RAILWAY REFORM.—REPLY TO MR. GWYNNETH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 7007, 2 May 1884, Page 3

RAILWAY REFORM.—REPLY TO MR. GWYNNETH.

• TO THK EDITOR. "'-' Sib, —Coming from a professional man, Mr. Gwynneth's replies to ■my series of questioDS are weak and disappointing to a degree. In his former letter, speaking of the scheme of railway management] proposed by myeelf, he said that the remedy was "worse than the disease. But .when brought to the'direct iusue, and asked.to say in what respect the remedy his the worse,'all he- has to tell us is that,'-in hie opinion, our population is not sufficient to enable the suggested plan to be successfully carried out. This is Mr.'Gwynneth's opinion, but he gives neither facts nor figuree in sup-* port of it. On the cootiary, 1 assert that our population is more than sufficiently, large, and have brought forward strong faots and figures in eupport _of - my assertion. To show how little Mr. Gwynneth has studied this question i quote the following from his letter :—" I think it is very unlikely that even at the reduced rates proposed by Mr. "Vaile, 2J passenger faree would be taken for one that is taken now, unless the.population were increased five-fold." 'Five times our present population would give 2,625 000. Now, the carrying trade done by oar railways, as per last returns, was represented by a shifting of the entire population about six times during the year. Six times 2,625,000 would give 15,750,000 fares. " Two and a-half times the number of the present fares only represents 8,208,445 fares. Consequently Mr. Gwynneth must believe that if our population was increased five-fold our railways would only be doing a carrying trade equal to about half that which they ara doing now, and that too with the advantage of the low rates 1 propose. In the face of a careless statement like this, I think I am entitled to say that Mr. Gwynueth is not "worth listening to. Mr. Gwynneth says, " Passengers cannot be profitably carried at the rates proposed.by Mr. Vaile." But again he fails to bring any proof in support of his assertion. I assert that not only can they be carried at the rates proposed, but that as a matter of fact they are constantly carried at lower rates. In reply to the question, "What is the actual coet of carrying a passenger ten , ruilas V Mr. Gwynneth says the "cost will vary'sccurding to the economical working of. the lines, or the reverse." Of course we..'all know that ; but knowing the cost of the lines, the priee of labour, coals, 'to.,' it ought only to be the work of a few minutes for a professional man to state, as a fact, what.is the net cost of carrying a passenger, instead of giving as an opinion that Id per mile would be a tair charge. -Although Mr. Gwynneth " can see nothing in Mr, .Vaile'e argument that the rates should -be 80 largely reduced for long distances," it yet opens up such a vast question that It would be quite impossible _even to commence the discussion within the limits of this letter. As to Mr. Maxwell, I have nothing whatever to do with him. I have assaileu the system and the general management with all the force I have been able to bring to bear, but I have carefully abstained from blaming individuals. I do not .'even know, nor want to know, who the managers are. All I know is, that Mr. Maxwell is at the head of the department, and that he must have a most abominable time of -it in trying to work the wretched system he has inherited. For my own part, whenever I have been brought into contact with the railway officials, I have invariably found them courteous, attentive, and anxious to. do their best. 1 am, dec, Samoel Tails, The Avenue, April, 19, 1884.