RAILWAYS REFORM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14441, 6 February 1909, Page 5

RAILWAYS REFORM.

WHAT MR MILLAR GAX DO. I Br A. G. SiKi'iiKXS. I (Specially writ lon for f lie Otago Daily Times.) VI.—ROLLING STOCK. New Zealand Railways. a o> o° n j a - o "ftSK ~ B -2 | 4~° « .-,'y v.A y.SKii "*5 ■VMI.GSO ~ 2(53 ,B:ii B»?-S 7,051,274 .. 410 .. .531 Decrease in 1007-8 o[ mimlicv ot locomotives per 10,00!) train miles .253 But this decrease signifies ch»- tty a change of method. Simo 1895 larger and more powerful locomotives have tome into use tap,able of drawing heavier loads, as shown hereunder :— Xev. t Zealand Railways. o "i > 2 95 5 © V;OH , o i-l " |"i 25 , = 2so £j> a 2 S5 18!H-5 .. 3.221,020 .. 1 ,.7.'0,17S .. 5.151 •ISHTT-S .. 7,0,11,274 .. (~-)l(i.'Jso .. G,-tOt Increase in 1'.)07-S of total tractive ]-,"iver of locomotives ]ier 10,030 ir.iin miles run 05311) The ciiiiipaiii-on is in favour of the present day. In ploportiou to total tram mileage, to-days locomotives can do more work than tKcir predeweyons. A check is supplied by coinpaiison with Australia. Jiuw Zealand and Austiialiak Railways. ct (?.Z. J'iiihvavF, 1007-S 7,051,274 (10 .581 kus. ltailways, 1906-7 38,618,4:17 2115 „i7S Excos.s of Xuw Zealand locomotives per 10,0(1 train miles 003 The excess is insignificant, amountiui; to about two locomotives on tlie total of New Zealand train mileage. So far, therefore, as New Zealand conditions anil loiomotiws correspond with Australian, it can be said that, the Xew Zealand equipment hears a just proportion to the locomotive work. Next we may consider the equipment of passengtT cars:— Kbiv Zealand Railways. J JOu 0i, o : & S - —3 2 aj l A~i I ■1894-5 .. mim .. 4'JS .. 3.54 .1307-8 .. 7.(151,274 .. 1(102 .. 1.42 [Dec rcase in 1007-Hoi number of paffonger ears nor 10,000 train miles run 12 Here we have to take note of an increase iin the seating accommodation of the cars, ifls shown below Kkw Zkaland Railways. i . S i ?■ Re • , v S" »2 S J £ C '" iam-5 .. .. :s,'«i.r,2n .. 17,155 .. 59 8007-8 .. .. 7.031.274 .. 42,(101 .. 00 'Increase in 11107-8 of senlir.g accomnicdation of i"issengcr ears iw 10,01)0 train miles run 1 seat. Tin,.;, as compared with 1891-5. we have - now a total excess of 705 seats in propor- - lion lo train mileajje, and a total decrease of M ears; so I hat. passengers were sonn■what b"tler provided for in< 1894-5 lhan they are at present. The Australian comJiarison follows:— Aew Zeala.vd a:;n Austisamax Railways. ■§5 0 d t** f gl IP ll§ if |;i K.Z. Hailwava 1007-8 7,051,271 1,002 1.42 fcnst. liaihvays, 190G-7 .18,&'I8,4;I7 I!, 2:11 ,S1 oi ,\cw Zealand passenger cars Mr IOIKIO train miles run 50 Tiie excess of New Zealand cars, numbering 'U6 in ratio to the total Xew Zealand train mileage, if. remarkable. If Xcw Zealand made provision for passengers in the same ratio as Australia, 11 per cent, fewer ears would be required—sß6 instead of IGO2. The greater suburban traffic in Australia probably supplies one reason for the difference, and another may be found an a difference in the (ivera),v seatim; accommodation of the cars. Nevevtlu'leVs. it is astonishing to :-ee that Xew Zealand requires 238 more passenger ears to carry 51,656,568 fewer passengers than New South Walas, for example. The matter is certainly one for i\lr Millar's inquiry. By the following table it is inciva'fiiiigly euggested that the excess of New Zealand pafi-Tliger eais in comparison with Australian has some practical meaning:— JiE'.v Zeai.a.vu a.vd Australian Railways. •g. - J i °s °sgl J! g"? I g «=§ | |?'s ggjj sij"i '',£o 'SiC.&Y&tu New Zealand, 1907-S 9.750,710 1,002 10.2 Australia. 10aii-7 .. 110,205,200 a/ill 2.2 K\ce-s iimnlxu of pasfenxer cars, Jie«' Zeihand over Australia, per 10U,II00 iwstengers curried- .. .. 8.2

flic puint, for Mr Millar is whether, tab'Hlg 'llto consideration the average seating accommodation of the cars, and taking into consideration, further, the fact that the lllllgo suburban Ira flic of some Australian cities enables the railways to carry many more passengers with the same immlK't' uf cars, there yet remains in New Zetland a, balance oi caw which the uumauemeu'v. tloiß not utilise to their best capacity. The similar inference seemed fair in the. matter ol goods waggons. Is such an inference to any extent warranted in the case of pas. sengcr cars?

The difference is indeed striking. ]f New Zealand passengers last year had been carried with the same ratio'of cars as in Australia, the liailways Department •would have required only 214 cars, instead of the 1002 it used. 'In other words, every Australian car all the year round carries on the average nearly live timee as litany passengers as a New Zealand car. The provision of passenger cars for passengers is nearly live times as great in Jvew Zealand as in Australia. Is the difference wholly accounted for by the considerations urged above by the proportion of long-distance as compared with shortdistance Ira flic? Or is there, as in the case of the waggons, an additional ivasou for the remarkable Xew Zealand excess in the manner in which tlie. cm are distributed and handled? The answer is left to Mr .Millar. There remain the brake vans. Kkw Zealand Bailwais. s ®5 v" S"=-« ? £ *0 ® S m s S-~s 2-3 SIS*.S .. 3,231.0-20 .. an .. .61 lM'-S I. 7,051,'27-1 .. :»:i .. .46 in 1907-S of number of ''"lie v.ias per 10,000 train miles nui 17 IvK'.v Zealand axd Australian Kailwavs. '3 ° * °Sg§ £ c JO iaj, S~s S-5 s ,P £ 3 Jk s>. Ss N.Z. Railways, J507-9 7,051.274 33a .40 Altai. liniln-.-tys. 1906-7 ,t3,6!8,«7 1810 .16 N timber ol brake vain? per 10,000 train miles approximately equal. It appears irwn these tables that ttio Eaiiway Depa-rtmeiit is now making shift with fewer brake vans than were used iu the commissioners' time, und has readied exactly the Australian rat.io in relation to traffic. Tlio conclusion, if ;mv, favourable to tlio Railway Department.' i'l'o be (xjuoludod.)