GREY HARBOUR PROBLEMS

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 November 1944, Page 2

GREY HARBOUR PROBLEMS

MR" FURKERT’S NEW PROPOSALS

BOARD MEMBERS CRITICAL A report of approximately 3,000 words on Greymouth Harbour problems, and including a scheme involving expenditure of £550,000 on turning the line of the harbour entrance about 35 degrees more to the West, was received by the Greymouth Harbour Board last evening from Mr. F. W. Furkert, former Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Works Department, and now described by a Board member as “adviser to the treasury.” Members discussed the report at some length, and eventually approved the following resolution unanimously:— "That the Board expresses its complete confidence in its Engineer and js unanimous that his recommendations with regard to port improvements are the absolute minimum required to maintain the existing harbour in a workable condition, pending the results of model tests with respect to improvements to the existing bar harbour, or a practicable scheme for a harbour removed from the bar; that failing financial assistance being forthcoming for the proposals put forward by the Board’s Engineer, before effect is given to the proposals of Mr. Furkert the Board urges that a commission of engineers be set up to investigate the whole position and bring down further recommendations.” The resolution was moved by Mr. M. Wallace and seconded by Mr. W. Clayton. TURNING THE ENTRANCE

In the course of his proposals, Mr. Furkert stated in his report: “Greymouth suffers, apart from natural causes chiefly, from two principal errors on the part of past controlling authorities: (1) The direction in which the entrance has been faced is wrong; (2) The width adopted for the channel has been changed from time to time. First fixed at 400 ft it was later, when being extended seaward, widened to 600 feet, and when that was found to be too wide it was brought in again to 500 feet, and has since reduced, partly by natural causes and partly by the hand of man, to little more than 400 feet . . . The entrance should face the direction of the heaviest seas so that vessels entering or leaving can do so without risk of or even tendency towards being set oyer against one or other of the protecting moles. This is not the case at Greymouth where the entrance is approximately 35 degrees off the line of the heaviest and most frequent seas. . . . The best or even a good result cannot be obtained unless and until the line of the entrance is turned about 35 degrees more towards the west. Naturally any extension of the moles cannot be turned abruptly into the required direction . . . but this change must be started some distance inshore. ... Even when aligned as suggested I would recommend that a width at entrance of 450 ft be adopted, though this may with advantage be reduced inside when the present width between the secondary walls of 400 feet is reached. “Applying the foregoing considerations to the present lay-out it will be found that the south mole will require to be moved bodily for a length of. 1000 ft and partially to a continually decreasing degree for a further 1000 ft. The maximum movement .sideways will, of course, be at the present end, amounting there to 340 feet. As low water mark is now under 700 feet from the tiphead new work could start on the adopted alignment near this point. .... When the whole of the south moie has been moved into its new alignment all the area where its old line encroaches on the new sailing course, of a width of 450 feet, must be dredged and swept to ensure that no stone is left as would endanger shipping Immediately the position is clear for ships to steer more to the southwarci as the south mole construction swings over, work should be pushed on on the north mole vigorously and when it has advanced about 500 feet the extension of the lower training wall can proceed. . . . I have indicated (on a plan) an extension of the moles adequate to bring the entrance 850 feet further seaward than the present south tiphead and this with the rectii'icalion ol (he alignment, and the accompanying modification of the training walls, will give good result. It is my judgment that such an extension would be in reasonable relation to the requirements of the port for some considerable time if accompanied by tidal compartments enlargement. In addition to making the entrance more safe and dependable, the proposed line will enable outflowing waters to drive the coastal drift, which now comes round the south mole more easily into deeper water than, is now the case and the fact that the north mole is of equal length to the south mole will prevent the formation of the inner bar which now forms as a result of the present overlap o' - the south mole. EXTENSION PROPOSALS. “The foregoing I regard as the best method which can be- practicably adopted to create a good entrance. Il however, the Board is unwilling to face problems involved and wishes to get some benefit by mere extension then the turn towards the proper direction on the same radius could be commenced about 450 feet inshore from the end of the south mole and carried out for 800 feet from the present end. Thfe north mole should be carried out on almost its present alignment for 1200 ft which would bring it to a point some 600 feet behind the south mole, and providing an entrance width of 450 feet. Even with these .very considerable extensions the entrance will not reach 18ft of water and will still be far from the correct alignment. ... It is of first importance that the tidal compartments be enlarged to the utmost practicable and their outlets rectified.” On the question of costs Mr. Furkert said: “I consider that for the work which I suggest and which I am confident will effect lasting improvement in safety and dependability it would not be wise to embark on these works unless at least £550,000 were available. This is to include, the lagoon dredging on. both sides oL the river. All this money would not be required at once as the works would probably take five years to execute. The increase in annual charges to tne Board as a result of the scheme would be probably £27.500, which amounts to about 8d per 100 ft of timber leaving the port and 1/- per ton of coal, neither of which rates would have any crippling effect on the trade. “I would strongly recommend that the construction of the model and its operation be regarded as of the utmost urgency so that effect of the above scheme and others which could be brought forward, may be known by the time conditions are suitable for a forward move with the works.” MR O’BRIEN’S COMMENT

