Railway Electrification in Melbourne

REPORT OF MR. THOMAS TAIT,
CHAIRMAN OF THE VICTORIAN RAILWAYS' COMMISSIONERS

The Editors of The Railway Gazette received from Mr. Thomas Tait the following account of his recent visit to Europe and America in connection with the forthcoming electrification of the Melbourne suburban lines. As a result of this trip, Mr. Charles H. Merz, who had charge of the electrification of the Tyneside lines of the North-Eastern Railway, was engaged as consulting engineer by the Victorian Government Railways, and was then in Melbourne in connection with this matter.

It was the desire of the Government that I should, while on leave of absence, make inquiries in Europe and America in regard to the electrification of steam railways in connection with the question of adopting electric traction instead of steam locomotives for the movement of suburban trains on some or all of the Melbourne suburban lines, and also select and engage a consulting engineer to visit Melbourne and report fully as to the advisability of such conversion, and as to the best system and methods to be adopted in connection therewith.

In connection with the question of the electrification of the Melbourne suburban lines, the following statistics, recently compiled with reference to the Melbourne suburban railway and tramway systems and their traffic, will be of interest, if not of use, and I therefore give them at the outset:-

FOR YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1907

Population of Melbourne and suburbs	531,000
Mileage of suburban railways	149
Mileage of suburban tracks	263
Number of suburban stations	148
Suburban train-mileage	2,992,283
Suburban car-mileage	24,455,631
Number of suburban passenger journeys	64,162,344
Number of miles travelled by suburban passengers	305,071,565
Average distance travelled per suburban passenger (single trip)	4.76
Average cars per suburban train-mile	8.17
Average seating capacity per car (suburban trains)	52
Average seating capacity per suburban train-mile	420
Average number of passengers per car-mile (suburban trains)	12.47
Suburban revenue, not including parcels, mails, or miscellaneous	£645,448
Suburban revenue per train-mile	51.77d
Suburban revenue car-mile	6.33d
Suburban revenue passenger-mile	.50d
Suburban revenue passenger journey	2.41d
Suburban revenue mile of railway	£4,332
Suburban revenue mile of track	£2,454
Number of passenger journeys on Melbourne Tramways	60,974,203
Total railway suburban and tramway passenger journeys	125,136,547
Average number of journeys per head of population per annum by suburban railways	121
Average number of journeys per head of population per annum by tramways	115
Average number of journeys per head of population per annum by suburban railways and tramways	236
Revenue, Melbourne Tramways	£520,997
Average fare per passenger on Melbourne Tramways	2.05d
Approximate amount paid in fares for Melbourne and suburban travelling by suburban railways and tramways per head of population	£2.20
Approximate average number of passengers arriving at and departing from Flinders Street, and Prince's Bridge Stations per week day	140,000

Before entering on my report as to the prosecution and result of the desired inquiries in Europe and America, I have to bring under your notice a misconception which appears to exist in the minds of many people as to what "electrification" of steam railways such as the Melbourne suburban lines means, in its effect on the service rendered to the public by the railways. To state it briefly, electrification means the substitution for steam locomotives of electric current generated in one or more power houses, and transmitted from there by overhead wire or third rail conductors to motors on electric locomotives or under the carriages, which convert this current into tractive power.

It does not necessarily follow that such substitution or conversion will involve or even make advisable any change, generally speaking, in the present method of booking passengers, in the fares charged, in the system of collecting tickets and fares, in the number or arrangement of stations, or in any other respect, except the kind of power used for hauling the suburban trains with some acceleration in speed, and possibly, in the case of some lines, the number and constitution of such trains.

It does not follow that because some of the Melbourne suburban lines may be electrified that a service analogous to a street railway service will be substituted for the present service on those lines.

This leads me to say that, in considering the extent to which electric power has been adopted for railway traction throughout the world, in connection with the question of electrifying the Melbourne suburban lines it is necessary to differentiate between—

(1) Electric street railways, that is, electric railways running entirely or mainly along public thoroughfares and more or less restricted by the municipalities owning the thoroughfares as to speed, character of rolling stock, length of trains, etc.; electric railways having no central termini, making frequent stops for the purpose of taking on and setting down passengers, and, generally speaking, not required by Government or other regulation or for safe operation, to adopt block working, or to provide protection for the public at crossings; electric railways on which practically only one class of traffic, viz., street to street passenger traffic, is dealt with.

