ROAD VERSUS RAIL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 147, 24 June 1933, Page 16

ROAD VERSUS RAIL

A MATTER FOR APPEAL S.O.S. SERVICES. WANG AN II TO WELLINGTON. Before the Transport Appeal Board yesterday evidence and legal argument were continued in respect to the appeal of the New Zealand Railways Board against the license issued to S.O.S. Motors to conduct a passenger service between Wanganui and Wellington. The Railways Board appealed against four trips permitted in the license —those leaving Wanganui at 10 a.m. and 1.15 p.m., and those leaving Wellington at 8.30 a.m. and 5 p.m. The case is still unfinished. His Honour, Mr. Justice Frazer, presided, and with him were Messrs. T. Jordan and L. Aiderton. Mr. F. W. Aickin appeared for the Railways Board and Mr. N. B. Bain for S.O.S. Motors. James Sawers, of the Railways Board, gave evidence and produced returns showing passengers carried and information of a general nature relative to the rail services in the districts affected. Question of Relevancy. Mr. Bain, during the evidence-in-chief of Mr. Sawers, asked whether the returns he was submitting were relevant to the case at issue. “This is an appeal against a decision of the No. 5 Licensing Authority,” said Mr. Bain. “It is not in any way a rehearing. What the board has to decide is whether the Authority used its discretion wisely in granting the license and was not actuated by bias or malice. 1 fail to see the relevancy of these documents that are being put in. ft is wasting time.’’ His Honour ruled that it would be best to reserve for consideration later the question as to the admissibility, or otherwise, of the evidence. In the meantime not a great deal of time was being taken up. It had been a general practice to regard these appeals as rehearings. Mr. Aickin: These returns are very relevant as to whether the public interest is being waived. Some sections might be suffering. Mr. Bain cross-examined Mr. Sawers at length on the statements put in, and. on the attitude of the railways towards the public in the past. ‘ ‘ What do you deduce from these returns ? he asked. Mr. Sawers: That the trains are satisfactorily patronised between Welling ton and New Plymouth. Mr. Bain: Then, if the trains are satisfactorily patronised why are you making this appeal?—Because the trains are being run and could accommodate a great many more passengers without any extra cost to the country. Our main complaint is the additional cost to the country in the running of these road services. Mr. Bain: Do you suggest that the finance of the railways is the only point of view to be considered!—lt is a very large point to be considered. How long have you been employed by the railways!—Twenty-six years. Kailways and Profits. Can you point to any one of those years in which the railways made a profit!—Yes, in 1926 when the system of accounting was changed. So it was due to the system of aceounting!—No. The system of ae counting was changed and the whole service reorganised. Conditions were fairly normal then. Mr. Bain: Is that the only year there was a profit!—No. There were others. But 1 would be correct in saying that in a majority of years the railways have made a loss. Do they pay income tax!—No. Or rates! Mr. Aickin: How does he know. He’s not a lawyer. . Mr. Bain: Your loss cannot be saiu to be due entirely to this competition with road services!—A large propertion of it is. . How long have the motor services been running in this country* I am not sure, but before the war. Mr. Bain: As far as the services in Wanganui are concerned! That to Wellington has been running eight years and the one to New Plymouth 11 years. You stiU say the loss on the railways is due to these services!—By service cars and goods operative. Mr. Bain: One would infer from your statement that 11 years ago, before the motor services, the railways were making a profit. Mr. Sawers: No. They were not making a profit. They were making a fairly substantial contribution to inter eat and our overhead was increasing. We made an assessment of losses two years ago that we considered to be due to motor transport. The estimate was we were losing one million a year. Mr. Bain: What was the total loss that year? Mr. Sawers: £1,383,472. Witness, in answer to further ques tions, said that a big proportion of the road passenger traffic would go back on to the rail if the road services were stopped. Mr. Bain: In your opinion, what was the cause of the motor services developing?—The development of motor transport. Mr. Bain: Doesn’t any other reason occur to vou i Wasn't it :t fact that the railways failed to give an adequate service to the public? His Honour: You might make it easier for him if you ask, ‘was it duo to a belief that the railways were not giving an adequate service?’ He need not associate himself with the belief. Raising the Pact. Mr. Baiu quoted from the past, showing that, originally, when the Main Trunk train arrived at Marton the passengers for Wanganui were faced with the fact that their tram had left twenty minutes before, holding that the passengers could wait for the New Plymouth express. That was the position daily when representations were made to the department. The rail ways refused to alter the timetables and that resulted in the institution of Hodson’s Pioneer Motor Service from Wanganui to Marton. Witness had no personal knowledge of this, but he knew there had been an agitation of the type mentioned. In reply to Mr. Bain witness said that the alteration in the Main Trunk timetable had been made to suit requirements on the Main Trunk and at Auckland. The railways had endeavoured to do the best for all concerned, but it was not possible to suit every body. Mr. Bain: Exactly. That is my point. Your railways, not being mobile, you

