Nelson-Glenhope Railway

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27376, 15 June 1954, Page 10

Nelson-Glenhope Railway

The Government was unquestionably right to decide to close the NelsonGlenhope railway on June 12. It acts less wisely in agreeing to reopen the line if guarantees are given that the 1952 volume of traffic will be restored. When the Royal Commission on the Railways reported in 1952, it had before it the previous year’s returns. These showed a net operating loss on the Nelson-Glenhope section of £24,980 in 1951, amounting to an operating loss of £4lO a mile. Though the Royal Commission did not recommend the closing of the section, the commission supported its decision with curious reasons. The commission “could find no evidence” that primary producers or the commercial community experienced any difficulty in either inward or outward transport; the area was served “by one of the most efficient road “ transport organisations in the “ Dominion ”. The commission found it “ significant ” that frozen meat for shipment overseas was transported by road from the freezing works at Stoke to the ship’s side, a distance of approximately eight miles. But these and other reasons suggesting that the railway line might be redundant were presumably outweighed by the commission’s “ appreciation ” that Nelson, “by “ reason of its geographical position, “ is to an extent Related without •

“railway”; and the commission appears to have been perhaps confused by submissions at Nelson, which were “ mainly concerned ” with extending the line from Glenhope to Inangahua. As a result, the commission recommended that “ until such time as a first-class road “ constructed to modern standards is “ provided to connect with Inanga- “ hua ”, no action be to close “ the existing service ”, That recommendation surely was more relevant to “ bridging the gap ” than to the Melson-Glenhope railway. The commission’s thoughts about the “ existing service ” were presumably based on 1951 earnings and losses; and those important considerations have markedly changed since the commission reported. According to the Railways Statement in 1952, the loss was £28,048; in 1953 it was £34,226. According to the Prime Minister’s statement last week, the operating loss at present is “more “than £30,000 a year”. The deterioration is due chiefly to shrinkage in the volume of freight carried, the tonnage of 28,516 in 1952 having dwindled to 10,314 last year. This certainly suggests that the Railways Commission’s solicitude for roading in the Nelson district was in some degree misplaced; the other factors mentioned in the commission’s report were certainly more relevant to the economic position of the Nelson-Glenhope railway. As the present position shows, economic factors can no more .be excluded from consideration of the Nelson section than from consideration of any other branch line. The Government purports to consider the question on an economic basis now; and if economic' considerations are allowed to carry full weight, the decision to dose the line will stand.