Please wait. Contacting image service... loading
Hide article pages Show article pages
  1. Page 10
    Page 10 thumbnail
  2. Page 11
    Page 11 thumbnail

Article text

THE FAULTS OF THE LOOP.

(To the Editor cf the "West

Australian.")

Sir,-I avail mj'self gladly of your
permission to pursue tho subject of
agricultural light railways.

The district in which the scheme

J should be initiated, it appears to mc,

is the Great Southern, which from
the engineering standpoint (disregard-
ing for the moment the fat mer s point
of view) is ideally adapted for develop-
ment by light lines, by reason of the
almost entire absence of natural diffi-
culties and of the moderate rainfall and
comparative rarity of storms--thc latter
considerations of great importance-iu

?railway construction.- Agreement oil'
this question being assumed, the fur

thor question arises : What portion or
portions of the Great Southern dis-
trict should be-first served, the country
to the east of the trunk-Hue or that to
the west, or sections on both sides ?

Consideration of this second question
strikingly illustrates a great advantage
of the spur-line over the loop-line
system. Hie adoption of thc latter re-
stricts the selection of country to be
served to one side only of thc main
railway (there is, of course, the alter-
native of constructing two loop-lines,
which, however, is not likely to find
serious advocacy now or in the near
future), whilst spur-lines may be thrown
i out at any suitable point either oast
I ward or westward.

Choice between the two divisions of

the Great Southern district, if a loop
line should be determined on, will
I probably prove difficult ; I shall not
I attempt it here. The northern start
I ing point of an easterly loop-line would
doubtless be a 17-mile extension of
the York-Greenhills railway, that of à
westerley loop Beverley. Then, how
far south ? To BroomhilJ ? The loop
line advocate will urge, "to Mount
Barker; the longer the better." This
means an easterly loop 220 miles long,
or a westerly loop 2Q0 miles long, re-
spectively, involving with the junction
ing sections of 47 miles in the first case
and 60 miles in the scond. the con-
struction of 267 or 260 miles of rail-
way. The connecting length of 30
miles is, of course, based on the farmer's
cartage limit of 15 miles.

Now. I venture tho opinion that if
tho Railway Department is to
do good work with a loop for the
producer and the consumer, that is
to say afford them cheap freights, the
loop must be fully up to the standard
of the Great Southern Railway, at
least. The Average cost per mile of
the existing: railway system stands at
about £6,000. On this basis, the con-

struction of the easterly loop would,
commit the country to an expenditure
of £1,600,000 and that of tho
westerlv to an expenditure
of £1,560,000. In passing. I may ex-
press my conviction that the construc-
tion of one loop is bound to involve
the construction, later, of the other ;
the pressure will prove irresistible; so
that the loop-line advocates really pro-
pose to embark the country on a
scheme of railway development which
will or may cost three millions sterling
in the Great Southern Ndistrict alone.

I am aware that tho estimate of
£6,C00 per mile for the construction
of a loop-line will be repudiated by
the Railway Department, which puts
the cost at £2,000 per mile. On thh
basis the easterly loop would cos*1.
£534,000, and the westerly £520,000,
and the two £1,054.000, Accepting for
argument's sake the departmental esti-
mate as the first cost of construction,
I have to point out that 10 years ago
the average firet cost of our State rail
wavs was about £3.000 per mile, that
it is now over £6,000 per mile, and that
the probability of loop-lines built at a

first cost of £2,000 per mile beiug f
eventually "improved" or "standard-
ised" by the Depart ment up to a book
value of fullv £5,000 per mile is so
strong as almost to amount to cer-
tainty. However, once more accept-
ing- the Railwa- Department's figure of
£2,000 per mile, the cost is heavy
enough to bar new lines for some
time, to come. It ma- be argued that
a much shorter loop will serve im-
mediate needs ; but to shorten the loop
is to raise the cost of the effective new
mileage constructed, and the cost of
working, by increasing the # proportion
borne by the collecting sections to the

whole work

Again, its route bein* predetermined,
the loop, if pf any length (and length
! is a basic principle of tho loop as short-

ness is of the spur : a reduction to thc
absurd is not needed to establish this),
is bound to traverse a number of com-

paratively^ or absolutely unproductive
stretches in order to reach what may
be described as its natural terminus.

Finally, as to a loop-lino under de-
partmental control. The Government
railways of .this State just barely pay
by charging exorbitant freights h
' point on which; I «hall have a good der-i

to ^ay>. How, then, can it he serious

(y expected that a Government rail-
way running parallel with, a Govern- j
ment railway shall be worked as |
cheaply as its fellow, or more cheaply, j
Unless constructed, equipped, and j
maintained at the same standard-a
standard really involving an ultimate
coat of at least £5,000 per mile ?
The subject of spur-lines, their cost
'pf construction, maintenance, and work-
ing, and the revenue to ha anticipated
from them, may be treated later.
Tours, etc.,
H. TEESDALE SMITH.
Perth, December 15. j
$