Harbour Commission

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 206, 15 August 1927, Page 5

Harbour Commission

To-day’i Proceedings. A SEA CAPTAIN'S EVIDENCE. PREFERENCE FOR INNER HARBOUR. The Commission inquiring into the affairs of the Napier harbour, port charges and reclamation continued its sittings at Napier this morning. Mr. J. 8. Barton, 8.M., of Wanganui, presided Associated with him were Messrs. A. C. McKenzie, harbour engineer, of Melbourne, and J. B. Waters, merchant, of Dunedin. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., of Wellington, and Mr. M R. Grant appeared for the Napier Harbour Board, while the Marine Department was represented by Mr. H. B. Lusk. Captain William H. Hartman, master of the s.s. Tamaroa (12,350 tons), now lying in the roadstead, stated that since 1900 he had been trading to New Zealand and to other ports of the world. He had had considerable experience in visiting artificial harbours, such as Timaru, Oamaru, New Plymouth, Vera Cruz, Santa Cruz, Colombo, Madras and Durban. He had had practical experience in harbour construction, working for Sir Weetman Pearson, afterwards Lord Cowdray, at Santa Cruz, m Mexico, on a contract for £3,500,000, being in charge of a suction and bucket dredge and also lighters. He had a general idea of the two schemes of harbours for Napier. Assuming that each harbour could be constructed for the design shown he would express a preference for the Inner Harbour. He was of the opinion that a ship would lay safer and steadier in the Inner Harbour, it being more sheltered. There was more area foi swinging. Regarding the approach, lie could see no difficulty whatever, although in a strong wind a tug might he required. Of course it would be necessary to have a dredged outer channel, but when this was done he could consider it a safe and practical harbour Assuming that the Breakwater was completed as designed it would also be safe, but would not have the same swinging room and a ship would not lay so steady as there was bound to be a range there. From a navigational point of view there would be no difficulty, but looking 50 years ahead at the developmental view it looked as if it would have to be enlarged. The tide to be met with in navigating the Inner Harbour would not be a detriment, being a matter that could be overcome. With a ship easy to handle there would not be any need to wait for slack water He would not take the present day cost into consideration but would look 50 or 100 years ahead. There would be difficulty in coming into the Breakwater without a tug. He instanced the difficulty experienced at Lyttelton, where a tug had to be used. He did not consider the Breakwater sufficiently high where the wharves are so close. Mr. Lusk : What is the length of your ship?—s4oft. Draught?—33ft. fully loaded. What depth of water would you need in the channel to bring in your vessel?—4oft. Would you bring in the Tamaroa in 34ft.?—Yes, but not filily loaded. To the chairman: Thev load gener ally to 28ft., and would want 31ft. in fine weather and 40ft. in rough weather, Mr Lusk: Is it not a fact that there are fewer vessels trading to Napier now than 20 years ago?— That may be likely. What is the size of the majority of vessels coming to Napier?—About 5000 to 6000 tons. Which would you sooner do: enter a harbour head on or beam on?—Head on. In entering the Inner Harbour you have a beam sea and a beam wind in easterly or westerly weather? —That is so, but I would “not anticipate any insurmountable difficulty. With an easterly wind and flood tide, how would you get into the channel?—lf the wind was sufficiently heavy it would be dangerous; it would be so in any harbour including the Breakwater. We are in the habit in our trade of entering a harbour at Curacao, which is less than 300 ft. in width with a 3-knot current and a 25-knot wind on a beam. What distance have you got to travel like that! —About 1000 feet, but no tug was used. The elements here are a mile long! —Not 300 ft. NO DIFFICULTY. Don’t you think it would be a difficult thing during an easterly sea to enter the Inner Harbour!—No, I don’t think so.

Have you used tugs at Timaru?— No, but we have to throw our lines out to the various wharves and then swing in. The harbourmaster here has been in the habit of bringing in large ships drawing 26ft. to the Breakwater for years!—What length!

About 476 ft. Witness: In the habit! Mr. Lusk: That is a clever one to get back on to me. Mr, Lusk: Do you think that you could come in during slack water!— Yes, I would only want five minutes. I may tell you that there is ten minutes.—Well, that is ample.

