Canadian Railways 2-Book Bundle. David R.P. Guay
branch lines/sidings, were the same except could use additional species of wood.
Bridges: all principal ones had been rebuilt in recent years, many in iron and stone. Only a small number (mainly west of Chatham) required heavy repairs or renewal in the near future (all were low structures).
Toronto branch: with few exceptions were masonry piers/abutments
Galt and Guelph branch: half had been renewed, including all principal ones but one
Sarnia branch: majority needed rebuilding but some had already been done and it was planned to do the rest before safety issues arose
London and Port Stanley: all were in excellent condition (iron and masonry)
New double-tracking; loop line; Brantford branch; Wellington, Grey, and Bruce (over half were new) — basically new stock
Trouble had been brewing for some time among some of the shareholders, regarding the condition and management of the company. As a result, a committee was appointed to examine the affairs of the company (called the Committee of Investigation). Also, the attitude of the Grand Trunk toward the Great Western was not at all friendly and was getting worse. By 1874 wood was becoming a problematic fuel due to its poorer quality, greater scarcity, and higher price. The chief engineer submitted a report to the directors and shareholders on the mileage of the Great Western’s affiliated roads as of March 6, 1874 (Table 2-5).
A special general meeting of the shareholders was held in London, U.K., on August 26, 1874. Extreme dissatisfaction was expressed by some of the shareholders regarding company affairs. The Committee of Investigation recommended, among other measures, a complete turnover of the board of directors. After a heated debate at a meeting on September 9, a vote was taken and practically an entirely new board of directors was appointed. The shareholders immediately voted to increase the salaries of the new directors before seeing what improvements, if any, they could make, a deal that rankled the old board members.
The new board of directors, as recommended by the Committee of Investigation and a committee of shareholders, included:
The Right Honourable Hugh Childers, MP, as president;
Lieutenant-Colonel Grey as vice-president;
T. Barkworth;
Seymour Clarke;
James Bald;
L.W. McClure;
John Stitt; and
The Honourable W. McMaster (only Canadian) (three vacancies were left unfilled)
Table 2-6 illustrates the capital expenditures of the Great Western over the preceding five years (1870–74), which had been a factor in the British shareholder revolt, appointment of the Committee of Investigation and its subsequent adverse report, and mass resignation of the entire board of directors under Thomas Dakin.
The new president replacing Dakin, who had been president for the previous twelve years, was the Right Honourable Hugh C.E. Childers, MP (Member of British Parliament). He promised to visit Canada very soon. No dividends were paid for the first six months of 1874.
On October 1, 1874, there was a fire in the Clifton-Niagara Falls car shop that destroyed the 360-foot-long structure. Great Western baggage and passenger cars (one of each) and an Erie Railroad sleeping car were also consumed in the fire. Things were not going well due to a new financial panic in the U.S. A provisional agreement with the Canada Southern, by which it would gain access to the Suspension Bridge, was hammered out by the board. Double-tracking the main line had begun, with the Glencoe-to-Chatham and Windsor-to-Belle River segments (total fifty-one miles) being completed by early 1875. These were the first sections of double track in Canada.
President Childers travelled to Canada in the summer of 1875. He found relations with the Grand Trunk to be unsatisfactory, although they had recently improved a bit. Traffic had fallen off in the wake of the panic, though the effects were still acutely present. It is significant that three major managers of the railway resigned early in 1875: General Manager Price, Chief Engineer John Kennedy, and Locomotive Superintendent W.A. Robinson. No explanation is available for the resignations and no regrets were mentioned in the minutes of subsequent company meetings.
In May 1875 the Great Western Railway had requested relief from its property tax burden in Windsor at the Court of Revision (of Tax Assessment). This was flatly refused, considering that the real market value of the company’s property of nearly one mile of waterfront was certainly around $700,000, far above the assessed value of $160,000.
By mid-1875, all main line, loop line, and branch mileage were laid with steel rails (513.75 miles). Sidings were of a total length of 178.33 miles. Average speeds of passenger and freight trains were twenty-six and thirteen miles per hour, respectively. By October 1875 F. Broughton had been appointed general manager and operating expenses (wages) and staff members had been cut back substantially. With the railway’s extensive experience using steel rails, steel rail lifespan was estimated as being sixteen years, certainly an advance upon the one to three years seen with iron rails. Their cost had fallen to a very reasonable £3 ($14.60) per ton.
During 1875 President Childers spoke of the desirability of setting aside monies each year for rail renewal (£45,000 or $219,000) and bridge renewal (£15,000 or $73,000). At Hamilton, a brick passenger station three hundred fifty by forty feet was completed, as were additional tracks at the London car shops. A half-mile branch was opened at Southampton from the station to a new pier built by the Dominion government. The Kincardine branch was the victim of monstrous snowfalls that could not be overcome by the most powerful snow ploughs and a large workforce. It remained closed from the beginning of February until about the third week of March, while the line between Guelph and Southampton could be kept open only for light passenger traffic.
August 1875 saw the Great Western in the midst of an embarrassing controversy regarding passenger tickets. The controversy surrounded the question of the length of time that a ticket remained “good.” The usual legal decision up to that time was that a ticket remained “good” until it was used, even if an expiration date existed on the ticket and that date had passed. The Great Western’s policy was to refuse to accept a ticket after its expiration date had passed. Sheriff McEwen of Windsor personally objected to this company policy, and when he had a ticket refused by the company for this reason he entered into a legal action against it. There is no record regarding the outcome of this action.
Starting in 1875 a potentially explosive situation had developed wherein the Great Western was accused of obstructing navigation on navigable rivers in Essex and Kent counties. At the November 1875 Essex County council meeting, Mr. Chartrand gave notice that he would be introducing a resolution authorizing the county clerk to contact the Great Western Railway regarding its bridges built over Belle River and Ruscom River. The next day the resolution was introduced that railway bridges over navigable rivers are obstructions to navigation and violate the Railway Act. He had no problem with railways bridging waterways, but leaving only two or three feet of clearance made navigation impossible, seriously impacting the lumber/wood industries. The resolution was seconded and carried. It was also mentioned that the Baptiste Creek bridge, being constructed at that time, would block up the creek entirely.
At the June 1876 meeting, the county clerk read a letter from the county council’s solicitor (lawyer) concerning the Great Western bridges over navigable waterways in Essex County. This letter was accompanied by extensive correspondence between the Grand Trunk and Kent County council where a similar situation existed. Councillor Trembly expressed hope that Essex County council would join with their Kent colleagues in resisting the encroachment of the railways on the rights of citizens negatively impacted by the bridges. The next day John Langford, warden of Essex County, addressed the county council on the obstruction to navigation by the new Great Western bridge across Baptiste Creek. He explained the character of the obstruction, those who were impacted by it, and what Kent County had done to induce the railway company to modify bridges in its district in such a way as to allow small vessels to pass beneath. County council was left with a decision of whether or not to take legal action against the railway