RAILWAY REFORM.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 268, 14 November 1887, Page 2

RAILWAY REFORM.

"CHARING GROSS "IK 'fiEPLY.

WILL MR VAILE'S SCHEME PAY?

MOST EMPHATICALLY NO!!!

(To the Editor.)

Sill,—Your limitation scarcely affords space to do so largo a subject justice, but I will endeavour as briefly as possible to deal With the chief points raised in Mr Vaile's letter. Permit n.c, however, first of all to remark upon the extreme difficulty of pinning Mr Voile down to any one of his numerous utterances concerning thia scheme. In previous statements of his upon the subject, I find such'remarks as these, "I believo that the railways of the world ought to be made to act' as distributing, and not as concentrating agencies ;" " The doing away with the great evil of massing large numbers of people in a few centres ; _ " The creation of numerous inland towns, ' and so on. What was my surprise then to find exception taken to the remark that " Mr Vaile claimed for his scheme that it wouM result in the rapid migration of tho town population to the country,' ,: followed by an emphatic denial that ho ever anticipated such a result ; yet before closing even this letter he asserts that tho " immediate " result of adopting his system would bo chat " all tho land within the tifteen-niilo radius would speedily be subdivided and taken up for residence sites. The value of city and suburban land is on the average in proportion to tho concentration of population ; it iy obvious, therefore, that if Mr Vaile's scheme realised his predictions it would enhance tho value of country land by diminishing tho number of competitors for city land, thus reducing the price within the more limited city area. In promising these "immediate" results, Mr Vaile bars tlioso imaginary thousands who aro to fioek into the country as soon as tho news goes forth that his scheme has been adopted. Personally, I must decline to tako any such shadowy factor into account, and cannot assent to deal with the scheme on any other basis than that afforded by our present population. His assertion that "people who corno hore with the intention of settling on land aro unable to do so owing to our ridiculous transit system " may be passed over as rhetorical embellishment. Our transit system is in principle precisely the same as tho transit system all tho world over, much moie liberal than the average, and tho people who run away because they aro denied the happiness ot jolting up and down on our railways at a speed of Is miles an hour for 4d a «tago, ought to bo settled on laud in tho vicinity of Avondale. And now a word or two with regard to Mr Vaile's chosen examples of cheap railway travel. 1 should have been very much of a Rip Van Winkle indeed had I quoted tho JSew York elevated railway as an instance in which passengers aro carried a distance of 32 miles for 2kl. Tho elevated railway of New York simply performs the work of a tramway by moving passengers from ono part of tho city to another, with a population of about 1,500,000 for its customers. It runs in and about the city within a radius of about five miles, terminating at tho original starting point. There may bo a stray lunatic or two who gets in at the chief depot and goes the round, but although I huvo not the traffic returns of this lino to hand, I will undertake to say that tho avcrago journey per passenger for his 2£d is not throo miles. Tho comparison instituted between this railway and the 50-mile stages in anparsolySOttled country liko New Zealand is a fair example of the arguments and comparisons, without, any of tho elements of true analogy, upon which Mr Vaile has built up his scheme.

Mr Vailo mentions a faro of 2d for 16 milfcs on the London Metropolitan ; ho carefully omits to state, however, that this is the charge for the workmen's train, running at a vory early hour in the morning. Speaking from memory, I believe the time is from sto 7 a.m. The ordinary fares on this line were quoted in my last, and are as high as suburban rates at present charged on our railways. With the Metropolitan, as with tho New York elevated railway, it is sheer nonsense to comparo such purely tramway traffic in tho most densely-popu-lated cities of tho world with our country railways ; it is equally misleading to speak of the fare charged on the workmen's train in London as 2cl lor 16 miles. One of the longest runs on the Metropolitan is from Bays water to tho Mansion House, passing through Notting Hill, Kensington, Brompton, South Kensington, Sloanc Squaro, Victoria, Wostminster, Charing Cross, and the Temple, and the distance is 6 miles 8 chains. It would be a' high average to estimate tho distance travelled by each passenger on workmen's trains at 5 miles. In mentioning the Metropolitan in my last letter it was not with any thought that there was an analogy between the traffic on such a line, and tho railways, or even the city tramways, of New Zealand, but merely to show the large percentage of the receipts absorbed by the working expenses on a passenger line under the most favourable circumstances.

