RAILWAY REFORM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14440, 5 February 1909, Page 2

RAILWAY REFORM.

WHAT MD MILLAR CAN DO. Bv A. (i. Stei'tikns. (Written for the Olago Daily Times.) IV.-UOUANC-STOCK. The following figures are extracted from the liailway Matciiic-nt, 1908:— New Zealand lUn.w.ws. IS9-I-5. 1907-8. No. of locomotives .. 209 -Jit) 1.-oconratives' tractive .Power (Hi) 1,750.175 -1.310.250 No. ol passenger-cars .. I9rf 1.0t'21 l'nssei:gc-r-sesitiiig accom.niodiuion 17/155 J2.861 No. of brake-vims .. .. 20-1 ;«3 No. of waggons (all .elites) S,GCt 15.1-12 Waggons' carrying ear-si-ricity (Ions) 50.501 117.255 Train mileage 3,221.(120 7.^51.27-1 No. of passengers .. .. 11,9(15,578 9,750,710 Total tonnage .. .. 2,0I8,:)S1 -1,834,5*1 The Minister's statement contains this significant passage:—" The tonnage shown represents the actual trallic in goods of lOvery description dealt with during the financial year ending March 31, 190b; the waggonsshown are those actually available, and Buit.'ible for dealing with that business. The waggon capacity has been calculated on the basis of the trucks being made. use. of for conveyance of traffic, on two days per week only, yet even on this very low basis Lite capacity of the waggons is sufficient to dead with two and n-qtmi'-ter times the existing goods traffic. If every goods waggon was loaded to its full carrying capacity and made one trip per week only, the present- stock would still be sufficient to deal with a tonnage greatly ill excess of the present business."

"11. is evident that- the equipment has a- very large margin over normal requirements, and that margin would be ample to meet the tluctnations that occur during the year if users of the waggons loaded tliem to their full capacity and discharged them with reasonable despatch." It is evident also that- the Minister's defence may be read in two ways. When he points out that "if every goods waggon was loaded to its full carrying capacity and made one trip per week only, the present stock would still be sufficient- to deal with a tonnage greatly in excess of the present requirements," is he not to some extent impeaching his own system of management? It is intelligible that a surplus of rolling-stock is necessary to meet the fluctuations and exigencies of trallic: yec a surplus of goods waggons representing on oxews capacity of one ami a-qtiarter times the trade seems unnecessary. On the other hand, consignors' complaints of a shortage of waggons are frequent. Are the waggons handled to (he best ;idvanlage? Does the railway staff exercise an alert discretion in controlling the movements of the rollingflock, "so that every locomotive, car, and waggon gives the best service of which it is "capable? That is one of the things which Mr Millar can .ascertain. The. Minister of Railways buttresses his statement with this significant table :— Statbmwt showing Goons. Toknagk. and Waggons available and suitable for dealing with same at 31st March, 1908.

Total .. 4,627,78S JOS.S63 11.322,272 G.W1.13! *In these cases the waggons are made use of ri least four limes per week; 'he capacity therefore exceeds the traflic by 100.900 tons ill ibo caw of Whanyarei, ami Irj 272,772 tor.s in respect to West-port.

This table invites inquiry. If the Minister has a surplus of nearly million tons capacity on 4,000,000 tons of trade, it follows either that consignors' complaints are unjustified, or that the surplus capacity of waggons is eo badly utilised that consignors' complaints arc justified. It doss not matter, of course, how many waggons tho liailwii-ya Department provides if they »to not available whon wanted. Wo can gain somo information by a comparison of New Zealand rolling-stock at tho present lima, firstly with the rolling■stiick provided by the commissioners in 1891-5, and secondly, with tho rollingstock provided by Australian railways at the present time! Take first this table:— X>.w Zmui.-d Railways.

Decrease in 1907-S of munber oi waggons (all classes) per 10,000 train milos run J-2 Tiie deduction would seem to bo that tho provision of waggons in proportion to the train-mile unit is smaller now than iu | t.ho commissioners' time. But the average carrying capacity of the waggons in proportion to Initiic has been increased, as shown by the following table:— New Zealand Railways.

