STAGE SYSTEM OF RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 23, 28 January 1891, Page 2

STAGE SYSTEM OF RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—ln his letter which appears in your columns of to-day Mr J. B. Whyte, speaking of the Hungarian and my system, says "bhab albhough they are both stage or zone systems, they differ very much ia several most essential respects." This ie decidedly true, but as Mr Whyte again accuses me of making comparisons which are "most misleading," I will once more endeavour to clearly point out in what the eliflerence consists.

1. In my sy&tem the basis of rating is average cost and the density oj the location of population. In the Hungarian system there is no attempt at recognising these vital principles, which form the great distinguishing feature of the New Zealand system, making it stand out clearly and distinctly from all others.

2. The first object of the Hungarian system ia to " get revenue." I hold that getting revenue ought to be a secondary consideration, and that railways, like common roads, should exist for the promotion of the general welfare. 3. The second object of the Hungarian system is avowedly to build up Buda Pesth and other great cities. This, of course, can only be done by concentrating more population there. The object for which my system was expressly designed is to distribute population and wealth, and to promote settlement on the land.

4. The Hungarian system fixes the rating permanently in favour of certain districts ; generally, if not always, the thickly-popu-lated ones.

My system makes the rating temporarily in favour of the poorer districts, and ultimately the same everywhere. 5. Aa regards finance the Hungarian zone system has given good results because it is a stage system having for a large portion of the traffic more than one stopping station within each stage. Under my system in every stage there will be several stopping stations, and for this reason it will give a better financial result than the Hungarian system. Within certain limits the greater the number of stopping stations within each stage, the better will be the financial result. The profitable length of the various stages can only be determined by the average fare required and the average distance people will travel. That aa regards New Zealand I have correctly eolved this problem, Mr A.. C. Fife's table absolutely proves, so far as it is possible for theory to prove anything. Yes, there are undoubtedly very essential differences between the two systems, but I rather think not exactly in the direction Mr Whyte supposes. Mr Whyte cays, " The Hungarian system appears to the to be founded upon sound principles." Will he be good enough to point out to us in what respect it is superior to the one I have proposed ?

In his controversy with me in 1887, he maintained that the mile was the best and most convenient " unit." It is satisfactory to find that he holds a different opinion now, and believes in a stage system.—lam, etc., Samuel Vaile. Auckland, 21st January, 1891.