§ OBSERVATIONS QUESTION.
§ EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to call attention to the recent Return of railway servants' hours of duty; and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether there is any objection to have a periodical Return to the Board of Trade of exceptional cases of overtime employment, said, that an analysis of the Return of railway employés' a hours of duty in the months of June and July last showed that there were 252,209 instances of being on duty 13 hours; 160,132 instances of being on duty 14 hours; 110,160 for 15 hours; 57,835 for 16 hours; 27,066 for 17 hours; and 25,525 for 18 hours and upwards. These included passenger and goods guards, drivers and firemen, and signalmen. On the Great Eastern Railway the percentage of passenger guards on duty more than 12 hours at a time during the month of January, 1887, was 4½ per cent; of goods guards 91½ per cent; of drivers and firemen 83½ per cent; and of signalmen 45¾ per cent. During the same time the figures for the Great Northern Railway were—Passenger guards, 26¾ per cent; goods guards, 87½ per cent; drivers and firemen, 92¾ per cent; and signalmen, 16⅓ per 721 cent. On the Great Western, for the same time, the percentage of passenger guards was ¾; goods guards, 73⅔; drivers and firemen, 91; and signalmen 5¾. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway—Passenger guards, 54½1 goods guards, 98 drivers and firemen, 96⅓;signalmen, 47 per cent. London and North-Western—Passenger guards, 9½ per cent; goods guards, 67⅓ per cent; drivers and firemen, 89¾; signalmen, 8½ per cent. London, Brighton, and South Coast—Passenger guards, 2 per cent; goods guards, nil; drivers and firemen, 98½; and signalmen, nil. On the Loudon and South-Western no passenger guards were on duty over 12 hours, and no signalmen. The percentage of goods guards was 19¾ and of drivers and firemen 15⅓. From a Return of the North-Eastern Railway, it appeared that of the signalmen employed on the 136 signal-boxes between Edinburgh and Darlington 45 were on duty for not more than 10 hours, the limit that ought not to be exceeded to secure safety; while 91 were on duty over that period each day.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, he was not going to ask their Lordships to offer any opposition to the Return which had been moved for by the noble Earl, but he desired to point out that the Return which had already been presented was not a satisfactory one. The noble Earl, who had moved for a Return of overtime during the months of January and July, could hardly have chosen two months which gave a more erroneous impression as to the average number of hours during which railway servants were at work. In January the traffic was frequently obstructed by snow-blocks, there was a constantly recurring danger caused by fogs, and men who were experienced in signalling had often to be on fog duty for a number of hours at a stretch. Besides, men were occasionally taken ill, and other men of tried ability for signalling had to take their places, and probably work a little longer than ordinary. Again, July was a month when the excursion traffic was at its height, and it was necessary to bear in mind that when men were sent out with excursion trains they had charge only of one train, and that a considerable portion of the time returned as "on duty" 722 was spent it might be at the seaside or at race meetings. The men were not working from the time they left until they returned, but were paid for the whole time. Therefore, he thought that a Return for overtime during these two months only would be apt to produce a very erroneous impression. In the case of engine-drivers, the Companies did all they could to prevent them from being too long on duty. For instance, on the London and North-Western there was an order that when a driver had been 15 hours at work he should report the fact to a stationmaster, who would telegraph to the nearest available station in order that the driver might be relieved on his arrival there. The drivers were fined if that order was not obeyed. If the Returns asked for were not accurate, they were worse than useless; he, therefore, hoped that the noble Earl would confer with him in order to settle the best way in which the real truth as to overtime could be ascertained, and also to settle the form in which the Return ought to be laid on the Table.
