Terry R. Gourvish has argued that the railway companies in Britain were “never the exemplars of Victorian private enterprise,” as some now choose to characterize them. Indeed, from the outset they were fairly tightiy controlled in terms of maximum rates, service provisions, routes and other fundamental matters. He also explained why the railways needed to be involved with government from the outset: their capitalization was so large that no family or group of partners was likely to be able to raise such sums. Hence, the companies had to draw upon a large number of “professional” investors or rentiers. Most of these played no part in the management or direction of the business, and they therefore needed some protection for their capital from the possible profligacy of the executives and directors. To ensure that the maximum loss they were likely to incur was restricted to the capital they had invested, they needed limited-liability status for the firm. These two requirements, jointstock form and limited liability, required the enterprise to obtain either a royal charter or a private act of Parliament before 1844 when the law on joint-stock companies became much more liberal. Even then it was not until the late 1850s that limited liability was granted as simply and cheaply as corporate form. Hence, railway companies needed to approach Parliament for this protective legislation, as well as for compulsory purchase powers to obtain the land they needed. From then on, the railways continued to be tightiy constrained and regulated. Parliamentary trains; threats of nationalization; constraints on merger activity; rules regarding safety; constraints on pricing, especially from the 1870s; requirements for cheap, early workmen's trains; total government control during the First World War; and a complete restructuring by parliamentary edict just after the war were just some of the government's actions.

At first sight there appears to be no commonality between this experience and that of the British coastal shipping industry. The latter seems to be a fine example of private enterprise untrammelled by government intervention - competitive, technologically dynamic, low cost and evolving new services and types of vessel to cater for emerging trades, commodities and needs.