PUBLIC SAFETY ON RAILWAYS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22501, 8 September 1938, Page 18

PUBLIC SAFETY ON RAILWAYS

/' 4 [WORKING HOURS OF CREWS DEPARTMENT’S STANDARDS DEFENDED GENERAL MANAGER’S STATEMENT “I am sure that no unbiased commentator would agree with the alarmist comment at the conclusion of the editorial article in ‘The Press’ of August 24 that the department’s standards of care for the public safety and of consideration of the men seem tq be gravely deficient,” states Mr G. H. Mackley (General Manager of Railways), replying to the article and also a letter from a correspondent, “One Who Viewed the Wreckage,” submitted to him. Continuing his comment and referring specially to the Aylesbury railway accident, Mr Mackley says: “There was nothing in the revealed facts to warrant such a statement. On the contrary, the facts show that the department’s standards in each of. these respects bear favourable comparison both with the laws regarding road transport in New Zealand and with the railways in any part of the world.” “One Who Viewed the Wreckage” wrote: “The general manager apparently does not like a little light being shed on the department and its methods. The plain truth is that there have been far too many mishaps lately in the railway service. Derailments now seem to be quite common, not to mention collisions, and while I do not say that in all cases long hours worked by the train crews are the reason for these mishaps, I certainly think that in some cases they are, a contributing factor. . . . Whether the general manager admits it or not, the fact that in the carriage of goods all road operators are governed by the Transport Licensing (Goods Service) Regulations while the railways are not is an injustice and loads the scales in favour of the department.’ The correspondent expressed the view that independent reports on the engineering problems of the railways should be obtained and a report should also be given on the executive control. He cited Henry Ford as having purchased the Toledo Railway Company after it had twice been unable to Ray its way and had made it a profit-paying Sy, Tfcid it not been that my. attention was-drawn to an editorial article lu tne issue of The Press’ of August 24 I would not haVe replied further to this anonymous correspondent, whose second letter with its irrelevancies and inaccuracies, confirms my original opinion that he has quite apparently no desire or intention to he fair to the department, said Mr Mackley. “This second letter is mainly devoted to a general diatribe against the railways rather than sticking to the point at - issue, which is, whether or not e railways provide for their train-run-ning staff conditions which compare favourably with those provided Tor the drivers of road, vehicles under the Transport Licensing Act. ‘Question of Management “Your editorial draws attention to the error made by your anonymous correspondent, in his first letter. In reply,-1 would say that' whether this error is either prevalent’ or natural is beside the point. Before an anonymous correspondent launches an attack upon a Government department, if he has either the desire-or\the intention to be fair, he should check up his information with the department concerned (as you, sir, have done) and thus avoid making an error —whether prevalent,’ *natural.’ or otherwise. ‘The error, in this instance,” continued Mr Mackley. “carries a grossly misleading inference reflecting on the management of the Railways Depa-t----ment, and is rightly resented as such. The department neither evades the law, as alleged by your correspondent, nor does it ‘do as it likes.’ In its observance of the laws governing road operations, the department strictly observes the provisions of the Licensing Act, and in some respects provides better conditions than those laid down in the award. This is in contrast with what it; has found in practice amongst some private • road operators. In a number of the road services the department has taken over, it was discovered to be the practice rather than the exception to break the law flagrantly and persistently in many direc--tions, and contrary to the public interest. For this reason many of the staffs taken over with services purchased by the department have expressed their strong preference . for working under the conditions provided by the department.” Road Competition The correspondent was again in error in stating that the scales were loaded in favour of the department as far as the Transport Licensing (Goods Service) Regulations are concerned. The contrary was the fact. The railway rates, aranged as they were with the national development aspect the main consideration, were such that the major portion of the goods carried were conveyed at rates with which road haulage could not possibly compete; thus it was only for its higherrated and more payable goods that the department had had to meet road competition. and this condition was not confined to New Zealand.. As had been stated recently by the Victorian Rail-, way Commissioners in referring to freight concession to traders to meet the competition of goods hauliers, although by this means a substantial tonnage of valuable business was recovered, and further diversion of traffic from the railways to road transport was prevented: “The course of action forced upon us as an alternative to the loss of traffic is distorting the railway rating structure to the point of virtual destruction.” The commissioners also made the following significant comment, which, because of the exact parallel with New Zealand conditions, Mr Mackley quoted in full: “Developed on a national and generally uniform basis with due regard to the exigencies of the business and industry of the country as a whole, the rating structure protected the more necessitous industries by low and in many cases insufficiently remunerative rates, and provided for compensatory higher rates for the classes of traffic upon which the influence of freight charges is relatively negligible. “It permitted, moreover, a reasonable stabilisation of the relative commercial and competitive status of the different localities. Road hauliers are not concerned with these considerations. Intent merely upon obtaining the best financial return for themselves, and Under no obligation to the necessitous Industries, they have selected the eisses of traffic they will carry and e places they will serve. Their classifleations and charges vary considerably

