Financial aspects of the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway: the structure of budget expenditures

Shilnikova Irina PhD in History Associate Professor, Department of Social and Economic History of Russia, Institute for Social Sciences, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 82 Vernadsky Avenue, Moscow, 119571, Russia, Moscow region shilnikova.i@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Despite the large number of publications devoted to various aspects of the creation and operation of the Trans-Siberian Railway, a number of issues from the history of this grandiose infrastructure project remain beyond the attention of researchers. The latter, in particular, applies to the problems of financial support for the construction of the Siberian Railway, the structure of expenses and the compliance of the amounts spent with the initial estimates. Taking into account the fact that the work was carried out at the expense of the state treasury, the question of the total cost of construction and the effective use of allocated funds becomes even more important.

Recall that the entire Trans–Siberian railway was divided into seven parts, each of which, in fact, had the significance and status of an independent railway - the Ussuri, West Siberian, Central Siberian, Trans-Baikal, Sino-Eastern, Circum-Baikal, Amur (the length of these lines and the years of construction are given in the table in Appendix 1) – and could in turn be divided into sections (for example, Severno- and Yuzhno-Ussuriyskaya). Of course, the authors of publications refer to data on the cost of construction of the entire highway and its individual lines, but usually limit themselves to stating the final cost of construction and comments on the unjustified high cost of the work performed, explained primarily by corruption and embezzlement.

So, A.M. Solovyova in her famous monograph devoted to the history of railway transport in Russia in the XIX century noted that according to the initial plans, the average annual costs for the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway should have been about 30 million rubles, but in reality this figure was exceeded already at the first stages of construction. As a result, in 1895 the amount of expenses for the construction of the Siberian Railway amounted to 51.9 million rubles, in 1896 – 85.5 million rubles, in 1897 – 64.5 million rubles. At a meeting of the Siberian Railway Committee in December 1897, it was noted that the cost of construction of "the main sections of the highway exceeded the originally approved construction estimates by 24%" ^{[1, p. 257]}. The authors of the article, published for the 100th anniversary of the Trans-Siberian Railway, estimate the construction cost of the entire line, excluding the CER, by 1901 in the amount of 530 million rubles. Taking into account the length of the road 5370 versts, they calculated that the average cost of one verst was about 100 thousand rubles. It turns out that the initial amount determined by the "price list" was exceeded by 62%. After the construction of the KVZhD, the total cost of the Siberian Railway by the end of 1903 exceeded 1 billion rubles. ^{[2, p. 68]}.

In the article by M. A. Vivdych devoted to the Far Eastern section of the Trans-Siberian Railway, with reference to the earlier work of B. B. Pak ^[3], it was noted that during the construction of the KVZHD, a rather noticeable cost overruns were allowed, which was explained by construction difficulties, including those not taken into account at the cost planning stage. In particular, the road had to be restored after the uprising of the Yihetuans, it was necessary to bring in a fairly large amount of imported equipment. As a result, the cost of one mile of the KVZHD amounted to 150 thousand rubles. On the Ussuri site, this amount was noticeably less and amounted to 64,729 rubles. The total cost of the KVZHD at the time of launch was 375 million rubles, "and by January 1904, due to additional costs, it had increased to 406 million rubles. The cost overruns on the CER amounted to at least 150 million rubles along the entire line" ^{[4, pp. 41-42]}. A. A. Illarionov in the article, where the historical experience of public-private partnership is studied on the example of the construction of the Ussuri railway, does not pay significant attention to the financial aspects of this issue and is limited to indicating the initially approved estimated cost of the entire line (almost 40 million rubles) and separately its northern and southern sections ^{[5, p. 54]}.

The authors of the collective monograph devoted to the Transsib and BAM paid attention to the issues of financing the construction of the Siberian Railway, but this paragraph contains only fragmentary data on the cost (total or total) of individual sections of the line ^{[6, pp. 38-41]}. With reference to the work of P. P. Migulin ^{[7, p. 721]}, the authors of this section note that that the preliminary estimate for the construction of the Transsib assumed total costs of 350 million rubles. However, in the end, the amount turned out to be three times more and amounted to almost 915 million rubles. Such an excess of the initial calculations is most often, according to the authors, explained by "the dishonesty of contractors, fraud around orders, the use of some of the harvested materials not for the needs of the road; unforeseen difficulties encountered when laying the route" ^{[6, p. 38]}. However, further, the authors themselves, referring to the monograph by A. P. Korelin ^{[8, p. 106]}, devoted to the activities of S. Y. Witte, pay attention to the efforts of the Siberian Railway Committee aimed at minimizing embezzlement and waste of public funds, as a result of which losses from various kinds of abuses amounted to a relatively small amount – a little more than 4 million rubles . ^{[6, p. 39]}. This does not allow us to consider embezzlement and embezzlement during the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway as the main factor in the increase in the cost of work and cost overruns.

