The Dominion. FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1910. RAILWAYS "ECONOMY."

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 905, 26 August 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1910. RAILWAYS "ECONOMY."

We dealt last week with Mb. Millar's unfortunate attempt to prove that the railways administration in this -country is superior to the administration of tho New South Wales Commissioners, and his airy deduction, from his assertions in this respect, of the superiority of his- management over that of practically all other systems. Some of our contemporaries, and the Evening Post in particular, have dealt with this passage of the Minister's report .pretty fully, quite 'destructively, and, we are bound to say, a little more cruelly than was quito necessary when the pathetic helplessness of the Minister's ease is considered. We do not propose to go over the ground again here, but to reinforce the,general indictment against the Minister's policy with a discussion of a few of the particular details that will arrest the attention of-anyone who makes a careful study of the Railways Statement. The first point to be noted has reference to the fares on the railways, the fares that Mr. Millar claims to be extraordinarily low-and which he would have the public believe arc being lowered by "concessions." ; The increase in the number of ordinary tickets issued was from 10,457,144 to 11,141,142 or 6.54 per cent. The revenue . from these tickets, however, increased from £921,410 to £1,070,790,, or 1G.2 per cent. If' the' revenue fr.om tickets had increased in the same ratio as the number of tickets, the increase would have been £60,260, or about £89,000 less than it was. To what is this-anomaly due? Mr. Millar makes no attempt to explain; but perhaps the explanation lies in the fact that while the number of tickets on the "North Island Main Lines and Branches" increased by less than 8 per cent the revenue' from them increased by nearly 25, per cent. How much of the £89,000 is due to' increased fares we do not know—in all probability the whole of it..

When we turn to expenditure we meet -with many interesting, little facts hidden away in the tables at the end. of the report, and here we may note in passing that many particulars which • were given in the tables* in past years and which arc necessary to a clear and candid statement of the position are withheld. The first point to be noted is that the Minister has made an 'apparent saving by greatly over-draw-ing stores. . For.a good many years there has been a building-up . of stores to keep pace with the 'increase of working material, During the year 1908-9, for example, the stock of stores was increased by'-purchase from £272,253 "to £315,189. In his zeal for "economy," Mr. Millar, instead of increasing the." stock of stoi'es, ate into them to. the extent of £42,683. During the year 1906-7 the stock was' increased by £45,116; it was further increased by £08,761 in 1907-8; and by £42,936 in 1908-9. The average annual increase for tho three years was £52,271. If Mr. Millar bad left the stock greater by this amount, at' March 31 last than it was on March 31, 1910, as.he should have done, he would have left the stock at £315,189 plus £52,271,' or £367,460.- Instead, ho reduced it .to £272,506. Of Mr.' Millar's "economics," therefore, the sum- of at least £94,954 (the difference between £367,460 and £272,506) is due to a raid on stores. By that amount, therefore, his oconomy is bogus. Let us how turn to the figures relating to maintenance, upon which, as we showed last week,' he made his greatest visible '."saving." Return No.- 10 shows that he spent £230 per open mile on of ways and works as against ,£258 in 1908-9. Had he maintained the 1908-9 figure, he would have spent £75,000 . more than he actually spent. ' Of, this sum. about £71,000 was saved in track renewals. When we remember that last year, when, 93 miles were rokid with 70lb. rails, the engineer said that "a fair amount of relaying" had been done and that it was ''desirable to keep "ahead of pressing requirements," and when we remember that this had been the tenor of the engineer's advice for years, we can see that Mr. Millar has no defence for his reduction of tho rate of relaying, especially as nearly half the Main Trunk line is still wanting 70-pound rails (Return No. 23).

■•. Every year there appears in tho Statement a sentence about the "additions and improvements to lines which might fairly [ have been debited to capital" but which have beon charged to working expenses. This has afforded Mb. Millar an opportunity to; add a few more thousands to his "savings." In 1908-9 the sum of £13,308 was so expended. In 1909-10 the figure sank to £6093. We need not pursue any further' our analysis of the report, which wo dp not claim'to be in. any way exhaustive. Sufficient has been said, however, to show that Mr. Millar's supposed "economies" are of a very doubtful character. Summarising, we get this tale of questionable "savings": " £ By deplenishing stores ......... 94,951By starving maintenance ...... 75,000 By reducing improvements paid out of revenue ....'..... 7,218 Hero is £177,172 worth of the "economy" shown not to be economy in the proper sense at all. Had he not thus clone things he ought not to have done and loft undone things he should have done, the expenditure would have been £2,246,646 instead of £2,114,815. And if the fares had been left unchanged so that tho revenue increase por cent _ would have corresponded with the ticket increase per cent the gross earnings would have been' £2,840,526 instead of 2,929,526. The net profit on working- would then have been £814,144 instead of £1,080/316. The revenue in 1908-9 was £814,711. So that it is only by tricky , book-keep-ing, increased fares, and unsound railroading that Mb. Millar has been able to conceal the fact that the railways year 1909-10 was in strict reality no better, but (owing 'to the greater interest charge) actually l worse than the year .1908-9, which was the worst on record.