“Railway Traffic Manager” of the Chinese Eastern Railway: Engineer A.K. Hinze’s Actions from 1906-1917

Full text / tables, figures

Introduction

Relevance. Based on the archival materials, the author examines the activities of one of the key departments of the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER) – the operation department. The emphasis of research is focused on the period of 1906–1917, following the end of the Russo-Japanese War, when the railway was forced to operate under new conditions: there were changes in the railway administration as new serious tasks were set and addressed due to the CER modernization and the outbreak of World War I. By introducing previously unknown information, the author clarifies several facts of the biography of engineer A.K. Hintze, the head of the railway operations, including the time and place of his death.

Elaboration of the problem. The history of the Chinese Eastern Railway has already been surveyed by other researchers. Much has already been written about the construction and operation of the railway and its connecting lines in the early 20^th century^[1], and various historians are still studying it^[2]. Researchers are still reconstructing the creation and operation of the connecting lines – sections of the Trans-Baikal (in the west) and Ussuri (in the east) railways built in the late 19^th – early 20^th centuries^[3], and analyzing the financial aspects of railway construction^[4]. A special place among the works devoted to the CER is occupied by studies of specific people - builders, engineers, doctors, and settlers^[5].

Purpose of the study. Based on the sources introduced into scientific use for the first time, the author’s research is aimed at analyzing the effectiveness of the CER traffic management during the turning point that followed Russia’s withdrawal from the war with Japan until the revolutionary events of 1917. This period of time was characterized by the modernization of not only the railway, but also its connecting lines, as well as the organization of military cargo transportation. It was talented engineer Alexander Konstantinovich Hintze, one of the leaders of the CER who directly participated in this process.

Source base. When analyzing the CER activities, in addition to already published documents^[6] historians have actively introduced materials into scientific use devoted to various aspects of the CER operation^[7]. However, the extensive collection of the materials of the board of the CER Company (F. 323) of the Russian State Historical Archive has not been fully introduced into scientific use. This collection contains: annual reports on the technical and economic performance of the railway and its connecting lines, reviews of the activities of numerous CER departments, additional enterprises within the commercial department, as well as the actual commercial performance of the railway up to 1917. While working on the article, the author also used journalistic materials^[8] and memoirs ^[9].

Initial stage of A.K. Hintze’s professional activity

Alexander Konstantinovich Hintze was born into a Lutheran family. His father was Konstantin Ivanovich Hintze, a second lieutenant in the Finnish Line Battalion. His service record (1859) “on service and honors” states that he was the son of “Lieutenant Julius Konstantinovich Hintze.” His father married Anna Alexandrovna, Major General A.F. Reineke’s daughter, an Orthodox Christian. Their son, Alexander, was born on January 30, 1856, and was baptized on February 23 in the Orthodox Church of the Helsingfors Military Hospital^[10].

Unlike his father and grandfather, Alexander did not seek a military career. Upon arriving in St. Petersburg, he entered the Emperor Alexander I Institute of Railway Engineers and on May 21, 1880, he completed a course of education at this higher technical educational institution of the Russian Empire and received a diploma. According to the statement of the examination committee, he became “a civil engineer with the right to perform construction work” and “with the right to the rank of Collegiate Secretary upon entering civil service.” The diploma was signed by the head of the Institute, privy councilor V.P. Sobolevsky^[11].

Upon graduating from the Institute, by order of the Minister of Railways of March 19, 1884, A.K. Hintze was appointed a full-time engineer of the VIII class and assigned to the Provisional Administration of the State Railway to perform the duties of head of section III of the Catherine Railway with a salary of 2,400 rubles per year. By order of the Minister of January 12, 1886, he was “to perform the duties of an engineer in the motive-power service of the railway.”^[12]

By that time, A. Hintze had many children. The service record of titular councilor Hintze states that he was married to Olga Lazarevna Sisina, aged 18, a daughter of a Yekaterinburg commoner, and had two daughters (Elena, born in 1878, and Margarita, born in 1879), and two sons (Viktor, born in 1886, and Vladimir, born in 1887)^[13].