Even on the basis of the above examples, it can be noted that researchers, referring to various sources, give significantly different amounts when assessing the cost of construction work of both the Siberian Railway as a whole and individual lines in its composition. Moreover, this can happen even within the framework of a single publication. For example, the authors of one of the sections of the already mentioned collective monograph "Trans-Siberian and Baikal–Amur highways - a bridge between the past and the future of Russia" (M., 2005) in a note draw attention to the fact that the data they provided on the cost of construction of individual branches of the highway differ from those presented in the previous paragraph of the same book ^{[6, p. 42]}. Such discrepancies in estimates can be explained by various reasons. For example, in the sources and publications of the early twentieth century, reports of officials of different levels, which are often referred to by modern authors, often indicate the costs of building the Trans-Siberian Railway on different dates, which already leads to discrepancies, sometimes quite significant. In some cases, the cost of construction could be given without taking into account the cost of rails and rolling stock, and in other cases these items of expenditure were taken into account. In addition, when assessing the cost of this railway, some authors take into account only the costs directly for construction, while others add to them the amounts spent on laying the second track, "straightening" and "strengthening" previously built lines. An example of the latter approach is given by the founder of the site dedicated to the Trans-Siberian Railway, S. Sergachev. According to his calculations (taking into account additional costs) in 1891 – 1913, almost 1.5 billion rubles were spent on the implementation of this large-scale infrastructure project ("Trans-Siberian Railway: Web Encyclopedia" [Electronic resource]: https://transsib.ru/cat-value.htm )

In order to avoid such discrepancies, it seems logical to turn directly to the sources, namely to the reports on the construction of the Transsib. Therefore, the basis of the source base of this study was the materials of reports on the construction of individual lines of this railway. In particular, information from reports on the construction of the West Siberian ^[9-11], Tomsk branch of the Middle Siberian ^[12], North Ussuri ^[13-14], South Ussuri ^[15], Circum-Baikal ^[16] and Sino-Eastern ^[17] railways is used to solve the tasks set. The report, as a rule, consisted of a text part, including a description of the general progress of work, their specifics during the construction of this line, as well as sections whose names coincide with the main expenditure items of financial statements. At the end of this explanatory text, you can usually find an appendix from a set of tables, which presents specific amounts (in rubles) that were supposed to be spent on certain types of work according to a pre-compiled price list, as well as real expenses based on the results of the work already carried out. In a specially designated field of the statement containing comparative indicators of planned and actual expenditures, explanations are often provided about the reasons for the overspending of planned amounts or, conversely, about the circumstances that made it possible to reduce costs and reduce the cost of construction. Appendices to the report, which could be published as a separate volume or together with the text part, contain more detailed financial statements for each of the expenditure items and within each of them – for individual types of work. Reports on the construction of individual lines of the Trans-Siberian Railway were published under the stamp of the Ministry of Railways. The second line in the neck for the West Siberian Railway indicates the Management for the construction of the Siberian Railway, which directly supervised the progress of work, and for other parts of the Trans–Siberian Railway (except for the CER) - the Management for the Construction of railways. The report on the construction of the CER was published by the Society of the Chinese Eastern Railway.

The following points can be identified as the main objectives of this study: 1) find out the total and total cost of the construction of sections of the Siberian Railway; compare the total cost of the above-mentioned individual trunk lines and identify the reasons for the difference in the amounts spent; 2) compare the planned and actual costs, both total and for individual items; find out the reasons for the overspending of the originally planned amounts, as well as the circumstances that made it possible to reduce costs 3) to identify the cost structure by estimating the share of various items in the total amount of construction costs; to compare the cost structure of different parts of the Trans-Siberian Railway. At the same time, taking into account the nature of the source base, this article does not take into account the funds allocated and spent on the reconstruction of the railway line, which began in 1900. In particular, work began on the West Siberian, Middle Siberian and Trans-Baikal lines to replace light 18-pound rails that could not withstand heavy locomotives with 24-pound ones. In addition, the replacement of sleepers with elongated and impregnated with zinc chloride began, and the task was also set to replace wooden bridges with "more durable technical structures" ^{[2, p. 69]}. Of course, this required significant additional costs, which were, in fact, the result of attempts to save money at the initial stage of the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway. However, in this article we are talking about the costs of the construction of the railway, and reconstruction costs are not taken into account.

