CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 271, 17 November 1887, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

RAILWAY REFORM,

SAMUEL VAILE IN REPLY TO " CHARING CROSS" AND " EUSTON SQUARE."

(To the Editor.)

Sib, —As t never seek to escape the responsibility of any of my utterances, I readily admit that the quotations " Charing Cross " has given are correct so far as they go ; but even taking them in the isolated way they are given, they do not say that I claim the result of the adoption of my system would be "the rapid migration of the town population to the country."

The great disproportion in the growth of town districts as compared with country districts is now acknowledged by all thinking men to be one of the most threatening of modern evils. It was to remedy this evil that my system was invented ; and what I claim is, that under it town and country would alike progress, and in fair and just ratio, the one to the other.

Ib may not suit " Charing Cross " to believe that our "ridiculous transit sysfcem " retards settlement, but unfortunately I have every-d&y experience that it does ; and so has everyone else who has anything to do with the country districts. It is as he says quite true that " Our transit system is in principle precisely the same as the transit system all the world over;" and it is also, true that the whole world is dis- : satisfied with it — as witness the evidence taken before the Royal Commissions in England, theifephburn and otherCommieeions in America, the report of the United Chambers of Commerce of Germany, the recent debates in the British Parliament and the French Chamber of Deputies. If this is not sufficient for him, let him consult the writings of Jeans, Waring, Parsloe, Sterne, Hudson, Headly, and others. In all these I find great discontent with the system he thinks so perfect. Now, then, as to the New York Elevated Railways. " Charing Cross " here gives a very fair example of nis want of knowledge of whufc he writes about. This is what ne says:—" It " (the N. Y. railway) " runs in and about the city within a radius of about five miles, terminating at the original starting point." The fact is, it consists of four sections, each of those having its own distinct time-table. These sections run in straight parallel lines, being connected at one end by an oblique line, but they are totally disconnected at the other ends, and therefore cannot terminate at the original starting point. On looking at this railway again, I find 1 did not do myself nor it justice, for it is over 38, not 32 miles, in length, and the fare 2£d for the whole or any portion of the distance. I quoted this in reply .to " Charing Cross's " distinct statement that " no such fare " as 4d for the whole or any portion of 50 "miles had ever " been attempted in any part of the world." It is quite possible, indeed likely, that the average distance travelled on the New York line is not more than three miles : but why should he claim the average result on this, and deny it to me on the New Zealand lines? It appears tome this style of argument is just a "little tooth'"." The fare in the one caae is 2£d for tl or any portion of 38 miles, and in ' >r 4d for the whole or any p6rfcion of .. J.

