Port Approach Problem

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31230, 30 November 1966, Page 18

Port Approach Problem

The approaches to Lyttelton Harbour were a problem because they were limited by the capacity of the tunnels, particularly the rail tunnel, said the chairman of the Container and Cargo-handling Investigating Committee (Mr W. Molyneux) in Christchurch yesterday.

“Generally other ports have easier access than Lyttelton.”

Mr Molyneux said that in the older parts of Lyttelton the amount of space on the wharves and behind the wharves was restricted. “It may well be that Cashin Quay will be the answer to restrictions of space in port as operated by the traditional method as at present,” he said.

Under its terms of refer-

ence, the investigating comImittee is requested to examine and to report to the shipping lines on methods of experience, loading, carrying, unloading and delivering the cargoes carried by the lines

and on whether these methods can be improved or altered to the advantage of importers, exporters, the lines or others involved. Mr Molyneux and other members of the investigating committee spent a hectic day in Christchurch and Lyttelton

In each area where the investigation had been made, the committee had seen every freezing works, dairy and fruit organisation, every harbour board, all port unions, chambers of commerce, and many other organisations. Mr Molyneux said that if Lyttelton were to become a container port, a certain amount of reconstruction would be necessary. Provision of a special berth to handle containers, would be necessary, as well as the setting aside of a suitable area for the assembling of containers. It would be fairly expensive. Mr Molyneux said that if New Zealand had three container type of ports, one would obviously be in the South Island. It had not been decided yet whether there would be one, two, three, or any container type ports in New Zealand. ..

Yesterday Mr Molyneux met about 30 members of Lyttelton port unions including watersiders, railwaymen, foremen stevedores, tally clerks, freezing workers, Harbour Board workers, and the secretary of the Canterbury Trades Council of the Federation of Labour (Mr A. F. Ross). This morning the committee will confer with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturers’ Association, North and MidCanterbury Federated Farmers, the Christchurch Woolbrokers’ Association, the Christchurch Woolbuyers’ Association, the Port Employers’ Association, Christchurch Road Transport Association and the Christchurch District of the Railways Department. This afternoon the committee will meet the Lyttelton Harbour Board. The unions were very interested in the effects and implications of the use of containers, said Mr Molyneux. They were also interested in the effects of any other unit handling method. But yesterday’s meeting was a confidential one.

The amount of labour if containers were used would inevitably be very much less

than that employed at present, said Mr Molyneux. If container ships were to be used in New Zealand, it would probably be possible for ships to be turned around in two or three days.

“It would not be worth while introducing them in New Zealand unless there was some spectacular reduction in the present turn-round times of ships,” said Mr Molyneux.

Mr Molyneux said that the spaciousness of Cashin quay, particularly in the sheds, was impressive. He was less impressed with the dual transport system on the restricted area of the inner harbour.

He said that it appeared the transport of cargo by rail and road in this area would have little advantage. The congestion appeared to be a handicap.

Because of New Zealand’s geography, ships were forced to call at many distantly spaced ports, and so a transport system peculiar to its own needs had been developed. Streamlining was not just a matter for ports, but also for an investigation of internal transport, as had been found from experience in Britain. A national plan was urgent.