*****

            Let's turn to the data on construction costs per one mile of railway track and compare the total cost of construction of various sections of the Trans-Siberian Railway both as a whole and by the most significant items of expenditure. Figure 1 shows a diagram that gives an idea of the total cost of construction of the West Siberian (Chelyabinsk - Ob), Middle Siberian (Ob – Irkutsk), Circum-Baikal (Baikal - Mysovaya), Trans–Baikal (Mysovaya – Sretensk), Sino-Eastern (Chinese Junction – Manchuria) and Ussuri (Vladivostok – Khabarovsk) railways, and not only along the entire length, but also on individual sections.

Fig. 1. The total cost of construction of individual lines of the Trans-Siberian railway per 1 verst, in rubles.

Fig. 1. The total cost of construction of individual lines of the Trans-Siberian Railway per 1 verst, in rubles.

Source: Appendix 1. Table 1.1.

The highest average cost of construction per verst was for the Circum–Baikal Railway (256829.88 rubles), in second place – KVZhD (105264.50 rubles), in third place – Zabaikalskaya (73822.93 rubles; here for the Trans–Baikal line the average cost per verst of the Mysovaya - Sretensk section is given, excluding Irkutsk - Baikal and Chinese branches the siding is Manchuria), on the fourth – Ussuriyskaya (59342.51 rubles), on the fifth – Sredne-Sibirskaya (57242.23 rubles), and the West Siberian Railway closes this list, having the lowest indicator (34736.19 rubles). At the same time, it should be noted that the average cost of a mile on different sections of roads under construction could also vary significantly. For example, for the North-Ussuri road, the cost per mile averaged 64822.25 rubles, and for the South-Ussuri road – 53862.76 rubles. The total cost of the Sredne-Sibirskaya line on the Ob – Krasnoyarsk section was 51648.68 rubles, and on the Krasnoyarsk – Irkutsk section – 62835.77 rubles. Of course, the total cost of construction was influenced by various reasons (including, as mentioned above, embezzlement and corruption), but there were objective circumstances that determined the final cost of one verst of the railway or its separate section.

Attention is drawn to the relatively high cost of construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway, which is several times higher than similar indicators for other parts of the Trans-Siberian Railway. When referring to the article-by-article list of expenses, it can be noted that, first of all, such a gap is explained by the large expenses on the Circum-Baikal Road under the article "earthworks". A comparative statement of the estimated and actual cost of these works shows overspending under the article "roadbed construction", which included all earthworks, by more than 6.5 million rubles. Let's take a closer look at what caused such an excess of the originally planned cost of work. Overspending on logging by 23753.84 rubles. It was associated with an increase in the volume of logging by 99.03 dessiatines and the cost of these works by 15.6% due to the predominance of timber on the eastern section of the road. Overspending under the article "excavation work on the construction of the canvas for the main track" by 2707349.26 rubles. it was associated with an increase in work by 18.8% due to "changes in the technical conditions for the construction of the roadbed." It became clear that it was necessary to give a more significant flatness to the slopes of the recesses in comparison with the planned one. In addition, the cost of a unit of work, according to the Comparative Statement of the Cost of work, has increased due to the "changed distribution of soils" (crushed stone, stone, rocky, etc.), "due to the need to protect the embankments from the disturbances of Lake Baikal" ^{[16, p. 5]}. Overspending under the article "earthworks for the construction of the roadbed for branches to the pier in Tankhoy Bay" amounted to 7446.53 rubles. and was caused by "an emergency demand by dispatches dated November 1, 1902 for No. 1335 of the device of the summer pier in Tankhoy Bay by the beginning of navigation, as a result of which it was necessary to arrange a branch to the pier in winter in frozen ground in the amount of 33% of the entire work of the device of the branch web", which did not it was provided initially when drafting the road. Expenses under the article "earthworks for the removal of postal roads" were exceeded by 132,136.02 rubles due to "the lengthening of the branches of the postal tract, an increase in the number of works by 63.5% and the unit price of work by 55.4%, due to the changed soil ratio" ^{[16, p. 7]}. But in addition to overspending, of course, it is necessary to take into account the conditions for laying the roadbed, which for the Circum-Baikal line were characterized by increased complexity, due to the complexity of the terrain and the chosen route. All this required the construction of 39 tunnels. At the same time, the cost of work has increased due to the "construction of five new tunnels", which were not provided for in the original project and estimates. Thus, the conspicuous relatively high cost of construction of the Circum-Baikal line finds an explanation when analyzing the conditions of work. At the same time, the so-called overspending is most often explained by omissions at the planning and design stage. To the full extent, these circumstances, for example, relate to the assessment of the cost of temporary roads and buildings that were necessary for the transportation of materials, workers, etc. to the place of laying the main highway. Often these objects were not taken into account at all, or noticeable miscalculations were made in the cost estimation for their creation. Sometimes the need for such structures appeared in connection with the desire of the authorities to complete the work as soon as possible. However, it also draws attention to the fact that, as a result, prices for some types of work turned out to be higher than the initial estimate. The noted circumstances related to the shortcomings of planning and changes made after the start of construction fully apply to other lines of the Trans-Siberian Railway.