You must remember that the channel is for a long way out!—But the curernt is not felt much until you get to the entrance. I have found that through running my launch in.

What effect would the tide deflection have on your ship!—l don’t know, but it could be overcome whatever it was. It often did not have the effect that might be expected. The proper course for a large vessel to take entering that harbour would be to wait for high slack water!— Yes.

With an easterly wind would there be a difficulty in leaving the Breakwater!—Yes, because of the difficulty in swinging.

The attention of witness was drawn to a lithographed plan that there would be not sufficient swining room.

Mr Gray then asked that witness be shown a plan of x Cullen and Keele’s proposal, from which Mr Holmes’ estimates given on Friday were calculated —1 consider it would / be a practicable scheme. Mr Lusk: Would you like to try it! —Yes, but with a smaller vessel first. ‘ Mr Lusk: The Breakwater has a swinging basin of 1200 feet, giving you another 200 feet?—Yes it would be. “" -

What about it if there is 2500 feet in which to pull up!—There is just as much room at the Inner Harbour. Would you be surprised to know there tuere is 400 feet more swinging room at Napier that what there is at Timaru and Lyttelton!—l am about Timaru, but not about Lyttelton. I DON’T AGREE WITH YOU. At Lyttelton you have 400 feet less than at Napier!—l don’t agree with you. I don’t turn round in a circle at Lyttelton. There is plenty of room to go backwards or forward. Would not the widening of the Inner Harbour increased the range?— No I don’t think so. Owing to the range the Ngatori (583 tons) tore the moorings out at West Quay, and a 20-inch coir spring?—l am surprised to hear it. Was it a new spring?

I don’t know, but it would be a good one. Witness; That is an exceptional ease; either the posts were rotten, the ropes rotten, or even both rotten. How would you expect to get a yes. sei out of the Inner Harbour in a strong wind? —The same as in hundreds of othei places—with a tuc and, possibly, put down an anchor, as we do at Wellington We don't rish a £1.000,000 vessel for the sake of five minutes. You would take every precaution in the Inner Harbour?—Yes. and in the Outer Harbour, too. To Mr Gray: 1 take every precaution. qo matter what port I am in All ports have their difficulties. Mr Gray: What is vour average draught wnen you come to Napier?— About 25 feet. There would be plenty of water in the dredged channel for the boats that come to Napier?—Yes. Only a very strong wind would orerent vou from getting into the Inner Harbour? —Yes only during exceptional weather.

You say that the Breakwater swinging room could not be extended, while at the Inner Harbour it would ba only a matter of dredging? -Yes.

What depth would vou want in the Breakwater during a swell ?— At least six feet more than my draught. What harbours have channels 50 leet deep?—None that J know of Mr Lusk has spoken of a vessel breaking away from the West Quay; if two vessels were tied on to it.it would make the story more nrobable?—Yes. Mr Barton: Assuming that vour draught was 28 feet, what is the minimum depth ou would reouire? —Thirty-two feet. In the basin ?—Thirty feet if it was a soft mud bottom. If there should be a moderate swell?—l would want Bft. under my bottom. Would you use 34ft. channel and berths and 30ft. basin?—l would not care about using it; I would wait till high water. In your opinion, would a harbour 31ft. in channel and berth and 30ft. basin eliminate lightering?—Yes, absolutely. WESTERN MOLE. Mr McKenzie: If the western mole were built would you be able to lie at the Breakwater?—l think so. How long were you operating those dredges at Santa Cruz?—About a year. Have you any knowledge of the class of dredging required here —No. We have been told that it is principally sand that sets hard. Taking it on the whole do you think that there would be interference by weather from dredging in the chan nel?—Yes, 1 think there would be. More so than dredging in the Breakwater?—Yes, I think so. In reply to Mr. McKenzie, witness said that the formation of a spit near the Iron Pot would offer difficulty in entering, while he thought the force of the water'coming against the vessel could be met by turning slightly to the starboard. Mr. Barton: Do you think that a 30ft. channel and basin would eliminate lightering, that is speaking of the ordinary trade?—Yes. What about a 26tt. basin and 30ft channel and berths?—That would also do away with lightering, but meaning that the heavily-laden vessels would have to wait for the tide. Would a 26ft basin at the Breakwater and a 30ft channel do the same?—Yes.

