VICTORIAN RAILWAY EXTENSION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5134, 16 October 1884, Page 3

VICTORIAN RAILWAY EXTENSION.

♦ The Argus, summarising the Statement : of the Victorian Minister of Public Works, says : — Mr Gillies stated some cheering facts to the House. This year the Victorian railways will yield, it is estimated, a revenue, over and above working expenses, of £946,000, or about £7000 in excess of the interest payable on the loans expended to date. A number of the light lines don't pay in themselves, but they bring in heavy traffic to the main lines, and enable the latter to yield a profit which might not otherwise accrue. But for the outlay on the Hobson's Bay lines, and the heavy compensation paid for " unfortunate accidents," the revenue would at this moment cover both interest and working expenses. The lines, independent 'of the suburban system, are now paying; and with the rapid and extending growth of the snburbs of Melbourne, the Hobson's Bay system will shortly become as profitable an investment as the country system. Some of the new lines will not pay at first, but they will open up the country, feed the main lines, and save a large expenditure in road-making. The municipal subsidy of £310,000 a year would probably hay. amounted to an annual grant of £1,000,000 by this time if railways had not been undertaken on a large scale by the State. This, by itself, is strong justification for the railway policy of the past. ' The cost per mile of the new line 3 will ! be less than the amount expended on the last railways constructed in New South Wales (£4236), and Queensland I (£4087), and about the same as j the cost of the South Australian rail- ! ways (£3960) . Soiling stock and rails are i not included in these figures. They will j increase the outlay by £1500 a mile. The ' New South Wales Government purpose ' doing without ballast, embankments, and culverts in extending the Hay railway to : Wilcannia. Our Nuinurkah and Dimboola extensions were laid without ballast in the ' first instance, but the experiment turned out to be a great mistake. Mr Gillies considers £3960 a reasonable minimum for all works, exclusive of rolling stock and rails. The railway proposals of the Government were put before the House simply and clearly, and Mr Gillies had the pleasure of addressing an audience which valued every word he had to utter, and did not miss a syllable. The Railway Construction Bill is based on the Bent Bill of 1882. This measure was adopted by the Assembly, and would, in its principal features,* have become law, but for the "accident" of the dissolution. It was approved by the country, and a shorter allowance of lines than it contained would be a public disappointment. The Government have therefore adopted the Bent Bill in the main. Their recommendations might have been different if they had had a blank sheet to start with. In the Bill of 1882 there were 915 miles of lines. The Government propose 927 miles. The scheme is divided into 902£ miles of country lines, and 24 \ miles of suburban lines, costing £3,926,077. For the country lines the average, exclusive of rolling stock, is £3960 per mile. Mr Bent's estimate of j cost is shown by fuller and later information to have been " wholly inadequate." ' In addition to tho 614 miles of permanent way material provided by Mr Bent, a furI ther outlay of £260,610 is required, and ( the rolling stock has to be increased by £101,813. New workshops, duplications of existing lines, engine sheds, &c, will absorb £1,251,500. The total outlay con- ; templated is £5,600,000. It is to be met as follows : — Unexpended portion of last loan, £920,000 ; land fund, £700,000; new loan, £4,000,000 ; total, £5,620,000.