THE PIONEER ELECTRIC RAILWAYS
Electric tramways have reached a period of middle age in which they
are more concerned about their internal economy than the prospect of
enterprise in new directions. Such development as they feel capable of
making under present legislative conditions is only by proxy and
tentatively, with the aid of the trolley omnibus.
Electric railways, however, have still many worlds to conquer. They are now in much the same position as electric tramways held about the year 1896. That is to say, they have already given practical proof of their capabilities and enabled engineers to point out the directions along which they are certain to develop. In the railway world there is a growing conviction that the adoption of electric traction on all suburban and inter-urban railways must be simply a matter of time. For main line traffic the possibilities of using electricity are as yet only an article of faith among electrical engineers.
Although the earliest experiments in electric traction were made in the railway form, the first electric lines could hardly be regarded as railways in the ordinary sense. They were really light railways, in which the traffic conditions approximated to those of tramways. The routes were short, the cars small, and the traffic of modest dimensions. They contained the germ of both the tramway and the railway; but, in the case of the railway, many years of technical development had to pass before the problem of applying electricity to the handling of large masses of traffic under standard railway conditions was solved.
The fact that the first electric railway in the United Kingdom was constructed at the Giant's Causeway (in 1883) is significant. The Giant's Causeway is one of the few places in our islands where water power is available close to a district with a demand for traffic facilities. In 1885 another electric railway deriving its energy from water-driven turbines was built between Bessbrook and Newry. At that period it was considered that waterfalls provided the only really feasible source of cheap electricity on a large scale. Even yet the impression survives that electric power stations using steam cannot produce current so cheaply as those which 'harness' waterfalls. Many people, in fact, are inclined to attribute the comparative backwardness of electrical development in Great Britain, not to legislative conditions, but to the lack of large waterfalls.
There might have been more active progress in the pioneering days if the presence of water power at convenient points had encouraged electrical engineers to repeat the experiments at Portrush and Bessbrook. But at an early stage in electrical history it became clear to engineers that coal was just as feasible a source of cheap power as water. The idea that a waterfall provides power 'for nothing' is one of those superficial conceptions which make the hardiest of fallacies. To 'harness' a waterfall requires a heavy expenditure of capital on conduits, pipe-lines, dams, and other works. The interest upon that capital is a heavy item, apart from the cost of maintenance and repairs. Waterfalls are situated in mountainous country, generally remote from the centres of industry; the water-power station, therefore, has to face the cost of transmission mains and the loss of energy involved in conveying the power to the place where it is wanted. Further, waterfalls and the adjacent ground belong either to individuals or to the State; and payment is generally exacted for the right to use them.
All these items have to be covered in the price charged for current to the public or to railway undertakings. Nature may provide the 'head' of water 'free,' but man has to spend money in utilising it, just as he has to do in mining and in obtaining heat from the coal which is also provided 'free.' Anything which is obtained 'for nothing' is generally worth nothing.
The full economies of generating electricity by steam power are not, however, realised until business is done on a large scale. As the first essential of a successful electric railway is a plentiful supply of cheap power, development from the experimental stage of Portrush had to wait until engineers mastered the art of producing electricity from large generators. They gained the necessary experience with electric tramways and in electric lighting. We have seen how, as regards tramways, legislation delayed and hampered progress. A similar cause was at work in connection with electric lighting. In 1882 an Act was passed regulating electric lighting on lines modelled upon the principles of the Tramways Act, 1870. Capitalists declined to work under this Act; and it was not until after 1888, when the Act was amended, that any money could be found in Great Britain for electric lighting schemes. This delay was a serious handicap not only to electric lighting but to the business of British electrical manufacturing, as there was, comparatively speaking, no demand for electrical plant for over six years. Meanwhile, matters had been advancing on normal lines in other countries; and when the demand came at last, the manufacturers on the Continent and in America were the only ones organised and ready to meet it.
