Increased Cost of Railways

NZ Truth, 7 June 1924, Page 3

Increased Cost of Railways

What is the Cause? Loafing, Management Losses, or What? (By "Father."), Sinbad the Sailor released • himself from his burden by making the Old Man drunk. The burden of the NewZealand Railways as at present managed is becoming intolerable, and ways and means are necessary to relieve the people of a crushing load. It is tolerably certain that the management needs an overhaul, and -whether the precedent set up by Sinbad is to be followed needs consideration. If a private concern were landed into similar difficulties, there is every probability that the manager would be replaced by one more competent, but evidently the Massoy . Government prefers to "sack" the stau*. USERS' LOSS IS NOT RAILWAYS' GAIN. The gross revenue per train mile jumped from 6/- m 1913. to 13/2 m 1923, an increase of £2,756,000, yet this increased profit of two and threequarters of a million pounds annually has resulted In fact m a loss of £40,---000. Here we- have double the cost saddled on the for freights and fares (an Increase from 6/- to 13/2 per train mile) yet the result is that the yearly revenue is £40,000 less than the expenditure. If the Government, m its affection for its pet electorate, will persist m lavishing money on rubbishy railways (Whangarei section cost £ 2/1/4 per cent, of its capital cost last year instead of making any profit) it is time the Government was dismissed as being an unfaithful steward of the people's affairs. Here we have the Railways produci ing a huge gross revenue at our ex- / pense as follows: — 1893, £l,376;000; 1903, £1,974,000; 1908. £2.761,000; . 1913, £3.971,000; 1918, £4,687,000; 1923, £6,727,000. But the management— whether the fault is that of the politicians, or riot— is incapable of business methods, with the result that m the past 25 years (although the length of open lines has increased from 2055 to 3028 miles only) the expenses have mounted as follows:— -1898, £■ 857,000* 1903, £1,343,000; 1908,' £1,949,000; 1913, £2,705,000; 1918, £3,042,000; 1923, £5,502,000, It costs the Railway not a penny more to sell a ticket at double the cost nor to collect freight at double the cost, yet we find the staff inflated out of all reason, increased from 13,002 m 1918 to 15,728 m 1923, and this notwithstanding that there has been a heavy "cut" m the tra-in services. WASTEFUL PURCHASES. What explanation does the General Manager offer for increasing 1 the staff of his head office and departmental pificea from 307 m 1908 to 1038 m 1923?,, What is his explanation for increasing the cost of that staff from £76,082 m 1008 to £195.890 m 1923To a suffering public' his answers would beinteresting. What explanation does Mr. Massey offer for charging up against revanue the losses he made by h's childish ignorance m purchasing 2500 railway wagons at boom prices? Did he not lose about £3000 each on thoso wagons? Is no one to tako h^rn and his Railway friends to task for a blunder costing us £7,500,000? . What explanation does Mr. Massey ffcr for his costly blunder over the imported locomqtiy.es,? What explanation does Mr. Massey offer for his stupendous expenditure over imported coal whan he can get coal at the siding for the trouble of loading it? It is sheer nonsense to say he imported only during the strike of the minors. He has gone on importing ever since, and simply refuses I to use New Zoaland coal on the- rui!- j ways. What is the game? Is this ' scandal going to escape notice? la U any wonder that the cost of running ! 8,346,000 train miles m 1923 jumped to ; 18/2 pier train mile, as against ji cost of 4/8 m 1898 or of 6/- m 1918? What explanation has Mr. Massey lo offer for permitting the shocking waste of unproductive work (lines under construction) to mount from £2,t>25.---000 m 1914 to £6.576,000 m 1923? It Is rubbishy talk on the part of his Ministers and himself to pretend that he Is pressing on with payable linos only. The fact la ho has saddled us with a dead loss of £200,000 annually by his rotten railway policy. POLITICAL AND OTHER JOBS. If this loss of £200,000' yearly on n bunch of political nnd other Jobs la not enough to justify a Parliamentary inquiry or a general eelction, let ua add tho stupendous losses incurred over tho purchases of railway wagons and locomotives, plus the crass disloyalty of Importing foreign coal at excessive costs long after the need to do so stopped, plug the unholy mob of officials that cost tho people a pension for all, and plus the poultice of £6,---727,000 yearly revenue extracted from voiceless people (but not voio-less, thank God). When Mr. Massey thumps his chest and looks wise, he forgets that thp people are more concerned with what clothes, boots, sugar* flour, meat, butter, tobacco, bricks, timber, and school-books cost. He forgets that his friends, the combines, are his political assassins. The people ?co the Government expenditure for interest on loans and for pensions ever increasing, yet rebates of £2,---000,000 a year aro mndo by Mr. Maseey to his rich friends who got over £2000 a year, which £2.000.000 and more is made up by cuts In Income of fJlvil servants, and by increased Customs duties for which tho poorer people pay. Customs taxation jumped from £3.563,000 m J914 to £6.644---000 m 1923, ao it has almotst doubled m nine years. Is it any wonder that the crushing weight of railway mismanagement, the unjust and unscrupulous taxation by tho General Government, and tho squandering by local bodies excite tho keenewt dlauopolntment m tho policy of the Governmont? ' Truly Sinbad had a hard time, but he succeeded eventually.