The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1924. THE RAILWAY COMMISSION

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 12022, 27 December 1924, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1924. THE RAILWAY COMMISSION

Publication of their report has fully satisfied the public desire to know what the recent Railway Commission has reported. There will he general concurrence with the Railway Minister’s statement that the report is a valuable document. It is, moreover, the land- ! mark showing the arrival of the railway j system’s development at the point where extensive changes in the management ] of the railways has Become necessary. The same note was struck in the Railway Minister’s announcement to Par-1 liament. And in some ways—as to the; great principle of decentralisation and | to the increase of the number of senior j officers necessary to cope with the en-! larged conditions —the recommendations | of the report coincide, as the Minister lias stated in his address introducing the j report to public notice, with the deci-j eions arrived at by the Minister after] the frequent and close discussion he has! had with the various members of the; railway staff. Some speculation has i arisen in .this matter in connection with the resignation of the General Manager, which took effect about the time the inauguration of the new railway management system was begun. This the Minister has ended, so far as any public discussion may have been necessary, with the statement that Mr McVilly had offered to resign some years ago, on the establishment of the rule of retirement after forty years' service. He had consented to remain until the Minister had acquired full grasp of the whole railway situation. The presentation of the Commission’s report and the practical beginning of the new system of management fulfil the conditions implied sufficiently to account for Mr McVilly’s retirement at the moment of its announcement. That retirement looked very sudden at the time, hot the facts as given by the Railway Minister show that the retirement has long been a foregone conclusion, the delay in its arrival being due to Mr MoVilly’s regard for the service with which he had been so long associated, and for the Minister carrying the responsibility to Parliament for that service. As to that responsibility, which we feared on the announcement of the decision to appoint a Board of Commissioners might be impaired, the publication of the Commissioners’ and the Minister’s explicit statements about it have removed all doubt. The new system, it is now evident, merely enlarges the scope of its predecessor without in any way lessening the direct responsibility of the Minister to Parliament. There Is no repetition of the old "Imperium in Imporio.” The Minister continues to rule as he ruled before. ! The recommendations of the Oommis., sioners can, for the moat part, in view of the immense area of detail, they cover, only be dealt with generally. There is much room for prediction of success all round of the new thinw, hut, there is not too muoh basis of foot. Tt is a question of possibilities likely to,

materialise. The case for the separation of the accounts is very well made out by the report. Of this the most satisfactory statement is that the principal evils experienced elsewhere in the amalgamation of political and industrial accounts have been avoided here. That speaks well for the accountants of both sides. But it has long been evident that the railways must stand on their own feet, and as the railway staff and the Commissioners agree on this point, the separation must take place. The Commissioners advise that the railways generally shall pay all the overhead charges—that is, all obligations of interest and sinking fund. In certain branch railways they make an exception, advising that the Consolidated Fund should he their banker. The exception is not so large as the mere statement implies. For the report urges that the branch railways should not be judged merely by their actual carryings, but that they should get credit for the business they brinj* to the main lines. This is oommonsense, for these branches are ■ branches, not detached units that have fallen from the political firmament beginning in poverty and ending nowhere. The same can be said about important connections which have cost much money. The report instances, for example, the Otira tunnel, which the railway accounts treat as a separate thing which might he in Australia or in Timhuctoo for any connection it may have with the eastern and western railways. They urge, with conclusive force, that the tunnel which enables these lines to earn a great and growing traffic which, without it, is impossible to them, should get credit for this great service. The most important of the recommendations deal with the traffic. The leading idea here is that the traffic is not what it ought to be; that, in fact, this condition will probably get worse as the railway mileage grows longer. The competition of motor transport has not been realised, and the officers of the department have not been able, the report says, to advise anything better as rivalry than unremunerative trains. In view of these words, the problem becomes most formidable. But the Oom- ( missioners did not lose heart. On the contrary, they have detailed a number of improvements which, they hope, will solve the problem, partly by taking some motors into alliance and partly by driving other motors off the track through the attraction off trains better equipped, more frequent, speedier, and unembarrassed by mixing with the goods transport. In support there are numerous details of a management more elastic, of a cheaper, because less hidebound, system of treating the railway engines; by more attention to commercial methods; and by greater encouragement of holiday traffic. What it all may lead to the report endeavours to get some clear idea of by comparing the effect on revenue of past increased mileage with similar possible effect of the increased mileage of the future. The report carries this on to the day when ] the railway working system will represent a capital cost of virtually seventy millions sterling. It goes into the question of the cost, and discusses main improvements. But it does not make allowance in the estimate of the future revenue for the effect of any of the recommendations it has made for increasing the traffic, by eliminating motor rivalry, and increasing the activities and effectiveness of the service.;: This is a weak point in the report. But if there is anything in these recommen-: dations, and in the better, more elastic, I and familial’, and more commercial control already beginning, the future holds a very great deal more promise than the report indicates. Tho best thing in the report, without doubt, is the finding of the Commissioners that our railways have been constructed solidly and well. This gives point to the statement, reported by the Railway Minister as made to him by. one of tho two Commissioners, that if New Zealand should care to sell the railways he could easily find a buyer. Remember that this is said by a man who has signed a report declaring the excellent construction of the lines. New Zealand will not on any account whatever part with the railways, even for the forty-one millions the present working lines have cost, plus the millions of tho additions not yet complete. As for selling at any less price, the Minister daring to propose it ought to he wearing round his neck a noose instantly adjustable to the shortest possible shrift. But it is great comfort to know that the lines have been well and truly built. It says much for the staff, trained a good deal of it here, and the designers and builders of some works of the first magnitude in railway engineering. The Commissioners find , that this staff has not now sufficient opportunities for training up to top j level of their profession. Therefore it advises facilities to the members for travel abroad and better study at home. We can only say “By all means.” Men who have done so well deserve the best ! we can do for them to keep them from ■ rusting—a thing, by the way, unknown ’ in their past. In regard to this staff ! there are two statements by the Minis- 1 ter. One Is of an advertisement to he ' widely circulated for applications for the post of chief mechanical engineer : the ! other is of the appointment of an officer to the new servioe of Mr E. S. Fay, a relative of one of the Commissioners, who is thoroughly conversant with the most modern methods ' of train control and rolling-stock distribution. These two statements make I an inconsistency. In making an impor tant appointment to one of the highest, levels in the service, the Minister has ignored the good, safe precedent which he follows in connection with another nrmointment of similar imTvmtnnce. Whatever the onalifirations of Me —and we are prepared to heliore tbev ere the highest—we cannot hut regard the manner of Ida rmnointment as a I danger to the service of the future. j |