Building tracks, stations, bridges, and associated infrastructure required considerable investment.<\/p>\n
A traction engine could provide transport without the need for a railway line.<\/p>\n
Below is a selection of historical stories from the Daily Telegraph (Napier), 1891, and the Hastings Standard, 1904.<\/p>\n
Traction Engines v. Railways.<\/p>\n
Daily Telegraph (Napier), June 15, 1891<\/p>\n
At the meeting of the Hawke\u2019s Bay County Council last month, a letter sent by Captain Russell, M. H.R., in reference to the advisableness of encouraging the use of traction engines in this district was discussed, but nothing was done in reference to the matter.<\/p>\n
This morning Mr Shrimpton alluded to the question and said that in the South Island wool was being carried over long distances, the traction engines actually competed with the railways.<\/p>\n
In one case ninety bales of wool were carried forty-five miles by traction engine and reached port in one day.<\/p>\n
He thought that the day would come when traction engines would be generally used in this province.<\/p>\n
Consequently it would be advisable that in the future all bridges erected on main roads should be made stronger in view of traction engines going over them.<\/p>\n
When the time arrived, the other bridges could be materially strengthened.<\/p>\n
There was a by-law in existence, he knew, regulating the weights that had to go over the bridges at present, and he contended that that by-law was in the best interests of the province.<\/p>\n
The Chairman said that most of the bridges could carry traction engines at present, so the Overseer said, but they could not guarantee that.<\/p>\n
In order that the matter could be properly discussed, it would be necessary to give notice of an alteration in the existing by-laws.<\/p>\n
With reference to the strengthening of present bridges, that would involve a very large expenditure\u2013more than the council could afford, and more than the results would justify.<\/p>\n
Mr Tanner did not think traction engines should be encouraged to run in opposition to the railway.<\/p>\n
They were taxed to keep the railways going, and the public should support them.<\/p>\n
Mr Shrimpton smilingly said that Mr Tanner\u2019s argument was a very weak one.<\/p>\n
They should support traction engines if they could take produce to port cheaper than the railways, and the difference would go to pay the tax for the railways. <\/p>\n
After some desultory conversation, the matter dropped.<\/p>\n
Traction Engine Owners<\/p>\n
Hastings Standard, September 24, 1904<\/p>\n
A meeting of Hawke\u2019s Bay traction engine owners was held in the Hastings Hotel this afternoon for the purpose of considering the by-laws recently passed by the Hawke\u2019s Bay County Council restricting traction engines.<\/p>\n
The following gentlemen were present\u2014Messrs J. Willan (chair), A. Pilcher, W. Pepper, F. Powdrell, H. Rowdirell, M. Newrick, D. Macdonald, and K. Winiata.<\/p>\n
Mr Powdrell explained that the immediate cause of the meeting was Cr. Crosse\u2019s motion, that the battens be removed from all traction engines, which would in the future have to run with smooth wheels.<\/p>\n
This would practically prohibit traction haulage, and this, in conjunction with the other by-laws rendered it necessary that the engine owners combine for their mutual protection.<\/p>\n
It was proposed to tax the engines, and, if this were done, the tax would fall on the farmers, who would have to pay a heavier rate for the use of engines.<\/p>\n
It was decided\u2013(1) to write to the Farmers\u2019 Union asking for their cooperation in resisting the restrictions; (2) to combine for the purpose of providing funds to whichever owner is prosecuted for a breach of the new by-laws; and (3) to raise the charge for engines by 5s per day within the borough of Hastings, should the tax imposed on traction engines by the Borough Council be enforced.<\/p>\n