At the same time, reports on the construction of various sections of the Trans-Siberian Railway allow us to conclude that it was often quite possible to meet the approved estimates during the work. This was explained by the fact that despite the overspending (sometimes quite significant) on a number of articles, it was possible to save on others. As a result, the construction costs of the West Siberian Railway amounted to 97.35% of their cost according to the estimate, for the North-Ussuri this figure was 99.30%, for the South-Ussuri 98.77%. And again, the Circum-Baikal Road stands apart, since in the end the cost of its construction amounted to 120.04% in comparison with the amounts planned according to the estimates (see the tables in Appendix 2).

*****

Let's turn to the consideration of the structure of costs for the construction of various lines of the Trans-Siberian Railway (see the tables in Appendix 2 and Fig. 2-6).

The diagrams in Fig. 2-6 show that the highest share of expenses on all lines of the highway fell on such items as "roadbed construction", "artificial structures", "upper structure", "rails and fasteners", "rolling stock", "station buildings" and "general expenses". At the same time, the ratio of these articles could be different.

Fig. 2. Structure of expenses for the construction of the West Siberian Railway

Fig. 2. Structure of expenses for the construction of the West Siberian Railway

Source: Appendix 2. Table 2.1.

Fig. 3. The structure of expenses for the construction of the Central Siberian Railway (Tomsk branch).

Fig. 3. Structure of expenses for the construction of the Central Siberian Railway (Tomskaya branch).

Source: Appendix 2. Table 2.2.

Fig. 4. Structure of expenses for the construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway

Fig. 4. Structure of expenses for the construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway

Source: Appendix 2. Table 2.3.

Fig. 5. Structure of expenses for the construction of the North-Ussuri railway

Fig. 5. Structure of expenses for the construction of the North Ussuri railway

Source: Appendix 2. Table 2.4.

Fig. 6. Structure of expenses for the construction of the South Ussuri railway

Fig. 6. The structure of expenses for the construction of the South Ussuri railway

Source: Appendix 2. Table 2.5.

The article "construction of the roadbed" took over about 10-24% of the total construction costs. Only for the Circum-Baikal line, this figure is significantly higher (45.7%), primarily due to the complexity of the work and the large number of tunnels, as already mentioned above. This indicator is the lowest among the lines under consideration for the West Siberian Road (10.5%), primarily because 92.5% of the total length of the main track was straight sections, ^{[9, p. 11]} which reduced the cost of laying the line.

The article "artificial structures" included, first of all, bridges (both wooden and metal), as well as pipes (stone, brick, metal) for conducting water under the roadbed. The highest specific indicator of this item in the structure of all construction costs is given by the North-Ussuri Railway (23.6%), moreover, the largest expenditure item for this line. A slightly smaller share (21.2%) of the costs of artificial structures occupied in the cost structure for the construction of the Circum-Baikal line. In both cases, this is due to the need to build bridges. For example, metal bridges on stone supports with coffered bases were built on the North-Ussuri road on the rivers Iman, Bikin, Khor, and on the rivers Kiye and Podhorenka – wooden bridges on pile supports. In addition, a large wooden bridge was built on the Pashennaya River ^{[13, p. 16-20]}.

