« 上一頁繼續 »
From the above figures it will be noticed that these six lines, including the most important of the Chinese Government Railways, are provided with much less equipment per mile than the railways of Japan, Germany, or the United States, and the disparity becomes even more striking when the earnings are compared. This group of Chinese railways earned in 1916 $19,700 (Mexican) per mile of line, against $10,150 (gold) for the Japanese railways and $15,600 for the railways of the United States. The earnings of the German railways for 1913 (the last year available) were $22,300 (United States currency) per mile. With the prevailing price of silver, the earnings of the Chinese railways were actually higher than those of the Japanese railways and were practically equal to those of the railways of the United States.
Further attention will be called to this situation in the suggestions made later concerning the possibility of American interests furnishing rolling stock to these Chinese Government Railways, to be handled through an equipment-trust scheme similar to the arrangements by which many American railways have bought rolling stock in the past.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ROLLING STOCK.
The initial equipment on all the lines (particularly those first constructed) is more representative of the practices of the nations furnishing the loan funds than is the case with the subjects already mentioned. As a result, the Chinese railways to-day have, as a whole, a more miscellaneous assortment of equipment than any other equal mileage of railways in the world. A considerable part of the rolling stock (particularly the locomotives and goods wagons first acquired) is light and of small carrying capacity. This was very unfortunate, for the reason that the railway business of China is not natually a classified-goods business but rather the transportation of commodities, and this tendency, as the railways are extended and the traffic grows, will probably become more pronounced. Therefore, the advantage of freight cars of large capacity and heavy motive power, along the lines of American practice, is readily apparent. The character of the early rolling stock forms the explanation for the light design of the bridges, which will have to be corrected at much expense before the type of equipment demanded by this class of traffic can be used. The average tractive effort of all locomotives on the Chinese Government Railways is now approximately 21,000 pounds, the average carrying capacity of all passenger cars is 67.5 persons per car, and the average carrying capacity of all freight cars is 50,350 pounds. In connection with the locomotives, however, it should be mentioned that on the Peking-Suiyuan line, which is equipped with 60 American locomotives out of a total of 66, the average tractive effort of all locomotives is about 30,000 pounds, which has the effect of reducing the average of all locomotives on the other lines to about 18,700 pounds.
It is also surprising to find the small amount of freight equipment that is equipped with air brakes. In one instance this lack of power brakes is limiting the coal traffic that one of the roads can handle during the winter when it shouid be handling the maximum tonnage. The Peking-Suiyuan line, on account of the heavy grades over the West Hills, is well equipped with air brakes on all its equipment, and the lack of brakes on the other lines is an additional restriction on the free interchange of traffic between this line and the other lines not so equipped. The Janney-Penn couple is used very generally on all the lines, and probably its use is more nearly universal than that of any other one device on the Chinese Government Railways,
The locomotives show, probably to a greater extent than any other feature, the tendency of each nation to follow its home practices in furnishing equipment for the Chinese railways. The result is that there are four distinct types of locomotive construction practice, British, Franco-Belgian, German, and American---the last named being present to a greater or less extent on all the lines and predominating on the Chinese-built lines, such as the Peking-Suiyuan and the Shanghai-Hangchow-Ningpo. Figure 22, facing page 96, shows a typical Franco-Belgian locomotive on the Peking-Hankow line. It illustrates the type of frame and truck construction, and also the elaborate pilot construction as contrasted with the typical bull-nose pilot of British practice. All locomotives except the American follow the plate or fabricated frame construction. The writer's conclusions, however, favored the American bar-frame construction, first, because this type of construction seems suited to the class of track construction and maintenance that will prevail, in general, on most Chinese railways; second, because of the advantage in shipping space, it being stated that there is a saving of more than one-third in this connection; third, because, when manufacturers are provided with adequate plant facilities, the American type gives the lowest first cost but not (as claimed by competitors) the lowest quality. The American engine is more serviceable for the operating requirements and repairing conditions in China, and the writer fees, therefore, that American manufacturers should make the most of this advantage and not accede to the demands of foreign engineers that the practice of their own particular countries be followed. There was one especially unfortunate instance of such ill-advised compliance, in which it was clearly the intention of the loan agreement to put the American practice on a parity with the plate frame specifications,
There are two other points that deserve special mention. The British engineers, as a rule, favor the Belpaire type of locomotive boiler fire boxes, claiming that with Chinese shop labor they can be more reliably inspected and cheaply maintained; and therefore, when this type of boiler is specified, there is no apparent reason why American manufacturers should not bid. As regards copper plates and brass boiler tubes, the writer feels that when these are specified quotations should be made accordingly, as this is largely a matter of price rather than of practice and, if necessary, an alternate price can be given for iron. On account of the distance from source of supplies, the smaller value of scrap, and the fact that the Chinese are very good brass workers but rather poor ironworkers, this point is one of very considerable weight in the above connection. Another point that probably has some bearing on this question is the long life that will probably prevail for all classes of rolling stock in China, on account of the large percentage of the first cost that is chargeable to shipping and the low cost of labor for the maintenance and operation of what might otherwise be considered obsolete equipment. It is
not believed that the type of frame construction affects this last consideration, but it is possible that, particularly in China, the copper and brass plates and tubes may have a bearing in this connection.
