OUR RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS' LAST LEAFLET.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8483, 6 February 1891, Page 3

OUR RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS' LAST LEAFLET.

TO TIIU EDITOR. Sir,—Our Commissioners have issued another leaflet. A bundle of them has been sent to the secretary of the R.R. League, and as one has been specially directed to me, I presume they consider it contains statements or arguments it is necessary for me to deal with. There is little trouble in doing this. ~ -• ; ; ? The leaflet in question is a reprint from the Railway News, the organ of the English railway companies, and it deals with an article in " the official German railway organ," which compares the Hungarian and Austrian zone tariffs. Although the article is that of the Railway _ News, as our Commissioners have had it reprinted and distributed at the public expense, they have thereby adopted it as expressing their own views, and 1 shall be justified in. so dealing with it. They say that they " have no hesitation in saying that we prefer the latter"that is, the Austrian system, \ This is quite natural

in them, because it preserves all the evils of the mileage system, to which they are wedded, together with whatever inconveniences there may be in a stage system, worked on the worst principles. , So far as I can see, the only advantage secured by the change in Austria is that the fares have been greatly reduced in price. It, however, commends itself to the railway official mind, because it retains an even mileage charge, abolishes the " free transport of luggage, and because as they say "in ' Austria, the fundamental rate without regard to distance remains entirely unaltered." That is to say, distant settlers and producers remain under the same relative disadvantages they have suffered from so long. I commend this latest utterance of our Commissioners to the careful consideration of your country readers, as also to those interested in the development of our trade and commerce. It is evidently their determination to maintain the existing order of things, and 'they put forward this Austrian tariff because that is what it really does. They then go on to point out that in Austria, the rate being a mileage rate, the charge is for the longest distance in each zone, which they rightly say is " a great injustice." My proposition is exactly the reverse of this, the charge is based on the average, and is greatly less than that for the shortest distance. The Commissioners, therefore, now admit that in this respect my system is right. The article then says:" What the public ash is, of course, simply cheap travelling." Is it possible that the railway men can believe this nonsense ? The publicat any rate, the New Zealand public—ask much more. They ask that, in addition to cheap travelling, there shall be, as nearly as possible, an equalisation of transit charges, that distance as regards cost of transit shall practically be abolished, and the distant producer placed more nearly on an equality with those who are close to a market. This is the great demand. Our Commissioners must surely have been very hard up for something to say when they issued this leaflet. I enclose a copy, and shall feel much obliged ii you can find space to reproduce it. —I am, &c., Samuel Vaim. Auckland, 4th February, 1891.

The following is the article referred to by Mr. Vaile in his letter: — In comparing the Hungarian and Austrian zone tariff's, says the official German railway organ, Zeitung des Yereins Deutscher Eisenbahn Verwaltung, we have no hesitation in saying that we prefer the latter. Both tariffs have this in common, that they answer the chief demauds of a reform of the passenger trafficviz., a considerable simplification of the tariff system, with abolition of free transport of luggage and an important reduction of fares, with fewer kinds of tickets. _ They differ, however, on the following points, viz.: (1) That the Hungarian reform must also be considered a great political action for the purpose of raising the capital, Buda-Pesth, to the highest point of importance, whereas the Austrian tariff has only for its object to serve the interests of the entire country ; ('2) that the former tariff to a considerable extent favours long distance travelling, and the latter local travelling, and therebyin a manner which deserves every praise— less wealthy (which costitute the greatest bulk of travellers), inasmuch as the largest reduction falls upon second and third class ; finally (3) that in Hungary a practically pure zone tariff has been adopted, as the fares in the individual zones have been made up by simply adding a certain sum, often taken at random, so that there is no question of a fixed basis for this tariff, whereas in Austria the fundamental rate, without regard to distance, remains entirely unaltered. The individual ticket rates are the outcome of the basis rate and the distance, although with considerable modification. And this latter forms the weakest point in the entire system. As the chief merit in the Australian tariff must, in the first instance, be mentioned the basis rate of 1, 2, and 3 kreutzers respectively per kilom., for third, second, and first class, a basis rate simple in principle, easily understood, and easily dealt with, arid which must be considered reasonably wellproportioned. But although we might therefore consider this tariff system as fully equal to the requirements of the times, there is nevertheless much to say against it, which has, in fact, already been done from several quarters, not least from official ones. We, for our part, adhere entirely to the view expressed in the following words by the committee whose office it was to report to the Austrian Parliament upon the tariff proposal, viz., "Had the kilom. rate been retained in its pure form, we should have had a distance tariff which, as regards simplicity, must have been considered quite an ideal one, and which hardly has a counterpart in all Europe. But now, unfortunately, by the introduction of zones, the tariff has been transformed into a kreutzer zone tariff"

But why these zones ? For this arrangement is far from being to the advantage of the travelling public; quite the contrary, as payment has always to be made according the longest distance between each zone. For instance, if anyone wishes to travel 225 kiloms., he does not pay for this distance, but for 250 kilom., or the highest number of kiloms. within the zone, that this is a great injustice cannot be denied, and we might, indeed, in view of the demards of the times for cheaper travelling, rather have expected that a reverse basis rate had been chosen—viz., that for all distance within a zone the rates had been calculated upon the lowest one within the same, or, as in the case in question, for 225 kiloms. payment be made for only 200 kiloms." And, even if this should be considered a too great concession it would, at all events, have been more reasonable if all zones above 100 kiloms. had been made much narrower, for example, from 10 to 10, or from 5 to 5 kiloms. Thereby the injustice would have been less felt, anil might have been excused by the otherwise reduced rate, which is not the case with the present tariff, which may compel one to pay for upwards of 49 kiloms. more than the actual journey. The adoption of zones, therefore, has, as we have shown, not been done in the interests of the public, and one is almost compelled to ask whether the authorities only yielded to the stupid clamour for zones by the public. What the public ask is of course simply cheap travelling, and the zone tariff has as such already become unpopular, because the public associated therewith very low fares. The expectations formed in this respect as regards the Austrian zone tariff have been disappointed. In fact the very framing of the tariff invites attempts to evade its regulations, and this again necessitates, on the part of the administration, a number of additional rules, which, in most cases, do not attain their object, but cause confusion among the public, or in any case make an unfavourable impression. Neither do we consider that the introduction of the zone system in the new tariff is beneficial or necessary. Any important advantage to the railway, from a tariff point of view, we do not think the zone division will convey. Probably, it has been intended that for all stations within the same zone only one kind of ticket for each class shall be required, and that thereby, also a simplification of the account keeping would be gained ; but the saving thus effected must certainly be too insignificant compared with the discomforts caused to the travellers for reasons just mentioned. —Railway News.