.jpg)
The New Zealand Railways Magazine, Volume 5, Issue 7 (December 1, 1930)
History of the Canterbury Railways — How The Early Settlers Solved a Big Transport Problem
History of the Canterbury Railways
How The Early Settlers Solved a Big Transport Problem
(continued.)
Further Evidence Given Before the Provincial Council.
Further evidence taken by the Provincial Council regarding the Lyttelton to Christchurch railway was from persons interested in shipping and opposed to the railway scheme. Their evidence was on much the same lines as that of Mr. George Gould, referred to previously.
Early Steamer Services.
Robert Latter, merchant. Lyttelton, considered that the existing port was unsuitable for deep-sea wharves, that goods would always require to be lightered from, and to the ships in the stream, and that it would be cheaper to send the goods direct from the ship's side up the Heathcote River. He considered the existing steamer service to Heathcote and Kaiapoi quite satisfactory. He did not agree with the estimates of land sales, as when the most favoured spots had been bought only the most distant lands which would not be benefited by the railway, would remain. He thought the charging of an infant settlement with an expenditure so far above its ordinary revenue would prejudice investors. He admitted he had not made himself familiar with the estimates of revenue for the next six years as laid before the Council. He would accept them with some reservations. He did not doubt the estimates, but parties might draw different conclusions from the same data.
Mr. E. J. Jones, wharfinger, of the Union Wharf, Heathcote, stated that his business was chiefly confined to sailing vessels. They charged from 10/- to 1 2/6 per ton for freight from ship's side at Lyttelton to wharf at Heathcote. Wharfage at Heathcote was 3/4 per ton, and cartage to Christchurch 5/- or 6/- a ton. Steamers charged a higher freight on account of giving better despatch. The sea freights mentioned did not include insurance. New Zealand vessels could not insure at ordinary rates to cross the Sumner Bar. The charge for wharfage could not be reduced unless wages were reduced. It included handling and a week's storage. Carts could make two trips a day between the wharf and the city. A good load for two horses would be 2½ tons. The carts usually came back empty.
There was a considerable timber business at the Union wharf, and vessels bringing timber from other provinces took back produce when it was available, but there were slack and busy times. Freight on timber from Auckland was 6/- per 100 ft. to Lyttelton, and usually 1/- more to Heathcote River. Sailing vessels had been detained as much as three weeks inside the bar waiting to cross outward, but he could not mention any case recently of more than a week's detention. By some improvement of the river, vessels of 150 tons could be brought up to the wharves. There had been as many as twenty-five vessels in ten days at the Union wharf.
Mr. J. C. Aikman, wharfinger, of Aikman's wharf, stated that when he commenced business as a wharfinger, three years previously, carriage from Lyttelton to Christchurch, including delivery, was 3 4/6 a ton. The present rate was 25/- a ton. With a sufficient quantity of goods it was capable of still further reduction. With 30,000 tons of goods annually, and the same number of steamers, it might be reduced to 16/- a ton. This would give a better return on capital than at present. There were three steamers trading up the river, and they were barely holding their own. The “Mullough” steamer, for which he was agent, had made one trip a week, occasionally more, for the last six months. The steamer “Planet” page 36 frequently came twice a week. The “Avon” had made only two trips so far. The expenses of the “Mullough” were £100 a month, but this did not include insurance. She could carry 60 to 70 tons, and was usually three-parts full.
Freight Charges.
Outward freights to Lyttelton were:— Wool, 5/- per bale; wheat, 3/- per bushel; potatoes, 8/- per ton, or 10/- per ton weight from farmer's cart to ship's side. The principal shipments of produce were to Wellington and Auckland. They went direct from the river. Of 11,000 bushels already shipped, only 700 or 800 bushels went to Lyttelton. The greater number of purchasers, or their agents, were owners of vessels. The “Mullough” cost the present owners £1,600. Mr. Aikman was questioned by the Provincial Secretary (Mr. John Ollivier) as to the suggested charge of 16/- a ton from Lyttelton to Christchurch, and stated that he could carry at that rate only if he had a monopoly. He admitted that he did not think the wharfage and cartage rates could be materially reduced. Allowing £10 for insurance, and £10 for profit, the expenses of the steamer would be £120 a month. He could not say that she would earn that, making two trips a week at a 10/- freight rate.
.jpg)
Interesting Railway Personalities.
Mr. Andrew Graham, who commenced his railway career as a porter in Dunedin, rising to the position of station-master, in which capacity he served in various parts of New Zealand. He retired in 1912 from the position of Stationmaster, Timaru.
