WHY RAILWAYS DON’T PAY.

Shannon News, 20 May 1924, Page 3

WHY RAILWAYS DON’T PAY.

EFjFECT OF. MOTOR COMPETITION. ' 'BIG SAVING IN COSTS. “ft did not make any difference to us,” said the principal of one of tire leading Wanganui business firms viien asked lor an opinion in regard

to tire railway strike. He added that iris firm had for suiue years pastdime their entire -trade with, motor lorry, in fact, the firm’s first motor lorry paid for itself within the first year. , As the linn's tony with a fuad oi 3 tons Bc.wt. had just completed a trip to Palmerston North, the speaker gave, ttie following illuminating figures on the basis of a return freight of ihe same weight, in view of the fact that the railway cl targes from' Wanganui to Palmerston North, or vice versa, for the goods in question under Class C are 26s ltd a ton, plus 40 per cent.: £ s; d. Bail charges io P.N 6 8 0 Delivery charges at P.N '. 9JS Cartage to P.N. station 15 6 Rail charges to Wanganui .... 6 8 :0 • £l4 .1 ‘ 0 “It used to cost us £l4 Is to send 3 funs 8 cwt. ot goods to our Palmerston North customers, and deliver the same weight, of'goods back to us,” lie added. .“This is wliat rhe delivery d the same .weight at Palmerston North and retui'ii freight of the same weight costs now we use our motor lorry,:— • . s. d. Eight gallons benzine .17 4 One gallon oil 2 6 Driver’s wages l'or day 16 0 £1 15 10 .“On the face of it,” ho continued, “the saving to our firm is £l2 5s 2d on tile trip. Of course, allowance lias to he made for maintenance, depreciation -of the. lorry, and interest- on the original outlay of £IOOO to purchase it, hut there-is' plenty of margin to cover all that.” The business man 'added that cn the other side- of Wanganui his firm delivered by motor lorry as far as Now Plymouth and brought a return 'freight back, and the saving, despite heavier expenses, was proportionately bigger' compared with the trade to Palmerston North. “The railways have served a good purpose in the past as far as our business is concerned.” lie said in conclusion, “but on. the face -of the above figures how can they lie expected to puv compared with motor transit?”