(2) Other electric railways, that is, electric railways running either entirely or mainly on their own land, and as a rule free to run at such speeds as are safe, and to use such rolling stock and run as long trains as may be deemed advisable; electric railways having central termini and stopping only at established stations and, generally speaking, required by Government or other regulation, or for safe operation or otherwise, to provide protection for the public at crossings, and to adopt block working; electric railways over which, as a rule, through passenger and goods trains, as well as local or suburban trains, are run.

The Melbourne suburban lines come within the second category, and in connection with the question of their electrification no useful purpose will be served by a consideration of the methods adopted or the results obtained by railways in the first category, viz., electric street railways, for the reason that the conditions under which such railways have been constructed and are worked, and the requirements to be met, are not analogous to those of the Melbourne suburban lines, and the methods adopted on these street railways cannot, consistent with meeting the requirements on the Melbourne suburban lines, be applied to the latter lines.

We are required on the Melbourne suburban lines to deal with a very large inwards traffic in the morning and a similar outwards traffic in the evening. A traffic so large at these periods of the day that it is necessary to work several of the lines to substantially their present full capacity—that is, to run trains with as large seating capacity as can be hauled with the locomotives we are now able to employ, and following each other as closely as their speed and the length of the block sections will permit.

A similar state of affairs occurs on the Essendon and Caulfield lines on the occasion of the larger race meetings at Flemington and Caulfield respectively, and on the former line at the time of the Agricultural Show.

It is essential, moreover, that these trains should be run at a comparatively good speed between stations, and that they should not be burdened with too many stoppages, for otherwise too much time would be occupied in making the trip between the more remote suburban stations and the city.

It would be manifestly impracticable to deal with such a traffic and meet these requirements with a service analogous to a street railway service—that is, a service consisting of one or two cars, or, in other words, smaller trains, making many stops.

The capacity of a line for the conveyance of passengers is limited by the number of passengers which can be carried per train, and the number of trains which it is practicable to safely run within a given time, which latter is governed by the maximum time occupied in passing through any one of the block sections. To run lighter trains (which means trains with less seating capacity) would not enable us to run them much more frequently, that is, to follow each other throughout the block sections much more closely than at present during the busy hours of the day, for they would not take much less time to pass through the block sections, and what little gain there might be owing to the quicker time possible with lighter trains would be far more than offset by the reduction in the number of passengers per train such trains would be capable of accommodating.

In their bearing on the question of the electrification of the Melbourne suburban .lines, the electric railways in the second group, namely, those constructed entirely or mainly along their own land, may be divided into two groups—

1st.—Those constructed originally as electric railways.

2nd.—Those constructed originally for operation by steam locomotives and subsequently electrified.

As the Melbourne suburban lines were built originally for and are still operated by steam locomotives, we are chiefly concerned with the electric railways in the second group.

Inquiry as to the reasons for the conversion of the railways in this second group to electric traction discloses the fact that in the case of most of them special conditions existed which made it more advisable than it would otherwise have been to electrify them, and which reasons favourable to electrification do not apply in the case of the Melbourne suburban lines.

In the case of a number of these converted lines the cheap generation of current from water power was the main factor which lead to their electrification. This is true, for instance, of the converted lines using current generated at Niagara, of most, if not all, of the lines in Switzerland, and of the Valtellina and Milan-Varese lines in Northern Italy.

A number of other lines in the second group are largely underground railways, such as the Paris-Juvisy line, or have many or long tunnels, such as the New York Central and Pennsylvania at New York; the Paris-Versailles; the Mersey, Simplon, and Baltimore and Ohio tunnels, and the heavy gradients existing on some of these lines have been an additional special reason favourable to electrification, as for instance, the Simplon and Mersey tunnel lines. By the use of electric traction on such lines, all smoke in the subways and tunnels and the noise therein attendant on working such lines with steam locomotives were got rid of, and the air and ventilation were immensely improved, and in addition, a cheap and convenient method of lighting the subways and tunnels as well as the trains therein provided.