Gradually, A.K. Hintze moved up through the ranks. On January 12, 1886, he was appointed head of the motive-power service of the Livensky narrow-gauge railway and deputy head of this railway during the head’s illness or absence^[14]. In 1887, for his long service, he was promoted to titular councilor, and in 1890 to collegiate assessor. On April 18, 1892, A.K. Hintze began to work for the Lozovo-Sevastopol Railway where he “took the position of head of the Simferopol depot with a salary of 2,100 rubles per year.” According to the information of April 12, 1893, Hintze held the position of assistant head of the motive-power service of the Lozovo-Sevastopol Railway with a salary of 4,200 rubles per year^[15]. By order of Minister of Railways A.K. Krivoshein dated July 25, 1893, he got permission to wear the Order of the Bukhara Star, “Silver 2nd Class,” bestowed upon him by the Emir of Bukhara^[16].

New stage in the career

In 1903, Russia put into operation the Chinese Eastern Railway. In accordance with the general principles for the CER operation, approved by the Minister of Finance by order of July 1, 1903, “On Organization of Railway Administration,” it included an “operations department with telegraph,” often referred to simply as a “operations department.” It was directly responsible for railway traffic, the telegraph^[17] and station agents for commercial matters. The rights and responsibilities of the department’s head were determined by: special instructions, transportation rules, train traffic regulations, and orders of the railway manager. One of the assistants to the head of this department was in charge of the telegraph and was called the “telegraph head.” The operations department consisted of three sections – western, southern, and eastern^[18]. The railway line was divided into sections, roadside areas, working areas, and guard patrols. There were 19 medical and sanitary stations operating on the line, and 21 stations for track and buildings maintenance – from Manchuria Station to Pogranichnaya Station^[19].

With order No. 4, which was signed like several other orders concerning the CER, on July 1, 1903, engineer S.V. Ignatsius was appointed assistant to the railway manager. Engineer Prince S.N. Khilkov was appointed head of the track and buildings maintenance department, with engineer R.V. Polovtsev serving as his assistant. The western department was headed by engineer S.Ts. Offenberg, the eastern department by T.M. Tikhomirov, and the southern department by A.I. Shidlovsky. Engineer G.N. Iossa was initially appointed head of the maintenance department, with A.M. Bulgakov serving as his assistant^[20].

The Russo-Japanese War and the Russian Revolution of 1905–1907 greatly affected the CER. The transfer of the southern line of the railway and the port of Dalny to Japan following the Treaty of Portsmouth resulted in large financial losses. It also forced changes in the CER management structure. These changes were, to a certain extent, caused by the strike movement made up of railway workers. The strike committee attempted to play a role in traffic management. Thus, on December 1, 1905, its members sent a telegram to the head of the operations department, stating: “On hearing your explanation, which will be announced in the committee’s bulletin, the strike committee expresses its regret^[21] over what has happened. The committee was misled and now, realizing this, apologizes to you and requests that you assume your duties.”^[22]

On April 20, 1906, A.N. Ventzel, Vice Chairman of the Board of the CER Company sent the following request to D.L. Horvat, Manager of the CER in Harbin:

In view of the need to quickly fill the vacant positions of managers, please respond promptly to the Board’s inquiry regarding Borisov and Hintze^[23].

The report on the candidates for the vacant position noted that the railway board had initially favored A.K. Hintze, then afterwards it had favored Assistant Head of Operations A.M. Bulgakov. It was also noted that he was “well acquainted with the technical aspect(s)” of the railway. There was a concern that “appointing an outsider to the aforementioned position could offend Bulgakov and cause him to leave the service.” A.M. Bulgakov was considered “a highly valuable specialist and the Board always valued his services.” However, he had no higher education and lacked “authority and firmness necessary to manage such a large staff as that of the operations department.” Ultimately, it was decided that, despite all his positive qualities, Bulgakov “could not be appointed the head of the operations department.”^[24]

The minutes of the CER Board meeting of April 26, 1906, state: “Engineer A.K. Hintze is appointed to the position of the head of the operations with a salary of 15,000 rubles per year, of which 3,000 rubles are personally appropriated.” Despite the significant salary, the board members who made this decision understood that working conditions on the CER were “extremely difficult”, it was “quite hard” to find a candidate for such a responsible position. Before Hintze, the position of the head of the operations was held by G.N. Iossa, who received a significantly higher salary “above and beyond the regular salary” – 20,000 rubles per year (12,000 rubles of salary and 8,000 rubles were “personally appropriated”)^[25].

According to the recollections of Mikhail, A.K. Hintze’s youngest son, the decision to move to Harbin was made by his father after the offer from D.L. Horvat, the manager of the CER, and a detailed discussion with his family^[26]. The newly appointed head of the CER operations departed for his new place of work on May 15, 1906. He traveled by a first-class car from St. Petersburg to Manchuria Station and took 10 poods of baggage. The engineer received two months’ salary as “relocation allowance.”^[27] He traveled to Harbin without his wife and children in order to “prepare everything for the family’s arrival” in July.

