January 21, 1916.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

125

The first annual dinner of the Coke Oven
Managers’ Association was held at Sheffield, on
Saturday last.

Before the North Staffordshire Institute of Mining
and Mechanical Engineers, on Monday, Mr. J. M.
Walshe read an interesting paper on the subject of
high-speed air compressors.

The first of a series of lectures on “Coal” was
delivered by Dr. Marie Stopes, on Tuesday, at the
London University College.

It is understood that the Associated Chambers of
Commerce, railway companies, and owners of private
wagons have officially protested against the proposed
pooling of railway rolling stock.

The management of the Pennant Hill Colliery,
Staffordshire, were prosecuted by the Home Office,
last week, for alleged contravention of the Coal
Mines Act, 1911. The summonses arose out of the
recent explosion at the colliery.

Further hearing of the interesting subsidence case
against Lord Ellesmere was taken, last week, in the
Liverpool Chancery Court. Judgment was reserved.

The executive of the Miners’ Federation of Great
Britain will hieet the Prime Minister to-day (Friday)
to discuss the attitude of miners towards the
Military Service Bill; they will also present their
request for an increase in the scale of old age

Amongst the numerous subjects
The Problem considered by the Coal Mining
Of Coal Organisation Committee, one of the
Distribution, niost complex was that of railway
transport in its relation to coal traffic.
It is the opinion of this Committee that the existing
difficulties due to military requirements will become
worse as time goes on, and amongst the possible
remedies for this contingency, consideration was
given to the advantages that might follow from some
system of pooling both private and railway-owned
wagons in different districts. At the same time, it

was recognised that the success of such a system

would depend upon the simplicity of the arrange-
ment and the concurrence of the coal owners and
other interested parties.

Unfortunately, the difficulties now experienced, on
account of the excessive congestion of the railways
caused by circumstances arising out of the war, are
only an extreme manifestation of conditions which
were already in existence prior to the war. The
trouble is, in fact, one of long standing, and there
have been many attempts to mitigate it, all of which
hitherto have proved abortive. The grievances of
coal owners were quite recently put forward by
Mr. B. P. Wilson in his evidence given before the
Poyal Commission on -Railways in February 1914.
Briefly, the position is as follows :—The number of
privately-owned mineral wagons on British railways
exceeds 600,000, and on an approximate estimate the
railway companies own an equal number. The
private w^agons, however, are very unequally dis-
tributed amongst the colliery owners, some of the
collieries being far better equipped in this respect
than others. The custom of having privately-
owned wagons has largely grown out of the
conditions of the coal trade. Several Yorkshire
collieries, for example, own more than a thousand
railway trucks, and it is only in this way that these
collieries could ever possess a reasonable chance of
having at command enough trucks to carry on the
business of the pit. But however large the number
of trucks owned by a colliery might be, the pit
can still be laid idle if all these trucks are distri-
buted over the railway systems when they are wanted
at the colliery siding. If it could be ensured that each
truck occupied only a reasonable time on its journey,
it would be perfectly possible to arrange matters so
that the colliery requirements would be satisfied. But
this ideal state of things seldom happens even in
the piping times of peace. Mr. Wilson, in his
evidence before the Royal Commission, gave some
truly astounding examples of the difficulties inci-
dental to these conditions, involving much loss of
output at the pits and other serious disadvantages.
These difficulties may be ascribed mainly to the loss
of time involved in shunting, sorting and marshalling
empty trucks at junctions and sidings, and to the

dead loss involved in hauling empties back to their
headquarters. There have been numberless com-
plaints of unreasonable delays on the journeys to
and fro, and private owners have learnt by hard
bought experience that there is little or no means of
redress for unjust treatment. The well-known case
of Messrs. Charrington, Sells, Dale and Co. v. the
London and North-Western Railway is an instructive
instance. This firm claimed Is. per day as compen-
sation for delay on a certain journey, and after being
actually awarded 6d. per day by the Railway and
Canal Commissioners, received from the railway
company something less than £2 in an action which
cost them, to win, nearly £750 in law expenses. It
is, in fact, well understood that whatever rights
private owners possess under the Traffic and other
railway Acts are in practice rendered almost null and
void owing to the trouble and expense of enforcing
them.

The position has never been satisfactory, and it is
rendered still less so under existing conditions. But
it is well to recognise that the railway companies
have their difficulties also. The whole system of
multiple ownership is unscientific and wasteful. It
originated as an expedient to meet the continued
increase in mineral traffic, largely due to the expan-
sion of the coal mining industry, and although in a
w^ay it has served its purpose, it has hopelessly
broken down under the stress of naval and military
demands in war time.