These points must be touched upon in order to understand why so long a period elapsed between the pioneer electric railways and the real electric railway movement as we know it to-day. They also serve to explain the prominent part which American and German firms took in electrical developments here. Engineering and legislative conditions combined to retard electric railway enterprise so that it did not begin to take firm root in Great Britain until about 1890, and did not attain to any conspicuous growth until the beginning of the twentieth century.
Until after 1890 the only electric railways in Great Britain taking power from steam dynamos were those at Brighton Beach, Ryde Pier (Isle of Wight) and Southend Pier, opened in 1883, 1886 and 1890 respectively. These were all, of course, of short length. The Brighton Beach railway, designed and constructed by Mr Magnus Volk, was a unique piece of work. The rails were laid on heavy concrete blocks below high-water mark; and the cars were platforms raised on a light iron structure. Power was conveyed to the cars from wires hung on posts like the standards of a tramway on the trolley system. The unusual sensation of travelling over the water was enjoyed by hundreds of people until the difficulty of maintaining the track (owing to the erosive action of the waves) led to the railway being abandoned and another line of more ordinary character being laid on the level of the undercliff roadway.
The first indication of the genuine electric railway movement was given in 1893, when the Liverpool Overhead Railway was opened. This line was constructed to afford communication along the line of docks fringing the Mersey. The track was carried on a continuous bridge in order to avoid obstruction between the docks and the streets behind; and being overhead, there were serious disadvantages attached to the use of steam locomotives. Electric locomotives were therefore employed.
In this case, it should be noted, electricity was not adopted because it was more economical or efficient than steam. The reason lay with the peculiar situation of the railway. A similar reason decided the promoters of the City and South London Railway to try electric locomotives on their line. This railway, which was opened in 1890, was the first deep level or 'tube' railway in the world. Moreover, it was constructed and equipped throughout by British engineers, and at a time when the art of tunnelling was much less advanced than it is now. In the later and more imposing development of tube railways in London, the foresight and enterprise displayed by the pioneers of the City and South London Railway are apt to be overlooked. It was, however, the success of the original line from the Monument to Clapham which made it possible to raise capital for the Central London Railway (opened in 1900) and for the extensive tube railway system organised by the Underground Electric Railways Company of London.
On a deep-level railway, steam is, of course, out of the question. Even on the old 'Underground,' built close to the surface and furnished with frequent openings at the stations, and by means of ventilating shafts, the atmospheric conditions were abominable. The sulphurous fumes were indeed recommended for asthma and other complaints, but on a tube railway they would have been sufficient to cure every human ailment. Therefore the choice lay between electric traction and haulage by cables, compressed air, or some other innocuous system. Within these limits electricity was chosen on its merits.
The first railway in Great Britain to undertake conversion was one in which both the physical and economic troubles were exceptionally serious. The Mersey Railway is little more than a tunnel under the river, and it is distinguished by heavy gradients and by the continuous necessity of pumping out the water which drains into it. With steam traction the difficulty of ventilating the tunnel was an added trouble. Owing to these various causes the working expenses were abnormally heavy, and led ultimately to a receivership. Electric traction was adopted as the only possible cure. The pumping and ventilation arrangements were both reorganised for electric power; and the trains were equipped with electric traction on the 'multiple-unit' system, an arrangement—to be described in the next chapter—which is well suited to the economical handling of steep gradients. The practical result was a great increase in traffic, with a marked decrease in the proportion of expenses to receipts.
No other British railways, happily, were in so desperate a condition as the Mersey line, but all of them were, at the end of last century, feeling the effect of certain disquieting tendencies. These tendencies were most marked in connection with suburban and short-distance inter-urban traffic, which is quite distinct in character from the main-line traffic. We talk glibly enough of railway traffic as if it were a unity, but it is clear that very different considerations govern the traffic on a main line between, say, London and Glasgow, and those which control the traffic on London suburban routes or on a railway connecting the adjacent towns of the Potteries. Some railways have to deal with all three classes at the same time and occasionally on the same lines of rails. Electric traction has, so far, made itself felt only where the suburban or similar inter-urban traffic has been separable from the main line traffic.
