The Railways.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19251, 5 March 1928, Page 8

The Railways.

The Prime Minister was very frank on Saturday in his references to railway finance and the outlook for railway transport in general. He admitted, to begin with, that "the country would " have to face a heavy expenditure for " the next two or three years " to place the railways on. a thoroughly payable footing, and then went on to say that the Department during the next five years would probably have the hardest fight in its history. This was of course a preliminary to the. resounding declaration of confidence that followed — that success is certain because of the "singular results already achieved" — but as this will be treated by the Department's rivals as mere whistling on the Minister's part to keep up his courage, it is remarkable that he should have been so candid about his difficulties. But the explanation perhaps is that his speech was a preparation for a more definite announcement than he has so far thought it wise to make of the p'olicy to be pursued to meet these difficulties. "We are not out for a "complete monopoly," he said, immediately after pointing out that the Department is losing a million a year from the competition of the roads, but the railways would have to be "wise "to all possibilities," and be "first on " the mark at all times to handle com- " petition." These are harmless enough remarks in themselves, and perhaps mean no more than they actually say; but they may mean everything that unkind people will suspect that they mean from their association with the word "monopoly." For it is not a secret that a monopoly complete enough to choke off competition is the desire of the Department's leading officials. It has never been quite definitely announced, but very definitely indicated, that the Department's desire — and this of course means its intentionis to secure a privileged position on all trunk lines (road and rail) throughout the Dominion. It will be remembered that in the Railways Statement presented to Parliament last September emphasis was laid on "the necessity "for some such action as would at "least equalise opportunity for the " railways in their business-getting "efforts with those of their competi- " tors," and that the Department's idea of equalisation was that it should take account (a) of the railways' " self-pro- " vided and maintained permanent "way," (b) of the "value of the developmental services now rendered "by the railways," and (c) of the " fares, time-tables, and routes that will "prove most economically efficient." With some of this, as we pointed out at the time, everybody will agree, but some is distinctly dangerous. Although it is a fact that the railways are not merely a trading concern but partly

also a public service, they cannot be given the right to push their rivals oil ! the road merely, or mainly, because their presence there is robbing the railways of revenue. Whatever the Prime Minister means by " proceeding with " the present policy"—what is the policy?—the Department must be prevented from attempting any such highhanded protection of " the people's in- " terests " in their trains as would make competition by private transport impossible.