Mr. Lusk: You spoke of steering slightly starboard to avoid the current. How could you get back?— Going starboard against the current would cause the vessel to go straight ahead.

Captain Selwyn M. Chatfield, master of the Kaituna (2042 tons) now lying at the Glasgow wharf, said he was familiar with both harbours. In fine weather he would bring the vessel into the Inner Harbour. when drawing 15ft. If some dredging was done there would be no difficulty in bringing vessels of any size in the channel with its present width of entrance. At the Victoria dock, Melbourne, there was only a width of 150 feet- Despite the tide witness saw no difficulty in berthing at the West Quay. On Wednesday last there was considerable range in the Breakwater, but this trip the range had not interfered with working the vessel.

Mr. Lusk: How long have you been trading to the Breakwater?— 1 have been there several times. have you ever had to leave? No. What depth of water is there in the channel?—Nineteen feet at highwater slack.

Would vessels be affected with the wind or tide?—Yes, but before reaching the 400 it entrance the course would be so set to go straight in. I don’t see much in the tide at all to worry about. Would you come in during a strong wind?—Yes, 1 brought the Kamo in when I couldn't take her to the Breakwater. I had to lay out foltwo or three days owing to the weather.

You had an accident there once? Yes.

1 am not blaming you. Mt. Gray: Why ask the question? Witness: 1 was going out of the Iron Pot to put to seaMr. Lusk: You think that vessels could work the outer channel of the Inner Harbour in most weathers?— I do, except in very exceptional weather.

Mr. Gray: When you bought the Kamo in did the weather moderate? —No not at all; it was still southeast by east. Do you consider the Inner Harbour a detriment because of your mishap’ —No. not at all. That was caused through an error in the tide. At this stage, Dudley Holmes, of Holmes and Sons, consulting engi peer to the board, resumed his evidence, producing plans showing the area laid off at both Inner and

(Continued ou Next Column).

Outer Harbours that would be required for Harbour Board purposes. When speaking of the bores affecting the store on Friday he omitted to say that he considered that the store would be immune from such an attack if covered with sufficient concrete. The rock obtained from Parke Island was liable to be attacked but to a lesser degree than the rock obtained Irom the Bluff. SUITABLE FOR CONCRETE. Ln connection with materials lor making concrete, witness stated that dredgings brought up by the Browning crane in the vicinity of the eastern mole were most suitable for concrete work. Some already used for that purpose had given complete satisfaction. As the nearest beach gravel for concreting had to be obtained from Awatoto, such a supply for dredging the Inner Harbour would prove invaluable, besides reducing the cost. A HARBOUR MASTER’S EVIDENCE. After lunch to-day evidence was given by William Mailer, Harbour Master at New Plymouth, who stated that for many years he was in command of vessels trading between New Zealand ports. He first visited the Breakwater in 1895 calling frequently until 14 years ago. For the last five years of that time he we in command of the Wimmera (3022 tons), working the Breakwater on many occasions- He never had accasion to pass the Breakwater, when it was then in its unfinished Cullen & Keele’s breakwater harbour condition. Witness, after examining proposal, considered that it would be most successful. There would be no difficulty in entering and when completed it would have advantage nover all artifiicial harbours in New Zealand. It would be quite easy to enter head-on, while the swinging room would be ample. He was working New Plymouth without a tug, but the board was obtaining one. Over there there was not the continual swell as was experienced at Napier. Since 1917 some 300 vessels had been berthed without the aid of a tug. He considered that the Breakwater would have many advantages over the Inner Harbour. Taking ships up the Inner Harbour channel during strong winds, he did not consider impossible. hut pointed out the difficulties that have to he contended with through winds. Witness doubted if the Inner Harbour basin would afford sufficient room for swinging when outside the effect of the current.