In other cases the relief afforded by electric traction (multiple unit control system—not electric locomotives) in inadequate and congested terminal stations and yards was an important factor in favour of electrification. By the use of electric traction with the multiple unit control system, that is, with the motors under the cars all operated as a unit from either end of the train, trains can be shunted or despatched on their return trip with a considerable saving of track space in a congested terminal station or yard, for there being no locomotive and it being possible to drive the train from either end, no track is required to permit of the locomotive being got around from one end of the train to the other either for a return trip or for shunting, and time is also saved in despatching such a train on a return trip or in shunting, for it is only necessary for the motorman to transfer from one end of the train to the other. This was one of the reasons for the electrification of the North-Eastern Company's suburban lines on the north side of the Tyne at Newcastle, and of the Liverpool-Southport section of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Company.

Again, in other cases, it has been necessary to electrify lines owing to connecting lines adopting electric traction, as, for instance, the Hammersmith line (London) of the Great Western Company connecting with the Metropolitan Underground Railway, and the New York, New Haven & Hartford Company's line connecting with the New York Central Company's line near New York.

And still, again, in other cases electrification has been considered advisable either to meet the competition of electric street railways, by providing an improved and especially a more frequent train service, or to head off the construction of competing electric lines. In these cases especially, the train service, before conversion—unlike that on the Melbourne suburban lines—was, as a rule, infrequent, as, for instance, on the Newcastle lines of the North-Eastern Company, on the principal line of which there was before conversion approximately only an hourly service, except during the morning and evening, while on the other lines there were intervals of from one hour to two hours. In these cases the fact that in the event of the line not being electrifled a considerable part of the expenditure which would be involved for electrification would, in order to give the desired more frequent service, be required to provide additional steam locomotives and coaches and enlarge inadequate terminal stations and yards, has no doubt been an important factor in the decision to convert such lines.

As a matter of fact, and contrary to the general impression, there have been but few lines in the second group (other than street railway lines), converted to electric traction apart from those in respect of which special conditions existed making it more advisable than it would otherwise have been to electrify them, and which reasons favourable to electrification do not apply in the case of the Melbourne suburban lines.

In this connection, it must be mentioned that there are many lines in the world to-day operated by steam locomotives on which there is a much heavier train movement than on any of our suburban lines, and that the administration of these lines have not yet deemed it advisable to adopt electric traction for them. A case in point is the Illinois Central line, between Chicago and Woodburn Park, a distance of 7.71 miles, over which between 120 and 130 suburban trains are scheduled to run each way every working day, and this in addition to a large number of through passenger trains, goods trains, and shunting movements. The management of that company at a comparatively recent date went most carefully into the question of the advisability of electrifying this portion of their line, and came to the conclusion that the financial results would not justify the expenditure involved. There is a very dense train movement on a number of the railways running out of London, but, although in some cases the advisability of electrification has been inquired into, in only one case, except the Hammersmith line of the Great Western Company before referred to, has it as yet been actually taken in hand, viz., on the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway, between London Bridge and Victoria Stations—a distance of about 8 miles, where there is an exceptionally dense train service. There is also a very heavy suburban traffic on the lines of the Pennsylvania Company at Philadelphia, and on those of the Boston & Maine and New York, New Haven & Hartford Companies at Boston, but those companies have not yet undertaken the electrification of their lines.

While in Europe and America, I made a special inspection of the following lines in the second group, that is, lines originally constructed for operation by steam locomotives and subsequently electrified, the inspection of the North-Eastern and Lancashire & Yorkshire lines being made in company with yourself.