When used, air brakes are usually of the Westinghouse design of the nation furnishing the equipment. It is not usual for other nations to put as much braking on the locomotive and tenders as is the American practice. The passenger equipment, as a rule, is well equipped with air brakes, but no air train signals are in use on any of the lines. As already stated, the freight equipment is only partly equipped with air brakes. Most of the lines depend on hand brakes. As a rule, every fifth or sixth car is equipped with a small shelter; the train is arranged for two of these to come together, and the braking is done by hand.
Sleepers and first-class passenger cars are usually of the compartment-corridor type. The Peking-Mukden, Tientsin-Pukow, PekingHankow, and Shanghai-Nanking
own and operate their own sleeping cars, and on all these lines the same equipment performs the service of first-class passenger car and sleeping car. These are the only lines running sleeping cars. These four lines and the Peking-Suiyuan own and operate their own dining cars. The second-class equipment is usually provided with serviceable wooden seats and the third-class sometimes with cheaper seats but frequently with benches; in some instances, particularly when the coolie class is carried, no seats of any kind are provided. Figure 24 shows the vestibules and one end of a diner on the Peking-Mukden Railway. It will be noticed that there are no steps to the vestibule platforms. This requires all station platforms to be built with only a low step from the vestibule. In no instance noted by the writer was any passenger equipment heated from the locomotive, the only hose connection being the one for airbrakes.
The initial equipment on the first Chinese railways (except that purchased from America) was of small capacity, and much of it can best be termed goods wagons, but the tendency has steadily been toward equipment of greater capacity until to-day practically all new freight cars are of 67,200 pounds or 30 long tons capacity. All the Chinese railways use the British practice of a loading gauge. The size of equipment is somewhat restricted, and it would appear very desirable to increase this in the case of new railway construction, to permit of the utilization of larger equipment as the traffic develops - particularly if this development should be along commodity lines.
Figure 23 shows a freight-car truck (bogie) in general use on the Peking-Hankow line and somewhat similar in construction to the locomotive truck shown on the same page. Figure 26, facing page 116. shows a typical box car used on most of the Chinese railways. It was stated that this type of construction is quite satisfactory on all the lines north of the Yangtze River, but that the deterioration of the sheet iron on the southern lines, such as the Shanghai-Nanking, is quite serious. With the scarcity of lumber in China, however, this
. design would seem to have much merit. The lower illustration on the same page shows a tank car of a type in general use by the Standard Oil Co. and the Asiatic Petroleum Co. for transporting refined kero
The one shown, as can be readily seen from the name, is used by the latter company.
The British have used their typical steel-tired wheel, usually with cast-steel centers and of 42 inches diameter, on passenger and freight cars of all classes and capacities. The Germans have done the same with a wheel 100 centimeters (39.37 inches) in diameter. On the American equipment, particularly freight cars, most of the wheels have been of the regular chilled cast-iron type and, according to the information obtainable, have giren satisfactory results. One of the suggestions that the writer heard mentioned a number of times was the desirability of the Chinese Government Railways adopting such a standard size of car wheel as can be satisfactorily produced with a chilled cast-iron wheel and then making their own supply of wheels. This seems practicable when one takes into account the supply of iron ore and fuel, together with the fact that many of the Chinese shop laborers make good foundry molders.
