We broke our journey for two days at Buda-Pesth, and looked on the Danube; at Vienna we stayed a little longer, and found that gay city hard to leave. We drove and rode in the Prater, and horseback exercise in such a place was, I need not say, delightful. We stopped at Frankfort, enjoyed its opera and other things, then, via Ostend, wended our way to London.
CHAPTER XXVI.
A CONGRESS AT PARIS, THE PROGRESS OF IRISH LINES, EGYPT AND THE NILE
“Will you undertake to report on the subject of Light Railways for the International Railway Congress at Paris?” This question was put to me in the year 1899, and although I was busy enough, without shouldering additional work, I at once said “Yes,” and this was how I came to spend part of my 1900 annual holiday in the beautiful but crowded capital of France. Crowded it was almost to suffocation, for 1900 was the Great Exhibition year, and all the world and his wife were there. The Railway Congress took place in September. The business part of the proceedings came first, and I did not stay for the festivities. When my Report was made and discussed (a reporter was not allowed to read his paper, but was required to speak from notes), I made, with three railway friends from Dublin, tracks for Switzerland. It had been a strenuous year and mountain air and exercise were needed to restore one’s physical strength and jaded faculties.
“Means of developing light railways. What are the best means of encouraging the building of light railways?” This was the text for my paper, as sent to me by the Congress, and my Report, I was told, should be confined to the United Kingdom, Mr. W. M. Acworth having undertaken a report on the subject for other countries.
In my Report I first disposed of Ireland, concerning which and its light railways I have already written with some fullness in these pages; and my
readers, I am sure, will not be surprised to hear that, as regards that country I answered the question remitted to me by saying that the only practical means I could see of further encouraging the construction of light railways in Ireland was by the wise expenditure of additional Government Grants, while as regards England, I pointed out that she had for long preferred to dispense with light railways, that, as forcibly expressed in The Times, she alone of civilised countries had but one standard for her railways, that is “the best that money could buy”; that times had changed, and in 1894 and 1895 much discussion and investigation on the subject had taken place, brought about chiefly, I thought, by depression in agriculture; that the energy which France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium and Italy had expended on their light railway systems, especially in agricultural and rural districts, had helped to further concentrate public opinion on the question; that a conference had been held at the Board of Trade and a Committee appointed to investigate the subject; that this Committee, after various sittings, had reported in favour of legislation, and that the result had been that the Light Railway Act of 1896 had come into being. My paper also dealt with this Act, explaining its scope, its limitations and what its effect had been during the comparatively short time (only four years) it had been in force; and my conclusion was that in Great Britain no further facilities were at that time required for encouraging the building of light railways, the best policy in my judgment being, to give the Act a fair trial, as time only could show to what extent the railways to be made in virtue of its provisions would fulfil the objects for which it had been passed.
Mr. Acworth did not tackle the question as affecting other countries. He reported that he had no special knowledge which would entitle him to say how light railway enterprise could best be developed in countries other than his own, and that as my Report “sufficiently set out the present position of affairs in reference to light railways in the United Kingdom,” he thought the most useful contribution he could offer to the discussion of the question would be “a short criticism of the working, both from a legal or administrative and also from a practical point of view, of our English Act of 1896.”
The Act of 1896 was one of considerable importance to British Railways and, therefore, merits a few words. It established three Commissioners who
were empowered to make Orders authorising the construction of Light Railways, including powers for the compulsory acquisition of land; authorised the granting of Government loans and, under special circumstances, free grants of money. The Board of Trade might require any project brought forward under the Act to be submitted to Parliament, if they considered its magnitude, or the effect it might have on any existing railway, demanded such a course. The Act simplified and cheapened the process for the acquisition of land, and ordained that in fixing the price the consequent betterment of other lands held by the same owner should be taken into account. It imparted considerable power to dispense with certain expensive conditions and regulations in working railways constructed under its authority. Though it was intended primarily to benefit agriculture, it was capable of an interpretation wide enough to include all kinds of tramways, and it has been extensively used for that purpose, sometimes, I fear, to the detriment of existing railways.
According to an article in the Jubilee (1914) number of the Railway News, by Mr. Welby Everard, up to the end of the year 1912 (since the outbreak of the war figures are not obtainable) a total of 645 applications (including 111 applications for amending Orders) were made to the Commissioners, the total mileage represented being 4,861 miles. Of these applications 418 were passed, comprising 2,115 miles, of which, 1,415 miles were in class A, i.e. light railways to be constructed on land acquired or “cross-country” lines, that is to say, lines which legitimately fulfilled the purposes of the Act. But, up to October, 1913, only 45 of these lines, with a total length of 441 miles, had been constructed and opened for traffic. The number of applications to the Commissioners seemed to show a considerable demand for greater facilities for transit in rural districts, but capital apparently was slow to respond to that demand. Perhaps it will be different now, in these days of change and reconstruction. The Government is pledged to tackle the whole question of Transport, and Light Railways will, of course, not be overlooked, though Motor Traction will run them a close race.