12 Gro. 5 ENGINEERING AND Economic FEATURES. R 13

For the same reasons, on account of the long winter and the difficulty in procuring winter
feed, and while there are some fine, large cattle-ranges in Upper Lillooet and in the Cariboo, no
further development of any account can be expected in the stock-raising jndustry.

The timber industry is limited to the first 60 to TO miles, and with the exception of the first
20 miles the timber areas are quite patchy. There might develop some business in pulp-wood
timber, but on account of the necessary heavy freight charges and heavy operating expense on
account of the heayy grades this development is in the far future.

The mining industry does not offer much, no matter to what extent the gold-mines may
develop. Free-gold mining, be it placer or quartz, does not produce tonnage for a railway like
that produced by the mining of coal, iron, or copper ores, etc.

There is only one conclusion that can be reached—namely, that as a local line between
Vancouver or Squamish and Prince George the country will not produce enough traffic at any
reasonable rate to pay operating expenses plus fixed charges. Regarding further extension of
line, this matter will be discussed under another heading.

I—WAS THE GOVERNMENT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE REVISION OF LINE AT
CROSSING OF THE COTTONWOOD RIVER?

Six trains per day loaded for a 0.75 per cent. grade is the minimum number that would
justify the building of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway at rates that the promoters would
expect to obtain. I have therefore assumed that the promoters expected at least that much
business and on that assumption. The annual saving in operating over the line adopted by the
Government I calculate to be $31,777. The economic features in favour of the Government
engineers’ line was a saving of 5 miles in distance, a saving of 1,103° of curvature, and a saving
of 187 feet in rise against traffic in both directions.

Another favourable feature was the capitalized value of maintaining 5 miles of track, the

* yalue of 5 miles of track material, track-laying, ballasting, fencing, and telephone-line. But the
largest item was a saving of over $400,000 in favour of the Government line in the difference in
the cost of the materials and the cost of erecting the river crossing. The total saving would
justify an extra expenditure on the line constructed of $1,456,175, which fully justified the
revision of the line. Your engineers may have submitted more favourable figures on account
of their assuming the traffic at ten or more trains per day. (For further details see Appendix
No. 1.)

J—WAS THE GOVERNMENT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING REVISION OF LINE AT CROSSING
OF QUESNEL RIVER?

The same remarks about the amount of traffic required to justify the building of the railway
applies to this case as to the Cottonwood River.

In this case the economic operating features in favour of the revised line was a shortening
of the distance by 1 mile and a saying in curvature of 318°, and against the revision was an
additional 67 feet of rise against traffic in both directions. A slight saving in operating the
revised line, capitalized and added to a considerable saving in the cost of the crossing of the
Quesnel River, would justify an extra expenditure in grading the new line of $439,215, as against
an expenditure by the Government of $861,028.82, indicating that from an economic point this
revision was not justified. To justify this charge it would have to be assumed that an extra
annual revenue of $21,090 would be received from Quesnel Station without any extra operating
expense. I do not believe that the moving of the station into the town will make anything like
that much of an increase in a revenue from that point.

The statement has been made that it would be more difficult to maintain the original line
than the revised line. I could not see any reason for this conclusion; both lines are in very
pad sliding and unstable ground for a considerable distance.

Another statement I have heard is to the effect that the Government engineers used a
steeper rate of grade than was used on the original line. This is not the fact; the rates of
grade are exactly the same on both lines. It is unfortunate that the Government did not adopt
a rate of 3 or 4 per cent. south of the town, and thus save a large portion of the expenditure
made, and leave the building of the 0.85-per-cent. grade until the traffic would justify the
construction of the lower-grade line. (For further details see Appendix No. 2.)

eR