RAILWAY REFORM: REPLY TO MR J. B. WHYTE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2304, 16 April 1887, Page 3

RAILWAY REFORM: REPLY TO MR J. B. WHYTE.

TO THE EDITOB. Sir,—ln dealing with Mr Whyte's letter, published in your issue of the 7th, I will endeavour to reduce his vast cloud of words to something like order, and reply to them as briefly as possible. Mr Whyte's letter then is simply a laboured attempt to prove that my estimate of the probable average fare is wrong. A referenco to the " minutes of evidence " will show that he exerted himself to the utmost to do this in committee, and failed miserably. He will fail as badly now. It is quite evident to me that Mr Whyte does not know how to calculate an average fare, and before I have done I shall incontestably prove also that his figures are unreliable. On this ground I might "i Slaim the right to refuse to reply to him, fur what is the use of arguing a question of this sort with a man whose figures cannot be depended upon. I pass by the "rotten sticks ;" most of us learnt this when we were small boys at school. Now as to the average fare. The average fare to be carried by any proposed system can only be computed by the average distance now travelled, the relative proportions of the various classes of travellers, and by estimating how these conditions are likely to be disturbed by the new proposals. The average distance travelled in New Zealand in the year 1884 and 1885, was 13 miles; and the relative proportion of the classes was 1 first to 3£ second-class passengers. This, then is the basis of our calculation, and the point for consideration is, what alteration is likely to take place under the new system ? After repeated conferences between Mr R. W. Moody, Mr T. D. Edmonds and myself, we all came to the conclusion that considering the immense reduction in the cost of long distance travelling, that the average distance would be extended to not less than 20 miles, and that there would be at least an equal number of each_ class of fares, but for purposes of calculation, and in order to be well within the mark, we estimated the distance at 16 miles. This 16 miles would enter upon the third stage which would give first-class fare of Is (sd, and a second of Is, or an average of Is 3d. We, however, calculated on an average ot Is only, in order to allow for the disturbance of a portion of the road side traffic. Mr Whyte says, " For convenience sake, I shall only refer to the second-class." Very convenient for Mr J. B. Whyte, no doubt, seeing that my first-class fares are 50 per cent, dearer than my second class, to ignore their existence altogether in working out a financial result, which he is anxious to make as bad as he possibly can. However, as I confess to feeling a sort of wicked delight in giving my adversaries all they ask, and then beating them on their own ground, I will argue the matter out on the secondclass fare only. Mr Whyte quotes a number of my fares, and then asks, "can this be done?" and answers, "I say no !" Well, I say, yes ! and I am prepared to back my opinion with numerous proofs, against which, I venture to say, Mr Whyte will be able only to bring his own opinion. I will select the two extreme cases—the 50 mile stage for 4d, and the 130 mile distance for 2s.

' As the 50 mile stage is by far the hardest nut to crack, I will deal with that, and the other must follow, as a natural consequence: Mr Whyte bases his calculation on the as : sumption that all the fares between Pukekohe and Hamilton, and Hamilton and Pukekohe would be through fares. Of course, this assumption is absurd, but we will see what the through fare will give us. In England a very large proportion of the goods traffic is done at the rate, of one half-penny per ton per mile. This pays handsomely. A good deal is done at one eighth of a penny, and this low rate also pays. Now Jd per ton for 50 niiles=2s Id. 15 passengers go to the ton. This would make their fare for the 50' miles less than two pence (2d) leaving the other 2d, and the profit for extra cost of rolling stock, &c. I shall, of course, be told that we cannot carry as cheaply here as they can in England. I ask, why we cannot ? seeing that these lines cost more than six times as much as ours do, and that they have to pay both interest and dividend, while here we only require to pay interest. So much for the through fare. But Iby no means rely on the through fare for my financial result. My fare is for the whole or any portion of a stage, and as there are 15 stopping stations between Pukekohe and Hamilton, there is now a very considerable "roadside traffic," and this would soon be. enormously increased. Having dealt with tlis most difficult stage, it is useless to pursue part of the argument further, as if these stages will clear themselves the others must pay a large profit. If I understand what Mr Whyte means by his " rotten stick " argument, it is this : That no matter what inducements you may offer you cannot increase the traffic in any particular locality, and y«t in his own proposals he imagines he is giving advantages—l of course know he is not—in order to induce settlement in the country districts. If SRttlement takes place, I presume trade must follow. At any rate, Mr "Whyte distinctly states that no stage can do more than support itself. Wβ shall see what Mr Whvte himself admits. I invite particular attention to the following :— Speaking of the 30 miles from Ptikekohe to Auckland, Mr Whyte says : " Oan that stage do more than bear its own weight ? Can it come to the rescue of the longer distances ? I again say No ! " (I think I shall be able to fhow Mr Whyte says Yes !) " Here an increase of three to one is required on the present traffic, ' and I admit that possibly that increase might be realised.'" Now if Mr Whyte will turn to the tables on pages 86 and 89 of the •" Minutes of Evidence, and will work out the figures correctly, he will find that I do not require anything like 3to 1. He will find that all I require is an increase of 89 per cent., or or not quite 2 instead of 1. This is on the supposition that there will be no increase in the average distance travelled, and also that there would be no increase in the relative proportion of first to second class ifaree. If, as it was generally admitted in Committee would be likely, I should get an equal number of both classes then I should only require lees than 1J fares, 63 per cent, increase, instead of the 1 we get now. Thus, on Mr Whyte's own estimate, I should get at any rate 400,000 fares from the 30 mile and under passengers alone " to the rescue of the longer distances." What becomes of his " I again say No ! " If Mr Whyte will extend his enquiries so as to include all travellers of 50 miles and under he will find that I can still do with less than If fares instead of the 1 taken now. Thoso who travel over 50 miles are only 6 per cent, of the whole, and they number but 24,702. I require 5£ times as many, that is 136,191. They are all accounted for in Mr Whyte's 30 mile stage, with 264,000 fares to the good, which will all mean so much increased revenue. I challenge Mr Whyte to upset this calculation if he can with something better than his "I say No!" I will ask my readers to be good enough to bear in mind that the statement of the relative number of fares required is made toy the Department, not by me. I have ■simply worked out the results, which anyone can check for themselves. I shall be asked why I did not make better use of these remarkable figures before the Committee: 3?or this reason, the Department took very good care not to let me get the return until the work of the •Committee was over. I must apologise for the unreasonable length of this letter, and deter the remainder of my reply until a future occasion.—l am, faithfully yours, Samuel Vaile. Auckland, 12th April, 1887. P.S.—ln my letter of the Bth inst., where I say those who travel over 30 miles number only about 6 per cent, of the whole, I should have said those who travel over "00 miles/'—S.V.