According to the CER general rules, two assistants and deputies from among the departments’ heads were appointed to deputize for the railway manager in case of illness or absence, as well as to assist him. Before the personnel changes of the summer of 1906, there were four deputy railway managers: the first deputy was engineer S.V. Ignatius, the assistant railway manager, the second deputy was engineer G.N. Iossa, the head of operations, the third deputy was engineer Prince S.N. Khilkov, the superintendent, and the fourth was engineer E.F. Krichevsky, the motive power superintendent^[28].

The minutes of the CER Board meeting of August 16, 1906, contain information on the appointment of deputy railway managers: the second deputy was engineer E.F. Krichevsky, the motive power superintendent, the third deputy was engineer A.K. Hintze, the head of the operations department, and the fourth deputy was engineer V.V. Nemchinov, the superintendent^[29]. On March 20, 1907, the Minister of Finance approved a new procedure for replacing the railway manager and his assistants. A year later, in March 1908, A.K. Hintze was appointed the second deputy manager of the CER, V.V. Nemchinov the third deputy manager of the CER, and V.D. Lachinov the fourth deputy manager of the CER^[30].

In March 1909, when A.K Hintze was promoted to full state councillor, which corresponded to the rank of major general in the army, his co-workers gave him a congratulatory address signed by more than 130 people. It read:

In 1906, when you took charge of the Chinese Eastern Railway’s large operations department, the department which was fully responsible at the time for the national interests of the Ministry of War, including a huge wartime staff, due to the still-incomplete evacuation of troops from the theater of military operations to European Russia.

You faced the extremely complex and difficult task of converting the traffic, depending on the commercial and industrial interests of Manchuria and the Ussuri region, from a military to a commercial schedule. Correspondingly, with the decrease in railway traffic, you had to reduce the number of employees. The latter was a grave necessity, since with any staff reduction you had to consider the misery of those who lost a job^[31].

The congratulatory address noted that under Hintze, there were no more theft on the CER, the personnel work was organized “reasonably and intelligently,” and all emerging problems were resolved with the firm hand of a “strict, but benevolent and fair chief.”^[32]

In Harbin, A.K. Hintze was tasked with solving a wide range of problems related to the railway’s operation. Compared to 1906, when nearly 2.7 million people traveled on the railway, the volume of traffic halved, amounting to 1.2 million in 1911. The number of passengers began to increase only in 1912, reaching the 1906 level by the time of the revolutionary upheavals of 1917. The average number of trains per day “along the entire length of the railway” was as follows: 16 in 1906, 9 in 1910, 16 in 1916, and 13 in 1917^[33].

In those years the railway operations department faced significant organizational and economic challenges. According to the 1916 railway operations report, it was necessary to meet service conditions of steam locomotives through 90 stations and 65 sidings^[34]. During periods of increased traffic, additional resources were involved for the sidings being created on the CER. By 1917, on the CER there were 491 steam locomotives of various types, including passenger, freight, government “Compound” type, and “tank” locomotives^[35]. The carriage rolling stock included 44 ceremonial, parlor, and maintenance cars, 4 cars (1st and 2nd class) for special long-distance trains, 602 cars (the 1^st – 4^th class) for direct connection and short traffic, including: 23 dining cars, 19 convict cars, 12 post office cars, 46 baggage cars, 10 ambulance cars, etc. It was also necessary to meet service conditions of 9,500 freight cars, including: covered train cars, heated freight cars, tank cars, refrigerator cars, lattice cars for firewood, and gondola cars^[36]. Moreover, over 100 cars were on lease on the Trans-Baikal and Tomsk Railways^[37].

On June 4, 1915, D.L. Horvat sent a telegram to Petrograd, in which he requested approval of A.K. Hintze as a technical assistant, adding that he had already performed these duties from 1910 to 1915 “for a total of over two years.” Stating the need for “urgent and serious work on the CER,” he described A.K. Hintze as an exceptionally efficient manager who “demonstrates due administrative ability and, in general, there are no misunderstandings between him and the department chiefs.”^[38]

The process of personnel changes in the railway administration is documented in the minutes of the CER Company board meeting of June 24, 1915. It states that engineer Prince S.N. Khilkov left the CER Company as assistant railway manager on June 1 “due to poor health.” The same minutes stated that engineer A.K. Hintze, the head of the operations department, was appointed to the position of assistant railway manager, with a salary of 15,000 rubles per year and 3,000 “personally appropriated” rubles^[39].

