RAILWAY DEVIATION

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2787, 3 June 1916, Page 7

RAILWAY DEVIATION

FOXTON WHARF AND . TRAMWAY . COMMISSION HEARS COUNSEL The sitting of the Commission on the proposed llai.li Trunk line deviation and IToxton Eailway Wharf was concluded yesterday, when counsel addressed the Commission. . Afr. Skerrett, who appeared with Mr. • 11. I''. Liickie, lor, the Horowhenua, j Mnnawatu, and Eangitikei County Coun.'cils, who are asking for the deviation of J the main line from Levin to Marton, said Unit ho' had pointed out ths advantages 1 that would accrue from the construction [of the. line. He explicitly admitted that ' the. time for its construction would not arrive until the volume of traffic had so •increased as to necessitate the duplication ot the line between Marton aud I'almerston North, or between .Marton and Wellington. It was impossible for counsel'to ; nslc the. Commission to disregard" the evidence given by the officials of- tho Eailway Department, that the time for duplication was iu the somewhat far'.distant future. The, proposed line would client a great saving in mileage 'and in ; time. The chairman . (Sir Robert Stout) said that the 'inie might come when the Eailway Department would be able to run two express trains on the main lino: ' When that time arrived, the new .line might be. of great advantage. Apparently the time was not yet. Mr. Skerrett, proceeding, said the advaiirago nj ilie proposed new line In fares and freights .would be very great, .•.nil in time the line would be come valuable to the main arterial line between Auckland and Wellington, aud would effect. a great saving of time. If the lino neru constructed there would be practically a llat run from Jlarton to l'aekakariki, a distance of 71 miles. If the grade between the latter place and Wellington were • improved, as indicated by ilie railway.officials, the new line would greatly expedito the traffic between Wellington and Auckland. . If duplication became necessary a very large part of the expense of construction would go towards implication, from-Marton to Palmerston or Marton to -Wellington. The v.-'ork piobably .would invoire the conscruction Of two bridges over the Enngitiicei and the Manawiitu. The existing bridges were plainly insufficient to carry duplicate lines. The cost 'of these bridges, therefore, would not be additional to the cost of construction. He liad presented the case of his client with us much candour as could be expected. Ho had not the advantage of railway expert evidence as to the advantages of the lino.

Mr. Myers said that in view of Mr. Skerrett a statement it lvould not be necessary for him to (leal with Question «,- referred to the Commission. He understood, that' the scope of the Commission" had - been extended by n further Urder-in-Council, as to whether it was necessary or. desirable in the public interest that a new line should be constructed by the Government from I.evm U> Jlnrtoii. Question i, :vs set out; in the original Commission, referred only, to the ! liiie from Levin to Foxtbn. lieferring to the .Foxton' wharf, counsel 6aid the Commission Was asked to report whether certain proposals were advisable or desirable in tu'e public interest. The railways were owned by the State—that is, the whole people of the Dominion. The whole of ttio evidence submitted 111 support of the proposal that the wharf should be \ested in the Harbour Beard was evidence that concerned not what might be called the general public interest, but merely concerned' the interests of a particular locality, or a section of the people in a particular locality. The Commission was not asked to determine whether the -proposal »<as in the iuterestn of a particular locality, but whether it wan desirable in the public interestthat is, the public as a whole. Kven if the interests of a particular locality had to be .regarded, he submitted that .if it ~were..intended .to,'carry out a, particular Uiiderfcaking.-which. at first sight might appear desirable, -but, on investigation, it appeared that it could not be carried out except at a loss without any corresponding advantage to the locality, it would not be in the public interest, or oven of a particular locality or the public in the locality,, although it might confer advantages or give. profits to a limited number of people in the locality* i'l'he first, question was whether Foxtou Harbour Board should be permitted to purchase the railway wharf at Foxton from the Railway Department, and on what terms. He submitted that if it. were shown that the acquisition of thn wharf meant that the importation of goods would be more costly, or the revenue would be dissipated in useless expenditiire, it was not desirable, either In the public interest or the locality, that the wharf 6hould bo taken -jut of the hands of the Eailway Department and handed over to a local body. It was urged that legislation had created the Harbour' Board, and that was a reason why the wharf should be in the hands of the board. There was no point in the suggestion. When the- board was created, the wharf was not under its ■control, and. when the board suggested to the Marine Department that the wharf should be handed over to it, the Department declined to do so. It was not intended at any time that the board should have control of the wharf. The board was reconstituted in 1908 to perform the functions of a Harbour Board, -but not so far as the Eailway Wharf was concerned. In the Government Eailway .-Act of 1808 :i inilway was defined as buiklinss, wharves, jetties, works, and other fixtures situate on railway land

