£80,000 per mile.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 2842, 7 December 1892, Page 2

£80,000 per mile.

Whatever other elements may be denied to Queensland that of bigness will be readily allowed. Thus writes the Brisbane correspondent of the " Argus " :— We have a big territory, we have big law cases, and we have big railway disputes. Just now we have one of the last on hand. This is a claim by Mr John Kobb of over £262,000 as payment for extras in connection with a contract for the second section of the Cairns-Herberton Railway. The line to be made was only fifteen miles in length, the contract price being a trifle undei £291,000. Already certificates for payment have been given amounting to the modest sum of £874,000—three times the amount of the original contract, and now Mr Etobb is claiming the further sum of £262,311. Assuming for the moment that he is successful in getting this amount, he will receive instead of the £21*1,000, the amount of original contract, more than £1,000,000; and before the line is finished this section of fifteen miles will cost the country about £1,200,000. The construction of the railway has been most difficult, and the work was expected to be costly ; but no one dreamt that it would be so expensive as it has proved. The dispute between the contractor and the Government has been referred to arbitration. A. strong bar has been engaged on both sides, and Mr , Rutledge for some days past has been I opening up the case on behalf of the ! claimant. Hie description of the work done, after a personal inspection of the line, may be accepted as tolerably correct. In his introductory speech Mr Rutledge spoke of the nature of the country as follows;—" During his visit he was struck with wonder and admiration at the courage and skill which must have been displayed in carrying out the work in the face of difficulties which have never been met with in any other railway work in 'Australia. Some p«rts of the line were situated 1000 ft above the bed of the Barron River, and the work had to be carried on frequently by slinging men over the sides of the mountain by means of ropes. Again, thocontractor had to hew his way through dense jungles where there was almost impenetrable undergrowth. There were also difficulties which had to be grappled with, and these of a more formidable character. The contractor found it impossible to transpoit his materials. As a preliminary he had to hew tracks out of the sides of the mountain, along which horses and mules could be taken. As an instance of how this increased the cost of construction he instanced the fact that the sand which, was used for the concrete had to be packed on the backs of mules and taken to the top of the mountain." The allegation is " that the increased expense of the line had bean in consequence of the ignorance and recklessness displayed in connection wiih the original survey," an<l that alterations were uuntiuuaily being made in the working plana. In support of his statement "that chere was no actual line of railway decided on, and that the engineer in charge of the works went on at his own sweet will from day to day," Mr Rutledge quoted figures to show how his estimates differed from actual requirements. The case is likely to last a long time.