CHEAP RAILROADS.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 11, 16 March 1867, Page 1 (Supplement)

CHEAP RAILROADS.

We call the attention of the Wairarapa people to the following extracts from William Chambers useful and instructive little w'ork, published so late as January 1866 —entitled “ About Railways" and to be obtained of Mr. W. Lyon, in Wellington, at two shillings and sixpence.

In issuing the prospectus of a railway, an estimate is given of the probable amount of traffic of all kinds; but in many cases, sometunes to a surprising degree, the traffic exceeds expectation. Railways have not improperly been compared to navigable rivers. To inland and not easily reached towns, they impart the character of a seaport, placed in ready communication with all the world. The exciting ota desire to travel, and the developing of of local trade and resources, accordingly attend on railway undertakings, and the consequence a universal activity and prosperity. So fully is this known, that bigoted opposition to railways has disappeared among the landed gentry'; and the impression now is, that the greater number of existing common roads are destined to be superseded by these iron highways.

Ov.ing to the obstructions offered by landowners, and their excessive claims for amenity damages, also the opposition of rival companies the cost of railways was at one time very much greater than it is at present. The expenditure incurred in securing legislative authority to construct railways, was likewise enormous. The parhmentary costs of the Brighton Railway averaged £4806 per mile; of the Manchester and Birmingham, £5190 per mile; and of the Blackwall, £14,414 per mile! The cost of carrying the Liverpool and Manchester line was £27,000. It has been shewn that the solicitor's bill for the South-Eastern Railway contained 10,000 folios, and amounted to £240,000. These new facta, however, afford but a feeble idea of the reckless wastefulness of capita,! on railway undertakings'; it is universallv allowed that, under a better policy, not only a much better railway system might have been provided, but a saving effected of of at least fifty millions.

The prodigious cost of some lines—£4o,ooo per mile being not uncommon—discourages the expectation of seeing railways established on a cheap plan adapted to meagrely peopled districts. On the other hand, we have the conclusive fact of a line in Scotland, the Peebles Railway, alluded to in a previous page, having been executed, with station-houses included, at a cost of £SOOO per mile—which railway is now paying to ordinary shareholders at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum. It is very important that we should distinctly understand the cause of this cheapness and amount of remuneration to investors. Supposing that there is no parlimentary opposition to the project, and that no extravagant suras are paid for land the next desideratum is an honest desire in the directors not to make a job of their services. We can scarcely expect men to give their time and attention for nothing. Shareholders have no right to hope for anything of the sort. At the same time, it is equally clear that no line can be expected to pay in a poor district of country, where directors are not inclined to make a sacrifice in order to insure a successful result, A railway engineer assures us that he cannot make lines so cheaply in England as in Scotland, because English directors insist on having fine stations, and will not generally work unless they have some special advantage in view; while, in various instances, Scotch directors, from some local patriotic feeling, not only exact no remuneration, but are satisfied with stations and other equipments of a very modest description. It is generally received opinion in Scotland, that if an economically-made single line yields a revenue of from £lO to £l2 per mile per week, it will pay a fair dividend to its proprietors, a single line in districts of country not particularly hilly, should not cost above £SOOO per mile, station-houses included. We revert to “Chambers Journal” for some observations on the feasibility of cheap lines. Mr David Jones, the civil engineer of some lowpriced railways in South Wales, has lately drawn attention to the fact, that cheap branchrailways can easily be planned. As to the landowners. Past experience amply justifies the belief that land for many miles” distant from either side of almost any railway, will double, or more than double, its value. Not that the farmer will necessarily g've double as much rent as before for the same rm; but that in various ways, including the letting of plots for building, the doubling of annual (value would eventually be brought about. Certain poor land in England, which barely brings half-a-crown an acre, would, it is believed, be worth six or eight times this rental if a railway were driven through jt—because manure could be brought cheaply to fertilise it, and because the produce could cheaply be carried to market. If a landowner possesses land through which a small river nows, but which is ill supplied with roads, a cheap railway run through it might encourage the establishment of mills and manufactories there, and the building of dwellings for workpeople ; a trifling groundrent, and light local taxation, would be very tempting under such circumstances. If a district consist of soil so bad that no reasonable amount of manuring will fertilise it, still it may be quite good enough to build factories and dwellings upon. Mr. Jones estimates that there are eight thousand miles of valley in the kingdom without railway communication, containing five million acres more or less available for agricultural purposes: if this land were increased ojdy one shilling per acre in rental by the

formation of railways, the landowners would gain two hundred and fifty thousand pounds a year. In short, the theory is—not to wait for traffic to create railways, but to make railways that will create traffic.

‘ Mr. Jones assert that branch, or what he calls second-class, railways can be constructed so low as £4OOO per mile. This is almost too good news to be true. He requires the legislature, however, to come to our aid in this matter. “ There should be a general act of parliament applicable to each.” The Board of Trade should be empowered to examine the plans and sections for each such line; to determine on the desirability of the line; to ascertain, through their engineer, whether it is well laid out; to grant powers for the compulsory purchase of the necessary land ; to determine, through their valuer, the price that should be paid for the land; to adjudicate on minor differences between the landowners and the companies; and to lay down rules for the safe management of the traffic when the line is finished.

The lines would cross roads and paths on a level, to save expense in bridges; this can be done in country districts, with trains moving slowly, as these would, and with gates and gate-keepers at the crossings. They would be single lines, and need not have massive sleepers or heavy rails. Mr Jones gives all the items for his railway of £4OOO per mile—land, valuing, engineering, conveyancing, construction, rails, sleepers, fencing, ballasting, stations sidings, and all complete. But Mr Jones’s £4OOO per mile does not include locomotives and rolling stock. Whether his items are pitched sufficiently' high—whether, for instance £3O per acre (twenty years’ purchase at 30s. rental) is enough for the land—is just the cogent question which will have to be decided. Certainly it doe* startle one a little, knowing what has been the average cost of the existing railway's. ‘Supposing branch-railways were constructed at £4OOO per mile, what amount of traffic would suffice to pay a fair dividend ? About a dozen of the worst paying lines in the United Kingdom—that is, having the lowest gross receipts—earn about £9 per mile per week; these are in very poor and thinly-in-habited districts. The reason why these lines ■ are considered failures is, not because the receipts are low, but because they are low “ relatively ’’ to the cost. Now, Mr Jones estimates that an average weekly receipt of £8 per mile per week, on a railway costing £4OOO per mile, would pay an adequate dividend to the shareholders—provided they have not had to borrow any of the money at five or six per cent. It must be a poor neighbourhood, indeed, that could not bring £8 per week to each mile of rail, The plan presupposes that the landowners are favourable, and will, ns a matter of advantage to themselves, make use of the rail to bring manure and building materials to their estates; while the inhabitants, whether cultivators or manufacturers, would bring coal and raw material by it, and despatch their produce and manufactures by it to market or to the great towns. A few trains a day, at low fares for passengers and low rates for merchandise, would suffice.

‘ The matter is worth thinking about. As to the receipt of £8 per mile per week, there can hardly be a doubt about it; the only question is about the cost of £4OOO per mile under the proposed plan. But some districts might supply a weekly trade of £' 2 per mile: and this would suffice to pay a fair dividend on a cost of £6OOO per mile.—The grand phase of railway enterprise we have already seen; the frugal or phase has yet to be developed.’