RAILWAY REGULATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18325, 15 February 1923, Page 8

RAILWAY REGULATIONS.

COMPLAINT BY A FATHER. BARRED FROM SLEEPER. SUFFERS FOR A MISTAKE. Apropos of the complaints regarding the manner in -which travellers are treated on the New Zealand railways, an Auckland resident relates an incident which he characterises as an instance of ths regulations "gone mad." He had occasion to journey to Wellington by the Main Trunk express leaving Auckland at 7.10 p.m. on February 5, when he -was accompanied by his -wife, and his two children, aged respectively, five and seven yeais.Having booked the ordinary rail tares for two adults and two children the V« senger then booked two sleeping berths, making the technical out one of them in ■ the name of his ch.i dren instead of in his own name. Are go lation, which has been in .about, mx months, states that children under 121 may travel free in a sleeping «.mpartment provided they occupy .berths .with__their parents. After the train had 1 ing for a few minutes the guard cameto the traveller, who, was in the cornet ment with his family, and told bun that he had no right to be there, and must get, °The passenger explained that *» *£ the husband of the lady and the father of the two children, but still £e l?»ard insisted that he should remove pother carriage, as he had no deeper ticket tor himself. The indignant,, husban con suited with the attendant wh ° fX£ him to eee the stationmaster atjrankk,n and ask him to endorse the sleeper ticket, transferring it from the iWren. to. him self. The stationmaster at Frankton fi Was not to be found, .however, so the traveller went to the inquiry office there, and was informed that the sleeping-car *£ bad full power in the master of making the desired transfer. . The attendant however, declared that he had not that power, the guard being in full control of %*, ai ?wo officials again discussed the matter, and the guard then came to=tfoj traveller, told him once more that he was not allowed in the sleeper and .«M* l j«. asked to do so refused to endorse the children's ticket over to the father. The traveller states that not only did the ff-nrd declare that ho would not alter the ticket, but that it was against the regulations for him to do so and, mo over, had no proof that the trav*lbr was the husband of the lady passenger or tba father of the children. This naturally incensed the traveller, who retorted that he did not know that the regulations anpointed the guard a censor of public morals. He pointed out that there could be no loss to the department by altering the sleeper ticket, as he had paid for it. However, all arguments were of no avail, and the passenger had to spend the night on the train sitting up, and was thus robbed of his sleep. He mentions inndentally that, although the guard was such a stickler for the observance of the regulations, he permitted some travailing MJP.'s on the same train to smoke in a sleeping compartment, which -was not a place set apart for smokers. ~ The traveller asks whether the railway regulations can be made to give guards reasonable discretion in such circumstances? If not, ho suggests that the sooner the regulations are altered the better. Otherwise the travelling publio should, he considers, take the matter in hand, and enforce proper treatment at the hands of the officials.