HARBOUR INQUIRY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 212, 22 August 1927, Page 5

HARBOUR INQUIRY

COMMISSION’S SITTINGS TO-DAY’S EVIDENCE. MR. R. W. HOLMES CONTINUES. The commission inquiring into the affairs ot the Napier harbour, port charges and reclamation continued its sittings at Napier this morning. Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., of Wanganui, presided, and associated with him were Mr. A. C. McKenzie, harbour engineer, of Melbourne, and Mr. J. B. Waters, merchant, of Dunedin. Mr. A. C. Gray, K.C., of Wellington, with Mr. M. R. Grant, appeared for the Napier Harbour Board while Mr. H. B. Lusk represented the Marine Department. Resuming his evidence, Mr. R. W. Holmes, consulting engineer, said that there were a few further statements in connection with the Inner Harbour in Maxwell, Williams and Mason's report that he did not propose to comment upon. In regaru to the Breakwater Harbour, Maxwell, Williams and Mason in their report stated that owing to the uncertainy in respect to the Inner Harbour they considered that the best course to Ssrsue would be to complete the uter Harbour. They anticipated that the range which had hitherto been troublesome would be greatly diminished. An important statement of their’s in regard to the reclamation of the ponds was that if the value of these areas was correctly estimated by Mr. Nelson, they would be a substantial set-off against the cost of the work; indeed, they may be so valuable as to justify their reclamation independent of the Inner Harbour proposal. ASSET OF DREDGINGS. Apparently, said witness, they did not take into any account the valuable asset which would be derived from the dredgings of the Inner Harbour. With regard to the Breakwater Harbour they also stated that the deposit of sand drift under the existing shelter would also be much less. Regarding this, witness held that their contention was incorrect, as recent soundings showed that the whole oi the drift was now collecting under the lee of the Breakwater. In theii recommendations regarding the con struction of the western mole, they referred to a reinforced concrete plat form, which would either be used to form a quay way, or for the purpose of acting as a staging for the carrying of material for the construction of the mole. Their estimate of £50.000 would not cover the cost of constructing such a staging, even at the date of their report, and therefore the cost of the rack required for the mole was not included in that item. A next important remark of theirs was: “It is practicable to hold the largest vessel against a cross wind, but not across a surge in the water, however slight.” This, said witness, was quite at variance with experience gained at New Plymouth, where the shipping companies had insisted upon the Harbour Board construtting a breakwind along the Newton King wharf in order to shelter ocean liners during westerly storms. The report went on, said witness, to draw attention to the range which occurred in Lyttelton harbour during storms which drove seas right up to the head of the bay near which Lyttelton was situated. This remark was rather unreconciled with that regarding the range at Napier. At Lyttelton the easterly seas used to pass across the entrance, the difference in level between the trough and crests of the waves producing a susceptible surge in the harbour which made it necessary to locate the wharves so that they lay as near as possible in a line towards the entrance. The position there had been complicated through carrying out such reclamation. A recoil now caused a disturbance at the entrance, which was complained of by ship masters. In the proposed location of the mole at Napier the end was to be curved so that waves which now came round the Breakwater would strike the outer face of the mole, causing a similar confusion. This was an important point, as vessels would be close to a lee shore when navigating the entrance.

