THE NEW DOCK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7647, 26 May 1886, Page 3

THE NEW DOCK.

TO THK EDITOK. Sir, —As a proposal is now before the Harbour Board to lengthen and alter the large dock now being contracted, it would, perhaps, not be out of place to make a few i remarks. Aβ regards the necessity of the dock I have very little to say, but think, in spite of Mr. Aickin's opinion to the contrary, that the tendency of construction of oceangoing ships and steamers is to increase their size in length and beam, not in depth, ae experience has taught builders that there iH a limit in that direction. The disaster to the monster Great Eastern was their first leeson. They find that sinking the hull beyond a certain depth is conducive to disaster. Of course Ido not mean that a vesael of any depth could not be propelled in ordinary weather, but there are times at eea when the skill of man is of no avail against the elements, and they have found ont that if a vessel did not rise to the eea she became like a rook, and merely an impediment for the sea to break over. You will recollect in the wreck of the City of London the ship, overloaded, sank ; the boat, overloaded also, lived in the bad weather. Why? Because, like a seabird on water, being baoyant, the boat was no resistant to the terrific force of the water. The builders of England have slowly realised these facte, and 1 could recount many other instances if necessary. Now 26 feet to 28 feet seema to be the recognised stand to which a vessel can be sunk with safety. With these facte, which ought to have been known to the skilled engineers employed and consulted by the Harbour Board, the depth of water in, the Suez Canal is only 25 feet, and the pro« posal is to Rive 29 feet to the Panama Canal. Then, with these facts, which should have received grave consideration from the constructors, why was it necessary to give our monster of a dock 33 feet of water on the sill ? I am informed that the last five feet, if it could have been eaved, would have saved some thousands. As it is, as Mr. D. H. Mackenzie told them at the time, it was SO much waste of money, which is wanted for other purpose., and for which useless interest will have to be paid for years to come. la writing these lines I do so to endeavour to show that perhaps criticism may save the public, through the Harbour Board, vast sums of money in harbour improvements, and lead others to follow my example.—X am, &c, DtTKE HUMPHKBI. Auckland, May 14, 18S6.