OUR CITY TRAMS

Evening Star, Issue 16987, 8 March 1919, Page 8

OUR CITY TRAMS

[ByRJD.] I now proceed to discuss the question of renewal and depreciation charges. I find that the fixed charges are: Sinking fund £46.715 4 llenewal fund „ ... 88.282 I Depreciation (approx.) 33,000 1 Total £168,000 I That is the result of the operation of om* tram sen-ice after nearly 15 years' work, ing. Are these charges too much or too little? Ijet us examine them from the results gained from the experience of other tram service. o , also from our own. One has not to travel far in the way of seeking information on this subject to learn that this matter has at different times engaged the attention of many of the best tram experts throughout the world. Opinions have certainly varied, but within the last 10 years the best systems have com© to be pretty well unanimous on these charges. One thing must always be borne in mind—■ viz.. that tram systems are like everything else—they vary. They are like motor cars and many other things, some cheap and nasty, while others are good and serviceable. The former must have liberal .allowances made for renewal and depreciation, while the latter can do with very much less. I think it may safely ba said our tram system "has been well and truly installed. . i Professor Knoop, in his book on 'Municipal Trading,' deals very exhaustively with this subject, and I will briefly summarise his findings. Manchester Corporation, after careful consideration, decided that, Id per car mile run would meet all that was necessary for renewals. This, also, was the finding of the London County Council, acting on the advice of their engineer and experts. Commenting on these recommendations and decisions by two of' the leading corporations, Professor Knoop goes on to compare the results as shown hv the Board of Trade in their tables for the whole of England and Wales. I'p to 1909 .England and Wales, on an average, showed only something slightly over id per car mile, but in the year following-, when public attention had been drawn to it, it rose to nearly ?,d per ir%!e. .All British svstems showed, up to 1909, slight.lv over |d per mile, and in the years following it was rising steadily towards Id. Our renewal charges, worked out on tfaa same basis, nm almost to 2 x d. This, you can see at a glance, is more than double the recommendation of the best Home engineers, and the accepted form of two at'least, of the leading corporations. I am aware of only one higher—that is, the Glasgow tram service, and their renewal churls reach the unusually high amount of n"eariv 2id per car mile run. This, I understand, is now recognised by them as Ivf.insr excessive, and they are. now based uron an average for the past 10 years. This s',iL'gcslion'-~an average of 10 years—-=.'-pnv; very practical. Let us examine and how i't. works ~ut in our own case ' before dealing with tunt it might be wr-i'l to know what the full amount x-ck-ned on the Id r-er car mile nm rata would be for Dune-din. Bougbiy, it in, -"nls !'> £t 400 Our allowance for ha, l>cen"in excess of £II.OOO per milium for the last three years—nearly P(i 000 more than it need bo on th* auov* l~, s j- Vow let u* proceed on the r.veraw fiVFtem. Unfortunately 1 hav« only WWftu v,.;i:'s' tables by me, but that is almost enough and will snfuce—Dunedin I'.enewal Fund.—

T1 f> i\oi,i_» <■ ithd ratals for tho sevi 'i %oaii m.unior.-'ttvl amounted to £2,629 jJ ii(Ui.]lh lf = tl l "i P CT car mJ' 6 .; or jH wc . f n tip .iverage as shown, it mt SB om Kiifv ..1 hui'l wi £6OOO per ioit ASJ PKi<> fhail H I*'«i h* SpJ P.(.id>i= if the ' fitar' cin forrr. ■■J own opnkn a/, to whether thoaa rhar.vfl ton ntn«h or too httlp. The oviderM* ] i.-ve tiled t-> set cl&arly before them < *■ i ihon fiom iuil 'rat and within. The posßj t i n is apun bn< fly stated thn>: U ] it r r ,,,rJ .-ainUl ... - ... £305,0C«| IV pronation. n-ntU-n oS (appro*.) 53,0C_| F- rLmjr fund 46 ',""m™J P.f-noTral fun<l 83,'^88 m o iv.s, that we hrvve earned profits ■■■ <>\n £168.C00 in 15 years from our ApJ ti.ii.s and used less than £19,000 fcrrljß ntwals durliiir tho pa/;t s*ven years. In the next contribution I propos<',Sß™. del vnth oiler diargas that ehouJ "l ■■■ revised. ■■■

"r. ■± j, u 5f i cJ j: £ £• -i J "i 1912 .. .. £10,472 £977 £3,130 £25,952 1913 . 10.668 1.415 2.289 35,747 1914 . 10,670 1.9G7 5.85-1 44,8-10 1915 11.083 2.2.31 2.529 55,166 1916 .. 11.049 2,793 2,359 66.650 1017 . .. 31.127 3.397 1,563 79,606 1918 . .. 11,300 3,860 2,576 88,282