In a response telegram sent to the CER Company, A.K. Hintze expressed “sincere gratitude” to A.N. Ventzel for this appointment and expressed readiness to make every effort to justify the confidence given^[40].

The CER proved to be the only railway supplying Russia with military and private cargoes arriving from abroad via Vladivostok, a rail link which became of paramount importance to the war effort. In addition to transportations of national importance, the CER was also a supplier of food products to the Irkutsk Governorate and the Trans-Baikal Region for the needs of the population and military units stationed there, as well as local settlements located within the railway’s right-of-way and the Ussuri region^[41]. The slightest disruption of the planned transportation of food products, given the lack of local reserves, threatened local populations with starvation.

A brief report on the railway’s commercial activities notes that in 1916 private cargo shipments totaled 127,356,000 poods, exceeding the 1915 figures by 16,693,000 poods. The main items imported into Russia among private goods were: tea, cotton, metals, pharmaceuticals and moscatels^[42], sacks, machinery, etc. The gross revenue in 1916 amounted to 52,153 rubles, which was 11,463 more than in 1915. Thus, the CER maintained its commercial significance in terms of profitability. In 1916 the net profit, excluding operating expenses, amounted to 28,996 rubles and exceeded the figure for 1915 by 6,589 rubles, for 1914 by 21,099 rubles, and for 1913 by 21,964 rubles. The import of foreign goods exceeded the exports by 17,238 poods or 51%, which, however, had a negative impact on the Russian national trade balance^[43].

Due to World War I, Russia was forced to get significant quantity of equipment from America, primarily rolling stock – steam locomotives and freight cars. They were delivered to Vladivostok disassembled and were assembled in temporary workshops, the organization of which was entrusted to the CER administration. A.K. Hintze was one of those responsible for this work.

In 1916, the assembling of American “Decapod” steam locomotives which had begun a year earlier at the Main Harbin Workshops, was completed. A total of 398 locomotives were assembled, 384 of which were assembled in 1916. At the same time, these locomotives were transferred from the Chinese Eastern Railway to the Amur and Trans-Baikal Railways^[44].

To maximize the efficiency of their lifting power and capacity, the railway administration extensively reinforced the flatcars which were loaded with automobiles and agricultural machinery also with quantities of metal. Besides, covered train cars were also loaded with metal along with cotton and tea. Technically, the combined loading of these cargoes did not cause any delays in delivery or flatcars downtime, as the cargoes were delivered to the same station. The total mileage of all railway cars on the Chinese Eastern Railway in 1916 exceeded the cost estimates by 60.3%. Instead of the estimated 6,000,000 train-versts, the railway accomplished 9,619,235. All the “excess mileage” was accounted for exclusively by freight trains, while passenger and service trains ran less than had been planned^[45].

Control and accounting on the railway were strict. The CER administration telegraphed the railway administration and the board of the CER Company in Petrograd about the daily shipments, indicating the quantity of cargoes loaded, the number of railway cars requested, and the reasons for the “failure to provide them.”^[46]

Illness and end of active work

The intense work was taking a toll on A.K. Hintze’s health. On April 15, 1911, the CER manager D.L. Horvat reported to the company’s board that “due to his health, Hintze needs to immediately depart for a spa or wellness resort.”^[47] According to the regulations, a four-month leave “with pay” was permitted to railway employees after four or five years of continuous service. Thus, A.K. Hintze “deserved” his leave. The decision was approved by A.N. Ventzel. After returning from leave on August 28, 1911, A.K. Hintze took up his duties^[48].

