TWO PROPOSALS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 301, 21 December 1939, Page 15

TWO PROPOSALS.

RAILWAY CHANGES.

WAIKATO DISTRICT.

OF THE COSTS.

(From Our Correspondent.)

HAMILTON, Wednesday,

Estimates of costs relating to the proposals to improve the railway* facilities at Frankton and Hamilton, eliminate the level crossings in the 'borough, and provide a new railway bridge across the Waikato River, were received bv the Hamilton Borough Council this evening from the general manager of railways, Mr. (}. H. Mackley.

Mr. Mackley submitted costs in connection with two proposals. The first concerned a scheme exclusive of the requirements of the Hamilton Borough Council, the details of which were:— New station at Frankton, £148,000; Frankton yard rearrangement, £39,200; foot stfbway at Frankton, £10,000; combined goods yard at Frankton, £<51,700; line duplication at present level between 1' rankton and Hamilton, £.j000; island platform at Hamilton, £2800; duplication of line between Claudelands and Ruakura, £100,000; purchase of land, £15,000. Total, £389,700.

Big Coat Increase. Xo provision was made in this proposal for the duplication of the line over the Waikato Kiver, and a second bridge would therefore not be required. Xo level crossing elimination would be undertaken in this echeme.

The second plan included the Borough Council's proposals, which would increase the cost to £048,300. Thie scheme embodied the lowering of the line between Frankton and Claudelands, the cost of which would be £40.000, a new railway bridge over the Waikato River costing £40,000; new signalling system, £3o00; Hamilton stopping place, £5000; removal of Claudelands, station, £0800; elimination of Commerce Street crossing, £20,000. Roadwork at four crossings and other point* between I'orcst Lake Road, Frankton and Claudelands, £81,150; conversion of present railway bridge into road traffic bridge, £10,000; extras, £1700; total, £21tt,150; less savings on crossing keepers' wages. £20,000; net total, £196,150; proposed apportionment of cost, £174,000. Manager's Attitude. If low level passenger station facilities were provided at Hamilton, additional costs amounting to £20,000 would be involved. The amount directly apportionaible to the borough would oe £19fi,150, but the claim actually made would be £174,000 only. Air. Mackley dealt with the savings credited to the borough. The«e included wages, which, when capitalised, would amount to £20,000. From the point of view of economy, Mr. Mackley pointed out that it would [ be better for the Department if the first scheme, involving an expenditure of j £380,700, were carried out, aa against £474,300 which the Department would be prepared to pay as its proportion of the combined scheme. The railway facilities at Hamilton could be eliminated, and there would be more land 'available for leasing at Hamilton at u I higher rental than if the council's scheme were adopted.

Engineer's Estimate*. Commenting on Mr. Mivckley's statement, the borough \ engineer, Mr. R. Worley, said there could be no doubt that the carrying into effect of the whole scheme would place the future develop* ment of Hamilton on a wonderful basi«. The lowering of the line was the only practical method of eliminating the level crossings in the town, and tne cost of removing them, Mr. Wor'.ey submitted, ehould be equally borne by the Department and the borough. The engineer estimated the borough's share of the cost of the new bridge should be £25,000, and not £40,000. The removal of the Hamilton station would mean a considerable saving in operating costs, estimated at £5000 a year, and credit should be given to the borough for the value of this saving. The same remark applied to the removal of the Claudelands station.

Mr. Worley suggested other reductions, and he estimated that the total cost to the borough should not be more than £150,000, and not £174,000, ae mentioned by Mr. Mackley.

Council Consideration. The Department assumed the attitude that it could carry out its scheme of reorganisation without lowering the line, Mr. Worley added. He pointed out that the crossings could not be eliminated unless the line wag lowered. He therefore considered that the cost incidental to the lowering of the line and to the necessary road work in connection with the crossings should be equally shared by the council and the Deportment. Mr. J. E. Tidd complimented Mr. Worley on his report, which the sneaker •aid he wm prepared to accept as it was. The report was referred to the council in committee for consideration.