STONE FOR PROTECTING APRON

Messrs. Maxwell Williams and Mason also recommended the use of more cement in the construction of concrete blocks, thus supporting Mr Marchant’s opinion and to some extent witness’s own. They stated in regard to the obtaining of stone that large masses of 20 to 30 tdns should be used for the protecting apron. Up to the present witness did not ever remember seeing a stone of as large a mass as from 20 to 30 tons, and from his personal detailed inspesttion of the quarries and exposed faces around Napier and also from Takapau to Waikoau. he had not seen a single place where one could say definitely that large masses of stones might be quarried in single pieces, with the one exception ot Parke Island, where a limited quantity of rock was available, and which would be exhausted in using for the reinstatement of the Inner Harbour moles They recommended that the board should be provided with a Babnitz rock cutter. Many years ago Dunedin Harbour Board had imported a similar cutter for dealing with rocks at the entrance at Port Chalmers. It was only used once, and it may be obtained at a v-.ry low figure at the present time. Witness was under the impression that it was not further used because they were rather frightened of it. Messrs. Maxwell Williams and Mason also state that a vessel suitable for use as a tug boat for working the outer harbour was »i table, if not an actual necessity ; id they suggested a combined tv and dredge. There was no reason why such a vessel could not be equally applicable to the Inner Harbour where, as in all other harbours, it was necessary to carry out a certain amount of maintainance dredging from time to time. COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES. Witness compared Maxwell Williams and Mason’s estimates for the Inner and Outer Harbours: As regards the Inner Harbour the protective mole at the entrance, estimated to cost £120,000. was not required. That immediately reduced the estimate to £298.000. Referring to the estimate for the Breakwater they estimated the extension at only £7O per foot whereas the actual average cost of the Breakwater as constructed had at that date amounts! to £ll2 per foot, and as the work in

the extension would be heavier than the average of that completed, a higher figure than the £ll2 should have been used. The next item, a new jetty in ferro-concrete worked out at 12/- per square foot. Now about that date small wharves of a light description were being constructed in Wellington harbour, under witness's supervision, by contract at a cost varying between 15/and 18/-, and in a much less depth of water. THE WESTERN MOLE. In regard to the western mole, continued witness, the extra amount would increase the total of £278,600 to a much higher figure than the total given for the Inner Harbour after deducting the cost of the mole, which was not required. Anyone reading the reports of Mr. Marchant and of Maxwell, Williams and Mason, would think that the Inner Harbour was the last harbour that could be recommended for Napier. They set up various bogies in their reports which had no real foundation, while the references to the Breakwater could best bo described by the quotation, “Everything in the garden is lovely.” Mr. Holmes then drew attention to a matter which vitally concerned the value of some of the reports which had been reviewed. With regard to the outer harbour, there was the perfectly independent report of Mr. McGregor in 1875. There was then a similar independent report of Mr. Goodall in 1884, another by Mr. Marchant in 1906. The reports of Messrs. Bell and Scott, Bell and Maxwell, and Maxwell, Williams and Mason, could only be considered because of the continuity of the line of thought passing through them. In the first was Mr. Bell, in the second Mr. Bell and Mr. Maxwell, while the idea was carried on by Mr. Maxwell in their report. Mr. Bell was asked to report on Mr. Goorall’s report, which he did, supporting it. It was hardly to be expected that he would condemn it in his subsequent report, nor would Mr. Maxwell condemn his previous report. Mr. Holmes then referred to the reports dealing with the Inner Harbour, stating that the first was by John Carruthers, the next by Sir John Coode, the next by Mr. W. Culcheth, the next by Cullen and Keele, but previous to the latter Mr. G. Nelson prep: red a report in 1909. The report of Mr. Carruthers had already been dealt with. It was difficult now to decide whether or not Sir John Coode was able to estimate the future volume of trade when he reported. Sir John Coode was also not able to visualine the great increase in the size of vessels that had since taken place as a result of steamers superceding the sailing craft. In 1880, a large vessel had a draught of about 30 feet. MR. G. NELSON'S REPORT. In regard to Mr. G. Nelson’s report, witness considered it a very valuable one. Mr. Nelson was very well informed, and had received a mechanical engineering education, and he had sufficient intelligence to be able to handle engineering problems which perhaps were outside his usual avocation in a way which would rather surprise anyone having an intimate acquaintance. It fortuitously happened that witness was able to have a discussion with Mr. Nelson regarding his proposal, and also with some works in another district dealing with river control, and witness drew, as a result, that Mr. Nelson was well read and understood both his subjects. It was for that reason that Mr. Nelson’s Inner Harbour report was most valuable. He did nut intend dealing with it in detail owing to it having been referred to Cullen and Keele to deal with.