With regard to the Indian railways, they can only have been quoted in support of Mr Vaile's fares through that little knowledge which is so dangerous a thing. Take as an example the fares on tho most frequented line in the Madras Presidency, viz., Madras and Arconum, 43 miles, farce— Ist class 7s 9d, 2nd class 3s lid, 3rd class lid. The first and second class afford rather poor support to Mr Vaile's fares of 6d and 4d for 50 miles, and as to the fare of lid third class, Mr Vaile is evidently unaware that the carriages are open (like trucks) without seats, constructed for the very poorest and lowest caste - natives, earning perhaps 6d per day, who squat on the floor, when necessary, packed'as closely as sheep are packed in a pen. During several years' experience in India I never saw an Englishman travel third class, nor will any respectable native shopkeeper or high - caste native himself to the degradation and discomfort of this class.

Fares lower than any Mr Vaile has ever quoted are now offered on our railways to suburban residents und»r a season ticket. They have nob produced the results which Mr Vaile claims for his system. How does he evade the logical deduction from these facts ? He says:—" The reason of the failure of the present season ticket system will be very apparent to anybody who will take the trouble to think. The head of the family takes a ticket, but how about the wife, the children, the servants, the friends. All these want to go to and from the city, but who could afford to supply them with season tickets or pay the present single fares ?'' Now, Mr Vaile must be well aware that a man may take out a family ticket at $rds the rate of a single ticket per member of his family. Or, if he does not care to do that, his children may travel to school at an almost nominal rate, and his boys come in to their work at half the low season ticket rates charged for the head of tho family. Does the tramway hold out such advantages, or is Mr Vaile's reply in (■ ( he face of such facts ingenuous ?

I am very much obliged to Mr Vaile for his table showing the passengers carried on the Auckland lines for tho year ending

March 31st, 1886. It more than bears out my figures, arrived at in another way, that the proposed stage system would bear more than twico as heavily upon settler* residing between Auckland and Drury than upon settlers between Pukekohe and Hamilton. According to this table five fares for ono would be required at the 50-mile stage under Mr Vaile's system, to obtain the present revenue. It is manifest that there is no probability of getting this "greased number, nor of recouping tho loss from tho short-distance fares, so _ that the deficit must bo paid out of taxation. _ But tho most extraordinary thing connected with this table is Mr Vaile s comment on it:-» My assertion has always been "-he says-" that two (not three ) of my fares would give a better unancial result than wo obtain now, and this table conclusively proves that tion has been sound and correct. V\ liy, tho table proves exactly the reverse. It shows clearly that if twice the number of passengers that were carried by the government had made the same, journeys at Mr Vaile's fares, the railway revenue would have been «J:, one-fifth less than.was received under tho present tariff. Mr Vailo should study tho ABC of averages. tho detailed figures given further on in his letter expose the fallacies of Mr Vaile c calculations in even stronger light ancl -J must confess that if I had desired to hold up Mr Vaile'H system to ridicule, I should have hesitated before attributing to him such absurd suggestions as aro contained in tho following paragraph :—• " The governing load of a tram for this stacre, Pukckoho to Hamilton, is with a J engine 125 tons going out, and 105 coming in, average 115 tons. The cost of running it at 4s 3d per train mile for tho 50 miles would bo £10 12s 6d. After making ample provision for the weight of rolling stock it would carry 440 passengers. iheeG at, 2s Gd would givo £65. It will thus be seen that if my carriages were only onofifth full there would bo no loss, while it they were a quarter full this dreaded 50-mile stage would yield a handsome Pl To'begin with, a train of 115 tons will only carry 320 passengers, not 440. But let that pass. I owome, from the fact that Mr Vaile puts the average laro down at on 6d instead of his 6d and 'Id, that he means these passengers to bo very accommodating people" who will resign their seats to a now lot of passengers at intervals ot ton miles throughout the 50-milo stage. tVhatdooe , that mean ? Why, that allowing Mr Vaile his 6d fare, 2,200 passengers will bo required to earn tho £55. And yet Mr Vaile assures us that he thinks " it would bo a moderate calculation to suppose that taking both classes it (the fare) would at least reach an average of 2s 6d." , . ~ Observe, on Mr Vaile's oWi showing it costs CIO 12s 6d to run a train of 115 tons fifty miles. This train will only carry 320 passengers. Now, allowing Mr Vailo 6d a fare for the 50-mile stage, it will require 42j passengers to earn the working expenses ot tho tram, and these 425 people nrust travel by each train. Yet, Mr Vailo assures us that ho has ,; no fear whatever as to the financial result!" Great is tho power of faith. To my mind it is as clear as that two and two make four that there woulaj.>e a very heavy loss on every passenger enrnort 50 miles at these rates, and that tho deficit would have to bo recouped out of taxation.

