The service required of the railways by the public of the two countries being so entirely different, it is only natural that the method of performing it, and the charges made for it should show equally wide differences. In the United States the railways receive three cents per mile on the average for every passenger, and at this rate find passenger traffic barely profitable. In Great Britain the railways receive hardly, if at all, more than one cent a mile on the average. Yet they can make a handsome profit, despite the fact that they give a much more frequent and a faster service, with accommodation cer tainly not inferior in comfort. The mainstay of railway prosperity in the United States is in the carriage of freight at a rate of, roughly, four miles for three cents. English companies' receipts average, it is estimated, not less than two cents for each mile. Yet the prevailing opinion of those best qualified to judge is that much of the freight traffic in Great Britain is unprofitable, while not a little is done at an actual loss — for the irony of fate has decreed that England, with freight rates undoubtedly on the average the highest in the world, shall also have certain rates undoubtedly the lowest. For instance, for eight cents the Great Eastern Railway Company will bring from any of its country stations, say between 50 and 130 miles off, and deliver to the consumer's door in Lon don a box of farm or garden produce of a gross weight of 20 lbs.
On the outbreak of the war the government took over the railways of the country. The latest available statistics (1915) show a total of 40,808 miles of running' lines, made up of 23,709 miles single-track; 13,403 miles double track; 1,648 miles three-track; 1,277 miles four track and 706 miles more than four-track. The train miles run numbered 273,659,000 passenger, 156,007,000 freight and 666,000 mixed. Includ ing switching (shunting) operations, a total of 621,239,000 engine miles were recorded for the year. Total number of passengers carried, 1,591,146.000; freight tonnage, 568,201,000.
Similarity.— England and the United States are the only great countries where the railway system has been provided by practically unaided private enterprise, and still remains wholly in the hands of practically independent private companies. In both countries the state has found it necessary to interfere at many points, and an interesting essay might be written com paring the methods of government control adopted in each. But here it can only be very briefly pointed out that in both countries the Anglo-Saxon tradition prevailed, and such gov ernmental control as existed took in the main a legislative andjudicial form. Executive in terference — which in France descends to the minutest details of eyery-day operation — is in England still of relatively small importance. Till recently, however, it was safe to say that English railways were and always had been more closely supervised by public authority than the railways of the United States. That is no
longer true. Such scant powers of interference as our executive authority, the Board of Trade, possesses to-day, it has substantially possessed from the outset. And there is not much serious public demand for further interference.
Laws Governing the Railway Accoi•ding to the English code of railway law, which took practically Its present shape as long ago in 1845, no can come into exist ence, no new line can be constructed, no new capital can be raised without the authority of a special Act of Parliament, which lays down in great detail the constitution of the company, the exact route of the line and its method of construction, the amount of the capital and the purposes to which it shall be applied. Maxi mum rates and fares for goods and passengers are also prescribed. The authorized railway can not be opened for passenger traffic until an in spection by public authority has secured that every possible precaution for safety has been taken. Once opened, however, the operation of the company is in the main in its own hands. There is, however, one ve important point where the state interferes. Whenever enever an accident happens an expert official of the Board of Trade holds an exhaustive inquiry. He has no power except to inquire and to recommend. But his report is published, and in normal cases the companies are very ready to fall in with it. If they un reasonably fail or neglect to do so, public opinion soon converts the recommendation into a command. It is the simple truth to say that under this system the English railways have been on the whole over a long series of years the safest in the world. Better proof could hardly be sought of what Mr. Charles Francis Adams calls The eventual supremacy of an enlightened public opinion." On the side of commercial management such control as exists is in the main judicial. A special court, the Railway Commission, exists to watch over the observance of the law of undue preference. Its powers are, it is true, seldom invoked, but that is the best proof of their real efficacy. Further, the same tribunal has power to forbid the in crease of any existing rate for goods, and does in fact refuse to permit any such increase unless under exceptional circumstances. There is no popular prejudice in England against pooling. Our railways constantly enter into pools or, as we call them, traffic agreements. In some cases even one company is paid by another a sum of money annually on condition it does not compete for certain traffic. Some times these agreements are specially sanctioned by Parliament, sometimes they are made by the companies under the general powers and some times they are submitted for approval to the Railway Commission. See RAILWAY CONSOLI DATION, ENGLAND.