In the case of goods under the present system there is a further principle acted upon, which is still more obviously a wrong one, viz., what is known as charging according to “what the traffic will bear.” This term is well known to all railway experts, and is a convenient way of explaining the reasons governing the various rates under the present system. For instance, if too high a rate is charged for goods of comparatively small value, traders prefer to send by the cheaper modes, namely, by sea or by road, and in many cases it would not be worth while to send at all, whereas in the case of an article like silk or bullion of considerable value the extra cost of carriage even at a high rate would not add appreciably to the price. Therefore, the railway companies are compelled to make lower charges for low-priced goods, otherwise they would lose the traffic altogether. Accordingly there are such anomalies as a higher rate for the carriage of manufactured iron than of iron-ore for the same distance, although the cost of trucks, of haulage, and of handling may be identical. Again, the rate for carriage of meat from the Midlands to London is greater than that from Liverpool to London, partly on account of the competition of the sea, and partly on account of the large consignments of foreign meat. Again, the rate for the carriage of bricks from one part of London to another is greater than from Peterborough to London, because Peterborough is in a brick-producing district. These inconsistencies and anomalies are intensified by the necessity of the goods having to be carried over the lines of several different railway companies, all of whom must receive some profit out of the carriage of the goods, in addition to the actual cost.
It is quite clear that the actual cost of haulage for the same distance of say a ton of coal is no more than that of a ton of bricks or of manufactured iron, or of sand, or of a pantechnicon full of furniture, all of which can be carried in open trucks, yet the rates for all these various goods, even for the same distance, differ widely from each other under the present system, and differ again not only according to distance but actually according to the different towns between which the service is rendered. Many examples of the present anomalies are strikingly shown by Mr. Emil Davies in his book, “The Case for Railway Nationalisation,”[5] which should be read by all interested in the subject.
Now assume that the whole of the various existing railways are amalgamated; that Main line trains both for goods and passengers run at regular intervals to and from the principal towns; that Local trains run from station to station and on branch lines also at regular intervals, connecting at junctions with Main line trains; that just as there are now regular times for delivery and collections of letters and parcels by post, varying in number according to the population of each locality, so there are regular collections and deliveries of goods to and from every town and village in the United Kingdom; and that a uniform rate, no more than, or even less than, the smallest rate now charged, is all that has to be paid. It is true that with such a system at many of the smaller places the actual expense of collection and delivery may, indeed, be “more than the traffic would bear,” certainly much more than the Directors of a railway company would feel warranted in risking under the present system with their necessarily limited area, but when these smaller places are part of such a system as is here described, extending to every town in the United Kingdom, then the whole becomes self-supporting, and there is no advantage in charging, either according to distance, or according to “what the traffic will bear.”
Every little village Post Office in the United Kingdom is an object-lesson to us. Here we have all the resources of civilisation, letter and parcel post, telegraph, telephone, savings bank, money orders, all provided at exactly the same rate as in the largest Cities of the Empire. Although the actual expense of each village Post Office taken by itself is out of all proportion to the population of the district, the combination of all of them in one national unified system enables these remote villages to benefit, not only with no financial loss to the nation, but actually with a handsome net profit which has actually contributed to the general revenue of the nation. This was not contemplated when the Penny Post was established, and is a practice which, in my view, is a great mistake, as explained in [Chapter IV.]
The same principle has been applied to the ordinary roads of the country, which are now open free of charge to the whole population, although many of this generation can still remember the restrictions of the old toll-gates.
It is only applying the same principle to the nation which applies to the human body. “The body is not one member, but many.… Whether one member suffers, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.”
If from any cause, such as a flood or other physical disturbance a small industrial or agricultural district were cut off from all communication with the rest of the Country, it is not only that district but also the whole of the Country which suffers loss, namely, the loss of trade with that district. And if by reason of high rates the remote towns, villages, and districts, as well as those nearer to great centres, are prevented from obtaining an outlet for their produce, the whole Country suffers. The converse is equally true: as soon as free circulation of passengers and goods is provided, the prosperity of the whole Country as well as of each district is increased.
This, then, is the principle upon which the scheme of uniform fares and rates is founded, as opposed to the existing system of charging according to distance and according to “what the traffic will bear.” There remains, however, to be considered the principle upon which the particular uniform fares and rates mentioned on the [title page] have been suggested for the proposed scheme. These have not been selected at haphazard, but in accordance with three rules which, I believe, are founded upon a sound principle, namely:—
(1) That any flat rate to be successful must not exceed the minimum rate in force prior to the adoption of the scheme;