year's experience his Estimate was practicably a million short, I therefore asked the following question:
"By the end of 1907 it had been ascertained that the cost per lineal foot was $680. Estimated length 7256 ft which gives a total cost of $4,934,080. To this must be added the cost of tunnels 3,4 & 5 included under this Head and estimated at $491,700 (p.10 of report). Total $5,425,780." The Estimate submitted to Government on 8th February 1908 was $2,503,415 viz less than half. Please explain." To which I have received the following reply:-
"The actual driving of the tunnel heading cost less in 1907 because the work was easier, but the cost of a lot of preliminary work in 1907 from which the heading &c. is at present reaping the advantage had to be charged against the various minor heads, such as headings breakups &c. for that year. For instance a lot of timber which was used in the heading in 1907 was taken out and re-used in headings of 1908 without charge to the actual heading driven in 1908, or credit being given to the headings driven in 1907. Innumerable instances could be given of this sort of expenditure which unduly increases initial charges on large works. For instance cost of erection of plant, houses for dwellings for staff, coolie lines, roads to tunnel, & anti fever drainage &c. The statement on page 2 of the report, read by the light of this reply, is so misleading that it is hard to get away from the conclusion that it was intended to convey the impression that work had been done more cheaply in 1908 than 1907.
The C.R.E. there states the cost of the tunnel-driving was very much reduced in 1908". He here states "The actual driving of the tunnel cost less in 1907". I am under the impression that Mr. A.J. Barry was similarly misled for he spoke to me of the great decrease