TRANSPORT METHODS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 114, 11 November 1930, Page 8

TRANSPORT METHODS

(To the Editor.) Sir,—ln a sub-leader which appeared in a recent issue of "The Post" you exhibited grave concern regarding the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Railways, and warned the Government against any "picking at the report." With all due respect to the Commission and "The Post," and your apparent support of the Commissioners, the writer would beg to suggest that many of the recommendations are at variance with the best interests of both the railways and the State, and seem to show very clearly a preconceived preponderance of _ opinion of Commissioners iv favour of the motor method of transport, at the sole expense of curtailing and impairing the efficiency and usefulness of the railways; even to the point in many instances of their cutting out altogether, and to have given no thought or investigation into the question of any possible improvements nor recommendation for restoring their efficiency by modern equipment to cope with modern and changed conditions. With an iron road ready for service, why was it not recommended that all branch lines, and suburban as well, be equipped with the modern one-man driver and conductor type of selfpropelled electric carriage, that would cut down running expenses by more than twothirds and enable repeat services to be run daily, and thus successfully attract and encourage the public to renew their patronage of their own railways. But no; the Commission hastened to recommend curtailing train services and closing ot lines wholesale, thereby handing over all transport to the motor. , This regard for the motor method of transport was carried'to its dizzy limits by the Commission in strongly recommendiii" the stoppage of construction of the main lines now" being built with special derogative references to those in me South Mand, which, strange to say were condemned unheard, no witnesses being called from the districts concerned to state their case, and yet you, Sir, would have us believe that you' concur with such a one sided and grossly unfair recommend*"it'is. of course, a pure coincidence that this glarins; injustice, if given effect to, esactfy coincides, with the attitude and policy espoused by Mr. Coates and his disciples, as expressed both before, and after the Commission reported to_ 1 ailiament. and that of his henchmen m their uncalled-for and unauthorised minority .Report of the Select Committee on Railways under Construction; th.eir effort to influence the stoppage of construction and completion being mainly directed against the South Island and the Midland Mam Trunks being connected up though completion would bring about the greatest cvi of development ever • experienced m the South Islaud. What a sad commentary and lack of loyalty and patriotism to their own island is shown by the fact that two out of the three who signed the mmonty report were South Island representatives in Parliament! ~ The attitude being taken up by Mr. Coates and Reform members stands out in strange contrast with that Mr. Coates displayed right up to the last minute in power, when he was the most enthusiastic exponent of railway construction and development in this country, with nearly 300 miles to his credit, almost all in the JSiorth island, and between five and six million pounds' expenditure under his authority, authorised to be spent on Auckland, 1 almerston North, and Tawa Flat deviations, new stations, and new Workshops, me latter millions, by no stretch of imagination, could be designated revenue-producers, and the sum would have completed several of the trunk railways and have produced both revenue and incalculable development, especially in the South Island. Taking up the stand that the recommendations of the Railway Commission must be adopted en bloc would be quite contrary to the general trend of action taken on Royal Commission reports and recommendations, either in this or in other countries. Indeed, Royal Commissions are usually looked upon as a convenient way of shelving a thorny problem, and if in this case it ends in shelving the attempts made in this Commission's reactionary recommendations and during the Parliamentary session just ended to stop the construction and completion of our main lines of railway, then the appointment of the Cemmission will have been a blessing in disguise to the whole Dominion, and especially to the South Island and to the provinces of Nelson and Maryborough, just as the adoption of the Commission's recommendations would prove a colossal disaster. It should be remembered that much of the loss ascribed to branch lines is a phantom loss, for the reason that no account is taken of the fact that in a great proportion of cases those travelling over sections of the branch lines often travel a greater mileage over the main lines, so that by cutting out these branches it robs the main lines of much revenue and freight, a serious factor that seems to be lost sight of by all except the motor interests, who reap what both the branch and main line loses.—l am, etc., SOUTH ISLANDER. Nelson, Bth November. [Our correspondent appears confused concerning both our advocacy and the Commission's recommendation. The Commission did not recommend the 'stoppage of construction of main lines, but that all new construction should be referred to the proposed Railway Board. Further, instead of showing favour for motor transport, it strongly recommended that it should be subjected to control.—Ed.]