When Mr. Paterson's report was made public, Messrs. Geo. Holmes and Co. addressed the Superintendent by letter, under date 18th October, 1869. Their letter reads (in part):—

“Our attention having been called to the report of Mr. T. Paterson, C.E., on the tunnel on the Lyttelton and Christchurch Railway, we consider it necessary to make some remarks thereon, and request Your Honour will cause this letter to be laid on the table of the House in order that members and the public may not prematurely form any prejudiced opinion.

“We are not aware how the person employed by the Railway Engineer arrived at the true centre line of the tunnel. The observatory has long since been destroyed, and without removing the Heath-cote Valley station building it would be quite impossible to get the exact line on which the work was based. The observatory on the top of the hill was found to be out of line, and was not used latterly. We had accurate measurements made in November, 1867, and in May, 1868, which show that the greatest divergence from the straight line was only 8 1/2 inches, and that at a spot not mentioned in the report. There was sound practical reason for every divergence made with the consent of the Engineer, and if the sides of the tunnel have been meddled with to allow of their being so much divergence as stated in the report it is not difficult to account for much of the uneasiness about its stability. For all practical purposes the line was straight when finished by us. The line was opened before the grading was ready, and the works were unfinished when the line was taken over. Miners have been working many months since. Blasting work lowering the floor affects the foot walls and exposes new surfaces. The quantity of material excavated by us exceeded by 15,000 yards the quantity specified in the original contract. Cross sections taken when we gave up the tunnel give different results from those shown by Mr. Paterson. The permanent way was laid by two of the most experienced platelayers in this hemisphere. Why the Railway Engineer in charge during the last six months has neglected to replace the short sleepers we are unable to say.”

In effect, Messrs. Holmes and Co. contended that the condition of the tunnel when taken over from them was not as described by Mr. Paterson, and that such minor alterations as the Engineer-in-Charge considered necessary would have been made if the work had remained under their control.

Light and Heavy Engines.

In the report of the Paterson and Symington Commission and later in the report of the Select Committee of the Provincial Council, reference is made to the running of the heavier engines on the South line. The engines ordered for this line were of the same type and weight as those then running on the Lyttelton line. In view, however, of the increase of goods tonnage, and the consequent desirability of separating the haulage of the passenger and goods traffic, particularly on the Lyttelton line, it had been decided to obtain a lighter class of engine for the passenger work. Two of these engines were received in June, 1868. The Commission recommended that these lighter engines be used on the South line. They attributed damage which they found in the rails of that line to the weight of the engines used, as well as to the weakness of the formation and indifferent and insufficient ballast. The heavier engines weighed approximately 30 tons and were of 2—4—0 type, with 15 £ 22 cylinders and driving wheels of 5ft. 6in. diameter. The weight of an engine of 30 tons of the class mentioned with the weight distributed over three axles would not be considered excessive for a 651b. rail, but it had been stated that the page 46 rails were originally laid flat on the sleepers without the adzing of later practice, giving the rails the slight inward cant provided in the chair track of the standard of the Lyttelton line. In that case the oscillation due to the running of engines with coned wheels on a flat rail would contribute to the damage reported. Such a result is mentioned in the discussion of a paper on “The Railways of India,” read before the Institute of Civil Engineers in February, 1873.

The two smaller engines, each weighing approximately 24 tons, had 14 £ 22 cylinders and 5ft. Oin, driving wheels with the 0—4—2 wheel arrangement.

Interesting Speed Records.

No mention was made in the reports, of the speed at which the engines (and incidentally the four-wheeled carriages and wagons) were run. A maximum of fifty miles an hour was authorised, but that speed was on occasions exceeded. Mr. C. Rons Marten, the well-known journalist and writer on locomotive performances refers to the Canterbury broad gauge engines in his notes contributed to The English Mechanic in December, 1879. He states he timed one of the larger engines (5ft. 6in. wheels) from Selwyn to Christchurch (23 miles) which distance was covered in 26 minutes, equal to 59 miles per hour. He further stated, writing from memory (he had mislaid his notes), that a speed of over 60 miles an hour was attained. He had also timed one of the smaller engines (5ft Oin. driving wheels) and a speed of 57 miles per hour was recorded.

