Chronicle (Adelaide, SA : 1895 - 1954), Saturday 6 August 1898, page 21


DEPUTATIONS.

THE BREAK OF GAUGE. A PROTEST.

A large deputation from Terowie waited on the Commissioner of Public Works on Wednesday morning to protest against the proposal to remove the break of gauge on the Northern line from Terowie to Peters-burg. Besides the local deputies there were present—The Treasurer (Hon. F. W. Holder), the Hons. C. Willcox, S. Tom-kinson, H. Adams, J. Warren, J. Lewis, W. Russell, and F. Basedow, and Messrs. W. Copley, C. R. Goode, J. Hutchison, W. H. Duncan, and A. D. Handyside, members of the House of As-

sembly. The Treasurer, in introducing the depu-tation, said they would speak to the Commissioner on the question of the ex-tension of the broad gauge from Terowie to Petersburg. The matter had been be-fore the public for 12 years past, and he hoped the deputation would convince the Commissioner that the decision of the past should be maintained in the future. Mr. R. Goode, M.P., supported. The Rev. J.C. Hill requested the Government to oppose the proposed removal as being wasteful and useless expenditure of public money, and altogether ruinous to the town and trade of Terowie. They made the request in the in terests of public economy. The advisa bility or otherwise of removing the break of gauge, according to Mr. C. Giles, M.P., and other interested parties, was made to turn upon the question— would it pay? The advocates of the removal said yes, and in support of their position they adduced the Railway Commissioner's estimate. The profits shown there on working expenses, after deducting the interest, which would have to be paid for money borrowed to make the alteration, was about ½ per cent, —a small margin of profit and one which, with increased and unlooked for expendi ture, would be easily turned into a margin of loss, and he thought they would be able to show the great probabilities of a far larger expenditure in altering the break of gauge station than the Commissioner anticipated. Before criticising the particu-lars of this estimate they reminded the Commissioner that as a rule such esti-mates were under rather than over the mark. The instances of this were legion, and some of them were not likely to be soon forgotten by the taxpayers of this colony. To refer more specifically to the Commissioner's figures, they were under the disadvantage of not possessing the de-tails of the statement by which he ar-rived at the estimate given, but even so, and acknowledging frankly that they were not skilled engineers, fully competent to pass judgment, they ventured to think that the estimate on the face of it was open to criticism. The estimate for alter-ing the line was set down at £39,800, and that must appear to anyone knowing the character of the country, with its several deep cuttings, many culverts, and bridges, through which the line passed to be anything but excessive. Then the alteration of the Petersburg station yard was set down to cost £35,000. The Commissioner said that land would have to be acquired, and they said that the Government might expect under the circumstances to pay heavily for it. The large amount of money spent in the pur-chase of necessary land would have to be added to the cost of the work, and would reduce the imaginary profits to a vanishing point. It would no doubt be a very great source of profit to the disinterested specu lators in Petersburg, but the colony whose interests they were so unselfishly conserving in this proposal would have to pay for it. Again, it was proposed by the Commissioner to remove the present trans-fer and other sheds, the platforms, &c., and re-erect them at Petersburg. The sheds were iron buildings, but they were reliably informed by persons who had ex-amined them, and whose opinion was en-titled to every respect, that though the sheds and platforms as they stand would last for many years, yet such was their condition that if they attempted to remove them the bulk of the material would be found worthless for reconstruction. There were other buildings erected at Terowie at great expense which must fol-low the break of gauge, or kindred struc-tures must be provided, in Petersburg. This contingency seemingly found no place in the Commissioner's estimate. The bar-racks, with its necessary accommodation for the loco. men, was, for instance, a stone building, which was erected at consider-able cost. The refreshment-room, another stone building, was also built. If the cost of these and several other structures, which would be referred to, were added to the Commissioner's estimate it would considerably increase the expenditure of this work of removal, and the anticipated profits would be transformed into a cer tain loss. Again, it must not be over-looked that to fit Terowie for being the break-of-gauge station large sums of pub-lic money had been expended from year to year in the construction of costly works. The Gumbowie reservoir, for instance, cost tens of thousands, and against any apparent saving must be set the interest to be paid by the colony on the money ex-pended on what would then be turned into useless works. The third considerable item in tbe Commissioner's statement had to do with the working expenses of the new arrangement, and he reckoned that there would be a total saving of £3,400 per annum, but the members of the deputation would be able to show that the saving was more apparent than real. Whether the break of gauge be at Petersburg or Terowie, the employment of the men now engaged would not be lessened, as Mr. Giles, with charming candor, in a moment of forgetfulness had admitted. The same | number of guards, drivers, cleaners, check clerks and transhippers would have to be employed. There would simply be a trans-ference of the work to the advantage of a rival town, but no lessening of the cost to the colony. If the matter was to turn upon the question whether it would pay or not they asked the Commissioner to seri ously consider the probabilities and facts which they advanced, showing the under-estimated cost of this work of removal. To leave the broad aspect of the question as it affected the general taxpayer of the colony, and to refer to its local aspect, or bow it affected the town which they represented, there was not a man, woman, or child of the 800 or 900 inhabitants of the town of Terowie that would not suffer grievous loss if this unjust proposal were carried. They said without exaggeration that the town of Terowie owed its present size, position, and its very existence to the fact that it was the break of gauge station, and to take away that which was the sustenance of the town would prove absolutely fatal to its interests. What could justify an issue of that character? The Commissioner estimated that there would be a saving of ½ per cent. They believed there would be no saving; but even granting that such a small saving would result, would that justify the Parliament in wrecking an im portant town and reducing many of their

