CO129-374 - Public Offices & Others - 1910 — Page 261

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-