THE TIMARU AND LYTTELTON HARBOR WORKS.

Press, Volume XXV, Issue XXV, 6 January 1876, Page 3

THE TIMARU AND LYTTELTON HARBOR WORKS.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE PRESS. Sir—ln the issue of the Press, of Ist January, by telegraph report, there appears the speech delivered at Timaru by the Hon Mr Stafford, wherein he commenced his harangue by pointed reference to "the proposed plans for harbor works for Timaru, as laid out by Sir J. Coode, and wherein he aiso states that he does not see why Timaru should not become as important as Christchurch, and also that Lyttelton was only a second cla3s harbor. I would (if I might be allowed) suggest that this matter of harbor works at Timaru be well and carefully considered, so to prevent as far as possible the folly of throwing money into the sea, which has doubtless been and is the case in Lyttelton, and will cost at least a quarter of a j million sterling besides maintenance, and the reason I will after show. I

I will endeavor to make my views known as clearly as potsible by a series of questions and answers, viz :—

1. Are harbor works required at Timaru ? —Yes. decidedly ; otherwise the trade would be taken to Oamaru.

2. How does Timaru stand (as far as posi'ion is concerned) with regard to harbor works .' Timaru is at present an open roadstead, very similar to Madras, excepting that in the former place the bottom is of solid covered with some few feet of sand and in some places absolutely bare ; whilst in shore, for about 100 ft. during th-. prevalence of southerly weather there is a heavy drift of shingle to the northward, the incline of the bottom from .bore seaward has a regular fall of 20ft in 1300, and at the latter distance there is about 6ft of hard sand above the rock bo::or-i , •?. . Hst that of Madras is a c >ntinuon3 bed of *>.».:?<;jle.

3. R*ve baibor worL. ic any part of 'he known world be» a in the form Of a breakwater, e»y XSOOit from ihore (the

form of cy' being taken iutc consideration), withoii' v-Ting three sides protected, and with cr.-i-. _, ;iver or Isgoon to assist I —No. 4. la " that harbor works ol v perman-_i>. tauracter, and at the same time profitable, nn be accomplished at Timaru?— Yes, viz, by running a double tier jetty out some 650 ft E.N.E. (magnetic), the end of same to be formed in the shape of a harpoon; each wing to be 150 ft, and from the extreme point of this harpoon shaped jetty a similar construction for a further distance of 600 ft, to terminate in a long eggshape dock ; the smaller end (towards the shore) being cut open ; the dock to be 550 ft in leugth. by 300 ft in width, with a jetty on either side, thus allowing wharfage and dock accommodation for twenty vessels ranging from 100 to 2000 tons burthen, which might lay with perfect safety during any weather, without lot or hindrance to the travelling of the shin.ele. The cost of the work alluded to

would be of a permanent nature, and not exceed £180,000, the estimated time from commencement to finish would bo three years, but after about nine months vessels of 500 tons might lav with comparative safety, execptiog during the prevalence of heavy weather, when they could be hauled out by a steam crane and an endless warp to the cuter buoys, so to be ready for sea as occasion required ; the construction of the dock can be carried out on each side simultaneously, and without the aid of boats. 5. Will a breakwater of 1240 ft in length and 1300 ft from shore, wiih a depth of water at low tides of 20ft, stand agaunt the sea during boisterous weather .' Yes, if properly constructed, because there is a firm, solid bottom.

6. Can any vessel of 500 tons or upwards lay with safety at low water during the prevalence of easterly weather.' No, because the sea will naturally take a course on each end of the proposed breakwater, thus making eddying water between it and the shore and dislodging the anchorage, so that a vessel must either go on the beach or otherwise come to grief on the breakwater ; at any rate, supposing a vessel of 1000 tons be at anchor inside the proposed breakwater, she must as a matter of course lay some _?00ft away, and then, allowing 300 ft for chiin paid out, her stern would of course bs aground, as the depth of water inside and close to the breakwater is only 20ft at low water, a vessel of such tounage would swing to 13ft .* the*i, allowing 6ft for rise and fall of heavy swells, she would of course break up.

7. Will the channel between the shore and the proposed breakwater be kept clear of shingle ? No, certainly not, as the position of the breakwater being so close to the shore it must of necessity prevent the shingle from being carried away. 8. Can a vessel be towed out to sea in bad weather by any means of steamer or otherwise? No, because there is not sufficient room for a steam tug to lay hold of the vessel requiring assistance, as allowing for her length, and that of the tow line, the vessel requiring such aid would naturally require room to swing, and there being none, must, [as a matter of course, go on shore, and, as according to the report of Sir J. Coode, no vessel can lay behind the proposed breakwater during the prevalence of north-eastorly weather, thus showing by his own statement the utter uselessness of the plan suggested. 9. Is there any place on the line of coast contiguous to Timaru where harbor works could be laid down with satisfactory results ? Yes. at a site about ten miles north of Timaru or live miles below Temuka. there is a large logoon, with the river Ophihi running therein, which might readily be converted into a large harbor for vessels of from 100 to 800 ton 3 ; the cost of construction of a harbor for the smaller vessels would be about £18.000, and for the larger, £160,000. Close outside, or seaward, there is deep water, and on the inner also, and tho bottom is of clay in some parts, and in others rock; the depth of clay bottom ranges from 20ft to 40ft in depth, and would have been far preferable to Timaru, both as a harbor and township.

10. Are the views of Mr Stafford, with regard to the harbor of Lyttelton (which he states is only second-class), correct ? Yes, as no mail steamer or vessels drawing 18ft or over, can lay with safety and carry on the ordinary work of discharging or loading, and few of H.M.s ships (excepting those of small draught of water) can lay with safety for any length of time.

11. Was it possible to have made a firstclass harbor in Lyttelton ?—Yes ;by running a breakwater out at a point some sixty-five chains below the commencement of the present one in a south-east direction, or toward Ripa Island, which would not have been required to be either so high or wide as that now in course of construction, and at same time would have been formed of hardstone, in place of the conglomerated mullock now being used in the harbor works. A jetty should have been made at Sticking Point, according to plans suggested by mc (which appeared in the Lyttelton Times of 29th July, 1871), by which twelve vessels of the largest tonnage might lay with safety alongside, and also affording accommodation for any of the mail steamers on the ends thereof, and by the adoption of such works the country would have been saved not less than £9000 per annum, which sum would be approximate to the cost and maintenance of dredging the present so-called harbor—which will before completion add another 2s per ton to the cost of our imports and exports— and the rate per too from large ships' side to Christchurch stores when the works are completed will not be less than 20s 6d per ton—viz, Lighterage, 5s ; wharfage, 2s 6d ; dredging and maintenance, 4s; railway carriage, Cs 6d ; cartage to store, 2s 6d—and the cost of landing and delivering of goods by smaller vessels would he 16s 6d, as they would come alongside the wharves, and thus save the lighterage. I am of opinion that when the harbor works of Lyttelton are supposed to be completed that the bulk of small vessels now trading to the port will be driven to the Heathcote, on account of their being unable (except with difficulty) to get out in south-west weather—which is the most favorable wind to start for any place on the coast—and also the high port charges and loss of time.

By inserting this letter in your valuable paper you will not only oblige the undersigned but will confer a boon to the public generally.

Yours, kc, J. S. M. JACOBSEN, Marine and Civil Engineer, &c. Christchnrch, January stb, 1876.