There are actually a pair of them, one on each side. This one had been painted in Green while the other one located in the vicinity of the Coastal Defence Museum had been painted in red. It is quite close to the torpedo cave.
If you zoom in you should be able to see both from the map.
According to Dr Stephen Davies, the pair of lights (88 and 89) on either side of Lei Yue Mun were first erected in 1902 as unlit markers after becoming British Territory. Lights were added by 1924 (they were both shown lit on a 1923 chart).
Both lights were rebuilt in 1964. Old Lists of Lights described the original structures as pillars with 89 being painted in red and white checkers and 88 painted in black and white checkers (as seen in the 1957 photo). Today, 89 is a red tripod structure while 88 is a green pillar with the light supported by a tripod.
The date of the photo isnt exactly certain, though it does not look like the 1924 pillar. It could be the original 1902 mark, though more research is necessary to draw a conclusion.
Comments
Lei Yue Mun Gap Marine Navigation Beacon
Hi there,
There are actually a pair of them, one on each side. This one had been painted in Green while the other one located in the vicinity of the Coastal Defence Museum had been painted in red. It is quite close to the torpedo cave.
If you zoom in you should be able to see both from the map.
Best Regards,
T
Lei Yue Mun (North) Beacon
According to Dr Stephen Davies, the pair of lights (88 and 89) on either side of Lei Yue Mun were first erected in 1902 as unlit markers after becoming British Territory. Lights were added by 1924 (they were both shown lit on a 1923 chart).
Both lights were rebuilt in 1964. Old Lists of Lights described the original structures as pillars with 89 being painted in red and white checkers and 88 painted in black and white checkers (as seen in the 1957 photo). Today, 89 is a red tripod structure while 88 is a green pillar with the light supported by a tripod.
Early photo
A postcard from around 1915 showing a small lighthouse is shown on hkmemory.
Date of photo
The date of the photo isnt exactly certain, though it does not look like the 1924 pillar. It could be the original 1902 mark, though more research is necessary to draw a conclusion.