The Dominion. FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1912. THE RAILWAYS DRIFT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1430, 3 May 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1912. THE RAILWAYS DRIFT.

The Minister for Railways has been as cautious in his statements upon general railway policy as he has been profuse in his responses to the demands for various local developments, extensions and improvements. He has admitted, 1 however, under the veil of a spontaneous desire to reorganise the traffic branch of the Railway Department, the existence of very abundant cause for an overhaul of the system. The Railways' Department has been seriously mismanaged for years. We do not blame, the late he was at the mercy' of his head office. If he could have, if he had known how, he might have defied the political exigencies and demanded that the head office should bring the railways administration into line with the principles of businesslike dealing and with the convenience of the public. Last night's Gazette contains, in the unrevised figures for the complete railway year ended March 31 last, a fresh indictment of the management. We-give the totals of revenue and expenditure in . the past three railway years: —

1909-10. 1910-11. 1911-12. =£ X *£ Rerenue .... 8,249,790 3,491,182 '3,670,509 Expenditure • 2,109,171 2,303,272 2,405,895 It will be seen that the increases of expenditure and revenue in the past two years have been as follow: ExIncreases. Revenue, penditure. ■C For 1910-11 211,392 182,327 For 1911-12 133,798 162,023 While the net increase of revenue in 1910-11 over the prcccding year's figures was over, £100,000, the net increase in 1911-12 is less than £20,000. And the capital expenditure has of course increased very greatly; we are given no figures, but it is probably quite safe to assume that the capital sunk on March 31 last was over £32,000,000. When we take into consideration the facts (1) that the cash actually received from the moneylenders costs us something like 4 per cent on tho whole, and not the 3J per cent usually represented, (2) that the expenditure out of revenue on renewals is always far lower than even the engineering branch recommends, and (3) that on the average about £300,000 that should be spent out of revenue is furnished out of loans—when wo remember these facts, it is apparent that really the railways have lost a lot of money again, far more than a strict accounting would show was lost last year. So much for the total results. When we come to examine the details we find a result that is really shocking. Owing to its greater population and trade and general activity, the North Island lines, although they make up a system much smaller in extent and in cost than the lines in the South Island, furnish the bulk of the revenue, both gross and net. Here are the 1910-11 figures: Gross Net •Miles of revenue. Teveriue. ljne. £ ■£ North .... 1.150 1,792,779 017,372 South .... 1,003 1,701,103 573,;>3S The figures for 1011-12 ore nothing less than astonishing. Tin- roinpurisoii with 1010-11 in respect' ot net revenue shows this: Net 1910-11. ' 1911-12. Inc. or doc. revenue. £ £ North 617,872 615.454 51,1)2 ini;, South 573,538 512,129 31,109 dec, ,

This result is what we predicted months ago. Why is tha Southern system actually returning less than it used to'! Why is the big Southern deficit growing bigger? These are questions to which the national interest requires an answer, and the answer is due from the head office which must take the responsibility for the deplorable situation revealed by the figures. On March 31, 1911, the total cost of the opened and unopened lines in the South Island was over £16,000,000 and in the North Island about 1-1:1 millions. On March 31 last the cost would be at least IGI, millions in the South and about Himillions in the North. Taking the interest charges at 4 per cent "it is apparent that while the Northern system paid its way, with about £80,000 to spare, the Southern system failed to pay its way by over £100,000.