The growth which took place in suburban traffic before and after the end of the century ought to have brought increased prosperity to the railway companies, but it did not always do so. Competition between the various companies led to a reduction in fares; Parliament, by establishing workmen's fares, forced the companies to carry an ever-increasing number of passengers at a loss, or at least without profit; wages tended to increase and hours of working to decrease—both affecting the cost of operation; rates and taxes became heavier and heavier with the growth of municipal expenditure; and a higher standard of comfort and efficiency was demanded by the public. In some instances the situation was aggravated by the competition of electric tramways along routes parallel to the railways. This competition was limited to point-to-point traffic, its maximum range being about three miles; but it was a grievance against which the railway companies protested very loudly, especially when the tramways were owned by local authorities to which the railways paid large sums in rates.
The general effect of all these factors was to reduce the margin of profit on which the railways were working. We have seen, in the case of tramways, how easy it is for a slight change in a frequently-recurring expense to have a serious effect in the aggregate. Railways are in much the same position; and the various influences at work upon the suburban traffic brought them face to face with the importance, if not the necessity, of finding some means of dealing with larger volumes of traffic on a basis more economical than that provided by steam locomotives.
This means they found in electric traction; but it may be noted that even railway engineers took some time to realise exactly what electric traction offered them. They were looking for something to reduce their annual expenses; and when they made calculations about electric traction they found that, when the expense of providing the electrical equipment was taken into account, the total cost of hauling the trains electrically on the existing schedule might be greater instead of less than the cost of steam haulage. They were therefore inclined to look upon the economic benefits of electric traction as an illusion.
In course of time, however, it came to be recognised that the function of electricity is not to act like a blue pencil on the debit side of the revenue account. Its essential purpose is to increase the volume of traffic. From the public point of view this is very much more valuable. Passengers are not directly concerned with means of reducing working expenses, but they are closely interested in the improvement of the frequency and speed of the service. The adoption of electricity on suburban lines has really been dictated by the demand for increased facilities. At the 'rush' hours of the morning and evening, when the great tide of workers flows and ebbs, the capacity of the steam lines was taxed to the utmost. And with the growth of population the difficulty of running sufficiently frequent trains became almost insuperable.
Apart from these particular necessities, the general features of railway economics point to the supreme advantage of increasing the volume of traffic in every possible way. In a railway, as in a tramway, the preponderating item is the cost of construction and maintenance; and unless a certain minimum of traffic is carried, the most economical working in the world will not secure a profit. The standing charges fall upon the idle hours as well as upon the busy; for every minute that a line of rails stands empty there is a loss of money. Railway progress depends upon reducing the proportion of idle hours; and that can only be done where there is scope for the growth of traffic, and where there is means—such as electric traction—of dealing with that growth on an economical basis.
In the succeeding chapter it is explained how electric traction enables a more frequent service to be run with advantage even on systems which were worked to the maximum limit possible under steam conditions. But in the meantime it will be interesting to trace the effect itself on a railway which soon followed the Mersey Railway in making the change from steam to electricity—the Metropolitan District Railway.
Throughout the steam age the finance of the District Railway Company was as unattractive as the physical conditions of the railway itself. No dividend was ever paid on the ordinary shares; and even with the growth of London there was little prospect of any dividend ever being paid. When—about ten years ago—the late Mr C. T. Yerkes came over from America and obtained a controlling interest in the District Railway Company with a view to converting it to electric traction, he was regarded as a philanthropic enthusiast. Many of the shareholders themselves were reluctant to give their assent to the change; they preferred to bear the ills they knew than fly to others which might be introduced by an American financier.