In a letter covering the report the Minister of Marine (Mr O’Brien) said he had discussed the matter with Mr Newnham, who is Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department and both he and Mr Newnham considered that the major scheme suggested might be quite alright. Mr Newnham. however, had pointed out the difficulty of taking the south breakwater out of the suggested fairway. It was probably true that when the breakwater was formed stones were tipped into water 35 feet deep or more; that most of those were buried very solidly in sand by this time and the job of taking them out would be a major one, with all the difficulties possible. Heavy seas

beating directly on to the entrance | would throw up a bar quicker. J MEMBERS’ REMARKS Introducing discussion on the report the Chairman (Mr J. Mulcare, said he had discussed the .matter with the Board’s Engineer (.Mr D. b Kennedy), and some practical suggestions had come out of the dis- ( cussion. Mr Furkert insisted that his latest scheme was the only feasible solution of the trouble, with a total disregard to all previous Engineers reports and submissions, etc. He had stated definitely That Mr Kennedy s scheme for extending the breakwaters 400 feet on the present lines was almost useless, although Mr Kennedy’s scheme was. in accord with Mr Furkert’s previous recommendations and, almost without exception, embodied all that had gone before. It was suggested that until Mr Furkert’s proposals had received the endorsement of two or three independent engineers the loan of £lOO,OOO should be held over. The scheme might be quite good, but it was open to considerable doubt, especially as regarded keeping the port working during the change-over. Mr Furkert contended that the problems ol storms, heavy ’seas, loss of stone, plant, and the dredging of the fairway can be done without undue expenditure, but that it must be done quickly. It was for Mr Furkert to explain the details to leave no room for doubt. It was possible that m the event of the proposal being put into operation that after years of effort to achieve partial results it might have to be abandoned as beyond the efforts of man and machine. It was not suggested that the scheme was impossible, but with the experience of the north breakwater and the many attempts of past engineers and the Public Works Department, as the Board’s advisory body under Mr Furkert, the job seemed almost as hopeless as could be tackled. The Board was in no position to borrow any large amount of finance, except by overdraft, and unless satisfaction was forthcoming the Board, should continue to do what was possible out of revenue. It had been previously emphasised that work which could be done quickly should be gone on with to alleviate the position. The proposals by Mr Furkert might easily take years to carry out and the bar again overtake the breakwaters and reduce the port to its present state —and that after huge expenditure. At present both breakwaters were held in position; the. half-tide training wall would be fairly well under way by the end of the year; the punt was nearing completion; the model was held up temporarily owing to other calls on the mechanical staff. “Finally,” added the Chairman, “it is a physical impossibility for the Board’s Engineer to investigate aIJ embryo harbour schemes, attend to the ordinary routine duties, prepare plans for works and do the model details. If the Government is satisfied of the urgency then some help should be forthcoming to help meet the immediate requirements. Again, the clay of new ships suitable for the bar is not too far distant.” Most of the members would agree that Mr Furkert’s report did not make very goed reading from the Board’s point of view. “TECHNICAL ADVISER” The Chairman, in reply to Mr. W. Clayton, said that Mr Furkert was technical adviser to the Treasury. To Mr W .E. J. Steer, the Chairman said that the Public Works Department had accepted Mr Kennedy’s plans and proposals tentatively, and bad not made any other suggestions. He (the Chairman) had told Mr O’Brien that the Board was behind its Engineer to a man and was not going to knuckle down to Mr Furkert. or anyone. Mr O’Brien had said that the only thing to do was to have a commission of engineers to consider the whole question. Mr Kennedy would be on such a commission. However, it would mean more delay and urgent action was necessary.

