Evening Post. FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1920. A NEW STEAM-ELECTRIC STATION

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 126, 28 May 1920, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1920. A NEW STEAM-ELECTRIC STATION

Pressure of space prevents us from, dealiii; with any other than the more obvious aspects of the City Council's new decision concerning electrical power. Looking at the question purely as a steam question—as a pitched battle bqtween two different- steam-electric proposal:}, new seaside station v. Harris* street expedient—it iv.is to be remembered Chat in the first place the council adopted the pkn of extending the not up-to-date Harris-street plant on the plea that -the work could bo completed more quickly than the new station, and that the capital expenditure would be only half (ov less than half) as much. These, at any rate, were the two arguments that emerged irom the council's discussion, and both of them—time and cost— wore challenged m The Post's columns by indepcnd-eiifc experts. "Engineer" wus particularly resolute 'in asserting that, even accepting the capital expenditures aa being somewhere in the ratio of two to one, the' superior economy, of a. new seaside station, would in a very few years compensate for its greater capital expenditure; tha,t is to say, the annual saving would cancel the higher capital charges. Now, one of the most important features of last night's meeting of the Council was the report of the General Manager of Tramways (Mr. W. H. Morton) that, instead of the capital cost of the Harris-street expedient being

about £180,000, as previously given out, it. wouk 1 be about a third greater, and 'would be within £100,000"of the capital cost of the new station. Even the report of the principal advocate of Harris-street, Mr. G. Lauchlan, Assistant-Manager and Electrical Engineer, appears to now place the cost of Harris-street improvements, with Crawford-road sub-station, at over £200,000. These figures ore so important as affecting the battle between the two steam proposals, that it is advisable to quote the General Manager's estimate more exactly. He submits a table showing the costs, side by side, of the extended and improved Harris-street and of a new station at Kva'ns Bay, from which it appears that the former will cost £300,000 and the latter £386,000. Obviously, tho raising of the Harris-street estimate and the lowering of its rival cuts at the root of one of the two principal arguments to which the advocates of Hams-street have had recourse. Even the immediate saving in capital is not nearly so great as was at first supposed; andj when.it comes.to a matter of looking ahead, the General Manager feels himself justified in reporting that the ultimate amount of capital expenditure required for the Evans 'Bay station 13 " comparatively slight when compared with the cost of similarly equipping the Harris-street station." On the basis of these figures, Harris-street appears to be a last.cause, avid insofar as the City Council's new decision rules Harris-street out, reversing its previous decision, we can see no fault to find with, the result of last night's deliberation!. That result, it is fail to add, abundantly justifies The Post's pleu for a rehearing. Without laying claiir to any technical qualifications, and without attempting to bo didactic in a complex question, The Post felt that, taking a long view, the Harris-street expedient was not in the City's best interests. Private experts were invited to discuss the question in the press, and they responded capably, and have done a public service. The outcome is a rehearing of the question and the rescinding of a resolution, the unwisdom of which is indicated by an increasing voluniß of evidence.

Now the question arises: Is the new decision in. favour of a- seaside steam station (as against the. Higher Hutt hydro-electric) justifiable:- and is Evans •>Bay the best site? This, again, is partly a matter for experts. As we have already pointed out, the Hay-Vickerman report on the Higher Hutt 9000-h.p. station is insufficient in data, and the urgency of the tramway and other power requirements is such that it is questionable whether time is available, so far as the City Council is concerned, for elaboration of the Hutt hydra-electric case. Ml 1. Morton objects to waiting for Hutt power on the ground that the cost would probably be little short of £600,000; that it would fail to meet the requirement of urgency, because it would not be available before Mangahao power; and that the prosecution of both those liydro-eke-ti'ic works at the same time would retard the progress of each* These arguments •he considers to be conclusive. As to whether the new station should be at Evans Bay instead of near the proposed Mangahao transformer station at Kaiwarra, Mr. Morton seeks -to strike Kaiwarra out of the' calculation by reporting positively that "there is no possibility of satisfactory arrangements being made in securing the whole of the laud, necessary and arranging for the handling of fuel. Further, it has been ascertained that slops have already been taken by a company to store oil fuel in the vicinity of the proposed site at Evans Bay." It is truq that a site might be acquired near Kaiwarra by reclamation, but that again means loss of time, and delay in building on artificial foii'iflslions—:i disndvantuge from which the Evans Buy.siU; is free. .