But Mr Yerkes and those who worked with him had something more in view than the improvement of traffic on the District Railway. They acquired control of several tube railway schemes and obtained powers for new lines, so as to organise a comprehensive system of underground electric transport in London. They had sufficient faith in the traffic possibilities of London to find the enormous capital required to construct these tube railways and also to convert the whole District Railway to electric traction. The constructional work occupied several years; and after the lines were opened one by one, arrangements had to be developed for through-bookings among the various lines and between them all and the existing underground railways like the Central London Railway, the Metropolitan Railway (closely linked with the Metropolitan District) and the City and South London Railway. A systematic attempt was also made to develop the travelling habit in London by persistent advertising of the railway services and by increasing the frequency and rapidity of the trains. From these points of view the organisation of the network of lines comprehensively known by the title of 'Underground' is certainly unsurpassed.
The difficulties which had to be overcome in this great work were enormous, but there has been no break in the thread of progress. The 'tubes' are paying dividends which, though modest, are an encouragement to further developments. The finance of the District Railway has lost its element of chronic despair. Considered as a whole, the results prove that where there is the potentiality of large traffic, electricity is the instrument which must be applied. During the steam days, the most crowded part of the District Railway (the 'Inner Circle') carried a maximum of 16 trains per hour. With electric traction that figure has been raised to 40 trains per hour. And the remarkable thing is that with each increase in the service the traffic grows. Many people welcomed the electrification of the District as a measure of relief from the overcrowding on the steam trains during the busy hours. But with a service of trains more than doubled in frequency and also increased in capacity per train, overcrowding continues and the 'straphanger' has become an established institution.
It may be accepted as substantially proved that, on suburban and inter-urban railways in populous districts, electric traction is a means of increasing traffic and diminishing the proportion of working costs. Moreover, these results have been achieved in conjunction with substantial reductions in fares and with marked improvements in the comfort of travelling.
The engineering aspect of these changes has now to be considered.
Electric railways, however, have still many worlds to conquer. They are now in much the same position as electric tramways held about the year 1896. That is to say, they have already given practical proof of their capabilities and enabled engineers to point out the directions along which they are certain to develop. In the railway world there is a growing conviction that the adoption of electric traction on all suburban and inter-urban railways must be simply a matter of time. For main line traffic the possibilities of using electricity are as yet only an article of faith among electrical engineers.
Although the earliest experiments in electric traction were made in the railway form, the first electric lines could hardly be regarded as railways in the ordinary sense. They were really light railways, in which the traffic conditions approximated to those of tramways. The routes were short, the cars small, and the traffic of modest dimensions. They contained the germ of both the tramway and the railway; but, in the case of the railway, many years of technical development had to pass before the problem of applying electricity to the handling of large masses of traffic under standard railway conditions was solved.
The fact that the first electric railway in the United Kingdom was constructed at the Giant's Causeway (in 1883) is significant. The Giant's Causeway is one of the few places in our islands where water power is available close to a district with a demand for traffic facilities. In 1885 another electric railway deriving its energy from water-driven turbines was built between Bessbrook and Newry. At that period it was considered that waterfalls provided the only really feasible source of cheap electricity on a large scale. Even yet the impression survives that electric power stations using steam cannot produce current so cheaply as those which 'harness' waterfalls. Many people, in fact, are inclined to attribute the comparative backwardness of electrical development in Great Britain, not to legislative conditions, but to the lack of large waterfalls.
There might have been more active progress in the pioneering days if the presence of water power at convenient points had encouraged electrical engineers to repeat the experiments at Portrush and Bessbrook. But at an early stage in electrical history it became clear to engineers that coal was just as feasible a source of cheap power as water. The idea that a waterfall provides power 'for nothing' is one of those superficial conceptions which make the hardiest of fallacies. To 'harness' a waterfall requires a heavy expenditure of capital on conduits, pipe-lines, dams, and other works. The interest upon that capital is a heavy item, apart from the cost of maintenance and repairs. Waterfalls are situated in mountainous country, generally remote from the centres of industry; the water-power station, therefore, has to face the cost of transmission mains and the loss of energy involved in conveying the power to the place where it is wanted. Further, waterfalls and the adjacent ground belong either to individuals or to the State; and payment is generally exacted for the right to use them.
