Railway Organisation

By Mr. J. Mason , Operating Member.

Many things are essential to success in the matter of railway operation but none more so than sound organisation. There is a great diversity of opinion as to what organisation is most suitable, but all railwaymen who have given the question serious consideration would agree that no hard and fast rule can be laid down owing to the widely varying circumstances existing in the many countries served by railways.

An organisation entirely suitable in the case of one railway, may not meet the requirements of another where other conditions obtain, page 14 and it is in consequence of this that we find different systems in operation.

During my recent travels abroad I had the privilege of observing the methods of the administrations of a considerable number of railways and discussing the question of organisation with many highly capable administrators, most of whom were strong advocates of divisional organisation.

It would, of course, be sheer presumption to claim that any one system is the only correct one; but it may be said that, whereas most railways were at one time organised on the departmental system, by far the greater number are now organised on the divisional system. The South African Railways are of the same gauge as the New Zealand Railways and the conditions generally more closely approximate those in New Zealand than do those in most of the other countries which I visited. Furthermore, the South African Railways were formerly organised on the departmental system, and in view of the recent reorganisation of the New Zealand Railways any information as to why the organisation of the South African Railways was changed should be of special interest. The reasons for the change are set forth at some length in a publication entitled “South African Railways and Harbours,” and I give them in condensed form hereunder.

Divisional organisation was adopted throughout the whole of the amalgamated South African Railways when Union was established in 1910. Prior to that the departmental system was in operation on the railways of Cape Colony and also on the Natal Railways, but a few years previously the Central South African Railways had discarded it in favour of divisional organisation.

Under the departmental system the three main departments of the Cape Railways reported to the General Manager as the Chief Executive officer. The Traffic Department, controlled by a Chief Traffic Manager, was responsible for the running of trains, the conveyance of passengers and merchandise and for procuring and developing traffic. The Locomotive Department, controlled by a Chief Locomotive Superintendent, was responsible for the supply, running, and upkeep of engines and rolling stock, the control of the locomotive staff and the management of the railway workshops. The Engineering Department, controlled by an Engineer-in-Chief was responsible for the maintenance of the permanent way and the construction of new lines and new works.

The railways were divided into systems, and on each system there was a Traffic Manager, a Locomotive Superintendent and a Resident Engineer. Each of these officers had a complete office staff, and, under certain limited authorities, was responsible to the Chief Traffic Manager, the Chief Locomotive Superintendent and the Engineer-in-Chief respectively, for the satisfactory working of his section in so far as it concerned his own particular department.

Each system was again divided into districts, the traffic district being in charge of an Assistant Traffic Manager, the locomotive district in charge of a District Locomotive Superintendent, and the engineering district in charge of a District Engineer. These officers reported direct to the Traffic Manager, Locomotive Superintendent, and Resident Engineer respectively, and each had a separate office staff.

The Traffic Manager, Locomotive Superintendent and Resident Engineer combined as separate units under their respective departmental heads, towards the movement of all traffic offering.

It was found, however, that each department gave first consideration to its own direct interests. The Traffic Department having no interest in the engines beyond utilising them to the best advantage for the purpose of handling the traffic was sometimes ready to strain a point beyond the regulations when arranging engine loads, while the locomotive department, being responsible for the engines, was more concerned with their upkeep than with the movement of traffic. Delays to traffic, other than delays in running, did not affect the Locomotive Department by which such matters were at times subordinated to other considerations such as engine working and engine mileage.

The Engineering Department was more interested in its own sphere of operations than in the handling of traffic, and did not always readily acquiesce in the employment of more powerful engines where such could advantageously be used, as their use would entail increased maintenance expenditure.

Although complete co-operation between the different departments was essential to secure efficiency, want of harmony was inevitable in consequence of each department looking after its own interests first, and, with circumlocution through the various offices necessitating each local head reporting the circumstances to his departmental head, who, in turn, communicated with another and possibly a third department, opportunity for removing difficulties with any degree of promptitude was remote. The interests of the three departments were divergent and a want of harmony was inevitable as there was no master-mind to exercise control.

page 15

The operating officers of the Locomotive and Traffic Departments had their own ideas as to the way in which traffic should be worked, and they naturally preferred to work it accordingly.

Under departmental organisation each separate department naturally endeavours to attain the results best suited in its own interests rather than the interests of the railways as a whole, and whilst this may not be done deliberately, it is the inevitable outcome of a system under which the efficiency of the railways as a public carrier is subordinated to departmental exigencies.

The only means of securing united effort on the part of responsible officers, and of avoiding friction caused through the clashing of departmental interests, is to make one officer the supreme head of the division and to place the other officers under his jurisdiction.

It has been urged that the secret of successful organisation lies in arranging that the units composing it shall act as one person, whilst utilising the utmost knowledge and experience of all.

The traffic, locomotive, and engineering branches being directly or indirectly connected with the operations of trains for the movement of traffic, the work of the division can be most efficiently carried out under one officer having complete control of the division. He can dispose of many minor points brought forward by the officers responsible for the running of trains and the maintenance of the line, either by decision on the spot or by reference to one superior officer. That is exactly what the transportation or divisional system of working ensures. This is the system which has been in operation throughout the South African Railways since Union, and, under it, the whole of the operations covering the movement of traffic are centred in one Transportation Department.

