CO885-(11-12) — Page 263

EUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

། ། ༄། ། ། །

Reference -

C.O.882/1

12

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

-ÂLLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO|

234

realized. By reason of the retrenchment of certain higher paid employees of long service and other economies the expenditure for the year should not exceed Rs.14,500. I consider it worth while to retain the use of the Light Railway for the current year at least, and, later, when financial conditions are more stable, to consider, if necessary, the possible alternative of selling or leasing the Light Railway to a Company such as the Anglo-Ceylon and General States Company, to whose factories or factories under the same management, practically all of the cane traffic is sent.

2. Whilst it cannot be considered that the postponement of the closing of the Montagne Longue Line until the end of the 1930-31 crop season was in fact justified by results, the Line was neverthe- less kept open last year. The failure of the crop in 1931-32 brought about special conditions upon which the present position can hardly be judged. With reference to paragraph 14 of my Report, dated 11th April, 1932, if the Agreement with Beau Plan Sugar Estate is signed, the cane traffic for the year will produce Rs.11,762 and the coaching and goods traffic should yield about Rs.10,000, the sum of these two figures almost exactly representing the direct cost of working the Line. The elimination of the Montagne Longue Line would lead to the carriage of Beau Plan sugars by road, so that the North Line would suffer to the extent of from Rs.9,000 to Rs.11,000 worth of traffic. I am of opinion that the Montagne Longue Line, this year, should just be made to pay its way, and that it should only be closed in the event of Beau Plan Factory failing either to pay its debts or to continue working, as would appear to be by no means improbable.

3. As suggested in paragraph 4 of my Report on Chapter X of the Commissioners' Report on the Railway, I am afraid that I do' not attach the same value to the " Costing Figures "of the Rail- way as the Commissioners did, and I do not think that their com- putation of the relative costs of passenger and goods traffic was correct. As a matter of fact, the expression Costing Figures " is misleading. The papers the Commissioners referred to are headed Sectional Statistics" and merely represent the most exact form in which the expenditure ruling at the time could be allocated to both passenger and goods traffic. This does not mean to say, if Rs.1,633,539 is allocated to passenger traffic and Rs.938,519 to goods traffic, see page 125 of the Commissioners' Report, that either one of these two classes of traffic could be carried independently at the cost quoted.

-

LA

11

4. The effect of Scheme A in itself, combined with the reduction of the passenger service to meet the present day needs of the public, which was commenced in November and carried on in February last, without closing down any of the Branch Lines. as well as other economies, at an annual saving of about Rs.450,000. not including pensions, of which Rs.323,000 represents personnel,

235

las, I think, considerably altered the general aspect of the Rail- for 1930 way problem and incidentally rendered the "Statistics

"

of little comparative value. It is now therefore necessary again to work out the actual cost of both passenger and goods traffic as distinct from the irreducible minimum of overhead charges neces- sary to carry either goods or passengers. In order to do this, I have had to assume that Scheme "B"-the details of which, as now required, åre shown on Statement I-has been adopted. State- ment II gives the Branch and Total Expenditure for 1932-33 and shows the cost of :-

The Railway as a Goods Line only

The Railway as a Passenger Line only

The overhead charges common to both or either of

the above schemes

The Passenger Service additional charges only The Goods Service additional charges only

4

5

6

7

8

5. With regard to the details of the reductions in Railway ex- penditure, pages 130-133 of the Commissioners' Report, for running the Railway as a Goods Line only, in my Report of 23rd October. 1931, estimated the cost at Rs.1,227,160 after less than a fort- night in the Colony as General Manager Railways. I now estimate the cost at Rs.1,161,362, after 9 months experience of the work- ing of the Railway. Whilst the corresponding figures given to the Commissioners by the late Acting General Manager, upon which they relied, and with which at the time I stated I was not prepared to agree, were not based upon the costing statistics "' the total results in each case were, by mere coincidence, not very different from those I have now worked out, though the details of branch expenditure, which are the most important, vary very greatly.

Late

Q.M.R.'s original

Financial Commissioners* Estimate.

Ag. G.M.R.'s Estimate as used by the Financial Commissioners.

Estimate

October, 1931.

G.M.R.'s present Estimate.

Ra.

Rs.

Rs.

Permanent Way

232.310

217,560

296,080

Rs. 284,110

Mechanical

209,969

242,689

231,000

200,975

Traffic

221,893

259,670

(279,516

559,700

Running Shed

280,850

310,850

253,195

General Charges ...

82,508

1,027,530

86,728

1,147,497

110,380

1,197,100

30,000

103,467

1,121,263

14,409

25,690

Rs.1,027,530 Rs.1,147,497

Rs.1,227,160

Rs.1,161,362

Bois Cheri Electricn1.

188