However, his health gradually deteriorated. In March 1914, E.P. Khmara-Borshchevsky, the assistant to the chief physician of the CER, and T.I. Novkunsky, the senior physician at Harbin Central Hospital wrote a medical certificate which stated that A.K. Hintze had been treated by hospital doctors “several years earlier.” The patient complained of: “sharp intermittent headaches,” “chronic purulent nasal discharge,” “dilated veins in the left leg,” and “chronic back muscle pain.”^[49] The examination revealed “severe varicose veins” on the back of his right leg and swelling of the right calf, which prevented free movement. The diagnosis indicated left-sided sinusitis and varicose veins in the right leg^[50]. The doctors recommended that A.K. Hintze consult “renowned specialists in certain foreign clinics and treatment at resorts.” The course of treatment was to last at least 4–5 months and begin in the summer. Immediately after visiting doctors in Harbin, A.K. Hintze contacted D.L. Horvat, with whom he had developed a trusting relationship. On April 4, 1914, the railway manager sent a letter to the board of the CER Company informing him of Hintze’s request to travel abroad from June 1 for medical treatment. The railway manager was aware that A.K. Hintze would only be eligible for his next vacation by August and would only be able to have spa treatments in the fall, and he was forced to point out that this time of year coincided with the mass transportation of cargoes on the railway and “his absence, as the traffic manager was undesirable.”^[51]

Despite the fact that A.K. Hintze was to have a four-month vacation only in late August 1914, the board of the CER Company, “considering the circumstances,” informed D.L. Horvat, the railway manager, in a letter that it “had no objections” to giving Hintze “a four-month vacation with full pay from June 1 of this year.”^[52] When asked about the possibility of continuing service on the railway, the doctors answered evasively: “Perhaps, but with difficulty, due to headaches and swelling of the leg... his working capacity is temporarily reduced.”^[53]

Afterwards, D.L. Horvat sent a telegram to the board of the CER Company requesting that Hintze be given free tickets “immediately” for travel on Russian railways via Moscow and Warsaw with his wife and son, on a train of the “International Society of Sleeping Cars and Express Trains.” On receiving permission from the Minister of Railways, A.K. Hintze and his family traveled to Irkutsk, where they were given the tickets through a representative of the international society^[54].

In his memoirs, A.K. Hintze’s youngest son recounts his father’s treatment in detail. On reaching Moscow, the family headed to Europe via Germany. In Switzerland, at Professor Mermo’s clinic, A.K. Hintze underwent surgery “in the nasal area,” which was not entirely successful, resulting in complications^[55]. Soon, news arrived of the outbreak of World War I. The family decided to return to Russia by a circuitous route – through Italy, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Having finally reached Kharkov, A.K. Hintze sent a telegram to A.N. Ventzel, informing him of his arrival. The deputy chairman of the CER Company requested his return to Harbin as soon as possible to organize military transportation^[56]. The Hintze family boarded first a train of the Siberian Railway and then a CER service train and safely returned to Harbin. A vacation spent incessantly traveling by rail was ruined and did not improve Hintze’s health.

The position of assistant railway manager, which Hintze assumed in the summer of 1915, required a great deal of effort. Since D.L. Horvat was overburdened with administrative duties, he delegated a significant portion of the work to one of his assistants. In March 1917, the railway manager telegraphed Petrograd that A.K. Hintze was “seriously ill and stayed in bed.” In the telegram, he “earnestly requested” that his assistant should be allowed “a four-month leave to treat his illness in the south of Russia.”^[57] After some time, A.K. Hintze went to Japan. On June 29, 1917, a diagnosis of his illness was made there and translated into Russian. It reported that in 1915, the patient “suffered a severe injury of the right arm while on duty.” Following this, over the course of several months, “the upper and lower parts of the arm completely lost strength...” In Tokyo, A.K. Hintze underwent a three-week course of treatment with “electrical medications,” after which “his muscles strengthened by 70% and when moving his arm, he got less tired.” The medical report stated that four weeks were required for the patient’s recovery, after which “bathing in hot springs for two months” was recommended^[58].

On July 1, 1917, A.K. Hintze petitioned D.L. Horvat, stating that his illness was “treatable” and that a full recovery would require three more months. In light of these circumstances, he requested permission to “arrive at the place of service in mid-September 1917.”^[59] On July 7, D.L. Horvat sent a letter to the board of the CER Company, stating that Hintze was currently in Japan “on sick leave.” The railway manager requested that his assistant’s leave be extended to seven weeks “beyond the permitted four months” “for his final recovery.” Attaching a medical certificate issued by Dr. Sano in English, D.L. Horvat requested that Hintze’s request be satisfied^[60].

The board of the CER Company received D.L. Horvat’s letter on July 27, 1917. It is possible that the assistant railway manager’s request for an extension of leave could have been satisfied. At the same time, A.K. Hintze requested a pension “for loss of working capacity.” The verdict of the Company’s board was peremptory:

Not only is Hintze on an extended leave, but there is no guarantee that upon his return from leave he will remain in the Company’s service, judging by his intention to file a claim for a pension from the railway^[61].