The article "station buildings" could account for a different proportion of the total costs of railway construction. The lowest indicator of the lines under consideration is for the Circum-Baikal Road (3.3%), for the rest it is noticeably higher: on the West Siberian Highway – 6.4%, on the Tomsk branch of the Middle Siberian Road - 7.54%, on the northern section of the Ussuri Road – 5.45%, on the southern – 8.52% (and in the latter case it is the highest indicator). In many ways, the amount of expenses for station buildings and the specific weight of this expense item depended on which buildings and from which materials were built. For example, 10 passenger buildings of different classes (from II to V) were built on the West Siberian Road. At the same time, there were no separate passenger buildings at 21 Class V stations at all, and separate rooms were allocated for passengers and station services in those buildings where station agents lived. Passenger buildings of I – III classes were usually built with brick, IV and V classes – wooden on a stone foundation. On the West Siberian Road, all the buildings were plastered inside, and the wooden exterior was sheathed and painted. The roofs of all the buildings were made of iron. Heated latrines were built for all passenger buildings of classes I – IV, cold latrines were necessarily present at all stations regardless of their class. In addition, fire sheds and glaciers were built at the stations, and some (Kurgan, Petropavlovsk, Omsk and Kainsk) had covered goods platforms and warehouses. Also, locomotive buildings (brick or stone with an iron roof) were built at 10 stations, equipped with "water supply for flushing and stone stokeholes with a drainage device for them." According to the same expenditure item, the construction of reservoir and water-lifting buildings took place ^{[9, p. 15-17]}.

A relatively small share of expenses falls on the item "alienation of property" (see the tables in Annex 2). It can be noted that in the diagrams it is not even specifically allocated, but has fallen into the category of "other expenses", since for most Transsib lines it takes less than 1% in the structure of expenses, and only for the Yuzhno-Ussuriyskaya road this figure is 1.5%. Such an insignificant share of this expenditure item is explained, first of all, by the fact that most of the land transferred for the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway was state-owned or cabinet-owned and was transferred free of charge. However, in some cases it was necessary to compensate the owners for losses due to the demolition of buildings (household and household), the destruction of cultivated land.

So, for example, the following lands were occupied for the construction of the West Siberian Railway and "its accessories": state-owned (9361 des. 2235 sq. sazh.; received free of charge), Orenburg Cossack army (515 des. 1602 sq. sazh.; in the middle. 40 rubles for 1 des.), Siberian Cossack army (2577 des. 329 sq. sazh.; 10.73 rubles for 1 des.), peasant societies (1320 des. 247 sq. sazh.; at 30.01 rubles. for 1 des.), city (396 des. 989 sq. sazh.; at 139.66 rubles. for 1 des.), the office of His Imperial Majesty (910 des. 1937 sq. sazh.; received free of charge), private estates and churches (280 des. 1286 sq. sazh.; at 19.18 rubles. for 1 des.). In total, 15362 des. 1425 sq. sazh were alienated from 184 possessions. On average, the cost is 5085 des. 453 sq. sazh. the amount of purchased land was 25.40 rubles for 1 tithe, and without urban land – 19.89 rubles. ^{[9, pp. 9-10]}.

In total, more land was alienated for the construction of the West Siberian Railway compared to the preliminary price list for 4130 des. 1425 sq. m.  saj. The need to alienate more land in comparison with the initial calculations was caused, according to the comparative statement, by "widening of the station sites, due to the special location of the tracks, water supplies, widening of the strip for quarries, alienation for a branch 41 versts long to the lake Vats for a ballast quarry, etc." ^{[9, p. 7]}. Despite the increase in the area of alienated lands, the expenses under this article were not only not exceeded, but even decreased compared to the initial estimate by 17,151.92 rubles, since a significant part of the alienated lands were state and cabinet lands provided for construction free of charge. The average cost of 1 des. it amounted to an amount less than the original amount by 5.94 rubles. At the same time, within the general article "Alienation of property" in the category "demolition of buildings", an overspend of 51096.87 rubles turned out, since "due to a change in the direction of the line when crossing the Ob River, "it was necessary to demolish the whole village of Krivoshchekovo together with the church, which was not foreseen in the price list." This demolition cost 55239 rubles. In addition, a steam mill was purchased for 12999 rubles, located on a strip alienated under a branch to the Irtysh River in Omsk ^{[9, p. 7]}.  