It may be of interest to mention here some reported speeds beside those quoted by Mr. Rons Marten, though they were not done under test and were not timed sufficiently accurately to be recognised as records. On one occasion, a special train conveying His Excellency the Governor was run from Lyttelton to Christchurch, 7 miles (actually 6 miles 26 chains) in 7 minutes. The train was hauled by one of the smaller engines driven by Mr. J. G. Warner, the Railway Engineer. Another instance was the run of a special relief train hauled by Engine No. 3, Driver, A. Blackmore, which was stated to have run from Christchurch to Rolleston, 14 miles, in 13 minutes, equal to nearly 65 miles per hour. A portion of the journey would necessarily be performed at a higher speed than the average. It was mentioned at the time that, when not firing, the fireman sat on the floor of the cab and held on to the brake pedestal. In neither case was there any idea of record breaking, but, as the relief train was conveying medical assistance, the driver was told to lose no time.

Arising out of an argument as to the accuracy of the time stated for the Lyttelton to Christchurch run, and the capacity of the smaller engines to run at over 60 miles an hour, a strictly unofficial test was made between Rangiora and Kaiapoi. There was a late train run from Christchurch to Rangiora on Thursday evenings, the return trip from Rangiora leaving at midnight. This return train was scheduled to carry passengers if required, but except on special occasions of meetings or entertainments at Rangiora or Kaiapoi, was very sparsely patronised. The trip was usually run by one of the smaller broad gauge engines, those then in commission being No. 6 (Driver J. Hoban), No. 7 (B. Leathwick), No. 8 (T. Braithwaite), and No. 10 (G. Dorn and later B. Verdon). On occasions, when the exigencies of the traffic rendered it necessary, J. Lloyd, Night Foreman of Cleaners at Christchurch, ran the trip with one or other of these engines. Each of these men was to try whether it was possible to run the 7 miles (actually 6 miles 64 chains), Rangiora to Kaiapoi, in 7 minutes, provided no intermediate stop was required. The Christchurch-Rangiora line was of the same standard as the Lyttelton line, with 70lb. rails laid in chairs. Several runs were made before the management became aware of these tests and peremptorily stopped them. At that time it was understood that No. 7 engine had made the best run, but owing to the strongly expressed disapproval of the management, the staff were uncommunicative as to the results.

Staff and Salaries.

The estimates for Railway Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 30th September, 1870, give details of staff and expenses of the Canterbury Railways at that page 47 period. The accounts of the Lyttelton line and the Great South Line are shown separately. The revenue for the year is estimated as:—

The expenditure is estimated at £32,471 4s. 4d., and is classified under eleven headings, which include separate accounts for each of the two lines. The traffic expenditure is divided between passengers, goods and wharves. The totals under each heading are:—

The general charges include: Secretary £380, Clerk (also Ticket Printer and Stationery £200), Accountant £300, Collector £250, Cashier £225, 3 Clerks (£150 £125, £75) £350, Messenger £50, Printing, Advertising and Stationery £500.

In Class II. the Stationmasters at Christchurch and Lyttelton were paid each £300 per annum and the Stationmaster at Heathcote £150, Booking Clerks £100 each, Head Porter £146, Guard 10/- and Porters 7/- per day. Only two porters are shown at Christchurch Passenger, and one each at Heathcote and Lyttelton Passenger. The Heathcote porter was also lampman. They are shown as working seven days a week.

On the South line there were Stationmasters at Templeton, Rolleston, Leeston Road (Burnham) and Selwyn. There were two porters at Selwyn and one at Rolleston. One guard did all the timetable running.

The Locomotive Foreman was paid £365 per annum, one driver 15/- a day, two at 13/6 and one at 12/- per day. Firemen were paid 10/- per day and cleaners 48/-per week. Coals (950 tons) were estimated to cost 31/- per ton, and lubricants and other stores a sum of £500. The storekeeper (£150 per annum) and the pointsman and shunters were included in the Locomotive expenses.

(To be continued.)

page 48