■ CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Cornell University Library HE1021 .B9S Comparative railway statistics of the Un oiin 3 1924 030 119 501 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030119501 Comparative Railway Statistics OF The United States The United Kingdom France and Germany \ For 1900 and 1909 WASHINGTON. D, C. NOVEMBER, 1911. (- !' (; Nt M; ! ll^UAhY , CONTENTS. " Page Summary 5 Text- Introduction 15 I Railway Mileage in Proportion to Population and Area . . 18 II. Motive Power and Equipment 21 III. The Utilization of the Railways 25 IV. Capitalization, Revenues and Expenses 31 Tables- Area of Population ■ • 37 Mileage 38 Equipment • 40 Traffic '. 42 Capitalization, Revenues and Expenses • • 46 SUMMARY. For the reasons stated in the introduction the comparisons in this bulletin are in the main between the railways of that portion of the United States designated by the Interstate Commerce Com- mission as Group II (comprising approximately the States of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland) and those of the United Kingdom; between the railways of Group II and those of France ; between the railways of Group II and those of Prussia-Hesse, wherein are the more important railways of Ger- many. However, if the comparison be extended to include the entire United States, it will set forth the contrast between the supply and utilization of the railway facilities of the country as a whole and the supply and utilization of those of its most densely populated section; and as the comparison of the utilization is on a per mile of line basis it will not be without significance if extended to indi- cate the contrast between the United States as a whole and the respective countries of Europe. The more essential information contained in the text and the tables is broadly and roughly summariaed in the following para- graphs. As pointed out there can be no exact and absolute com- parison. Oroup II and the United Kingdom: The areas of Group II and of the United Kingdom are virtually of the same extent. The density of population of Group II is but half that of the United Kingdom. In proportion to area Group II has a greater number of miles of line, but the miles of track are fractionally less. In proportion to population Group II has over twice as many miles of line, and virtually twice as many miles of track. The railways, of Group II, with number of freight cars per mile of line only about two-thirds of that of the United Kingdom, have a freight train' density about thi-ee-fourths as great. The freight revenues per mile of line 'are over one-fourth greater in Group II. The railways of Group II, with less than one-aixtb as many pas- senger cars per mile of line, have a passenger train density about two-fifths of that of the United Kingdom; the passenger revenues per mile of line are less than half as gieat. The fact that passenger mile and ton mile statistics are not recorded for the railways of the United Kingdom prevents a more specific comparison of the utilization of its railways. The net capitalization per mile of line of the railways of Group II is not available. The capitalization per mile of line of the rail- ways of the United States is less than one-fourth that of the rail- ways of the United Kingdom and less than one-fifth that of the railways of England and Wales alone. Group II and France: The area of Group II is but little more than half as large as that of France. The density of population is virtually the same in Group II and in Prance. In proportion to area Group II has one and five-sixths times the miles of line of France and over one and four-fifths times the miles of track. In proportion to population Group II has twice as many miles of line and almost twice as many miles of track. The railways of Group II, with freight cars per mile of line one and two-thirds times as many as those of France, have a freight train density over one and one-half times, and a freight density nearly four and one-half times as great. The average tons per freight train are nearly two and three- fourth times, and the average ton miles per inhabitant are over eight times those of Prance, while the freight revenues per mile of line are over two and one-sixth times as great. The railways of Group II, with less than one-third of the number of passenger cars per mile of line, have a passenger train density nine-tenths that of Prance, a little over nine-tenths the number of passengers per train, while the passenger density is not quite three- fourths that of France. The passenger miles per inhabitant are one and one-third times and the passenger revenues per mile of line about one and one-tenth times as great as for Prance. The capitalization per mile of line of the railways of the United States is considerably less than half that of the railwavs of France. Group II and Pruasia-Besse: The area of Group II is about four-fifths as large as that of Prussia-Hesse. The density of population of Group II is about three-fifths of that of Prussia-Hesse. In proportion to area Group II has one and one-third times the miles of line and nearly one and one-third times the miles of track. In proportion to population Group II has considerably more than twice as many miles of line and over twice as many miles of track. The railways of Group II, with number of freight cars per mile of line exceeding that of Prussia-Hesse by about one-fifth, have a, freight train density about one-fourteenth greater and a freight density over twice as great. The average tons per freight train are over twice and the average ton miles per inhabitant nearly five times those of Prussia-Hesse, while the freight revenues per mile of line are only about one-sixth greater. The railways of Group 11, with less than one-fQjurth of the number of passenger cars per mile of line, have a passenger train density about three-fifths that of Prussia-Hesse, a little over two-thirds the average number of passengers per train and a passenger density about two-fifths that of Prussia-Hesse. The passenger miles per inhabitant are only