THE KAIONE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 268, 27 October 1932, Page 8

THE KAIONE

h:r capacity undoubted WORK AT WELLINGTON. COMPARED WITH NAPIER. In continuation of what waa published yesterday with regard to the work done at Napier by the Wanganui Harbour Board’s dredge Kaione, it is ®nly fair to mention, what Mr. Hogan, chairman of that Board, pointed out, that the dredge when sent to Napier was in perfect order. In fact, something like £2,500 had been spent upon her and she had been passed as “100 Al” by Lloyds’ surveyor at Wellington. He also added that a look at the “eutter” which had been used at Napier and at the marks on the vessel itself would be quite enough to indicate the difficult conditions unJer which it had been working at the Napier Breakwater. The “Tribune” representative actually saw the cutter, most of whose massive teeth had been broken or worn away, while its flange, 2 inches in width, and made of the most durable steel, had also been worn down to the extent of half an insj. THE “LAYER” THEORY. The dredge engineer, Mr. Dalziel, Was asked what he thought of the suggestion that the rock at the Breakwater was only a thin layer overlying ■and or mud. To this he replied that he would be greatly surprised should that prove to be the case, at the same time producing some formidable ■amples of the formation with which he had to contend. As to the capacity of the Kaione to do the work to which it had been expected she would be put, the Wanganui chairman produced the following report as to her operations ■t Wellington. ; GOOD WORK DONE ELSEWHERE. “In Wellington where the Kaione was working as a hopper dredger in material readily settling in the hoppers, •he dredged and pumped ashore J,530,WK) tons in a period of 193 working: weeks of single shift. During this time ahe steamed 25,490 miles to and from the dredging ground. The average Tate of dredging was 872 tons per hour, and the average rate of pumping -•shore was 2000 tons per hour. The cost, excluding hire charges, amounted to very little more than 6}d per ton. “It is interesting to note that, under the system she was working, only ■bout 19} per cent, of the time was occupied in dredging and 8} per cent, in pumping ashore. Of the balance of .the time 35} per cent, was occupied in ■teaming and 36 per cent, in weather delays, overhaul, holidays, and other causes. This shows what a large increase would have resulted in the dredging returns, with its consequent reduction in unit cost, had the steaming time and extra pumping time been (occupied in dredging and pumping •shore in one operation.”

, COMPARISON WITH NAPIER. Furthermore, the dredge engineer Jointed out that comparison with the xeturns at both Wellington and New Plymouth proved conclusively the difficult kind of work she was asked to do at Napier. At New Plymouth the dredge handled up to 8,800 tons of material in 8 hours. At Wellington, Where the material after being lifted bad to be transported a distance of 6 miles and then pumped ashore, up to 38,350 tons were handled in a month ■f 22 working days. In Mr. Dalziel’a report to his board dated September 1 be stated that in 23 dredging days at Napier Breakwater only 15,137 tons Were lifted and that the dredge was ■till working cutting rocks. It may be as well again to empha■ise the fact that the sole desire of the ■hairman of the Wanganui Board and of the engineer is to relieve their idredge of what they consider entirely ■njustifiablc detractions cast upon her ■nd it is only right they should be ■fforded opportunity of making their protests public.