THE VICTOKIAN RAILWAY SYSTEM UNMASKED.

Colonist, Volume VII, Issue 664, 8 March 1864, Page 4

THE VICTOKIAN RAILWAY SYSTEM UNMASKED.

Some months ago the most amazing and un-business-like crudities were spoken and written on the subject of a railway to be formed in Nelson province by and under the management of the Provincial Government. At the time we pointed out the enormous cost of a short line of rail between Adelaide city and the port; something like £27,000 per mile, and a great expense of working it. Under the above heading the following article on the railway system of Victoria, a system managed and administered by the government of the colony, the' Melbourne Leader lately has the following expose of how they manage these things in Victoria: —

Some further light has been thrown upon the internal management of the Victorian Railways. The Legislative Council, ten months ago, appointed a select committee of inquiry, and its report, with the eA'idence tendered, has just issued from the Government press. The report is in itself a sufficiently alarming document, when considered in relation to the serious liability undertaken by the State to pay half a million per annum for interest on the railway loan. But the evidence amply justifies the tone of reprobation which pervades the report. Before dealing with the report and evidence, we must premise a brief comparison of the Victorian Eailways traffic for the present year. For the quarter ending 12th April, it amounted to £116,113 ; for that ending 2nd July, £113,401; 2nd October £100,436. Surety these figures justify some anxiety for the fate of our monster railway speculation. Here we find the third quarter of the year, with a longer mileage for goods traffic open, showing a worse result by over £15,000 than the first quarter of 1863. The average weekly traffic for November and December, 1562, and January, 1863, was £9286 per week. For the present year the average does not exceed £8450. From an examination of the evidence, and the copious appendices of returns, we cannot but endorse the dictum of the committee's reports :—" The expenses are enormous, and the returns seem so mystified that they are difficult to unravel." "We have hitherto pinned oxn 1 faith upon the accuracy of "the weekly returns furnished under the sign manual of the secretary, but even these are for the future to be received with caution, for Mr. Mathison, the accountant, deliberately states that " the published return of revenue is approximate—it is made up to a date which is in advance of the strict accounts of the same revenue." The most striking feature in the evidence is the unanimity with which the permanent heads of the department disclaim any experience or knowledge of railway traffic. Mr. Higinbotham, the engineer, is asked if he has any means of judging of the desirability of continuing certain kinds of traffic—if he knows anything of the receipts and expenditure connected with the railway ; and he frankly answers "I do not." His attention is directed to that which is within the scope of his profession as an engineer. "When the secretary is questioned as to his experience, we have the most winning frankness displayed—Mr. "Wright is entirely innocent of any railway knowledge, and, unfortunately, has no compensating qualification to plead. His duties are a general supervision of the Railways Department. He announces that he keeps^ " a watchful eye over the expenditure;" if any disproportion shows itself between revenue and outlay, Mr. "Wright " has the thing seen to." If expenses show a continuous increase, Mr. "Wright " wants to know how it is." We quote his answers literally. Mr. M'Crae very naturally wanted " to know, you know," something in return fromthe Secretary, with an inquiring turn of mind; referring to the replies Aye have cited, he pertinently asked how, then, it occurred that, for a consecutive number of months, the tonnage had been decreasing, and the_ traffic charges increasing, without any decided remedial action being taken by the Secretary or the Department. The charges on goods at Spencer-street station is best illustrated tabularly:—

Thus, in May, 3432 tons less goods cost to handle actually £332 more than the larger quantity in October, 1862. This is progressive economy! In further support of the backsliding of the department, we find by a comparison instituted that in October 1860, 8600 tons of goods were passed through the central station at a cost of Is B|d per ton; the charge for 14,942 tons, in May, 1863, beiug 2s 2£d per ton, notwithstanding the reduced rate of wages lately current. The difference is ascribed to a system of " waybilliug" the goods in order to prevent claims; but a clerk from the audit department examined, states that he is |( at a loss to seethe advantages, the claims bemg no less than they were." In the face of declining traffic, we learn from Mr. Carruthers's evidence that there has been an increase in the salaries of nearly all the station masters. How this came about Mr "Wright informs us:—Mr. Mitchell thought their pay too small, and raised their salaries from £150 to £200 all at once. Now, although the latter sum is not in itself an extravagant one, surely it is time enough to be generous when the State can do so with justice to the entire community, upon whose necks the railways promise to be a deadweight for years to come. As in goods traffic, so in passenger—the expenses have been, till lately, steadily increasing In October 1860,28,830 passengers were booked at Melbourne station, at a cost of 2£d per head; in April 1863, 23,000, at a cost of 4 T d, or nearly double. That this additional expenditure is necessary, the evidence does not bear out, for we find that proposals for reduction have been made, which have been (at any rate until lately) consistently neglected; Mr. Wright admits that "if the work keep, as it is now, and the business is not increased, we can reduce the labor twenty per cent." Mr. Jeremy, traffic superintendent, declares, "I have frequently mentioned to the secretary that large reductions might be made." Mr. Stead, the goods station master, deposes (August 18G3) that he has a good many more hands than he can employ. Asked what number he could do without, he says, "at present I have a staff of about one hundred and twenty laborers and porters. I could spare twenty men at present, at any rate; and as regards

the clerical staff, I can spare at least eight clerks out of forty-four."

From the evidence of Mr Higinbotham we learn two important, but unpalatable facts. He states that there is no railway in England with such severe gradients as the Victorian ; and again, that the costs of our lines has been- two and a half times what the same length of line Avould have been at home —leaving out of the question in our case land for nothing and no Parliamentary expenses.

It would be an experiment well worth any temporary sacrifice, that a few months' trail of lowered fares and freight should be made. There would be no bar to a return to the present rates, if the result proved unsatisfactory. Until the experiment has been tried and failed, it would be unfair to condemn it. In the evidence before us there are occasional paragraphs which bear favorably upon the suggestions we make. Mr. Carruthers, speaking of the trade of Melbourne with Geelong, say that the goodscarriage charge was raised by Mr. Mitchell from 7s 6d to 10s 6d per ton, and that " the effect was, until we reduced the through rate to Ballaarat, seriously to affect the railway." True, Mr. Carruthers subsequently says that less than the rates charged on the Victorian Eailways would not pay, but we prefer taking his facts to adopting his theories. Mr. Fehon states that carriers still convoy goods upon roads parallel to the railways. Questioned as to back traffic, this witness specifics wool, timber, firewood, hides, horns, and farm produce conveyed by carriers in competition with the railways. Asked why a classification is not adopted which would enable the railways to secure these goods, he replies—" I think that a reduction in the rates would meet that, instead of altering the classification.

The penultimate paragraph of the report expresses belief that a system of retrenchment has already been initated—a most reasonable course, especially if the committee be correct in its conclusion, that employes have been " put on to answer political purposes, and not to fill up any want of workmen."

Tons Goods. Charges 1862.— Oct 18,37-A £1,323 Nov. ... 17,000 1,394 Dec . 14,922 1,580 1863.—Jan 13,273 1,546 May. ... 14,942 1,655