Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The New Zealand Railways Magazine, Volume 5, Issue 5 (September 1, 1930)

Interesting Resolutions of the Provincial Council

Interesting Resolutions of the Provincial Council.

Although the Provincial Council had already passed the Ordinance authorising the construction of the railway, and the Superintendent specially referred to this in his address, nevertheless, when the Ordinance was disallowed and a special session was called together on 27th March, 1860, to advise the Superintendent in regard to the matter, the Council proceeded to re-open the whole question and to hear in committee evidence for and against the proposal. The opposition came mainly from those having vested interests in the Heathcote River navigation. Wharves had been established at various points on the river, viz.: Ferry Wharf, Steam Wharf, Union Wharf, Aikman's Wharf, and Christchurch Quay. These wharves were approached from the Ferry Road, on which the goods were carted to and from Christchurch. A Customs Bond was authorised at Aikman's Wharf, and two steamship companies were in operation trading between the river and Lyttelton.

After hearing the evidence the Council passed the following resolution: “Whereas the Council has already, during its last session, recorded its decided opinion that a railway between Lyttelton and Christchurch is urgently required, and that such railway should be constructed direct, and by means of a tunnel under the hills, it is therefore resolved:

1. That under the present circumstances of the Province it is highly page 38 desirable that the whole of the money to be employed upon the construction of the said work should be raised by way of loan secured by a first charge on all the available revenues of the Province.

2. That the interest accruing upon the said loan after a rate not exceeding 6 per cent. per annum may be safely guaranteed by the Provincial Government and that a further
Christchurch-Lyttelton Railway Electrification. A rotary converter in the Woolston sub-station.

Christchurch-Lyttelton Railway Electrification.
A rotary converter in the Woolston sub-station.

standing appropriation of Provincial revenue, to the extent of 2 per cent. upon the sum borrowed, may be set apart as a sinking fund for repayment of the said loan.

3. That the Superintendent be respectfully requested to take such measures as may by him, with the advice of his Executive, be deemed necessary for promoting during the ensuing session of the General Assembly such legislative enactments as are indispensable to the construction of the said line of railway.

4. That it is highly expedient that a loan, not exceeding three hundred thousand pounds, be negotiated, to be expended solely in the purchase of the site and in defraying the cost of the construction of the railway and the necessary stations, engines, carriages, and rolling stock.

5. Provided that such loan shall not be raised in any greater amount or proportion than fifty thousand pounds, or one-sixth of the whole sum in any one year during the progress of the work.

Charles Bowen, Speaker.”

Mr. Edward Dobson's Estimates.

Mr. Edward Dobson, the Provincial Engineer, who superintended the layout of the proposed Lyttelton to Christchurch railway, in giving evidence before the Committee of the Provincial Council, supplied detailed estimates of the cost of construction, equipment, and operating. He gave a general description of the proposed line, the length of which was six miles 40½ chains. The steepest grade was 1 in 150 (rising to the western end of the tunnel) and the sharpest curve (of 10 chains radius) at the Lyttelton end. The grade through the tunnel was 1 in 287. He estimated the cost of the work at £300,000, under the following headings:

Land and compensation 9,000
Six miles railway complete 235,000
Stations and rolling stock 44,600
Superintendence 11,400

He also gave details showing how the total of each of these amounts was reached.

The estimate was for a single line, and a tunnel, 15 feet wide and 18ft high above rail level, 2,838 yards in length. The cost of tunnelling at £64 10s. per lineal yard was £183,051.

Lyttelton station was to cost £23,000 and Christchurch £10,600. The larger cost of Lyttelton station was due to the need for filling and retaining walls, but the cost could be somewhat reduced by the employment of prison labour on a portion of the work.

page 39

The rolling stock estimated to be required was:—Two engines, eight passenger carriages, one brakevan, four covered goods wagons, two horse-boxes (each to convey four horses), one cattle wagon, two timber trucks, and thirty goods trucks, to cost in all, with tools, duplicates, and other contingencies, £19,500. This was considered sufficient to deal with a traffic equal to 200,000 tons per annum, but for the initial traffic (estimated at 30,000 tons) nearly the same rolling stock would be required.

