NAPIER HARBOUR

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 210, 19 August 1927, Page 8

NAPIER HARBOUR

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HARBOUR MASTER. MR. R. W. HOLMES IN THE BOX. The Napier Harbour Commission continued its sittings yesterday afternoon, when Captain White Parsons, harbourmaster at Napier, was further cross-examined by Mr. A. Gray. Mr. Gray: You think that a ship might get into difficulty if anything went wrong to the steering gear or to the tug?—Yes. Why do you think that it would be difficult to work the port at night time?—Because it is so difficult to ascertain slack water at night whereas during the day you can see it. Do not the coastal vessels work the port at night?—Yes, because they are close in and not a mile away. It was rather difficult coming away from a quay like the West Quay at night on account of not being able to properly observe the vessel’s movements. Has the embankment made any difference to the height of the rise and fall?-It is practically the same. If the rhonhel between the moles is deepened and widened wouldn’t it tend to reduce the velocity and so improve the approach?—That is an engineering question. I am not prepared to say. How do you judge the rate of current?— By taking tests. How often are they made?—Frequently, almost every day. How long ago was is that the Ngatoro broke away?—l can’t remember. Your report says March 6, 1918?— That will be so. What condition was the wharf in ? —Not in good condition. The piles were rotten at the bottom. Surely there was nothing remarkable about breaking such piles. They were unequal to the strain ?— Exactly. They were badly worm eaten?— Yes. Nothing like that has occurred since then?—No, Do you remember the Kamo coming to the Breakwater in June, 1925, at tile same time as the Wainui in rough weather, the latter going to the Inner Harbour?—! can't remember. The Kamo was anchored under the iea of the Breakwater while the Wainui discharged, went to Auckland and back twice before the Kamo was able to complete discharge?—l could not say whether that occurred. It inight be on record. Mr. Gray then put in a statement of accidents to shipping during a period of 12 months from July 1, 1926, which showed a preponderance of accidents at the Inner Harbour. Mr. Gray: Did not most of these occur at the Iron Pot?—Yes. Mr. Barton: Captain Chatfield said, “I brought the Kamo in when I could not take her to the Breakwater.” Can yon remember the incident?—l can explain. There was probably a south-east sea which would prevent him from going to the Breakwater A vessel of ISOO tons in a south-east sea could go to the Inner Harbour when it could not go to the Breakwater in its unfinished state. ; in your opinion would those vessels that broke away at the Breakwater, as stated in your list, have broken away if the Breakwater had been completed?—l don’t think so. Mr. McKenzie: What is the width of Sydney heads?—Three-quarters of a mile. Depth ?—loft, You’re wrong; 90ft. Why should there not be such big seas at Fermantle as at Melbourne or Sydney?—l could not say. Well, this port is quite unprotected from heavy seas?—Yes. Fremantle gets some protection from Rockness Island. THE HEIGHT OF WAVES. What, in your estimate, would he the highest wave over the Breakwater?—l haven’t measured one. Do you think it would be 29ft. ?— No. Do you think it would be fifteen?— Yes, I think so. What is the rise and fall outside the moles? — 4ft. 6in. to sft. Has the J.D.O. dredged between the moles?—Yes, And outside?—Yes, immediately outside.

Can you tell me anything of the travel of shingle along the const?— It is hard to tell how it travels and 1 could not give any definite opinion. Shoaling has taken place in the Inner Harbour and 1 have not been able to give an opinion as to where it has come from. About the siltation at the Breakwater: Does any come over the top? —I haven’t seen any. I think it comes round the end of the Breakwater wall. Have you been to Durban and Port Kembla ?—Yes. What kind of a harbour have they at Port Kembla?—A breakwater. Have vou been there in bad weather? Yes. Did the collier lying at the Breakwater recently keep steam up or draw her fires?—She had steam for her winches.

Mr- Waters: What do you think the saving in time would lie in handling cargo at the wharf and by lighter? I have no hesitation in saying that it would be much better working at the wharf. It would all depend upon the number of hatches that could be worked. Although dues are not paid for wharfage and berthage in the roadstead the vessel would save, by berthing, fuel for keeping up steam and by less interruption through bad weather. In order to work the overseas vessels four berths would be required?— Ye’. ,

How many berths are provided in the Inner Harbour for deepsea trade ? —Four. , That would meet with the trade of the port?—Yes, I think so. If in ten years’ time it was found necessary to enlarge the harbour by two berths, which harbour would be the more economical to extend ?— That is an engineering question. Mr. Gray; Those four berths only provide for overseas vessels?—Yes. Two overseas berths would not provide for an adequate harbour. Mr. Lusk: Can you give an instance when a ship was lying at tile Breakwater wharf and a vessel in the roadstead lost her anchor and lr"l to run for it?—Yes. What, boat was it?—The Mararoa. ■ Did she ride it out?—She landed mails and passengers. Mr. Gray: How long did she stay? —An hour.