§ LORD STALBRIDGEsaid, the noble Earl had given a correct account of how Railway Companies acted in regard to their men. They paid for overtime at the rate of time and a-quarter on the London and North-Western line, of which he was a Director, and he believed it was also paid for on all other lines. Therefore it was obvious that it was not the interest of the Companies to encourage overtime. The noble Earl who represented the Board of Trade had mentioned that there was an order on the London and North-Western that all men who found themselves on duty for 15 hours should immediately report the circumstance to the stationmaster of the first station at which they stopped, in order that relief might be ready for them at the next available station. He might inform their Lordships that that order had been in existence for many years past. There was this reason why in some cases there must be overtime. The two most unfavourable months in the year for the Railway Companies—namely, January and July—had been selected by the noble Earl for the proposed Return. It would be in the memory of most noble Lords that in the month of January there had been extraordinary fogs, which lasted in some instances for 723 six days; and those who were acquainted with railway working would agree with him that it was astonishing that the traffic was so well conducted during the prevalence of the fog. There was hardly any accident, and on the London and North-Western hardly any train was late. Those facts told greatly in favour of the managers of the railways, and of the devotion of their employés. Overtime was an absolute necessity in this country, and for the following reason. If any Railway Company were to keep a sufficiently large number of men, engines, and brakesmen to meet the maximum traffic, the result obviously would be that the men would necessarily be on short time for a large part of the year. What the Companies wanted were loyal, devoted, and experienced men. They must have such men to work the trains, and if they had to work a few hours' overtime at certain times of the year they got the benefit of it on other occasions. On the London and North-Western Line and on other lines the men had every opportunity of making their grievances known to their superiors. He knew very well that the Directors of every well-regulated line did their best to diminish this overtime. In some cases, however, there was a difficulty in preventing men from working overtime, because they naturally liked the extra wages. Sometimes, when a man was entered on the list as having worked for 16 or 18 hours, perhaps he might have been resting or standing idle for from eight to 10 hours, and consequently he was well able to go on and to continue his duties after that time. In spite of what the noble Earl had said, he thought the figures showed that the passenger guards, the signalmen, and the passenger drivers had been kept within well-controlled time. There was another point in regard to the engine-drivers on the London and North-Western. What the Company did was this. At every place where they had a large number of engines and enginemen they had lodging-houses kept on purpose for them. The houses were fitted up with bedrooms, and had every accommodation for cooking, so that immediately a man had finished his journey he could go into one of these houses and take his rest. He got his lodging for nothing, and was ready for the return journey. He did not wish to weary the 724 Lord with an enumeration of particular cases, but he could show in almost every instance that some special reason existed for the overtime. There were 23 instances of men working 16 hours a-day. In one case, however, there were but few trains, and the man was on duty only five days a-week. In another case a man had to wait for a single train; and these were typical instances of overtime with signalmen. On the North-Eastern Railway the guard of an excursion train was on duty for 20¼ hours, but 10½, hours of that he was at rest in the terminal station. It was impossible on a great line of railway to avoid occasional irregularities, and in these cases no physical suffering was endured. In one case a Member of Parliament required a special train on a branch line early in the morning. A number of signalmen were thus made to appear as having worked eight hours' overtime and having had to resume work after four hours' rest, though they only had this one train to wait for. Again, on the Midland there were four goods guards, each of whom was on duty between 21 and 22 hours. This was caused by the delay of trains in consequence of a landslip. On the previous day there had been a dense fog, which utterly disorganized work; but most of the time the men were sitting in their brakes smoking their pipes. In the Erewash Valley, again, five guards were on duty for exceptionally long hours in consequence of a fog. Without these explanations entirely wrong impressions were likely to get abroad on the question of overtime. In these exceptional cases it was obvious that it would not be safe to trust to any but the most experienced men. On the London and North-Western Railway the total number of passenger guards was 439, and in the month of July only 44 worked more than 12 hours—that was 3.18 per cent; and out of the 2,165 signalmen the number was 14, or 0.64 per cent. No doubt the enginemen worked rather longer overtime than the other men. The total engine mileage of the London and North Western Railway was over 54,000,000, and of this 12 per cent was special mileage—that was, when trains were called out for special purposes, sometimes at a moment's notice, in the case of goods trains, for urgent or perishable goods, such as fish, &c. The re- 725 turns of the London and North-Western Railway reflected great credit on the locomotive department, and it was a great mistake to suppose that no effort was taken to prevent or reduce overtime. The Directors knew that the men were not dissatisfied, and that the public were not dissatisfied. He could appeal to the list of accidents for 1885–6, in which only two cases were to be found in which there was any question of any of the men concerned working unduly long hours. He was not arguing against the Return, but lie hoped that for the purposes of the next Return fair working months would be chosen, say April and September. These Returns, however, were a source of great expense to the Railway Companies and to the country, and he hoped they would not be moved for year after year.
EARL DELA WARRsaid, he was quite ready to accept what had been offered by the noble Earl. He wished also to say that the months were not chosen by himself, and that no one more highly appreciated than himself the admirable way in which our railways were managed.