All these items have to be covered in the price charged for current to the public or to railway undertakings. Nature may provide the 'head' of water 'free,' but man has to spend money in utilising it, just as he has to do in mining and in obtaining heat from the coal which is also provided 'free.' Anything which is obtained 'for nothing' is generally worth nothing.
The full economies of generating electricity by steam power are not, however, realised until business is done on a large scale. As the first essential of a successful electric railway is a plentiful supply of cheap power, development from the experimental stage of Portrush had to wait until engineers mastered the art of producing electricity from large generators. They gained the necessary experience with electric tramways and in electric lighting. We have seen how, as regards tramways, legislation delayed and hampered progress. A similar cause was at work in connection with electric lighting. In 1882 an Act was passed regulating electric lighting on lines modelled upon the principles of the Tramways Act, 1870. Capitalists declined to work under this Act; and it was not until after 1888, when the Act was amended, that any money could be found in Great Britain for electric lighting schemes. This delay was a serious handicap not only to electric lighting but to the business of British electrical manufacturing, as there was, comparatively speaking, no demand for electrical plant for over six years. Meanwhile, matters had been advancing on normal lines in other countries; and when the demand came at last, the manufacturers on the Continent and in America were the only ones organised and ready to meet it.
These points must be touched upon in order to understand why so long a period elapsed between the pioneer electric railways and the real electric railway movement as we know it to-day. They also serve to explain the prominent part which American and German firms took in electrical developments here. Engineering and legislative conditions combined to retard electric railway enterprise so that it did not begin to take firm root in Great Britain until about 1890, and did not attain to any conspicuous growth until the beginning of the twentieth century.
Until after 1890 the only electric railways in Great Britain taking power from steam dynamos were those at Brighton Beach, Ryde Pier (Isle of Wight) and Southend Pier, opened in 1883, 1886 and 1890 respectively. These were all, of course, of short length. The Brighton Beach railway, designed and constructed by Mr Magnus Volk, was a unique piece of work. The rails were laid on heavy concrete blocks below high-water mark; and the cars were platforms raised on a light iron structure. Power was conveyed to the cars from wires hung on posts like the standards of a tramway on the trolley system. The unusual sensation of travelling over the water was enjoyed by hundreds of people until the difficulty of maintaining the track (owing to the erosive action of the waves) led to the railway being abandoned and another line of more ordinary character being laid on the level of the undercliff roadway.
The first indication of the genuine electric railway movement was given in 1893, when the Liverpool Overhead Railway was opened. This line was constructed to afford communication along the line of docks fringing the Mersey. The track was carried on a continuous bridge in order to avoid obstruction between the docks and the streets behind; and being overhead, there were serious disadvantages attached to the use of steam locomotives. Electric locomotives were therefore employed.
In this case, it should be noted, electricity was not adopted because it was more economical or efficient than steam. The reason lay with the peculiar situation of the railway. A similar reason decided the promoters of the City and South London Railway to try electric locomotives on their line. This railway, which was opened in 1890, was the first deep level or 'tube' railway in the world. Moreover, it was constructed and equipped throughout by British engineers, and at a time when the art of tunnelling was much less advanced than it is now. In the later and more imposing development of tube railways in London, the foresight and enterprise displayed by the pioneers of the City and South London Railway are apt to be overlooked. It was, however, the success of the original line from the Monument to Clapham which made it possible to raise capital for the Central London Railway (opened in 1900) and for the extensive tube railway system organised by the Underground Electric Railways Company of London.