have to sacrifice seme sections to suit the larger centres. Mr. Sawers said the department had the right of hearing applications made to the Authority and made a practice of doing so when circumstances warranted. It had appeared w'hen the licenses for the service had been , granted, when the same representations had been made to the Licensing , Authority as were being made to the Board. Regarding the trains arriving at Marton it had not suited the department to connect with them by train services and for that reason a motor service was used by the Government. It was realised by the department that some of the services it was opposing were struggling for a living, but that depended upon the class of country in which they ran. It was not the department's policy to force services out of existence and it would co-ordinate with them if necessary and form feeder services. If the department did wish to eliminate any services it was because the railways supplied facilities which were duplicated by the transport. The railways were entitled to some protection for the finances of the Dominion also had to be considered and the Government Railways Board was charged with paying attention to that fact It was admitted that the deletion of the 10 o’clock service would mean a difference to the public in the country between Wanganui and Levin, but ho thought the services proposed by th t railway tn take the place of the motor services were adequate an 1 would m<jet the needs of the average business men. It was admitted by the department that the public of Wanganui were not adequately served by the railway services and for that reason all the services had not been opposed. It was also admitted that the presence of the motor services had resulted in an improvement to the railways being brought about, although there was a great deal of room for improvement in any transport service. At this stage Mr. Bain submitted that if the service cars were put off the road the effect would not be to drive the people on the railways but to make them take out their own private cars. He wanted to know why people should not enjoy the privilege of the services and why they should be forced onto the train. Mr. Sawers, in answer to Mr. Bain, stated that he knew that a co-ordina tion of the services had been brought about under the Act by the Authority. Mr Bain: You have stated that services should be reduced on account of wastage and the effect on the public revenue. Have you considered what the companies pay in taxation to the Government and what would .. j lost if the services were cut out? Mr. Sawers: I have thought of the excessive cost of the roads and what the public has had to pay for the grand road scheme. Mr. Bain: Do you realise that the services pay £l5O a month taxation for petrol and oil and have you realised that if they were done away with it would be a loss to the public revenue? —I realise that as a result of competition and the depression the Government’s consumption of coal for the railway has dropped by 150,000 tons a year. Mr. Bain: Could you not reduce the coal consumption a great deal more if you were to eliminate all those sections of lines which, are not paying on an ordinary profit and loss basis? If the system of railways was under the supervision of a transport authority how many of those lines would be surviving against motor competition?— The board has already said it would be prepared to have a survey made with regard to the best means of transport on branch routes and abide by the decision reached by an Authority. A branch line in the South Island had been investigated and in one instance it was found that if the line were deleted it would cost the local body £1750 extra maintenance per year That was a case apart from actual transport licensing. Mr. Bain; Has anything been done in connection with the Commission’s report and have any lines been cut out? —At the present time the department is not operating 85 miles of line in the South Island, the Oxford branch and others. Mr. Bain: Probably the motor transport will take its place?