Before remarking upon the next report, Mr. Holmes said that Mr, Napier Bell was held in very high estimation as a marine engineer throughout both Australia and New Zealand, in fact a sort of glamour surrounded him in a way that led everyone, including members of the engineering profession, to accept without question any report that he put forward. Mr. Bell was no better than the rest of mankind and was subject to errors of judgment as was the case with every man. Referring to the Inner Harbour, Cullen ano Keele, said witness, dealt with an entrance channel with a depth oi 35ft., having a width of 600 ft. So far as navigation was concerned, witness considered that a channel 400fU in width and a depth of 31ft. would suffice. During the prevalence of rough weather the width and depth named was desirable to make the approach safe

ENTRANCE TO BRISBANE RIVER

As considerable reference had been made bv witnesses to the channel. Mr. Holmes drew attention to the entrance to the Brisbane river. Witness had been there, having had a talk with Mr. Cullen and the question of the harbour there. The channel at Brisbane by which vessels entered from the sea was 400 ft. in width, being dredged to a depth of 24ft., the spring tide rise being 7ft., giving a maximum depth of 31ft. The distance from the 24ft. contour to the 18ft. contour was one mile. From the latter to the 6ft. contour was threequarters of a mile. From that 1 contour to high water mark was three miles, making a total length for the channel of over four and a half miles. Before this cut was made the old entrance channel was about one-third longer, having a sharp bend with a deflection of about 40 degrees where the new cut departed from it. Comparing the entrance to the Brisbane river with its length of 4J miles with the entrance channel for the proposed Inner Harbour at Napier which was at a maximum of one mile in length, it would be seen that navigators had a much more serious problem to contend with in a channnel 400 ft. in width than they would have at Napier in a channel 600 ft. in width. It so happened at Napier that the length of the 600 ft. channel had become reduced through natural agencies to 1800 ft. through the 30ft. contour lines. Mr. McKenzie: When you are inside a fairway head at Brisbane are you in more sheltered water than you are in to-day?—Yes. Do you know Port Kembla?—Yes, I have just come from there. How would weather conditions t Port Kembla compare with Napier?— Port Kembla is slightly better protected naturally than Napier. At t’’at port, which is a breakwater, -ve always maintain full steam. CABLE TO MR. CULLEN. Owing to the doubts which had been thrown upon the feasibility of navigating the proposed channel to tl>e Inner Harbour, owing to the

