RAILWAYS REFORM.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 28, 3 February 1909, Page 3

RAILWAYS REFORM.

L . WHAT MR. MILLAR CAN DO. • IV.— NEW ZEALAND RAILWAYS AN OVERMANNED SERVICE. i " i By A. G. Stephens. 1 (Specially written for the Evening Post.) Number of Emplojees per Mile of Open Line. I ' Department. 1005 G. 100G-7. 1907-8. j Geneial 10 .11 .12 | Traffic 1.27 1.3G 1.80 Maintenance ... 1.34 1.50 IXO Locomotive ... 1.34 1.13 I.CO i All employees ... 4.07 4.42 4.90 | 3 So far as this table goes, there is not i one point favourable to the Railways - Department. Where four men were cmi ployed three years ago, -five were era- ) ployed last year. It is shown that, as 1 the railways extend, more and more 1 men are employed to maintain and operate them. This we should expect; , bub we do not expect that the rate of i increase in the number of employees - should exceed the rate of increase in the . length of line which the employees have , to maintain and operate. t Since, for example, there were needed in 1905-6 four men to every mile of open . line, »t is not evident why five men I should be required in 1907-8. Duplication works, indeed, may necessitate the t temporary employment of a greater number of maintenance men. But the '. increase in the rate is not confined to the maintenance department. It extends . to every department And the increase is progressive and regular in every department. In every department, during the last two years, the number of employees has been in- ■ creasing faster than the lines have been I extending. Either, then, in proportion • to the length of open lines, the service was undermanned in 1905-6, or it was , overmanned in 1907-8. Which is the more likely ? We can ascertain the fact by compaiison. Ths New Zealand Year-book, 1908, . says, " The history and progress of railways in Ne,w Zealand was specially described in the Year-book of 1894." Turning to the Year-book of 1894 we find that the writer of the special article estimates the number of employees as 'about 4500." In 1893-4 there weie 1948 miles of line open for traffic. So this table can be constructed : NEW ZEALAND RAILWAY'S. Number of Miles of Number of employees open line, employees, per mile open line. 1803-4 ... 1018 4500 2.31 1307-8 2471 12,3.18 4.93 Incieasc in 1907-8 523 7538 2.G8 The year 1893-4 was the last complete year in which the Board of Commissionei's had charge of the railways. On 51st December, 1894, the 'Board, which had held control since January, 1889, ceased to exist, and a new Ministerial portfolio of Railways was established. So that the result of Government management, from 1895 to ' the present time, has been to considerably more than double the number ot railway employees in proportion to the length of open lines. It will be said that the lines are now maintained in a better condition, that the service has improved, that the conditions of service have rightly been made easier for the men. All this may be trus ; nevertheless, to more than double the number of employees in proportion to the length of open lines seems an extraordinary feat. Were the lines and the service in 1893-4 so bad as to require the employment nowadays of more than two men for one employed at that time ? We can take the Australian railways for another comparison — all Australian railways, big and little, isolated or connected, paying and non-paying — and construct this table :—: — NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIAN RAILWAYS. Number of Miles of Number of employees npen line, employees;, per mile open line. Aus..— looG-7 ... 11.0CG -17,325 3.3G N.Z.— 1907-S ... 2,471 12,338 4.00 Excess of N.Z. employees per mile 1.63 So that, to operate the New Zealand railways, in proportion to the length of the lines, it takes now two men for every man employed in 1895-4, and cne and a half-man for every man employed in the Commonwealth at the present time — or at as nearly the present time as statistics will serve us. It will be said again that New Zealand lines are maintained in betttr condition than those of the Commonwealth — which is donbtful; that a better service is given — which again is doubtful: nnd that the conditions of service are better — which is likely. Still the fact that, in proportion to length of lines open, the Commonwealth railways are worked with a reduction of one employee in three — a reduction of one-third of the staff ceems extraordinary, especially when we remember that in 1893-4, in the same proportion. New Zealand railways were worked with fewer than half the present staff — were worked with a reduction of nearly one-third upon the present Commonwealth staff. We can .now compare the increase of the number of employees in proportion to the increase *in the number of train miles run, as shows in the following table :—: — NEW ZEALAND RAILWAYS. Number of Employees per Train Mile Run. Department. 1903-0. 1900-7. 1907-8. Geneial ... .0000374 .0000421 .0000435 Trullic ... .000470 .000105 .OOOo'S Maintenance ... .000.504 .000540 .000591 Locomotive ... .000305 .000-522 .000353 All employees .00152 .001C0 .00174 Here, again, there is not a point favourable to the Railways Department. It is shown that there has been, during the last two years, a regular and progressive increase in the number of employees in proportion to traffic— and this not inone branch of the service, but in all. The train-mile unit is the best possible unit for comparison, since it measures more effectively than any other standard the actual labour performed by the department as a whole. Again, the increase in the number of employees of #11 ranks is significant. As far as the charge made by employees upon the business is concerned, the Railways Department is clearly going to lee- . ward, because, if 152 employees were ; sufficient to handle 100,000 tram-miles of traffic in 1905-6, it cannot be shown uhat twenty-two more employees were required in 1907-8. This increase, during a period of two years, of the number of employees in proportion to traffic by 14 per cent., must mean approximately an . increase of 14 per cent, in the wages i bill which the' traffic has to mcct — or approximately an average increase of i wages, in proportion to traffic, at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum, for nearly l 10,000 employees ! This shows where a, leak is. Can we wonder that last year it cost the railways the astonishing , figure of £7 10s ior every £10 of revenue '! Again we can make an instructive '■ comparison :—: — NEW ZEALAND RAILWAYS. : Number of employees Train miles No. of per 100,000 run. employees. miles run. ' 1803-4 ... 3,113,231 4,500 144 1907-8 ... 7,031,274 12,338 ' 374 '■ Excess of employees per 100,000 tram miles in 1907-8 30 Thus, for every 100,000 miles the trains ran in 1907-8, thiity more men were employed than in 1893-4 — the last ■ complete year before the Government ■ took the lines out of the hands of the Commibsionersi

Or we can make again the comparison with all Australian railways :—: — NUW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIAN" RAILWAYS. Number of employees Train miles No. of per 100,000 run. employees. miles mn. Alls., 1900-7 38,038,43^ 47,325 122 N.Z., 1907-8 7,051,274 12,338 174 Excess of New Zealand '■mployees over Australian per 100,000 train miles 52 Thus, in comparison with Australian railways at the present time, fifty-two more men are employed in New Zealand to handle the same nmovmt of traffic. Given an equality of wages, this ib equivalent to saying that, to run the same number oi trains the same distance, it costs New Zealand approximately 42 per cent, more in wages than it costs Australia. The difference, indeed, is likely to be greater than that, since, as far as can oe ascertained, the average rale oi" wages in New Zealand is the higher. Is it any wonder that the Australian railways meet charges and expenses, while the New Zealand railways run at a loss ? The proof that the New Zealand service is overmanned is conclusive. Both in comparison with the former Commissioners' management tind with the present Australian management, and both in comparison with the length oi the Jines and the distance the trains run, the New Zealand Railways Department is shown to exceed greatly the number of employees required for its reasonable service. What explanation but that of political patronage, or of bad management, or of both, is possible? Can Mr. Millar do nothing to end the one evil, or to remedy the other? (To be Continued.)