	Length of Route Miles
ITALIAN STATE RAILWAYS
Between Milan - Gallarate - Varese and Porto Ceresio	45.6
Between Lecco - Colico - Chiavenna and Sondrio (known as the Valtellina line)	67
GERMANY, PRUSSIAN STATE RAILWAYS
Hamburg - Altona	17
FRANCE
Orleans Railway, between Paris and Juvisy	12
Western Railway, between Paris and Versailles	11
ENGLAND
North-Eastern Railway - Newcastle-upon-Tyne (suburban lines on north side of Tyne)	41
Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, between Liverpool and Southport	18.5
AMERICA
New York Central & Hudson River Railway, New York (Grand Central Station) to Wakefield, and Mott Haven to King's Bridge	17

I also travelled frequently over many sections of the Underground railways in London, England, and obtained considerable information about those lines, and visited Chicago mainly for the purpose of inspecting and travelling on the new type of suburban carriage in use on the Illinois Central Railway. I also obtained considerable valuable information about the electrification of the West Shore Railway (New York Central Company), between Utica and Syracuse, and as to the conversion to electric traction of some of the lines of the Long Island & New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railway Companies.

Sir George Gibb was kind enough to provide a special train for the inspection of the North-Eastern electrified lines at Neweastle-upon-Tyne, and Mr. Aspinall and Mr. Wilgus were equally kind in according a similar privilege and convenience for the inspection of the electrified lines of the Lancashire & Yorkshire and New York Central Companies, at Liverpool and New York.

EFFECT OF ELECTEIFICATION ON TRAFFIC AND GROSS REVENUE.

The electrification of railways has undoubtedly in most cases resulted in an increase in the traffic. A superior service in many respects over steam locomotive working is afforded by electric traction. With electric working there is no smoke, and consequently possible better ventilation; less noise; smoother starting and running; better means of lighting and heating; greater acceleration (that is trains gain speed more quickly on starting from stations), and consequently less time occupied, especially on runs with many stops; and last, but by no means least, there is considerably less additional expense involved in increasing the frequency of the train service than in the case of steam locomotive working. All these factors have resulted in most cases in attracting additional traffic.

In considering this almost universal result, however, in connection with the question of electrifying the Melbourne suburban lines, it must be pointed out that on most of the steam lines which have been converted to electric traction a comparatively meagre train service existed prior to their conversion, and that in the case of a number of these lines the main object which the management had in view in undertaking electrification was to provide a more frequent train service, either for the purpose of developing possible traffic or to meet the competition of tramways, and, as regards the development of possible traffic, it must be borne in mind that in most large cities where conversion has taken place, there are two or more railways, each of which has suburbs along its line, which it endeavours to develop at the expense of, or in any event in preference to, those lying along the lines of its rivals. A very good case in point is the conversion of the Southport line of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Company at Liverpool. This line serves some pleasant suburbs and golf links to the north of Liverpool. The management desired to improve the train service to these suburbs, and thus make them more attractive for residents and others than the suburbs of the other railways running out of Liverpool, and thus induce people to settle along its line instead of along the lines of its rivals. Before conversion there were 40 trains each way between Liverpool and Southport, now there are 65.

Now, what is the situation in Melbourne? As all of the suburban lines are owned by the State, one of the objects which, for instance, the Laneashire & Yorkshire Company no doubt had in view, viz, to develop the suburban traffic on its line in preference to the lines of other companies, would be of no advantage to the State from a railway point of view, for it would mean a large expenditure of money to attract traffic to one line which would to a considerable extent be obtained on that or other suburban lines without incurring the expenditure.

As a matter of fact, however, the existing tram service, generally speaking, on the Melbourne suburban lines, compares favourably with that provided on electrified suburban lines elsewhere, especially as regards frequency, comfort and regularity. For instance, as I have mentioned, the Lancashire & Yorkshire Company now runs 65 trains per day on its electrified Southport line. The North-Eastern Company, which, prior to conversion, only ran 16 trains each way between Newcastle and Tynemouth, and between Newcastle and Monkseaton, now runs 44 and 84 respectively, but with steam locomotive working the number of trains run each way between Melbourne and the stations named hereunder is as follows :—

	No. of Trains each way daily
Hawthorne	97
Clifton Hill	95
Balaclava	76
Caulfield	74
Essendon	72
St. Kilda	71

