RAILWAY MANAGEMENT

King Country Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 223, 8 January 1910, Page 5

RAILWAY MANAGEMENT

In an article oil the management of the New Zealand railways the "Lyttelton Times" draws a comparison between the New Zealand and Australian methods of management. The Times defends the Dominion system of Ministerial control as opposed to the control by Commissioners adopted by the Commonwealth States, and publishes the following table showing the fares charged on New Zealand linse and on the lines of the Commonwealth States: — FIRST-CLASS SINGLE FARES. [ (

The article continues: It will be seen that the railway management that is being held up as an example to New Zealand is charging 20 per cent more over short distances than the management here is charging, and 100 per cent more ever long distances. This may be good policy from the point of view of the commissioners, who are expected to show a direct profit from the lines at the end of the year, but we doubt if it would be acceptable to the majority of the people of New Zealand. We are charging low fares and freights in the beilef that the loss we may incur in following this policy will be more than covered by the gain in another direction. This seems to represent the whole difference between the commissioners' management and the Minister's management, and if the country wishes to have its railways worked on "commercial principals" it may easily effect the change without surrendering its own control of the lines.

50 100 200 300 mis. mi's. nils. mis. s. d. s. d. *s. d. s. d. New Zealand G 4 11 7 19 1128 3 N.S. Wales 7 10 15 8 30 3 44 10 Victoria 8 11 18 0 35 9 53 9 Queensland 8 6 16 0 31 0 45 1 S. Australia 8 6 16 8 33 4 50 0 W.Australia 8'.. 4 16 8 33 4 50 0 SECOND-CLASS SINGLE FARES. 50 100 200 300 mis. mis. mis. mis. s. d. s. d. s. d. a. d. New Zealand 4 3 7 5 11- 6 15 9 N.S. Wales 4-8 9 5 17 9 26 1 Victoria 5 11 12 1 23 11 35 9 Queensland 5 8 10 4 19. 9 28 2 S. Australia 5 3 10 5 20 10 31 3 W. Australia 5 3 10 5 20 10 31 3