6

so as to ascertain, if possible, which continuous brake is best. At present the three principal competitors in the field are the Weslinghouse air brake, the Smith's vacuum brake, and the Clark and Webb's chain brake, all of which are more than capable of stopping a train in the distance named by the Commissioners. Theoretically it is possible to diminish the speed of a train in miles per hour at the rate of three miles per second, even when the rails are slightly greasy,' or, in other words, to pull up a train travelling at the rate of 60 miles per hour in 20 seconds. Practically, this performance is not attained, but it is very nearly approached. Thus, at the recent trials on the North British Railway, a train travelling at the rate of 55 miles an hour was pulled up in 21 seconds and within a distance of 303 yards by the Weslinghouse brake, and in 28 seconds and 458 yards by the vacuum brake. It is clear, therefore, that efficient continuous brakes can and will be introduced, and that the Commissioners have done good service by their inquiry in contributing to this end.

Within the limits of this article it is impossible to do justice to all of the important points raised in the evidence of the able and experienced witnesses called before the Commissioners. It will be well therefore to omit from present consideration accidents to travellers when getting into trains in motion or when crossing the line, casualties to trespassers, accidents to railway servants in shunting or otherwise; and to devote our remaining space exclusively to train accidents which may result from either of the following causes, as summarised by Mr. Galt::

(1) Accidents due to defects in the rolling stock or line, want of proper appliances and accommodation for the traffic.

(2) Accidents due to negligence and mistakes of officers and servants; want of maintenance of proper discipline, and the enforcement of the observance of the company's rules; negligent working of the block and telegraph systems; insufficient establishment; overwork; inexperienced servants; excessive speed, having regard to the state of the road or the vehicles; traffic beyond the means of safe conveyance; and other causes of a preventible nature.

Class 1 of causes of accidents is of course divisible into an infinite number of details, each of which is important, and demands constant supervision. A slight error in the gauge, a bad top to the rails, a broken chair or fishbolt, may be the proximate cause of a terrible collision. Every portion of the permanent way and the rolling stock of a railway is under constant and incessant repair and renewal, and a very elaborately organised superintendence is maintained by the locomotive and permanent way engineers over their

respective departments: each is jealous and watchful of the otherone, that the permanent way is kept in perfect order, so as to reduce to a minimum the repairs of his rolling stock; the other, that the rolling stock is kept in the highest condition, with regard to springs and tyres, so as not to injure the permanent way. We fail to see how any number of Government officers could possibly exercise adequate control over matters of detail requiring such uninterrupted personal attention.

The Regulation of Railways Act of 1871 gives the Board of Trade the power to appoint an inspector to enter upon and inspect any railway, its works and plant, provided that no person so appointed shall exercise any power of interference in the affairs of any company.' It is open, therefore, to any one of the public who may have knowledge of the existence of a supposed danger on any line of railway to communicate with the Board of Trade, and the latter can appoint an inspector, whose report will inform the public of the danger, if any, and its character. It is difficult to conceive, and we believe impossible to cite, a case where a company under such circumstances would hesitate or has hesitated to proceed with the necessary remedial works with all practicable speed. We agree with the Secretary of the Board of Trade, that 'If it were shown that railway companies habitually allowed bridges to become rotten, the Board of Trade should have power to say to the company, "You shall not use that bridge until it is repaired;" but, as he significantly added, the case is imaginary, not real.'

Class 2 of causes of railway accidents is also divisible to a like infinite extent, but the most potent of all the causes is the ever present element of 'human fallibility.' In the years 1872 to 1875 inclusive, out of a total number of 504 collisions, as many as 464 were attributed by the Board of Trade officers to the negligence or errors of servants-an element which the Commissioners well state can never be wholly eliminated. In illustration of the trifling mistakes which may lead to collisions, Captain Tyler mentions one instance where a man said 'All right, Dicky,' and it was understood by one man when intended for another. Discipline, in the opinion of Captain Tyler, will enable you to work more safely under a bad system, than in its absence you can work under a good system. That regulations should be observed, if made, is beyond all question; yet in the evidence before the Commissioners it was elicited that both officers and men often ignore the regulations which have been issued by the responsible management. The companies have therefore no right to complain if the Commissioners, with this fact proved before them, have attempted to provide a remedy by a complicated system of legislation.

One of the most frequent consequences of imperfect discipline is unpunctuality, but for this the public are to some extent responsible,

by late arrival at stations with luggage, and from travelling without tickets or in the wrong class of carriage. The influence of un punctuality on safety naturally occupied a considerable share of the attention of the Commissioners, but the evidence elicited from the Government and railway authorities was distinct and in perfect accord, to the effect that want of punctuality on a properly signalled and carefully worked railway should not add to the risk of accidents. This is in direct contradiction to the finding of Lord Cardwell's Committee of 1853, that, of all the causes which have led to accidents, unpunctuality is the chief.'

The Commissioners, however, are of opinion that the element of human fallibility' is increased by the greater strain upon the faculties of the signalmen and others when the time-tables are not strictly adhered to; but they are unable to propose any direct legislation that would be effective in this matter; for in this country the railway traffic is so great, and the interchange so considerable, that a scheme of Government supervision, with penalties for unpunctuality, would be utterly impracticable;' and they fall back, therefore, on the suggestion of the Committee of 1858, and recommend that increased facilities be afforded to the public to obtain redress by cheap and summary process when the trains are late.'

