IS THERE A REMEDY ?

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 83, 5 October 1922, Page 10

IS THERE A REMEDY ?

UNPROFITABLE RAILWAY LINES

10 IHB EDITOU

Sir, —In your issue of Monday last under the heading of "Unprofitable Lines," you briefly refer to the remarks of Sir E. Mitchelson, who suggests tearing up the lines that are unprofitable as a remedy, and you ask the question, "Is there not some remedy between this course and no action by the Minister." Certainly the Minister has not suggested a, remedy, but the General Manager has pointed to a way out, which, evidently the politicians do not care to talk about or urge its adoption. The reasons may be obvious.

The manager in his report to the Minister states: "That the railways are at present performing many services at less than cost price. That there are many instances where exceptionally low rates were granted to assist in establishing industries which are now in a flourishing' condition. That the need for assistance per medium of unprofitable railway rates is no longer apparent. Included- in the list of traffic carried at a loss is road-making material for local bodies. That this metal is used for the upkeep of roads for motor traffic to get into competition with the railways. That this loss amounts to £50,000 per year. That the loss in other unremunerative services is £130,000 a year. Assisting in the cause of education costs the railway £25,000 per year. On the Nelson section trains run for nothing else but to take the children to school, at Ibast, this is all that rides in them." Why is this loss not borne by the Education Department? Why is the loss through the carriage I of mails not borne by the Post and Telegraph Department, which boasts of its cheap service to the people? Why is not the carriage of lime and other materials for assisting agriculture not borne by that Department? One cpuld'almost go on "ad infmitnm" in such questions. But, the question you ask is answered by the manager, and ■ surely it is not too much to say that it is not the railways that are unbusmess- ! like when we pay an expert to give ua advice and when it is given and a remedy shown for the unprofitable railways, to pay no heed to it. Even if the lines aro torn up, would the railway not be required to pay the interest on the construction, and expense of tearing up of these lines. We would still have to meet the interest bill as I am sure the money-lenders would not accept the rails and ballast as return of their money lent for their construction. I do not recollect reading of one politician who urged that the manager's suggestion be acted upon, and the railways be made to run on tlie business lines suggested by the manager. And why? I presume that the manager's businesslike suggestions have come as a cold douche for those whd hare been clamouring for the railways to be run on business lines. 1 No business man can deny the manager's suggestions are on business lines, and when these have been attended to," perhaps he can then see his ,way to lower his rates, etc., to cater for' certain classes of traffic which may not be coming his way just now. You surely do not agree that tearing up existing lines is going to get us anywhere, while services are being performed on these very lines for less than actual cost? —I am, etc., W. M'ARLEY. 3rd October, 1922.