CO129-336 - Governor Nathan & Public Offices - 1906 [11-12] — Page 489

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

Govt. 201

MILL

despatch dated Hong Kong October 20th 1905, and in Mr. Bruce's report to His Excellency, dated Kowloon October 20th 1905, we have no hesitation in recommending the adoption of Railway No. 1 as being the most advantageous connection between Kowloon and the British frontier, with a view to the line being extended Northwards to Canton. We therefore think it unnecessary to refer to the estimates for Railway No. 2 in any way, and we assume that the consideration of the advisability of constructing Railway No. 3, the branch suggested from Fan Ling to Un Long, may also be deferred for the time being. We may observe,

however, that Railway No. 3 would be a comparatively cheap line estimated roughly by Mr. Bruce at about $98,000 per mile without rolling stock and that this price might be reduced if a lighter description of permanent way were considered to be suitable.

We propose only to deal with the estimate and report on Railway No. 1 at present.

We may say, in the first instance, that Mr. Bruce's total estimate for the construction of this line, viz. $4,470,500 (say £447,050) or $207,950 (say £20,793) per mile, exclusive of any provision for Rolling Stock, coincides very closely with the figures we had, on the information previously at our disposal, anticipated.

We have really only one important criticism to offer, viz. as to the cost of, and time required for, the construction of the tunnel, 2,460 yards in length, near Kowloon. Until the exact nature of the material to be tunnelled through is known, it is of course impossible to forecast

-2-

Edit History

2026-06-02 12:03:02 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

I. 9. Govt. 201 MILL despatch dated Hong Kong October 20th 1905, and in Mr. Bruce's report to His Excellency, dated Kowloon October 20th 1905, we have no hesitation in recommending the adoption of Railway No. 1 as being the most advantageous connection between Kowloon and the British frontier, with a view to the line being extended Northwards to Canton. We therefore think it unnecessary to refer to the estimates for Railway No. 2 in any way, and we assume that the consideration of the advisability of constructing Railway No. 3, the branch suggested from Fan Ling to Un Long, may also be deferred for the time being. We may observe, however, that Railway No. 3 would be a comparatively cheap line estimated roughly by Mr. Bruce at about $98,000 per mile without rolling stock and that this price might be reduced if a lighter description of permanent way were considered to be suitable. We propose only to deal with the estimate and report on Railway No. 1 at present. We may say, in the first instance, that Mr. Bruce's total estimate for the construction of this line, viz. $4,470,500 (say £447,050) or $207,950 (say £20,793) per mile, exclusive of any provision for Rolling Stock, coincides very closely with the figures we had, on the information previously at our disposal, anticipated. We have really only one important criticism to offer, viz. as to the cost of, and time required for, the construction of the tunnel, 2,460 yards in length, near Kowloon. Until the exact nature of the material to be tunnelled through is known, it is of course impossible to forecast -2-

Baseline (Original)

I. 9. Goo 201 MILL despatch dated Hong Kong October 20th 1905, and in 484 Mr Bruce's report to His Excellency, dated Kowloon October 20th 1905, we have no hesitation in recommending the adoption of Railway No. 1 as being the most advantageous connection between Kowloon and the British frontier, with a view to the line being extended Northwards to Canton. We therefore think it unnecessary to refer to the estimates for Railway No. 2 in any way, and we assume that the con- sideration of the advisability of construct ing Railway No. 3 the branch suggested from Fan Ling to Un Long, may also be deferred for the time being. We may observe, however, that Railway No. 3 would be a comparatively cheap line estimated roughly by MrBruce at about $98,000 per mile without rolling stock and that this price might be reduced if a lighter description of permanent way were considered to be suitable. We propose only to deal with theestimate and report on Railway No. 1 at present. We may say, in the first instance, that Mr Bruces total estimate for the construction of this line, viz $4,470,500 (say £447,050) or $207,950 (say £20,793) per mile, exclusive of any provision for Rolling Stock, coin- cides very closely with the figures we had, on the infoma- tion previously at our disposal, anticipated. We have really only one important criticism to offer, viz as to the cost of, and time required for, the construction of the tunnel, 2,460 yards in length, near Kowloon - Until the exact nature of the material to be tunnelled through is known, it is of course impossible to forecast -2-

2026-06-02 12:03:02 · Baseline

View content

Goo 201

MILL

despatch dated Hong Kong October 20th 1905, and in

484

Mr Bruce's report to His Excellency, dated Kowloon October 20th 1905, we have no hesitation in recommending the adoption of Railway No. 1 as being the most advantageous connection between Kowloon and the British frontier, with a view to the line being extended Northwards to Canton. We therefore think it unnecessary to refer to the estimates for Railway No. 2 in any way, and we assume that the con- sideration of the advisability of construct ing Railway No. 3 the branch suggested from Fan Ling to Un Long, may also be deferred for the time being. We may observe,

however, that Railway No. 3 would be a comparatively cheap line estimated roughly by MrBruce at about $98,000 per mile without rolling stock and that this price might be reduced if a lighter description of permanent way were

considered to be suitable.

We propose only to deal with theestimate and

report on Railway No. 1 at present.

We may say, in the first instance, that Mr Bruces

total estimate for the construction of this line, viz $4,470,500 (say £447,050) or $207,950 (say £20,793) per

mile, exclusive of any provision for Rolling Stock, coin-

cides very closely with the figures we had, on the infoma-

tion previously at our disposal, anticipated.

We have really only one important criticism to

offer, viz as to the cost of, and time required for, the

construction of the tunnel, 2,460 yards in length, near

Kowloon - Until the exact nature of the material to be

tunnelled through is known, it is of course impossible to

forecast

-2-

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.