NAPIER HARBOUR

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 207, 16 August 1927, Page 5

NAPIER HARBOUR

COMMISSION'S INQUIRIES. TO-DAY’S SITTING. NELSON HARBOUR MASTER’S EVIDENCE. The Commission inquiring into the affairs of the Napier harbour, port charges and reclamation continued its sittings at Napier this morning. Mr. J. S. Barton, 8.M., of Wanganui, presided. Associated with hnn 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 Napiet Harbour Board, while the Marine Department was represented by Mr. H. B. Lusk. Capt. Collins, Harbour Master at Nelson, continuing his evidence, aaid that should the steering gear fail while a ship Was in the channel it would be able to get out again provided it was not too far in. Owing to certain criticisms that were going on at Nelson regarding the 120 feet entrance just made through the boulder bank, it was decided to ask the Union Company it it would allow one of its vessels to be used to see if it could be worked satisfactorily. A vessel was consequently placed at the disposal of the board and on the afternoon of the test some 900 persons were taken out- From the wharf the vessel proceded out at half speed. When approaching the cross channel witness gave the order “hard a port’’ in order to swing the vessel in. Only two turns of the wheel could be given when it was reported that something was jamming. The vessel was stopped, when it was found that portions of the steering gear had been taken adrift. As it would take fully ten minutes before repairs could be effected witness decided to take the vessel through the channel without the use of the rudder which was done in safety, there being a current of 3) knots at the time. Once outside repairs were effected and the vessel returned to port negotiating the channel without any trouble. Witness could not see any reason why the Inner Harbour could not be worked half an hour before high tide but during an ebb tide he considered that it could be worked practically at any time. Taking a vessel in after high tide would depend upon the Velocity of the current. Assuming, however, that the velocity should not be more than three knots per hour the channel could be worked with safety. Once berthed in the Inner Harbour it would not be necessary to keep steam up but he would not Say the same about the Breakwater. Mr. Lusk: Have you ever been in command of a vessel working the New Zealand coast?—Yes, the Mararoa. You will agree that the opinion of those working the coast for many years would be valuable?—lt would. You heard the evidence of Captains Worrell, Walker and Edwin yesterday?—Yes, they are all capable men. DID NOT AGREE. You don’t agree with the Commission who reported in 1892 that if the Breakwater was extended it would be the best artificial harbour in the Australian colonies?—No. 1

don’t. You heard what Capt. Edwin said? —Yes, but he is entitled to his opinion. You don't have much rough weather in Nelson?—Yes we do. You admit that there are difficulties at the Inner Harbour?—Yes, they all have. The sea and wind Would have a considerable bearing on the Inner Harbour?—Yes, but the same would apply to the Breakwater. Wouldn’t a heavy easterly sea be a serious matter in taking’s vessel in the Inner Harbour Channel?—Yes, it would haVe to be considered. I would »ay that there would be times during a moderate sea that the channel could be worked quite well. Do you agree that the pressure of shoal water on either side is a factor that has to be considered?—Yes, but it all depends upon the draught and the way the ship is loaded. W’hat about coming into contact with the current ?—That would deP« n .? “Pon the speed of the vessel. Well, what speed would a vessed need to travel ?—That depends upon ,the tide. Well, say 4 knots tide?—About six knots.

IV hat about the effect of the tide deflector upon the current and its effect on the ship?—l think that it would have very little effect on the after part of the ship. You don’t agree that the only time to enter the channel would be during slack water?—No, I think that it could be worked with a current up to four knots. IM you agree that it could hot be worked at night?—lt could be worked at night. Bo you agree that the opinion of the harbourmaster here should be of value regarding this port?—lt should 09. You say that you don’t use tugs. Now don t you use the Anchor Co.’s boats?—Yes, we have used them twice in 18 years. Supposing there was a southeasterly sea running wouldn’t the Breakwater entrance be the better? —I think it would. With an easterly wind which would bo the easier to enter?—lt would be just as easy to enter the Inner Harbour as it would the Breakwater. Mr Barton • How would you describe a south-easterly wind and sea when entering the Inner Harbour?— A little before the beam. Mr. Lusk • When the vessel went through the cut at Nelson you were inside in smooth water?—Yes. You were able to stop?—Yes. Supposing it had been a large vessel when that mishap occurred?— If there was too much way on drop the anchor and go astern. You don’t agree that should a mishap like that occur here , a vessel would not go ashore?—Not necessarilv. because the anchor could be dropped. Mr. Grant: You notice that from the diagram that our prevailing wind is westerly?—Yes. And wester!■’ winds don’t bring up a sea?—That is so Therefore the channel could he worked nracfically all the year round?—Yes, it Could. BREAKWATER NOT HIGH ENOUGH. Do you think that the Breakwater Is high enough to protect it from the

easterly seas that Mr. Lusk has been talking about?—No, it is not. If the western mole were carried towards the Auckland rock as recommended by the nautical Commission, which way would the entrance face ?—North-west,

Would it give as much protection as that proposed by Cullen and Keele or Mr. Furkert?—lt might be protected from the seas and not from the winds.

You were asked as to what would happen if the steering gear failed when a vessel was in the Inner Harbour channel. What would be the result if that happened at the Breakwater entrance?—Just the same as at the Inner Harbour—it might go ashore. Mr. Barton: When you said that the Innei Harbour could be worked at night did you mean large vessels as well as small?—Yes.

