DEPARTMENT’S SCHEME

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20993, 21 December 1939, Page 8

DEPARTMENT’S SCHEME

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT DETAILED STATEMENT COSTS OF VARIOUS PROPOSALS “You will recall that at the interview between representatives of your council and myself at Hamilton in August last, when matters appertaining to the re-arrangement schemes at Frankton Junction and Hamilton were discussed, writes Mr Mackley, it was agreed that I should provide the council with a detailed statement setting out the savings involved which had been credited to the council and showing the costs of: (1) Putting the department’s proposals through, exclusive of the council’s requirements; (2) the

whole job, including the borough’s requirements; (3) the value of the savings credited to the borough; and (4) the value of the savings credited to the department. Particulars of the information required by your council under the headings shown above are as follows:—• £ New station buildings and platforms at Frankton Jnc. ... 1 48,000 Frankton Junction yard rearrangement 3 9,200 Foot subway, Whatawhata Road to platform 10,000 Combined goods yard at Frankton Jnc. (including- land) ... 61,700 Duplication of line between Frankton Jnc. and Hamilton on present level 5,000 Hamilton—island platform . . . 2,500 Duplication or line between Claudelands and Ruakura .... 8,000 Signals branch charges 100,000 Land required (exclusive of goods yard) 15,000 £389,700 “You will observe that the proposals do not allow for the duplication of the line over the Waikato River and this being so, a new railway bridge would not be required, adds Mr Mackley. Under this scheme it is not proposed to undertake any level crossing elimination, but a foot subway from the west side to the Frankton Junction station platform has been provided for. Cost With Borough’s Proposals (2) Cost of the whole job, including the borough’s recuirements would be £648,300.

“I may explain that if low-level passenger station facilities were provided at Hamilton, additional costs amounting to £20,Q00 would be involved. The amount directly apportionable to your council is £196,150 but the claim actually made is for £174,000 only. (3) The value of the savings credited to the borough is £20,000. This figure represents the value of the wages of the crossing-keepers employed at Commerce Street, Frankton Junction, and Victoria Street, Hamilton, capitalised at 4£ per cent.

(4) “The only direct savings that would accrue to the department on account of your council's scheme for the lowering of the line would be the elimination of the crossingkeeper’s wages at Victoria Street, Hamilton, and this item, together with the crossing-keeper’s wages at Commerce Street, Frankton Junction, has been capitalised and credited to the borough. The total wages involved would amount to £BSO per annum and the amount credited to the borough is £20,000. Facilities at Hamilton “Dealing with the question of

economies, it is desired to point out that it would be better, from the point of view of the department, if its own proposals were carried out,” said Mr Mackley, “as this would ininvolve an expenditure of £389,700, as against £474,300 which the department is now prepared to pay as its proportion of the cost of the combined scheme. “As the department proposed to provide in its own scheme up-to-date passenger facilities at Frankton Junction and a combined goods yard to serve both Frankton Junction and Hamilton, the railway facilities at Hamilton could be eliminated irrespective of your council’s scheme. Again, if the department's requirements only were provided for, there would be more land available for leasing at Hamilton and such land could be served by private sidings. Under the council’s scheme, however,” concluded Mr Mackley, “the lowering of the line would preclude private siding access being given. Furthermore, under the department’s scheme the land available for leasing would have a greater value than it would if the council’s rhfiM were carried out.*