CO129-374 - Public Offices & Others - 1910 — Page 260

253

regard to the fact that the whole future commercial prosperity

of the two Railways depends on the satisfactory development

of through traffic in the face of keen water competition, the

third method, Joint Working, is the only one which can prove

satisfactory, but this expression of opinion will probably

carry more weight, if I shortly point out the merits and

demerits of each method.

1. Before through through traffic can be carried from

system one independently worked Railway/to another, it is necessary

not only for through rates to be agreed, but arrangements

must also be come to for Rolling Stock of one system to

be received and worked over the adjoining system; for the

apportionment of receipts and the adjustment of the time-table.

This method may work well enough so long as the traffic

exchanged forms a comparatively unimportant part of the

traffic of each system, and consists most ly of minerals and

merchandise, but it is not suitable for through passenger

traffic, where speed and accurate timing is a consideration;

and it involves divided control, which means lack of economy

and unnecessary duplication of plant, engines and stock.

This method also lacks elasticity. It is necessary that the

Agreement should prescribe how all matters affecting the two

systems should be dealt with, and for this reason however

carefully it may be prepared, an Agreement of this sort is

sure to prove faulty and to lead to constant disputes and

friction in practice. Put shortly, this method is only

suitable for unimportant cases.

2. The mutual grant of running powers over each system

to the other would enable one Railway to give the necessary

facilities for development of through traffic, but this

plan is not likely to meet the needs of the present case, and the reason for this is quite simple. The running Company has

(to

-2-