RAILWAY POWER

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 33, 9 February 1927, Page 9

RAILWAY POWER

ELECTRIFICATION . :: H4NS

LYTTELTON TUNN€L

DISCUSSION

A DEPARTMENTAL VIEW

While it has never been definitely stated that the Government policy is electrification of all suitable portions of the .railway system, and it is, as usual, difficult to ascertain the nature of itoi future activities,'it is not unlikely, judging from the trend of events, that, this policy will take definite form' within the next few years. Owing to a long tunnel to be included in the new line, the railway at Auckland is to be electrified, tenders have been called for the electrification of the Lyttelton tunnel, and it is significant that in the construction of the Hutt railway, ill clearances and dispositions of tht new line have been arranged so that in the event of electrification no alteration will be necessary. This local possibility gives interest to a statement regarding the Lyttelton position given to a "Post" reporter by one closely in touch with railway matters, which, he assert*, embodies the departmental vi-rwv ;

■ "There is a decided divorsity of opinion in Canterbury regarding the best course to be pursued to satisfy the needs of Canterbury for improved transport between the port and the city. In 1914 a promise was made to Canterbury that as soon as 'ie financial position warranted it something would be done to improve the railway .service between these points. The alternative proposals, then, were a duplication of the tunnel (estimated to cost £500,000) arid electrification of the existing tunnel.

REPORTS FROM ELECTRIFICATION.

J "In his comprehensive statement to Parliament made in 1924, the Minister of- Railways (Mr. J. 6. Coates) included as part of his eight-year programme 6f works the electrification of the Lyttplton tunnel. This -plan -wag still in view a little later, when a report was obtained from Messrs. Merz and M'Lenaan, a firm with a great deal of British and Continental experience in the electrification of railways. This report was upon the: electrification of the four centres, 'and it showed, after making due allowance for the release of steam locomotives and the capital outlay, that annual savings could be made of £61,----900 in Wellington, £66,200 in Auckland, £12,600 in Dunedin, and £42,000 in; Christchurch. Although the return from the Lyttelton-Christchurch electrification was only 2.2 per cent., as compared with the estftnated saving of §.45 per cent, in Wellington and 9.85 per 'cent, in Auckland, the special disadvantages Christchurch suffered from the amoke nuisance and the national advantages of the electrification proposal were considered sufficient to warrant it, as compared with the alternative second tunne].

■ "More recently a report upon Messrs. .M£rz, and .M'Lennan's report was supplied by M«ssrs. F, T. M. Kissell (chief electrical . engineer of the Public Works ■ Department) and R. P. Sims (then Assistant-Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Bailway Department), the conclusions of which supported in the main those of the main report. ;,'' The; later; report of Messrs. Kissel and ; Sims, also drew attention to. the wpr.fc of the. Diesel electric locomotive, which had. obtained a great measure of success, particularly in the United States and Canada, and it was also considered that, as compared with the complete electrification this system would have the advantage that the expenditure could be spread over a longer period, and the'success of tfie first oileleetric locomotive could be ascertained before purchasing others.

RIVAL LOCAL BODIES.

- "It may be mentioned that the Canterbury Progress League, representing numerous local bodies in Canterbury, has given its approval to the decision to complete the provision of overhead olcQtric power, direct electric lecomo-tiy.es-instead of the Diesel oil electric locomotive. The Port and City Committee of Canterbury, however, has strenuously opposed the decision to electrify the tunnel, arid has supplied some' figures and arguments which are worth considering. They state that the electrification of the tunnel as proposed would'cost £100,000 more than the Diesel," that the: latter would be available two or three years sooner, and that it'could be applied over the whole of $he South Island railways, whereas the overhead system would be restricted to the Lyttelton-Christehurch section. This comnflttee also puts forward a grandiose proposal estimated to cost £1,270,000, including Lyttelton Harbour extensions costing £750,000, a road trame tunnel .costing £450,000, and a broad highway between port and city costing £70,000.

OIL-DERIVED ELECTRICITY.

:-"There are several features of the IJiesel oil-electric locomotive that would justify any Government in pausing before deciding to exclusively adopt it for so important a section of line as that to Lyttelton. The question of noxious i'umes, enters. The exhaust from the crude petroleum used in producing the electrisity on these locomotives might be- dangerous to passengers, and, although statements contradicting this nave been made, this new typo of traction has had so little practical trial under- tunnel conditions that it cannot be regarded as anything but a doubtful experiment on the Lyttelton-Christ-church section. Moreover, the proposed electrification of the tunnel is to be by ;the utilisation of New Zealand's natural power resources, whereas the X)iesel-eleetric engine (which uses petroleum for the production of electric power) employs an imported product, jjin economic handicap to the Dominion. jsTew Zealand has gone in for an exhaustive programme of hydro-electric development, and every means should be taken to provide a profitable use for it. Canterbury is provided with ample electricity to provide power for this section, indeed for all the railway lines in the province.

LOSS OP RAILWAY REVENUE.

"A naive objection raised by the City and Port Committee is that" the Government, by taking a portion of the ■electricity available at cost price, would prevent the sale of that quantity to other consumers at a profit. According to this no manufacturers may use his own products.

Kegarding the larger proposal, extending Lyttelton Harbour, a motor tunnel, and the installation of a broad motor highway, the proposers forget -that in decrying a £200,000 proposal on the grounds of expense, they would be running the country into one many iimes more expensive. Their proposal should be scrutinised very carefully 'before any decision is come to. One point in particular requires attention— the certain loss of railway revenue that :'would result from a motor tunnel, at great cost to the Dominion. The econ- ■ Omic aspect, of the transport problem is a., serious question to-day.'?