While, therefore, we may fairly anticipate that some gain in traffic and gross revenue will result from electrification, due to an improved train service, especially a slightly quicker and possibly somewhat more frequent service, no such proportionate increase can be looked for as the result of the conversion of the Melbourne suburban lines as in the case of electrified lines on which there was before conversion a considerably smaller service than now exists on most of our suburban lines, and, consequently, the results in the way of increased traffic resulting from conversion in such cases as the Lancashire & Yorkshire and North-Eastern cannot be taken as a criterion of the results which will be obtained by the electrification of such of the Melbourne lines as already enjoy a frequent train service. In this respect, as in others, the proposal to convert any or all of our suburban lines must be considered with regard to the local conditions.

An improved service under electrical working would, no doubt, bring some traffic to some of our suburban lines which is now carried on the tramways, but the gain in this direction would be comparatively limited, for our suburban railways with trains stopping only at stations from half a mile to a mile apart, and terminating in the city at the Prince's Bridge cannot, even if electrified, compete successfully for short-distance travel with tramways running along the streets and stopping to set down or take on passengers as desired, and conveying their patrons to and from the business streets in the heart of the city. As for the longer distance suburban travel (that is for distances over, say, 3 miles, we now hold our own very well on the whole as against the tramways wherever there is competition, but there would no doubt be some gain in respect to this traffic by electrification. Where we would probably gain principally in traffic by electrification would be from the transfer to the more distant suburbs along our lines of people now living in the city proper or in the inner suburbs, especially in the case of people served exclusively by the tramways or by both the tramways and the railways, as a result of the improved accessibility of these more distant suburbs, that is, by the quicker, more comfortable, and possibly more frequent service afforded by electric trains.

It must not be overlooked, in considering the effect of electrification on the traffic and the gross revenue, that there is comparatively little increase taking place in the population of Melbourne, especially as compared with cities in America, Germany, and even England and Northern Italy; and that there are ample suitable vacant areas along existing lines available for a large increase in the present suburban population, and that there is now along most of these lines a suburban train service which, on the whole, for comfort, frequency, speed and regularity compares very favourably with the suburban train service of any other city in the world, not even excepting those where some of the lines have been electrified.

EFFECT OF ELECTIFICATION ON WORKING EXPENSES.

It has been the experience in most cases elsewhere that a dense train service—fairly steady throughout the hours during which trains are run—that is, with not too much difference between the minimum and maximum service, and employing sufficient power to require an electric generating station of fairly large capacity, in fact, substantially such a service as that existing, for instance, on several of our suburban lines can be operated for less expense per train mile (exclusive, of course, of increased interest charges) by electric traction than by steam locomotives; and therefore, in the event of at least two of our busiest suburban lines being electrified, we may, I think, look for some reduction in the working cost (not including interest charges) of the existing service on those lines.

It is generally conceded that expensive coal is somewhat in favour of electrification, and, therefore, as the cost of coal in Melbourne is high we may look for some saving in our fuel bill by electrification. One of the principal ways in which the working cost per train-mile can be reduced is the savings of the wages of the firemen now employed on the steam locomotives. It is generally recognised that with the so-called "dead man's lever," but better named "Emergency" lever, it is safe to run electric trains with only one man—the driver or motorman on the front end.

In connection with this question of the comparative cost of electric traction, it may be mentioned that it appears to be rather the general impression that the weight of the steam locomotive is much greater than the weight of the electrical motive equipment on an average railway train. At the last International Railway Congress, Mr. Aspinall, of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, speaking of his electrified Liverpool and Southport line stated—

We do not find the weight of what we may call the locomotive equipment of the train is any less than it would be with the steam locomotive; and dealing with main line work, there is no doubt that the aggregate weight of the motors, the collectors, and electrical equipment will, in almost every case, come to as much as, if not more than, the weight which would be required if the train were going to be hauled by a steam locomotive.

This statement, however, does not, of course, apply to small units—for instance, the weight of the motive equipment on a two-car electric train (motor car and trailer) would not be nearly as much as on a two-car train hauled by one of our standard suburban locomotives, and in this fact—that the weight of the motive equipment under electrical working is much more nearly proportionate to the weight of the train than with steam locomotive working—lies one of the advantages of electrification.

