-2--
716-
The Board of Trade did not approve of this, but suggested a form of construction which our Mr Dickinson, having a knowledge of the locality, considered unnecessary and expensive.
Through the Company's agents in Hong Kong, on the 31st May 1902 we submitted to Mr Chatham a plan shewing the form of permanent way construction as per print No T2699 herewith, and which provides for surface concrete between the tracks whether double line with side poles, or double line with central poles.
If the Director of Public Works had approved of that plan the Company were prepared to lay concrete for the full width between the two tracks.
The Director of Public Works would not approve of this cross section, but at that time insisted upon concrete being laid which involved approximately 600 cubic yards of concrete per mile of single track in excess of the quantity shewn upon that drawing.
On the 4th December 1902 Messrs Leigh & Orange added to the cross section we submitted (for the purpose of shewing to us what the Director of Public Works would approve of) the requirements of the Director of Public Works.
The Company has never consented to carry out the works as required by the Director of Public Works and, as the facts shew, the work which has been carried out since the above mentioned date has been carried out to a modified plan.
On the 9th April 1901 our Mr Parlett, who was then in Hong Kong, had an interview with Mr Chatham and personally deposited the plans shewing the route of the tramway. Although no poles were shown thereon, at that interview he discussed with Mr Chatham, without reference to permanent way construction, the principle upon which the poles should be erected when Mr Chatham agreed that centre poles could be used in all cases where the road was of sufficient width to permit of 9' 6" between the side of the car and the footpath.
7
The whole of the system