fractionally less, and the passenger revenues per mile of line are about six-sevenths of those of Prussia-Hesse. The average capitalization per mile of line for the United States is but little more than half that of Prussia-Hesse. The United States and Group II: The area of the United States is over twenty-seven times as large as that of Group II. The density of population of the United States is but one-sixth that of Group II. In proportion to population the United States has a little more than twice as many miles of line and over one and one-half times as many miles of track. In proportion to area the United States has a fraction over one-third the miles of line of Group II and but little over one-fourth the miles of track. The railways of the United States, with number of freight cars per mile of line somewhat over one-third of that of Group II, have 8 a freight train density nearly half as great and a freight density less than two-fifths as great. The average tons per freight train are about three-fourths, the ton miles per inhabitant over four-fifths, while the freight revenues per mile of line are less than one-half those of Group II. The railways of the United States, with less than two-fifths the number of passenger cars per mile of line, have a passenger train density nearly half as great, nine- tenths the number of passengers per train, and a passenger density little more than two-fifths that of Group II. The passenger miles per inhabitant are about nine- tenths and the passenger revenues per mile of line a fraction less than one-half those of Group II. This comparison is of the whole United States including Group II, with Group II. The United States and the United Kingdom: The area of the United States is twenty-four times as large as that of the United Kingdom. The density of population in the United States is less than one- twrelfth that of the United Kingdom. In proportion to area the United States has a fraction over two- fifths the miles of line and a fraction over one-fourth the miles of track of the United Kingdom. In proportion to population the United States has over five times the miles of line and nearly three and one-third times the miles of track. The railways of the United States, with number of freight cars per mile of line but a fraction over one-fourth of that of the United Kingdom, have a freight train density over one-third as great. The freight revenues per mile of line are over one-half as great. The railways of the United States, with less than one-sixteenth as many passenger cars per mile of line, have a passenger train density nearly one-fifth that of the United Kingdom, and passenger revenues per mile of line less than one-fourth as great. The United States and France: The area of the United States is about fourteen times as large as that of France. The density of population in the United States is about one- sixth that of France. In proportion to area the United States has about two-thirds as many miles of line and one-half as many miles of track as France. In proportion to population the United States has over four times afi many miles of line and over three times as many miles of tracfc. The railways of the United States, with number of freight cars per mile of line two-thirds of that of France, with an aggregate freight car capacity eight times as great in proportion to popula- tion, have a freight train density three-fourths as great and a freight density one and seven-tenths times as great. The average tons per freight train are over twice, and the ton miles per inhabi- tant seven times those of France, while the freight revenues per mile of line are virtually the same. The railways of the United States, with over one-ninth of the number of passenger cars per mile of line, have a passenger train density about two-fifths that of France, about six-sevenths the number of passengers per train and a passenger density somewhat less than one-third that of France. The passenger miles per inhabi- tant are about one-fourth greater and the passenger revenues per mile of line somewhat over one-half those of France. The United States and Prussia-Hesse: The area of the United States is over twenty-one times as large as that of Prussia-Hesse. The density of population of the United States is a fraction over one-tenth that of Prussia-Hesse. In proportion to area the United States has about one-half as many miles of line and about one-third as many miles of track. In proportion to population the United States has nearly five times as many miles of line and over three times as many miles of track. The railways of the United States, with number of freight cars per mile of line one-half of that of Prussia-Hesse, with an aggre- gate freight car capacity more than five times as great in proportion to population, have a freight train density over one-half and a freight density over nine-tenths as great. The average tons per freight train are pne and one-half limes and the average ton miles 10 per inhabitant four times those of Prussia-Hesse, while the freight revenues per mile of line are only a fraction over half as great. The railways of the United States, with slightly over one-twelfth of the number of passenger cars per mile of line, have a passenger train density less than one-third that of Pnissia-Hesse, less than two-thirds the average number of passengers per train, while the passenger density is a fraction under one-fifth as great. The pas- senger miles per inhabitant are about eight-ninths and the pas- senger revenues per mile of line about two-fifths those of Prussia- Hesse. Among the striking points developed by these comparisons on the per mile of line basis are the different relations sustained by the freight traffic and the passenger traflSc of Group II and of the United States to the freight traffic and the passenger traffic of the other countries. With freight train units one and one half times those of France, the railways of Group II move four and one-half times the units of freight, but receive freight revenues only two and one-sixth times as great. With freight train units