for the same commodities and the same distances, and even for different individuals in the same locality.” Comments from Experts Regarding the suggestion that the opinion of outside experts should be obtained on all railway matters, Mr Mackley said that leading experts in the railway industry from Great Britain and other countries, gave New Zealand the benefit of their comments and opinions from time to time, and the consensus of opinion from these leaders in every phase of the railway transport industry—maintenance, locomotive. traffic, stores, signals, etc.—was that the New Zealand Railways more than held their own in every branch with the best that railways comparable in population, traffic densities and geographical conditions can show. If the correspondent was, however, really interested in the subject, he would be glad to supply, him with up-to-date information on any phase of railway development on which he genuinely desired enlightenment. It. would at least show him how far behind the times he was in quoting what Henry Ford did with the Toledo Railway Company, which was, after all, the case of one private operator taking over from another private operator, and under American conditions, which differed so completely from those prevailing in New Zealand that the irrelevancy of the comparison was glaringly obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of railway developments in the various countries of the world. Conditions for Crews “I reiterate that, with a full knowledge of the conditions applying to both road and rail transport, the department is satisfied that the conditions it provides for its train-running staff, including the payment of overtime rates, bear favourable comparison with the award conditions applying to road service operators,”- said the General Manager. “As already pointed out, the railway engine-driver has a 40hour week, as compared with the 88 hours a fortnight the driver of a road service vehicle is required to work. In this connexion I would point out that the New Zealand railways is the only railway system in Australia and New Zealand that provides a 40-hour week for its train crews. Further, the following practices are observed in regard to the hours of duty of enginedrivers and firemen in New Zealand; (1) Shifts are, as far as possible, arranged on the basis of five days of eight hours a week. - (2) Except in the case of a few Sunday shifts, there are no broken shifts. (3) Where longer runs are involved, these are worked alternately with short shifts.” * It was not the general practice of the Australian and New Zealand railways to make any hard-and-fast rules in regard to meal hours. The practice here was, in general, : “In the case of shunting services generally, crews have suitable opportunities when engines are standing during the course of shifts to partake of a meal, and the majority of these shifts are of not more than seven or eight hours’ duration. (At one time it was the practice to relieve enginemen in some important shunting yards for meals, but this was discontinued, as it was not always possible to relieve the men at suitable times, and objection was, moreover, taken to time having to be made up). In any special cases, endeavour is made to make suitable provision for meals. Enginemen on most goods trains have periods of standing at crossing-places or sub-terminal stations, and take advantage of these periods to have a meal, while long distance passenger trains stop at various points to enable passengers to obtain refreshments. In some instances, such as Sunday shifts, short runs, on isolated sections, and special jobs, enginemen are booked off duty for meal intervals, but generally the time occupied by engine crews in having meals is not deducted.” “The driver of the tram concerned in the Aylesbury accident worked hours which would be permissible to the driver of a road service vehicle operating under the Transport Licensing Act,” replied Mr Mackley. That was the essence of his reply to the correspondent. The full time of this shift was 12 hours 35 minutes (as against a maximum stretch of 14 hours allowed under the Transport Licensing Act), and the actual running time for this schedule was nine hours 31 minutes (as compared with 11 hours permitted under the Transport Licensing Act for a road’service driver).