BAY OF PLENTY PORT WILL DECIDE RAIL DEVIATION

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 15, Issue 22, 17 April 1950, Page 5

BAY OF PLENTY PORT WILL DECIDE RAIL DEVIATION

The long planned railway connection between Paeroa and Pokeno is not likely to be brought. any nearer by the development of the proposed new Bay of Plenty deep water port, according to an article which appeared in a recent publication.

The article is based on the point that the main argument in favour of the Paeroa-Pokeno project was to relieve congestion on the Main Trunk line and that the providing of adequate facilities at Whakatane or Tauranga would help to relieve that congestion.

Have It In Hand The article goes on to state that though railway executives have the Paeroa-Pokeno project in mind, other works are regarded as more important. Given a free hand with the limited money available for construction, they would favour Main Trunk and Auckland suburban electrification.

Both Tauranga and Whakatane have advocated comprehensive plans for port construction in their areas. The continued importance of the Paeroa-Pokeno railway will largely depend on their success in convincing Cabindt. Construction-of the 40-mile line would relieve the Main Trunk and reduce rail distance between Paeroa and Auckland from 129 miles to 80 miles.

Construction of the line was started in January, 1938, and about 20 per 1 cent of the earthworks was finished before the war. Then the job was abruptly halted. Construction gangs went to war work.

The country is easy for railway construction. The first 20 miles from Pokeno passes through rolling country and then comes to flat Hauraki Plains. There are no “soft” to give foundation problems. No Bridges Built

No bridges were built, but two big ones are required—one across the Piako and the othpr across the Waihou. Other smaller' 1 ones would be needed. Estimate of the cost in 1938 was £1,000,000. Today that might well be trebled. Even if Cabinet authorised the work the recruiting of 200 workers would be difficult. The 1948-49 Government estimate included a vote of £150,000 for the project, but only £3541 was spent. The estimate for the current year is, only £2OOO.