Scotland in the nineteenth century

15. Transport

Section 15.7: Railways

The Committee reported on the financial situation of the different rail companies, the method of taxing railways by the number of passengers they carried and the different legislative powers given to the various rail companies.

The Garnkirk and Glasgow Rail Company had petitioned for a change in the way it paid its taxes on passenger traffic so as to be able to keep its fares competitive; the railway mainly being used by labourers, it was not able to increase them. The railway had been successful in opening up new coal fields and had reduced prices in Glasgow, greatly increasing the city's trade (pp. 140-143). The Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway also had problems in keeping its fares low enough to attract the poorer passengers (p. 133).

Table of duties of different Scottish railways comparing them with England (p. 134).

The report was largely concerned with the problems Scottish rail companies were having paying taxes on their passenger services.

W.F.L. Carnegie, Chairman of the Forfar and Arbroath Railway Company (pp. 281-84), gave evidence on his railway. The line carried three classes of passengers and a large quantity of goods, with the goods making up the bulk of the returns.

The passenger fares were 1st, 2s.; 2nd, 1s. 6d.; 3rd, 1s. and the company was taxed one-eighth of 1d. per mile.

George Duncan, director of the Dundee and Arbroath line, gave evidence on his company which had partially opened in October, 1839 and by 1840 had 16 miles of track and was nearly complete (pp. 284-7). The company had three classes of passengers: 1st class paid 2s. 6d.; 2nd, 2s.; 3rd, 1s. 6d. compared with the coaches which charged 8s. inside and 5s. outside and the stage coach, 6s. and 4s.

[page 316]

George Kinlock gave evidence on the Dundee and Newtyle Railway Company of which he was chairman (pp. 287-88).

Captain Huish gave evidence on the Glasgow, Paisley and Greenock Railway Company (pp. 238-240). The Scottish railways were believed to carry more working class passengers than the English companies and were, on average, cheaper because of the low density of population and the poverty of the people of the country through which they passed.

The 1st class carriage was described as holding 18 people; it had windows and lined interior with springs and buffers. The 2nd class carriage had no windows but shutters and no buffer springs; it also held 18 people but cost half as much to build. The 3rd class carriage was open with no protection and held 80.

The returns included information on the Scottish railways: the Glasgow and Ayr Railway, the Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Glasgow, Paisley and Greenock, the Arbroath and Forfar and the Dundee and Arbroath railway (pp. 196-214).

The returns were concerned with applications by these lines to the Board of Trade for permission to open.

The Edinburgh and Glasgow railway was expected to be finished on 27th September 1841, 46 miles long from the Haymarket Edinburgh to Queen Street Glasgow with an extension expected to North Border, Glasgow where it would connect with other lines. The gauge was four foot eight and a half inches with six inches between the two lines. All the turnpikes and parish roads were to have bridges and the Glasgow and Falkirk tunnels were to be lit by gas. The locomotives used were to be a mix of four and six wheel engines with each train carrying two guards and some of the 3rd class waggons were to have seats (pp. 163-167).

Bye-laws of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway (pp. 268-278).

The Committee was interested in the railways as carriers of passengers.

The report looked at fifteen Scottish railways, their length, date of completion and the cost of construction, and included a brief description of the three leading railways, the Edinburgh and Glasgow, Glasgow and Greenock and the Glasgow and Ayr.

Details included the number of passengers carried in 1842, the receipts from passenger traffic, the number of tons of merchandise and minerals and the receipts from this source, the receipts from cattle, the receipts from mail and the gross receipts of the railway.

[page 317]

The passenger statistics were further divided into the number travelling 1st, 2nd and 3rd class and the average fare per mile. Also, the percentage of passengers in the different classes.

In 1846, 32 Bills were before parliament for amalgamating railway and canal companies. Such proposals came under three headings (1) Bills for amalgamation by lease, purchase or otherwise of entire lines of canals with the competing railway; (2) Bills for amalgamating of some canals forming a link in a chain of water communication with a line of railway competing with the whole chain; and finally, (3) Bills for converting canals into railways.

While canals and railways both existed competition kept down the price of carriage and the committee were concerned not to allow monopolies to develop which would allow carriage prices to rise unnecessarily.

Problems existed over a decision as to the best site for a general railway terminus at Perth; in view of this, all railway companies with an interest in building in the area had been stopped from proceeding. The Committee wanted to combine the best interests of the citizens of Perth with the future users of the different railways. Perth was to be part of a trunk line of 500 miles of unbroken track from London to Inverness which also had to be capable of further expansion.

If was therefore decided to alter some of the proposed lines to bring them to an area near the South Inch on land facing Marshall Place.

The return breaks down the number of people employed by each Scottish railway company into their different occupations; for example, the Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail Company employed thirty-two engine drivers and seven station masters.

Also listed were the locations of the different stations on a line and the length of railway each company owned.

[page 318]

"to inquire into the law and the administration of the law of compensation for accidents as applied to railway companies; and also to inquire whether any and what precautions ought to be adopted by railway companies with a view to prevent accidents."

