A Case For Modern Railways

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31083, 11 June 1966, Page 13

A Case For Modern Railways

(Specially written for "The Press" by ROGER LASCELLES) ABOUT four or five years ago, at the annual convention of the Sduth Island Publicity Association in Christchurch, a remit was unanimously passed that overtures be made to the Minister of Railways in an effort to have panoramic viewing facilities introduced on the Midland Line rail-cars. At the time, the Minister replied that as the department had only recently put some new rail-cars into service, he could not reasonably authorise the extra expenditure involved to modify them.

This reply was sufficiently logical to close the Letter, but with the passing of tne years and the opening of the long-awaited Haast Pass link In the circuit highway, the time is drawing near for the ordering of new rolling stock, and the position can be re-examined in the light of some additional factors which have since developed. First, there is the keen present-day public awareness as to our potential tourist earnings. The South Pacific is opening up with the advent of the big, high-speed, long range jet aircraft and if we play our cards properly, and look after tourists in a worthwhile manner, we will be on to a very good thing. Overseas income earned through tourism is as good as money earned by selling wool, or meat, or butter. Second, there is our precarious financial position. We are spending more than we are earning, and although many of us favour a tougher line on internal credit, the fact is that we can also help ourselves significantly by earning more. Who knows? If we can step up our earnings rate, we might even be able to abolish import licensing—still with us, but with few other advanced Western nations.

At all events, tourism offers us financial hope and this brings us to the rail trip from Christchurch to the West Coast.

With both feet firmly on the ground, I would start by asserting that the rail trip from Christchurch to Greymouth has comparable, if not better, scenery than that of the celebrated Bergen-Oslo run. Plains, river valleys,

gorges, lakes, mountains, bush —the lot

We have it slap amidships in the South Island, and like the man in the biblical parable who took his talent and buried it in the ground, we are “wicked and slothful” for failing to do something with it

Especially so when improvements would cost little, thrill many and earn much!

The second point I must make—with equal if not greater force—is that unless during my 18 months absence from New Zealand there has been a shattering change in passenger rolling stock purchasing policy—the very best of our present-day passenger stock falls far short of prevailing world first class standards. Over-stuffed chairs in Victorian carriages are not good enough. If we want to sell this first-class scenic route we have to buy ourselves a little present-day equipment. Requirements It is not an exaggeration to claim that recent advances in the railing of passengers are comparable to the change from piston engines to jets. In track banking, welded rails, advanced new suspension, and, finally in straight out carriage design, concepts as recent as those of 1960 have literally been flung aside. We must start with a blank sheet of paper and build up with these new design philosophies in any approach we make to new passenger rolling stock. After half a century of lethargy, the whole world of passenger handling by rail is in the throes of a monster shake-up. Many of us have talked of

vista-domed split-level carriages. These may be one answer—and a sketch of a modern version adapted for a rail-car appears with this article—but tunnel clearances impose limitations and within present height limits of lift 6in above the rails and a maximum width of Bft 6in we may have to modify this view a little.

Certainly roof-lights—lam-inated, tinted and curved — can and should be fitted in the sides of the roof and running down the upper-part of the sides of observation carriages.

These windows can be heatabsorbant and can be customtailored to cover large areas. If we are going to use the roofs for sight-seeing, we no longer need do so by key-hole surgery. We can go the big way now.

Overhead baggage racks can be retained in conventional type passenger carriages, where the outlook is principally horizontal, but in cars fitted with roof-windows, hand-baggage must be stowed under the seats. Suitcases are of course no longer shunted away to the guards van at the end of the train, but are put on two-tiered racks at the doorway of each car. View Of Track Finally, the pre-war habit of isolating the driver is ail over now. Today he is still separated fom the passenger compartment, but by a glass wall, not an opaque one. Passengers behind the driver get a clear view of the track ahead in 1966.