but one-fourteenth greater than those of Prussia-Hesse the railways of Group II move over twice the units of freight, but receive freight revenues only one-sixth greater. With freight train units three-fourths of those of France the rail- ways of the United States move one and seven-tenths times the units of freight, while the freight revenues per mile are virtually the same. With freight train units a fraction over one-half as great, the railways of the United States move nine-tenth^ the units of freight of Prussia-Hesse, while the freight revenues are but a fraction over half as great. With passenger train units nine-tenths those of France, the rail- ways of Group II move only three-fourths the number of passenger unite, but receive passenger revenues one and one-tenth times as great. With passenger train units three-fifths of those of Prussia- Hesse, the railways of Group II move about two-fifths the number of passenger units and receive passenger revenues six-sevenths of those of Prussia-Hesse. With passenger train units about two-fifths those of France, the railways of the United States move somewhat less than oncrthird of the passenger units and receive passenger revenues somewhat over one-half as great. With passenger train units less than one-third 11 those of Prussia-Hesse, the railways of the United States move a fraction under one-fifth of the passenger units, while the passenger revenues are about two-fifths those of Prussia-Hesse. It is repeated that these comparisons are of the average per- formance per mile of line and have no relation to the aggregate utilization of the railways for any of the countries as a whole. TEXT INTRODUCTION. As the service of the railways of a country is intimately related to the needs of the people of that country, the volume of traffic in large measure is determined at any given time by the aggregate of the population and its character. As the population may be dispersed over an extended region or concentrated in a small area, it is ap- parent that the extent of the railways and the characteristics of their service are related to the distribution of the population. The serviceability of railways is to be viewed in the light of both supply and demand. First, what is the proportion of miles of railway to the population and to the area over which that population is distributed ; what are the facilities for moving traffic, the number and power of locomo- tives, the number and capacity of freight cars and of passenger cars? Second, what use is made of the railways ; what is the number of tons of freight they haul ; what is the average number of ton miles handled per mile of line ; what are the average ton miles in propor- tion to the population and in proportion to the area occupied by that population? What is the number of passengers they haul, what is the average number of passenger miles per mile of line, what are the passenger miles in proportion to the population and in proportion to the area occupied by that population? A light is cast upon the economy of railway operation by the number of tons of freight hauled per freight train, and the num- ber of passengers hauled per passenger train. The pecuniary relation of the railways to the country they serve is revealed by their capitalization and their revenues. The financial status of the railways is shown by the relation that their expenses for operation bear to their earnings, and by the rela- tion of their net earnings to their capitalization. As the population of a country increases its traffic increases, and therefore, other things equal, its railway facilities should increase. A series of comparisons indicating for certain intervals the increase in population, the increase in miles of railway and in facilities, the 16 increase in freight traflBc and in passenger traflSc, may indicate roughly the growth in the industry and commerce of a country. The development of the financial status of the railways will also be indicated if this comparison include the changes in capitalization per mile and in revenues and expenses per mile. In this bulletin an attempt is made to present for the important commercial countries the fundamental statistics which reveal the railway status, and to demonstrate thereby the comparative serv- iceability, physical eflSciency and financial condition of the rail- ways of these countries. Although their areas are approximately equal, the geographical, racial, and political characteristics of the United States and of Europe are so diflferent that a comparison of the railway facilities and railway service of the total areas would not be enlightening. The less advanced sections of the United States are naturally more prosperous and are making greater progress than the backward regions of Europe. The statistics of the whole United States are not fairly comparable with those of any of the more advanced countries of Europe because of the great difference in area, in diffusion of population, and in general development. That portion of the United States comprised in what the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion designates as Group II, which consists approximately of the States of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, is comparable as to area, population, and in- dustrial and commercial development with the United Kingdom, with France, and with Prussia-Hesse, wherein are the more im- portant railways of Germany. Therefore in this bulletin Group II is compared with each of these countries respectively and a com- parison is incidentally afforded of each of these countries with the other. The comparison is also made to include the entire United States in order to show the relation, in the respects referred to, of the country as a whole to Group II and to the different foreign countries. The latest data available for the United Kingdom and for Prus- sia-Hesse relate to the year 1909. For France there are no more re- cent returns than for 1908. These are used in the text in comparison with the data of other countries for 1909 in the belief that the re- sults thereby obtained