THE RAILWAY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1123, 20 June 1867, Page 6

THE RAILWAY.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Heeaxp. rut,—Tour correspondent " Contractor," of. yesterday, refers to tlio report of Mr. Ogilrie, of the firm "of Brassev & Co., and saarns to glory in the wholesale censure therein contained of the whole of the works of the so-called Auckland and Drury Railway. True, this report of Mr..Ogilrie fully bears out the report of the Commission appointed by Mr. .Wliitaker on his taking office as Superintendent, but I for one cannot see in what way -Ur. Weaver, tha Jingineer-in-Chief, is responsible foifthe blunders in connection with this abort : on of a railway, or how he could hare prevented their being carried out. Doubtless the Engineer-in-Chief saw the waste of public money that was going on, but I would ask were the pUns submitted to him for approval previously to the tenders for the contracts being accepted ? Jf not—and I know that this was the case—what right or reason would he have had for interfering ? Tt. would have been a very different matter if the plana had been placed fcsfore him previously to the acceptance of tenders for the works. He would then havo been responsible for the faultinesa of design and workmanship so clearly pointed out by Xlr. Ogilvie. The Engineer-in-Chief wh-n in Sydney wa* enfurred in more than one lwgo engineering work, and There is at least ono railway in that colony with which his name as an engineer will be long associated, lio brings a considerable experience as an engineer to the duties of his office, and the salary of £300 p;r annum is far from being a large one for a gentlem.-n of any standing in tho profession. Since hin appointment to office in this Provinea his timo has been devoted to his official duties, which havo both, extensive and onerous, in tho country as well as in ~ind itself, aud I think the Council will pause before they attempt to meddle with tho position or ■alary of so important an officer for I doubt but that this interference is what" Contractor mi 1 others would like to bring about.—Yours, &C.j Faib Play. Parns>ll, July 19, 1867.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Herald. g IRi We have at length Mr. Ogilvie's report on fhe Auckland and Drury Eailway; let ns examine this in detail and see what we have for our £500. Ist. The report begins by the statement that " the usual and safest method of laying out a lino has not hesn adopted." This sweeping charge would bo (onsideixd sufficient (where railway works are nr operly understood) to condemn any line. 2nd. At the junction of tho Onehunga branch tho cur ve is recommended to "be flattened from 6to 10 chai n3 radius." Why limit tho radius to 10 chains ? jt hM been thought advisable to pass special Acts of Parliament in England to compel a minimum of 20 chain?, even at the approach to a station, over which B train must pass at a reduced speed. 3rd. Karthworks a'o consideicd " where completed jj S vc b' on generally well executed," this is quito ns jxiuch as could bo by the cursory view Sir. Oilvio necessarily must have taken of the work; had he been told that thoso heavy embankments had been foimnd on a subsiding foundation he would not have advised increasing the -weight, even to secure fie additional width. There are so many examples of failing foundations where the remedy lies cost more than tho original work ; but it is useloss to particularize them. Nothing can compensate for want Of di'-'inage". in such a case I sliould recommend a heading to be driven iclow the formation, so as to effectually drain the formation-, this heading should bo driven through the whole length of the tunnel. I quite agree \.ith A r r. Ogilvie's remarks as to tho height of the tunnel; ho recommends three lings of brickwork ; he therefore no doubt was aware that two only had been used, except at the south ontranca, s'though it is recommended to "inerease-in strength at tho base as the nature of the work requires." I

eti surprised he did not advise an invert to equalise the pressure. Masonry and Timber "Work.—l am ci dibly informed that, on nrnute inspection, tho former would not be found deserving of the highecomium pafsed upon it; the mason.y at Mechanics' would be found on clo3e observation to be nothing but " whitened sepulchres," the outsides being mere shells P T id tho int -ior dry rubbish. Brickwork.—l fully ■ oncur " l the remarks made • tbis head. I would orly draw attention to the lamentable deficiencies of the culverts which have been pointed out over and o ;r again; one of them, Bld that the scost rxpensivo, hrs been p!ready constructed three times, if I am rightly informed. Few uHI be able to corapiohend the importance of tbis grave defect until they are called upon to contribute towards the'r reconstraction. Sleeper?.—"The sl;epers prov'dedfor the permanent way are qui' 5 untit for the pu.pose ; it would bo impossible with such Mit;r:rl.' to k :p the roid in efficient repair without g.3at additior ' outlay each year." I need not trouble you with any remarks rider this head. I Mi" ennply add that having examined many of the pleepers purchased for this line, I have se?n none I < recommend. I am, in . )mmon with many othe.j, sorry that Mr. Ogiivie had not time ts enter more . -"'y inrj dets ; ls in h ; s repoii; he might have enlightened ua poor benighted mortal m Co what are proper gradients to work a lino, the proper and sa'e ladii of curve on such gradient, lie proper mc'hodof balloting the '""ne, well r n the proper method to ]iy the ra : 's, r ll . of wb-'ch appear quite : here. I au ~erscid. 3 that the smaH port'en of the permanent (ray now laid on the Cjphurr- A branch line, will never bsarany amount of traf" ? over it. I recollect speaking to the man whilst on the line ; they read'lv admitted the folly of doing tho work in the msnner ftey weia then Qoin<*, but >L'ej, "We ara only obeying orders, sir ; nad it T i leu; to ourselves we would have done it differently." I hare somewhat Averted from my purpora of exaxr ; ning the report in detail, but trust you w"l ,pardon my digression. Now, bit, how much wiser are we for onr £500 than W3 were before ? Have we acquired one single iota of information we weia ignorant off Have not yourself, the Mc :rs Dalton, and others, pointed out plainly and .tcdly the same defccts as those jointed out by Mr. Ogiivie. I have no doubt as to Mr. Ogilvie's qualifications. Mr. Brassey is in the habit of mr'nng his best assistants partners for the lime he-'ng, on a particular l : ne, but if other oroof were wanting of the thorough, practicability of that gentleman, we have it : n the ... . that he rece'ved £500 for £X>ing over 6J miles of unfinished railway and about 35 miles of open . antiy. (Qy.) Would not sc ne equally competent man have teen glad to have done the same for 10 guineas ? I believe Mr. Ogiivie A J f 3 quite correct when he gtate3, *' A much better K ne could be formed between Reports of Auckland and Oneh but such a a l : ne would not have bc3n as conv. jient for extent'on to Drury." A better line in all respects said have been made by going to the west of Mount Eden, which l ; ne could have been cariied into Auckland at one-fourth of the expense of No. 1 sect:on of the present Aucki"id and Drury Ba'lway. —I dm, &c., June 19, 1367. O. E. To the Editor of the New Zeai.Al.-D Hbhaltj. Sir, —We trust that you will consider it but an act of justice to ourselves that you should call the public attention to the fact c>f Mr. Ogilvie's report fo'ly bearing out the strictures we felt it oar duty to make (gratuitously) "rom time to time. No doubt if the province had had to pay £500 for our opinions they would have carried greater weight.—Your', Ac., Dalton Beos. June 19, 1867. [Our correEpondents will see that another correspondent. " C. E.," has in our issue of to-day drawn attention to this vew matter.—Ed. N. Z. H. j