NATIVE COAL.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2085, 29 October 1880, Page 3

NATIVE COAL.

The following reports on the relative value of Native and Newcastle coal were laid before the Lyttelton Harbor Board yesterday : “13th October, 1880,

“.0. H, Williams, Esq , Secretary Harbor Board.—Sir, —l am in receipt of the report on Native coal, furnished at my suggestion by the Locomotive Superintendent of the Canterbury Railways, and I now furnish you with a statement showing a comparison of the Springfield coal tried on our steam barges, with the results arrived at by the Canterbury railways with the same coal. You will see on comparing my coal test (as previously furnished) with that of the railway, that 1 have, while burning Springfield coal (being the clans of coal burnt on the Canterbury section of the railways) obtained better results as regards consumption. Newcastle. Native. Railway proportions 18.52 to 31.56 Barge proportions 35.0 to 53.0 “I will now take 35 tons of Newcastle coal as the standard in each case, which will give the following proportions : Newcastle. Native. Railway ... 33 tons ... 59.64 tons. Barge ... 35 tons ... S 3 tons. In barge’s favor 6 64 tons. “ I think the above will show that I have taken every care to get the best results possible. “ I will now compare the prices— Newcastle. Native. _ Railway 28s 9d per ton 13s at the pit. in Lyttelton Barge 35a 4d per ton 27s in Lyttelton, in Lyttelton “Again, taking 35 tons of Newcastle in each case, and 59.64 tons, and 53 tons of Native at the above prices will give the following : Newcastle. Native. Railway £SO 6s 5d £3B 15s 3d £ll 11s in favor of Native coal. Barge £6l 6a 8d £7llls Od £9 14s 41 in favor o f Newcastle coal. “ The above prices give a saving of 29f per cent, for the railway by using Native coal, and a loss of 15 J- per cent, on the barges.—l have, &3., (Signed) Heney Tuepin, Superintendent Engineer.” “ Locomotive Department, Addington, “ 7th October, 1880. “ lie Native and N.S.W. Coal. “Dear Sir,—l beg to acknowledge the receipt of your favor doted the 4th inst. upon the above question, and in reply have the honor to submit for your information particulars taken from actual practice, showing the results obtained upon this section from the use of Native coal as fuel for locomotives as compared with the N.S.W. production. The figures appended have been extracted from my ordinary four-weekly returns, the mean consumption of coal being that for periods of four and six months respectively. The Native coal principally used is from the Shag Point and Springfield Coal Companies, and is supplied under contract at the rate of 13s per ton at the pits’ mouths. You will observe that I have not included the cost of haulage to either descriptions of coal, as it waa necessary to haul the N.S.W. coal (when that contract was in existence) long distances, leaching as far as Oamaru, so that this point I consider stands fairly balanced.—l am, &0., Allison D. Smith, Diet. Loco. Superintendent, “O. H. Williams, B-q., “ Sec. Harbor Board, Christchurch.” “ New Zealand Railways, Locomotive " Department. “ Comparative statement showing relative values of Native and N S.W. coal; “ N.S.W.— Date—March Bth to July 31st: Mean consumption of coal per mile, 18 521 b .; contract rate, delivered in waggons at Lyttelton, 28s 9d per ton j cost in ponce per mile, 2,852 d. “ Native. Date August: Moan consumption of coal por mile, 31.561 b,; contract rate at pit’s mouth, 13s; I cost in pence per mile, 2197 d, Difference, I £155 per mile, equal to 29.76 per cent, in J favor of Native coal.— (Signed) ALLISON D, Smith, Dist, Loco. Superintendent,”