The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 660, 5 March 1859, Page 6

The Lyttelton Times.

Saturday, March.&. The question of communication between the Port and the Plains has by this time been so well debated, that every variety of opinion on the subject has found publicity. There is no great use in further discussion apart from professional opinions. But in quoting* the opinions of Engineers great accuracy is due to the gentlemen consulted, as well as to the public. We regret for this reason that our contemporary should, without enquiry, have given the name of Mr. Robert Ste'phenson as the contractor who furnished, an estimate of the cost of the railway by way of the Stunner Valley. Mi*. FitzGerald purposely abstained from mentioning names in bis public letters; but-we can confirm Mr. Bray's statement that.Mr. .Robert Stephenson has not for the nonce become a contractor.; We may add that Mr. Robert Stephenson, when consulted on the subject, expressed a wish to have the evidence of Mr, Bray, whom he know personally as nn experienced engineer. We subjoin a letter from the latter gentleman, drawing a Very" different deduction from Mr. FitzGerald's letters to that drawn by our contemporary. We have but little doubt that the next mail, which will probably take home the results of the Railway Commissioners'labours, will very much modify the opinion formed in London on insufficient evidence. As to Mr. FitzGerald's views on the subject, it is an injustice to that gentleman to conceive him to be wedded to any one line—an " injustice which he doprecates. He has endeavoured with unremitting perseverance to obtain the best advice on.the evidence before him, and has accepted;, the roundabout road as that which' alone appeared within our reach. If it be demonstrated satisfactorily that the direct road is practicable, no one will more readily than that gentleman throw aside all

make-shifts and temporary expedients to get rid of onr one great difficulty onco and for ever. Tho following is tho letter we allude to :—

TO TUB ISMTOII OF TflK ' T^TTKLTON TIME 3.' Sin,—l have read with considerable surprise in the leading- article of the l Canterbury Standard ' of this day that, on the question ot the Ilailway, " one of the largest railway contractors, Itobert Stephenson, has been consulted;" The gentleman referred to is not a railway contractor, and it is not his opinion or estimate of the cost of the railway that is o-iven in the letters of Mr. FitzGerald, neither do those letters tell us that Robert Stephenson thinks the Sumner Valley Line the only one which it is proper to entertain. It is. the opinion of Mr. FitzGerald and of those who form an opinion from the partial evidence laid before them. Mr. FitzGerald's letter may let some light into the cost of the direct line if it is fairly examined. The whole twelve miles by Sumner to Lyttelton are there estimated at £422,000. "The low level tunnel, about 1000 yards (the Commissioners of 1854 said 60 chains, or 1320 yards), and the line into Lyttelton would cost in round numbers £300,000." This portion of the line would require three other tunnels about 25 chains longyand very heavy side cuttings and retaining walls, which render it so very expensive; the £300,000 is therefore not the cost of 1000 yards of tunnel, as mis-stated by the Editor of the 'Canterbury Standard.' The other 8| miles, and the rolling stock and stations, are estimated at £122,000; of this £70,000 are to be expended on the open line of railway, and probably £17,030 on rolling stock, stations, &c, leaving £35,000 for the estimated cost of about 35 chains of tunnel through the rocks at Sumner and Moabone Point. This gives us £1000 per chain, or £45 per yard, as the estimated cost of the tunnels, which Mr. FitzGerald tells us he presumes must all be bricked.

If the tunnels were not bricked, their proportionate cost would be about £25 per yard, and the direct tunnel of, say, 2800 yards, would cost £70,000; or, if it required bricking throughout, £126,000. The cost of 6 miles of railway could not exceed that of 8% miles by Sumner, viz.,: £70,000, and the stations and rolling stock may be taken at £17,000, making a total of £213,000 for the direct line, with the tunnel bricked throughout. ■ : .

The simple deduction which I make from Mr. FitzGerald's estimate, therefore, is that, if the 12-mile line by Sumner, with its many tunnels and other expensive works, would require an ultimate outlay of £422,000, upon the same data the direct line, with only one tunnel, would cost only ahaut half that amount, viz., £213,000. .

In point of working expenses it is well known that the expense of running trains in England may be estimated at 3s. to 3s. 6d. per mile; here it would be likely to cost ss. per mile, or 80s. more for a twelve mile trip by Sumner than for a six mile trip by the Heathcote valley ; and if only J;hree trips were run each way, daily, about £3000 per annum would, be the extra cost of working three trains on a line by Stunner, or £6000 for running six, trains daily j this is equivalent to paying interest at six per cent, on a loan of £100,000, which would be the sum required to make the direct tunnel if only one-half needs lining .with brick work. < _.::■■: The enormous time. Mr. FitzGerald says the direct tunnel would require for itscbhstruction is based upon an idea that the works at the upper end would be stopped by watier, and the whole tunnel be made from tne Lyttelton end; and on this mere supposition and its effects, and not on any question of actual cost, it is decided that the straight line ought not to be attempted ! But what are the real facts of the case ? The inhabitants of Lyttelton are often in great want of water, and the shipping have to send to Rhodes' Bay for their supply. If, therefore, the fancied springs should be discovered, it would be of great benefit to the Port generally. But the tunnel has a fall of only 30 feet into Lyttelton, or not more than 16 feet fall from the Heathcote Valley before the works from Lyttelton would be Joined, and for this depth the water could be removed, without pumping, by pipes properly laid to form a syphon, but on the completion of the tunnel would be conveyed to the Port. '

The depth of water at any jetty of Lyttelton is considered insufficient for large English ships "j but at the railway jetty, at the berths intended for these ships, the bottom in ay be sufficiently deepened by dredging—the boats and engine for which purpose may be obtained for £3500. . ■■ ■

It is .therefore to be hoped that the Govern-ment-will not foolishly throw away. £70,000 on a partial work by Sumner, when they are candidly informed ".by Mr. -'FitzGerald that £352,000 more-would have to; be spent to complete that work, whereas the shorter and better line by the Heathcote Valley, estimated on data gathered from Mr. Fitzgerald's own letters, would cost only £213,000, which I think the outside of the cost of the work.

W. B. Bray. Christclmrch, March 3, 1859.