The unlimited liability of an employer for any injury done to his employee within the line of his duty had been modified; no action for damages could be maintained after death for an injury done during life. This modification had been abolished by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846.

The liability of a railway company with respect to passengers rested upon an implied contract. They suggested that the legislature should place a fixed limit upon the extent of their liability.

There were legal precedents for limited liability. By the Carriers Act, 1830, the legislature fixed the sum of £10 as the maximum liability of carriers of goods and parcels. The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 limited the liability of railway companies for the carriage of horses, cattle and sheep at £50.

The Committee recommended that railway companies should be responsible for an injuries arising in the conveyance of passengers, except those caused by their own negligence. They thought that the liability of railway companies should be limited within a maximum amount of compensation for each class of fares.

Scottish evidence

Samuel Lack Mason, manager of the North British Railway (pp. 104-109) stated that the law of compensation in Scotland differed from the English law. If an offer was made to a plaintiff in settlement of a claim for compensation, the amount offered was binding upon the plaintiff in the event of his going to trial. If he did go to trial and the jury awarded him a smaller sum than the company originally tendered, he would have to pay his own costs and those of the company in addition.

Cases of compensation were tried in Scotland by a judge of the Court of Session and a jury. Mr. Mason stated that the composition of juries was different in Scotland. For example, in a criminal case, there were fifteen jurors, five of whom were special jurors.

Mr. Mason reported on the workmen's trains, providing cheap conveyance to and from work. These were used on the Glasgow and South Western railway near Greenock, Paisley and Govan, but they were not economical to run. He thought that limited liability would encourage these. Excursion trains on the Glasgow and South Western line had already been discontinued on account of liability for damages.

[page 319]

"to consider the Regulation of Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill [H.L.]."

The Regulation of Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill proposed to enforce upon all railway companies the obligation of securing an interval of space between trains following each other on the same line of rails which could be effected by the "block system". The telegraph block system was first introduced in 1856 and it had since been adopted on the most important lines of railway throughout the country. Most of the witnesses were in favour of the adoption of this system on all important passenger lines. The Bill also advocated the adoption of the interlocking system which had been devised to prevent divergence between points and signals at station and junctions.

Although the adoption of these systems would involve great expenditure, it was thought to be in the railway companies' interests to make their lines safer. During the past five years, railway companies had paid £2,348,000 in compensation for injury to passengers and goods. The Bill stated that these systems should be universally adopted on all railways within five years. The Committee, however, recommended that the Bill should not be proceeded with during the present session. They thought that the Inspectors of the Board of Trade should inquire into the improvements being made, and further action should be taken, if necessary.

Evidence was obtained relating to the Caledonian Railway (pp. 71-75), the Highland Railway (pp. 141-145) and the North British Railway (pp. 147-152). The Caledonian Railway had adopted the block system to a limited extent, and were preparing to extend it along 100 miles of the main line. The Caledonian was also proceeding with the interlocking system. The Highland Railway had adopted the block system over the whole line and used interlocking apparatus at junction stations but not at loop stations. The North British had introduced the block system on 200 miles of line and were extending the interlocking system in spite of difficulties in obtaining the apparatus from manufacturers.

Samuel Lack Mason, General Manager of the North British Railway, also claimed that the railway companies were more strictly supervised in Scotland with regard to public safety.

"to inquire into the causes of accidents on railways, and into the possibility of removing any such causes by further legislation."

[page 320]

Railway accidents fell into four categories: accidents to trains, causing injury to passengers or railway employees; accidents to travellers; accidents to members of the public on railway premises, including trespassers; and deaths on level crossings and accidents to railway employees. The Commissioners examined officers of the Board of Trade, managers of railway companies and railway employees of every grade. The witnesses included superintendents, inspectors, guards and engine drivers.

The Commissioners recommended that the Board of Trade should be empowered to enforce the adoption of the block and interlocking systems. They thought the enforcement of punctuality by legislation was not feasible but the public should receive some compensation when trains were late. The Board of Trade should also enforce the execution of works which were in the interests of safety, such as the extension of railways and sidings, speed restrictions, the provision of footboards on carriages, footbridges or subways at stations and the manning of level crossings. They thought that the civil liability of railway companies for accidents to employees and the criminal liability of railway employees for acts of negligence endangering life should he extended.

The tables included in the appendices contained statistics relating to Scottish railway companies.

Report by Henry Cadogan Rothery, Wreck Commissioners, Colonel William Yolland, R. E., Chief Inspector of Railways, and William Henry Barlow, President of the Institute of Civil Engineers.

"the Board of Trade ... (under the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871) do hereby direct a formal investigation to be held into the causes of, and circumstances attending, an accident which took place on the railway bridge crossing the Firth of Tay on the North British Railway on the twenty-eight instant..."

A contract had been drawn up for the construction of the Tay Bridge on 8th May, 1881. General Hutchinson inspected the bridge in February, 1878 once it had been completed. He saw no reason why the bridge should not be used for passenger traffic but recommended that trains should not exceed 25 miles per hour whilst crossing it. The bridge was duly opened in June, 1878.

