POWER, LIGHT AND TRAMWAY LOSSES.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19008, 8 May 1924, Page 7

POWER, LIGHT AND TRAMWAY LOSSES.

AN ACCOUNTANT’S ANALYSIS. At the meeting of St. John’s Hill ratepayers on Monday evening, prior to the adoption by resolutions of the Mayor’s suggestion that trams to St. John’s Hill at the present time were not desirable Mr W. M. Falconer remarked that the impression seemed to be that the tramways were responsible for tiie major portion of last year’s loss of £21,000 on the electricity and tramways services. The speaker, who is a qualified accountant, stated that he had carefully analysed the accounts, and with the information at his disposal had arrived at the following conclusions:

In appointing the interest on-loans and sinking funds, all the interest on the amounts directly spent on the trams had been charged to that department, and interest on the moneys spent on reticulation had been charged to the Lighting Department. As regards the loan moneys expended on the power-house and steam plant, this had been apportioned in the ratio of 500 to the trams and 1250 to the lighting on the grounds that the station had a capacity of 1750 k.w., of which the tramway maximum load* was only 500 k.w., and the balance of 1250 k.w. provided for electric lighting and power. In considering the loss of £B7 81 16s 9d sustained by the Tramway Department, consideration must be given to the excessive cost of the power used by the trains. The speaker went on to show that the cost of this power,, taking into account a proportion of the powerhouse running expenses and repairs plus interest and sinking funds on the Tramway Department’s proportion of the power-house and plant loans was £14,266. The Mayor had previously stated that when power is being obtained from the Power Board he hoped to get it at half of what it was costing at present. Accepting this statement of the Mayor, tho power bill tor the trams would be cut down by £7133. Had power been available on this basis last year the Tramway Department’s loss would have been reduced to £1648 16s 9d. The speaker used these figures to show- that tho tramway losses from the time when the steam plant was sold w-ould not be a very serious matter, and consequently any further loss on the St. John’s Hill extension would be very little, if any. Another speaker, Mr. G. S. Vance, dealt with the proposition in support of the extension, more particularly with tho Mayor’s statement that the extension of the service to Virginia Lake would mean a further loss of £l5OO per annum; also that in any ease the extension could not be commenced for a year because the Railway Department would not be ready with the deviation of the railway line and the necessary overhead structure. Mr. Vance said that the expenditure On the extension up to the present was £6637, and the money in hand to complete the work was £2451. Tho estimated cost by the engineer was £3OOO, but if the work were undertaken by contract it should not cost more than £2OOO. The distance from Glasgow Street to the lake -was under one mile, and the eost of car mileage under steam-generated power was Is 6d pe rmile. If St. John’s Hill were provided with a serpower was Is 6d per mile If St. eost would be £2 ss, £l5 ’ 15s per week, or £Bl9 per annum, plus 6 per cent, on £3OOO, £lBO, total £999. Therefore, if the cars were run empty for 12 months the loss would be under £lOOO.

Speaking about the overhead bridge and deviation, Mr Vance said that Mr Burgess had on more than one occasion called on tho Minister for Railways regarding the deviation of the line, and on a recent occasion Mr Burgess and Mr Veitch, in the presence of Mr Coates, had the assurance of Mr McVilly that the Department would expedite the preparation of plans, and as soon as they were approved he would see that the work was put in hand at once. The speaker said he had been informed by a railway engineer that the work could be completed in three months. In accordance with the Council’s wishes plans were expedited and were completed, had been approved by the Department, and were in the office of the borough engineer waiting for the council’s approval. The proposals had already been approved by the council, and only its formal consent was now required Therefore, he contended, any delav in completing the railway deviation and superstructure would bo tho fault of the council.

The cost of the delay, calculated at 6 cent, on £6637, money already expended, was £39 8 per annum, or £1 Is per day. Surely, then, lie contended, to effect economy the extension should be completed as soon as possible.’

Lighting Department, Expenditure ». . . 2'0,9 30 0 0 Receipts 8,000 15 0 Deficit on Lighting Department, £12,929 a 0 Tramway Department,, Expenditure .. . . 59,883 1 0 Receipts (excluding credit balance brought forward from previous year, and the proceeds of the 9Jd rate) 51,101 4 3 Deficit on Tramways £8,781 16 9