systems of different countries and different ownership arrangements, from the
1880s to 1912. His conclusions were that, although trends in cost inefficiency
varied across countries, nationalization generally damaged efficiency, whereas
greater state railway construction improved efficiency. For the period 1900 to
1912, of the eighteen countries (Russia, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands,
Belgium, France, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Japan, US, Argentina, Britain,
Germany, India, Canada, Austria, and Australia), Australia ranked sixth least
cost inefficient.
Cost-efficiency, however, is not economic efficiency: a system that per-
formed well, in terms of cost per tonne-kilometre, may have been providing
services that generated more costs than benefits. This could be the case, for
example, if there were too many branch lines, or poorly sited trunk lines.
Bogart’s methodology is designed to allow like-with-like comparisons of
unlike countries. In a direct pair-wise contrast, Acworth (1920) was acerbic:
‘Will any one deny that, even handicapped as they are [in the capital market],
the private railways of Texas are giving to the people of Texas a more ample, a
more efficient, and a cheaper service than the Government of New South
Wales gives to its citizens?’^25
9.4 Conclusion
From the 1850s, Australian governments have been responsible for thefinan-
cing, construction, and operation of railways—urban, suburban, and rural—
with the exceptions being some lines dedicated to minerals carriage, and the
outsourcing in recent decades of some‘above rail’operations. In other coun-
tries, extensive government railways were initiated later than the 1850s, often
beginning with the nationalization of substantial private rail lines or networks.
This chapter discussed some causes and consequences of this Australian
distinction—the early initiation of state railways. However, it is difficult to
isolate what was due solely to precociousness in state ownership. For one
thing, there was state ownership in all Australian colonies—no Australian
counter-example existed. As to other countries, the extent and nature of
state intervention itself make comparative inferences dubious: where there
were privately owned railways, as in the USA, Canada, and Argentina, they
mostly receivedfinancial and regulatory assistance from government, of a
kind (and sometimes of a quantum) that the Australian state railways enjoyed.
(^25) Acworth (1920, p. 24) related how‘a distinguished railway man’from America—presumably
Clapp of Victorian railways—admitted‘I have the ton-mileagefigures. I dare not publish them. If
I did publish them, they would show a ton-mile rate so excessive as compared with other countries
similarly situated, where the traffic is mainly in agricultural products carried long distances, that
public opinion would enforce a sweeping reduction in rates and bankrupt the undertaking.’
Socialism in Six Colonies: The Aftermath