On 28th December, 1879, the 4.15 p.m. train from Edinburgh to Dundee fell into the river when part of the bridge collapsed. The 74 or 75 passengers on the train were killed. High wind pressure, the violence of the storm of 28th December, the inferior quality of the iron used to construct the bridge, inferior workmanship, insufficient supervision over the construction of part of the work done at Wormit foundry, unsatisfactory arrangements for the supervision of the bridge after its completion, and the disregard of speed restrictions on the bridge were all put forward as possible causes of the disaster. It was thought that the Board of Trade should establish rules concerning wind pressure.

[page 321]

"to enquire into the charges of railway companies and canal companies... for conveyance of merchandise, minerals, agricultural produce and parcels on railways and canals, into the laws and other conditions affecting such charges, and into the working of the Railway Commission of 1873 ..."

The Committee decided to concentrate on goods rates and recommended that a special tribunal should be set up to settle any questions concerning the rights and duties of railway companies in their relations to the trade and traffic of the country. They thought that the revised classification of goods and merchandise should be adopted and a month's notice required before railway companies could make any increase in the rates.

Most of the Scottish evidence was concerned with overcharging and copies of rates books from the Caledonian, North British and Highland Railway Companies were submitted to the Committee.

The report of 1882 included evidence from witnesses complaining about the increase in railway fares and how this was absorbing a large proportion of their profit. They thought that if the rates were lowered, trade would increase considerably.

The Committee recommended that one uniform classification of goods should be, adopted over the whole railway system. They thought the Railway Commission should be made permanent and a Court of Record with extended powers of jurisdiction.

John Walker, general manager of the North British Railway Company, gave evidence on the rates and terminal charges affecting the company laid down in the Edinburgh and Glasgow Act, 1838, the Edinburgh, Leith and Granton Railway Act, 1836, the Edinburgh and Northern Act, 1845 and the North British Railway Consolidation Act, 1858 (pp. 27-39). He also defended the low rates being charged for foreign dead meat compared with Scottish meat transported from Glasgow to London, arguing that it was in the interests of the consumer that low rates should be allowed for foreign cattle and that the company had to encourage this traffic in the interets of the railway shareholders. He objected to the suggestion that railway rates should be fixed by a government tribunal.

Appendix (Sessional no. 374-I. 1881): Details of rates for the carriage of goods from Montrose (p. 20), Forfar and Dundee (pp. 238-255).

[page 322]

"to inquire whether, and if so, in what way the hours worked by railway servants should be restricted by legislation."

The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in Scotland had more than 7,000 members. One of the main objects of this society was to reduce the hours of labour. The society had been instrumental in staging a strike throughout Scotland, which lasted from 21st December, 1890 to 30th January, 1891. Henry Tait, the Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (pp. 20-54), reported on the general prevalence of overtime and long hours on Scottish railways. He gave instances of long hours on the Caledonian Railway, North British Railway, Glasgow and South Western Railway, Ayrshire and Wigtownshire Railway and Portpatrick and Wigtownshire railway. He claimed that excessive hours of labour were injurious to health and tended to cause accidents.

Robert Crow, engine-driver (pp. 437-439), John Lamond (pp. 54-60), Robert Ross, signalman (pp. 60-62) and James McLaren, general superintendent (pp. 439-447 and pp. 454-467) all gave evidence on the hours they worked on the North British Railway. On the whole, they were in favour of a reduction of their hours to 10 hours per day. Matthew Holmes, locomotive superintendent (pp. 448-467), however, claimed that many employees preferred to work overtime and therefore work five rather than six days per week.

In reply to allegations of long hours worked on the Caledonian Railway, James Thompson, general manager of the company (pp. 411-436) submitted details of the hours of labour and pay of signalmen, guards, goods and mineral brakesmen, engine-drivers, firemen, shunters and yardsmen. He also gave an account of the premiums awarded for freedom from accident. He thought the power of the Board of Trade to intervene in railway matters should not be increased.

Appendix nos. 6 & 7: Statements submitted by an engine-driver and a goods guard, respectively, on the North British Railway of the hours they worked, 1889-90 (pp. 523-529).

Appendix no. 8: Individual days' statements of the hours worked by a brakesman of a special class of mineral trains at Motherwell (p. 530).

"to inquire into the manner in which the Railway Companies have exercised the powers conferred upon them by the Railway Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Acts (1891 and 1892) and to consider whether it is desirable to adopt any other than the existing means of settling the differences arising between the companies and the public with respect to the rates and conditions of charge for the conveyance of goods, and to report what means they recommend ..."

George G. Milne, a corn and seed merchant from Montrose (pp. 224-227) complained of the rates charged by the Caledonian and North British Railways for carrying seeds from Montrose, and in Appendix 5 (pp. 480-481), he submitted tables of the old and the new rates for various Scottish destinations.

John Durie, a coalmaster from East Lothian (pp. 246-250) complained of the rates charged by the North British Railway for the movement of coal, and submitted tables (Appendix pp. 508-511) giving distances from various pits, charges before and after 1892 increases and the percentage of increase.