He did not consider deep-water wharves could be worked at Lyttelton, even if a solid pier were run out from Officers’ Point. If a bonded warehouse were established on the Christchurch side the only cargo which would then be landed at Lyttelton would be for Lyttelton town and the small ports south thereof.
He was at one time proprietor of the ferry over the Heathcote River. In 1858 the passenger traffic was about 9,000 a year, and the charge was 3d. a passenger. It has fallen somewhat since then owing to the banks and some of the merchants removing their headquarters from Lyttelton to Christchurch. The reduction began even before the road under the hills was made.
Opposing Amendment Defeated, and Railway Project Approved by Provincial Council.
When the resolution, previously mentioned, was before the Council, an amendment in the following terms was submitted, viz:—
That this Council, having taken evidence on the proposed railway from Lyttelton to Christchurch, is of opinion that it is not expedient to proceed with the undertaking at present for the following reasons:
Because no sufficient evidence has been produced to show that the mercantile interests of the province will derive any advantage from the undertaking commensurate with the outlay required for its construction.
page 37Because irrespective of the evidence of Messrs. Gould, Jones, Latter, and Aikman being decidedly hostile to the project, it appears from the testimony of the Provincial Engineer that if the Sumner Road were completed goods could be collected, conveyed, and delivered at £1 per ton between the two towns, this being only 3/6 per ton above his estimated charge for railway carriage.
Because by the evidence of Captain McLean, steamers could convey freight and pay at 10/- per ton 50 per cent. below the sum required to cover the cost of working the railway, with interest and sinking fund, supposing a traffic of 30,000 tons and 125,000 passengers.
Because no sufficient evidence has been laid before this House to show that such a quantity of goods and number of passengers can be safely relied upon.
Because the financial statement of the Provincial Treasurer is altogether so conjectural as not to justify this House in acting upon it, especially for the following reasons:
(a) That past experience has proved that no such proportion as 50 per cent. on advances to assisted immigrants can be recovered year by year.
(b) It is exceedingly doubtful, in face of the rebellion of the natives in the North Island, whether the Customs revenue will be available to the extent estimated.
(c) The assumption that £35,020 will be available as receipts in 1886 from the railway is not so borne out as to warrant the province in entering upon so large a speculation.
(d) Should the Provincial Treasurer's estimate of receipts from Immigration or Customs prove incorrect, or the railway not realise the amount aforesaid, embarrassment would be occasioned to the finances of the province, involving either the imposing of a system of taxation, or a radical change in the land policy of the province.
This amendement was negatived by the Council by fourteen votes to two (Messrs. Thompson and Ross). The resolution, previously quoted, requesting the Superintendent to obtain the necessary legislative authority through the General Assembly and agreeing to the loan proposals was then carried.
.jpg)
Safety at Railway Crossings.
Pearson level crossing signal at Palmerston North.
Possibly one reason for again dealing at length with the railway proposals was that the Lyttelton and Christchurch Railway Loan Ordinance of 1859 was for only £70,000; the balance of the requirements was to be obtained from revenue. But when the matter had to be re-opened, the Superintendent submitted an amended proposal to borrow the whole sum required for the undertaking, in order that page 38 a greater portion of the revenue might be available for other public requirements.
Royal Assent Given to Lyttelton and Christchurch Railway Act.
It was not till 2nd October. 1860, that the Colonial Secretary wrote that His Excellency the Governor, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, had given assent to the Lyttelton and Christchurch Railway Act. 1860, as passed by the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council.
.jpg)
Officers of the Auckland Locomotive Branch, 1905.
Left to Right.—Back Row: Messrs. G. V. R. Fraser. G. T. Champion, A. A. Boult, Jas. McLellan, J. H. Leopard, G. N. Gash, and A. B. Casey. Front Row: R. Simpson, Geo. Bowles, F. J. Parson, A. V. Macdonald, S. P. Evans and J. W. Lowry.
When the Superintendent opened the 15th session of the Provincial Council on 14th May, 1861, he announced that he had concluded an agreement with a substantial and capable contracting firm of Melbourne for the whole of the works of the Lyttelton and Christchurch railway, and that he had committed to the Union Bank of Australia the agency for the negotiation of the Railway loan.
The contractors were George Holmes and Edward Richardson (trading as Geo. Holmes and Co.), and they undertook to construct the railway (with the exception of the stations) in five years for the sum of £240,500, of which the tunnel was to cost £195,000. The work was commenced at Heathcote Valley on 17th July, 1861.
Make safety Your responsibility.
Wanted! the name of a man benefited by an accident.