there has been, so far, no improvement in the hopeless condition of our streets. The improvement in the canal service might be of advantage, especially as at present; and, as will be shown later, transport by canal is on the average more rapid than transport by rail, although it is not to be supposed that George Stephenson could ever have dreamt that a horse led by a child of seven on a towing-path would outstrip an invention with the marvellous potentialities of the locomotive. There is no need, however, to leave the railway for the canal, except perhaps as a means of bringing the railway authorities to their senses. Being a competitor, the railways have attacked the canals in a thoroughly unscrupulous manner. This shows that they know that, handicapped by incompetence, the magnificent locomotive is no match for the towing-horse. It is not necessary to dwell upon this really painful subject at the moment. The chapter on canals and waterways deals with it. But having crippled this competitor by hamstringing, railway management is still confronted with an ever-increasing loss. No further remedy can be sought in the direction of recouping this loss by laying it on to the workman's back. He has been robbed and downtrodden to the limit of endurance already. No one with any knowledge of the facts will deny that our railway workmen are as fine a body of men as any to be found in Europe; and the country has every reason to be proud of them. They are polite, energetic, sober, and honest, and intelligent to an exceptional degree, and this despite the fact that they know they are being robbed every hour of the day by their overseers. It has been asserted by railway managers that the abnormal rise in expenditure has been caused by an excess of sentimentalism towards these railway employés. This sentimentalism is not apparent in the wages list. However extravagant railway direction has been and is in other quarters, in the matter of wages the sternest economy has been practised. Praise where praise is due. Upon the constant heroism of those responsible for the actual running of the trains it is superfluous to comment. This heroism is constantly needed, because all reform in the direction of automatic signalling has been criminally delayed. A responsibility has been thrust upon engine-driver, signalman, fireman, and guard, that they should never be called upon to bear. As has again and again been proved, the human machine is unfit for the work. No individual can guarantee himself against lapse of memory. With automatic signalling the danger is reduced to vanishing point. The periodically inevitable catastrophe has taken place. The engine-driver is dead, his lips are sealed; the signalman is in the dock. The Board of Trade takes advantage of the dead man, and the judge maunders that the public must be protected. The real criminals are the directors. They are responsible. Let them look to it, for it is they who should stand in the dock. It may here be of interest to make the reader acquainted with the exact facts as to automatic signalling. All modern automatic safety signalling is based on the principle that in the event of failure of the controlling electric current, the force of gravitation will at once pull all signals to danger. By this means an accident is almost inconceivable, unless a criminal wedged the apparatus, and thus prevented the fall of the heavy counterweights employed. This rule applies equally whether the signal is on a post at the side of the track or in its proper place, namely, in the cab of the engine. The strength of the case for scientific safety signalling is admitted, but railway direction pleads that the necessary funds for putting it into practice are not available. It would be well if the public fully grasped the impudent nature of the excuse: excuse which is given for the constant repetition of the horrible scenes associated with railway disaster. an The perusal of this book will leave the reader in no doubt as to the reason for the lack of funds complained of. The Press might have done far more than it has done in the way of vigorous protest against this policy of wilful murder. To pass again to the economic aspect of railway matters: agriculture has been promised great things by means of light railways. Light railways should be an excellent thing, but light railways, under the present system, can only make confusion worse confounded. It is quite impossible for the rolling-stock of light railways to travel on the main system, and consequently there will be the problem of transhipment from one railway to the other. The railway companies will have to display considerably more initiative in the matter of cranes if this difficulty is to be surmounted -although it undoubtedly could be surmounted by the use of suitable cranes and containers. Light railways in Ireland, where they have been most extensively used, have not been a profitable investment. Here again the history of railway investment is that of the original shareholders getting nothing, and preferential and debenture holders getting an uncertain 4 to 5 per cent. It has been asserted that light railways in Ireland have been a success. It is somewhat difficult to reconcile this statement with the fact that they pay no dividend on their ordinary stock. It is not to be believed that light railways can be a success so long as the economies of haulage are eaten up by expensive methods of loading; and there is little doubt that the motor lorry is a dangerous rival to this particular form of railway-working. In some quarters the motor lorry is regarded as the inevitable supplanter of the locomotive. This may be, and probably will be, the case, if the present inefficient system is persisted in. This point of view, however, is based on a very superficial consideration of the facts, and should the elimination of the railways take place it will be nobody's fault but that of the railway companies themselves. Both the motor-car and the railway are handicapped by present methods, but the handicap is much more severe in the case of railways. The following tables will serve to illustrate the present condition of affairs: HOW A LOAD OF 41 TONS OF GOODS WENT BY ROAD MOTOR FROM LONDON (EDMONTON) TO NOTTINGHAM. 4 tons of goods hauled 120 miles = 540 ton-miles @ 5}d. per ton-mile of goods .. Time occupied on journey = 20 hours. £ S. d. 13 HOW THE SAME LOAD WOULD HAVE GONE BY RAIL, AND WHY IT DID NOT. 4 tons of goods; 1 tons of packing-cases = 5 tons at 36s. a ton for 130 miles = 747 ton-miles at 3d. per ton-mile of goods and cases, or 585 ton-miles of goods Add cost of packing Add cost of cases .. Total cost = 6d. per ton-mile of goods carried Time occupied on journey, as quoted, 40 hours. From the foregoing it will be seen that the motor lorry can easily beat the locomotive both for time and expense, but this is only due to the heavy handicap on the locomotive in the matter of terminal delay. Cut this out and the locomotive can work quicker, and very much cheaper. The real remedy is therefore to remove this handicap and avail ourselves of the unique powers of the locomotive for haulage, and employ the motor as its adjunct. So here again we have no remedy in the motor lorry, and it has the ineradicable disadvantage that it must render road traffic more and more congested. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that the motor-car delivers at the door of the consignee, without transhipment; but even with this apparently formidable advantage it can easily be beaten by the locomotive on long journeys, under economic conditions. The above confirms what has been overwhelmingly proved by the newest and most progressive school of railway economists, viz., that quick transport is cheap transport, and that slow transport is dear transport. It is obvious that if goods remain four times as long in the hands of a railway company as there is any need for them to do, those goods must occupy four times the available space-minutes of the company's property. Amalgamation has been advanced as a scheme for the rehabilitation of railways. Amalgamation would no doubt affect certain economies, as has been pointed out by Sir Alexander Henderson, Chairman of the Great Central Railway. This railway pays nothing at all on its ordinary stock. His statement that some millions of money might be saved by this simple expedient has not materially moved his brother chairmen, who are apparently above being swayed by any such trifling considerations. They are so far right, that the sum involved is a trifling one in comparison with what is actually required, if railways are to be saved at all. Another partial remedy may be found in the reform |