Ultimately, the Company’s board found the grounds to satisfy A.K. Hintze’s request for additional leave insufficient. This led to D.L. Horvat losing contact with his assistant. The latter’s state of health led the railway manager to falsely jump to the conclusion that “about three months after the start of the revolution, my assistant, engineer Hintze died.”^[62]

Upon his return to Russia at the height of the Civil War, A.K. Hintze entered the Ministry of Justice of Admiral A.V. Kolchak’s government. He did not take an active part in political and economic affairs. The personal file of the employee of the Ministry and its subordinate institutions of the Russian government (Omsk) contains an entry made on March 19, 1919, by V.A. Skvortsov, the Chairman of the Border District Court in Harbin. He notified the Ministry of Justice of the death of A. K. Hintze, an honorary magistrate judge of the Border District Court and full state councilor in Harbin on March 8^[63]. A month later, on April 16, a certified extract from the order of S.S. Starynkevich, the Minister of Justice of the Omsk government was made; it contained information that A.K. Hintze’s name had been deleted from the list of this department^[64].

Conclusion

Having held this responsible position for over ten years, A.K. Hintze proved himself to be a vigorous and entrepreneurial manager. After the Russo-Japanese War, he oversaw the evacuation of military units and launched the restructuring of the railway’s mission to address commercial issues. He was successful in this affair: after a slight decline in the railway’s profitability in 1914, and the CER’s gross revenue increased significantly a year later. Another breakthrough was achieved in assembling American steam locomotives, some of which were sent to railways in the Far East. By successfully combining the organization of state supplies to Russia through the military department and import of private cargo, A.K. Hintze also contributed to the CER remaining a profitable enterprise through the World War I.

^{1 F.I. Knorring, Popytka opredelit’ khozyaistvennost’ ekspluatatsii zheleznoi dorogi: Zabaikal’skaia zheleznaia doroga. 1906–1909 [An attempt to determine the economic efficiency of railway operation: Transbaikal Railway. 1906–1909] (Irkutsk: Parovaia tipo-litografiia P.I. Makushina i V. M. Posokhina Publ., 1910); A.S. Melentyev, Zabaikal’skaia zheleznaia doroga vo vremena mira i russko-iaponskoi voiny 1900–1907. Korrektivy k knige V.I. Knorringa «Popytka opredelit’ khozyaistvennost’ ekspluatatsii zheleznoi dorogi» [The Transbaikal Railway during the Peace and the Russo-Japanese War of 1900–1907. Corrections to the book by V.I. Knorring “An Attempt to Determine the Economic Efficiency of Railway Operation”] (Ashgabat: Elektropechat’ K.M. Fedorova Publ., 1911); V. Soldatov, Zheleznodorozhnye poselki po Zabaikal’skoi linii. Statisticheskoe opisanie i materialy po perepisi 1910 goda. Tablitsy [Railway settlements along the Trans-Baikal line. Statistical description and materials for the 1910 census. Tables] (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia «Slovo» Publ., 1912).}

^{2 A.V. Remnev, Rossiia Dal’nego Vostoka. Imperskaia geografiia vlasti XIX – nachala XX vekov [Russia of the Far East. Imperial Geography of Power in the 19th – Early 20th Centuries] (Omsk: Omskii gosudarstvennyi universitet Publ., 2004); I.V.  Lukoyanov, «Ne otstat’ ot derzhav…»: Rossiia na Dal’nem Vostoke v kontse XIX – nachale XX v. [“Keeping up with the powers...”: Russia in the Far East in the late 19th – early 20th centuries] (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia Publ., 2008); M.V. Khodyakov, Tsentr i regiony: ekonomicheskaia politika pravitel’stva na okrainakh Rossiiskoi imperii (1894–1917) [Center and Regions: Government Economic Policy on the Outskirts of the Russian Empire (1894–1917)] (St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta Publ., 2020).}

^{3 M.V. Khodyakov, Zhiqing Zhao, “Church Construction in Transbaikalia and the Chinese Eastern Railway: Kaydalovskaya Railway Branch at the Turn of the 19th – 20th Centuries,” Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology 22, no. 8 (2023): 100–111, https://doi.org/1818-7919-2023-22-8-100-111; N. Dmitrieva, “Between two empires: railway construction in the far east in the late imperial period,” Quaestio Rossica 12, no. 1 (2024): 254–267, https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.877}

