Picking up the points made by @Belperpete’s post
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/how-much-did-rail-really-cost-historically.294914/post-7559392 has nudged me to complete a post I started some days ago but kept putting to one side as ‘life management’ got in the way!
I have a copy of a reprint (published in the UK by David and Charles in 1968) of the 2nd printing of the US edition of Dionysus Lardner’s
Railway Economy A Treatise on the New Art of Transport. The book was first published in England in 1850 and in the USA five years later.
Lardner is best known to railway nerds as having crossed I.K. Brunel in the matter of the ultimate speed of trains with no brakes running away in the Box Tunnel, misunderstanding the effect of increasing ships’ dimensions on fuel storage and consumption with regard to the
Great Western steamship and not appreciating that
Firefly’s excessive fuel consumption at higher speeds was due to a mismatched blast pipe and chimney and not due to the increased wind resistance of broad gauge trains. He wasn’t an engineer but a theoretician and in other areas he was a well regarded scientist and writer, he was a Fellow of the Royal Society and was appointed to the chair of Physics and Astronomy at the newly founded University of London.
The book covers almost every aspect of railways and is written from the point of view of a commentator introducing a subject new to most of his readers — although as it was written immediately after the Railway Mania when practically all of his readers would have heard of railways it somewhat labours the point!
Nevertheless it is fascinating as it covers not only the fundamentals of transport and trade but also management, operation and the influence of railways as seen at the time. He covers railways in the UK, river and canal traffic and the construction of canals and railways in the USA, French, Belgian, German, Italian and Russian railways and the electric telegraph — often in numbing detail. It also includes a chapter of hints and tips for the railway traveller. It is 442 pages long in addition to a 23 page index.
An example of the detail can be seen where he quotes from a report by Captain Huish of the North Western Railway in a report to the Directors in a “Statement showing Quantity and estimated Value of Articles included in amount charged to Capital for “Working Stock” of £1,462,901,—January 1st, 1848.
| Engines | Goods | Passenger | Total | Value per engine (£ and shillings) | Total (£) |
| Southern Division | 71 | 109 | 180 | 1,499-0 | 269,900 |
| Northern Divison | 60 | 126 | 186 | 1,321-0 | 245,766 |
| Manchester and Birmingham | 8 | 25 | 33 | 1,400-0 | 46,200 |
The table also includes condemned engines used for pumping and ballasting, locomotives sold, work in progress, Tenders and Tools and Moveable Equipment in Engine Shops for a grand total of £808,315 for the Locomotive Account.
I’ll give three short extracts concerning the construction costs and financial arrangements of railways in the US, Belgium and the German states which underline Belperpete’s comments on relative costs of construction and give flavour of Lardner’s style. He has this to say about the US railways:
RAILWAY ECONOMY.
[CHAP. XVI
Nothing can be more simple, expeditious, and cheap than the means of obtaining an act for the establishment of a railway company in America. A public meeting is held, at which the project is discussed and adopted. A deputation is appointed to apply to the legislature, which grants the act without expense, delay, or official difficulty. The principle of competition is not brought into play, as in France; nor is there any investigation as to the expediency of the project, with reference to future profit or loss, as in England. No other guarantee or security is requíred from the company than the payment by the shareholders of a certain amount constituting the first call. In some states, the nonpayment of a call is followed by the confiscation of the previous payments; in others, a fine is imposed on the shareholder; in others the share is sold, and if the produce be less than the price at which it was delivered, the surplus can be recovered from the shareholder by process of law. In all cases, the acts creating the companies fix a time within which the works must be completed under pain of forfeiture. The traffic in shares before the definitive constitution of the company is prohibited.
Although the state itself has rarely undertaken the execution of railways, it holds out in most cases inducements in different forms to the enterprise of companies. In some cases, the state takes a great number of shares, which is generally accompanied by a loan made to the company, consisting in state stock delivered at par, which the company negotiate at its own risk. This loan is often converted into a subvention.
In many cases the companies obtain the land gratuitously, or for a nominal price.
When the price becomes a matter of consideration, the land is valued by a jury, as in England.
Several states have made a condition that foreign capital shall be excluded under penalty of forfeiture or fine against the companies.
In Belgium the decision to build the railways was a matter for the newly created State linking the various parts of the country following its creation in 1830. Work started in 1834 and the first sections were opened by 1836. By 1840 190 miles had been built and the entire originally conceived system of 347 miles was completed in 1844 and paid for by the Belgium government.
