The Manawatu Herald. Tuesday, January 5, 1915. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 1343, 5 January 1915, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Tuesday, January 5, 1915. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

The Railway Department, during the holidays, ran special trains tor excursionists, which preceded the ordinary mail trains. Excursionists were not allowed on the mail trains. This regulation did not appear to have been sufficiently advertised, and numbers of people on the return journey boarded mail trains, with the result that they were compelled to pay the difference between the excursion and ordinary fare, which led to a great deal of dissatisfaction on the mail train from Wanganui yesterday. It appeared that at least two out of every three excursionists who boarded the mail at Wanganui had to pay excess, and the arguments and adverse criticism against the Department were loud and long. It was pitiful to see a number of passengers practically “skinned out.” The guards had a very unenviable time, and stationmasters along the line were bombarded with protests and demands for a refund, but without avail. It would be well for the Department in future to give more prominence to this regulation by posting placards in the carriages of excursion trains hearing on the point. The traffic on the trains was very heavy, and the carriages were overcrowded during the holidays. The officials did all that was possible to meet the requirements and comfort of travellers. One thing is quite dear, and that is the urgent necessity for increased rolling stock. Another point which should be attended to by the Manager is the necessity for separate lavatories for women. We need not stress this point, because it is selfevident. If the carriages will not allow of double lavatories, then one in every alternate carriage should be set aside specially for females. If no one else will move in the matter, we ask our member to give it his best attention. We are still of opinion that the Government is not acting in the best interests of the Department or the State in charging for infants under five years of age the railways. It is a cruel imposition on struggling parents who possess a number of olive branches —the best asset the State possesses —to Impose the present charges. There should be no charge for infants under five years, and half fares only up to 15 years. It is bunkum to talk about the loss such concession would entail on the revenue. It would not make any appreciable difference, because hundreds of parents now debarred from travelling would be able to do so if the impost on infants were removed. Surely the struggling people are entitled to the greater consideration.