do not vary more than a negligible degree 17 from those that would be secured were the French statistics for 1909 available. It may be noted, however, that from the detailed tables following the text may be obtained a comparison for the diflferent countries for the year 1908. Because of a change in the practice of the Interstate Commerce Commission the figures throughout the bulletin that apply to the United States as a whole and to Group II are based upon returns which "for the years 1900 and 1905 include those of switching and terminal companies, but for the years 1908 and 1909 do not include those of switching and terminal companies. It must be borne in mind that the industrial and commercial con- ditions of the United States and of these various countries of Europe widely differ, the channels of trafiQc are of different character, the volume of traflSc is differently constituted and there is difference in the methods of keeping accounts. Therefore there can be no exact and absolute comparison. However, for such items as have been discussed, it is not thought that the variance from exact comparabil- ity impairs the essential accuracy of the broad and general deduc- tions. Where close comparisons are impossible, the fact has been stated. The small tables interspersed in the text immediately following this introduction are epitomized from the more elaborate tables on pages 37 to 47. For a comprehensive statistical comparison the reader is referred to these tables. In connection therewith are m'any qualifying references that are not indicated in the epitomized tables or the accompanying text. The statistics which appear in this bulletin were obtained from the annual reports on Statistics of Railways of the Interstate Com- merce Commission, the annual compilations of the returns of the railways of the United Kingdom to the Board of Trade, the annual railway reports of the French Minister of Public Works, the volum- inous abstracts of oflScial railway returns pujblished from time to time in the Archiv fiir Eisenbahnwesen, and the annual reports of the Prussian Minister of Public Works. The unit of weight is the short ton of 2,000 pounds. The compilations based upon these sta- tistics were made by the statistical department of the Bureau of Railway Economics. 18 Railway Mileage in Proportion to Population and to Area. The expression "density of population" indicates the number of persons living in a given area. The average density of population of any country is ascertained by dividing the total population by the total units of area, for each of which the average density is desired. The following table shows the density of population per square mile: tion per square mile. In 1909. Compared with 1900. Group II 181.8 persons increased 21.4 per cent United Kingdom 370.8 (( increased 9.4 France 189.6 (t decreased .4 Prussia-Hesse 297.0 ( ( increased 14.8 United States 30.4 ( ( increased 18.9 In the succeeding tables and text, "mile of line" and "mile of track" have the significance that is customary in railway parlance. By a "mile of line" is meant the entire roadway for a distance of one mile over which trains are operated. Thus a railway over the ten miles from A to B, whether it be composed of one, two, or any other number of tracks, counts as ten miles of line. By a "mile of track" is meant one track for the distance of one mile over which trains are operated. Thus if a railway over the ten miles from A to B has four tracks for the entire distance, it would count as forty miles of track. The number of miles of line in a given region indicates how ex- tensively, and the number of miles of track how intensively, it is supplied with railways. In the comparisons of "mile of track" only main tracks are used, siding and yard tracks being excluded. Miles of line. In 1909. Group II 23,887 United Kingdom 23,280 France 24,931 Prussia-Hesse 23,154 United States 235,402 Compared with 1900. increased 10.0 per cent increased 6.5 increased 5.5 " increased 21.2 " increased 22.3 " 19 Miles of track. In 1909. Compared with 1900. Group II 33,568 increased 16.4 per cent United Kingdom 39,622 increased 10.7 " France" 35,650 increased 5.9 " Prussia-Hesse 33,133 increased 23.1 " United States 259,975 increased 25.8 a First and sec6nd tract^s. Miles of line per 10,000 Inhabitants. In 1909. Compared with 1900- Group II 12.18 decreased 9.4- per cent United Kingdom 5.17 decreased S.6 per cent France 6.35 increased 4.4 Prussia-Hesse 5.67 increased 5.6 United States 26.05 increased 2.8 Milesof track per 10,000 inhabitants. In 1909. Compared with 1900. Group II United Kingdom France Prussia-Hesse United States 17.11 8.80 9.08 8.11 28.77 decreased increased increased increased increased 4.. 9 per cent 1.1 " 5.0 " 7.3 " 5.8 " Miles of line per 100 square miles. In 1909. Group II 22.14 United Kingdom 19.18 France 12.04 Prussia-Hesse 16.83 United States 7.93 Compared with 1900- increased 10.0 per cenf increased 6.5 increased 4.1 increased 21.2 increased 22.3 Miles of track per lOO square miles. Group II United Kingdom France Prussia-Hesse United States In 1909. Compared with 1900. 31.11 increased 15.4 per cent 32.65 increased 10.7 17.22 increased 4.6 24.08 increased 23.1 8.76 increased 25.8 55.8 t ( 55.6 43.0 (( 42.3 42.3 ( ( 40.5 8.9 (( 6.3 20 Per cent of line having two or more tracks. In 1909. Compared with 1900. Group II 31.2 per cent 27.0 per cent United Kingdom France Prussia-Hesse United States That one country has a greater or less number of miles of line or of track than another in proportion to population or to area cannot alone be taken as a criterion of the relative adequacy of the supply of railway facilities. In the aggregate of such facilities, number and power of locomotives and number and capacity of cars are factors of no less importance than miles of track. The demand for transportation, and the efficiency with which railway facilities are utilized in meeting that demand, must also be considered in de- termining the adequacy of transportation service. It should be noted that while a greater ratio of railway mileage to population or to area ordinarily indicates greater responsiveness to transporta- tion demands, it may not inconceivably signify a redundant and excessive supply of mileage. 