Mr E. W. Heenan said there was nothing wrong with the bar to-day. it was the use of ships that were too' large that was the trouble, and he thought the remedy lay in the use of ships . with a shallower draft. He thought that change would come quickly after the war. That change and means to ensure quicker loading and despatch would simplify matters. No ship could work any port on the Coast in stormy weather. The Board did not have the money to follow Mr Furkert’s report and the ratepayers did not have it. It might be 10 years before such proposals could be completed and then it might not be successful. He thought the Government was moving in the right direction with the suggestion that vessels should be built to suit the coal trade. If they could pot get any further with the'national idea then they could paddle their own scheme along out of revenue.

MEMBERS’ OPINIONS. Mr. Clayton said he was also in favour of the idea that vessels should be built to suit the port. As far as Mr. f< urkert’s report was concerned his main trouble seemed to have been fo get the port in line with the sea. That, however, had not been the trouble with the bar—it was the lack of depth. The port was alright if the right type of vessels were used. Lie was never very much in favour of the big scheme and had voted against it. If the Government was prepared to put in a deep sea harbour, well and good, but if not then the Board should try to carry on on its own. Mr. Steer said he was very much against Mr. Furkert’s report. The amount of money which would be required to be spent on such a scheme would build a deep sea port, and again, the success of Mr. Furkert’s scheme was problematical. Mr. Furkert had had control of the port through the Public Works Department for many years, and he would like to ask Mr. Furkert why he had not made similar suggestions before. He (the speaker) was not a harbour engineer, but he understood from Mr. Kennedy that turning of the river in the direction proposed was contrary to general engineering practice. Other reputable, engineers in the past had suggested turning the river more to the northward.

Mr. Heenan said that the experience with rivers on the Coast was that when the river turned to the northward a deep channel was created, but when it was turned to the southward it shoaled. Mr. Furkert in his report said he had made his suggestion so that captains would be assisted in getting their ships in easier.

In reply to a question, Mr. Kennedy (Engineer said that the principle proposed by Mb. Furkert “that a harbour entrance should, when possible, be so directed that vessels entering or leaving can do so without risk or even tendency towards being set over against one or other of the protecting moles,” was quite sound, but ho did not complete the principle. The additional words were: “But the heads should be made so as to permit of the least sea entering.”. It should be remembered that while there was now a good bar a continued dry spell such as was experienced last Christmas would result in a shallow bar again, rnakinn it. impossible for even the smallest cargo ships to’ work the bar. In reply to Mr. Steer, Mr. Kennedy said that there were a few harbours which had been turned into the sea, but they were where the

headland was favourable. The general tendency was to turn bar harbours away from the drift. He did not think it possible to extend the breakwaters beyond the drift, which, according to Mr. Furkert, was five miles out.