fellow colonists to absolute ruin? Many railway men, on the strength of Govern ment assurance, verbal and practical, that the break of gauge was fixed at Terowie, had invested their savings of years in homes of their own in Terowie. Of what value would these homes be and what would become of the life savings of these railway men if those assurances were broken and the break of gauge removed? They trusted that Parliament would not give any encouragement to a proposal which would work such injustice. They claimed that the case of Terowie was not parallel with that of a temporary terminus. Profitable extension of the line from such a place often caused hard-ships to those concerned, but provided no reasonable ground of complaint. Even if it were a question of the profitable ex tension of the broad-gauge system gene rally they could not reasonably grumble, but under present circumstances the break of gauge had to be somewhere, and they claimed that in all fairness it should remain at the town which had been built up and nourished by its establishment under Parliamentary action instead of being removed to a rival town only 15 miles further on. They also claimed that under the circumstances Terowie was the best and most serviceable place for the break-of-gauge system. It was asserted by Mr. Giles and other interested parties that Petersburg was the natural place for it, as being the junction of the lines to Port Augusta and Port Pirie and Broken Hill. Anyone who knew the necessarily confined space available at Petersburg would know that even with the purchase of land the addition of the elaborate system of lines, required with the break-of-gauge work, sheds, &c., would severely complicate the small and already crowded station-yard at Petersburg. It was a distinct advantage to have a station not too far from the junction — a station like Terowie, where the space was ample, and where the necessary transferring work could be separately attended to. To sum up — The proposal in brief would incur fresh expenditure of public money, expen diture which probably in the matter of construction would be largely in excess of the estimate; it would make an alteration to the railway system, which would result in no saving of working expenses; it would wreck a town of eight or nine hundred inhabitants, whose settlement in the place had been brought about by practical assu rance from the Parliaments that the ques tion was settled, and it would mean undertaking of a work which would serve no public utility or convenience, and all to feed the inordinate greed of a rival town. The proposal was conceived in selfishness, and had been shapen in misrepresentation, and should have a speedy fate. Mr. J.W. Hosking argued that no saving would be effected by the change. Mr. G. K. Jenkins (chairman of the Terowie District Council) believed the cost of the change would far exceed the esti mate of £75,000. Federation would pro bably mean unification of gauges, so that the expenditure on the proposed alteration would be wasted. Mr. W.H. Woods (clerk of the Terowie District Council) argued that large sums were given for land in Terowie at the auction sale owing to the representation that it was to be the break-of-gauge town. Some of the quarter-acre blocks fetched as much as £200, and £100,000 had been spent there on the land and improvements. The population was 800 or 900, and there were 61 railway employes who were house-holders, representing 320 persons, without counting single men employed on the line. There were also 20 transhippers, so that about 400 people were directly concerned in the railway, or half the population. It would mean the ruin of 20 or 30 railway men who had erected cottages and in-vested their savings there. The Commis-sioner stated in last year's "Hansard" that he saw no reason for undertaking the heavy expenditure necessary for the exten-sion of the broad gauge. He did not be-lieve there would be any saving by making the change. Mr. H. Weinrich considered the cost of the change would be sheer loss, and that the work would be a national folly. Mr. P. Pendlebury said he had a busi ness both in Petersburg and Terowie, but he attended only as a taxpayer. As to the statement of the Railways Commissioner that there would he a saving in wages, it could not be correct. The guards on the passenger trains between Adelaide and Terowie worked 13 hours a day, and if the break were extended to Petersburg they must work 15 hours a day, or the Railways Commissioner must provide additional guards, and let the first shift go as far as the Burra only. Then the drivers and stokers of goods trains never worked less than 13 hours a day, and often had to work 16 to 17 hours a day on the trip between Adelaide and Terowie. It the break were extended to Petersburg they must either work about I8 hours, or extra drivers and stokers would have to be provided so as to divide the work into two shifts. It was not true there were two delays for passengers' luggage at Torowie and Petersburg. The half-hour at Terowie was to enable the passengers to get a meal, and there was no second wait or transfer at Petersburg. There was a little delay with regard to the dispatch of the Port Pirie train from Petersburg, but that was merely a matter for better management. The change would certainly benefit Petersburg by saving them half an hour in the journey to and from Adelaide, but it would benefit no one else. The Commissioner of Public Works, in reply, said a little over a year ago a depu tation waited upon him to urge the neces sity of removing the break of gauge from Terowie to Petersburg. At that time the Railway Commissioner reported that he did not see the necessity for the expendi ture of the money. The report of the Rail way Commissioner, which was laid on the table of the House of Assembly, dealt with the cost of the alterations and Mr. Pendleton expressed no opinion one way or the other— he simply gave his estimate. He recognised the force of the arguments used by the members of the deputation, especially Mr. Hill, whose position made him quite a disinterested parly. They knew that with the Wesleyan Church its ministers might be in one place to-day and another place to-morrow — Mr. Hill might be at Petersburg one day and at Terowie the next day. The residents of Terowie felt that if this change were made they would suffer a great grievance, and unless a good case were made out the Go vernment would not be justified in tearing down one town to build up another one. From a national point of view this would not be good political economy. He would convey the arguments of the deputation to the Railway Commissioner, whom he would ask to make a further report, which he would submit to Cabinet. Of course he could not tell how the dis cussion on Mr. Giles's motion in the House would go, but his personal feeling was that unless a very good case could be shown, and a large profit in connection with the alteration they should hesitate be fore recommending it to the Government. If 600 of the 800 inhabitants of that town were to be deprived of their home-

steads and savings, there should be shown something more than a sim-ple margin of profit to justify the ex-tension. There was a good deal of force in what Mr. Jenkins had said as to fede-ration, for no doubt federation would cause an agitation for a uniform Austra-lian gauge. It might not come off for the next 15 or 20 years, but it would come some day, and it was an additional point for consideration whether they should spend £75,000 or £100,000 in making the change. (Hear, hear.)