Can Lyttelton support a modern dry dock?

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32941, 13 June 1972, Page 3

Can Lyttelton support a modern dry dock?

(From C. R. MENTIPLA”)

WELLINGTON, June 12. Will Lyttelton move to replace its present ancient graving dock with a modern dry-dock complex capable of handling the modern vessels now working on the New Zealand coast?

This question is likely to be decided at a meeting to be held in the Port Buildings, Norwich Quay, on June 19. Or at least the measure of support for such a venture will be determined. I The possession of dock I facilities means more to any port than merely the work involved in ship-repair and maintenance. The present graving dock, which was opened on January 3, 1883, cost a mere £105,000 —but nevertheless it was an enormous effort for the Lyttelton of that day. Eighty-nine years later it is too small, and Lyttelton is losing much survey and refitting work, even at a time when larger harbours seem reluctant to incur the capital expense needed to replace their ageing facilities. Mr T. M. McGuigan (Lab., Lyttelton), who has called the meeting, believes that the whole subject of docking facilities in New Zealand is reaching crisis-point. The Ports Authority is examining the position, and the time for Lyttelton to make its case may be closer than some I people think. Others ageing Strangely, there has been no positive move in either Auckland or Wellington, (container-ports elect) to replace their ageing docking equipment with an installation big enough to service a container-ship in an emergency. When the Evans Bay patent slip closed, Wellington lost a valuable coastal shipping facility; and the Jubilee floating dock is showing unmistakable signs of age. Indeed, New Zealand’s drydocking facilities are minimal. Auckland’s Calliope dock is under extreme pressure; the Wellington dock has always been plagued with labour difficulties; and the Otago Harbour Board is considering using its main dock site for other purposes; by 1980. I 1 Not big enough j Most of the existing docks j were built for ships of a different age. Today’s vessels' are wider for their length, , and the mere dimensions of ; the docks are no longer a j measure of their capacity. I The Calliope dock is 595 ft < long, 65ft wide and 33ft deep. < The Jubilee floating dock is ■ 584 ft long. 80ft wide and ; 25ft deep. The Lyttelton dock < measures 462 ft long by 54ft <

r wide and 22ft deep; and the . Port Chalmers dock is 530fi b long by widths up to 67fl • 3in and depths to 19ft 6in. 1 A country might be ex I pected to be able to service ; its own ferry and trading vessels, but already this is ’becoming impossible. Oi . those mentioned, only the ! Wellington dock is wide ; I enough to take the express 'I steamer Rangatira and the • ! vehicular ferries now being ' built. Ship sizes For comparative purposes, ; here are the dimensions ■ (length, breadth and draught in feet and inches) of the Wellington-Lyttelton express steamer, the WellingtonPicton ferries, and the larger Union Company. ships: Armoana, 368 ft, 61ft, Isft Bin; Aranui, 368 ft, 61ft lin, 15ft Bin; Hawea, 366 ft 4in, 56ft sin, 16ft 4in; Wanaka, 366 ft 4in, 56ft 4in, 16ft 4in; Maheno, 429 ft 9in, 63ft lin, 22ft; Manama, 429 ft 9in, 63ft lin, 21ft sin; Maori, 455 ft 6in, 63ft 6in, 17ft lin; Rangatira, 490 ft, 71ft, 17ft 4in. All these vessels are above the capacity of the present Lyttelton dock. The Rangatira has been tested successfully in the Wellington dock, but is likely to outlast that facility, which would mean that she would have -to go “off-station” to Sydney for servicing. Larger roll-on ships are mooted. At present the chartered tankers oh the New Zealand coastal service (which are not super-tankers) have to go to Australia for servicing. (Wellington’s floating dock could take them, but the Wellington labour difficulty is well recognised.) Continuing market The changing shape of New Zealand’s overseas' shipping trade indicates that a modern dock should be. able to pay its way; Con-tainer-ships must be catered | for in part, and though the ! submergence of Britain in the European Economic Comb rnunity may at length halt the flow Of refrigerated cargo) ship's to and from Europe.,) this is-only a distant. pbssi-[ bility. ’ - Much closer in time is* the' rapid build-up of trade be-! tween New Zealand and! South-East Asia, the Pacific; Basin, and the western coast-' line of the American continent. All shipping companies; confirm that for the foreseeable future there will be a continuing flow of refriger-i ated, semi-refrigerated and) general cargo ships of mota-

