And, supposing that you should be willing to adopt the less favourable method of railway transmission—i.e. levels and steep inclined planes, with fixed engines on the summits—still might not expense be very greatly reduced?
The original estimate of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was 400,000l., about 12,000l. per mile that is; with respect to which the Quarterly Review for March 1825 says: “The estimate for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway we have understood to be taken at 12,000l. per mile. But that road is meant to be executed on a magnificent scale; to be sixty-six feet wide; [6] the rails to be laid down in the best possible manner; and the purchase of land at the extremities must be paid for at an enormous price. This estimate also includes the cost of engines, waggons, and warehouses.”
Most unwisely, however, as well as untruly, the advocates of railways attempt to deny, that the original estimate for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was so low as this, or that it included the “cost of engines, waggons, and warehouses;” in order to show that the actual cost of the railways now contemplated will not exceed their estimated expense, as the actual cost of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway has exceeded that estimate. For the facts of the case I appeal to the original prospectus of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, dated October 29, 1824; the 5th paragraph of which document is as follows:—
“The ground has been surveyed by eminent engineers, and the estimated expense of a railroad upon the most improved construction, including the charge for locomotive engines to be employed upon the line, and other contingencies, is 400,000l. which sum it is proposed to raise in 4000 shares of 100l. each.”
It cannot, therefore, but be contrary to good sense as well as fact, for the advocates of railways to attempt to deny evidence of this nature.
The first line of the credit side of the account given in to the Lords’ Committee on the proposed London and Birmingham Railway, by the Treasurer of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, on the 24th June last, stands thus: “By amount expended (up to the 31st December, 1831) in completion of the ways and works, 992,054l. 3s. 6d.”: while the same document says, “By the additional number of locomotive engines and carriages that will be required for the increased number of departures, and especially by the outlay of capital for the construction of the new tunnel, and the unavoidable cost of warming, lighting, and working the same, the Company will incur an increased annual expenditure, which will be very inadequately compensated by the saving of the charge for omnibuses.” Now, as exclusive of this “additional number of locomotive engines and carriages that will be required,” the expense of making this tunnel is estimated at 130,000l.—while, if the degree to which the actual cost of the railway itself exceeded its estimated expense, be taken as a rule, the actual cost of this tunnel may be nearer 400,000l. than 130,000l.—and, as the following extract from the pamphlet entitled “Remarks on the Birmingham and London Railroad, by Investigator,” shews that an important item has been omitted, the whole expense of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, up to the 31st December, 1831, will, it appears, exceed 1,200,000l. which is above 40,000l. per mile.
“There is a most important item entirely omitted in the treasurer’s account. Nearly 740,000l. were expended previous to May, 1830, all of which has now been expended for nearly one year, and different portions of it in different years, the first six years ago; not one shilling has yet been returned back again; and, therefore, the amount must be increased by the interest on the successive sums expended.
“We shall not fatigue our readers with the details; but the following abstract is very near the truth:—
| £. | £. | s. | d. | |
| Interest of | 20,397 | 7,034 | 0 | 0 |
| Ditto | 20,397 | 5,629 | 0 | 0 |
| Ditto | 100,000 | 21,212 | 0 | 0 |
| Ditto | 181,061 | 28,868 | 0 | 0 |
| Ditto | 199,240 | 20,925 | 0 | 0 |
| Ditto | 739,165 | 11,823 | 0 | 0 |
| Total (underrated) | 95,491 | 0 | 0 |
“Omitting the odd hundreds, as we wish to be under, rather than to exceed the truth, there must, therefore, be 95,000l. allowed for interest.”
Supposing, therefore, that you were to diminish the expense of levelling, by adopting the system of steep inclined planes, with stationary engines on the summits of them, to drag the loads up by means of ropes, &c., according to the usual course of the stationary engine system, expense might not be very greatly reduced. Since it appears, from the accounts laid before Parliament, that, deducting the money paid for cutting and embanking on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, as well as the 130,000l. of additional expenditure, which I have just mentioned, the actual cost of that railway, exclusive of cuttings and embankments, has really been so high as to amount, very nearly, to 29,000l. per mile.