CO882-6 — Page 642

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

CO. 882

6

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

254

constructing Railway No. 2, viz., $293,650, we have $2,009,734 as the total capital value of the amount saved by adopting Railway No. 1. Comparing all three in terms of each other :-

-

Railway No. 1 = (A) – $1,191,000 - Railway No. 2 — $2,009,734. Railway No. 2 = (A) + $818,734 Railway No. 1 + $2,009,734. $818,734 - Railway No. 1 + $1,191,000.

(A) = Railway No. 2 -

=

As far then, as cost of construction and working expenses (including main- tenance) are concerned, Railway No. 1 has the advantage, but possibly not to the extent shown by my figures, as they are based, as far as traffic is concerned, on the assumption that the traffic is the same on both lines, and as they serve different districts this is not correct. But the difference in this case could not affect the result to any great extent.

There is no doubt that Un Long Station, on Railway No. 2,.is the centre of the most thickly populated and extensively cultivated district tapped by either route (population 22,000, cultivation 13,000 acres), but in order to get there from Kowloon, Railway No. 2 has to pass through 25 miles of country, 19 miles of which (nearly as long as Railway No. 1), to use a common expression, "won't pay for axle grease." On one side the ocean, and on the other uncultivated mountain land.

The two villages, Tsun Wau and Tai Lain Cheung, and a dozen or so of scattered houses is all the coast can boast.

L

The distance from Kowloon to Un Long by Railway No. 2 is 25 miles, and by Railway No. 1 and a branch line (Railway No. 3) from Fan Ling, the distance is only 14 miles longer. In order, therefore, to add to Railway No. 1 the only point Railway No. 2 has in its favour distinct from Railway No. 1, all that is necessary to be done is to add eight miles to its mileage by constructing Railway No. 3 from Fan Ling to Un Long. The whole system then would have less mileage than Railway No. 2 by 44 miles.

The cost of constructing Railway No. 3, in my estimate, is on the heavy side. I feel confident that the earthworks can be substantially reduced between the summit and Kam Tin Station, and having satisfied myself on that point, I did not feel that I would be justified in spending more time in the field improving the section of a branch that might never be located. As a branch line, I think also, that the weight of the permanent way might be reduced, so as to effect a saving of, say, $4,000 per mile. The maximum gradient of 1 in 100 has been exceeded in Railway No. 3, and 125 in 100 adopted. Nor can I see how it can be economically reduced to 1 in 100. But as a matter of fact, although I admit it is against and not with the traffic, a gradient of 1·25 in 100 is quite good enough for a branch line of this length.

FINANCIAL ASPECT. Railway No. 1.

In order to arrive at some reasonable conclusion as to whether this railway would be likely to become a financial success or otherwise as a local scheme, we had better look up Board of Trade returns, and see what other railways are doing.

Taking their returns for expenditure and receipts per mile of railway in the United Kingdom, I find that roughly they are as follows:-

255

Maintenance of way Rolling stock

$2,000

2,500

Traffic expenses

2,000

Miscellaneous expenses

500

$7,000

England and Wales are not our class; but we might expect to be somewhere between Scotland and Ireland as regards expenditure.

Taking our working expenses then at $7,000 per mile, and assuming them to be 40 per cent. of receipts, which should be reasonable in this country, and our capital at $4,800,000, which would probably be sufficient to include rolling-stock and land, we have :-

Dola, 216,000

Interest on Capital of 4,800,000 dola, at 41%

Annual Expenditure.

Dols. 150,500

Dola.

366,500 Outgoings.

9,750 Profit.

376,250 Receipts.

According to these figures the line could be run at a small profit. But taking into consideration the probability of a roof lining being sufficient for the tunnel, instead of its being lined throughout with brickwork in cement mortar as per estimate, a saving of $760,000 might be expected. Capital might then be cut down to $4,040,000. We should then have :-

Interest on 4,040,000 dols. at 419%

Annual Expenditure.

Dola.

181,800 +

Dol.. 150,500

www

Dols. 332,300 Outgoings.

43,950 Profit.

376,250 Receipts.

These receipts correspond closely to those anticipated by Your Excellency, and

I see no reason why they should not be realised.

In order to arrive at the number of daily trains required to deal with this traffic, take as before the cost of one train mile $1; one train each way per diem ➡ 2 × 215-43 train miles at $1 $43, and 43 x 365 - $15,695 cost per annum

of one daily train each way, then-

England and Wales

Scotland

Ireland

Expenditure per mile.

Receipts per

mile.

Dols.

Dols.

25,000

46,000

12,000

22,500

6,000

1,100

Suppose we deal with expenses, as perhaps we may know more about them than about receipts.

I should say that the items which would go to form the total expenditure per mile of this railway would be about as follows:

Total annual expan. diture.

Coat per annum per daily train.

Daily trains each way.

Dols.

150,500 ÷

Dola. 15,695

9.6 my 9

No difficulty would, of course, be experienced in working this amount of traffic on a single line of 21-5 miles in length, having three way stations, and an eight mile

branch.

In conclusion, I would say that the information I have gathered locally as the result of the enquiries it was my duty to make, as to the nature and extent of trade and population in the vicinity of the three routes, pales into utter insignificance before the mass of statistics and personal knowledge of the New Territory and its resources, set forth in the remarkably lucid and able report of Your Excellency to Mr. Lyttelton in the early part of this year, and which I have had the honour and privilege to peruse.