Travelling by train

Press, 16 March 1982, Page 22

Travelling by train

The , increases in the numbers, of. people travelling by the train and bus services of the New Zealand Railways can,be easily explained by higher air fares arid motoring costs. For those with time to spate, travel by train is now significantly cheaper than travel between the same points by air or, in many circumstances, by car. The prospect of at last reversing the apparently inexorable decline in passenger numbers has stimulated the Railways to improve rolling stock, the frequency of bus services and standards of service and efficiency at booking offices. These welcome improvements should help to reinforce the return to train travel, making it more convenient and comfortable as well as cheaper in comparison with alternatives to travel by train.

When the new corporation takes charge of the Railways on April 1, the directors, eager to reduce if not eliminate the operating deficit, may be tempted to edge rail passenger fares up. It would be most unwise to deny train travel its major appeal to potential passengers. If the corporation chooses to increase fares on those services which do not qualify for a specific subsidy from the Government to the point that the saving of money in travelling by train is not enough to offset, in many people’s calculations, the loss of time or convenience, the promising new beginning for rail passenger travel may be choked off. Passenger fares can stand some increases, especially as air fares and motoring costs are not likely to stop increasing. Those increases which have been imposed in recent years have clearly not deterred passengers. But the limits to such increases must be carefully watched by the Railways.

A,good case. can..be made .for holding rail passenger fares down to the very lowest level compatible with sound management. The .country’s' railway system has large fixed operating costs, regardless of how much freight or how many passengers are carried. Retaining present and attracting new patrons of train services by holding fares should bring in revenue, in excess of the marginal costs of providing the services, which will help the Railways as a whole to meet its fixed costs and so reduce its deficit. For similar reasons, the new corporation would be unwise to use too freely its powers to cut services which are incurring losses and for which a subsidy on social grounds cannot easily be justified. Rail passenger services are, with one or two exceptions, down to a bare minimum already, although there may be some room for cuts in the extensive bus network.

Passengers will not make or bre >k the efforts of the Railways to end its losses. In the year ending March 31, 1981, the Railways took in about SISM in passenger fares but more than S3OOM for carrying goods, livestock and parcels, even though goods traffic was down because of the state of the economy. The most important role of the country’s rail system is clearly the long-distance haulage of heavy freight. But this is not to say that the Railways should neglect the opportunity to bring in additional revenue by maintaining good, cheap rail passenger services. The increases in rail and bus patronage show that this opportunity is a promising one and sound planning for passenger services should not be neglected by the new corporation.