FINANCIAL RESULTS OP ELECTRIFICATION.

The financial results of electrification depend, of course, not alone on the amount of the gross revenue, but on the amount of the net revenue (that is, the excess of the gross revenue over the working expenses) and on the sufficiency of the increase in the net revenue to pay the interest charges on the cost of electrification. In considering the financial results of electrification, regard must, therefore, be had to its effect on the gross revenue, the working expenses, and the interest charges.

As I have mentioned, we may fairly anticipate some increase in the traffic, and, therefore, in gross revenue, as a result of the more comfortable, quicker, and possibly more frequent service accompanying the conversion of our suburban lines, but not nearly as large a proportionate increase as has been obtained on converted lines which, before electrification, had a comparatively infrequent service, and which, even after conversion, have not as frequent and, in many cases in other respects, as good a suburban service as now given on the Melbourne lines. It would appear, therefore, that the increase in net revenue after conversion to be applied against the increase in the interest charges will not on our suburban lines be as largely derived from an increase in traffic and gross revenue as has been the experience elsewhere. We have, therefore, to rely more largely than elsewhere on a reduction in the working expenses being effected by electrification to provide the additional net revenue required to meet the increased interest charges.

As I have already mentioned, we may look for some reduction of the cost of working the present train service (exclusive, of course, of the increased interest charges) in the event of at least two of our busiest lines being electrified. The question to be determined is whether the gain in traffic, and therefore the increase in gross revenue and the reduction in working cost (based on the existing train service), will together produce sufficient additional net revenue to meet the interest charges on the cost of electrification, or if not, how far towards meeting these interest charges the additional net revenue will go.

Of any increase in traffic and gross revenue, a considerable proportion is anticipated by reason of a more frequent train service; but such additional train service may eat up the anticipated saving in working cost (based on the existing service). In this event, we would have to look entirely to the gain in traffic to provide the additional net revenue required to meet the increase in interest charges. Here again, regard must be had to the local conditions, and probably only experience will demonstrate what electric train service will be productive of the greatest net revenue.

I cannot, of course, express any opinion at the present juncture as to how far the additional net revenue resulting from the conversion of some of our suburban lines will be sufficient to meet the increase in the interest charges. That is the question which can be decided by the Commissioners only in the light of the Report and recommendations of the Consulting Engineer, to whom I will subsequently refer. What an important factor the interest charges on the cost of electrification are will be understood from the statement made by Mr. G. R. Henderson, Consulting Electrical Engineer of New York, that, broadly speaking, the cost of a steam locomotive is at the rate of £2 per h.p., while that of a power house and line and other electrical equipment is at the rate of about £20 per h.p.

It is to be regretted that the financial results obtained on steam railway lines as a result of their conversion to electric traction are not more generally and readily available, but, generally speaking, it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain this information. Sir George Gibb has promised to let me have it in respect of the electrified lines of the North-Eastern Company at Newcastle, but I have not yet received it. It is generally understood that the increase in the net revenue since the conversion of these lines yield a fair return on the additional capital expenditure. The Lancashire & Yorkshire Company are not disposed to furnish the financial results of electrification of its Liverpool and Southport line, and this is the case in respect of other electrifications; while in other cases, where both steam and electric traction are used, on the same line, reliable data is not available; and again, in other cases, the conversions are of such recent date that no complete reliable figures as to the financial results have yet been compiled. The financial results of the conversion of lines for which the current is generated from water power would, of course, be practically of no use to us, and, as a matter of fact, the financial results obtained on any converted line would be of very little if of any assistance in enabling us to determine whether or not the electrification of any or all of our suburban tines is advisable from a financial point of view, for the conditions in our case are, to a great extent, different from those in any other place where steam suburban lines have been electrified, and, therefore, the financial results of electrification obtained elsewhere cannot be taken as indicating the results which will follow the conversion of any of the Melbourne suburban lines to electric traction.