RAILWAY CHARGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22610, 29 June 1935, Page 8

RAILWAY CHARGES

BLUFF AND DUNEDIN VIEWS OF DEPARTMENT i ——— At a meeting of the Invercargill Chamber of Commerce on Thursday the following letter was received from the district traffic manager of railways, Mr J. A. Lindsay, relative to the comparison of rail freight charges on cargo for Invercargill ex ship at Dunedin and ex ship at Bluff:— The rate from Dunedin is 30s a ton, dead weight, with a minimum quantity of five tons per consignment, while the rate from Bluff is 9s Id a ton at double dead weight or measurement at the option of the department. If the measurement exceeded double dead weight, charges would be computed on the latter. GENERAL REPLY. About a years ago (says the Southland Times) the Bluff Harbour Board complained of this department's action in endeavouring to divert trade from the port of Bluff by offering a reduced freight rate from Dunedin. The board's representations were sent forward to my general manager, and he replied as follows: — "In replying to the representations made by the Bluff Harbour Board, I shall be glad if you will point out to it that the rate of 30s a ton for goods ex ship from Dunedin to Invercargill has been in force for more than three years, and is not, as the board apparently assumes, of recent origin. In view of the superior service which the department maintains between the two towns as compared with the more irreguar shipping service, it may reasonably claim the right to a share of the imported merchandise traffic; furthermore, in the case of certain classes of goods, the expeditious delivery which the railway can give is of considerable importance to the trading community. It is, of course, recognised that a certain proportion of the traffic will continue to go forward by sea, the mode of transport being influenced by eucb matters as the nature and urgency of the goods, times of sailings of coastal vessels, etc. An aspect which has not been mentioned by the board and which lias an important bearing on the matter is the keen competition from road operators with which both the railway and shipping services have to contend between the two towns in question. Imported merchandise traffic is generally offering in fairly large parcels, affording good vehicle loading, end oui experience has been that the road operators are prepared to quote very low rates for business of this nature. In such circumstances it must be recognised that a lowering of our rate is the only means whereby we can hope to safeguard against a wholesale diversion of the more urgent goods to the road services." IMPORTANCE OF SPEED. During the last six months nine different consignments of goods-have been railed from ship at Dunedin to Invercargill and charged at the 30s a ton rate. Inquiries from the consignees elicited the information that speed was the essence of the contract. Some replied that their goods would have been transported by rail at the ordinary rate of 43s lOd a ton, while others said they would have used road transport had the cheap rate of 30s a ton not been available. It will thus be seen that it is generally a question of rail versus road and not rail versus sea. . . I would point out that with a minimum of five tons per consignment, good vehicle loading is obtained; in many cases a return of £7 10s a truck. When it is taken into consideration that empty wagons are regularly being worked from Dunedin to Invercargill it will be admitted that this is good business. With reference to the rate charged on imports ex ship at Bluff, I have gone into this matter fairly carefully and find that prior to 1900 all goods to and from ships were carried on weight or measurement. In that year the Minister instructed that goods to the ship may be charged deadweight but the practice to charge on weight or measurement was to remain in force on goods from the ship. WHY MEASUREMENT IS PREFERRED. One of the chief reasons for charging goods ex the ship on measurement is the fact that in the case of general merchandise there are many lines where the measurement is appreciably greater than the weight; in fact, in some lines there is little Or no weight, whereas the measurement is considerable. To charge these goods on a deadweight basis would mean quite a substantial loss in revenue, and it is doubtful whether it would bo . practicable to handle these goods on a weight basis at all. These lines arc in the main to the main centres from ports, and are rarely forwarded to country districts. Then, again, with goods from the ship the department has little or no chance of loading to the best advantage. The goods are swung from the ship by means of their cranes, and we have to load into trucks as fast as we can. No attempt is made to secure the best loading, but every endeavour in made to keep the ship discharging at full speed, hence, in many cases, our trucks are lightly loadod. This position does not apply in the case of " A," " B," "C" and "D " class goods (genera] merchandise) going to a port. It can be definitely said that the loading of wagons with goods of 'classes "A", " B ", " C ", and "D" to a port is heavier than when it is coming from a port. To make up the difference, therefore, we have to charge the imports on weight or measure ment.

QUESTION OF CHEAPER RATES. There is another point which has been mentioned, too, and that is the cheaper rates. Should the department be requested to compute its freight rates on a deadweight basis, then it would be reasonable to suppose that we would be entitled to receive as much revenue from the nltered method of charging as we are nt present. This would mean that in the case of Bluff to Invercargill and, perhaps, Invercargill to Bluff, we would require to cut out the local rate of Os Id per ton and insert the appropriate rates for classes "A ", "B ", " C ", and " D ", which rates run from 15s lOd a ton to lis sd.

As a general rule ships charge by measurement, and usually the weight is not shown on the manifest. In most cases, therefore, it would bo necessary to weigh each consignment in the shipping shed Invercargill, if charges were computed on actual weight. This would add considerably to our handling costs, and, in the case of large shipments, when the shed is full, it would be almost impracticable. Apart from the foregoing, however, a substantial loss would be incurred, and as the general taxpayer was called upon to meet a deficit of over £1,000,000 on account of railways last year, it is most unlikely that the Railway Board would favourably consider granting any concession, which, in this case, would considerably increase the deficit.