On a deep-level railway, steam is, of course, out of the question. Even on the old 'Underground,' built close to the surface and furnished with frequent openings at the stations, and by means of ventilating shafts, the atmospheric conditions were abominable. The sulphurous fumes were indeed recommended for asthma and other complaints, but on a tube railway they would have been sufficient to cure every human ailment. Therefore the choice lay between electric traction and haulage by cables, compressed air, or some other innocuous system. Within these limits electricity was chosen on its merits.
The first railway in Great Britain to undertake conversion was one in which both the physical and economic troubles were exceptionally serious. The Mersey Railway is little more than a tunnel under the river, and it is distinguished by heavy gradients and by the continuous necessity of pumping out the water which drains into it. With steam traction the difficulty of ventilating the tunnel was an added trouble. Owing to these various causes the working expenses were abnormally heavy, and led ultimately to a receivership. Electric traction was adopted as the only possible cure. The pumping and ventilation arrangements were both reorganised for electric power; and the trains were equipped with electric traction on the 'multiple-unit' system, an arrangement—to be described in the next chapter—which is well suited to the economical handling of steep gradients. The practical result was a great increase in traffic, with a marked decrease in the proportion of expenses to receipts.
No other British railways, happily, were in so desperate a condition as the Mersey line, but all of them were, at the end of last century, feeling the effect of certain disquieting tendencies. These tendencies were most marked in connection with suburban and short-distance inter-urban traffic, which is quite distinct in character from the main-line traffic. We talk glibly enough of railway traffic as if it were a unity, but it is clear that very different considerations govern the traffic on a main line between, say, London and Glasgow, and those which control the traffic on London suburban routes or on a railway connecting the adjacent towns of the Potteries. Some railways have to deal with all three classes at the same time and occasionally on the same lines of rails. Electric traction has, so far, made itself felt only where the suburban or similar inter-urban traffic has been separable from the main line traffic.
The growth which took place in suburban traffic before and after the end of the century ought to have brought increased prosperity to the railway companies, but it did not always do so. Competition between the various companies led to a reduction in fares; Parliament, by establishing workmen's fares, forced the companies to carry an ever-increasing number of passengers at a loss, or at least without profit; wages tended to increase and hours of working to decrease—both affecting the cost of operation; rates and taxes became heavier and heavier with the growth of municipal expenditure; and a higher standard of comfort and efficiency was demanded by the public. In some instances the situation was aggravated by the competition of electric tramways along routes parallel to the railways. This competition was limited to point-to-point traffic, its maximum range being about three miles; but it was a grievance against which the railway companies protested very loudly, especially when the tramways were owned by local authorities to which the railways paid large sums in rates.
The general effect of all these factors was to reduce the margin of profit on which the railways were working. We have seen, in the case of tramways, how easy it is for a slight change in a frequently-recurring expense to have a serious effect in the aggregate. Railways are in much the same position; and the various influences at work upon the suburban traffic brought them face to face with the importance, if not the necessity, of finding some means of dealing with larger volumes of traffic on a basis more economical than that provided by steam locomotives.
This means they found in electric traction; but it may be noted that even railway engineers took some time to realise exactly what electric traction offered them. They were looking for something to reduce their annual expenses; and when they made calculations about electric traction they found that, when the expense of providing the electrical equipment was taken into account, the total cost of hauling the trains electrically on the existing schedule might be greater instead of less than the cost of steam haulage. They were therefore inclined to look upon the economic benefits of electric traction as an illusion.
In course of time, however, it came to be recognised that the function of electricity is not to act like a blue pencil on the debit side of the revenue account. Its essential purpose is to increase the volume of traffic. From the public point of view this is very much more valuable. Passengers are not directly concerned with means of reducing working expenses, but they are closely interested in the improvement of the frequency and speed of the service. The adoption of electricity on suburban lines has really been dictated by the demand for increased facilities. At the 'rush' hours of the morning and evening, when the great tide of workers flows and ebbs, the capacity of the steam lines was taxed to the utmost. And with the growth of population the difficulty of running sufficiently frequent trains became almost insuperable.
