The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN SEP 0 2 19 86 L161— 0-1096 RAILWAY MANAGEMENT A SECOND LETTER TO GEORGE CARR GLYN, ESQ. j\l.P. CHAIRMAN OF THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; IN REPLY TO CAPT. HUISH’S LETTER. u Make your vaunting true, And it shall please me well. For mine own part I shall be glad to learn of noble men.” BY JOHN WHITEHEAD, OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE, LONDON; AUTHOR OF “ RAILWAY AND GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE." LONDON: SMITH, ELDER, AND CO., G5, CORNHILL. J 1848. Price One Shilling. London J. Pavt and Sons, Printers, 137, Long Acre. Z'iS.ZZ GEORGE CARR GLYNN, ESQ. M.P. — CHAIRMAN OF THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. £C08I0M!G$ SEW? -9 <* Sir, Captain Huish having, as the “ General Manager of the London and North Western Rail- way,” considered it his duty (on the 28th November instant) to answer the Letter entitled “ Railway Management,” published on the 16th inst., which I did myself the honor to address to you, I briefly as possible reply, promising that when Captain Huish shall have given satisfactory answers to cer- tain enquiries which I have to make of him, I shall be the most ready to admit any erroneous conclu- sions I may have come to in the matter at issue between us. _ P 300?4 J 4 Of Captain Huish’s reply I have nothing to com- plain, — its tone, style and expressions identify the writer as being the “ Morning Herald ” reviewer of my Letter to you, or the reviewer as the writer of his reply. This is of no consequence, except in shewing that Captain Huish has had two shots at me, where, as a gallant officer, he should have been content with but one. He and the reviewer are pleased to be facetious and playful on “ my former occupation” and my “ present pursuits,” the Captain as the letter writer having however this advantage, that he imputes no dishonorable motives to me, the reviewer on the contrary being very free in such insinuations. If the Captain be the reviewer, he has improved as the letter writer, — if the reviewer be the Captain’s letter writer, he has adapted his manners to the standard of his friend, and is the better for the change — he has put a little “ London and Northwestern polish” on his “Morning Herald work.” It is not necessary that I should defend myself from the mean insinuations which in this contro- versy have been levelled at me, — I can bear with them, and forgive them too. Capt. Huish, at page 17, kindly reminds me that the most profitable lines in England and Scotland to the present time, have been those the traffic of which has been confined to the carriage of coal and other minerals — I thank him. The lines ad- verted to have been successful, as he states, but only so because the Companies have never become carriers on their own account, but have had the wisdom to confine themselves to the supplying of the required locomotive power, and the receiving of the tolls ; beyond the necessary reparation of the road, they have been at little or no cost — the waggons, the servants, and all the other needfuls being found by the carrier — they have in fact con- ducted their business after the same fashion that the London and Birmingham Company did before it was stricken with the Grand Junction distemper, and under its malignant influence discarded the \ safe business which Capt. Huish applauds in the coal lines, but abhors when in operation on the lines with which he is connected. Captain Huish, at page 6 of his reply, ventures an assertion which, if his own office records do not prove its inaccuracy, any warehouseman in Cheapside will, — he says, “ I pass by, therefore, the remarks on this head, only reminding you that if. 6 as Mr. Whitehead observes, ‘ the haulage rates ’ between Manchester and London, e were formerly so regulated, that whilst on the one hand they contributed a handsome profit to the Railway ex- chequer, they were on the other sufficiently reason- able to allow the Carriers to conduct their business to a profit,’ the system must now work very profit- ably indeed, since the rates are the same, and the Carriers’ profit comes also ‘ into the Company’s exchequer.’ ” Captain Huish, in stating that the rates now charged are the same as those which existed under the olden system, simply makes a mistake, as he will discover if he applies to the Com- pany’s Accountant only. The rates have been very greatly reduced, and the Company are probably doing double work now for the same money then. At page 7, Captain Huish proceeds to shew up the “ late Secretary of the South Eastern Railway Company,” by exhibiting the amount of business done by the London and North Western Railway Company from 1st July 1847 to 30th June 1848, and in apparent triumph says, that the Goods traffic realised sufficient to pay nearly the whole cost of the Passenger traffic (excluding taxes). In this averment Captain Huish will find he has made mis- 7 take number two. At the conclusion of the note which stands at the foot of page 8, he observes, “ The Merchandise receipts are for tonnage only.” which, if it means anything, conveys a clear and decided understanding that every thing which has been passed to the Goods account in the Company’s ledger, has been so carried there of merchandise charged at per ton only ; this view is borne out by the context “ The Passenger receipts include nearly £ 105,087. for Parcels.” The inference intended to be drawn is, that the Goods account does not benefit one penny by that portion of the Carriers’ trade designated “ Smalls ” — a traffic so consider- able and in itself so remunerative, that Railway Companies claim the right to examine Carriers’ packages, and to charge separately for every indi- vidual parcel attempted to be conveyed in bulk. If Captain Huish will enquire of the Company’s » Accountant on this point also, I think he will find that the large sums received on account of “ Smalls” are