When a remedy for this condition is sought there
appears to be but a limited choice. One of the
obvious alternatives Avould appear to be the utilisa-
tion of other means of transport, such as motor
haulage by road or canal. Neither of these, how-
ever, could be put into practice .to any extent
immediately, if at all, for want of adequate means.
Canal transport would seem to promise well if our
canals were practicable for extended traffic. The
Royal Commission on Canals examined this question
with great care a few years back, and schemes were

outlined for the purpose, but the cost appeared to be

prohibitive, and nothing has been done. There
seems, therefore, to be no other alternative than
to reorganise the railway system. To this end some
system of pooling wagons seems to be the only
available course. The railway companies have never
really liked the system of private ownership of trucks,
mainly on account of the unremunerative work
involved in the haulage of empties; but they
probably have themselves to blame for the growth
of the system, which arose from their failure in the
first instance to provide adequate facilities to the
rapidly-expanding requirements of the coal trade.
Notwithstanding numerous objections to the
nationalisation of railways, it cannot be denied that
under any efficient system of State ownership the
present position would not have arisen, but we have
to face things as they are and not as they might
have been.

Let us now examine the pooling system, to which
the majority of private owners are strongly opposed.
One of the main objections to the abolition of private
owners’ wagons, so far as the coal trade is concerned,
seems to be the fear of an inadequate service of
trucks to meet the heavy demands of the collieries.
But that is already the case, and the objection,
accordingly, loses much of its force. Then, again, it
is urged that coal wagons are of little use for general
merchandise, so that the pooling system would not,
after all, possess all the advantages that might be
-expected of it. • This, of course, is true. As a matter
of fact, the railway companies already decline to
supply wragons for such by-products of the coal trade
as creosote, coal tar, gas tar, ammoniacal liquor and
similar substances, which require trucks to be solely
confined to that particular use. A further objection
is based on the inequality of the conditions of private
ownership. There is also to be considered the
position of the wagon-supply companies. The
Wagon Builders’ Association has already entered a
strong protest with the Railway Department of the
Board of Trade against any pooling scheme, and
their position is certainly strong enough to demand
attention. The private owners, also, stand in a
position of inequality in this respect. Some colliery
companies have already written off the cost of their

wagons by the sacrifice of dividends, while in other
cases but little has been written off for depreciation.
Any equal method of compensating private owners
would, therefore, be unfair in certain cases.

The existence, also, must be recognised of the com-
petitive factor in the British coal trade. If any plan
could be devised to establish a selling agency or coal
“Kontor,” whereby the collieries had only to think
of contributing their quota to a bulk demand, much
of the objection to pooling wagons would be removed.
Indeed, such a proceeding would almost follow as a
natural consequence of a common sales agency.
This, however, is too big a question for adequate
discussion in this place. Lastly, collieries require a
certain number of trucks for permanent use on their
own sidings.

It does not appear, however, that any of these
objections offer insuperable obstacles to an equitable
and efficient pooling scheme. It is more than likely
that undue fears have been aroused by rumours of
immature suggestions. Far outweighing all these
difficulties is the present urgent need for better
organisation of mineral traffic. The existing
system is inadequate and wasteful in every way. It
is extravagant in locomotive requirements and con-
ducive to congestion ; whereas it is imperative that
immediate relief in these particulars should be
provided. Under the most favourable conditions,
50 per cent, of the mileage run by private wagons is
at present profitless. The efficiency of the present
system is indeed far below 50 per cent., and on no
grounds can it be j ustified from an economic stand-
point. If the whole of the mineral traffic in these
islands were placed under one management, with
suitable compensation to every interest concerned, it
would surely be possible to improve the existing state
of confusion and delay. The colliery owners, also,
would get much-needed relief from a great deal of
petty annoyance from demurrage, and their legal
position would be placed upon a more satisfactory
basis.

We published lately a summary of
Organisation the Fourth Annual Report of the
Of	Employers’ Parliamentary Associa-

Industry.	tion, which, under the presidency of

Sir Charles Mac ar a, and with
Mr. W. Peter Rylands as vice-chairman of the
Central Executive Committee, has been actively
engaged in the promotion of many pressing subjects
closely concerned with the development of our
national industries. Amongst these we propose to
refer especially to the efforts which are being made
to give practical effect to the State recognition of
science as a factor essential to the national progress.
The Government in pre-war days exhibited a strong
predilection for social legislation admittedly based
upon German models. We are not now going to
quarrel with that attitude, although there is no
general agreement as to the wisdom or even the
expediency of the resulting measures. But even if
it is admitted that these German models were worthy
of imitation, it is equally clear that the selection was
not the best that could have been chosen for adoption
in this country in the first instance. Perhaps the
most admirable feature of German methods—and
certainly the one that has contributed most both to
the industrial and military status of that country—is
the thoroughness with which every department of
the State has been permeated by the scientific spirit.

In this country, on the other hand, that spirit has
been almost entirely ignored by the State, and we
cannot even exonerate our leaders of industry from a
large share of responsibility for that neglect. The
loss of the aniline dye industry is only one out of
many examples of the fatal results which such a
policy must entail. It is, indeed, now freely admitted
that we have hitherto neglected to take full advantage
of the application of scientific research to industrial
problems. We are glad to see, therefore, that the
Employers’ Parliamentary Association has given
this subject a prominent place in its programme of
suggested reforms, and we trust this endeavour will be
vigorously pushed forward now that the Government
has at last put on a showr of interest in the matter.

It is difficult, however, to avoid a feeling of
distrust in these belated efforts on the part of the