LYTTELTON TUNNEL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3757, 16 March 1926, Page 82

LYTTELTON TUNNEL.

REPORTS OF EXPERTS. WELLINGTON, March 11. The proposals for the electrification of suburban lines running out from Wellington, Auckland, and Dunedin are now being examined Government experts. It has already been announced that it is intended to electrify the Lyttelton tunnel. In a report on electrification it is also announced that portions of the New Zealand railways system will be electrified. Messrs Merz and M’Letinan, 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 the report contained general conclusions, and departmental experts were now trying to work out independently the basis of computation arrived at by Messrs Merz and McLennan. 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 Lyt*/'/g$ VJPOcI and the layout of the Christchurch yards were deemed to Be matters of prime urgency. Mr Coates made it clear that it would be unwise and unbusinesslike merely to accept the report without first attempting

to examine by independent means the soundness of the conclusions and the estimates of the cost contained in it.

The sports prepared by Messrs Mera and MLennan in regard to the Lyttelton tunnel, with the joint report by Mr Kissel (chief electrical engineer) and Mr It. I*. Sims (assistant chief mechanical engineer, New Zealand Railways), and the report by the Railway Board, have now b(H*n released for publication. “It is possible thut 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 ou-rselves to a moderate increase in the number of trains.”

This is an explanatory note to the report of Messrs Merz and M’Lennan. Tli* report states, inter alia: 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 be foreseen. The average daily nu über of trains over the line was 29 in each direction, from which it would be seen that in so far as the track capacity wr.s concerned there was no great diiticu.ry in working. The discomfort of traveling m the tunnel under present conditions was, however, a factor to which due consideration must he given. It would appear that if eleetrifirat on were adopted duplication could be indefinitely postponed, while at the same time the service would be 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 the 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 Heathcote was not desirable, particularly on account of the suburban service to C hristchurch. On the other hand there wood be no necessity to extend electrification beyond Christchurch. s:nce there was little if any inter-running between the Lyttelton and the Rangiora lines. Thev therefore estimated the capital cost of the electrification between Christchurch and Lyttelton only, but included in the equipments of the tracks to Addington to allow locomotives to run to the repair shoj* They est mated that the number of electric locomotives required would be five, and that the net capital cost of electrification, after deducting the value of the locomotives released. would be £198,300. The joint report of Messrs Kissel and Sims goes into much closer detail on certain asnects than that of iuessrs Merz and MLennan. They state that they have not been able to analyse or verify the estimated amount of the net capital cost due to lack of detailed information in the report of Messrs Merz and M‘Lennan, 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 present service electrically a 6 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 (he 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 w.th complete electrification. Tl. . should be a considerable reduction in the capital cost and also the advantage that the expenditure could be snroad over a longer p riod 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 sav that although from the railway economic- point of view electrification is not justified, yet from the broader or national point of view it may be 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 accure from the chanire over to electrification, or whether such burden should be met bv a grant from the Consolidated Fund. On that point they offer no recommendation, assuming that the Government is committed either to duplicate the tunnel or electrify the line. “The Railway Board is of the opinion that the electrification is the much better proposition,” states the Chairman of the Railway Board (Mr F. J. Jones), in commenting on the report of Messrs Merz and M’Lennan. “Without giong into the matter in detail,” he adds, “the figures seem reasonable. They show that from the 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.”

“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 duplciaticn of the tunnel, is not warranted, but that, seeiug the Government is already committed 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 rf the improved and more economical operating of the service if electrified, the Government has decided tc electrify the tunnel in lieu of duplicating the line.” After saying that from the estimates included in the reports the work will be ample to meet prospective requirements for many years, Mr Coates states that arrangements will now be made for the calling of tenders to carrv out the work which will be put in hand without delay.