or .used in connection with or for tho purposes of a railway. Section 32 jiovidod that. all moneys acoruing to die railway should be paid into the Eailway Account, and form part of the consolidated revenue. -It had been suggested that the Department had done notiuiig for the *.in. pi-ovenient cf the river. .It had no power lo do so. It could not be in the interests of the public .to hand over the wharf lo the board if the revenue were going to be wasted on ineffective work. The board should have shown what was to be done with the revenue and presented a reasonably feasible scheme.. All that had been said was-that the board wanted the money ill order lo enable them to dredge the river. They won.a not rate Uieiuselves tor the purpose of real constructive work such as training walls, but desired to filch the money from the Eailway Department, at tlie expense of the general public. Tho evidence given by the engineers in regard to the board's proposals should receive the attention of tlie Commission. It would be useless to spend money on dredging without improving the bar or having training walls in the rives. The bar was a shifting one, and yet it was suggested that by merely dredging 'the river the conditions at tile, bar could be improved. There'was no uso attempting improve, meuts unless the controlling factor—the bar — was first attacked. Otherwise tho money might be just as we.ll thrown into, the river. Apart from that-, if tho wharf were handed over to the board, the work in connection with the discharge of ships and handling, of cargo had to be done by the board, or by the Eailway Department under arrangement with the board. The result would be that the Harbour Hoard would receive no more revenue than the Eailway Department received, and tho labour would still have to be paid- for. Tho Department said the railways had to be worked as a.whole, and could not be worked section by section. It ivas necessary to. have back freight for trucks to make the railways pay. If sea competition to I'oxton increased to such an extent as to seriously interfere with the Department's haulage outwards to Palmerston, the result .would be that the Department would have to impose special rates. If the wharf were handed over to the board and shipping increased, special rates would bo enforced. It had not been shown 'that the river conditions had appreciably deteriorated. If they had not, that was a good reason- why thivj wharf should not be. handed over. The arrivals of vessels at the port had, been regular. Assuming that the board got, a dredge for 4'5300, a sinking fund ivould. "have to be established. Working expenditure would absorb a year. Eeferring to the question of. tramway extension, from Sanson to. Marton, counsel said that this would benefit the tramway anil motor lorries at the expense ofthe railway. Even supposing there i«7e slight;,reductions in tho cost of goods to places north of Toxton, who would get the 'benefit? The merchants and storekeepers or the general public? The public would not get the benefit. Mr. Skerrett had said that the councils were asking nothing put,of the public funds. That was not correct. ' If the - extension were granted and revenue taken from tho Eaihvays, it would havo been made out of the public purse. The terminal silling or dead-end of the tramway at Marton, was not before the Commission. Tho only object in referring to it was that it" niight be ■ used a.s a lever at some future date. "Sir Jame3 Wilson, in hie evidence, had said that it was expected, if thg extension were granted, the Government trucks would run over tho lina, as was tho case when the Manawatu Company controlled tho Wel-lington-Longburn line. / The line would not pay, if extended. The returns showed tuat the number of sheep in the district was less last year than in 1911, and tho acreage in crop was practically the same as in IS9G. This.proved that the district was changing from a sheep-fann-ing one. to a dairying district. Cheijso was tho only product that would be carried over the railway. The Eailway Department would not have any serious objection to the tram extension if it were to serve the Manawatu County alone, but .if the lino were oxtended, goods outside those comisg from Manawatu andI'angitikei Counties would bo carried over it to the detriment of tho railway traffic, and joods from Marlon and tlie district northward* would be sent over it to places that could be served by sea, via'Foxtonr To alknV this brancn lino to junction with the railway would 4 lre to tap it, and tl«/ Department : would consider this opening' the way to serious competition.

■ The chairman: It cannot, be contended that the development of a disUivt should bo held back because there is a possibility of a railway being afl'ccted."

Mr. Myers: 1 don't suggest that, but I contend that the branch line is not in the public interest.