awful effect of cross seas and high winds, witness cabled Mr. Cullen on Saturday: “What size seas crest trough strength direction wind nrevent 8 large ocean steamers entering Brisbane rives excepting floods. What maximum size seas occur at mouth of dredged channel.” A reply was received as follows: “Brisbane discharges Moreton Bay. Maximum sea 7 feet, vessels enter all times.” Mr. Holmes said that the reason fol introducing this evidence was not ,n order to win a case as conducted in a court but in order that the Commission might be in possession of facts of what had been done in other places when dealing with situation, which were far worse than those pertaining to the Inner Harbour at Napier. When C-ullen and Keele were present at a special meeting of the Napier Harbour Board on April 23, 1925, the chairman of the board enquired of Mr. Cullen as to his experience on the cutting of channels such as had been suggested ’t Napier. At this stage Mr. Holmes’ evidence was discontinued to enable Captain Brown, master of the Port Mel bourne, now lying in the roadstead to give evidence. CAPTAIN BROWN’S EVIDENCE. Captain Brown deposed that the vessel had a draught of 30ft. Sin., length 521 ft., and a tonnage of 12,450 tons. He had been working the Roadstead since 1904. Captain Brown, aftei an inspection of the plans of the two proposed harbour schemes, stated that the Breakwater would be workable but from experience he would expect that steam would still have to be maintained because he would still expect to find a range and possibly require his ship to leave. Regarding the present height of tho Breakwater, he did not consider it as being sufficient. In ordinary fine weather he could take his vessel in, but should there be any wind from the sea and the vessel light she would be very hard to control, both in making the entrance and inside. Captain Brown said that he would need a tug to work that harbour In ordinary weather lie would want 6 to Bft. under his keel and if there was any swell he would need additional water. With a draught of 30ft in smooth water he would desire 36ft. of water in order to avoid any possible danger. For a vessel drawing. 28ft. a depth of 34ft. would be sufficient. Regarding the Inner Rnrhour Captain Brown considered that in ordinary weather a vessel drawing 28ft would have nb difficulty in working the channel. The last of the flood tide or at slack water would be the best time to work it. He did not consider that the tide deflector would cause any difficulty in entering the basin; whatever there was could be counteracted by steering owing to the fact that by the time that position was reached it would be slack water. In the channel he considered that a tug would be necessary. A space of 1500 ft to 20()01t would be required for pulling up. A vessel like his could be pulled up in 1200 ft; the assistance of a tug would help. Assuming that both harbours were feasible he considered that the Inner Harbour would afford the more shelter, being more sheltered by land. The Breakwater was right on the point and any swell coming in was most likely to have an effect. On approaching the Inner Harbour nt the end of the proposed dredged channel would be encountered the roughest water which would diminish as a vessel came in. The range to-day at the anchorage was between Bft and 10ft At the entrance of the Inner Har hour it was greatly diminished not being strong enough to prevent a vessel working the Inner Harbour He had had experience of artificial harbours in other parts of the world

Mr. Barton: How would you classify the sea to-day?—Heavy swell with no wind.

Mr. Lusk: You wouldn’t be prepared to take your vessel in either harbour?—ln ordinary weather with 34ft low’ water springs and with a rise and fall of four feet I would be prepared to take my vessel in.

AMPLE WATER AT INNER HARBOUR.

There is ample water shown at the Inner Harbour?—Yes.

You would be guided by the advice of a pilot?—Yes. You have not worked either harbours ?—No.

If you were entering a harbour which would you prefer, a head sea or a beam sea?—A head sea.

You would not take your ship in during a current?—l would come in against a current anticipating to enter the basin at slack water. Sup posing I arrived at the basin at slack water there would be an hour in which to get to a berth. What depth would vOu want in the outer channel with to-dav’s range?— Thirty-eight feet. Could you imagine anv difficulty in taking a vessel drawing 28ft into the Breakwater harbour with today’s range?—l would require a tug Would you be guided bv the harbourtmaster, wh 0 said that a tug was not necessary?—! would have a savin that.

To Mr Barton: Assuming that slack water was about one and a-half to two hours after high water in iie Bay, the working margin would be reduced by about two feet.

Mr Lusk: In a stay of two or three days you,wouldn’t let vour steam down?—Yes, in a safe harbour, right down except for one boiler. In its present condition the companies would not let masters use the Breakwater.

To Mr Barton: Assuming that I missed slack water, and an ebb tide of four to five knots had started, with the use of a tug I would exnect to get through. It wa s just a matter of using power against the current.

To Mr McKenzie: I would exnect the tug master and the nilot to know the conditions and to know what to do to meet them. To Mr Barton : Assuming that the current was five knots. I would steam up at six knots. With reciprocating engines I would want 1500 feet ro pull up in at that speed. In mv opinion 1200 feet would not be ouite safe. Mr Barton; What about enterinn these harbours after dark ?—Given a calm night and with a man with local knowledge. I don’t see whv thev should not be worked. How long do vou think it wou.d take vou to berth from the time vou entered the outer channel?—To tie up about an hour and a-half How much of that is required after reaching the basin? —Well, the first mile could be covered at full speed which would 1 not fake longer than ten minutes; the remaining section between the moles to the basin would extend the time to three-quarters of an hour if a five-knot current was running,