The South African Railways are at present divided into four systems, each system, so far as transportation is concerned, being under the direct control of an Assistant General Manager (corresponding to our New Zealand Divisional Superintendents) responsible to the General Manager. Each system, with the exception of Natal, is divided into two or three divisions (corresponding to districts in New Zealand), and each division is a complete unit under the charge of a divisional officer (District Traffic Manager and District Engineer in New Zealand). The divisional officer may be a professional or a non-professional man. If a traffic officer, he has a civil and a mechanical engineering assistant, designated Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent, to support and advise him, and an Assistant Superintendent to control the office force. All the officers are contained in one building and have one common staff of clerks to assist them.

The running staff, the maintenance staff, and the traffic staff, consisting of stationmasters, station clerks, inspectors, and foremen are under the Divisional Superintendent, from whom they receive all instructions and to whom they submit their reports. He is thus able to bring about results and to deal with matters which would otherwise be deemed to be entirely outside his scope.

The Assistant Superintendent (Maintenance) deals with matters affecting the maintenance of the line, and, similarly, the Assistant Superintendent (Mechanical) attends to engine and vehicle matters. The traffic official is styled Assistant Superintendent (Operating) and attends to the running of trains, delivery of goods, etc. In the absence of any one of the assistant superintendents another may act on his behalf no matter which branch of the work he usually undertakes.

The Divisional Superintendent, as the head of the division, is charged with the economical and satisfactory working of the whole of its operations. All expenditure on the division is debited against the Divisional Superintendent.

It is claimed that the transportation or divisional system tends to give officers a better training for the more responsible positions, than does the departmental system. It is undoubtedly the case that under the transportation, or divisional organisation, a broader view is taken of the working generally, and of various improvements along the line which are seen to be necessary from time to time. Under this system officers look more to general utility and less to the question as to who should bear the cost, and there is not the same tendency to take no interest in work which, under the departmental system, would be for the benefit of some other department.

On the South African Railways then, the outstanding features are that each system, with the exception of Natal, is divided into two or three divisions, each of which is a complete unit under the charge of a divisional officer (the Divisions correspond to our Districts); that the divisional officer may be a professional or a non-professional man, and, if a traffic officer, he has a civil and a mechanical engineering assistant to support and advise him, and an assistant Superintendent to control the office force; and that all the officers are contained in one building and have one common staff of clerks to assist them.

The running staff, the maintenance staff, and the traffic staff are under the Divisional Superintendent, from whom they receive all page 16 instructions and to whom they submit their reports. He is thus enabled to deal with matters which would otherwise be deemed to be entirely outside his scope.

The question naturally arises as to whether in New Zealand it would not be advantageous and more economical to abolish the positions of District Traffic Manager and District Engineer and to appoint District Superintendents with Maintenance or Traffic assistants as the case may be and, as a natural corollary, to house all the officers in one building and have one common staff of clerks. Personally, I think it would.

I am also of opinion that the organisation could be still further improved by appointing Assistant Divisional Superintendents instead of District Superintendents at Auckland and Christ-church—the headquarters of the Divisional Superintendents. This would obviate the necessity for separate offices and staffs for Divisional and District Superintendents, eliminate much correspondence, and permit of economies being effected in various directions. A further advantage would be that the Assistant Superintendent, who should be senior to the District Officers on the Division, would understudy the Divisional Superintendent, and would be capable of relieving him when necessary.

Actually, the present position in New Zealand is that we have Divisional Superintendents superimposed on the old Departmental organisation. In my opinion, as a result of this, that measure of co-ordination and co-operation that is desirable and should be capable of being effected under Divisional organisation, is hardly likely to be accomplished; for the different branches must inevitably continue to function more or less as such, whereas if the whole of the business were under one control the machine should work smoothly as a single unit which, after all, is the object of Divisional organisation.

In South Africa the Commercial side is under the control of the Divisional Superintendents. These, in turn, are responsible to the Assistant General Managers who centrol the respective systems. The circumstances existing in the Dominion no doubt differ from those in the Union, and the Dominion having established a Commercial Branch as a separate unit, which has undoubtedly been a success, I would not at the present time advocate placing the Commercial representatives in the various districts under the control of the District Officers. I wish, however, to emphasise the absolute necessity for close co-ordination between the District Officers and the representatives of the Commercial Branch in the interests of smooth and effective working; and I think, in view of the natural interrelationship of the Transportation and Commercial Branches, that both could with advantage be placed under one member of the board.

There is another direction in which I consider we could advantageously develop our organisation on the lines of that of the South African Railways:—For instance, increasing the authority of our Divisional Superintendents in connection with the authorisation of works; the settlement of claims; the retund of certain moneys where no principle is involved; the writing off of revenue which, owing to certain cricumstances, has become irrecoverable; the clearance of storage and demurrage charges, etc.

One effect of such development of Divisional organisation in New Zealand would be the elimination of a large amount of correspondence in the Districts, ancl also between the Divisional Superintendents and the Railway Board.

It is very undesirable that any matters which might reasonably be dealt with by Heads of Branches, I am Divisional Superintendents should be referred to the Board.

The working of the divisional system in other countries, I am convinced, is based on sound principles and has enabled many railways to obtain more satisfactory results than were obtainable by them under the departmental system. I am also convinced that it develops better all round railwaymen than the departmental system—men with a broader outlook which fits them to grapple successfully with the difficult problems constantly arising. Good team work is the secret of success in any large concern, and divisional organisation is designed to develop such work. Furthermore, divisional organisation gives plenty of scope to all members who take a keen, intelligent interest in their work. There is no cramping, narrowing influence, such as exists where the divergent interests of departments cause members to work selfishly instead of for the good of the railway as a whole.