From the Kearney Files
Sydney Daily Telegraph 16th July 1915
CITY RAILWAY
THE KEARNEY PROPOSAL
The cables intimation from London that the Kearney High Speed Railway Company was submitting a scheme to the New South Wales Government for the adoption of a mono - rail system for the City Railway, and the construction of a tube under the harbour instead of a bridge, was yesterday brought under the notice of the Minister for Public Works.
No communication on the subject, said Mr. Cann, had yet reached him. Therefore he was not in a position to discuss the merits or demerits of the system proposed. The use of one rail instead of two for the City Railway would not, however, effect any considerable saving, as the tunnel under the city would still have to be the same to carry rolling stock. So that really the only saving was in the extra rail.
Turning to the question of substituting a tube for a bridge, Mr. Cann said that Mr. Bradfield and other authorities had emphasised that railway communication by bridge was unquestionably better than railway communication by subway.
Mr Bradfield, who submitted the last scheme for the City Railway, said in his report :-
"The tram via bridge would serve the population much better, and the revenue would be greater than by subway; whilst the working expenses on account of the better grades would be less by bridge than by subway. The bridge would produce more revenue than by subway; the vehicular and pedestrian traffic would be very much better served by bridge than by subway. The bridge would produce more revenue than subways. For the year 1911 the estimated revenue from railway traffic only was £63,550 for bridge and £22,323 for subway. Subways . With a toll for vehicular traffic, the bridge would produce a much greater revenue than a vehicular subway. Subways to provide the same accommodation as the bridge would cost £863,000 more than the bridge .
"Railway, tramway,and vehicular subways could be separately undertaken and completed independently of each other. At the location chosen, bridges could likewise be undertaken seperately. A bridge for suburban railway traffic only would cost about £200,000 more than a subway; it would, however, produce nearly three times the revenue, and could be constructed in about the same time as the subway. Ventilation, drainage and lighting, ever present with subways, are highly detrimental factors, and a continual source of expense. Subways must of necessity be noisy. The bridge does not obstruct the waterway in any way, or restrict the draught of vessels; it limits the height of the pole masts to 170 feet at high water.
" The subways recommended by the Royal Commission would restrict the draught of vessels to about 47 feet at low water. It is possible to construct subways which would provide a depth of 50 feet or more of water; such subways are not likely ever to limit the draught of vessels or interfere with the harbor in any way, but the cost would be greater, and the facilities, for the railway, tramway, vehicular and pedestrian traffic would be worse with the subways compared with the bridge".
"However" said Mr Cann in conclusion, " if the new proposal is shown to be better and cheaper, Welland good. I am willing to inquire into its merits".
Sydney Daily Telegraph 16th July 1915
CITY RAILWAY
THE KEARNEY PROPOSAL
The cables intimation from London that the Kearney High Speed Railway Company was submitting a scheme to the New South Wales Government for the adoption of a mono - rail system for the City Railway, and the construction of a tube under the harbour instead of a bridge, was yesterday brought under the notice of the Minister for Public Works.
No communication on the subject, said Mr. Cann, had yet reached him. Therefore he was not in a position to discuss the merits or demerits of the system proposed. The use of one rail instead of two for the City Railway would not, however, effect any considerable saving, as the tunnel under the city would still have to be the same to carry rolling stock. So that really the only saving was in the extra rail.
Turning to the question of substituting a tube for a bridge, Mr. Cann said that Mr. Bradfield and other authorities had emphasised that railway communication by bridge was unquestionably better than railway communication by subway.
Mr Bradfield, who submitted the last scheme for the City Railway, said in his report :-
"The tram via bridge would serve the population much better, and the revenue would be greater than by subway; whilst the working expenses on account of the better grades would be less by bridge than by subway. The bridge would produce more revenue than by subway; the vehicular and pedestrian traffic would be very much better served by bridge than by subway. The bridge would produce more revenue than subways. For the year 1911 the estimated revenue from railway traffic only was £63,550 for bridge and £22,323 for subway. Subways . With a toll for vehicular traffic, the bridge would produce a much greater revenue than a vehicular subway. Subways to provide the same accommodation as the bridge would cost £863,000 more than the bridge .
"Railway, tramway,and vehicular subways could be separately undertaken and completed independently of each other. At the location chosen, bridges could likewise be undertaken seperately. A bridge for suburban railway traffic only would cost about £200,000 more than a subway; it would, however, produce nearly three times the revenue, and could be constructed in about the same time as the subway. Ventilation, drainage and lighting, ever present with subways, are highly detrimental factors, and a continual source of expense. Subways must of necessity be noisy. The bridge does not obstruct the waterway in any way, or restrict the draught of vessels; it limits the height of the pole masts to 170 feet at high water.
" The subways recommended by the Royal Commission would restrict the draught of vessels to about 47 feet at low water. It is possible to construct subways which would provide a depth of 50 feet or more of water; such subways are not likely ever to limit the draught of vessels or interfere with the harbor in any way, but the cost would be greater, and the facilities, for the railway, tramway, vehicular and pedestrian traffic would be worse with the subways compared with the bridge".
"However" said Mr Cann in conclusion, " if the new proposal is shown to be better and cheaper, Welland good. I am willing to inquire into its merits".
Comments
Post a Comment