On account of the large amount of cheap labor in all parts of China, very little attention has been given to labor-saving service cars, and the present equipment is almost entirely confined to that which involves the use of hand labor for all classes of work. One of the most generally seen pieces of special equipment is the small derrick car, sometimes taking the form of a small locomotive crane. Steam shovels and steam wrecking cars are practically never seen.
It seems proper to refer now to the history and special features of the several lines. The foregoing has been an effort to cover all the general characteristics, particularly the comparable features. The following is an effort to bring out the individual features of the different lines, but of necessity this can only be done very briefly, though many of the lines have very interesting histories that are beyond the scope of this report. So far as practicable, with the time available and the difficulties encountered, directories of the principal officials have been compiled and are being printed, all together, in an appendix, beginning on page 261.
PEKING-MUKDEN (CHING-FENG) RAILWAY.
LOCATION AND EXTENT.
This line connects Peking with Mukden, a distance of 524 miles. The Southwest Terminal is at the Chengyangmen Gate in the Chinese City of Peking. The Chengyangmen Gate is the most important entrance to the Tartar City and is within a short distance of the Legation Quarter. The Peking-Hankow main station at Peking is just south of this same gate and is only about a quarter of a mile from the Peking-Mukden main station. One end of the PekingSuiyuan Railway's “around-the-city” branch terminates in the Peking-Mukden station and the other end at the Hsichihmen station,
which is the Peking-Suiyuan's main station just outside the northwest corner of the Tartar City of Peking.
At Fengtai connection is made with a branch of the Peking-Hankow Railway and with the East Terminal of the Peking-Suiyuan Railway. Connection is made with the Tientsin-Pukow at Tientsin and the South Manchuria Railway at Mukden. A very important branch leaves the main line a short distance south of Shanhaikwan and runs to the ice-free port of Chinwangtao, at which point the Kailan (also known as Kaiping) coal is handled to seagoing ships. Important branches extend from Kowpangtze to Yingkow or Newchwang and from Peking to Tungchow, the latter being practically Peking's port on one of the grand canals. There is also a short branch from Lienshan to the port of Hulutao in the extreme northwestern part of the Gulf of Liaotung, which is the northern part of what is usually known as the Gulf of Chihli. There are a number of spurs to coal mines of the Kailan Mining Administration operating the Kaiping coal field at Tongshan.
The history of this line has already been referred to at some length in connection with the Tangshan Colliery Tramway started in 1878, the name of which was changed in 1882 to the Kaiping Railway Co., with Wu Ting Fang as general manager, and again in 1887 to the China Railway Co., extensions being made during each interval. In 1891 the name of the Imperial Railways of North China was adopted, at which time the enterprise, to all intents and purposes, was taken over by the Imperial Chinese Railway Administration. At the opening of the Chino-Japanese war the line was completed from Tientsin to Shanhaikwan, with an extension beyond the latter point nearing completion. The outbreak of the Boxer uprising found the line extended to Machiapu, outside the Chinese City of Peking, and in the northeast the line had been completed to the neighborhood of Chinchow, with the construction well under way of the extensions to Hsinminting and Yingkow (Newchwang)--about 30 miles of the latter branch having been completed at the Yingkow end. During the occupation period following the Boxer uprising, the British in charge of the Peking section took advantage of the occasion and extended the line from Machiapu to the present Chengyangmen terminus in the Chinese City, as already mentioned, the line running just outside the south wall of the Tartar City for about two-thirds of the distance across this part of the city. At the same time the branch was built to Tungchow. These extensions were built without agreements of any kind and the Chinese accepted them without protest.
The Boxer uprising greatly delayed the completion of the Newchwang branch and the extension to Hsinminting, both of which were finally completed in 1903. The connection between Hsinminting and Mukden was first a narrow-gauge 3-foot 6-inch line built by the Japanese during the Russo-Japanese War, but by agreement between Japan and China this section was turned over to the Imperial Railway Administration of China in 1907, and the gauge was changed to 4 feet 84 inches. Mr. C. W. Kinder was connected with the work from the beginning, until his retirement from the position of engineer in chief on April 1, 1909.