FLOATING CRANE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18265, 26 December 1924, Page 16

FLOATING CRANE.

FOR LYTTELTON HARBOUR. TENDER AT £42,000 ACCEPTED. A special meeting of the Lyttelton Harbour Board was held on Wednesday morning for the purpose of discussing the relative merib of a fixed or Coating crane, to be installed at the port. There were present— Messrs F. Hcrrell (in the chair), R. Galbraith, J. Storry, M. J. Miller, H. T. Armstrong, M.P., A. J. Magson, R. Macartney, ±£. Holland and Captain H. Monro.

There ■ were only seven members present when the meeting began, and the question of postponing it until January was discussed. Later two more members arrived, and the meeting carried out its business.

The Board's engineer, Mr Cyrus J. R. Williams, furnished the following report on tenders received:— Sir.ce the last meeting of the Board, and tho HarEcur Improvement Committee meeting, tenders have been received for an SO-ton floating crane. Tenders for » 50-ton filed derrick were reported to the committee meeting, but in accordance with previous arrangements they could not well be dealt with until tenders for a floating crane had been received, so that the whole question of heavy lifting Appliances could be considered. Tenders were invited for a steam crane capable of lifting 80 t<yis at a radius of 50 feet, 60 tons at a radius of 63 feet, and 15 tons at a radius of 75 feet, and otherwise arranged to be capable of lifting heavy weights out of the largest ships. In my report on boilers for tho diedge dated February 4th of this year, I estimated the cost of Buch. a crane at £62,250. These tenders indicate that prices are approaching normal, as the 60-ton at Auckland cost about £30,000 in 1910. I am agreeably surprised to have obtained euch a favourable tender as that of Sir William Arrol and Co., Ltd., with Fleming and Ferguson, Ltd. Tim favourable offer is rendered possible by the vessel carrying the crane being large enough to undertake the voyage under its own 6tcam. This arrangement will alao minimise, if it does not entirely avoid, the payment of Customs duties. In tho case of tho loweßt tender, the barge carrying the crane will have overall dimensions of 170 feet Ky jvi'fnnt, +bat is, 50 feet longer and 29 feet under than the Board's tugboat Lyttelton. The lowest tender for the 50-ton is £5650, ?o that tho cost erected ready for work, including c<oo'e conductors, would bo about £IO,CCO. The lelative annual costs of the 50-ton fixed crane and the 80-ton floating crane, assuming that neither crane earns anything, would be about : ■ FIXED 50-TON CRAKE. £ Interest £IO,OOO at 5J per cent .. 550 Depreciation, including repairs and maintenance, £IO,OOO at 5 per cent 500 £IOSO FLOATING- 80-TON CRANE. £ Interest £42,000. at 5J per cent. .. 2310 Depreciation, including repairs and maintenance, £12,000 at 7$ percent. 2950 £5260 There is not likely to be a great demand for the services of either of these cranes, but. any first-class port ■ should have appliances for handling heavy weights, and the general trend to-day is in iavour of the lifting appliance y being brought to the ship rather 'than that the ship should go to it. Either of these appliances will have use in connexion with the Board's operations, and of the ,two the floating crane would be the more convenient. If Vac Board feeU that the equipment .of. the port with,a floating crane is. justified,.l am of opinion that the offer of Messrs Arrol and Fiftning and Ferguson is as favourable as is likely to be obtained for mnny years. Mr Miller moved that the Board accept the tender for the floating crane. . He had heard stiong -arguments for a fixed crane, but with a floating crane they would be able to put much more work through. If it were hot for that he would uphold the 'establishment" of a' fixed crane.

• The chairman, said it would be a pity to go to larger expense. It was a question whether, provided the port expanded, the floating crane would warrant the expenditure of £42,000. Mr Holland eaid at <v recent meeting of the • City-pouncil they had spoken of a concert hall costing £50,000 and. of an organ coating £15,000. Why should the Board be slow in its big schemes? The aim of the Board members schould be the port's efficiency. He asked them to have sufficient confidence in the future of Christchurch and Canterbury to ■ establish a floating crane. Certainly all modern and up-to-date ports lad floating cranes. Mr Storry (who had previously opposed the floating crane) did not advance any arguments against it but the question of cost. He hoped the Board would take a wide view of its position for .the next 25 years.. . , Captain Monro expressed a similar view. H* thought £42,000 was a lot to spend, but it was a bargain, as there was nothing like it in England. All superintendents of overseas ports were in favour of floating cranes. The engineer said that when he made the original enquiries for a fixed crane, the Board's finances were not in the same -position. Now, with trade steady, they could wash out the quesion of cost. The tender before them was marvellously favourable. He had an assurance that the vessel would come out free of duty. They could make various uses of the crane. He would not say they would make £SOOO a year, but they would make a good deal of that amount. 'Apart from a temporary overdraft, there would be no difficulty. Messrs Macartney, Armstrong, and Magson expressed similar views. Mr Storry said that perhaps he had been the only one who had spoken against the floating crane. He admitted that this was a very favourable tender. If it was a right thing to every other member to get a floating crane,' he was not going now, to h.-ive bis vote-recorded against it. The motion was then put to the meeting and carried' unanimously.