Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 6144x8192 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

THE RAILWAY BILL.
TEMPLESTOWE AND DONCASTER
- RAILWAY.
- to TUB bd1tor ok the aos.
Sir., — Your article of last week on tho above
subject seems to call for some reply from those
who have during tho 'last three or four years
steadily agitated for tho line which has at
length found a place in the schedule of tho
Railway' Rill. 'Those interested in the' route
have to tlinnk you for the publication of a little
map whieh shows conclusively how excellently
a . large tract of country hitherto devoid of
railway communication has been divided up by
t iie Govcruinunt so as to give the shortest direct
line to and from the metropolis, and to pro
vide for the effectual opening up of the valley
of the Yarra in such a way that no part of this
beautiful and fcrtile.district shall bo more than
2 miles from a railway .station. It appeals to
tliose who liavo been so long working for rail
way extension to the north-eastern suburbs and
:l!j(J districts "beyond, that the triio principle of
railway construction is that all country lines
should radiate from the metropolis .like the
spokes of. a' wheel from the hub, and this line
exactly answers that condition. Your special
reporter, however,' has arrived at a different
conclusion, and appears' to consider -that small
oross country cockspurs are preferable to direct
liucs, thereby repeating the blunder of the
outer circle,' by causing people to travel
in a roundabout way from north to south
when they wish to proceed from enst to west.
Instend of a straight line to Tcmploslowe he
advocates that the Heidelberg railway should be
extended to that township and should then
proceed to Eltham and Hurst-bridgo at a right
angle so as to traverse two sides of a square.
Instead of a straight line to Doncastcr lie sug
gests that a cookspur should bo constructed from
Box Hill to Doncaster along the course of the
electric tramway, which would also run at right
angles to the Lilydnlc trunk line from which it
would branch. Tho travelling distance from
Melbourne to Doncastcr and from Mel
bourne to Templestowe would thus be
increased by about 2 miles in each
case, necessitating nil addition to tho
fnves nf nhniit 3d, for pverv journey, which
would constitute a heavy tax upon tho rcsidents
for nil time to come. The roportor states that
the people of. Doncaster and Templestowe arc
quite agreeable to bu connected via Heidelberg
and Box Hill 'ns by any other way, which is an
assertion I take leave to doubt, having been
present ntnll tho railway mcotings held at those
plums during the last three or four years. It is
trite somo of tho Doncaster people favored a lino
to Canterbury, as such a line would bo nearly as
straight as tho one proposed in Mr. Gillies' bill,
and if the Government preferred the Canterbury
route to tho Kew route these people wore willing
to abide by it. But a railway from Canterbury
to Doncaster is a very different thing to a line
from Box 331111 to Doncaster, for when tho pas
sengers . arrived at' Box Hill they would find
thomselves as far from' Melbourne us they were
when they loft their starting point at Doncastcr,
and this after travelling 2£ miles. . The caso is
much the same with the Templestowe branch,
and T never heard that the Templestowe people
preferred to bo connected with Heidelberg,
as your roportor represents, but, on the
contrary, they sent large deputations to
Mr. Gillies on two or three occasions asking
to bo connected with ICew. But it is when
your' contributor goes into figuros that tiio
greatest discrepancies present themselves, for
ho deolares that 3£ milos of railways could bo
inado i between Heidolberg and Templestowe
for £6t,000, and 2 J miles from Box Hill to
Doncaster for £30,000. This makes altogether
£94,000, and ho assorts that substituting that
amount for the cost of the lines as charted
by Mr. Gillies, vis., £364,099, a threatened
wasto of £300,000 would be avoided. Accord
ing to Cocker the ditrercnco would bo £270,999,
not £300,000, but it is not a threatened waste, as
the reporter's scheme would leave untouched
the best part of tho country extending from
East Kew along the Yarm valley, and would
not benefit the residents of Doncaster and Tem-
plo.-towe to any groat extent by reason of tho
roundabout nature of the route. But how is
it, lot mo ask, that if tho Govornmont ' esti
mate and tlinb of tho commissioners is iibaut
£25,000 per mile from BuUcou-road Junction to
the above two townships, the reporter's esti
mate of his substituted linos is only about
£15,000 per mile V It is scarcoly fair to sot up a
fancy- estimato of his own and then-to contrast
it with the cost of tho Ministerial lines, as
asci'itaineij.b'y qotual survoy, ami if a correct
comparisoii'of routes -is to bo made', either tho
Govcrfiineht' estimato of £25,000- per ihil6, or
else the reporter estimate vfj,!15,p00 per .mile
should ho a adopted 'tlirbugliuut-.) :-Sti cannot bp'
that the lidct selected by your lepbrttar would;
bo less expeusiye -isi coiistuet.per'i'nUc'fJiai) the;
lines chosen by the Government, for the two
highest poiuts ' in- the ' country to bo tra
versed, viz., Doncaster Hill and Heidelberg
Hill would havo to bo connected With
the lowest level, viz., tho river Yarra, with
out adequate Intervening distance to render tho
ascents and descents sufKciontly gradual. How
can lines presenting such difficulties as thoso
stated in the preceding sentence be constructed
for £15,000 per mile when lines of u more level
character are calculated by oxperts to cost
£25,000 per mile ? It is therefore necessary to
add at least £60,000 to the special reporter's
estimato of iiis own proposed linos, or to
deduct £80,000 from tho cost of the 8 miles
proposed to be mado by tho. Government.
Your contributor goes on to say that probably
£20,000 per mile of the Government estimato
would have to be paid as compensation for land,
but tliis is a mistake as regards tkoTomple-
stowo.lmo, for the whole of the laud required in
that caso is to ho liaudcd ovor gratis for railway
purposes. It is true enough that the number of
miles of new railway to bo constructed would bo
less, according to the reporter's plan, but the
traffic on them would also be loss thau on the
direct line. There is, in fact, no comparison to
bo made between tho two schemes, at ono of
them would open up tlio whole country anil the
other would .pyljp accommodate a vpry limited
extent of tlie'orca. Tlio increase in the travel
ling distance is a fatal ybjection, whilst the
adoptiou of plan would also
lilaco difficulties in_ tlio way of further exten
sions and would mbrehs'p 'working expenses. —
Yours, Ac., ' 1 :; '
PRESIDENT KEW- RAILWAY LEAGUE.
13th AucttU. - -
The wrltor of this letter lias not read our
report carefully. Tho report did not deolave
"that 3£ miles of railway could bo made
between Heidelberg and Templestowo for
£64,000, and 2 J, inilos from Box Hill to Don-
cnstcr for £30,000," making altogether £94,000.
What our reporter stated was that tho Temple
stowe doviatiou from Heidelberg ought not to
oost much more tluin tho lino as now planned
from Heidolberg to Eltham, and that the Don
caster to Box Hill lino should not cost more
than £30,000. Ho contended that the whole
cost of these alternative constructions ought
not to bo more than £64,000 in excess of tlio
cost of tho Hurst-bridge line, whieh, being
deducted from £364,000, tlio cost of tho pro
jected connection via Kew, would etl'eot n saving
of £300,000.— En. A. J
$