PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
6
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
248
Shông, on his own, wrote a letter in 1898 promising that if the final American agree- ment was not completed the Belgians should come in next!! The Wai Wu Pu and Chang have refused to listen to them, but they are none the less uneasy, and want to clear the flimsy claim away altogether as soon as may be. Will you please tele- graph if your Government would care to make a further loan on identical terms?
We shall be delighted to see you if you tour this way to see the interesting old Viceroy.
Yours sincerely,
41112
No. 171.
E. H. FRASER.
GOVERNOR SIR M. NATHAN to MR. LYTTELTON.
(Confidential.)
SIR,
(Received November 18, 1905.)
[Auswered by No, 210.]
Government House, Hong Kong, October 20, 1905. IN continuation of my confidential despatch of the 5th September, 1905,* on the subject of the survey and preliminary work for the section of the Canton- Kowloon Railway within British territory, I have now the honour to transmit a report of to-day's date, received from Mr. J. C. Bruce, Chief Surveying Engineer, on three alternative routes for this section. These routes are the one proposed by Mr. P. T. Somerville Large, in a report he made in 1899 for the British and Chinese Corporation, and the east and west routes, as approximately indicated by the red and blue lines on the map which accompanied my confidential despatch of the 11th January last.f
2. In paragraph 5 of that despatch I suggested that it would be found more economical in construction, and much more so in running, if instead of a railway by the east route crossing the hills north of Kowloon at a high level as contemplated in Mr. Large's preliminary survey, it went through those hills by a low level tunnel 14 miles (2,640 yards) in length. I also stated my belief that a line by the east route with a low level tunnel, which line I estimated would be 21 miles in length, was to be preferred from the point of view of economy of construction to a line by the west route, of which I estimated the length at 331⁄2 miles.
His estimate for the line 3. Mr. Bruce's report confirms these views. (21 miles 3:51 furlongs in length) which he has surveyed for the east low level route is $4,470,500, or $272,000 less than his estimate for Mr. Large's east high level route, and $293,650 less than his estimate of $4,764,150 for the west route, which by survey is 34 miles 0:42 furlongs in length.
4. The estimate of $4,470,500 for the east low level route includes $1,833,200 for a tunnel 2,460 yards long, on the assumption that it has to be lined throughout with brick in cement, and will cost $749 per lineal yard. If the roof only is lined the estimate for the tunnel at $435 per lineal yard will be reduced to $1,071,540. In my despatch of January 11th,t I had assumed $1,320,000 as the cost of the tunnel, and that the total cost of the line with it would certainly not exceed £500,000.
5. The capital value of the saving in working expenses, including maintenance, by the adoption of the east low level route instead of the east high level route is worked out by Mr. Bruce to be $919,800, and by the adoption of the east low level route instead of the west route to be $1,716,084.
6. I am disposed to think that Mr. Bruce's estimate of time, viz., 24 years for the construction of the line by the east low level route is low, and that the estimate of three years for the piercing of the tunnel, suggested in paragraph 4 of my con- fidential despatch of the 12th January,‡ is a safer one to adopt.
7. Mr. Bruce does not compare the time taken in running along the east low level and west routes, but his difference of 13:06 miles between the lengths of the two lines reduced to their equivalent lengths of straight-level line confirms the saving reported in paragraph 10 of my despatch of January 11th† of half an hour by the adoption of the former route.
8. Mr. Bruce, for the reasons he gives, has made no comparison of the probable receipts by the line traversing the east and west routes respectively, oon- tenting himself with pointing out that the west route passes through nineteen miles
↑ No. 59.
‡ No. 60.
• No. 141.
249
of country (a length nearly as great as that of the whole east route) which, as he expressively puts it, won't pay for axle grease." In these circumstances I see no reason to alter the opinion expressed in the 19th paragraph of my despatch of the 11th January,* that the trade from just beyond our borders which is equally served by both routes is of far greater importance than that of the local markets on the two routes, and that the much greater mileage of the west route would not be com- pensated for by a correspondingly greater bulk of traffic if that route were adopted. 9. Mr. Bruce concurs in the opinion I expressed in the same paragraph that a better method of getting access to the Un Long trade than by following_the_west route would be eventually to connect the line along the east route with Un Long market town by a branch which I put down at eight miles, and which his survey shows to be 8 miles 1.75 furlongs long, and of which he estimates the cost at $728,000, capable of considerable reduction if lighter permanent way were used.
10. The Engineer's Report now forwarded covers a tracing of the map on a scale of two inches to a mile, on which the east low level route is shown as Railway No. 1, the west route as Railway No. 2, and the branch from Un Long to the east route as Railway No. 3. It also covers a tracing of the survey for No. 1 Railway on a scale of eight inches to one mile and longitudinal sections of that line, and of Nos. 2 and 3 Railways. Appended to the report are details with regard to the estimated cost of permanent way, stations, and tunnels for all three lines and a summary of the estimated total cost of each railway with an analysis of the cost per mile.
11. In the final paragraph of my despatch of the 11th January,* I stated my opinion that unless the Engineer's detailed estimates showed that by reason of the cost of the tunnel a line by the east route would be considerably more expensive than the longer one by the west route the former route should be adopted. The east route proves to be the less expensive of the two, and, as I understand from para- graph 3 of the Crown Agents' letter of the 12th April last to Sir John Wolfe Barry and Partners, of which a copy was received in your confidential despatch of the 28th of that month, that the decision of the route to be adopted is left to me for definite settlement, I have decided that the railway shall follow generally the line referred to by Mr. Bruce in his report as No. 1 Railway. Mr. W. Chatham, Director of Public Works, who was originally in favour of the west route, is now entirely in accord with the above decision.
12. Some details of Mr. Bruce's proposals require further consideration. I am doubtful whether, if the line becomes, as it is intended to become, a continuation of one from Canton to our frontier, the station at the Lo Fu Ferry is necessary. In the same circumstances further provision will require to be made for machinery shops near the Kowloon terminus. The question of the extent and nature of the reclamation for that terminus is also one that requires careful working out, and this matter I have placed in the hands of Mr. J. F. Boulton, Senior Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department, and formerly the engineer of the Praya Reclamation Works. Arrangements for the early commencement of work on the railway need not, however, wait the settlement of any of these points, and I have directed the Chief Surveying Engineer to proceed at once with the marking out on the ground of the selected route north of the Kowloon Hills. The final location of the whole line will be completed by the end of this year.
13. I propose that the actual construction of the railway from Kowloon to the frontier of British territory at the Lo Fu Ferry should be put in hand with the least possible delay. I have little doubt that arrangements will eventually be nade with the Chinese Authorities for the construction of the Chinese section of the Canton-Kowloon Railway, and for its joint working with the Hong Kong section. The Chinese section presents no considerable engineering difficulties, while the piercing of the tunnel in our territory is a work which must require a long time, and SO is likely to delay the completion of the whole project. Even should the construction of the Chinese section be long postponed, I am satisfied from the statistics which accompanied my despatch of January 11th. and from the brilliant success with which the short Canton-Samshui branch of the Canton-Hankow Railway has competed with the neighbouring water communication in the short period that has elapsed since the line has been opened, that there is no undue risk of the Hong Kong section not paying working and maintenance expenses and interest on capital from the proceeds
+ L.F.
• No. 59.
16805
+ Enclosure 3 in No. 81.