PORT CHALMERS RAILWAY.

Evening Star, Issue 3507, 20 May 1874, Page 3

PORT CHALMERS RAILWAY.

We make the following extracts from the evidence taken by the Select Committee on the above : Running Night Trains.— Mr Eolfe ; “To enable night trains to be run some of the banks on the line would require to be further sloped and distant, and station signals erected, all of which plant is now in possession of the Government. It would bo necessary to erect the telegraph, which is also in the possession of the Government.” The Provincial Engineer and Mr Conyers agree with Mr Rolfe, the former adding that the junction of the Port line with the Northern Trunk line would not materially affect any calculations as to the capabilities of the first mentioned line. Pier Accommodation —Captain Thomson : “ The pier accommodation at present i not at all equal to the requirements of the Port, even with the new wharf. I consider that there should be an extension of the present pier about 200 ft in a line with Observation Point; then another pier running parallel with the present railway pier, about half Way between it and the dock the same length as the present pier when extended, or I,oooft. Even with such additions there would be vessels left in the channel for want of pier accommodation. To provide further accommodation it would be necessary to take the wharf round Observation Point, as it would not be necessary to deepen there About I,oooft more accommodation could in this way be secured ; and, if further accommodation was required, other 2,000 more could be got in the same direction without dredging, and it is sheltered from the prevailing stroug winds. A pier could also, if necessary, be formed at Boiler Point about 2,000fb long. For a considerable time to come there is ample room in Port Chalmers for all pier accommodation likely to be required. Ido not apprehend any difficulty in dredging alongside the Wharf which is now being constructed.” Insufficient Accommodation , <oc. —Mr H. B. Epnaldson, .merchant, of Melbourne : “lam well acquainted with the working of railways in Victoria and Queensland, In the latter, the gauge is similar to that used on the Port Chalmers railway. I think the construction of your line and rolling stock is very fair, but the appliances for properly working it are very deficient in shed accommodation. To give security to the merchants, you want the ground and the station properly protected by fencing. It would greatly convenience marchants, and plso tend to increase largely the traffic of the line, were some of these sheds converted into bonds for the purpose of examining the goods. This system is successfully carried out in Victoria on the Hobson’s Bay line, and also on the Government line, A large shed is required alongside the wharf at P ortChalmers for receiving and dumping wool. With us, in Victoria, the stevedores erect these shedsat theirowncost, under certain regulations made by Government. I noticed a great loss of labor power in discharging cargo at this end of the line, from the want of suitable travelling cranes. One five-ton and two two-ton cranes are indispensable, I consider. I am of opinion tha ■ you require much larger pier accommodation than yen have. The piers should also be wider than they now are. To enable you properly to work the line you would require about a quarter of a mile of double line aboqt half way, at some convenient part; it is also necessary to erect a telegraph for the use of the line, lam well acquainted with the working of the Hobson’s Bay Railway; it is a double line, and the passenger traffic being very large—sometimes 70,000 per day— they have to use both lines, but for the purposes of goods traffic they use only one line as a rule. On this line they work day and night when necessary. Your present line, I consider, if properly worked, and with all necessary appliances, would l-e able to carry at least 1,000 tons per day.” What the Merchants Think —Mr H, M'Neil, of Briscoe and Co. : “ We have suffered very large money losses through damage to goods at the railway station through exposure, the result of want of proper shed accommodation. If the railway was in proper working order, and afforded the same accommodation as railways at Home, we should very much prefer railways to lighters for the bringing of 8. s > even with the present difference of freight. Mr R, Glendinning, of Ross aud Glondinmng : “We have been in the habit of getting goods by the railway, hut have not found it to answer better than the lighters. We have to complain of the delay in delivering goods. Frequently our goods, to a considerable value, lie in the sheds for Several days, and in one casp for

We have also had considerable trouble in shipping goods by coastal steamers, the time for receiving being limited to some hours before coastal steamers sail When we have sent down goods early enough, they have hem short-shipped, and we have had to accept from the steamer’s agent as a reason the bungling of the railway. As we found that we could not depend upon the railway, we have been obliged to get our goods brought up by lighter, towed by a steamer, at a cost of Ga per ton, and have found this much more, advantageous. Even suppose the rate of railway freight was reduced to 4s, as proposed by the manager, this would prove no inducement to us, except in the case of unimportant shipments. If the delivery was prompt, we would prefer the railway, even at a higher cost of freight.”