Apart from these particular necessities, the general features of railway economics point to the supreme advantage of increasing the volume of traffic in every possible way. In a railway, as in a tramway, the preponderating item is the cost of construction and maintenance; and unless a certain minimum of traffic is carried, the most economical working in the world will not secure a profit. The standing charges fall upon the idle hours as well as upon the busy; for every minute that a line of rails stands empty there is a loss of money. Railway progress depends upon reducing the proportion of idle hours; and that can only be done where there is scope for the growth of traffic, and where there is means—such as electric traction—of dealing with that growth on an economical basis.
In the succeeding chapter it is explained how electric traction enables a more frequent service to be run with advantage even on systems which were worked to the maximum limit possible under steam conditions. But in the meantime it will be interesting to trace the effect itself on a railway which soon followed the Mersey Railway in making the change from steam to electricity—the Metropolitan District Railway.
Fig. 11. An electric train on the Metropolitan
District Railway, equipped by the British Thomson Houston Company. The
front and rear cars and one intermediate car are equipped with electric
motors, all controlled from the 'cab' at the end of the train. The
controller handle may be seen close to the nearest window of the first
car. The rail immediately in front of the foot of the guard is the
conductor rail which conveys the current to the train. The rail between
the track rails carries the return current.
Throughout the steam age the finance of the District Railway Company was as unattractive as the physical conditions of the railway itself. No dividend was ever paid on the ordinary shares; and even with the growth of London there was little prospect of any dividend ever being paid. When—about ten years ago—the late Mr C. T. Yerkes came over from America and obtained a controlling interest in the District Railway Company with a view to converting it to electric traction, he was regarded as a philanthropic enthusiast. Many of the shareholders themselves were reluctant to give their assent to the change; they preferred to bear the ills they knew than fly to others which might be introduced by an American financier.
But Mr Yerkes and those who worked with him had something more in view than the improvement of traffic on the District Railway. They acquired control of several tube railway schemes and obtained powers for new lines, so as to organise a comprehensive system of underground electric transport in London. They had sufficient faith in the traffic possibilities of London to find the enormous capital required to construct these tube railways and also to convert the whole District Railway to electric traction. The constructional work occupied several years; and after the lines were opened one by one, arrangements had to be developed for through-bookings among the various lines and between them all and the existing underground railways like the Central London Railway, the Metropolitan Railway (closely linked with the Metropolitan District) and the City and South London Railway. A systematic attempt was also made to develop the travelling habit in London by persistent advertising of the railway services and by increasing the frequency and rapidity of the trains. From these points of view the organisation of the network of lines comprehensively known by the title of 'Underground' is certainly unsurpassed.
The difficulties which had to be overcome in this great work were enormous, but there has been no break in the thread of progress. The 'tubes' are paying dividends which, though modest, are an encouragement to further developments. The finance of the District Railway has lost its element of chronic despair. Considered as a whole, the results prove that where there is the potentiality of large traffic, electricity is the instrument which must be applied. During the steam days, the most crowded part of the District Railway (the 'Inner Circle') carried a maximum of 16 trains per hour. With electric traction that figure has been raised to 40 trains per hour. And the remarkable thing is that with each increase in the service the traffic grows. Many people welcomed the electrification of the District as a measure of relief from the overcrowding on the steam trains during the busy hours. But with a service of trains more than doubled in frequency and also increased in capacity per train, overcrowding continues and the 'straphanger' has become an established institution.
It may be accepted as substantially proved that, on suburban and inter-urban railways in populous districts, electric traction is a means of increasing traffic and diminishing the proportion of working costs. Moreover, these results have been achieved in conjunction with substantial reductions in fares and with marked improvements in the comfort of travelling.
The engineering aspect of these changes has now to be considered.
By ADAM GOWANS WHYTE, B.Sc.
Comments
Post a Comment