21 II. Motive Power and Equipment. While both locomotives and cars are freqnently considered to con- stitute the equipment of a railway there is a growing practice to designate the locomotives as motive power, and the care as equij)- ment. otives per 1 ,000 miles of line. In 1909. Compared with 1900. Group II 661 increased 24.9 per cent United Kingdom 980 increased 1.0 " Prance 480 increased 8.4 " Prussia-Hesse 838 increased 24.3 United States 243 increased 24.6 " Tractive power, not number of locomotives, furnishes adequate data for comparison of motive power facility. It is obvious that a locomotive that can draw one thousand tons on^t not to count the same in a comparison with the locomotive that can draw but five hundred tons. Unfortunately, however, the average tractive power per locomotive or the aggregate tractive power of all locomotives is not ascertainable except for the United States. As the average freight train load of Group II is over twice as great as that of Prussia-Hesse, it is conservative to estimate that the five hundred and sixty-one locomotives per 1,000 miles of line of Group II are capable of greater service than the eight hundred and thirty-eight of Prussia-Hesse, and that the increase of 24.9 per cent in the number of locomotives in Group II, and of 24.6 per cent in the United States as a whole, represents an increase in motive power capacity considerably greater than the increase of 24.3 per cent in the number of locomotives in Prussia-Hesse. The conservatism of this estimate is supported by the respective average capacity of freight cars and average number of tons per freight train, given in following para- graphs. 22 Cars of all kinds per 1,000 mile of line- Group II United Kingdom Prance Prussia-Hesse United States in 1909. Compared with 1900. 22,388 increased 17.4 per cent 36,060 increased .9 14,704 increased 10.2 19,607 increased 19.1 9,423 increased 25.1 In Group II, the increase in miles of line for 1909 over 1900 was 10 per cent. The ratio of increase in number of cars was three- fourths greater than the increase in miles of line. In the United Kingdom the increase in miles of line was 6.5 per cent. The ratio of increase in the number of cars was one-seventh as great. In France the miles of line increased 5.5 per cent between 1900 and 1908. TJie ratio of increase in the number of cars was nearly twice as great. In Prussia-Hesse the increase in miles of line between 1900 and 1909 was 21.2 per cent. The ratio of increase in the number of cars was nine-tenths as great. In the United States as a whole the miles of line increased 22.3 per cent and the number of cars in a greater ratio by one-tenth. Passenger and freight cars per 1,000 es of line in 1909. Passenger Cars. Freight Cars. Group II 375 21,128 United Kingdom 2,270 32,020 France 1,159 *12,811 Prussia-Hesse 1,609 *17,530 United States 136 8,809 The average seating capacity of passenger cars for Group II, for the United Kingdom, for France, and for the United States is not ascertainable. The average for the passenger cars of the Pennsyl- vania Railroad in 1909 was 63, and for Prussia-Hesse 49. The average seating capacity for Group II is perhaps slightly lower than for the Pennsylvania Railroad, and that for the United States as a whole still lower. It is safe to estimate that the average seating •Including cars in company's service. 23 capacity of the passenger cars of the United Kingdom and of France is lower than for the United States. The average capacity of the freight cars of France in 1908 was 13 tons, of those of Prussia-Hesse in 1909, 15.5 tons, and of those of the United States 35 tons. There are very few, if any, freight cars in England as large as those of the United States, the freight of that country being carried in "waggons" or "trucks" holding from 4 to 8 tons each. The measure of the total freight car capacity of the re- spective countries is afforded by the following table : Total number and aggre- gate capacity of freight cars In 1909. United States United Kingdom Prance Prussia-Hesse Total number of freiglit cars. 2,071,388 745,348 *319,788 *406,900 Aggregate ca- Freight car pacity of capacity freight cars, per 10,000 tons. inhabitants. 73,137,646 8,093 (Data not available) 4,159,565 1,059 6,280,260 1,537 For each inhabitant the United States provides seven and one- half times as much freight car capacity as France, and nearly five and one-half times as much as Prussia-Hesse. It is true, however, that the canals and rivers are a larger factor in the conveyance of freight in both France and Germany than they are in the United States. Such watei-ways carry about one-seventh of the total interior freight of .Germany and about one-ninth of that of France. Therefore, the aggregate capacity of the interior watercraft should be considered in arriving at the aggre- gate capacity of the freight vehicles of these countries. The ca- pacity of the inland waterway craft in France in 1907 was 4,234,794 tons which, added to the capacity of the freight cars, gives an aggre- gate capacity of 8,394,359 tons, or 2,138 tons per 10,000 inhabitants. The capacity of the inland waterway craft of Germany in 1907 was 6,900,000 tohs. This added to the freight car capacity of Prussia- Hesse gives an aggregate freight capacity of 13,180,260 tons or 3,226 tons per 10,000 inhabitants. Therefore, it will be perceived that the freight car capacity per inhabitant of the United States is over 'Including cars in company's service. 24 three and three-fonrths times as great as the combined capacity per inhabitant of the freight cars and boats of France, and over two and one-half times ais great as the combined capacity per inhabitant of the freight cars and boats of Prussia-Hesse. The aggregate freight car capacity of the United Kingdom is not ascertainable. The development in power of locomotives and capacity of freight cars in the United States is due to the great volume of long haul traffic. 