The proposals for superintendence were —Consulting engineer (in England), £500 per annum; resident engineer (in Colony), £800 per annum; two inspectors (at £150 each), £300 per annum; surveys and occasional assistance, £300 per annum; in all £1,900 per annum for six years, £11,400.

In reply to a suggestion that the salary of the Resident Engineer was unduly high, Mr. Dobson stated that the engineer in charge of a similar work in England would be paid £600 a year, and he would work under the immediate supervision of an engineer-in-chief. Unless the engineer in control was a man of high professional standing, in whose judgment and professional character a contracting firm could place entire confidence, they would probably decline to proceed with the undertaking. Such a man, if brought from England to take charge, would require to be paid £1,000 a year salary, a sum for his outfit, and a free passage Home on completion of the work.

The cost of buildings for a terminal station was £6,000, viz:—Station office, £800; goods warehouse, £1,200; carriage shed, £200; platforms, £420; engine house, £1,000; repairing shops, £2,000; cranes, weighbridge, etc., £380. This would include all the accommodation required at the starting of the line.

The cost of working a traffic of 30,000 tons with passengers in proportion would be about £8,500. An increase of £1,500 would work a traffic of 60,000 tons, as follows:—

Staff—Manager £800, 2 clerks in charge (£300 each) £600, 2 clerks in charge at intermediate stations (£200 each) £400,2 head porters (£180 each) £360, 8 porters (£120 each) £960, 1 guard £220, 6 policemen (£110 each) £660, total £4,000; maintenance permanent way, 6 miles at £150 per mile, £900; maintenance of buildings, £500; 2 engines in steam, including train expenses, £3,600; reserve fund, 5 per cent. on rolling stock, £1,000; total, £10,000.

Christchurch Passenger Yard, 1930. A portion of the overhead electrical equipment.

Christchurch Passenger Yard, 1930.
A portion of the overhead electrical equipment.

The maximum charge per ton on the proposed railway was 15/-, including collection and delivery. This rate, it was considered, was sufficiently low to preclude competition by other means of transport. It was estimated that if the Sumner Road were completed as planned the cartage rate could be as low as 20/-per ton, and by steamer up the Heathcote River (to make a profit) 20/- per ton, including collection and delivery. The latter rate could not be reduced to any extent by the improvement of navigation.

Assuming the population to reach 30,000 in 1866, the following was given as a fair estimate of the traffic when the line was in working order:— page 40 page 41
60,000 tons of goods at 15/- per ton45,000
Passengers, 250 daily each way9,390
Parcels, 200 per day, at 1/- each3,130
Less collection and delivery of 60,000 tons at ⅙ per ton4,500

Confidence in the Future of the Line.

Mr. Dobson was of opinion that the existing traffic did not afford any sure data for future trade. With the expenditure on immigration of £10,000 per annum for three years the produce of the country would be largely increased, and the imports would keep pace with the exports. There would also be the local traffic created by the railway, estimated at one ton per head per annum for the population between the Waimakariri and Rangitata rivers. The collection and delivery of goods would no doubt be done by contract, and was therefore not included in the working expenses.

Looking Back Fifty-Five Years. (Photo, courtesy Lyttelton Harbour Board.) A view of Lyttelton in 1875, shewing the development of the railway yards on the reclaimed land.

Looking Back Fifty-Five Years.
(Photo, courtesy Lyttelton Harbour Board.)
A view of Lyttelton in 1875, shewing the development of the railway yards on the reclaimed land.

The Provincial Treasurer (Mr. John Marshman) gave estimates of future income to ascertain the ability of the province to pay interest and sinking fund on loans during the construction of the railway. Income and expenditure were properly divisible into two accounts, viz: Territorial and Revenue.

Mr. Baynes, representing Messrs. Smith and Knight, contractors, stated, as a result of careful investigation, that he was satisfied the province could undertake the railway scheme proposed. He had studied the figures given by Mr. Marshman and thought his hypothesis sound. Mr. McCandlish, the Engineer, considered the railway a feasible project. There was nothing in the work that would lead him to think that the cost would exceed the amount of contract. Mr. Baynes agreed with Mr. Dobson's figures generally, including the estimated cost of £8,500 per annum for working a traffic of 30,000 tons. He considered there would be no difficulty (judging by the success of the Canadian 6 per cent. bonds) in raising a loan of £300,000 at 6 per cent. on Government security.

(To be continued.)