regularly passed to the credit of the Goods account. The <£105,087. is for Coaching parcels forwarded by every Passenger train, and is in no way whatever mixed up with the Carriers’ parcels by Goods Trains. That Captain Huish is in error 8 on this point I have no doubt, having myself had recently to pay 2s. 6d. for a package weighing about 14 lbs. consigned to me from Lancaster by the Goods Train, — that is at the rate of £20. per ton. Strip the Goods account of the gross amount received for “ Smalls,” and Captain Huish will find his tonnage returns hideously ugly. Strip them he must do, or he had better by far have left the question mooted by the “late Secretary of the South Eastern Railway Company,” unanswered by the “ General Manager of the London and North Western Railway.” Captain Huish having come to the rescue, must prove his case to the letter, or acknowledge that “ loss ” is the melancholy result of the Goods trade as now conducted by the London and North Western Railway Company. Capt. Huish hugs bare receipts, and esteems them profit. At page 1 0 Capt. Huish gives the total mileage of the Merchandise trains for the year ending 30th June, 1848. Will he be so good as to add to this the number of Tons conveyed, reduced to the average sums earned per ton per mile, stating the gross waggon tonnage which was used for the actual weight carried. 1 am much mistaken, if 9 taking the empty trucks fairly into account, the average weight each waggon should have credit for shall be found to exceed two tons per waggon run. At page 11, Capt. Huish, to give the Goods a help, almost proves that the Passenger-traffic is as bad as (he will say little better) than that of the Goods — this shews only that he has had too many trains for the traffic carried — in short, that Passenger trains have been running to absolute waste. Capt. Huish proceeds to say “ It would not be difficult to follow this reasoning into much detail, and to attach the cost of every item of Railway expence to each particular description of traffic.” I am well pleased to find that Capt. Huish is so well prepared to answer such interesting enquiry, and shall feel thankful if he will state : 1st. The gross amount received on account of “Smalls” carried by Goods trains from 1st July 1847, to 30th June 1848. 2nd. The actual weight of Merchandise carried in the same period, at the Company’s lowest rate of charge — reduced also to per ton per mile, and the gross sum received for the whole quantity. 10 3rd. The like information of the several other classes and descriptions of Traffic included in the Goods account, as Coals, Cattle, &c. 4th. The proportionate cost of earning each description. 5th. The amount received for “ Coach Parcels” conveyed by passenger trains. With the above information, fairly and fully furnished, the question of right or wrong — guilty or not guilty of “ unwarranted ” statements will readily be determined. If Sir, you will read the passages of Capt. Huish’s Letter, commencing at the end of page 12, and follow the same throughout page 13, you will, I think, feel that Capt. Huish is not over inge- nuous, he packs 100 tons of Goods in 22 goods waggons as tightly as he can do, but fills the carriages with passengers only two thirds, es- timating the two classes as equal : — in the Goods case he lessens the waggons required to their smallest amount — in the Passenger case he in- creases them to an extent you will be surprised at. Capt. Huish knows, if any man does, that the 1 st and 2nd Classes are not equal in number, else why the eternal lament that the 1st class carriages n have not their due proportion of patrons — one- third 1st class and two-thirds 2nd class would have been nearer the truth. Again he fixes 16 passengers as equal to one cwt. or 1 600 to the ton, whereas 14 adults are considered as equal to one cwt. or 1400 to the ton — taking the latter as the more correct estimate, and one-third first class and two-thirds second class as the truer proportions, and filling the carriages completely as the Goods trucks have been by Capt. Huish, as so many “ Sacks of Corn or Barrels of Ale,” then Captn. Huish’s estimate and mine will differ to the extent of £ 26,000 * Capt . Huish’s Estimate . My Estimate . 8 Engines and Tenders . ..£16,000 4 Engines 66 1st Class Carriages .... .. 23,100 26 1st Class Carriages 40 2nd Class do .. 10,000 30 2nd Class ditto ... 7,500 16 Vans and 16 Guards . .. 2,500 8 Vans and 8 Guards .... £51,600 £25,850 Now, Sir, I will follow these goods and pas- sengers to Manchester. The 100 tons of goods at the 20s. rate would produce - £ 100. The 100 tons of passengers - £ 2155 . * If Capt. Huish had made the comparison between goods and third class passengers only, he would have reduced the estimate from £51,600. to some £ 10,000. 12 The lowest (cheapest) rate at which the London and North Western Company carry goods ex de- livery is 20s. per ton, between London and Man- chester, or Hfd. per ton per mile, the Company providing all the necessary appliances of waggons, sheets, cranes, porters, goods warehouses, &c. ; a rate little beyond what is charged to Mr. Hudson for the carriage of his coals, which require no such aids.* “ The wharves,” as Capt. Huish states, in a note page 16, “ are formed by the coal owners, or rent is paid for them in addition to the toll.” — “ I am ready to agree with Mr. Whitehead, that the rates for the carriage of coal (although yielding a profit) are lower than ought to be im- posed on Railway Companies,” says Capt. Huish ; and yet the London and North Western Railway Company are voluntarily carrying goods at a frac- tion of a penny per ton, so minute as barely to be defined above the coal rates; and Capt. Huish defends the practice as wise and profitable. Capt. Huish states, that my “ error lies in over- * The rate for coals is 1 \d. per ton per mile, waggons included — f d. per ton ex the waggons. Coal waggons cost some £20. less than goods waggons. 