Within the framework of the article "Alienation of property", the funds spent during the construction of the West Siberian Railway were distributed as follows: for the acquisition of land - 158368.08 rubles. (per mile - 119.27 rubles.); remuneration for the destruction of crops and mowing and other temporary losses - 19254.66 rubles. (per mile - 14.50 rubles.); for the demolition of buildings - 76096.87 rubles. (per verst - 57.31 rubles.); for the maintenance of the alienation administration, drawing up plans, delineating the alienated strip, placing boundary posts, concluding serf acts, traveling evaluation commissions, etc. - 116982.82 rubles. (per verst - 88.09 rubles.) ^{[9, pp. 6-7]}. Prior to the start of work on the construction of a road on sown or plowed lands, "with the participation of technical supervision", acts were drawn up, which were then submitted for consideration by Local Control. Payments for the listed losses were made in accordance with the applicable prices, as well as with the norms allowed by the Siberian Railway Construction Authority. During the construction of the West Siberian Railway, buildings belonging to 277 owners were demolished, among which a wooden church, a volost board, six wooden two-story houses, 54 wooden houses, 140 residential huts, a salting plant, a watermill, a dam at a watermill, three windmills, two laundries, five bakeries are indicated in the accounting documentation et al . In addition, a steam grist mill with all the equipment, a barrack for firing coal and two wooden houses with all the extensions to them were purchased for 9419.54 rubles, and instead of the demolished church, a chapel and a fence were put up for 300 rubles. Regarding the amount of remuneration for the demolition of buildings, the "normal prices" approved by the Siberian Railway Construction Department were taken into account. Payment for demolition was made by prior agreement with Local Control ^{[10, p. 9]}.

            During the construction of the Severno-Ussuri railway, a number of buildings also had to be demolished, including a brick factory in Khabarovsk, as compensation for which 1,650 rubles were paid, a wooden house (355 rubles) and a wooden house at the pier on the Amur River (250 rubles) ^{[13, p. 16]}. The laying of the Yuzhno-Ussuriyskaya line required compensation in the amount of 237,255.33 rubles to 62 owners of various structures, including four brick and one mechanical plant, a circus, a watermill, 41 residential buildings, 10 sheds, a stable, a glacier, etc. Some of these buildings were demolished, and some were purchased and used in the future for road maintenance ^{[15, p. 13]}. On the Yuzhno-Ussuriyskaya line, the total cost of alienation of land and property for the roadbed was 810.24 rubles, which is higher compared to other sections of the Trans-Siberian Railway. Thus, a similar indicator for the North-Ussuri road was 152.62 rubles ^{[13, p. 16]}, for the West Siberian - 278.85 rubles. ^{[9, p. 10]}, for Circum–Baikal - 363.27 rubles. ^{[16, p. 12]}.

            In the presented diagrams (Fig. 2-6), it can be seen that in some cases such an item of expenditure as water supply is allocated. In general, its share in the total cost structure is relatively small and is quite close in value for various sections of the Trans-Siberian Railway (about 2% on the West Siberian, Tomsk branch of the Middle Siberian and northern section of the Ussuri lines). Moreover, it was often the work on the establishment of water supply stations and sidings that was accompanied by cost overruns in comparison with the originally planned amounts ^{[18, pp. 62-65]}.

            About 7-10% of the total cost structure for the construction of various sections of the Trans–Siberian Railway falls on the item "General expenses", which, among other things, included salaries for employees who were engaged in settlements with contractors and preparation of accounting documentation, as well as "agents" to monitor the repair of rolling stock, workshop equipment, water supply and other works. In addition, the costs of "the production of final surveys and the preparation of executive projects" also fell here ^{[9, pp. 20-22]}.

            The issue of the costs of the construction of the CER deserves special attention, especially given the fact that the authors of publications constantly emphasize the uselessness for Russia of about 40% of the amounts spent due to the subsequent transfer of the South Manchurian Line to Japan via the Portsmouth World. The diagram in Fig. 7, reflecting the structure of costs for the construction of the KVZhD, shows that 19% of the total cost is due to the need to eliminate the consequences of the Ihetuan (Boxer) uprising, during which about two thirds of the already laid line was destroyed.

