The Press MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1966. “Selling” Our Railways

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31090, 20 June 1966, Page 12

The Press MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1966. “Selling” Our Railways

Recent articles on our Saturday pages written for “ The Press ” from London, strongly urged the modernisation of New Zealand’s railway system. It is unlikely that any reader will dispute with Mr Lascelles that what is needed here is bolder and more imaginative planning than has been evident in the past. It would be comforting, indeed, to think that the administrators of the system are properly aware that it is currently passing through probably the most critical period in its history. Are the railways to continue to lose ground to other forms of passenger transport? It is clearly in that field, not in the handling of freight, that the prospect of a large-scale recovery of patronage lies. Road and air transport may challenge the supremacy of the railways in the movement of certain classes of freight; but in the heavier categories it is unlikely that rail haulage will ever be superseded, except where coastal shipping may be employed more advantageously. A substantial recovery of passenger traffic could, however, prove of outstanding financial importance. If more people are to be persuaded to travel by rail—when time is not the essence of the contract—policy should, and quite easily could, aim at providing the inducements. Mr Lascelles has remarked that the British railways used to be handicapped by “ an “ exaggerated respect for poor tradition ”. Precisely the same could be said now of our own system. No business can expect to progress today on the basis of standards that may have had relevance 30 or 40 years ago. Yet it would not be unreasonable to suggest that much of the rolling-stock currently in use—passenger accommodation not excluded —is outmoded at least in that degree. Mr Lascelles has referred to the “ dramatic changes ” in rail travel in Britain that resulted from authoritative investigation —the bringing in of outside consultants, regardless of departmental resentment, to advise on changes in carriage design; the improvement of tracks, with better banking, longer welding of rail sections, and modem suspension; more powerful and faster locomotives; and up-to-date station facilities. The superiority of rail travel, for mass passenger accommodation, cannot seriously be questioned, provided attention is given to comfort, to unimpeded vision, and to the provision of reasonable amenities, particularly in catering. It is nonsense to protest, as a correspondent pointed out in our columns recently, that New Zealand’s narrow-gauge tracks are not suited to the provision of dining-cars. Other narrowgauge systems use dining-cars extensively—as, in fact, they were earlier used for main-trunk travel in this country.

From the scenic viewpoint, trains of modern design, vision-aiding, could give travellers in New Zealand pleasure on a scale never yet achieved — largely, it may be suspected, because of a stubborn departmental preference for “ poor tradition Mr Lascelles has illustrated this point by a reference to the Midland route to the West Coast, offering an ever-changing scenic vista. In the Buller Gorge section of the diversionary line to Westport many glorious glimpses would also open to the traveller if care were taken to keep the view clear by checking the track-side growth of trees and scrub. Mr Lascelles has done a valuable service by setting out in detail the arguments for system modernisation.