^{4 D.G. Yanchenko, “The Russian-Chinese borderland in the late imperial period in the revision of trade and economic relations,” Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 68, no. 2 (2023): 317–333, https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu02.2023.202; N.V. Dmitrieva, “On the Way to the Chinese Eastern Railway: Financial Aspects of the History of Kaidalovo Line Construction,” Modern History of Russia 13, no. 4 (2023): 861–874, https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu24.2023.410; M.V. Khodyakov, “ ‘Giant Leech on the State Chest’: The Chinese Eastern Railway in Assessments of the Russian Press of the Early 20th Century,” Herald of an Archivist, no. 2 (2023): 354–363, https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-0101-2023-2-354-363; A.A. Ivanov, N.I. Bogomazov, “Public discussion around American purchases for needs of Russian roads during First World war,” Nauchnyi Dialog 12, no. 1 (2023): 330–350, https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-1-330-350}

^{5 N.P. Kradin, M.E. Bazilevich, Arkhitektory i inzhenery Dal’nego Vostoka. Tvorcheskaia deiatel’nost’ arkhitektorov i inzhenerov – vypusknikov stolichnykh uchebnykh zavedenii – v Zabaikal’ye, Iakutii, Priamur’ye, Primor’ye i Kitae [Architects and Engineers of the Far East. Creative Activities of Architects and Engineers – Graduates of Moscow Educational Institutions – in Transbaikalia, Yakutia, Amur Region, Primorye, and China] (Khabarovsk: Tikhookeanskii gosudarstvennyi universitet Publ., 2019); M.V. Krotova, D.I. Petin, “The fate of Harbin repatriate in the mirror of anthropology: Liudmila Abramova (1914–2002),” RUDN Journal of Russian History 22, no. 1 (2023): 110–124, https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8674-2023-22-1-110-124; M.V. Khodyakov, “Manchuria railway station in the early 20th century: problems of organization of management on the railway,” Lomonosov History Journal 64, no. 4 (2023): 97–106, https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0130-0083-8-2023-64-4-97-106}

^{6 Al’bom sooruzhenii i tipovykh chertezhey Kitaiskoi Vostochnoi zheleznoi dorogi 1897–1903 [Album of structures and typical drawings of the Chinese Eastern Railway 1897–1903] (Moscow: Fisher Publ., 1904); Otchet o postroike soedinitel’noi vetvi ot Kitaiskogo raz`ezda Zabaikal’skoi zheleznoi dorogi do stantsii Man’chzhuriia Kitaiskoi Vostochnoi zheleznoi dorogi 1898–1901 gg. [Report on the construction of a connecting branch from the Chinese siding of the Transbaikal Railway to the Manchuria station of the Chinese Eastern Railway, 1898–1901] (St. Petersburg: [N.s.], 1904); A.I.Dmitriev-Mamonov, A.F. Zdzyarsky, Putevoditel’ po Velikoi Sibirskoi zheleznoi doroge: 1914: Ot S.-Peterburga do Vladivostoka [Guide to the Great Siberian Railway: 1914: From St. Petersburg to Vladivostok] (St. Petersburg: tipografiia I. Shurukhei Publ., 1914).}

^{7 M.V. Krotova, “The fate of the archive of the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER). 1898–1953,” Herald of an Archivist, no. 3 (2024): 930–942, https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-0101-2024-3-930-942; M.V. Khodyakov, “Documents of the Russian State Historical Archive on the transfer of the Ussuri Railway to the governance of the KVZHD society at the beginning of the XX century,” Otechestvennye Arkhivy, no. 3 (2024): 47–56.}

^{8 E.Kh. Nilus, Istoricheskii obzor Kitaiskoi Vostochnoi zheleznoi dorogi. 1896–1923 [Historical review of the Chinese Eastern Railway. 1896–1923] (Harbin: tipografii KVZHD i Tovarishchestva «Ozo» Publ., 1923).}

^{9 M.A. Ginze, Russkaia sem’ya doma i v Man’chzhurii [The Russian Family at Home and in Manchuria] (Sydney: [N.s.], 1986); A.V. Lugovaya, “ ‘There was a great Russian affair in my hands...’ Memoirs From the Archive of General D. L. Khorvat (Part I),” Modern History of Russia, no. 2 (2012): 191–223; A.V. Lugovaya, “ ‘There was a great Russian affair in my hands...’ Memoirs From the Archive of General D. L. Khorvat (Part II),” Modern History of Russia, no. 3 (2012): 243–259.}