13 looking the fact, that quantity is the essential element of Railway success.” Coupled with pro- fit, I admit it to be so. Capt. Huish is satisfied with quantity. Capt. Huish is pleased to say that it gives him “ sincere pleasure” to agree with one who has held the important office of ‘ Secretary to the South Eastern Railway Company’ in one point. — I am indeed highly gratified at this singular instance of mutual feeling, and should have been much more pleased if he had been less complimentary, and more correct. My objections throughout my Letter to you, are that the Goods rates were too low, and the Passenger fares also too low, because ill adjusted. I urged that “ speed ” should be paid for; and if the scheme I suggested (suggested merely as an illustration) were worked out, the 45 miles’ speed, 18 passengers in a 1st class carriage, would give a fare to Birmingham of £ 3 . 5s. ; if at 30 miles, this fare would be <£1. 12s. 6d. It has been said by the ‘ Morning Herald ’ reviewer, that no person would pay the additional £ 2. 5s. 3d. to save an hour in time ; no doubt none would pay it ; the happy consequence, a discontinuance of the Express Trains would follow ; in place however of the £ 1. 14 now paid, for the 30 miles an hour rate, £1. 12s. 6d. would be. I repeat that, what I urged was suggestive only; and to this, (that is payment for speed and space), it will come at last, I have no doubt, Capt. Huish errs in saying that I justified “ the recommendation on account of the superior accommodation afforded in the carriages they use, and the stations they frequent.” My expressions are, “ No account is here taken of the superior accommodation required by and afforded to the 1st and 2nd class passengers in the carriages they use, and the stations they frequent ; both of which should, in my opinion, be paid for.” Capt. Huish has not, I fancy, read my letter himself. I recommend him to do so, and not to trust to his reviewing friend for his version. I am not, as Capt. Huish imagines, ignorant of the fact that Railway Boards are divided into sec- tions, each section having under its charge some one department of railway business — I wished to exchange this state of irresponsibility for responsi- bility, by clothing one member of the Board, who, in the face of all the world, should be known to be responsible, and be answerable accordingly with the duties of one department, and so on till every 15 department had been filled. Capt. Huish must have made but a very cursory examination of my letter to you, when he commits himself by saying at page 20, “ Such is in truth the practise of the London and North Western Railway Company, and conse- quently is in accordance with his ideas.” The affairs of England, in all their multiplicities and complexities, are managed by a Cabinet of seventeen members, each responsible for some one department. The London and North Western Railway Company is controlled by forty - five Directors, not one of whom is individually respon- sible before the face of the Proprietors for any department. I may remind you, that the Liverpool and Man- chester Railway Company, previously to 1840, was embarked in a like competition with the Canal interests which the London and North Western Company, with that unfortunate example before their eyes, is now involved in. In the Report, the Directors of that Company (now amalgamated with yours), their then Secretary, Mr. Booth, being one of your Secretaries, made to their Proprietors in January 1840, they pathetically allude to the sub- ject in the following words : “The Directors are 16 happy to be able to report to the Proprietors a revival of the trade and commerce of the country, accompanied by a considerable increase in the general traffic of the Railway ; but they have at the same time to regret, that the beneficial effects of this increased traffic have been to some extent neutralized by one of those unfortunate contests between the Railway Company and the Canal Navigations, the only clear and certain result of which is a very serious pecuniary loss to all parties concerned. The Directors are glad to state that this hostile and unprofitable rivalry has now been brought to a close.” How soon the London and North Western Rail- way Company will be compelled to make a like confession it is impossible — with their present notions that the more the money received the more the profit — to predicate. Come, however, the confession must, sooner or later. In conclusion, I have to repeat, that when Capt. Huish supplies all the information required and now asked for, every iota of which is necessary to prove before the world that the London and North Western Railway Company made a profit, in the year ending 30th June last, by its purely goods 17 trade, I will become an humble apologist to you, and to him, and to your proprietors, for the allegation I have made to the contrary. I have the honor to be, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, JOHN WHITEHEAD. P.S. The very important question of the ap- pointment of a public “ Joint Stock Companies ” Auditor, Capt. Huish has left untouched. London, 2, Royal Exchange Buildings, November 2>§th , 1848. Printed by J. Dayy and Sons, 137, Long Acre. PREPARING FOR THE PRESS, THE SIXTH EDITION OF “ RAILWAY AND GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE.” Thi^Edition will be entirely re-modelled, and will contain particulars of the various Guaranteed and Preferential Railway Stocks which shall have been created up to the time of publication. They will be classed as follows: — 1. Parliamentary Guarantees. 2. Guarantees secured by Leases made, or Agreements for same completed. 3. Preference Shares. 4. Stocks which must or may be paid off at known rates and fixed periods. 5. Guarantees requiring Parliamentary sanction to give them validity. The rate per cent, that each will secure to purchasers at current prices, will be worked out and stated. Parliamentary formalities complete.