—That remains to be seen. Case for Respondent. In submitting the case for the respondent, tho S.O.S. Motors, Mr. Baxii stated that the appeal ought to be dismissed on two main points without calling upon the respondent to call evidence at all. He referred to the section 30 sub-section 2 of the Act dealing with fares and timetables to be fixed by the Central Authority having regard to the public interest of the districts as a whole. He assumed that the Authority had paid due attention to the provisions of the section and issued licenses after having given full consideration expected of them under the Act and that they issued them not only upon their own view of the matter but upon the guaranteed scheme which was actively sponsored by the Commissioner of Transport to whom the application bad been made. The four services had evolved the scheme of co-ordination at not a little expense to themselves and at no little sacrifice by each of them, and each of their respective territories. He submitted that in order to succeed, the appellent the Railways Board, must show not only that the services to be eliminated were unnecessary and undesirable in the public interest, but that in granting the licenses, the Authority had proceeded upon wrong grounds. Mr. Bain made a legal reference as to the duty of granting licenses and, continuing, said that the case was not a contest, and should not be one, between the railways and the company, but between the railways and the public. He submitted that the Railways Department were not governed by the provisions of the Act. Experience of the past had shown that competition, whether between Government and private individual or private individual and private individual, was essential if progress in business was to be made. Not only had the appellents failed to show’ that the. services were unnecessary or undesirable but they had also failed to show that the Central Authority had acted upon any wrong ground or had failed to take into consideration any matter which thev were pledged to take into consideration. Mr. Sawers had adniittc" that exactly the same evidence had come, be- ; fore the Board as before the Authority. Mr. Bain contended that the services were needed as was evidenced by the fact that the public used them and that it had paid the company to provide them. They had been going for 9 to 12 years and the Court was entitled to take notice of that r :ict. and if necessary, to draw the inference from it that if the railway services had been satisfactory in regard to timetables or fares the motor services would m' have started. It was admitted by Mr. Sawr ers that the management of the railways had been improved by reason of the competition and Mr. Ba. i thought there was no doubt about that. If the railways were granted a mon opoly where was the competition going

to come from to keep then/up to tne ( mark?—and Government Departments , required to be kept up to the mark just as much as anyone else if not by competition then by criticism. All that the appellent had done was to show that alternative routes and means of transport existed and that was entirely insufficient. Those alternative routes and services did not exist in many areas. He referred to the immobility of the railways as compared with road transport and said that there was no doubt that mobile transport was to be the thing of the future. The Act was not to eliminate motor transport services but to make better provision for the licensing and control of those services and to develop them. The practical result of cutting down services would probably result in their cessation. That would mean that the railways would have to develop some form of transport for Wanganui and it was admitted by the railway witnesses that the city was not well served by the railways. How then could it be Said that appellents had established their case for the elimination of the services. It had also been admitted that the services which did not act as links for the railway were being attacked and if that were so how could services exist that were not under those conditions? With regard to the co-ordination of services 500,000 miles would be saved annually by that means and Mr. Bain submitted that unless the Appeal Board were satisfied that the Authority was wrong in granting the licenses then the scheme effecting that saving should be given a trial and not interfered with with half way through the year. If the board were not satisfied at that stage of the proceedings that the appellents had not established their case there was no need to go further, but if it was thought they had then he would call evidence to support the respondent. A Prima Facie Case. The Court retired to consider the position and on returning His Honour stated that appellents had proved a prima facie case and that respondent be required to call evidence. His Honour said that Mr. Bain had raised a point of law and the effect of it was that the board should act precisely in the same way as the Supreme Court did in dealing with applications to upset the decision of a local authority. But so far as the Board was concerned it was not a Supreme Court, but it was a special board set up to deal with exactly the same matter that came before the local authorities. The local licensing authorities dealt with applications for the purchase of licenses and from practically all their decisions the appeal lay to the Board. The Board had to act in the same way as the original licensing authority and for that reason the practice had been to take nearly all appeals by way of re-hearing. Mr. Bain then called witnesses from Foxton. The hearing will be continued this morning.