            Fig. 7. The structure of costs for the construction of the KVZhD.

Notes: Lit. A – construction costs (alienation of property, construction of roadbed, infrastructure, etc.); Lit. B – rails, fasteners and rolling stock; Lit. C - works and expenses caused by special conditions of road construction (remuneration of the Chinese administration, construction of housing, schools, hotels, shops, industrial enterprises, marinas, etc., line security, etc.); Lit. D - Expenses for the formation of working capital; Lit. D - works and expenses caused by the riots in China in 1900 (restoration of the destroyed, increased security, etc.)

Source: Report on the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway (railway enterprise). 1897-1903 St. Petersburg, 1905.

In general, the structure of costs for the construction of the KVZHD differs from the similar characteristics of other lines of the Trans-Siberian Railway. Attention is drawn to the significance of the costs for the construction of various transport and social infrastructure facilities, line protection, etc., which was dictated by the specifics of the route and construction conditions.

*****Summing up the preliminary results of the analysis of the financial aspects of the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, we note the following points.

In the structure of expenses for all sections of the road, the most significant items are allocated, which take the main share of expenses (laying the roadbed, building bridges and tunnels, erecting station buildings, providing lines with rolling stock). At the same time, the existing differences can be explained, first of all, by the conditions of construction work. The total cost could vary significantly, which, in addition to the relief, the need to build artificial structures and other circumstances, was also explained by the quality of infrastructure structures built on the line. Here, first of all, we are talking about station buildings, warehouses, glaciers, organization of water supply, etc. Despite the presence of miscalculations at the planning stage during the construction of the West Siberian, Tomsk branch of the Middle Siberian, both sections of the Ussuri railway, the amount of expenses did not exceed the initial estimates. The excess of the estimated amounts for some items (often compensated by reducing costs for other items), on the one hand, was a payment for shortening the construction time of the Trans-Siberian Railway, and on the other hand, the desire to create more comfortable conditions for the transportation of goods and passenger travel.

Appendix 1.Table 1.1.

Table 1.1.

The cost of individual works for 1 verst according to the reports of the Circum-Baikal, Siberian, Trans-Baikal, Sino-Eastern and Ussuri railways

The cost of some works per 1 verst according to the reports of the Circum-Baikal, Siberian, Trans-Baikal, Chinese Eastern and Ussuri railways

Source: Report on the construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway. 1900-1905 St. Petersburg, 1908. p. IX-XV.Appendix 2.

Table 2.1.

Table 2.1.

Comparative statement of the planned and actual cost of construction of the West Siberian Railway

Comparative sheet of the estimated and actual cost of the construction of the West Siberian Railway

Source: Report on the construction of the West Siberian railway[eleznaya] d[orogi]. 1892 – 1896 St. Petersburg, 1898. Comparative statement of the estimated and actual cost of construction of the West Siberian Railway. pp. 2-3.

Table 2.2.

Table 2.2.

Comparative statement of the planned and actual cost of construction of the Tomsk branch of the Middle Siberian Railway

Comparative statement of the estimated and actual cost of building the Tomsk branch of the Central Siberian Railway

1895-1896 St. Petersburg, 1901. Comparative statement of the estimated and actual cost of construction of the Tomsk branch of the Middle Siberian Railway. pp. 2-31.

Table 2.3.

Table 2.3.

Comparative statement of the planned and actual cost of construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway

Comparative sheet of the estimated and actual cost of the construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway

Source: Report on the construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway. 1900 – 1905 St. Petersburg, 1908. Comparative statement of the cost of works, supplies and expenses for the construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway, with the amounts allocated for their production according to the preliminary price list. pp. 2-55.

Table 2.4.

Table 2.4.

Comparative statement of the planned and actual cost of construction of the North-Ussuri railway

Comparative sheet of the estimated and actual cost of the construction of the North Ussuri railway

1894 – 1897. St. Petersburg, 1900. pp. 42-45.

Table 2.5.

Table 2.5.

Comparative statement of the planned and actual cost of construction of the South Ussuri Railway

Comparative sheet of the estimated and actual cost of the construction of the South Ussuri railway

1891 – 1894. St. Petersburg, 1900. pp. 34-37.