Bufc I fear, sir, 1 havo trespassed too much already upon your indulgence; just let me crave a few lines moro to epitomise two or tlireo points which, if space permitted, I ahould like to discuss move fully in response to Mr Vailo'e challenge, " Let Charing Cross unset my calculations if ho can." Mr Vailo says : " Roughly speaking, the man whoso liouko is 100 miles from the market pays 100 times m much for the transit of himself and hi* produce as fche man who is only ono mile out." Now for the facts :— Agricultural produce for ono mile is curried for 2h 3d per ton ; for 100 miles it is carried for 12s 10d por ton. Mr Vailo s " rough calculation " makes the 100 mile rato XII 5s per ton ! Tho fare first-class for ono rnilo is 6d, for 100 miles ib is 20s lOd. According to Mr Vailc'a "rough calculation "it ought to bo 60s. Then ho goes on to wiy that under his system the man who is 106 miles away would only pay 6 times as much instead of'loo times as much : Present rato for agricultural produce, one mile, 2a 3d x 6—l3s 6d ; actual rato, 12s 10d. The farmer would thus lose 8d if charged according to Mr Vailo's scale. "it should bo borne in mind (says Mr Vaile) that under the present system all that can be earned by a seat in a carriage is tho through fare." If Mr Vaile will take out tho fares from station to station between Auckland and To Awamutu, he will find the total to be 28s 9d; tho through faro is 20s 9d. . In Mr Vailo's communication to tho " Herald " dated Auckland 24th May, 1887, his constant cry is, " I require an increase of;" but with our present small population very widely distributed.outside its centres, ho cannot possibly get. tho increase required. If he wished to benefit the largest numbers —that is the townsmen —he would have started his M stage system by establishing his first ticket station about 5 miles away, say at Whangamarino and his further stations at 7 miles distance to Hamilton. He would then, for a time, have got a large increase in passengers, but even that would soon pall on public taste, as it is not the height of enjoyment to be jolting in a i-ailway carriage, even if it only co-sts you 4d. Some other inducement must bo found to cause a busy people to travel. With reference to the equity involved in the differential stage system, the railways being in the hands of the Government should be worked on such a principle as will treat every man alike. Now, I fail to see tho justice of charging one man only 6cl for travelling 54- miles, and charging another 2s 6d for the same distance.

Mr Vaile is fond of quoting the postage and telegraph systems as supporting him in ignoring cost of transit. It will be news to me to learn that Mr Vaile gets his letters delivered outside the city for Id, or that his telegrams and letters to Australia and England are not charged in proportion to the cost of forwarding them. False analogy and mistaken average have been tho_ causes of fatal error in many plausible theories and schemes besides Mr Vaile's. —I am, etc., Chaeing Citoss.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—ln Mr Vaile's reply to "Charing Cross," dealing with that portion as to the number of tickets required outside the seven-mile radius, he offers a table propared by the officers of the Department as conclusive- in his favour, and says: "My assertion has always been that two, not three, of my fares would give a better financial result than we obtain now, and this table conclusively proves that my calculation has been sound and correct. There is no speculation here, nor question of ' average,' but the Department has proved that if any system had been running in 1886, instead of theirs, and the passenger traffic had been doubled, we should "have had a very considerable increase of revenue." .

I have only taken a very vassing interest in this question, bub I have long thought Mr Vaile was playing with- figures in a manner he does not understand. It is often asserted they can be made to prove anything. That the table does not establish Mr Vaile's position I unhesitatingly assort, and call on him to justify his statement. If all his other figures areas unreliable as these, it will weaken his position very considerably. From this table I could make the sentence quoted above read thus: " this table conclusively proves that my calculation has been imsound arid incorrect. There is speculation here, and question of • average,' and ike Department has provod that if my 'system had been running in 1886 instead of theirs, and the passenger traffic

had been doubled, we etiould have had a very considerable loss of .revenue. —i am etc Ewston Sqvakl. Auckland, November 11.