As to the workmen's ■ trains on the London Metropolitan, I have always been under the impression that it costs as much to run a train from 5 to 7 a.m. as at any other time of the day; but " Charing Cross," being a railway man, perhaps knows befcter. By-the-by, will he kindly tell us what is the difference in the costof bringing these workmen and the other classes of people, back, at from 5 to 7 p.m., when the lines are more thickly blocked than at any other period of the day ? At any rate, the fact remains that people are carried on this line 16 miles, or any part thereof, for 2d, and I presume it , costs as much to carry a workman as it does a gentleman, possibly a little more, Beeing that, as a rule, he is a good deal heavier, somewhat rougher, and carries a good many tools with him, which the gentleman does not. On both the lines mentioned the financial success is made by charging the fare of 2d and 2£d respectively for the whole or any portion of the stage of 16 or 38 miles, and averaging the result. I think I have learnt the ABC of averages, "Charing Cross notwithstanding. I call attention to the following paragraph : "Fares lower than any Mr Vaile has ever quoted are now offered on our railways to suburban residents under a season ticket. They have not produced the results which Mr Vaile claims for his system. How does he evade the logical deducation from these facts ?" This is the favourite argument of the railway men in support of their fixed idea that people cannot be induced to travel; but they entirely forget how much it cuts against another portion of their argument. They say that my fares will not pay. Do they, then, mean to tell us that the whole season ticket business of the colony is carried on at a serious loss to the revenue, and that the whole community is taxed in order that suburban residents may travel to their homes cheaply ? This is certainly the " logical deduction " from this statement. As to the Indian railways. This is what "Charing Cross" says: " 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 the most frequented line in the Madras Presidency, viz., Madras and Arconum, 43 miles, fares—let 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 pquat on the floor, when necessary, packed as closely as sheep are packed in a pen." These ridiculous assertions are supported by the following statement: —" During several years' experience in India I never saw an Englishman travel third class, nor will any respectable native shopkeeper or high-casto native submit himself to the degradation and discomfort of this class." " Charing Cross " is either unaware of the fact, or he chooses to suppress it, that in India there are four classes of passengers, and that nearly all the traffic of that vast country is carried on in this fourth class. As I write, the official "Administration RejKjrt on the Railways of India for 1883-4 " is before rue; and this is what it says : During that year 65,098,953 passengers were carried over those lines, the proportion of classes being as follows ;—I may as well state that this return includes the returns of the East Indian, the Guaranteed, the Imperial State, the Provincial State, the Native States and the Assisted Companies railways. Thus the figures given are net taken from any isolated section, but from the whole railways of India, and in this respect are infinitely more valuable than those given by "Charing Cross." Class. Passengers carried. Revenue in Rupees. Fourth 60.113 313 .V4\960 Third 3,321,049 17,318 Second 1,356.044 \ 47,071 First 308 517 ! 01,869 Total 65,098,953 4,60,69.054 On the Madias line which " Charing Cros3" quotes 4,447,533 fares were tafcen, and of these 4,378,456 were of the fourthclass, leaving only 69,077 for all the other classes. The average cost of moving a passenger one mile on the East Indian Railway is given as o*B4 of one pice. Twelve pice (one anna) equal five farthings of our money. No !I am not aware that the third class carriages have no seats, but I am aware that not only are they seated, but that in many cases they also have sleeping accommodation provided. The world moves on apace, and probably things have changed since " Charing Cross " acquired his " several years' experience in India." At any rate, I think I have turned the tables upon him, and shown that it is he who has "that little knowledge which is so dangerous a thing." I ought to have mentioned that the Indian fares are all calculated on the mileage basis. " Charing Cross" says : " Now, Mr Vaile must be well aware thai a man may take out a family ticket at §rds the rate of a single ticket per member of his family." Oh, yes ! And I also know that they are so little used that none of the superior officers of the Department could tell the Parliamentary Committee how many are used in this colony. After a great deal of work I extracted the following from the Assistant General Manager :—Question 590. —Mr Vaile to Mr Hannay :" Do you know how many family tickets there are issued on the whole of the New Zealand railways ?" Answer : "I am not aware ; there are a considerabls number (about 38 in 12 months, representing 177 persons)." How admirably this meets the want! Think of it ! " About" 38 family tickets in the whole of New Zealand. Speaking of the table of fares quoted "Charing Cross" says, and "Eueton Square" repeats it in echo : "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 really one-fifth less than was received under the present tariff. Mr Vaile should study the ABC of averages." Now this is mere assertion, which inacaselike this will not do. If the error in my conclusion is so very apparent.it ought not to take these gentlemen long to work the problem out and show Avhere the error comes in. If they do this I will very soon justify my statement. Before " Euston Square" makes a statement like this (if all his other figures are as unreliable as these it will weaken his position very considerably) he should prove that the figures in question are not correct. This he has not done, and I defy him to do it. The question we are discussing is not one that ought to be trifled with.

As to the number of fares a train of 115 tons can carry,the following is the data,and anyone so inclined can check my figures : A carriage 46 & feet long, weighs 11 tons, and a 44 foot one weighs 10 tons ; 15 passengers go to the ton, and the full seating space for each is 20 inches. A<* regards the financial result. " Charing Cross " appears to be unable to perceive the difference between working on a stage system or on a mileage one, and persists in assuming that I am only entitled to reckon on the through faro of 6d or 4d. That is to say, ho, a railway man, assumes that on a run of 50 miles having 15 stopping stations there would be absolutely no " roadside traffic."

We next come to the statement about the 100 mile man, roughly speaking, paying 100 times as much as the man near to. I of course spoke of the transit charge, but "Charing Cross" knows well that the charge for the first mile includes a terminal charge for loading and unloading, and he has multiplied this terminal 100 times in

order to get the figures he quotes. In passengers'tares the first mile includes a terminal for use of stations.

The remainder of "Charing Cross's" letter requires no further reply from me.— I am, &c.. Samuel Vaile. Auckland, November 15th, 1887. [This correspondence is now closed.—Ed. E.S.J -