J ate size which would ust t satisfactory dry-dock facilit ties. Nor would Australia, foi ■ all its shipbuilding and ship- : repair capacity, be a crip- ; pling competitor. Australia ; has a number of small docks f but only five are available • which are of larger capacity > than Wellington’s floating ; dock. Of these, the new grav- > ing dock at Woolwoch (Syd- ; ney) is reported to be out of use. Of the remaining four Australian docks, two are in Sydney, one in Brisbane, and ! one in Newcastle. The next ! in capacity would be the Melbourne dry dock, comparable with that at Port Chalmers. ’ The really big-ship docks in ! Australia are (with length, width and draught in feet): Brisbane, 830, 110, 36; Newcastle, 630, 82. 22; Captain Cook (Sydney), 1139, 147, 40; Sutherland (Sydney), 720, 88, 26.3. Ideal size The aim for Lyttelton would not be a super-dock able to match the Captain Cook dock (which began as a battleship-repair facility in the Second World War). It is believed that a graving dock which would cope most effectively with requirements in New Zealand in the foreseeable future would be 630 ft long, 90ft wide, and have a draught of 26ft. This would fall short of accommodating- the big containerships (ACT 3 is 715 ft by 93ft by 34ft) but would take most chartered bulk carriers, such as fertiliser .ships of up to 30,000 tons gross and coastai service tankers. Why Lyttelton? The economics of -a dry! dock are not easy to assess. A facility, though generally! approved as highly desirable, may not be used. Other factors may obtrude to turn the golden dream into a nightmare. But progressive port authorities accept such challenges. Prices for repair work in Lyttelton compare very favourably with those of Britain, and the American .west coast (where some ships in the New Zealand trade are now docked). Lyttelton, unlike other New Zea-1 land ports (notably Welling-! ton) enjoys a high reputation' among shipowners as a re- f pair port. s In 1970, 35 ships used Lyt- 3 telton’s old dock. It is esti- ( mated that this figure could v be at least quadrupled, even s in the early stages, given a s new dry dock of adequate I capacity. Some sources be-

le lieve that Lyttelton, with the i- backing of Christchurch, has the will and ability to pro-. it vide the service at competi- )- tive costs. >- a “National asset” g The Lyttelton Harbour v Board regards the provision g of such a. facility as a na- * tional asset, and would prob-! l_ ably approach the financing! lt from this angle. The site is! there, and items of the present dock plant, (such as „ pumping and handling equipj ment) could be incorporated " to hold down the cost. i One plan sees the present £ dock rebuilt and enlarged to e the proposed size. The pre- ’• sent site is almost ideal, as 1 the repair facilities have '• grown up around it. Travel- '• ling-time is cut to a mini-! ’ mum—a problem in some “ New Zealand ports. There '> are also firm links with! ’> Christchurch engineering and related activities. Left alone, the Lyttelton;' dry dock is a diminishing! , asset. Docking and surveys { of small ships have tended to' , move to Nelson in recent I 5 years. A continuation of this , trend could lead to the loss 3 ; of many of the repair and t maintenance squads still . available, and to the even- - tual closing of the dock—- . possibly before it reaches its i Seal protection.—New Zea- i L land signed the convention* •' for the conservation of! ' Antarctic seals in London yes-* i terday, according to a state-1 > ment from the office of the! ' Minister of Foreign Affairs! ' (Sir Keith Holyoake). The; convention was adopted at a diplomatic conference held in February at which New Zealand was represented.— I (PA.). ;