63

D.—l

ANNEXURE II TO APPENDIX B. INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE IN CONNECTION WTTTI PROPOSED NEW RAILWAY-WORKS. I. TUAPEKA MOUTH RAILWAY. Tuapeka Mouth Railway. The Director-General, Department of Agriculture, Wellington. Wellington, Bth July, 1922. In connection with the proposal to construct a railway from the Main South line to Tuapeka Mouth, some twenty mile's above Balclutha, a number of different routes have been surveyed, as shown in red, blue, purple, and green on copy of P.W.D. 54645 forwarded herewith. The original proposal of the Public Works Department was to run the line shown in purple up the river-bank, but considerable agitation arose in tho Hillend district, having for its object the deviation of tho line via Hillend, the contention being that a line up the river-bank would be of no help whatever to the high country generally known as Hillend and also that lying in tho valley of the Dullburn or Awamangu. As there is a very considerable difference in the cost of constructing and working these linos, I will be glad to have an expression from your Department as to the probable amount of traffic to be obtained from the country to be served by each of these railways. You will notice on tho lithograph I am forwarding you some hatched borders purporting to indicate the areas served by different routes, but I do not think that you need regard these as very definite. Possibly your Field Inspectors, with their local knowledge, may consider that some of the land shown as served will actually run to other existing railways and vice versa. One of tho great points made by the Hillend people was the necessity for manures in their district, which manures cannot be carted by road from the present railway, and which position would not be in any way improved by a railway up the river-bank. F. W. Fubkert, Engineer-in-Chief. Tuapeka Mouth Railway. The General Manager, New Zealand Railways, Wellington. Wellington, Bth July, 1922. As you are no doubt aware, a railway was mooted to serve the Tuapeka Mouth district, lying some 20 miles up the Oiutha River abovo the Town of Balclutha. When the first survey was made it was run approximately parallel to the river with a junction actually at Stirling, although the proposed line did not diverge from tho present main line until it reached almost to the end of the Balclutha Railway-bridge. The reason for this was that your Department was of the opinion that Balclutha was too congested to enable the junction to be made there. Some time afterwards considerable agitation arose with the idea of having the line taken via Hillend, it being maintained by tho people in that locality that a river-bank railway would be no use whatever to them. There is a good deal of truth in this contention. Alternative lines have been run, therefore, to connect the up-river district with the main line at Grichton or Lovell's Fiat, and by three different routes, and on one of the routes there were two alternative grades. In order that it may be clearly soon whether the probable extra traffic obtained by going via Hillend would in any way justify the difference in working and interest charges, I should be glad if you would advise me what your Department considers would be the annual cost of working the railway via the different routes, and to enable you to do this I am forwarding herewith lithograph showing the alignment, and a tracing showing the profiles via the different routes. F. W. Fubkert, Engineer-in-Chief. New Zealand Government Railways, Head Office, Wellington, 11th April, 1923. Tuapeka Mouth Railway. Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Wellington. Tin: annual cost of working the Tuapeka Mouth Railway may be roughly measured by the provisions necessary for handling the traffic now carried on the river between Balclutha and Tuapeka Mouth (both ways). This traffic is estimated to amount to 3,500 tons per annum, averaging 11 tons per diem. A portion of this traffic which comes from the right bank of the river would be unlikely to be carried by rail. Allowing liberally for such development of the district and consequent increase of traffic which would be brought about by the opening of the railway, it is evident that one train each way daily would be more than sufficient to cope with the business. Regarding the various routes proposed, I desire to make the following comments : — 1. Riverbank Route : Stirling to Tuapeka. —The objection to the branch line leaving the main line near Balclutha —namely, congestion of traffic at Balclutha Station —referred to by you, has been modified considerably by the rearrangement of the Balclutha Station. The objection, however, has greater force at Stirling than at Balclutha, owing to the congestion at the former station. There is little doubt that if the riverbank route were adopted those using the branch railway would prefer Balclutha as a junction station. It would appear, therefore, that the junction with the main line should be at the north end of tho Clutha River Bridge, and the trains should be run to and from tho Balclutha Station. This would involve the employment of signalmen at the junction, and certain rearrangement of the accommodation, at Balclutha. 2. Lovell's Flat — Hillend — Tuapeka Route. —There is not sufficient information before me to indicate whether, in the event of the proposed railway being constructed by this route, those using the railway would prefer train connections towards Dunedin and Milton or towards Balclutha. Suitable connections would be somewhat difficult to arrange, and would doubtless involve additional main-line train-mileage. 3. OricMon-HUlend-Tuapeka Route. —There are very serious objections to Crichton as a junction station : (a) The provision of the necessary accommodation would bo exceedingly costly, and at best only limited accommodation could be provided. No water-supply is available, (b) There is no offioer in charge, and the provision of the necessary staff would involve unnecessary expense. Apart from these objections, it would, without doubt, be necessary to make branch train connections to and from Milton, which would increase the cost of working. A further objection is that Crichton is not a suitable stopping-place for express trains, and Milton Station is already congested. The estimated annual cost of working the various routes is as follows : (1.) Riverbank route, Balclutha to Tuapeka, £12,823 ; (2) Lovell's Flat-Hillend-Tuapeka route, £16,950 ; (3) Crichton- Hillend-Tuapeka route, £21,166. It is quite evident from these figures that there is no hope for the traffic on this branch returning sufficient revenue for very many years to cover the cost of working, much less the interest on cost of construction. At the present time the Department is losing on the working of the Lawrence Branch at the rate of about £200 per mile per annum, allowing for interest on the cost of construction. Tho opening of another branch in this district would inevitably withdraw some of the traffic that at present finds an outlet by means of the Lawrence Branch, so that added to the loss arising from this railway would be an increase in the deficit upon the working of the Lawrence Branch. I cannot too strongly emphasize my opinion that there is no justification at the present time for the construction of this line. The nature of tho country is not such as to give any encouragement for the development of traffic commensurate with the cost of the undertaking, and the line would become another of the many unpaying branch lines of the Dominion, and would add to the heavy burden carried and very largely responsible for the unfinancial state of the South Island system. R. MoVilly, General Manager,