The guardian (And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.) WEDNESDAY, MAY 30th, 1923. THE TUNNEL DELAY.

Hokitika Guardian, 30 May 1923, Page 2

The guardian (And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.) WEDNESDAY, MAY 30th, 1923. THE TUNNEL DELAY.

JUDCINO by the report publislied of Mr Climie’s impressions of the progress of tho works at- Arthur's Pass tunnel there is still serious delay iu sight, the blame for which seems to bo chiefly attachable to the want of co-ordina-tion between the two principal State departments concerned in the work— Public Works and Railways. Apropos of a possible opening date, Mr Evan Parry came to New Zealand in the hope"of being present at- the ceremony. It is stated now on very good authority that it will not be possible for him to remain, and he is returning to England. The key to this situation is given by Mr Climie who states that tho locomotive drivers are not being instructed yet with regard to the use of the locomotives, and as their schooling will take from ten to twelve weeks before passengers will be carried, it can be well understood there is going to lie a protracted delay still, beforo the opening date call bo fixed definitely. From, another source we learn that the outside work at Arthur's Pass is very backward, and it will be some weeks yet before the locomotives can he utilised. This state of affairs betokens a shocking lack in the direction of the work. From time to time high officials and Ministers have been hazarding statements as to a probable opening date, nil (Sf which must have been founded on false estimates. W hv is this ? Why. with responsible officers controlling the work some- more accurate estimate cannot he given? There seems a looseness about, tlic whole matter which in a work of such magnitude passes all understanding. No doubt the subject will he 'brought up m Parliament when it meets shortly. There must bo great waste of expenditure going on over tho whole matter, and someone should he called to account. Hie liability for tho delay should he fixed. This brings us to the point in regard to co-operation between the two Departments. It would appear that the two Departments should ho under one- head with one set of engineers. As it is, there is divided authority. There are two Ministerial heads advised bv two sets of engineering staffs, and in these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that the two departments come into conflict. The rival methods of the two offices, we are persuaded, result in very costly management of the, upkeep of the public works of the country. No sooner is a work out of the hands of the Public Works Department than the Railway Department commence to bring the line up to a standard of its own. Once the Railway Department takes over a railway it starts on its “improvement” scheme, while all subsequent alterations are carried out by the Railways, even where large constructional ‘work is concerned. Two sets of engineers are required to do nil this, and it would be more efficient and economical on the face of it, to have one set, and leave it to that organisation to do nil standard tvprk, The

overlapping must be a serious burden on the country, to saying nothing of tho delay often incurred by the time taken for cne Department to satisfy tho other in respect to lines proposed to be handed over. Coming back to the great work in mind, wo hare to recall that in August, 1918, Sir Wm. Fraser, then Minister of Public Works, announced at the firing of “the last shot” at that date, that the lino would bo operating in two years’ time 1 It will he five years’ time in August next, and it is becoming painfully evident that passenger traffic will not ho operating through the tunnel by then! Sir William was shockingly advised in 1918, or else wilfully misled the public. Somebody should ceitaiuly l>e carpeted ever so gross a miscalculation in the time required to finish the job in hand for now over fifteen years duration.