THE TRAMWAYS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15902, 13 April 1912, Page 4

THE TRAMWAYS.

HOLIDAY TRAFFIC.

RECENT CRITICISMS

The General Manager of the Tramways, Mr F. Thompson, was seen by a reporter with reference to criticisms in the “ Lyttelton Times” of the management of the tramway traffic on. Last r Monday and the following Tuesday. Mr Thompson said that .when the writer of the article had an ®PP?“ UTU y of learning the other side of the qu stion, ho thought that he would be tanenough to admit that , the criticism was undeserved. The article had stated that the homeward journeys from tne seaside on Monday were exceedingly laborious undertakings; that while the Board could not be expected to provide sufficient cars to meet all the demands of a busy holiday, it ought to apportion the cars it had fairly; and that it was a very unjust policy which sacrificed the comforts of the people who did not attend race meetings for the benefit of one section of the community. It was not correct, Mr Thompson added, to state that preference had been given to the Ricearton racecourse patrons, and it would be interesting to obtain the opinions of many of the race passengers who. had been crowded as they had never been crowded before. At one time in tlie morning, over 1000 race passengers waited in the Square for some time for the return from the seaside of cars which had been diverted to those services. On completion of two outward race trips,, at the most, they were again diverted to the seaside, and were kept running there all day, until some of them were wanted for return race traffic. The loading had been exceptional all round. As many as 88,705 cash far© passengers had been earned, against 64,696 carried last year. The previous best record was in Exhibition year, when 76,279 passengers were carried. The following comparison of figures for the three principal excursion

year was double the traffic last year, and the fact that the average number of passengers per car journey on that line was only three in excess of the number on the Riccarton line showed that the Traffic Department had met the unexpected position satisfactorily, and had gauged the diverse and changeable requirements of each service with great accuracy, in tow of the limited rolling-stock at the jDepartments’s disposal. The returns showed that Riccarton had. not been given special favours in the apportionment of cars. The short hours of daylight concentrated the loading to a greater extent than during the longer summer days. The fact that, notwithstanding the exceptional loading, no accidents resulted, reflected considerable credit on the rank ‘and file of the staff. Reference had been made to what was termed “the sadly-abused ” time-table on Tuesday. The fact was that one of the services was running about twelve minutes late for a portion of the afternoon. The exceptionally heavy and sudden rain had flooded the points, completely covering them in many instances, and choking them with siit. Besides that, excursionists who had distributed themselves over the day on the outward journeys all wished to return at the same time. It must always be remembered that when trams were required to make pratically every stop for the purpose of depositing women, children and picnic impedimenta from the centre of crowded cars, delays were unavoidable. The alternative would be to re-space the passing places for a slower service, but that would prove a serious inconvenience for the regular passengers throughout the greater part of the year.

lines would be interesting: — Now BicSumner. Brighton, carton. 1907 (Exhibition year) £.951 G,164 10,867 1908 . . . . 6.469 9,266 10,756 1909 . ' . . . 10.302 11,568 10,476 1910 . 8.705 3.620 8,298 1911 . . , . 8.233 6,166 9,927 11,168 1912 . 15,300 10,936 The following traffic i returns, giving the average number of passengers per car journey, supplied an indication of the fair apportionment of cars tins year Sumner . . . . 36 New Brighton . Hills . . . . . 34 . . 33 Biccarton . 33 The traffic on the Sumner line this