Some years ago the unions asked for vertical iron bars to be fitted to the outside of the N. Z. railcar drivers windscreens. I have tried to check on the specific reason for this without success, but most people suspect it was because of the risk of rockfalls or hitting birds at speed. In the old days before the present - day sophisticated glass, there 'may well have been justification—very sound justification— for this protection. Today however the protection is built into the glass. We have laminated safety glass available in various heavy gauges, we have stronger glass, we even have bullet-proof glass. The whole science of glass technology has rolled forward and we can now say good-bye to this requirement without in any way endangering the modern drivers. In mountainous Switzerland bars are not used—verandas can be built over tunnel mouths if necessary—and in Britain with trains zipping along at 100 m.p.h. they do not use bars.

All the window-bars do, is reduce vision and give the driver stripes before the eyes. With panoramic wind-shields, both driver and passengers get greatly Improved forward viewing. So, whether in the end we have vista-domes, we can ensure there will be excellent forward, upward and horizontal vision on our “rail-cars of tomorrow.”

Altering construction requirements can be a tricky business. In a way it is like up-dating a building code. Whoever would have dreamt that the day would come' when electric wiring in a house would be permitted without conduit? Or that downspouts other than of cast iron would be authorised? Construction codes are essentially organic or growing things. They keep changing all the time. I have mentioned the question of glass windscreens but there are many others in the field of railway rolling-stock design which have been updated by technological advances. Mass produced panels with “compound curves”-—curved through two planes—can be produced easily today with fibreglass. This is light and strong and relatively easy to handle. New metals and new extrusions give strength without an excess of weight and engineers have had to recast a lot of earlier ideas in the light of these changes. Hence, it is not a matter of holding fast to out-moded specifications when we order these new rail-cars, but rather of getting one or two first class industrial designers working hand in glove with some first-class mechanical and constructional engineers who are well up in modern technology, and being guided by the outcome. Standards Whenever I hear about Neiw Zealand being the second nation in the world for telephones, fifth for motorcars or whatever, I must coirfess that by immediate reaction is: “Why aren’t we first?” We are a people blessed with reasonable intelligence and gross national income, and I find it difficult at times to reconcile myself to the fact that in various departments we fall short of the highest standard.

This argument holds good of rail matters also. Thtre is only one standard to seek—the best. If we aim at the moon we might at least hit a star.

We are throwing over the old, dirty, inefficient steam engines; we are closing some unprofitable branch lines—but is this sort of thing enough? Is it right to build new stations to pre-war architectural concepts? Is it right that while 450ton 100 m.ph. trains moving in England with 200 passengers and one man at the controls, that we should need two men to drive our 50

m.p.h. freight trains—designed mark you, for one-man control?

Is it right that on the brink of a tourist explosion we should have 27-year-old rolling stock as our latest passenger carriages?

Without exception, every other form of transport in New Zealand has made really healthy advances since the war—air, sea and road—and although the railway system has been improved in several spheres, I suggest that it is the transport form most in need of attention from ah awakened and informed public opinion. I do not suggest that we need to go mad on a major reequipment programme, but when we are buying new

rail-cars, let us get them to a design standard that will win passengers. When we build new stations, let us get in step with places like Coventry not Dunedin. When our railway men need new uniforms, let us give them something in which they can hope to look tolerably smart and which might restore flagging morale. There are two things we can positively do to raise our own rail standards—we can copy other proven solutions and ideas, and we can have the good sense to use experts in their fields, to give us really advanced help. But whatever course we may elect to pursue, it is time that we pushed that accelerator handle resolutely forward.

A DIESEL - ENGINED observation train designed by Wilkes & Ashmore, an English industrial design firm which has done some notable work on modern rolling stock. It needs only some slight dimensional modifications to make it suitable for New Zealand operation, on the South Island trans-alpine line. Each of the two cars seats 46, is air-con-ditioned, and is fitted with Rolls-Royce diesel engines.

Mr Lascelles, a member of the executive of the South Island Publicity Association is well known for his interest in industrial design. He is at present living in London.