ON CANAL DEVELOPMENT.
That the English Canals, forming as they do a fine and fairly complete system of waterways throughout the industrial parts of the country, are not taking the share of traffic which ought to fall to them, is clear; nor are the reasons far to seek, England was the pioneer of Canal as of Railway enterprise; consequently canals labour under heavy disadvantages, some initial and irremediable, — the result of having, to compete for traffic under circumstances for which they were not designed, — and some the result of the apathy engendered by the crushing nature of railway competition. These latter are removable, and will disappear as it is realised that there is a large field in which, were our waterways up to date, they could secure traffic against any competition railways could bring against them. The tortuous course followed by many canals is a disadvantage of the former class. In the early days of canals the saving of initial outlay on heavy embankments and cuttings, while it increased the length of the navigation, increased also the mileage toll, and hence, in the absence of any serious competition, secured two advantages, — cheapness of construction, and greater distance on which to charge mileage toll. A comparison of a few distances by rail and canal between centres of commerce, taken almost at haphazard, will show the reality of this drawback.
By Rail. By Canal.
Miles. Miles.
London to Birmingham 113 141
London to Manchester 188 235*
London to Leicester 99 140
Birmingham to Manchester 84 104*
* Via the Macclesfield Canal; the shortest route, but not, at present, in general use.
Disadvantages of the second class are: —
The general condition of canals. Single locks, narrow and low bridges, small tunnels lacking any adequate means of ventilation or haulage, are characteristic of most canals. Before they can hope to compete with railways their plant must be in as good a condition to meet modern requirements, and must take advantage of modern improvements to the same extent as that of their rivals. Canal locks were designed for horse traffic; —of sufficient size, as a rule, for one boat only, and often coming thickly together where hills have to be surmounted. Horse traffic is now antiquated. A loaded steamer, towing one or more flats, can carry more economically. But to allow her to do so, locks must, be capable of passing at least one fifty-ton barge, or two thirty-ton boats; where they are close together, also, a lift or slide would save much time. Besides want of economy a serious objection to horse traffic arises from the in-sanitary and immoral conditions under which it is, almost of necessity, carried on. To steer a barge or to keep a horse travelling at 21/2 miles an hour along a towpath does not require a man, or even a woman; consequently a Bargee has every inducement to marry young, and to bring up his family m the small cabin of his barge. The children, having no fixed home, escape the School Board Officers, and are brought up with such ideas of decency and morality as might be expected. The work, also, entails terribly long hours and exposure, which must tell prejudicially on the health and stamina of those who survive and grow up. The substitution of steam for horse haulage would, by saving labour, do much to alleviate the Bargee's lot; and is, therefore, on all grounds greatly to be desired. Tunnels in which steam can be used are, at present, the exception. They are occasionally passed by horse haulage, sometimes by holdfasts and hand haulage, more often by “poling”, or by the barbarous method of “legging”. A long tunnel may often take two to three hours to pass. Ventilation of tunnels, and the duplication or enlarging of single ones, will necessarily follow the increasing use of steam.
Management. —There are in England and Wales 3,050 miles of canal under 70 separate companies, or an average of 44 miles to each company. There are 12,931 miles of railway under 21 companies, or an average of 616 miles to each company. This multiplication of managements, natural in the early days of canal enterprise, seems well calculated to produce low efficiency at high cost. Few companies can afford to pay for good men, or for works up to the modern standard. Small shops, manned by local workmen, without machinery and without stores or skilled supervision, cannot possibly compete with modern railway works. And yet, if canals are not, in their way, kept in as efficient a state as railways, they compete under a heavy disadvantage.
Railway Ownership. This is not likely, considering the tendency of modern legislation, to prove a. serious bar to canal development. Railway canals are, as a rule, as well kept as free canals, and are now compelled under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act to allow carrying at statutory rates. Whether further legislation, allowing free canals, or traders, to acquire railway property at a valuation, where it is neglected, or where proper facilities are not given to traders, is required, time alone will show.
It has often been suggested, most recently in an article in the Times of May 16th last, which has since been issued in pamphlet form, that to get over the difficulties caused by multiplied managements and railway ownership, Government should acquire the canals of the country and work them as a Government department. With this view I strongly disagree. In the first place, government management is not notorious for economy, or for elasticity sufficient to compete with free enterprises, unless the latter are so tied down and handicapped with restrictions that Government have a practical monopoly. The Post Office, the best-managed Government department, is a case in point. Telephones and boy messengers have both, recently, forced the department, to fall back on its monopoly, and. nobody can doubt that, were the field open, some enterprising Company would give London a halfpenny Post. If, therefore, Government acquired Canals, one of two things would happen. If Government carried at rates low enough to beat the railways, or fixed tolls low enough to enable the bye-traders to do so, Canals would not pay; then they would be maintained at the expense of the taxpayer, out of whose pocket the trader would receive the benefit of cheap transit. Or else railways would not be allowed to carry certain classes of goods at rates lower than the Government officials might consider sufficient to pay the Canals and bye-traders; then the trader would pay in freight to prevent the taxpayer losing on his investment. Then again, there are canals which have a reasonable prospect of paying, and canals which have not. On the great through routes a heavy trade in such articles as grain, coal, stone, and iron would readily spring up; since, were managements centralized, they could be carried at a rate to defy railway competition. Some local lines, also, have a large local trade in bricks, manure, &c. Canals, on the other hand, feeding small towns, and not connecting trade centres, or having any special local trade, have, in face of the facilities now offered by railways, no future before them. But, if Government were to acquire the canals of the country, it must take all, or none; the taxpayer would thus be saddled with a largo quantity of non-paying property, costing as much to maintain as that which could yield a return. If, however, canal development is left to private enterprise, the stronger canals, obtaining money on favourable terms, will, as opportunity offers, acquire canals acting as their feeders, or connecting them with through routes. This course has recently been followed by the Grand Junction Canal Company, which has purchased the Grand Union and Leicester-shire and Northamptonshire Union Canals. Or, where this is not done, groups of canals may be acquired by a Company or Trust formed under the auspices of the local traders or mine-owners. Canal Companies, being under statutory obligations to maintain their waterways, are, when small, unable to do so to advantage; such Companies are, therefore, generally very ready to sell at an almost nominal price. The larger Company, thus obtaining property at small first, cost, will be able to spend the money required to bring canal works up to date, with good hope of a return. And thus will Canals again become in the future, as they have been in the past, the principal highways of the country for heavy traffic.
Biographical notes.
RODOLPH FANE DE SALIS. All that is known to the writer about the career of this member of the de Salis family is that he was a member of the Canal Association who gave evidence before the 1928 Royal Commission, and a Director of the Grand Junction Canal Company. He was a cousin of:
HENRY RODOLPHE DE SALIS, AMICE. Was a director of Fellows, Morton, & Clayton Ltd, waterway carriers, and author of Chronology (1897) a chronology of inland waterway events, and the monumental Bradshaw’s Canals and Navigable Rivers of England and Wales (1906). He had had the inspection launch Dragonfly built for his personal use in 1895, and ‘the production of this work was originally undertaken after a survey of the whole of the navigable inland waterways of England and Wales, extending over eleven years, carried out in all seasons and all weathers, and amounting to a mileage travelled over the navigations of over 14,000 miles’.* He was a member of the Thames Conservancy Board 1911-1916, and a revised edition of Bradshaw’s was published in 1928, when he was Chairman of the Company.
* From the preface to the 1928 edition.