From the Kearney Files
Sydney 3rd February 1922
LINKING THE SHORES
BRIDGE ONLY SOLUTION
Minister Against Tube.
Mr. Estell, Minister for Works and Railways, holds the opinion that the Kearney tube as a means of traffic across the harbour is out of the question, and that the only solution of the problem is the construction of a general traffic bridge, tenders for which are now being invited throughout the world.
"The Railway Commissioners also hold this view," said the Minister yesterday. "In the course of a report to me they state: " We are strongly of opinion that the only method of satisfactorily dealing with the existing and future requirements of the North side of the harbour is by the construction of the general traffic bridge, particulars of which have already been submitted. Until this is possible it would be useless to attempt to convey the traffic by means of a tunnel, such as that proposed by Mr. Kearney, or by an other system which would involve passengers changing from the trains, as they have to under existing conditions.
TUBE NOT FAVOURED.
"Other extracts from the commissioners' report are as follows: "The Kearney system was originally brought out in 1902, and again in 1908 and again in 1910. On each occasion a demonstration was given with the working model. The reports of the technical press were entirely unfavourable. The system which has up to the present, never been adopted in any country, involves a very radical change from the usual method of railway and tramway operations, in that it is a mono - rail system, the cars running between two single rails, one above and one below the train.
"The proposal now under consideration covers the operation of a train of eight cars which would shuttle backwards and forwards across the harbour in a single line tube. The time of each journey, including loading and unloading at each end --- to facilitate which seperate platforms have been provided for -- is stated to be three minutes -- the train is to make 20 trips in each direction hourly. The passenger capacity of a car was stated the press to be 60, or 500 per eight car train, thus giving a total hourly carrying capacity in each direction of 10,000 sitting passengers.
"At present the passengers which the proposed tube would serve travel right to the water's edge in the trains and trams, and thence by fast ferry steamers of nearly 200 passenger capacity across the harbour at intervals of six minutes, which gives an hourly carrying capacity of 20,000 passengers."
THE LOCATION PROBLEM
"The commissioners' point out that, as the proposal covers a single line, a mechanical, electrical or track failure would put the system out of action, and completely stop the service until the fault was located and remedied.
"From the point of view of location, the proposal could not be assented to. On the city side the proposed entrance hall would be situated in the bed of the Tank Stream, and would therefore, be most difficult and expensive to construct, and would interfere with the low level sewerage system, whilst the platforms would have to be deeper than shown to enable steel construction to be adopted to carry the tramway and vehicular traffic above.
" On the Milson's Point side the entrance hall would block the roadway and approach to the goods yard at Milson's Point station, and necessitate the remodeling of the tramway terminus, which is now most confidently situated to the train and ferry services. Repair shops and a car shed to store at least one additional train would have to be provided, and these would more than occupy the whole of the roadway."If it were desirable to construct a single line of railway across the harbour as a temporary expedient, it could be done much more quickly and cheaply by means of a suspension bridge than by any other system. To - day for subway work in 60 feet of water, for 24 hours working time per week , the wages are £10 4s per week, whilst for bridge construction (44 hours per week) the wages are £5 10s 6 d per week.
"A single standard gauge track across such as a bridge, with double track on either side, as is worked across the George River bridge, would handle a much greater volume of traffic than any subway could, involving a change from one system to another: but such single line bridge could not possibly deal with the traffic even as it is to - day.
Sydney 3rd February 1922
LINKING THE SHORES
BRIDGE ONLY SOLUTION
Minister Against Tube.
Mr. Estell, Minister for Works and Railways, holds the opinion that the Kearney tube as a means of traffic across the harbour is out of the question, and that the only solution of the problem is the construction of a general traffic bridge, tenders for which are now being invited throughout the world.
"The Railway Commissioners also hold this view," said the Minister yesterday. "In the course of a report to me they state: " We are strongly of opinion that the only method of satisfactorily dealing with the existing and future requirements of the North side of the harbour is by the construction of the general traffic bridge, particulars of which have already been submitted. Until this is possible it would be useless to attempt to convey the traffic by means of a tunnel, such as that proposed by Mr. Kearney, or by an other system which would involve passengers changing from the trains, as they have to under existing conditions.
TUBE NOT FAVOURED.
"Other extracts from the commissioners' report are as follows: "The Kearney system was originally brought out in 1902, and again in 1908 and again in 1910. On each occasion a demonstration was given with the working model. The reports of the technical press were entirely unfavourable. The system which has up to the present, never been adopted in any country, involves a very radical change from the usual method of railway and tramway operations, in that it is a mono - rail system, the cars running between two single rails, one above and one below the train.
"The proposal now under consideration covers the operation of a train of eight cars which would shuttle backwards and forwards across the harbour in a single line tube. The time of each journey, including loading and unloading at each end --- to facilitate which seperate platforms have been provided for -- is stated to be three minutes -- the train is to make 20 trips in each direction hourly. The passenger capacity of a car was stated the press to be 60, or 500 per eight car train, thus giving a total hourly carrying capacity in each direction of 10,000 sitting passengers.
"At present the passengers which the proposed tube would serve travel right to the water's edge in the trains and trams, and thence by fast ferry steamers of nearly 200 passenger capacity across the harbour at intervals of six minutes, which gives an hourly carrying capacity of 20,000 passengers."
THE LOCATION PROBLEM
"The commissioners' point out that, as the proposal covers a single line, a mechanical, electrical or track failure would put the system out of action, and completely stop the service until the fault was located and remedied.
"From the point of view of location, the proposal could not be assented to. On the city side the proposed entrance hall would be situated in the bed of the Tank Stream, and would therefore, be most difficult and expensive to construct, and would interfere with the low level sewerage system, whilst the platforms would have to be deeper than shown to enable steel construction to be adopted to carry the tramway and vehicular traffic above.
" On the Milson's Point side the entrance hall would block the roadway and approach to the goods yard at Milson's Point station, and necessitate the remodeling of the tramway terminus, which is now most confidently situated to the train and ferry services. Repair shops and a car shed to store at least one additional train would have to be provided, and these would more than occupy the whole of the roadway."If it were desirable to construct a single line of railway across the harbour as a temporary expedient, it could be done much more quickly and cheaply by means of a suspension bridge than by any other system. To - day for subway work in 60 feet of water, for 24 hours working time per week , the wages are £10 4s per week, whilst for bridge construction (44 hours per week) the wages are £5 10s 6 d per week.
"A single standard gauge track across such as a bridge, with double track on either side, as is worked across the George River bridge, would handle a much greater volume of traffic than any subway could, involving a change from one system to another: but such single line bridge could not possibly deal with the traffic even as it is to - day.
Comments
Post a Comment