, a considerable reduction can be made in the rates for merchandise. No attempt has ever been made to show that this can be done, and experience is against it. The most plausible argument is, that by reducing rates the present trade would be considerably increased, that new sources of traffic would be created, and that the companies would be more than recouped the loss which they would sustain by any falling off in the receipts on their traffic. This prospect was held out by the late President of the Board of Trade in introducing the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill. He justified his expectations by stating that the companies who had adopted a cheap passenger system, had reaped great advantages therefrom. Few of them will consider this illustration to be fortunate. Even, however, if the result of the changes in passenger fares had been generally as beneficial as Mr. Mundella seems to have supposed, no comparison can be drawn between carrying a greater number of passengers in trains only partly filled, and conveying additional mineral and goods traffic by trains which must necessarily entail additional mileage and all the attendant expenses. Take, for instance, coal carried at ·50d. per ton per mile and that the rate is reduced to ·45d.; that is a reduction of 10 per cent. in the rate. Assume a train of 240 tons and 1s. 6d. per train mile each way—that is for the loaded and return empty wagons—as the average cost of haulage and maintenance of way, it would require an increase of 16·6 per cent. in the traffic, to leave a railway in the same position as it was before.
The result of such a course as is recommended would be, to say the least, problematical, as the suggested reasons for it are not unknown to the managers of railway companies, and have been carefully considered by them.