The Harbourmaster (Captain H. Moar) in reply to Mr. Heenan said that he did not think it would make the least difference as far as navigation was concerned, to shift the direction of the moles as suggested by Mr. Furkert. Mr. Steer said that Mr. Furkert, though his report was definitely stated, appeared to be depending on the model to prove his contentions. Boiled down, he thought all the suggested schemes would have to be tried with the model. To Mr. Heenan the Chairman said that there was no dissatisfaction among master mariners in regard to the direction of the present harbour entrance Mr. Heenan said he thought the Board should stand by Mr. Kennedy and await the results of the model tests Mr. Wallace said that to his mind the report of Mr. Furkert was one of the most extraordinary reports that could be received from a man claiming to be an authority. On his own statement he received instructions to prepare the report on a particular day and completed it that day. He (Mr. Wallace) contended that no authority could deal with such a proposal properly in a matter of hours. Mr. Furkert had been dogmatic in his statement as to what would effect the required improvement, yet he had added that the completion and operation of the model should be regarded as urgent. Why worry about the model if Mr. Furkert was so sure? He suggested that if the Board’s Engineer had £550,000 to “play about with” he might bring down a report that would bear comparison with any others. Mr. Furkert pre-supposed that the Board was tied to a bar harbour m the future. but that was not necessarily the case' and the potential development of industry, primary and. secondary, on the West Coast, suggested .that something bigger might be required. In the meantime the Board should endeavour to maintain, the present harbour facilities and improve them as its finances permitted. If .the Govenment was .going to be guiaed by Mr. Furkert it would not be sympathetic to applications to the Loans Board. Further if the Government accepted Mr. Furkert s iecommendations let them find the £550,000 required. Mr F. Williams said it would be futile for the Board to try to go ahead with its own scheme if it was going to have the opposition of Mr. Furkert, whose opinions they knew, carried a great deal of weight with the Go veinment. Further, the Board would not get very far if it had to do things on its own out of finance. He thought it would be better if all proposed harbour improvements were left in abeyance until the proposals were proved one way or the other by the model. All improvement works that were going to "be paid out of loan # moneys should cease in the meantime. There might be disastrous effects as far as the working of the port was concerned while the south mole was being shifted. . Mr. Clayton moved tnat the Minister of Marine be requested to appoint a commission of engineers to inquire into Mr. Furkert’s report. Mr. Furkert, he said, had BLOCKED THE BOARD

now from getting any loan moneys for other schemes, arid a commission might clear the whole position. Mr. J. Ryall, M.L.C., seconded the motion. The appointment of a commission was the only counter action open to the Board. Mr. Furkert said his scheme would cost £550,000 but he did not say how that sum was made up and how he worked it oti^ with his report in a day and a half he (Mr. Ryall) did not know. The Chairman said it should be understood that it was essential that both moles should be extended rightaway, and the Board should not be held responsible for any delay. The Public Works Department and Mr. Newnham knew the position and had agreed to it. The extraordinary thing was that a month after the approval of the Public Works Department the Board received the bombshell in the shape ol Mr. Furkert’s report. There ■ had been too much delay already ano the Board should absolve itself from any blame for what had been suggested by the Engineer would happen in the event of any further delay. Mr. Kennedy said it was essential to proceed immediately with the extensions. The sand to-day was practically at the end of the south breakwater, and as more sand came round the breakwater the inner bar, which was the Board’s greatest trouble, would get progressively worse. Mr. Wallace moved an amendment that the Board express its coniplete confidence in its Engineer and its unanimous opinion that his proposals for port improvements are the absolute minimum to maintain the existing harbour in working condition, that pending the results of model tests with regard to improvements to the present bar harbour or a practicable scheme for a harbour removed from the bar. Mr. Kennedy, to Mr. Steer, said that had he not had the model he would have recommended the extension of the breakwaters, on past reports, including Mr. Furkert’s. Mr. Williams said he had understood that the moles were not to be extended until the model tests had been completed. Mr. Steer said he understood that the extension of the moles was to be commenced while the model was being prepared. The work would not be very far advanced before tests could be made with the model to see how fa'r the moles were to be extended and in what direction. He felt that the i Board had to back its Engineer. After further discussion the resolutions moved by Mr. Clayton and Mr. Wallace were incorporated into the motion detailed in the above introduction, and the motion was carried unanimously. Following a report by the Engineer that a student might be available from Canterbury College for work on the harbour model at the end of the year the Engineer was empowered to make application for the services of the student. The Engineer also reported on the progress of the construction of the model, stating that the tank had been completed.