Increase in 1307-S of total carryill!; capacity •>[ waggons pur 10(0) train miles nm 3 tons So that the provision of waggon-tonnage, now is greater than in the commissioners' time, if "the goods tra'.lie remains in about the same proportion to other traffic. When we compare Now Zealand traffic with that upon all Australian railways, the New Zealand provision of waggons or trucks in ratio to the train-mile unit appeals to be excessive. Nkw Zealand and Australian "Railways.

s c •- ,; M to ?, ~. ~ o go"3 c us ™ XZ. railways. 1007-3 7.0i].27! i:.,H2. 21.4 A>is. railways, IBCC-7 35.035.137 -13,371 11.8

Excess of >'.Z. wi'pgons (trucks) over Australian per 111,000 train mites rim 1".2 This means that lor even- mile the trains run New Zealand pro 18 ties nearly two waggons lo Australia's one. If Hie ayera"c carrying capacity of the waggons were- equaU and if the proportion of goods irailie to other traffic were approximately equal, thore would he room for the deduction that Australia eariics its goods traffic at a cost considerably less than Now Zealand's. In Ik absence of exact, information upon both, these points, the New Zealand excess oi wagons must bo taken merely as an indication of tho way tilings arc going. But, confirmation comas in the following table:— New Zbalmsd 4XD Atstbah*x Katlwats.

Elects nuuibcr of waggons (trucks) N.Z. over Australia per 10,000 tons carried 9.5 This mains that, ton for ton of goods carried, New Zealand employs 43 per cent, mow waggons than Australia. In other words, where one waggon in New Zealand carries ojie ton all the year round,

one waggon in Australia carries nearly one ami a-half tons. Or, still differently, to tlo the work which one waggon does in Australia it costs New Zealand nearly one ind a-hall waggons. Taken in connection with the proof that, [or every mile all the trains trawl, it costs New Zealand noaiiy two waggons to do the work of one waggon in Australia, it certainly appears that the New Zealand Railway Department is over-supplied with waggons as well as over-manned. The proof is not absolute, because there is no certainty of the exact similarity of conditions. Nevertheless, all the Australian railways --great and small, isolated or connected, .spins or trunk lines provide the best attainable comparison with New Zealand railways: and the average carrying capacity of the waggons cannot show a difference of anything like <53 per cent, in favour of New Zealand. There is. therefore, a clear conclusion that the Australian goods traitic is much better managed. Since the Australian railways contrive to handle their traffic with 91 per cent, fewer waggons in proportion to Hie distance all trains travel, and to carry 43 per cent, more tonnage with the waggons they have. .Mr Millar can impiire the reason for this, and ascertain if it is one of the reasons for the astonishing New Zealand expense-rate of £7 10s per £10 of income, as seems likely. (To be continued.)

CD '- ! m So rE* <£C>g . £ h_ i « 60« a aSh,b . °? = £-2g c,n •- .-a-g '5feS o t s.h os s fi -i'2 o *;? ™ MO Ko9 Section Tons. Tons. Tons. Knwsiliiwa -1.020 193 19703 14.634 Whan-aici 1K>,MS 1,230 130.621* - Mm .. 11.953 371 38.836 20.943 Auckland 571,433 17.153 1,787,210 1,215,807 GisWjic 13,498 183 19.S52 6,054 ■WcHregloii-Napicr-NVw Plymouth 791303 24,138 2,512.432 1.721.1.13 Picrion 55.0-22 812 S-U4S 23.420 Nelson 31,853 573 60.112 2S.259 ■ffestport 062.812 4,198 107.792* — W«sil»!i<l 533,134 5,8 IS 603.192 70,05s UurunuiBluffi .. 1.9SG.503 53,781 5.593.224 3,000.7] 5

?• a '''j « Tear, rig di o g~ 1834m 3.22l,G» 9..2IM 25.6 HKT7-8 7,051,274 15,112 21.4

£ o 01 £ CD Year. ££ c.5'35 ic.ni.4 .. .. 3.221.G20 50.EG1 157 i 8 '<)7. 8 7,051,271 117,210 lfifi

ip'Z to B N.Z. 1937-8 .. 4,8)1,534 15,142 . 31.3 Aus., 190G-7 .. 19,625,795 43,371 21.S