By 1848 the amount spent on the construction of the Belgium railways, and the stock employed working them, was £6,406,476 of which the following are the details:
Construction of the road £4,800,270
Buildings and machinery for the inclined planes £59,544
Buildings and appendages of the stations £402,949
Dependencies of the stations £84,772
Management and office expenses £205,773
Rolling stock £853,168
Concerning the costs of construction…
The general character of the country was favorable to the construction of railways; but much more stress has been laid on this circumstance, by those who desire to explain the early advance made in this improvement by Belgium, than is due to it. It is true that those parts of the country between Brussels and the ocean are generally level, and that but little earth-work or works of art necessary to bestride valleys or penetrate hills were required; but, on the other hand, the country was intersected by numerous rivers and canals, which necessitated the construction of as many bridges and aqueducts.
The country, however, has a very different character between Brussels and the Prussian frontier. The ground there presents obstacles requiring works of art of an expensive and difficult character.
From Louvain to Ans, the line passes through an undulating country, and is carried by cuttings of an average depth of fifty feet, alternating with embankments of an average height of sixty-six feet, up a gradual inclination to a summit nearly five hundred feet above the station at Louvain. In this section of the line there is a tunnel which measures upward of one thousand yards, besides numerous aqueducts, bridges, and viaducts, by which the canals and common roads are conducted over and under the railway.
From Ans to Liege, the country falls along the side of the valley of the Meuse, by a steep declivity. Here, in a length of 2300 feet, there is a fall of 360 feet.
The descent is effected by two inclined planes,…etc.
Lardner gives another reason for the relatively low cost of construction:
The Belgian railways are distinguished from those of England and France by the circumstance of passing common roads, wherever it is possible to do so, by level crossings.
By this expedient considerable expense in the original construction is saved in bridges and viaducts; and, notwithstanding the great traffic on the Belgian lines, no serious accidents have been produced by it. It is to be considered, however, that, the speed of the trains being less than on the English railways, the liability to accident is proportionally diminished.
And so to Germany…
The German railways have been constructed in some cases by companies, and in others by the government. Those of the grand duchy of Baden, the kingdoms of Würtemburg, Bavaria, and Hanover, the empire of Austria, the duchy of Brunswick, and the principailties of Hesse, have been, with a few exceptions, constructed and are worked by the States. Even in the few cases where the construction of particular lines was confided to companies, the governments have generally redeemed them.
In Prussia, the State has abstained from any direct interference with the construction or working of the railways, but has extended encouragement to the private companies by whom the extensive system of lines which cover its territory has been executed. In cases where the traffic did not offer sufficient encouragement to stimulate private enterprise, the government has extended its aid, either in the shape of subvention, or by taking certain shares in the line, or in guaranteeing a minimum rate of interest on capital. The government, however, reserves a power of redemption at the end of thirty years, on the condition of paying to the railway proprietors a capital equal to twenty-five times the average amount of the dividends enjoyed by the shareholders for the preceding five years. The State would, in that case, assume the responsibilities and debts of the company, but it would at the same time take possession of their entire assets, as well as the reserve fund. The State engages meanwhile, not to permit, parallel and competing lines to be constructed. The government also retains a power of controlling the tariff.
Constructed with a view to a traffic comparatively limited, and resembling closely in their commercial conditions the roads of the United States, the German railways have been constructed, in general, on principles analogous to those which have been found to answer so well in America. The vast expenditure for earth-work and costly works of art, such as viaducts, bridges, and tunnels, by which valleys are bestridden and mountains pierced to gain a straight and level line in the English system, have not been attempted; and the railways have been carried more nearly along the natural level of the country, the cost of earth-work having been generally limited to that of short cuttings and low embankments. Curves of comparatively short radius have also been admitted, so that the railways might wind along those levels which would offer the most economical conditions.
And so to the costs of construction...
It appears from the preceding statement, that the capital absorbed by the railways which had been completed up to the date of the reports we have quoted, which are the most recent we have obtained of an authentic and exact character, was at the average rate of something less than £11,000 per mile; but it is probable that these lines had not yet absorbed their full amount of capital. It appears further, that the estimated expenses of the lines in progress were greater than those which had been executed, being at the average rate of upward of £13,000 per mile. We shall probably not depart widely from the truth, if we estimate the entire extent of railways in the German States, constructed and to be constructed, at the rate of £13,000 per mile, including in that amount the cost of stock as well as the cost of construction.
This rate of expense is scarcely one third of the cost per mile of the English railways.
My emphasis!
The small size and low power of the first locomotives in the UK, developed ten or twenty years earlier, made the gentle grades and wide curves of the British railways almost essential; don’t forget that Camden Bank out of Euston was cable worked in the early years as it was too steep for the early locomotives. In addition, engineering skills honed by the construction of canals through hilly country a generation earlier meant that the construction and operation of long tunnels and viaducts could be faced with equanimity. The other side of the expensive infrastructure coin was that British locomotives did not need to be as large and as powerful as those later developed in other countries.
A fascinating topic!
