MAIN TRUNK LINE OF RAILWAY.

Marlborough Express, Volume XIV, Issue 1137, 28 May 1879, Page 7

MAIN TRUNK LINE OF RAILWAY.

Mr Editor, —In a, former letter on the subject of the Main Trunk Line between the north and south of these Islands, I remarked upon how inadequately Mr Seymour had represented the interests of this district, when the question was before Parliament last session, and the anomalous position in which he then placed himself and bis constituents, in acting with the supporters of a Main Trunk Line by way of Nelson and the West Coast. I shall now proceed to strengthen the ground I then took up, by showing the absurdity of such a route. Railways are constructed, or ought to be constructed, mainly for two objects : one, the opening up and developing of the resources of a country ; the other—which is only another branch tending to the same end—to enable people to travel with facility and comfort from place to place, as business or pleasure may require. A Main Trunk Line should be a line connecting the chief centres of population in the most direct manner that the country will admit of, and at the same time time embracing as much as possible in its route the districts shewing the greatest resources for supporting population. These positions are so completely in harmony with common sense, that every one must agree with them. Now, let us see how they bear when applied to decide between the merits of a Trunk Line by the West Coast, with Nelson for a terminus, as against a Trunk Line by the East Coast, having Picton for its terminus ; the object of both being to open up country and connect the southern centres of population with the capital, Wellington. Fortunately, in considering this, we have the benefit of high authority—in Mr Foy’s report of last year, presented ty both Houses of the General Assembly by command of His Excellency, upon the “Route of Railway lines in the Northern District of South Island.” We will take first Mr Foy’s opinion of the best route, having regard to the resources of the country. Mr Foy says : “In noticing this subject, [the extension of the Main Trunk Line northwards to Nelson or Picton] I can only reiterate what I have already recorded in a former report as my opinion, and that is that of all the routes that have been examined in connection with this work, the line by way of the Waiau and Kaikoura townships, the Coast, and Flaxbourne to Blenheim, is the best and only one that can ever be expected to pay for its construction. None of the other examined routes for the extension of the .Main trunk line northwards can enter into comparison with this one as regards its adaptability for a line of railway when viewed in the light of containing land fit for cultivation, or in any other way as possessing the means whereby a population can be supported along it.” So much for the advantages offered by the East Coast and Blenheim route over all the others, as to the resources of the country itself. Let us next consider the subject as to which route would best suit the convenience of the public in saving time, in economy, and in comfort. In considering a through Trunk Line between South and North, we must always bear in mind that there exists a good and direct service by sea, so that all extra distance to be gone over by rail would lessen the likelihood of the rail being made use of. Now, as regards the chances of a railway from the South via the West Coast and Nelson to Wellington being made use of, we have also a clear statement of Mr Foy’s opinion in the report above referred to. He says,—“But in my opinion, if the West Coast line was actually constructed, and formed part of the main trunk line northwards from Canterbury, no through traffic, in either passengers or goods would at any time take place between Christchurch, or even from the more northern districts of Canterbury, to Wellington.”

In these quotations we have the opinions of a gentleman whose business it has been for years to examine countries with a view to Railway Construction, and in this instance it is his “ reiterated ’’ opinion, that on the East Coast alone will the resources of the country support a Rail* i way ;, in addition .to which We;haye his statement that a Trunk Line, leading to the Capital by way

of the West Coash would simply get “ no through traffic in either passengers or goods.” In reading Mr Fdy’s report, and keeping in mind that it had been presented t > Parliament, it is matter lo remark that Mr Curtis and the Nc’sou memhors entirely ignore it in the debate on the Railway Construction Bill ; hut that is not surprising, seeing that it in no way answers their purpose. But one is struck with astonishment that our member, Mr Seymour, with this report before him, cmdd find so little to say for his own district ; and that he could appear before the House as co-operating to obtain an object which, viewed in the light of this report, is utterly condemned. Depend upon it, whenever the Main Trunk Line between the South and Cook Strait is made it will not bo over the Southern Alps, to terminate in Nelson. In fact Nelson can hardly be considered as being in Cook Strait at all. The great thoroughfare which will ultimately connect the teaming populations of the South and North Islands will he as direct as the formation of the country will admit of ; and that must be on the East side of the South Island, terminating in Marlborough ; this route furnishing the best country, the shortest land journey, and the shortest sea passage. What traveller, bound to Wellington from the South, would select to be hauled over the snowy ranges to Nelson, there to be subject to the irregularities and detentions of a tidal harbour, and then have a twelve hour’s passage, by sea after that, if by another route he could save one-third in distance, time, and charges on the railway, have no detention by tides, and have only a four and a-half hour’s passage by sea? I leave Messrs Seymour Curtis, and Co. to answer, myself quite believing in Mr Foy’s opinion that there would be “no through traffic ” by a West Coast aud Nelson route. Viator.