251
to bear the entire cost of operation, as well as to pay the Owning Company a large percentage of receipts for the use of
the lines run over, and it cannot properly undertake this
obligation unless it is able to control its liability by
being given a free hand to fix rates and fares and the number
and the timing of trains. This means that the Owning Company
practically parts with the control of its property, and from
a mere commercial point of view the Owning Company, having
parted with control, is bound to insist on the Working Company
guaranteeing that the proportion of receipts to be paid and
received for the use of the lines run over shall reach a fixed
minimum, and it is only in rare cases that the Running Company
is prepared to give such a guarantee, but apart from this
question such an arrangement is not really practicable when
the ownership of two Railways is vested in Governments, as
both Goverments must retain sufficient control to ensure the
Railways being so operated as to give public satisfaction.
The third system of Joint Working is that which
is almost universally adopted when two or more. Owners are
vitally interested in one class of traffic. It provides
naturally and conveniently for all classes of traffic and
involves no guarantees, and gives a means of settling any
new point or difficulty which may arise, and more important
than anything else, it is far more economical in practice.
I personally know of very many arrangements of this sort
between the large English Railway Companies, and in fæt have
sated professionally in several cases. The arrangements differ
in detail, but the main feature of each is a Joint Board of
Control (or Joint Committee, as it is usually called in
England), the members of which are appointed by the Owning
Companies respectively; the Joint Board in their turn
necessary
appointing the entire/staff. The constitution of the Joint
(Boards
-3-