MORNINGSIDE TUNNEL

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 880, 25 January 1930, Page 6

MORNINGSIDE TUNNEL

MINISTER’S ARGUMENTS “NOT CONVINCING” LEAGUE AND MINISTER “To anyone conversant with railways and their functions, the arguments enumerated by the Minister of Railways, the Hon. W. B. Taverner, in favour of the decision to abandon the Morningside tunnel deviation project, are not convincing,” states the executive of the Northern Suburban Railway and Highways League, in a comprehensive reply to the Minister. The statement deals with the Minister's principal reasons seriatim as folThe total cost is given as £2,174,000, Including electrification to Helensville. All the earlier estimates only included the present suburban services, that is, to Swan3on and Papakura. so why now go as far as Helensvilio? Presumably the estimate for electrification includes the cost of duplication as far as New Lynn (10 miles), and possibly as far as Helens ville (38 miles). If the north and south lines were electrified only between Papukura and Morningside, the Toute so treated would total 33 miles —a convenient length. CHEAPER TRANSPORT This electrification of the Auckland suburban areas would assuredly make for quicker and cheaper transport, and therefore ensure increased earnings. It has been officially stated that the revenue derived from the electrification of the railways in the suburban areas of Melbourne has resulted in a gain of £325,000 per annum. The electrification would, incidentally, be the means of utilising additional power from Arapuni, and thereby bringing in fresh revenue to the (Jovemment. The original estimate for the Auckland - Morningside tunnel was £449,00. The cost of the tunnel portion, standard double-track section, at £7O a lineal foot, would be £560,000. The open portion should not exceed £IOO,OOO. including land resumed. Adding 10 per cent, for contingencies, the total should be £726,000. With duplication as far as New Lynn it would be £900,000. EXCESS OF £750,000 The estimated cost of electrification from Papakura to Morningside, including branch lines via Remuera and Mount Eden, is £700,000. Omitting the duplication to New Lynn, this makes a total of £1,426,000, or £750,000 less than the Minister’s figures. The alleged difficulties and dangers involved in constructing a doubletrack tunnel under a city have been overcome in hundreds of cases, such as those of London, New York, and Sydney. This Morningside tunnel would have ample vertical clearance or overburden almost throughout, except near the suggested city station, somewhere near Wakefield Street, where, for say five chains, the depth would be so little, that “cut and cover” methods would have to be adopted. This would mean the removal of all buildings for this length, but this removal, together with underpinning in other places and other necessary operations, would be quite simple. There would be no difficulty about passing under or alongside buildings on this lino for none is of any magnitude. (c) The Minister alleges that no saving in goods huulage would result when the Auckland-Westfield railway deviation was proposed, and again when opened for goods traffic, figures were quoted to the effect that the saving in haulage of goods trains would amount to £2,500 per annum, sufficient to pay 5 per cent, interest on the expenditure. Similar figures were adduced in support of the Well-ington-Tawa Flat deviation, now in progress. The principal argument in favour of the Westfield deviation was the elimination of the heavy haulage on the steep grades of the Newmarket line. The Morningside deviation has a higher claim than the Westfield deviation, in that it shortens the line by one mila 38 chains, whereas the Westfield deviation slightly increases the length. It is hard to credit that there would be savings in haulage on only 182,222 net ton miles from the North to Auckland. Auckland is the great export nnd import centre, and it would reasonably be expected that nearly all the northern traffic would go to or from the marshalling yards at Auckland Station yard, either to or from overseas, or to and from the South. THE HARBOUR BRIDGE (d) The contention that much passenger and goods traffic would still have to be carried on between Morningside and Newmarket is equally hard to conceive. As far as passengers are concerned that portion of the line could be closed with great profit to the department, and without any great inconvenience to the few passengers who would use it. As to goods traffic, it is admitted that only onefifth of the South-bound traffic would •go over that section. The Northbound traffic over that section is not mentioned, probably because it would he negligible. This portion couid not be actually closed, but it would degenerate into a mere loop-line. te) The harbour bridge is mentioned as being likely to detract from Ihe value of the new line. The bridge is not likely to eventuate for many years, and even when it does it will mainly affect short distance traffic to and from tiie Northern boroughs. if) That the line would not Influence goods or passenger traffic to any extent is absolutely wrong. It would

simply revolutionise It, and would i once and for all solve the problem of transport for all the western suburbs, as well as for the adjoining districts, and more especially so if the Te Atatu deviation were put in. The league suggsts that as the tunnel would be broken in the centre ' by an open station, to work it by i steam would not be impracticable. 1 Each length would be in effect a sep- j arate tunnel 60 chains long, with a I grade of 1 in 80. The Poro-o-tarao tunnel, on the Main Trunk line, is 60 chains long, half being on a grade of 1 in 80, and half 1 in 287. It is a single-track tunnel, whereas the MorniDgside tunnel would be double-track. Also, artificial ventilation could be used. Another feature of the existing position is the site of the new Auckland Railway Station. It is so very inconveniently situated for passenger traffic, that unless connected with a central city station, the suburban traffic is bound to dwindle to a vanishing point. Reviewing the arguments against the project, it would appear that all possible weight has been given to everything adverse to the proposal. This attitude has been strained to an unreasonable extent, and matters have been Introduced that do not at all concern the subject. From an engineering point of view the deviation is quite a feasible proposition, and one that will prove financially beneficial tc> the department. It is only by such improvements in transport facilities that patronage for the railways can be stimulated. Without it the position on the railways will drift from bad to worse, especially as regards passenger traffic. Electrification will have to be adopted. It has been successful practically wherever tried, and the sooner it comes the better for the Government, as well as for the public.