RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION

Evening Star, Issue 19196, 12 March 1926, Page 9

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION

WORK TO START OH LYTTELTOH TO GOST £198,300 COMMERCIALLY NOT WARRANTED REPORTS ON OTHER LINES WITHHELD. [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, March 11, The proposals for the electrification of suburban lines running out from Wellington, Auckland, and Dunedin are ilow being examined by Goi-’crnment experts. It has already been announced that it is intended to electrify the Lvttelton tunnel. In a report on electrification it is also announced that portions of the New Zealand Railways system will bo electrified. Messrs Mcrz sind APLemum, London engineers, who were consulted on the matter, mentioned the cost of electrifying the Tawa Flat tunnels, through which deviation ■the Main Trunk Railway will run from Wellington. The Hon. J. G. Coates stated this afternoon that tho report contained general conclusions, and departmental experts were now trying to work out independently the basis of computation arrived' at by Messrs Mora and M'Lennan.. Until this was done it was not proposed to release for publication those portions of the report relating to Wellington, Auckland, and Dunedin. That had been the procedure followed in regard to the Lyttelton tunnel section of the report, which had been examined by a departmental expert first, as the Lyttelton tunnel and the layout of tho Christchurch yards wore deemed to be matters of prime urgency. LONDON EXPERTS’ REPORT.

The reports prepared by Alessrs Aferz and APLcunan in regard to the Lyttelton tunnel, with the joint report by Air Kissel (chief electrical engineer) and Air R. P. Sims (assistant chief mechanical engineer, New Zealand Railways), and the report by the Railway Board have now been released for publication.

“It is possible that the removal of the present discomforts of the tunnel would speedily attract an increased number of passengers, but this is a question which can only be decided by those having an expert knowledge of local conditions. We have therefore in our estimate confined ourselves to a moderate increase in the number of trains.’’ (This is an explanatory note to the report of Messrs Mens and McLennan.) The report states, inter aim: In general the grades were easy, and the track capacity'was sufficient to deal with the existing traffic and with any reasonable increase in traffic which could he foreseen. The average daily number of trains over the line was twenty-nine in each direction’, from which it would bo seen that in so far as tiie track capacity was concerned there was no great difficulty in working. The discomfort of travelling in the tunnel under present conditions was, however, a factor to which due consideration must be given. _ It would appear that if electrification were adopted duplication could bo indefinitely postponed, while at the same time the service would bo rendered much more attractive to suburban passengers. It. was apparent that the small saving in the working expenses would not in itself justify expenditure of the capital required for electrification. On the other hand, electrification was an alternative to the costly operation of enlarging or duplicating I ho tunnel, and indeed in some respects it provided a more complete solution of the difficulties. The electrification of the tunnel only, with the consequent change of engines at Heathcoto, was not desirable, particularly on account of the suburban service to Christchurch. On the other hand, there would bo no necessity to extend electrification beyond Christchurch, since there was little, if any, intcrrmining between the Lyttelton and the Range ora linos. They therefore estimated the capital cost of the electrification between Christchurch and Lyttelton only, hut included the equipments of the (racks to Addington to allow locomotives to run to the repair shops. They estimated that the number of electric locomotives required would bo five, and that the net capital cost of electrification, after deducting the value of the locomotives released, would bo XT 98,300. DEPARTMRATAL ANALYSIS. The joint report of Messrs Kissel and Sims goes into much closer detail on certain aspects than that of Messrs Merz and M'Lonimn. They state that they have not been able to analyse nr verify the estimated amount of the net capital cost, duo to lack of detailed information in the report _ of Messrs Merz and MT.ennan, but it was not likely to be very far from the correct figure. Assuming there was no increase of revenue over the present amount, this annual burden would amount to the difference in annual interest and sinking fund on the respective capital costs, less the gain on operating the service electrically, as against the present service with steam, but without the duplication of the tunnel, or, roughly, £11,421. As the revenue increased, so would this burden decrease. As an alternative to complete electrification a great measure of success in other countries had attended the introduction of Diesel electric locomotives, particularly in the United States and Canada. An examination of the operating costs and the results elsewhere indicated a very considerable saving in the operating costs over the ordinary steam locomotive. As compared with' complete electrification, there should he n considerable reduction in the capital cost, and also the advantage that the expenditure could bo spread over a longer period, and the system tried out by purchasing successive oil electric locomotives after the first one had been given a complete trial. Messrs ' Kissel and Sims say That, although from the railway economic point of view electrification is not justified, yet from the broader or national point of view it may ho fully justified. In such case, however, it may be asked whether the Railway Department should be compelled to assume any burden or loss which may directly accrue from the change over to electrification, or whether such linden should be met by a grant from the Consolidated Fund. On that point they offer no recommendation, assuming' that the Government is commuted either to duplicate the tunnel or electrify the line. BOARD’S REPORT. “The Railway Board is of the r plnim that the electrification is much the better proposition,” states the chairman of the Board (Mr F. J. Jonesl, in commenting on the leporfc of Messrs Merz and M'Lennan. “ Without going into the matter in detail,” he adds, “ the figures seem reasonable. They show that from llio operating side electrification is not justified. The board agrees that the report is disappointing, in that it gives no indication as to how the figures quoted therein were arrived at.” PREMIER’S CONCLUSION. “It will be noticed,” states the Prime Minister in a memorandum, “that all the reports show < clearly that from a commercial viewpoint the electrification, or, indeed, the duplication of the tunnel, is not warranted, but,

seeing the Government is already committted to an expenditure for the carrying out of the latter work, which would not really overcome the objections of the travelling public to the smoke and dirt nuisance, and in view also of the improved and more economical operating of the service if electrified,vthe Government has decided to electrify the tunnel in lieu of duplicating the line.” After saying that from the estimates included in the reports, the work will lie ample to meet prospective requirements for many years, Mr Coates stated that arrangements will now he made for the calling of tenders to carry out the. work, which will bo put in hand without delay.