THE MIDLAND RAILWAY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIII, Issue 13714, 3 April 1905, Page 4

THE MIDLAND RAILWAY.

TO THE EDITOIt. Sir, —I am writing to you in the .bejel' that to spend £200,000 a year on the Midland Railway for the next five years is detrimental to the interests of New Zealand. Before I explain .why I think this, it will be necessary to say something on a subject we have heard ia good deal about lately, namely, Canterbury's apathy in tho matter of railway construction. The following figures, obtained from the New Zealand railway time-table show the num- ! her of miles of railway in the various districts:—Auckland, 438 miles; Wellington, Hawke's Bay, Taranaki, 504 / miles, including tho Wellington and Manawatu Company's line of 84 miles; Canterbury, 477, including that part of ■Jhristchurch—Culverden line which is over the Hurunui; Otago and Southland, 768; Westland and Nelson, 174: Marlborough, 34;—total, North Island u)92 (including Manawtau private line), | South Island 1453. : Is not Cantr -bury's apathy clue to die fact that she has got her fair share of the railways, and that with a popu-_ iation of about 120,000 (in 1901) she has more railways than Auckland with a population of 17,0,000, and more Government railways than VV'eiimgion, Hawke's Bay and Taranaki? I think, then, that from the standpoint of railnays now constructed in the colony, any railway hi the North Island has a considerable claim over a railway in ihe South Island, other things being equal. Next, as to the amount the colony is losing owing to the East and West Coast railway being uncompleted. The i (Springfield section has had £300,000 ,spent°on it, and is giving no return. At 4 per cent per annum, the annual 'loss in interest on this'sum is £12,000. l The Otira section has probably cost about £400,000, and is probably paying ,say 2 per cent of the cost of construction. Annual loss in interest on this sum is £BOOO. Therefore, tho annual loss in interest on money spent on East and West Coast railway is £20,000. The amount the colony has spent on the Main Trunk Railway is £1,440,000. At present the two halves of the Main Trunk line are running to nowhere in 'particular, and are probably not paying more than 2 per cent on their cost of construction. Supposing the money was borrowed at 4 per cent, the colony is now losing annually 2 per cent, or £29,000. Therefore, annual loss in interest on money spent on Main Trunk Railway is £29,000. It is obvious that, from this point of view, the colony would benefit more by the completion of tho Main Trunk than of the Midland railway. Also, in the case of the Main Trunk line, the amount required to complete the line and make Ihe whole, line pay is apparently about £650,000. The amount required to complete the Midland line will be about £1,000,000, and even those who are in favour of the lihe are far from unanimously agreed that the Midland line will pay. I think that this finally disposes of the financial part of the argument that £200,000 per annum should be spent on the Midland railway before the Main Trunk line is completed. Again, there is the question of defence of the colony. Is it not as important (for purposes of defence) that Wellington and Auckland should be connected by rail as that Canterbury should be connected with the West Coast coalmines? I would ask you if it is possible to spend £200,000 a year on the Midland and at the same time to complete the Main Trunk railway in twenty-seven months, by which_ time the Makatote Viaduct will be finished. If it is not possible, then the colony should drop the Midland lino until those twenty-seven months are up, or until the Main Trunk line is finished. xo carry on both lines together, spending about £150,000 on each, is simply a return to the "piece-meal" policy, and it is probably the course the Government will adopt as the result of the present agitation.—l am, etc., N.Z.'R. March 30, 1905.