TRAMWAY MAINTENANCE

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23330, 16 May 1941, Page 12

TRAMWAY MAINTENANCE

Sir,—ln'/reply , the ■■letterujf. May IS aubmitfisdthy Mr A; Donald Pater? ?on: Mr . Paterson is acknowledged as at} expert in road construction and entitled with any other ratepayer to express his.,views. The, board is well aware that way is in a?-. aalar as financesallow, as may be. evidenced from the fact that a loan of £20,000 is about to the raised for track work «r efi ' road routes.. , ijWhen it-wite Touttd'tC-bejaiore‘ecd-nomical to purchase metal supplies be* cguse>6f the reduction in*prices rather than, contlnue quarry operation, this w[as done; It funds permitted, It . would , be, more suitable’ to provide, concrete foundations ‘'’in, lieu of the present steeper andlballast method, but this would qomndt'the board to retention of-tracks for a perioa of 25 to 30 year’s. '.Christchurch' is unfortunate- in ■as ipuch that -ita. tracks are far-flung, but rdyenue 1 a car mile is lower . than in Siy other, city. The average cost of alntenance and renewals of tracks mounts to £25.280 per annum, ex-clusivenf-subsidised labour. iMr paterson; isdncorrectwhen he suggests the board has overridden its technical staff; the position is quite the reVerse. When tracks are laid or llfted and packed they are wejltdinped and tar-sealed,; and a -drainage system- provided. The whole matter is a question of finance and-future policy m regard to ’.transport generally.— Yours, etc., 1 i H. E. JARMAN. i General Manager*, • Christchurch Tramway Board, i May ; 15,1941^