MATAHINA TRAMWAY

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 46, 27 June 1947, Page 5

MATAHINA TRAMWAY

RENEWAL OF LICENSE DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL Tremendous developments to be expected in future years in the upper valley of the Rangitaiki River were mentioned at the June meeting of the Whakatane County Council.

Possibilities of a branch railway or a State highway from Edgecumbe going up the valey to serve the forest areas have made councillors anxious to discuss furture developments before agreeing to a renewal for .a further 21 years of the tramway license of Matahina Tramways Ltd.

This company has a tramway from Edgecumbe to the forest areas. Councillors stated that there were four trains each way using the tramway daily. Correspondence from Matahina Tramways Ltd. was before the council asking the council to advise the company that the existing license would be renewed for a further 21 years. The company offered to carry out repairs to the bridge, pay the costs of tarsealing the approaches to the bridge and maintain the bridge. After considerable discussion the council resolved to invite representatives of the company to meet the works committee, together with Cr W. Hunter and the county solicitor for the purpose of discussing a renewal license draft. This committee will report back to the council. Cr Hunter’s Views When the report of the works committee came before the council Cr. Hunter urged the council to consider the question fully before renewing the license for 21 years. The council was dealing with “hard-headed businessmen” and therefore should get the best legal advice before it agreed to renew the license, he said. There was also a prospect of the Government putting in a branch railway in order to bring out the timber from the valley. Three timber companies were interested in the Matahina tramway, said Cr Hunter, and their output of timber was increasing all the time.

Cr Hunter doubted whether the proposals put forward by the Tramway Company to be embodied in the new license would give the council a “water-tight agreement” from the council’s point of view. The timber companies were operating for profit, while the council was working with the ratepayers’ money. Legal advice should be obtained to protect the council against loss over the council’s bridge which would be called on. to bear greater traffic, said Cr Hunter. He suggested that a committee of the council should go into the matter to get a “water-tight agreement.” Dangerous Crossings

Cr McCracken agreed with Cr Hunter, saying 21 years was a long time in view of the developments taking place in the district. Referring to places where the tramway crossed roads, Cr McCracken thought safeguards would be needed as traffic on the tramway was increasing. There were some dangerous crossings, such as that at Te Teko, which was near the school, shops and saleyards. Councillors must visualise what traffic would be like in the future.

Another matter which might enter into consideration was the effect of further drainage works on the tramway. The line had been altered once and might have to be altered again.

The chairman, Cr J. L. Burnett, said the works committee considered that all crossings should be tarsealed and that the Tramway Company should maintain them. Cr T. H. G. Cawte also thought the matter should be gone into carefully. He was definitely sure that the railway would go up the valley and that it would' be classed as an urgent work. He had formed this opinion after meeting the Minister of Lands and Commissioner of Forests, Mr Skinner, recently. There was also likely to be land development in the district. The chairman said the works committee with Cr Hunter and the county solicitor could discuss the question with the Tramway Company and report back to the council. This was agreed to.