File 930/1912 'Mohammerah - Khoremabad Railway' [‎136r] (278/396)

It would probably be to the advantage of both ourselves and Eussia to prevent
railway construction in Persia for another ten years, but as Germany seems to have
succeeded in compelling Eussia, to abandon this policy, the course I have outlined above
seems to offer the fewest objections. It involves no large outlay, and would probably
be financially remunerative before long; it also makes no great addition to our
commitments in this part of Persia.
8. Gauge of proposed Railway.
We may assume that for our purposes there are three possible gauges, 5 feet,
4 ft. 8h in., and metre gauge. There would seem at first sight to be good primd facie
grounds for choosing the Eussian (5 feet) gauge, which would facilitate the prolonga
tion from Khoremabad to Burujird, which I believe to be essential to the success
of the line, and the extensions thence to some point or points on the Eussian railway
from the north when it comes to be constructed. But I have submitted in the
succeeding paragraph that it is only by building the line to metre gauge that we
can ever hope to make it a financially sound proposition. This argument should
suffice to outweigh any objection by Eussia against the break of gauge, which is in
itself strategically most desirable. The financial argument has the additional advantage
of enabling us to put forward strong reasons for a break of gauge on the border of the
neutral zone no less than on that of the British zone.
The 4 ft. 8 J in. gauge, as used on the Bagdad Eailway, enables a high rate of
speed to be attained by heavy trains, but it is financially objectionable, and would
be so on strategical grounds should the Tehran-Khanikin line be built to this gauge.
The 2 ft. 6 in. gauge advocated by Sir T. E. Gordon is, I would submit, too small
to be economical; it has only been adopted in India for a few bill railways of exceptional
difficulty and some feeder lines in Southern India.
The metre gauge is much the cheapest and can be used with sharper curvature than
the broader gauges; the rate of speed is slower and the maximum load that a train can
carry is less. As the Luristan line is never likely to be a mail or main passenger line,
the slower speed seems unimportant; and as regards the traffic it could carry, though
I can profess no expert knowledge on the subject, I venture to record my belief that a
metre gauge will be ample for the requirements of the country for the next twenty-five
years at any rate. Putting the train load at the low figure of 400 tons, one train a
day would deal with 150,000 tons a year. This question is further dealt with in the
next paragraph.
Whilst considering the metre gauge for financial and strategical reasons in every
way preferable, I have nevertheless estimated for a broad gauge line, whilst adding
estimates for meter gauge as far as I am able to deduce them.
9. Financial Prospects of the Line.
The estimates of cost of the line (5 feet gauge) are based on the same classification
as that adopted by Mr. John for the Baluchistan line, which provided for 5 ft. 6 in.
gauge, 62 lb. rails, w T ooden sleepers, and a small quantity of rolling stock, stations, &c.,
on a moderate scale. Iron sleepers would, however, be undoubtedly necessary, owing
to the prevalence of white ants and the temptation to theft which wooden sleepers
would offes to the tribes.
The details of the proposed alignments and their estimated cost will be found
in Part II and III of this report.
They may be summarised as follows (converted into £ from rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. ):—
Miles.
5-feet Gauge.
Metre Gauge.
Via Kuh-i-Dasht—
Moh ammer ah-D i zf ul
Dizful-Khoremabad
Total .. ..
Via Kashgan Gorge—
Mohammerah-Dizful
Dizful-Khoremabad
Total ..
174
185
l.TO0,000} 6 ’ 395permIle
£
4,460 per mile.
359
2,333,333
1,640,000
174
140
i,8n:ooo} 7l657permile
5,350 per mile.
314
2,404,336
1,685,000