WHY THE CHANGE?

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 18, 23 January 1939, Page 11

WHY THE CHANGE?

"I should dearly like to know what is behind this idea of abolishing all first-class travelling on Wellington suburban lines," remarked a prominent resident of Lower Hutt this morntag. "It obviously means a loss in revenue, which seems a curious thing to aim at when the railway's are showing an increasing deficit. Quite a number' of people have been willing to pay first-class fares for so-called first-class accommodation on the Hutt railway, although as a rule the firstclass carriages have been of a fairly derelict sort and of a kind usually labelled second-class on other branches of the railway. But now, it appears, they will no longer be able to do that and the receipts must fall. Where the 'greater economyin operation' comes in, I fail to see. A second-class carriage surely costs as much to haul and maintain as one which, although labelled first-class, is really secondclass. As yet, there is not the slightest sign of 'improvement in second-class accommodation': -any old carriage is good enough, and some are pretty old. But perhaps after February 1 we shall have something better. 'Interest will attach to the. reaction of the travelling public at the change', remarks the Minister. It seems, to me that the public will not have much choice in the matter. If they continue to travel by rail they will have no alternative but to go second-class, and by doing s5 and paying less than they do now, the Railway Department will see ' less revenue. If they elect to patronise the buses they will find these already overcrowded. If, on the other hand, more of them buy cars owing to the inadequacy of the railway service, the Department stands to make a greater loss still. 'It is a case of evolution,' says the Minister. Forwards or backwards? Is the next step one class only on the main lines?