THE PORT LINE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20025, 5 September 1930, Page 12

THE PORT LINE.

♦ QUESTION OF CONTROL. ACCESS COMMISSION'S REPORT DISCUSSED. An interesting discussion took place at last night's meeting of the Council of the Chamber of Commerce on the suggestion made by the Access to ie Sea Commission that the Lyttelton ar bour Board should control the C ris church-Lyttelton railwayMr W. Hobbs submitted the following statement on behalf of tho con mittee set up to prepare data to p the discussion: — . _ r "AVe have conferred with Mr Oy Williams and Mr H. Chapman, and tne evidence we'have been able to procur indicates that if the Harbour Board owned the railway between Chnstchureli and Lyttelton a duplication of the tunMel would be advisable so that "it goods could get quick dispatch id and frequent trains. _ This method would, however, necessarily increase tnc transit costs. On the othef hand, l should eliminate most of the delays which are such a frequent source ox complaint. In addition to the extra running costs aboye indicated it is apparent that interest on the capital outlay, which would possibly include the cost of the present tunnel and its electrification, would be a very considerable item. Tho Harbour Board would have to meet interest charges at probably 5J per cent., and these would have to be paid, while it is apparent by recently published figures, that the railway only meets interest charges when it has a sufficient surplus. The Commission in its report made a careful examination of costs and charges on the tunnel road and Port Christchurch schemes, and based its decisions largely on the estimated increased charges which would be necessary. When making its suggestion of Harbour Board ownership of the railway it does not seem to have had the data available for a proper financial examination, and we are of opinion that the Chamber should not support this proposal unless such examination is made, as in any case a prima facie look at the questions gives the impression that any benefits would be more than offset by increased transit costs." Not Unification. Mr V. E. Hamilton said that the committee was very definitely of the opinion that it would be useless for the Chamber to advocate anything in the shape of unification. The whole of Mr Williams's contentions depended on the duplication of the tunnel.

Mr T. N. Gibbs said that the committee thought that the Railway Department was doing its utmost with a difficult situation. They had, as cheap a service as it was possible to get; there were no means of cheapening transport costs; and Christchurch today was served as economically as possible as regards costs between port and City. He thought that they had cause to bo dissatisfied with the report of the Commission. The matter was no further forward, and this money spent on the Commission had been wasted. A Part of the Port. Mr A. F. Wright said that the question of the Lyttelton lipe had been the most burning one that the Chamber had had anything to do with since its inception. The difficulty arose largely from a misconception as to what the line really was. It was built, not as a part of tho railway system of the Dominion—there was no Dominion system in existence at that time—it was built as part and parcel of the port of Lyttelton. The difficulties of the past fifty years had been due to tho non-recog-nition of that important, fundamental, and pivotal fact. Once the Chamber gripped that fact, and applied itself to solving the difficulties of the port from that standpoint, its labours would meet with some success.

Mr A. L. Macfarlane emphasised the fact that if a hundred more trains were run there would still be the same number of handlings. Ho believed that in the end it would ■ be recognised that the tunnel road was the only solution. .

Mr H. Chapman said that there had been complaints ■ about • the Lyttelton railway—(Laughter)—but the bulk had been about the tunnel rate. The amusing thing was that, there was no tunnel rate. It cost 5s lid per ton to transport goods from Lyttelton to Christchurch; the handling at Lyttelton and Christchurch cost about 3s; that left 2s lid per ton for the railway. If anyone could suggest anything cheaper than that, he would like to know how it could be done. What Mr Williams meant by unified control _ was localised control; unified control existed at present. If the public was prepared to pay more he had no doubt that the Railway Department would give them a better service. The Harbour Board, it it took over the line, could not hope to provide sufficient waggons to meet the enormous demand at certain periods.

Tacts Wanted. Mr C. P. Agar said that if matters were investigated, it would be found that in the majority of cases very little loss was sustained by delays in delivery. He moved: "That the Chamber, by advertisement, invite the business interests to give particulars of any losses sustained by delays in deliveries of goods between the Port and the City, and vice versa." Mr Wright seconded, and after some further discussion the motion was agreed to. On the motion of Mr Wright, seconded by Mr E. H. Wyles, it was decided to have a short synopsis made- of the references in the Chamber's annual reports to the Port line.