EXTENSION OF RAILWAY TO PUAHA DEBATED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18546, 21 August 1928, Page 6

EXTENSION OF RAILWAY TO PUAHA DEBATED.

LINE WOULD COST £25,000 A MILE FOR COST OF CONSTRUCTION. A conference convened by the Canterbury Progress League, consisting of representatives of Banks Peninsula farmers and Messrs J. M’Combs, M.P., David Jones, M.P., G. T. Wilson, F. Pawson (Commercial Branch Railway Department), A. J. Wicks, of the Lands and Survey Department, and P. R. Climie, organiser of the League-, was held yesterday. Mr J. R. Thacker was voted to the chair. The conference was called for the purpose of discussing a proposal to extend the Little River line a distance of about three and three-quarter miles up the valley to Puaha. THE PROPOSAL REVIEWED. A statement prepared by Mr J. M’Combs was as follows: The estimated cost of railway construction is £25,000 per mile, including equipment, but not including rolling stock. The proposed extension of railway would probably not pay, but in that respect it would probably be like a number of other railway lines in the Dominion. The proposed extension would be a means of preventing the diversion of fat stock and other produce to motor transport, and thus help the revenue of the Little River line. The Little River line is one of the nonpaying lines, but in making a charge for interest, it should be remembered that the cost of construction was paid out of the proceeds of the sale of 50,000 acres of land belonging to the trust created for the purpose. The cost of relaying was paid for out of consolidated fund on behalf of the Railway Department. Unfortunately the line is not even paying working expenses, but it is much nearer doing so than a number of other lines in the Dominion. Mention has been made of the balance in the Ellesmere and Forsyth reclamation and Akaroa Railway Trust Account. The total amount in the Trust Account at March 31, 1927, was £10,357—n0t enough to construct half a mile of railway. Anyhow the Public Works Department has refused to hand it to the Railway Department, because the Public Works Department is of opinion that the money may be required for drainage and reclamation works in connection with Lakes Forsyth and Ellesmere, and these works have precedence under the Trust. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. Mr M’Combs read a letter from the Hon R. F. Bollard, dated June 2, 1926. At that time Mr Bollard was acting for the Minister of Public Works. The letter stated:—* “In reply to your letter of 11th ultimo relative to the Little River Railway position, I have to state that the position is that at March 31 last there was a surplus in the special account amounting to £8436, and in terms of the Act relative thereto is available for expenditure in manner as follows: — (1) In repayment of expenses of survey and administration of the land. (2) In repayment of such works as may be necessary for reclamation of the land. (3) In repayment to the Public Works Fund of all moneys paid towards the cost of construction of the railway from Lincoln to Little River, and the balance as provided by Section (11) of the Railway Construction Act 1878, in construction and maintenance of the line. There is no likelihood of a claim being made in connection with No. 1. Rents accruing from the lands affected are received by the Lands Department, w’hich retains 5 per cent for administration and collection; but relative to No. 2 a request was made some time ago by the Ellesmere Land Drainage Board for assistance towards improving the outlet to the lake, and if such works are finally decided upon as necessary, the cost of same could reasonably be made a charge against the available funds in the account. As regards item No. 3, the total cost of constructing the railway has already been repaid; and the balance, after providing for items No. 1 and 2 in full, would be available in payment of the cost of maintenance of the railway line to Little River. In this connection a claim has already been made by the Railway Department for payment of the available balance in the fund to recoup that Department for its outlay in relaying and general maintenance of the line. You will notice that in view of possible developments in connection with item No. 2 that it would be desirable to hold over any action relative to payment of cost of maintenance of the railway from the accumulated funds in the special account.— (Signed) R. F. Bollard (for the Minister of Public Works).” OTHER PARTICULARS. Mr M’Combs submitted figures relating to the Trust Account showing that the total accumulated amount in the fund in 1927 was £10,357. He added that the Puaha extension must stand on its own merits. There were a number of non-paying lines in the Dominion which were justified from the point of view of the development of the country. From the point of view of the Railway Department the extension would prevent the diversion of fat stock, grass seed, cheese and other freight to motor transport, and the Railway Department would be justified in looking at it from that point of view. He submitted the following figures relating to the Little River railway (twenty-three miles) : 1927. Loss on working 5246 Feeder value 474 Total net loss 4771 Loss including interest ... 9728 Average Per Mile of Line. 1927. £ Branch revenue 462 Feeder value 21 Total revenue 453 Working expenses 690 Interest . 216 Total loss 423 Feeder Value:—All traffic both ways off the branch is credited with a certain percentage of other main line haulage. 1928: Revenue £9475, total expenses

£16,405, feeder value £4Ol, interest £5003.

Estimated cost of construction per mile including equipment but not including rolling stock: £25,000. Total revenue per mile Little River line in 1927 was £483, including feeder value. Working expenses and interest per mile, Little River line, £906.

Mr M’Combs concluded by stating that the annual loss on the Little River railway line was increasing, and if the Railway Department could be assured that traffic would return and the revenue over the whole line be increased as a result of the extension the Department would be warranted in making the extension. Could the Peninsula representatives give such an assurance to the Railway Department? That was a question which the Head Office was sure to ask. THE DISCUSSION. Mr Wicks explained the position in regard to certain reserves that had been set aside in the past for railway purposes. Mr D. Jones, M.P., who is also chairman of the Meat Board, explained the advantages there would be in the transport of stock on account of the saving that would be effected in driving to the present railhead at Little River. Mr Wilson produced figures in regard to the traffic from Little River at present. At the present time about 1357 trucks of stock were forwarded from Little River and 468 to Little River per annum. Of this quantity it was estimated that 65 per cent would be diverted to Puaha, and that the additional revenue would total about £320 per annum. This, of course, would not pay any contribution towards the cost of construction of the line. m The figures were considered by the members present to be an underestimate, and a committee was set up to go further into the matter at a meeting to be held at Duvauchelle. A very interesting discussion followed in which it was urged that the revenue from the transport of the stock should not be the whole consideration in connection with the proposal to extend the railway, it being definitely stated that there would be very great benefits to the farming community in the district by the increased price that would be obtained for the stock. It was also pointed out that the extension of the railway, together with the improvement in the road between the proposed railway head at Puaha and the Hilltop Road, would tend to divert traffic at present coming through to Christchurch by road, and a considerable quantity of traffic that was now being conveyed by the steamers from Akaroa. The next conference, at which additional information will be forthcoming, will be held at Duvauchelle on September 7. The president of the Progress League and the chairman of the Railway Committee of that body will be specially invited to attend.

Three Miles Extra Haulage, s d Sheep, cattle, pigs 2 4 per truck Grass seed 2 1 per ton Cheese 1 0 per ton

LOSS ON OTHER LINES. Mileage Total Loss loss per mile £ £ Cheviot 44 29,124* 662 Eyre ton-Oxford 54 14,634 272 Otago Central . . 147 62,176 424 Lawrence 52 28,919 556 Gisborne 60 41,716 695 Little River 23 9,728 423 CONCLUSION.