ELECTRIFICATION OF LYTTELTON LINE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17758, 30 January 1926, Page 2

ELECTRIFICATION OF LYTTELTON LINE.

To the Editor. Sir, —I think the Canterbury public bodies ought to enter an emphatic protest against the resolution carried by the Sheepowners’ Union on Wednesday. Huge sums of money are being spent on railway improvements in Auckland—a new tunnel, expensive viaducts and costly deviations—but not one word of protest by the Canterbury Sheepowners’ Union against this expenditure. Their criticism is directed against expenditure on railway improvements in Canterbury. This action of the Sheepowners’ Union is going to add to the difficulties of those who want to see Canterbury get its fair share of public expenditure. The present Government has shown itself only too willing to neglect Canterbury and with the “Amen Party” which has just been elected pledged only to Mr Coates there will be little criticism from more than half the members of the House. In regard to the electrification of the Lyttelton Line, it has been demonstrated again and again that it would be a paying proposition. It is true that Coom and Beatty reported against it in 1908 on the score of cost, but that was before Lake Coleridge was harnessed, and the estimate was based on steamgenerated electricity at three farthings a unit. To-day the cost of generating electricity at Lake Coleridge is well below one-third of a penny per unit, and Mr Evan Parry in 1913 showed that the reduction in running costs by changing over from the present steam traction to electricity would pay 12£ per cent on the capital cost. Since 1913 coal and steam traction have increased in cost considerably, while the cost of electricity has cheapened. The Melbourne Electric Railways have proved a huge success both from an engineering and a financial point of view. After allowing for interest and sinking fund, there has been a considerable reduction in operating expenses per average train mile, and it is shown that the induced traffic brought about by the superior service would more than pay for the cost of electrification. The Commissioner, Mr Sharman, in a letter to me, says: "The increased revenue earned by the Melbourne suburban system on the whole of the various lines during the first twelve months of their electrification compared with the preceding twelve months of steam operation totalled £250,000, representing 18,500,000 passengers.” The following year the increased revenue was £325,000 and there were 21.000,000 additional passengers. The Melbourne system has accomplished all this on steam-generated electricity, which cost .458 d and .492 d per unit, whereas in Canterbury we have Lake Coleridge electricity costing half that price. The Sheepowners’ Union can rest assured that the electrification of the Lyttelton Line would pay handsomely, besides being a great comfort and convenience to the travelling public. Canterbury should show a united front on this matter. It is not in the interests of Canterbury that it should go abroad that some of the supporters of the Government in Canterbury are against the duplication of the Lyttelton Tunnel and the electrification of the Lyttelton Line. With a strong party in the House pledged only to support Mr Coates and his policy, it is highly*'undesirable that it should go forth without protest that an important section of the Government supporters in Canterbury is against the electrification of the Lyttelton Line.—l am, etc., y J- M’COMBS.