(2) That there should result from the change a sufficient increase of traffic to produce at least the same net revenue as before;
(3) That in a system of transport the fares and rates should vary, not according to distance travelled, but according to speed of service.
In accordance with these rules I take for Passenger Traffic first the present minimum railway fare now charged, that is, 1d. for short distances of one mile or under. If the flat rate were fixed at say 2d., or, indeed, any sum over 1d., passengers who now pay that sum would have to pay at least double the existing fare; this would, of course, render the whole scheme impracticable. On the other hand, under a flat rate of 1d. throughout the whole country the receipts would not be sufficient to produce the present revenue unless and until the number of passengers carried should increase by as much as six or seven times. That this is so is clear when it is remembered that the present average railway fare for the whole of the United Kingdom (allowing for season ticket holders), is 6½d. In other words, if all the passengers now travelling would pay 6½d. for every journey, both for short ones, as from Mansion House to Charing Cross, and long ones, as from London to Londonderry, then the same gross revenue from passengers would be obtained as now; or, on the other hand, if a flat rate of 1d. any distance were fixed, and the number of passenger journeys were increased by six-and-a-half times as a result of this great reduction, then, again, the same gross revenue would be obtained. The first of these alternatives is, of course, impracticable, and the second one is certainly not likely to be attained for some time to come, and even then account would have to be taken of the additional working expenses occasioned by so large an increase of traffic. It is on account of these difficulties that any system of uniform fares has hitherto been regarded as impracticable.
The solution of this problem was suggested to me by the practice of the Post Office of charging 3d. for express delivery, and 6d. for a telegram. Here we have the third rule before referred to of charging according to speed of service. Applying this to railways, and again searching for the lowest fares now charged for fast Main line trains, it will be observed that these are the regular cheap excursion fares of 2s. 6d. from London to Brighton or Southend and back, which amounts to 1s. 3d. each way. It is true that these are exceptionally cheap fares. Return tickets only are issued at this price, available by certain trains only, but on the principle already laid down that the flat rate must not exceed the lowest, this forms the basis of the proposed uniform fare of 1s. for Main line trains. Although this uniform fare is so exceptionally low, it is still nearly double the present average fare, and it is precisely on the Main line trains that increase of traffic (now restricted by expense) is sure to take place. These facts (as will appear in the chapter, “Finance of the Scheme”) enable me to estimate the increase of passenger traffic required to make up the present gross revenue at only 15 per cent. of the present number of passengers carried.
For goods traffic the uniform rates suggested have been ascertained in accordance with the same rules. It is more difficult to ascertain the present minimum owing to the enormous complication of goods rates.
Under the present system, goods are divided into eight different classes according to the rate charged, and a maximum rate is fixed by law for each class. In the lowest of these classes the rates vary from one penny and a fraction up to 4d. per ton per mile for any distance up to 20 miles, and smaller proportionate rates for distances over 20 miles. But although these are the greatest amounts that the companies may charge for this class of goods, they do make special rates of considerably lower amounts for special kinds of goods. It is estimated that five-sevenths of all the goods carried are charged according to special rates not included in the eight classes mentioned.
The Board of Trade returns give the totals of two classes of goods only, namely, “minerals,” of which 410 million tons are carried, and “general merchandise,” of which only 116 million tons are carried. These returns are possibly misleading as, although derived from returns made by the several companies themselves, it may be that those returns include the same goods sent over different lines.
For the purposes of my estimates, however, I have assumed that the Board of Trade returns are correct, and if they are so, the average charge for “minerals” is now about 1s. 6d. per ton, and for “general merchandise” about 6s. per ton. Taking the two classes of goods traffic together, as representing what under my scheme will be the “slow goods traffic,” the average is only 2s. 4d. per ton.
The average rate of 1s. 6d. per ton has been suggested for the slow service because it is believed that this average will allow of a rate for all goods in open trucks as small as the lowest rate now charged for minerals for short distances, the average being maintained by higher rates chargeable for other kinds of goods as already described. If the actual tonnage of goods carried is really less than that mentioned in the official returns (it cannot be more), it may be found necessary to fix a somewhat higher uniform rate, and the estimates may be affected to a certain degree. The figures, especially those relating to goods traffic, are put forward by way of suggestion only, and there should be no difficulty in ascertaining a uniform rate in accordance with the rules already stated.
It is believed that any difficulty in this respect will be solved by the large accession of traffic by Fast service, which, as with Main line passengers, is sure to follow the adoption of the scheme.