LYTTELTON TUNNEL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19277, 15 September 1924, Page 11

LYTTELTON TUNNEL.

DUPLICATION AND ELECTRIFICA TION.

STATEMENT BY MR J. M'COMBS

(Fbom Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, September 13. The question of the duplication and electrification of the Lyttelton tunnel is one that should interest a great many people in the South' Island, and certainly every one who makes _ a journey to or from Lyttelton by train. The member for Lyttelton (Mr J. M‘Combs) in view of the renewed agitation for the duplication and electrification of the tunnel has furnished your representative with the following statement: I am very pleased to see the energetic steps which are again being made by the Canterbury Progress League and the Chamber of Commerce to impress upon the Government the necessity for improved railway facilities between Lyttelton and Christchurch. I understand that the question of the duplication of the tunnel will be referred to in the D2 return, which will be presented to Parliament probably next week in regard to electrification, in which as member for Lyttelton I am specially interested. Very complete data is being collected for the experts who are being asked to report on the electrification of suburban services at Christchurch, Dunedin, Wellington, and Auckland, but the report on this matter will not be available until May of next year. This, however, need occasion no delay, because the first work must be the duplication of the Lyttelton tunnel and no further authority is required from Parliament for this work which is part of the Hilcy scheme for which money has already been voted for specified railway improvements throughout the dominion, which included new railway stations at Lyttelton and Christchurch, the duplication of the tunnel and new railway yards. The House voted £5,200,000, and of this sum £1,000,000 has already . been spent. There is a balance of £831,475 temporarily invested and unexhausted authority for raising loans of £1,458,310. Most of the money which has already .been spent was spent north of Frankton. A little pressure from Canterbury at the present moment will be very opportune. “I hope that in addition to the question of the duplication of the tunnel the meetings on Monday night will stress the question of electrification. The electrification of the Lyttelton line has not yet been authorised by Parliament, although, Mr Massey has expressed himself in favour of electrification, and I hope the meeting on Monday will stress electrification, as well as duplication. There are 1,500,000 passengers carried on this line every year, and the comfort and convenience of those people should he, considered. I •'think, also, it can easily be shown that the saving in running costs which could be affected by a change over from steam to electricity would pay 12 to 15 per cent, interest on the capital cost._ Electrification would enormously facilitate the expeditious handling of goods and produce.' In 1908 Messrs Coom and Beattie, railway engineers, reported against electrification, but that was before the advent of cheap hydro-electricity from Lake Coleridge, linder their scheme an expensive steam generating plant would have had to be installed, and the estimated cost of the electricity was IJd per unit, whereas today the cost to the City Council and the Tramway Board is considerably less than one-third of a penny per unit. Furthermore, since 1908 the price of coal has about trebled. I have no doubt, therefore, that as a business proposition it will pay the Railway Department to change over to electricity for the suburban services at the lour chief centres. Mr Evan Parry, who reported upon the matter, was quite enthusiastic about the possibilities of electrification of the Lyttelton line, and with hydro-electricity it would be possible to *gi ve a vastly superior passenger train service. Mr Parry’s idea Was that trains could be run every half-hour, the time from Lyttelton to Christchurch to be 15 minutes, with express services at intervals which would occupy only 10 to 12 minutes from Lyttelton to Christchurch. With such a service the residential population at Lyttelton, Heathcote, Woolston, and Opawa would increase considerably, and thus traffic on the line would be increased. With a smokeless tunnel Diamond Harbour settlement would also go ahead, and all this would mean’ increased returns to the Railway Department. “When in Melbourne last year I called on the Railway Commissioner who was in charge of the suburban service, and he was very enthusiastic about the success that had attended the electrification of the Melbourne suburban trains. After meeting all charges there was a surplus of over £20,000 for the year ended June 30, 1923. Tire returns with which ho furnished me, of which a copy was sent to the Minister of Railways (Mr Coates), and to the Progress League, Christchurch, showed that nearly half the railway passenger revenue of Victoria came from the Melbourne suburban services which were electrified. The report said : Since electric traction was commenced in May, 1919, there has been a large development in the suburban passenger business. The total number of suburban passenger journeys having increased from 104,000,000 in the year ended June 30, 1919, to 146,000,000 at the close of the financial year under review, representing on advance of 40 per cent. During the ten years preceding the introduction of electric running the annual rate of increase in the suburban passenger traffic averaged approximately 4 per cent., and after allowing for such increase the additional traffic brought to the railways by electrification is equal to not less than 20,000,000 passenger journeys per annum. Under steam traction it was not really practicable to vary the size of trains according to fluctuations in the traffic, bnt the remarkable flexibility of the electric service enables the length of suburban trains to be decreased or increased in accordance with requirements, thus minimising unnecessary car mileage.’ “I might just mention this other interesting fact which’ I noted from the report in 1922. It cost the Melbourne railways .564 pence per unit for the electricity generated, and in 1923 the_ cost had dropped to .458 pence per unit, whereas the price of Lake Coleridge current to the Christchurch City Council and Tramway Board last year was .295 pence and .293 pence per unit respectively. With very much cheaper electricity there is every reason why the electrification of the Lyttelton-Christchurch service should he an even greater success from a financial point of view.”