25 III. The Utilization of the Railways. Up to this point comparisons of the serviceability of railways have been based upon their facilities. Further light is thrown upon that serviceability by the extent to which these facilities are utilized. If railways readily move all of the traflSc offered to them the statis- tics of utilization measure both the extent of the service and the demand for that service. It is widely known that there have been periods in the United gtates during the past decade when the rail- ways were badly congested, when their facilities were not equal to the immediate demand. However, there is no data to show that all of the trafiSc offered was not moved sooner or later, and there is no means of ascertaining with approximate accuracy whether such a condition has existed in other countries. Therefore, the following comparisons measure the extent or rather the degree of intensity to which the railways have been utilized, and in the absence of quali- fying information may be accepted as a measure of the demand upon them. The performance of a railway is measured by several units. One of these is The train mile. This is constituted of the run of one train for the dii^ance of one mile. The total number of miles run by one train counts as the tptal train miles for that train. The aggregate of the train miles of all trains for a given period constitutes the total number of train miles for that period. If on a railway fifty miles long, ten trains were run each day for the entire length there would be five hundred train miles a day, or for the three hundred working days of the year a total of one hundred and fifty thousand train miles. If on a railway one hundred miles long five trains w^e run each day for the entire length, there would be five hundred train miles a day, or for the three hundred working days of the year a total of one hundred and fifty thousand train miles. As the aggre- gate train miles in these two illustrations are the same for the rail- way fifty miles long and for the railway one hundred miles long, it is obvious that the intensity of train performance cannot be gauged simply by train miles. If the total train miles be Qivided by the number of miles of line, the quotient indicates the average number 26 of train miles run over each mile of road. In the case of the fifty- mile road the train miles per mile of line would be three thousand ; in the case of the road one hundred miles long the train miles per mile of line would be fifteen hundred. An equivalent expression for train miles per mile of line is train density. Every railway carries more or less freight for its own use and therefore without pay, and in some countries both freight and pas- sengers are occasionally carried free on governmental or other ac- count. As such gratuitous service does not increase the monetary receipts, it is ordinarily omitted from such statements as appear in this bulletin. Therefore, the term "revenue train miles per mile of line" indicates the train density of trains that have added to the earnings. The following tables show the density for . all trains and for freight trains and passenger trains separately : Revenue train miles per mile of line. Group II United Kingdom France Prussia-Hesse United States in 1909. Compared with 1900. 9,715 (Data not available) 18,009 decreased 2.1 per cent 9,317 increased 2.2 " 12,164 increased 19.7 4,726 increased 2.6 " Freight train miles per mile of line, in 1909. Compared with 1900. Group II United Kingdom Prance Prussia-Hesse United States 4,930 decreased 5.S per cent 6,607 decreased 19.8 3,203 decreased S.8 4,594 increased 2.7 2,417 decreased' 5.5 Passenger train miles per mile of line. e. In 1909. Compared with 1900. Group II 4,642 increased 11.2 per cent United Kingdom 11,332 increased 12.6 France 5,129 increased 6.9 " Prussia-Hesse 7,570 increased 64.5 " United States 2,150 increased 14.3 " 27 No difference how long a train maj be or how many passengers or tons of freight it may carry, it counts a train mile for every mile it runs. Therefore, a decrease in the number of train miles does not necessarily indicate a decrease in traflSc. It may indicate that a greater quantity of traflSc is being carried per train, and therefore that the performance from the standpoiijt of the railway is more economical. Of late years the railways ii;i piany countries have given especial attention to attaining heavier loads per train. Therefore from the viewpoint of economical operation, the serv- iceability of a railway or of the railways of a country is to be judged by the Revenue Train Miles per Mile of Line taken in connection with certain other units. One of these is Ton Miles per Mile of Line. This expression is analogous to train n^iles per mile of line. Each ton carried one mile counts as a ton mile. The total number of ton miles carried for a year constitutes the aggregate ton mileage for that year. This aggregate ton njiileage divided by the miles of line gives the ton miles per mile of line, or the density of freight traflSo. Ton miles per mile of line. In 1909. Compared with 1900. Group II 2,451,841 increased 29.0 per cent France 565,158 increased 18.0 Prussia-Hesse 1,069,743 increased 20.3 United States 953,986 increased 29.7 In Group II the density of freight traffic was nearly four and one- half times as great as in France, and over twice as great as i^i Prus- sia-Hesse. The fact that in Group II the increase of 29 per cent in the density of freight traffic was accompanied by a decrease of 5.3 per cent in the number of freight train miles per mile of line, and that the increase in freight density in France of 18 per cent was accompanied by a decrease of 3.8 per cent in freight train miles per mile of line indicates a greater intensive use of motive power and equipment in each of these countries, that is, other things equal, a greater economy in operation. Another measure of this intensive utilization of motive power and equipment is shown by the 28 Average tons per freight train. In 1909. Qroup II 479 France 177 Prussia-Hesse 233 