WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 21 December 1931, Page 3

WELLINGTON TOPICS

RAILWAY POLICY. » “DOWN TO BUSINESS Special Correspondent. WELLINGTON, Dtecember 17. The inspiring speech delivered by Mr H. H. Sterling, ex-GeueraJ Manager of Railways and now chairman of the Railway Board, at a complimentary social accorded him by the Railway Officers’ Institute last week end, suggested that great things were pending concerning the transport services of the Dominion. “Tile fight is only beginning,” he told hie hosts: “hut it is beginning in fair circumstances. A new era has opened for the railways of this country. We have been judged on business standards, but we have not been allowed to work on a business basis.” Just what tills statement was intended to imply it would be difficult and perhaps impolitic to say; but if the innuendo sought to convey the idea that the Minister in charge' of the railways previous to the “new era” had unduly hampered the operations of the General Manager then it was wholly unjustified. It may be assumed, however, that .no implication was wrapped up in the stilted words. “THE FIGHT.” The General Manager was not altogether coherent to the layman when lie went on to tell 'his hosts that “the railways had built up practices that were very difficult to live up to in times of depression”; and “if someone gets service for which he does not pay, someone, else has to pay for it”; that “a great standard of service has been set by the railways, but difficulties now have been raised against it”; that “conditions of transport involve a conflict of forces in just the same way as the conflict of interests characterised a legal dispute,” and so on and so on beyond the comprehension of the novice. Ilis goal, however, seems fairly plain. The legislation of last session of Parliament hearing on this subject he regards only as half a loaf, hut lie accepts it as “a start to be made in the rationalisation of the transport industry.” The difference between rationalisation and nationalisation is significant.

RAIL AND ROAD Referring to the General Mjan-ag-r’is allusion to, “many people wanting something to be carried. for nothing,” the “Evening Post” protests against this intrusion upon the public purge. ■ “This applies,” it-says, “not only to direct railway operations where there is a demand for special concessions, but also in the general transport field. Here, undoubtedly, users of transport have obtained service at less than the true cost of the community, because part of the cost lias been charged to the public in rates and taxes to maintain the roads and to make good the railway losses incurred because the roads have taken the cream of paying business, lenvinT the railways to maintain essential but unprofitable services.” This, of course, is quite logical if the “general transport field” is not already contributing in rates and taxes the fair value of the facilities it its enjoying, but to penalise it beyond that would be obviously unfair.

THE FUTURE. The fact of the matter is that the motor ear and the motor lorry have challenged the railway in almost all its services' to the community and that it is only a matter of time when the whole three will meet one another on equal terms in the contemplation of the perfected aeroplane. It is all very well for the members of the Railway Board to appeal to the public in the daily and weekly newspapers “to travel by train and be safe,” “to save money,” “to spend less than a penny a mile,” “to trust your life to your own railways,” and to return home in three months time to add another unit to the on e hundred and fifty million people who have escaped discomfiture of any kind. On the other hand it has to lie said that the motor car, in the opinion of a great majority of people is a more comfortable conveyance that the average passenger train and the lorry a more certain conveyance than the average van.