Mr. Harrison thinks this recommendation most injudicious, and that it will tend to promote accidents rather than to prevent them, since, if penalties for unpunctuality are too stringent and vexatious, the temptation to strain after punctuality at all hazards would be correspondingly increased; and he further adds that passengers can and do obtain redress in county courts. Mr. Galt also disapproves of this recommendation of his brother Commissioners, but substitutes another infinitely more objectionable-namely, that the Board of Trade should be empowered to require the companies to alter their time-tables in conformity with the time which they are able to keep.' Mr. Galt vainly endeavoured to obtain support for his proposition trom some of the railway managers. Mr. Findlay explained to him that the trains on the London and North-Western were like a piece of mosaic,' the main-line trains dovetailing into the connecting trains from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Mr. Grierson expressed his belief that anyone suggesting that the timing of trains on a railway should be in other hands than that of the company cannot have the slightest idea of what is involved; and he added that, on the Great Western Railway, it is the work of an experienced staff to watch the working, and report every irregularity and its cause to the proper department. In reply to Mr. Ayrton, whose questions were invariably to the point, he further said that the trains are timed as a matter of course with a view to their keeping the time of the time-tables. Practically, then, the Commissioners have been unable to make any new suggestion with reference to that occasionally most important public grievance, unpunctuality.

We think, however, it is quite possible to enforce upon the attention of the companies the necessity of punctuality. Under the Act of 1871, already frequently cited, the Board of Trade may make 'any inquiry with respect to any railway,' and require the production of any papers or returns they think fit. They can, therefore, at their discretion, demand from the companies, with or without the action of any of the public who may be aggrieved, returns of cases of 'habitual unpunctuality,' and may make reports upon such cases, and give such publicity to their reports as they deem desirable.

Unpunctuality is but one of the consequences of imperfect discipline, and by no means the most important. There are also to be considered the mistakes of servants, arising rather from inexperience and natural dulness than from want of discipline; but in these matters it would probably be impossible for the Commissioners or ourselves to make any practical suggestion which has not been already thoroughly tested or put into operation by the experienced officers of our railway companies.

In summing up the general result of the two and a half years' labour of the Commission, we would state that in our opinion the Commissioners have admirably succeeded in the first part of their duty, which was to inquire into the causes of accidents on railways; but have been unable to prove satisfactorily the possibility of removing any such causes by legislation.' The evidence distinctly points to the necessity of continuing to adhere, as closely as possible, to the policy of non-interference which has been so frequently and authoritatively affirmed in this country, but at the same time indicates that great improvements may be made both by the State and by the companies in the interests and for the safety of the public. Companies will now see the necessity of revising their regulations, so as to make them consistent with strict observance, and of redoubling their efforts to maintain the strictest possible discipline; whilst, on the other hand, the Board of Trade will extend their invaluable system of inspections and report, and the State will possibly acknowledge the advisability of revising the constitution of the Board of Trade inquiries into accidents, so as to combine thorough investigation with a judicial mode of procedure, without which much of their influence and usefulness is lost. It is also greatly to be desired that the working of the Court of the Railway Commissioners may be included in the full consideration of the whole question.

It will be gathered from the tenor of our remarks that thorough and searching inquiry into every alleged sin of omission and commission on the part of a railway company, and publicity to the report of the inspecting officers of the Government, are the remedies which we would substitute for the legislative interference recommended by the Commissioners. Cases of neglected maintenance,

unpunctuality, unreasonable delay in adopting the block system and continuous brakes, if in the opinion of the officers prejudicial to the public safety, should at once receive the utmost publicity.

If it be said that this, after all, is but a poor guarantee as compared with the legislation deemed necessary by the Commissioners, we would say that the influence of what is, in our opinion, the most important of all of the elements conducive to public safety has been entirely ignored by them, and that the omission invalidates their conclusions. The element of human fallibility' has justly received the fullest consideration from the Commissioners, but surely it was no less essential for them to recognise the existence of the active living force 'human sensibility.' How constantly do we hear of accidents being prevented by the presence of mind, promptness, and energy of railway officials, and of porters and guards being cut to pieces in the attempt to save passengers from the consequences of their own imprudence. There appears no good reason to exclude the directors of railways from the possession of 'human sensibility,' even as we must admit that they are liable to 'human fallibility;' and instances might be adduced without number in proof of the presence and practical daily value on railways of the element human sensibility.' Yet in their report some of the Commissioners gravely assume that the companies actually balance the probable cost of railway collisions against the cost of works which would obviate them, and that they are guided in their decision by the appearance of the figures! If it is to be taken for granted that engine-drivers and guards are ready to lay down their lives, superintendents and managers to endure anxiety and mental anguish hardly less tolerable than death, and directors to incur the odium attached to a preventible accident, merely that an eighth per cent. greater dividend may be announced to the shareholders-then it must be concluded that the purchase of all the lines by Government, or a system of legislation infinitely more stringent and penal than that proposed by any of the Commissioners, can alone insure the public against the occurrence and consequences of frequent and preventible railway accidents.

JOHN FOWLER.