^{10 Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (thereafter – RGIA), f. 229, op. 10, d. 692, l. 8–14 ob.}

^{11 Ibid., l. 7.}

^{12 Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (thereafter – RGIA), f. 229, op. 10, d. 692, l. 5–27.}

^{13 Ibid., d. 693, l. 2 ob. – 9 ob.}

^{14 Ibid., l. 3 ob. – 4.}

^{15 Ibid., l. 4 ob. – 20.}

^{16 Ibid., l. 32.}

^{17 The work of the telegraph on the CER was partially the subject of consideration by researchers: Sun Yizhi, Ya.S. Guzey, “Modernization of transport infrastructure on the Chinese Eastern Railway: establishment of the postal and telegraph system along the Kaidalovskaya line at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries,” Lomonosov History Journal 65, no. 1 (2024): 70–85, https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0130-0083-8-2024-65-1-70-85}

^{18 E.Kh. Nilus, Istoricheskii obzor Kitaiskoi Vostochnoi zheleznoi dorogi, 265–269.}

^{19 Ibid., 270–272.}

^{20 E.Kh. Nilus, Istoricheskii obzor Kitaiskoi Vostochnoi zheleznoi dorogi, 275–276.}

^{21 Underlined in red pencil in the text of the telegram.}

^{22 The text of the telegram, stored in the personal archive of Sun Yizhi, was kindly provided to the author of the article to describe the initial stage of A.K. Hintze’s professional activity.}

^{23 RGIA, f. 323, op. 1, d. 580, l. 4.}

^{24 Ibid., l. 2.}

^{25 Ibid., l. 6.}

^{26 M.A. Ginze, Russkaia sem’ya doma i v Man’chzhurii, 30.}

^{27 RGIA, f. 323, op. 1, d. 580, l. 14.}

^{28 Ibid., l. 16 ob.}

^{29 Ibid., l. 16 а.}

^{30 Ibid., l. 18, 22.}

^{31 M.A. Ginze, Russkaia sem’ya doma i v Man’chzhurii, 115.}

^{32  Ibid., 116.}

^{33 RGIA, f. 323, op. 7, d. 630, l. 13 ob.}

^{34 Ibid., d. 564, l. 666–702.}

^{35 Without a tender, water and fuel were stored in tanks or containers mounted on a locomotive.}

^{36 RGIA, f. 323, op. 7, d. 630, l. 9 оb.}

^{37 Ibid., d. 564, l. 17.}

^{38 Ibid., op. 1, d. 580, l. 58.}

^{39 Ibid., l. 59.}

^{40 Ibid., l. 64.}

^{41 Ibid., op. 7, d. 571, l. 32.}

^{42 Moscatels is an outdated name for household chemicals – paints, glue, technical oils, etc.}

^{43 RGIA, f. 323, op. 7, d. 571, l. 14–17.}

^{44 Ibid., l. 105.}

^{45 Ibid., l. 35–37.}

^{46 Ibid., l. 33 ob.}

^{47 Ibid., op. 1, d. 580, l. 34.}

^{48 RGIA, f. 323, op. 1, d. 580, l. 40.}

^{49 Ibid., l. 41.}

^{50 Ibid., l. 41 оb.}

^{51 Ibid., l. 40.}

^{52 Ibid., l. 43.}

^{53 Ibid., l. 41 оb.}

^{54 Ibid., l. 50–55.}

^{55 M.A. Ginze, Russkaia sem’ya doma i v Man’chzhurii, 287–310.}

^{56 M.A. Ginze, Russkaia sem’ya doma i v Man’chzhurii, 300.}

^{57 RGIA, f. 323, op. 1, d. 580, l. 65.}

^{58 Ibid., l. 70.}

^{59 Ibid., l. 69.}

^{60 Ibid., l. 68.}

^{61 Ibid., l. 71–72.}

^{62 A.V. Lugovaya, “ ‘There was a great Russian affair in my hands...’ Memoirs From the Archive of General D. L. Khorvat (Part I),” 196.}

^{63 GARF, f. 4369, op. 4, d. 200, l. 1.}

^{64 Ibid., l. 2.}

About the authors

Mikhail V. Khodyakov

Author for correspondence.
Email: m.khodyakov@spbu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8469-2590
SPIN-code: 6783-0339

Dr. Habil. Hist., Professor, Professor of the Department of Modern History of Russia, Institute of History

References

Supplementary files