Railway Policy.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17420, 3 April 1922, Page 6

Railway Policy.

The ■ statement by the Hon. 3>. H. Guthrie that .tho Railway Department has under consideration a revision of fares and freights, with tho idea of removing anomalies, and also, apparently, reducing charges, is welcome enough, but it need hardly bo said that the now railway policy s]x>ken of by tho Prime Minister must go much beyond a readjustment of charges. Wo have maintained for years that "what is really wrong with tho railways is the lack of a good business system of management. In past years, when tho Liberal newspapers and politicians wero defending tho wretched railway management of that day, and describing as undemocratic those who iheld that tho railways should pay their way, "Tho Press" was urging that the railways should be made to pay and that the management should be so improved that they would pay. Although tho belated conversion of these Radicals to our view Sras perhaps been assisted by the fact tliat there is no longer a Liberal Government to bo defended at all hazards, ire are glad of

the unanimity of opinion tliat now prevails, because it is difficult to exaggerate tho importance, of sound raihvay policy. With Mr Guthrie's statement wo print a telegram in which it is stated that it is reported in Wellington that one of the measures contemplated by the Government is the association oi : an advisory board with the raihvay management. Such a hoard, it is suggested, would be composed of business men. and its special function would be the supplying of ideas to the Railway Department. Thici is not a new suggestion. Many people have thought of it, and it is a very sound suggestion so far as it sees. But it does not go nearly to far as the needs of the railways require. From time to time the Department ha.-, had the benrltt of advice from business men's organisations, and has sometimes made good use of this assistance. But just as often these organisations have made suggestions which have not been welcomed or heeded. Too often the complaints made by users of tho railway are treated by tho Department as criticisms which the Department is in honour bound to refute or to parry. The fact is, that the mentality of the railway management is not fnrVreinoved from hopeless, and a, mere advisory board, without authority or responsibility, does not strike ns- as very likely to effect the reforms whidh are required. A Managing Board which would have nothing else to do except run tho railways on business lines would bo a very different matter.