MR. R. W. HOLMES’ EVIDENCE. Mr. Robert West Holmes, M.1.C.E., formerly engineer-in-chief to the Public Works Department, and Marine Engineer until 1920, said he had been in New Zealand for 56 years. At one time he was residentengineer at Napier for the Public Works Department. Ho came to Napier just after the Breakwater was started in 1886. He had always taken an interest in the construction of the Breakwater, and was familiar with the various schemes proposed. With his son he was consultingengineer to the Napier Harbour Board. They were instructed by the Board to prepare evidence to submit to the Commission on the merits of the two proposed harbours. They had used their best endeavours to treat the matter impartially. It was not their duty to express a preference for either harbour, as they had not been instructed to that effect. This morning it was insinuated that they were there solely to support the Inner Harbour. He gave such statement an emphatic denial. During his career he had always endeavoured to report fairly from all points of view on matters in which he had received instructions to report, and since leaving the Government service, in conjunction with his son, on matters on which they had been engaged to report. It was his desire to make a statement covering the various reports on the harbour question. He wished to draw the Commission’s attention to the engineering aspects of the various reports presented to the Harbour Board, as they were of the greatest importance. The first report mentioned was that prepared by Mr. McGregor in 1875. In that report he recommended the construction of a breakwater with a mole very much on the lines of the existing breakwater, its proposed extension and proposed mole, but instead of locating the shore length in an north-east direction it was proposed in a N.N.W. direction. Such a line would have enabled the travelling shingle to pass along the Breakwater. Mr. Goodall referred to locating the various cants so that the seas would not break at right angles to the structure. Mr. McGregor was aware of the presence of travelling shingle, but he did not appear to appreciate the effect upon the harbour of the destruction by the grinding action of the waves upon the beach. About this time a report was prepared by Mr. John Carruthers which dealt with the improvement to the entrance to the Inner Harbour, and dealt with the construction of the existing moles. Mr. Carruthers was aware of the travelling shingle, and recommended the erection of an experimental mole, which was not undertaken. The population at that time was not sufficient to think of constructing any extensive harbour works, and it was therefore of little value to consider the work that Mr. Carruthers did. The moles, however, were constructed by the late Mr. Webber, then provincial engineer. When one inspected the works carried out, it would be realised that they had given in quality of workmanship the best return for any expenditure that had taken place. The next report was prepared by Sir John Coode, in 1880, who recommended the moles in the Inner Harbour for a distance of 400 feet each, and recommended the dredging of the channel to 12ft. to a width of 150 ft. Before the ere’etion of 'the moles there was nothing to fix the position of the entrance. At many places natural features existed which did fix the position. A notable incident was the harbour at Vizagapatam. Sir John Coode was apparently actuated by the same idea that had previously obtained that the district could not pay for a more extensive harbour than could be provided at the Inner Harbour. In 1882 the Harbour Board invited designs for a harbour, and a prize was subsequently awarded to Mr. W. Culcheth, who recommended the construction of a number of groins commencing a little south of the Bluff extending round the Bluff towards the Inner Harbour. These groins were for the purpose of trapping the shingle. TRAVELLING SHINGLE. Mr.' Culcheth, said witness, although well aware of the travelling shingle, did not appear to realise the destructive action of the breakers on the sea beach. Witness had no doubt that, had Mr. Culcheth’s scheme been given effect to, that it would soon have become apparent that one groin in particular was serving a more useful purpose than the other, and the idea subsequently evolved by Mr. Goodall would have eventuated. In 1884 Mr. Goodall prepared a scheme for the construction of a breakwater harbour. This scheme was evolved upon Mr. Goodall’s experience gained at Timaru, and also by sound reasoning on his part. Mr. Holmes hero mentioned that Mr. Culcheth was fully aware of the littoral drift along the cost as he subsequently wrote a pamphlet, a copy of which witness secured recently.

Continuing, Mr. Holmes said that Mr. Goodall recommended a breakwater 2740 feet in length, which was the length of the breakwater as at present constructed. The former construction recommended by Mr. Goodall consisted of blocks of concrete placed in position on the slaping system, the work progressing forwards from the end of the completed portions. After these blocks had settled into a permanent position, they were to he capped by a monolithic mass of concrete extending a little above lowwater mark to six feet above highwater mark. That form of construction was similar to that of Colombo Breakwater and several others. In 1884, the same year of Mr. Goodall’s report, the Board obtained a confirmstary report from Messrs C. N. Bell and W. H. Scott, who recommended the extension of the Breakwater an addition of 3ft. 6ins. to its height, the construction of a parapet, and the construction of a mole. They drew attention to what they considered to be an under-estimate of the cost of the work prepared by Mr. Goodall. They considered that the estinrtte should be increased to £268,000, Mr. Goodall’s estimate being £197,000. The present Breakwater had cost, according to figures supplied by the Board’s secretary, £285,000, which did not include the placing of a large number of blocks on the outside of the Breakwater. Messrs. Bell and Scott estimated the cost of the above work at £487,000. If this sum wasincreased by 75 per cent, to bring up to the present-day value, it would amount to £850,000.

ESTIMATES OF COSTS.. Witness’ estimate to extend the Breakwater was £387,000, constructing the mole £337,000, raising the present breakwater, and also the extension to a height of 3ft. 6ins. above the present level, £BO,OOO, making a total of £797,000. That was to say that their estimate to-day was £,>3,000 below what Bell and Scott would estimate the same work at. Neither Mr? Goodall nor Bell and Scott realised the destructive action of the waves on the shingle on the sea beach. Bell and Scott made a suggestion that the shingle might be got rid of by transporting from the weather side of the Breakwater and depositing it on the Westshore beach. This suggestion confirmed the fact that they expected the shingle to overwhelm the Breakwater the same as it was doing at Timaru. The harbour authorities in Timaru were appreciating the accumulation of shingle southwards of the Breakwater as providing veryvaluable land. In about 30 years time, the harbour authorities in Timaru would have quite a different opinion of the matter. Shingle had accumulated to an extent sufficient to enable the Marine Parade to be continued round to the Breakwater, and at one time the accumulation was sufficient to cause the shingle to be driven over the end of the Breakwater. At the present time, owing to the lack of floods in the Tuki Tuki, rather serious denudations had occurred between the baths and the Breakwater. The Harbour Board would be ill-advised to permit the removal of any shingle from the foreshore.

At this stage the Commission aujorned until 10 o’clock this morning.