United States 363 Compared with 1900. increased 34.9 per cent increased 22.9 increased 42.9 increased 34.0 The success of the efforts to economize in operation through heavier loading is indicated by the great increase in the average train load secured in each country. It is significant that this average train load in Group II is nearly two and three-fourths times as great as in France and over twice as great as in Prussia-Hesse. The more powerful locomotives and larger freight cars of the United States are a great factor in this efficiency. It will be perceived that in each country which shows a decrease in the freight train miles per mile of line the decrease has been accom- panied by an increase in the average tons per freight train and the average ton miles per mile of line ; that is, in each of these countries a greater freight traffic has been moved with fewer freight trains. An index to the volume of commerce in proportion to population is afforded by the Average ton miles per inhabitant. In 1909. Group II 2,950 France 359 Prussia-Hesse 606 United States 2,421 Compared with 1900. increased 15.5 per cent increased 22.9 increased 24.7 increased 30.0 For each inhabitant of Group II over eight times as many tons of freight are moved by rail as for each inhabitant of France and nearly five times as many as for each inhabitant of Prussia-Hesse. The railways of the United States as a whole carry for each in- habitant nearly seven times as many ton miles as are carried for each inhabitant of France by its railways, and four times as many as are carried for each inhabitant of Prussia-Hesse. This is all the more remarkable when it is reflected that the density of population in the United States is liess than one-sixth of that in France and only about one-tenth of that in Prussia-Hesse. A comparison of the passenger traffic may be made in the same 29 manner as that of the freight, that is, with the use of analogous units. Passenger miles per mile of line. Group II France Prussia-Hesse United States In 1909. Compared with 1900. 290,023 , increased 42.9 per cent 398,984 increased 8.1 675,023 .(Data not available) 127,299 increased 52.8 per cent It will be perceived that in Group II and in the United States as a whole the increase in the passenger miles per mile of line was greater than the increase in the passenger train miles per mile of line. In France the increase in passenger density was slightly greater than the increase in passenger train density. An explanation of the lower density of passenger traflSc in Group II than in France or Prussia-Hesse is found in the fact that in pro- portion to population Group II has twice as many miles of line as France, and considerably more than twice as many miles of line as Prussia-Hesse. The significance of this is made manifest by a coih- parison of the Passenger miles per inhabitant. Group II Prance Prussia-Hesse United States in 1909. Compared with 1900. 347.5 increased 27.4 per cent 253.7 increased 13.0 366.7 increased 49.8 322.1 increased 52.7 The ratio is greater for Group II and for the United States than for France, and is only fractionally less for Group II than for Prussia-Hesse. In consideration of the greater ratio of passenger miles per inhabitant in Prussia-Hesse, there must not be overlooked the fact that the component parts of the great army of Germany are in frequent movement from one garrison to another and to and from the often recurring reviews and maneuvers. Moreover, the passenger traflSc of the countries of Europe is constituted in no small measure by tourists from other countries, particularly from the United States, the passenger miles of this tourist traflBc swell- ing the aggregate which is credited to the inhabitants of the re- spective countries. 30 That the number of passengers carried per train increases more rapidly in the United States than in either France or Prussia-Hesse is shown by a tabulation of the Average Passengers per train. In 1909. Group II 60 France 65 Prussia-Hesse 85 United States 54 Compared with 1900. increased 27.7 per cent increased 1.6 increased 6.3 increased 31.7 The inability to take account of the ton mile and the passenger mile traffic of the United Kingdom is regretted. Such statistics are not compiled by any of the railways of Great Britain except that the North Eastern Railway of England compiles freight statistics. 31 IV. Capitalization, Revenues and Expenses. The capitalization of the railways of the United States is the net capitalization per mile reported by the Interstate Commerce Com- mission. In arriving at this amount, the stocks and securities of one railway corporation that are held by another are excluded be- cause the stocks and securities so held are ordinarily covered by the capital issues of the holding company. This net capitalization is not ascertainable for Group II. There is probably little or no such dupli- cation in the capital issues of the railways of foreign countries. Capitalization per mile of line. in 1909. Compared with 1900. United States $59,259 (Data not available) United Kingdom 274,766 increased 4.9 per cent Prance 141,301 increased 5.8 Prussia-Hesse 110,727 increased 12.9 It is noteworthy that the capitalization per mile of the railways of the United States is but little more than half that of the railways of Prussia-Hesse, considerably less than half that of the railways of France, and less than one-fourth that of the railways of the United Kingdom. The capitalization of the railways of Eng- land and Wales alone for 1909 was f328,761 per mile, over five times as great as that of the United States. In view of these figures it becomes clear, as stated by General Henry S. Haines, that the burden of proof that the railway system of the United States is not overcapitalized does not rest upon the railway corporations. Operating revenues per mile of line. In 1909. Compared with 1900. Group II $22,021 increased 33.3 per cent United Kingdom 23,135 increased 5.1 France 13,406 increased 8.4 Prussia-Hesse 21,056 increased 20.7 United States 10,356 increased 34.1 These operating revenues for