RAILWAYS.

Opunake Times, Volume II, Issue 54, 8 January 1895, Page 2

RAILWAYS.

From the beginning of the .year the railways reverted to Government cou : trol, and we presume the advocates of euch a change will now be bappy, even though they may not be able to discern any difference in results. Railways, in our opinion, should be run to pay, and the only way to do this is to mate those who use them pay adequately for services rendered. Patriotic sentiments are continually paraded showing reasons why cheap rates and fares should rule on the railway lines, and what a great benefit such would be to tbe country. By the country, we presume is meant the people, and it is certain that in one way or otber the people have ultimately to pay. If cheap rates and fares are charged, then the Railway Pepartment will come out at the end of the year with a debit balance, and such debit balance will have to be made good from the Consolidated Fund. In this manner every man, woman and child iu the colony will have to pay its quota towards the deficiency, wfcbthsr deriving any benefit from the railway system or not. If, on the other hand, the services rendered are charged for so as to pay working expenses and interest on construction, then she charge for services rendered will fell on die shoulders of those who receive the direct benefit of them. Take the fares, for instance. F i?heve is a coutintiafgrowl that these are too high; butcjmparc them with the charges for transit by any other ffleftug

of locomotion, and you find that they are extremely cheap. Why should a person expect to be conveyed 80 miles by train, in quicker time, and with less inconvenience, at a cheaper rate than by coach or other conveyance ? One can travel 30 miles by train for 4s 3d, whereas by coach you pay from 7s 6d to 10s for the same distance, occupying nearly double the time to do the journey. We are not at all surprised to hear people who are constantly travelling complaining of the fares, because it is the nature of the Britisher to growl, but why any man should expect to do his travelling at the expeuse.of others who do not use the train, we certainly fail to see. If the same person were travelling by coach, where he had to pay 10s for 30 miles, we are quite satisfied that he would never think of offering the coachman 5s as his share towards the journey, and requesting the coachman to get the other 5s from the settlers living along the road, who did not use the coach as a means of conveyance. To be logical, those who cry out for cheaper fares still might just as reasonably argue that all passenger carriers should be subsidised by counties through whose districts such conveyances run, so as to enable those who desire to travel by them to be conveyed at a reduced rate. We all know that many of the railway lines have been constructed as political jobs, and the cheap rate and fare men argue that trains might as well be run partially loaded as empty, and that reducing the rates and fares would tend to produce loading. This to us does not seem the remedy. Where the traffic is not sufficient at payable rates the cure would be to only run a sufficient number of trains to meet the traffic. Every other mode of conveyance which is directed by private enterprise is run on these sound commercial lines, and we do not see why the railways should not be run the same. The travelling public would then howl out that they were put to the expense of putting up at hotels, &c, whilst waiting for the train service, but thi3 would teach them to complain less at the small extra charge for quicker transit, which would me,an all the difference between running trains at a loss, as at present, and paying their way, which they should be made to do.