FLOATING DOCK EARNS £10,340 FOR YEAR

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 153, 25 March 1937, Page 17

FLOATING DOCK EARNS £10,340 FOR YEAR

“Existence Justified”

MANY VESSELS MAKE USE OF FACILITIES

Occupied for 190 half-days, or 624 per cent, of the total working time, the Jubilee floating dock earned £lO,343/11/10 for the year ended September 30, according to the annual report presented to Ihe Wellington Harbour Board yesterday. The dock, said the chairman, Mr. D. J. McGowan, had more than justified its existence, ami had proved the wisdom aud foresight of the board iu providing this valuable adjunct to the equipment of the port. In addition to the usual dockings for periodical overhauls, cleaning aud painting, tour vessels requiring major repairs were catered for, and iu the case of two of them, to which the accidents had occurred locally, through there being a dock at Wellington, the owners were saved the great expense of having to effect temporary repairs so as to enable the vessel to proceed to some other port tor docking, stated the report. In February, 1936, the Raugatira, having run ashore near Cape Terawhiti, was docked and remained iu dock for 881 days; iu June the Kalingo occupied the dock for 144 days; iu July the Wahine, which had collided with the Pipitea Wharf in a fog, was in dock for 351 days; aud in September the Limerick was iu dock for 61 days. Altogether 21 vessels made use of the dock, occupying it for 1904 days, or 621 per cent, of the total working time. Of those, four dockings were of the board’s owu plant, other vessels being 17 in number, and occupying the dock for 1731 days, or 56.9 per cent, of the total working time. Apart from the four vessels uamed above, the average period that each vessel remained iu dock, omitting the board’s plant, was 2.2 days. The average rate per ton per day paid in dock charges aud rental by the 17 vessels was 2.3 d., a lower rate probably than would have been paid for like facilities auyw’here else in the world to a dock-owning institution that did not also undertake ship repairs. The total earnings of the dock during the year, including the book entries against the board’s own floating plant, were £10,343/11/10. The working cost, including the premium paid for insurance against dock-owner’s liability, was £3730/1/4, and maintenance cost £2785/1/3, making a total expenditure of £6515/2/7. The excess of earnings over working and maintenance costs was therefore £3828/9/3, but those figures did not include a contribution of £l5OO to the special dock insurance fund, or of £2661 to the dock replacement fund.

“In view of this favourable result it may be as well to recall the results of previous years,” added the report. “In 1931-32, the dock having been iu commission for six months only, costs exceeded earnings by £1322 13/10: in 1932-33, by £239/7/4; in 193334, by £lB4B/1/4; in 1934-35, by £438 15/6; making a total excess of costs ove rearnings of £3848/18/-. So that it will be seen that, omitting the contribution to the insurance and replacement funds, this last year has equalised the earnings and the costs to within £2O/8/9.” Mr. C. M. Turrell said that the dock was practically paying for itself. It was ridiculous to say that it was losing £3OOO a year, because it was not. It was providing for a replacement fund and it. was paying its way. He did not think that it should be loaded with a depreciation fund on top of that. The chairman said that the general manager had assured him that the board itself had agreed to the depreciation. Mr. Turrell: I think it is wrong in principle. In ordinary business you don’t provide twice over for depreciation.