the dififerent countries are not ex- actly comparable because they are not in all respects similarly con- 32 stituted. In Prussia-Hesse, for example, certain receipts are in- cluded in revenues from operation that in the United States would be classified as "other income." These amount, however, to less than three per cent of the total. However, the relative significance of these revenues cannot be fully appreciated without taking into ac- count the volume of traflSc. This factor is included in the comment upon the immediately succeeding tables. Freight revenue per mile of line. In 1909. Compared with 1900. Group II $15,693 increased 32.4 per cent United Kingdom 12,433 increased 4.4 France 7,196 increased 8.2 Prussia-Hesse 13,580 increased 17.1 United States 7,184 increased' 31.4 For Group II the freight revenues per mile of line are about 25 per cent greater than for the United Kingdom. For Group II the freight revenues per mile of line are over twice as great as for France. However, as already noted, the ton miles per mile of line are nearly four and one-half times as great, and the ton miles in proportion to population are over eight times as great. For Group II the freight revenues per mile of line are one-sixth greater than for Prussia-Hesse. However, the ton miles per mile of line are over twice as great and the ton miles in proportion to population nearly five times as great. These comparisons would indicate that the average receipts per ton mile are lower in the United States than in either France or Prussia-Hesse, and this we find to be the case. For Group II the average receipts per ton per mile are .65 cents, that is, six and five- tenths mills; for France they are 1.21 cents, and for Prussia-Hesse 1.24 cents. The average receipts per ton mile for the one railway of England that compiles such statistics are 2.30 cents, but this in- cludes collection and delivery of certain high class traflSc. Because of the varying transportation conditions in the countries com- pared, the average receipts per ton mile must not be accepted as an absolute proof of the relative height of freight rates in Europe and the United States. A similar analysis of the passenger traffic and the passenger revenues shoATS a different condition. 33 Passenger revenues per mile of line. Group II United Kingdom France Prussia-Hesse United States In 1909. Compared with 1900. $4,884 increased 34.2 per cent 10,704 increased 5.9 4,418 increased 4.1 " 5,741 increased 24.3 2,395 increased 42.5 For Group II the passenger revenues per mile of line are less than half of those of the United Kingdom. It should be noted, however, that the English returns of passenger revenues cover all passenger train traffic, and include receipts from baggage, mail, and the like. For Group II the passenger revenues are about ten per cent greater per mile. of line than for France. The passenger miles per mile of line are over one-third greater in France, while the passenger miles per inhabitant are only about two-thirds of those of Group II. For Group II the passenger revenues per mile of line are about six-sevenths of those of Prussia-Hesse. The passenger miles per mile of line are less than one-half those of Prussia-Hesse and the pas- senger miles are about five per cent less per inhabitant. The average receipts per passenger mile in Group II are 1.7 cents, in France 1.11 cents, and in Prussia-Hesse .94 cents, in the United States as a whole 1.93 cents. Operating expenses per mile of line. In 1909. Compared with 1900. Group n $14,674 increased 38.0 per cent United Kingdom 14,833 increased 7.9 France 7,765 increased 15.6 " Prussia-Hesse 14,527 increased 40.1 " United States 6,851 increased 37.2 These operating expenses for the di£Ferent countries are not ex- actly comparable because they are not in all respects similarly con- stituted. For example, in Prussia-Hesse rentals and certain other items are included in operating expenses that in the United States are charged to other accounts. Although in the United Kingdom there were nearly twice as many train miles per mile of line as in Group II, the operating expenses per mile of line for Group II are only fractionally less. 34 Although the train miles per mile of line in France are virtually the same as in Group II, the operating expenses for Group II per mile of line are nearly twice as great. The operating expenses per mile of line for Group II are sub- stantially the same as for Prussia-Hesse, although the train miles per mile of line are a fifth less. operating revenue per mile of line. in 1909. Group II $7,347 United Kingdom 8,302 France 5,641 Prussia-Hesse 6,529 United States 3,505 Compared with 1900. increased 25.0 per cent increased .4 decreased .1 decreased 7.6 increased 28.4 As the operating revenues and the operating expenses are not exactly comparable, it follows that the net operating revenues can not be closely compared. The results in one country for one year are of course comparable with the results in the same country for an- other year. In Group II the increase has been 25.0 per cent, while the ton miles per mile of line have increased 29 per cent and the passenger miles per mile of line 42.9 per cent. In France there has been a decrease of one-tenth of one per cent in net revenue per mile, while the ton miles per mile of line have increased 18.0 per cent, and the passenger miles per mile of line 8.1 per cent. In Prussia-Hesse there has been a decrease of 7.6 per cent in net revenue per mile, while the ton miles have increased 20.3 per cent. TABLES 37 r a H g 2 £ ^ i M 3 © - ^ I © g *-* I -«! J5 © « ca «< a « ec 1-1 !NC 1 t-t- Ir-CC 00 CO "5 (M » t- 1-1 t-O o Q (M cot- Ov ?Hl-l th 05 c^" eo iH >n (N o t^l^ t~ t^ eo 00 CO O »0 ITQ 00 o t- i-lt^I^- O o> O (M O CO ^- ^^ 1-1 1-1 - tH Th t- O » O (M O CO t- 1-1 tH (N 1-1 OS 2 K < gs 2 5 1— 1 P< 'i b£ g i ^i <5 s F s'S 1 ^ £ S ■S.S w| ^ -s-ss-i-g ^ 4^ fl m -H e •s-2 g g-a s tJpfeOiP b < 1 CD -*0 -* CO • © • CO '-I O OS „-®* - CO CO 3 o lO OOCO Oi •* • OS • ^1~( ^1~( o OS ! O OS OS >-i tr~ 00 8- O • (M ■ 00 80 t~ Co . ^r^ ^ r~ ^1-H „ 05 t- t>- ■^ CO