May 3, 1916

CON

Andrew Broder

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRODER:

Why do they not leave the passengers at the Junction until they come back?

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
LIB

William Stewart Loggie

Liberal

Mr. LOGGIE:

That is exactly what we are asking them to do. We want them to leave the passengers at Derby Junction, but that is what they refuse to do. They take them past to Newcastle, 3-7 miles distant, and then bring them back.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
CON
LIB

William Stewart Loggie

Liberal

Mr. LOGGIE:

I am afraid there is not much of a free ride, but if there is, that is a loss to the Government. That is one way of doing business-. Just a short time ago the minister brought up the question of hauling a train eighty miles more to Churchill and eighty miles- back and he said that the additional cos't of operation would have to be added to the freight rate. How does he harmonize that statement with the one he has just made? The minister will see that, according to the timetable, there are five trains daily, but one of them has recently been changing its passengers at Derby Junction, so that four trains still keep on to Newcastle and change their passengers there. If we have four trains each way daily, that would represent eight trains a day. 3-7 miles travelled by eight trains would mean 29-6 miles daily by one train. Taking 313 days, that would give 9,265 miles; or in other words, you carry one train 9,265 miles-shall I say, without any revenue? The insinuation of the minister is that it is without any revenue. I do not believe that; I think some conciliatory offer was made that there would be no extra fare between Chatham and Newcastle for furtherance, as it were, on the main line, instead of between Chatham and Derby Junction, but how long that condition will exist I do not know. You have, however, this extra -mileage, taking both passengers and freight 3-7 miles north and then bringing them back 3-7 miles. If you have on each train one express oar, two passenger cars and, say, ten cars of freight, or in round numbers, say 150 tons of freight carried over 9,265 miles, at one-half cent per ton per train mile, the cost of operation would be $6,948.75. Somebody must pay that. Either the Government is paying it or the consumer or dealer who is bringing the goods in is paying it. It seems to me that that is unfair, and it surely can be remedied. Surely thoese people are not to lie under this burden forever; and if it has been promised that a Y shall be constructed, is there any good reason why it should not

be done? If the minister can give -me any good reason for it, I shall be glad to convey it to my constituents. The whole matter is very unsatisfactory. There is a grievance on the south side of the river because the rails have been taken up and there is a grievance that the service on the south side of the river into Nelson, Chatham and Log-gieville does not compare favourably with the service that we had when the trains ran direct from Fredericton into Loggieville. There is no good reason why they cannot continue running from Fredericton into Loggieville, especially because the new bridge will allow passengers for Newcastle to get off and go to their destination. But passengers, as I have pointed out, remain three hours in order to cover a distance of . thirteen miles by rail, but five miles in a straight line. The minister must expect that kind of service to breed discontent. The Department of Railways and Canals is, to all intents- and purposes, a public carrier, a public servant. The Canadian Pacific Railway would not allow this sort of thing to exist but would endeavour to meet the views of their customers. These passengers are clients of the Crown, and the Crown should try to give them satisfactory service. I hold that there is no difficulty in the way of meeting their views except the construction of the Y at Derby Junction. Thai construction was actually contracted for, but for some unaccountable reason the contract was cancelled and we were left in the deplorable condition that the passengers must lose three hours to cover five miles. Besides, is there any reason why, if the trains are on time, the Crown, in this case a public carrier, should ask me to lose about an hour extra of time if I want to travel to Moncton or St. John? They haul me four miles north and then they haul me four miles south, instead of allowing me to avoid this loss of time by getting on a train at Derby Junction. There must be some way to overcome a difficulty like that. The public should not be put under such a handicap unless there is great necessity. And I say that the difficulty would be overcome by putting in the Y at Derby Junction and sending part of the train from Fredericton to Loggieville as they used to do, and as it was their policy to do, as I have shown by the references I have made.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Customs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID:

Let me first refer to the delay that occurred ,on a certain day in March. Of course, I have not the details before me to-night. But I know that in

the month of March last-and the hon. member can hardly have forgotten it- throughout the whole of that part of Canada trains were delayed on account of the snowstorms. Fort twenty-six years we have never had on the Intercolonial such difficult conditions to face on account of storms. In addition, there is the special work that the Intercolonial had to do last winter because of the war. In the case referred [DOT]to, the delay was caused, as stated by the hon. member, by this train waiting for the Maritime through express.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
LIB
CON

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Customs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID:

There was a delay of the

Maritime express on the line running from Fredericton to Loggieville.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
LIB

William Stewart Loggie

Liberal

Mr. LOGGIE:

I desire to make that

clar. If the line were running from Fredericton to Loggieville, the delay in the Maritime express would not have affected the situation.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Customs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID:

The hon. member knows that in years gone by there was a train service between Fredericton and Loggieville direct, there was a service on each side of the river. The service from Fredericton to Loggieville never went to Newcastle. The rails were taken up between Nelson and Blackville, and therefore the service could only be carried on on one side of the river.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
LIB

William Stewart Loggie

Liberal

Mr. LOGGIE:

The through train service was only carried on on one side of the river. If the Maritime train were late the passengers for the main line would be delayed at Old Chatham Junction. But now if trains from Fredericton would go on to Loggieville passengers for Newcastle could get off at Nelson and get home over the new bridge.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Customs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID:

If the train service is carried on between Fredericton and Chatham, or Loggieville direct, you avoid going to Newcastle.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
LIB

William Stewart Loggie

Liberal

Mr. LOGGIE:

But the Newcastle passengers can get off at Nelson and go over the new Morrisey bridge to Newcastle.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
CON
LIB
CON
LIB

William Stewart Loggie

Liberal

Mr. LOGGIE:

No. They get off at

Nelson which is near the bridge, and they are at their homes.

fMr. J. D. Reid.]

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Customs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID:

What I want to explain to the hon. member is, we have a train service between Fredericton and Loggieville or Chatham-via Newcastle-

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Permalink
LIB
CON
LIB

May 3, 1916