Mr. Weston said that Mr. Myers's artdross certainly helped the case for t!.e Foxton Harbour Board. 'It showed bmv antagonistic the Department was to the development of the trade of Foxton. The ■ Department' was'afraid, that the development of the trade would materially affect the railway revenue, aud detormiued to chock it at all 'costs. Ho mentioned the case of Mokaii, which had a 'Harbour Board, with a small revenue. The legislature had granted Foxton a Harbour Board, but'had not allowed it wharfago .dues. To give the Railway Department the control was simply piacinu a flock of sheep in charge of a wolf. The attituda of tho Department was one not of principle, but of pelt. "

i[r. Myers: That is not so., Mr. Weston said that it was shown *oy tho "fact that the Railway Department was prepared, a few years ago, to accept ,£28,000 for the wharf, and now valued it at .655.000.

Mr. Myers: The Department does not want to. sell the wbarf.

Mr. Weston: No. tiny don't want la lose the revenue; what attitude is that but one of pelf?

Proceeding, Mr. Weston said that .when Foxton was a railway terminus, it was useful for t'je development of the rail-

way system. In 18S1 the Department built a wharf for the purpose of landing material for construction of lines further north. That was before the advent of tho' Mauawatu railway. 'The chairman: The Railway Commission of 187!) did not recommcnd tho construction of tho Manaivatu Railway, as it was considered it would not pay. M l '. Weston: That is so, but.it was built, and is now jn tho possession of tho Government. As far as Foxton is concerned, it is no longer a terminal £or the railway. Continuing, Mr. Weston stated that the Harbour Board had an income of between. .EGOO and ,£7OO, and was üble to save dC2(JO a year. The question of terms should bo looked at from a broad point of view. . The banding over of the wharf to tho board would be merely at transfer, and not a sale to a profit-making concern. The Railway Department was not the sole Department in which the btato had in interest. Tho value of the ■ wharf could be assessed by four methods -(1) On the earning power; (2) its actual original cost of construction; (3) its present -vulud allowing for deterioration; and (•t) the value at which it would appear 11 J the books of the Department, if after allowing lor the cost oi maintenance and repairs and interest on the cost of cons'truction, the surplus profit had been, devoted to a reserve fund for the-capital originally invested. In regard to tho cost of construction, the oilly evidence pointed to tho iacl that tho'wharf cost tho Department A' 3000., . The present value of the wharf was' riot .disputed. It tho port were to be developed tho district would have to pay for the necessary works. After allowing for the loss made in three years and compound interest thereon, it would be found that the Department had received since 1901 tho sum of ISs. ikl. "The chairman: I don't know of any public work in the colony that has paid so well. You probably want the wharf and some of the money as well. (Laugh, ter.) Mr. Weston: If wo get it for nothing now, we are prepared to cry quits. Proceeding, Mr. Weston said that if the harbour wero to be improved there must be a rating- area. There were inauy safeguards against the possibility of wasteful expenditure. The board would have to get legislative authority and the sanction of the Marine Department to any proposed works. That tho river had been deteriorating was shown fm increased amount of s.trandings. There had been a tremendous growth in the hemp, and tow industry at Foxton. The Foxton lino paid a high- percc-ntago on cost of construction, and the Department could easjily make up the slight loss due to the' wharf being taken over l)y the Harbour Board. _ Mr. Skerrett addressed the Commission ! m regard to the proposal to extend the Sanson tramway to Marton. He said thai the .Railway .Department regarded the proposal ill the same wav as a claim by a private company, and"also treated it not as. an extension of an existing tramway, but as a new lino. The fact was that the claim for an extension was a claim by two counties having a# its object tho progress and development of the district. It was said that traffic might be diverted from Wellington to l'oxton, and that if some form of connection were made the Department would be unable to resist pressure either to grant running rights or to construct a lino lrom Marton to Himitangi, or from Marton to Foxton. Tho main ob. jecf of the extensiou was to gc-t manure.-! and supplies from Wellington.-■ They asked for a connection with the main line cither by way of a siding at or near Marton, with such interchange of traffic and such conditions as the Department thought proper to prevent any foreign traffic, or a terminal connection at Marton station, otherwise a dead-end or terminal siding. If tho lino competed with tie State railways, the remi.-dy was fn the Department's hands. They could construct a line with which the councils could not possibly compete. This concluded the inquiry. Ins Kouour slaictl that the Commission would be able to leport in a weak or two.