Railway Maintenance

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22519, 29 September 1938, Page 10

Railway Maintenance

Opening his campaign for the Avon seat, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, Minister for Railways, repeated a charge he has already made, that during the life' of the Coalition Government railway maintenance had been badly neglected. On this occasion Mr Sullivan said thait rolling stock had been “ starved,” that the nominal net revenue earned had been “made out of the “pockets of the workers and by running the “ rolling stock off its wheels,” and that it looked as if the Coalition Government had been determined “ to allow the railway system to cease to “ exist except in skeleton form.” These are grave charges. A Minister who makes them without full and clear evidence to substantiate them is a political irresponsible. A few weeks ago Mr Sullivan laid before Parliament the Railways Statement, where, if anywhere, it should be possible to find this evidence. It is not to be found. Statistical statement No. 20 in this document contains full information covering expenditure on railways maintenance, since 1925-26; and the following analyses are drawn from it.

For simplicity, the maintenance figures here given are those only for the maintenance of rolling stock-—locomotives, carriages, and waggons—to which the Minister specially refer*.

In the four years ended March 31, 1936, the total amount spent was £5,051,585, an average of £1,262,896 a year. For the two years ended March 31, 1938, the total was £3,357,645, an average of £1,678,822. It is clear that this expenditure is at a higher rate; but several factors modify the comparison. First, in the four-year period the train-miles run averaged 10,417,276; in the two-year period, under Labour administration, 12,322,967. Obviously, the greater the amount of train-running, the greater the wear and tear on rolling stock and the greater the need for maintenance expenditure. This check is confirmed by reference to passenger and freight and revenue figures. In the four-year period, the average number of passenger journeys was 19,356,708; the average goods tonnage carried, 5,275,610. In the twoyear Labour period the corresponding averages were 21,838,320 and 6,530,440. The total revenue averages for the two periods were, respectively, £5,779,873 and £7,247,714. The trainmile figures show that, in the period when the Coalition Government (through the Railways Board) was responsible for the railways, fewer trains were run, this being the effect of the prevailing depression, the extent of which is reflected also in the passenger, freight, and revenue figures. But if the volume of traffic is heavily reduced, not only will fewer trains be required; the tendency will be towards smaller trains, and so again towards a lower demand for maintenance. The train-mile difference alone is enough to suggest that the need for maintenance expenditure was 15 per cent, less in the four-year (Coalition) period than in the two-year (Labour) period. The reasonable assumption that the average haul consisted of fewer carriages and waggons suggests that this figure is conservative. But, second, there is another, highly important factor. The difference in wage rates enters largely into the comparison. The higher Labour expenditure on maintenance is not by any means wholly accounted for by the greater amount of work done: part is accounted for by the higher rates paid for the work and, to an increasing extent, by higher cost of materials. The Railways Statement, in fact, shows that wage increases and the operation of the 40-hour week added £154,747 to the cost of rolling-stock maintenance in the two years, and that the average cost of maintaining locomotives advanced from £869 in 1934 to £lll7 in 1937 and £1228 in 1938, while the average cost of maintaining a carriage or waggon advanced from £ 124 in 1934 to £156 in 1937 and £lB4 in 1938. When all these facts are taken together, they plainly and irresistibly argue that the comparative figures contradict the Minister. Rolling stock was not “starved” by the Coalition, was not “run off “ its wheels nor is there, of course, the smallest sign of any policy of letting the railway system “ cease to exist, except in skeleton “ form.” No candid elector will weigh the Minister’s charges against the evidence—which is his own—without concluding that they are unfairly and irresponsibly made.