SUBSIDISED RAILWAYS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20264, 25 May 1929, Page 10

SUBSIDISED RAILWAYS.

The assumption implicit in Sir Joseph Ward's statement at Motueka that "doing away with short sections" will solve the problem of making the railways pay may be unduly optimistic; ifc certainly does not establish the view, as he appears to presume, that longdistance railways will certainly be payable. Exactly what his pronouncement means has yet to be explained; the obvious inference is that he proposes to "scrap" all subsidised lines, or at least the branch lines in the list. It is interesting to examine the dimensions of such an undertaking. Of the four "isolated sections" receiving subsidy. Sir Joseph Ward would no doubt reprieve three —Gisbornc, I'icton and Nelson —as being parts of main lines under construction. They represent an annual loss of about £'120,000. There arc six subsidised branch lines in the North Island, but three of these arc actually extensions of main lines: Kaikohe, tho continuation of the North Auckland Main Trunk; Toko, the western section of tho Taranaki-Auckland railway ; and Eskdale, the first section of the Napicr-Gisborne line. Tho present loss on these is about £G5,000 a year. The bulk of the unprofitable branch lines are in the South Island, nine in Canterbury, 13 in Otago and one short section in Wcstland. Excluding the last, there are GGS miles on which subsidy is paid, to the extent of £200,000 in 1927-28. Railways in Canterbury total 512 miles ; the subsidised branches 2GO miles. The total length of lines in Otago is 488 miles, of which 405 miles are subsidised. Therefore, out of exactly 1000 miles of railway in Canterbury and Otago, two-thirds arc so unprofitable that a subsidy has to be paid on them. In the North Island, excluding tho isolated sections, there are 1413 miles of railway, and, setting aside tho main line extensions, there are only 39 miles of unprofitable branches. Consideration of these facts will stimulate public interest in the development of Sir Joseph Ward's ideas. Does he seriously propose to scrap 260 miles of railway in Canterbury, leaving only 252 miles, and 405 miles in Otago—including the 147 miles of the Otago Central —leaving only 83 miles? If, on the contrary, he considers such an interpretation of his statement too drastic, and actually means that a substantial part of the heavy losses on the South Island lines must still bo borne, can he justify his haste in pressing forward with new railways in districts where the prospects of remunerative business are at least less hopeful than ia Canterbury and Otagoj