What would be the effect of a tide deflector towards increasing or decreasing the current at that point?— I don’t think that it would make much difference. There is a possibility that it might increase the velocity. Seeing that the water enters the Inner Harbour through the bridge opening I think that the presence of the tide deflector would tend to confine the water, accordingly increasing the current. Do you know if the collier which has been at the Breakwater for two or three days has kept up steam?— I don’t snow. It would not pay to let (team down unless the vessel was going to stay for more than about three days. How long would It take a large vessel to get up steam?—lf stone cold between 24 and 36 hours.

In connection with that mishap you had at Nelson, what was the velocity of the current? —Between four and five knots

Was there any danger of getting on. to shallow ground?—No. Mr. Gray: Would the deepening of the channel have any effect on the velocity?—lt would tend to reduce it.

Mr. Barton: What would be the possible decrease between a 20ft. and a 34ft. channel?—lt is possible that the decrease in a 20ft. channel when deepened to 34ft. would be marked How long would it take an overseas vessel to get up steam?—l should say about 24 hours. It would depend to some extent upon the type of boilers.

Do you think that a vessel intending to stay in the Inner Harbour for three days would let its steam down altogether?—No, not altogether. Mr. Bartort: The reason for keeping up steam at the Breakwater was to be in readiness in case of an emergency ?—Yes.

MR D. HOLMES AGAIN GIVES EVIDENCE.

Mr. Dudley Holmes, harbour engineer, of Messrs. Holmes and Sons, consulting engineers to the board, who commenced his evidence on Friday last, resumed again at this stage when he stated that in regard to shingle at Awatoto above high water a royaltv of lOd per cubic yard had to be paid to the Lands Department. He did not know what the Marine Department charged for gravel below that mark. The beach within the jurisdiction of the Harbour Board could be used by the board without paying royalty. In calculating the quantities in the Various constructions they had allowed for 35 per cent, of voids Witness then referred to harbours in other parts of the world that had been constructed and were working successfully. Karachi, on the west coast of India, was formed at the mouth of several creeks, having a tidal range of BJtt. The channel was 27ft. and was being further deepened. The depth at the berths for 150 ft. was 34ft. The channel narrowed to 1000 ft. and then in a further distance of 1500 ft. it narrowed to 600 ft., continuing at this width for 4800 ft., then widening to 750 ft. and further to 900 ft. for 4000 ft., narrowing quickly to 750 ft. for a distance of 7500 ft. The channel for 6000 ft. lay between parallel piers 1350 ft. apart, where the vessels berthed on either side. The channel, was by no means straight, having two reversed curves and an irregular curve. At Corpus Christi, Texas, was a channel 21 miles long, 200 ft. wide at the bottom and 25ft. deep, which had been dredged from the sea to the harbour. The depth in the harbour basin was 30ft., in which was accommodated the Atlantic freighters. The average width of the Mobile harbour for about five miles was 900 ft. The entrance was through a 32ft. deep channel, thence through a stretch of natural deep water, then through a channel 284 miles th length. At Philadelphia there was a channel 35ft. deep and 400 ft. wide up to the naval yards. At Albany, Western Australia, the harbour was formed by dredging in a tidal lagoon for a considerable distance off King George Sound. The entrance was 600 ft. wide, half a mile in length, and dredged to 32ft. The tidal range was 10ft. and the lagoon was 12 square miles in area. The effect of the current was considerable. At Durban the harbour was formed in a tidal lagoon, the entrance having guide piers to assist in dealing with the littoral sand drift. The navigable area inside had been obtained by dredging. The width of the entrance was 600 ft., having a length of 4000 ft. The tidal flow was about 3} knots. A breakwater was started at the mouth of the entrance but was abandoned in favour of an inner harbour In 1857 there was 6ft. on the bar and now there was 37Jft. At La Rochella, on the west coast of France, two moles were run out and a harbour formed by excavating The harbour was in two parts, one only being tidal. The excavations were largely in limestone rock. The depth at low water was 16ft. with a tidal range of 12ft At Tyne the harbour, said witness, was formed by deepening the river at the mouth of which two moles were constructed. From the original shore out to the entrance a channel 30ft deep and 400 ft wide was dredged. This harbour was used by very large vessels where extensive construction yards were alongside. At Batavia two moles had been run out and a harbour formed by dredging. The Inner Harbour was excavated entirely from the land necessitating the removal of 8,000,000 cubic yards of spoil. At Fremantle the harbour is at the mouth of the Swan riverThe entrance was between two moles carried well out. The outside channel was dredged to 36ft for a distance of 5000 ft. The inside had been dredged to the same depth at varying widths for some distance.

NOTABLE HARBOUR. At Dunkirk guide piers had been constructed which had been recently extended by pile work through which the tidal current could run. This (Continued on Next Column).

was a notable harbour as there was a heavy littof'el sand drift along the vuusi, uuu on lu me Hues mat swept across uic cu,ra...e vessels uau to be taken m at lull steam witli tugs, when once unuer the shekel of the mole the tugs, owing to the narrowness, soon got out of the way. From the entrance to the harbour basin was a distance of 5000 ft. At Newcastle the harbour was constructed at the estuary of the Hunter river. Excavation inside had been made by dredging. Proposals were made in 1911 for an outside harbour but had not so far been adopted. At Houlston, Galveston Bay, a channel 250 ft at the bottom and 30ft deep had been dredged for 25 miles and a further 25 miles at a slightly greater width. At Venice there was a smaller two-basin harbour formed by dredging. A channel 24 miles in length and 30ft deep had been made to the sea, the width on the bottom being only 91ft. At Leith, on the Firth of Forth, a harbour was built inside in preference to the construction of an outer harbour by means of a breakwaterRouen, Le Havre, Dar-es-Salaam (East Africa), Los Angeles and Biza Gapatam (India) were other harbours dealt with. [Evidence heard yesterday afternoon appears on page B.]