THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1931. RAILWAY BOARD REPORT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20978, 15 September 1931, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1931. RAILWAY BOARD REPORT.

The report of the Railway Board on lines under construction appeared, even on the first summary published, a striking document, as it also appeared unpalatable to many members of the House of Representatives when the recommendations were detailed. Closer study of the text confirms the first impression that it brings a new note of realism into the much-debated issue of railway construction. Only indications are given of the inquiries the board made before reporting, but they arc sufficient to show that the task was attacked with conscientious thoroughness. In each instance the decision regard ing individual lines is preceded by a careful and well-balanced discussion of the arguments for and against the work considered. To quote two in different parts of the Dominion, the prospects of the Westport-Inangahua line are examined with special reference to the possibilities of coal and timber carriage, those of the Waiotira-Dargaville connection are discussed in relation to the competition to be expected from com bined road and water transport in this district' of copious navigable water. It is noticeable, too, that the board does not accept easily suggestions that indirect benefit from development of adjacent land may make a railway project more practicable than the actual return in fares and freights promises. It has considered the area of land offering for settlement, the type of commodity likely 'to require transport, the rate of development to be expected with railway facilities offering, and the possibility that other forms of transport may serve equally well to encourage settlement. In fact, the thoroughness impressed on the whole report makes reasoned disagreement with it a difficult undertaking-, though denunciation may be easy. Reading the report with an open mind leaves the firm impression that it is a sound and convincing document. To vary the description slightly it can also be justly termed both courageous and competent, and the men who have produced it are entitled to full credit for the business acumen with which they have examined enterprises so long obscured by the fogs of political expediency or prejudice. They have dragged pitilessly into the light the huge annual losses to which the country had been committed through political railway-building. To the politicians at least belongs the credit of having appointed the board, and thus made possible the production of this report. It only remains for them to give effect to the recommendations, and thus drive the last nail in the coffin of political railways. In the past it might, have been possible to ignore the question of immediate results, rely on accelerated settlement, and wait for a return sufficient to meet capital charges. As figures the board has quoted show, the increased cost of construction to-day, coupled with the higher interest paid on borrowed money, has altered the situ-ation fundamentally, even if the same prospect of speedy land development offered. The Otago Central Railway, completed in 1922, cost an average of £9786 per mile to build : its return falls short of meeting interest by more than £90,000 a year. What then is the prospect from the five lines the board reviewed when the cheapest of them is estimated to cost £36,276 a mile? For lines to have been authorised and put under way with conditions altered so drastically, argues, imputing nothing worse, a disastrous failure to count the cost before committing the country to the enterprise. As this seems inevitable with political control, public opinion should be alert to see not only that the findings of the board are adopted, but that there shall be no return to political control of the railways. The section of the report dealing with the South Island Main Trunk line cannot escape special mention, because this project has been so continuously the centre of controversy for nearly three years. What the board has to say should be the last word on the subject. It is a reasoned, balanced statement reinforced by calculations that can neither be successfully disputed nor charged with bias. So important is the finding, that it is worth recalling the circumstances in which this line was included in the list reviewed. As originally drafted, the Act which constituted the board and placed on it the duty of examining current railway construction works did not cover the South Island line. It was proposed that the board should report on the construction works which had been suspended, and that operations should not be resumed until this had been done and the verdict had been considered by Parliament. The South Island Main Trunk would not have been affected because it had not been stopped under the suspension order. Only at the eleventh hour, in resportse to repeated and intensive urging, did the Prime Minister add a clause rectifying the position, and permitting the board to report on lines where work was be- ; ing actively prosecuted. The new provision did not call for the report in the mandatory terms employed respecting the other projects. It was left to the board to act or not as it thought fit. However, this line was examined in exactly the same manner as the rest. The result, as is. universally known, was a finding to the effect that completion of the line would not be justified, and thai it should be stopped. In view of the amount of controversy and special pleading in connection with this Tine the verdict is of very special importance. It alone vindicates the principle of requiring railway construction as well as management to conform to business principles. Indeed, the final impression created by the board's report is that the whole field of State enterprise might with advantage be subjected to a similar dispassionate survey.

THE SCHNEIDER CUP RACE. ♦ When it was known that France and Italy were unlikely to compete for the Schneider Cup this year, interest iu the event centred in two things—the possibility of Britain's winning the trophy outright and the related possibility of her representative airmen exceeding the speed record attained two years ago. Both feats have been accomplished. Although no foreign competition was forthcoming, the course over the Solent has been successfully flown, and the two chosen airmen have set new standards of rapidity in flight. The thrill of a keen international struggle was absent, but the British achievement is notable. When M. Jacques Schneider, a French aviator with a penchant for engineering, donated the trophy in 1912, he attached conditions to his gift: there was to be a speed contest of not less than 150 sea-miles in length, and the competing machines were to be submitted to severe tests of their watertightness and navigability. France, Britain, Italy and America have competed, and all have had successes, but Britain has gained highest honours by winning five out of the eleven contests. Justifiably, therefore, this latest achievement, although only a "fly-over" without foreign competition, is acclaimed as a further proof of the excellence of British construction. There is now raised the question as to whether these contests will come to an end for lack of a trophy to replace that which has been won outright. Possibly the position will be met by the trophy being devoted by the winning nation to further competition, with conditions modified in view of the experience gained to date.