AUCKLAND'S WHARVES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18929, 29 January 1925, Page 11

AUCKLAND'S WHARVES.

{THE QUESTION OF REPAIRS.

f —-» —-—— HARBOUR BOARD'S POLICY. FUTURE OF WESTERN WHARF. DRASTIC REMEDIES CHALLENGED. A singular position exists concerning wharves at Auckland. There is an open and declared feeling among port authorities that the report ot tho recent commission of inquiry into the partial collapse of the Western Wharf and conditions under the shore end of the new Prince's Wharf was more disquieting than conditions warranted, that, some of the commission's recommendations as to remedial work were extravagant, and that the former chief engineer to the Auckland Harbour Board., who made no defence but merely tendered Ids resignation, which was accepted, it is stated, by eight, votes to six, suffered a harsh pen alt}. There have been so many conflicting reports about the structural conditions and alleged defects of the. Prince's Wharf and the remainder of the Western Wharf that the New Zealand Herald accepted the suggestion of the chairman of the Auckland Harbour Board, Mr. H. 11. Mackenzie, to make a special investigation in company with an independent consulting engineer, to bo engaged by this journal for that purpose. This investigation has been made, tho advisory engineer being Mr. J. Blair Mason, formerly chief engineer to the Otago Harbour Board, who has had a wide expedience (if harbour works throughout the Dominion. A thorough examination ot !,he.se wharves was facilitated by Mr. Mackenzie and officers of the Harbour Hoard. Interesting circumstaw.es and conditions were disclosed. The board is using the greater part of the remaining portion of the Western Wharf as it stands, and will continue to do so, it is declared, without making expensive alterations. A strained section of tho wharf will be reconditioned, and the submerged portion which toppled into the harbour will be left as a wreck, involving too much capense to bo cleared away. Loss of £25,000 Involved,.. This means in plain words ihat soms of the drastic recommendations of the commissioners, Mr. F. W. Furkert, chief engineer. Public Works Department, and Mr. L/nis ,1. IL Williams, engineer to the Lytteiton Harbour Board, arc in respect of certain remedial works practically to be_ rejected. Several important questions of vital public interest are involved. The outer portion of the Western Wharf first collapsed on October 28 last, with little or no warning, the. initial disintegration being a slow settlement of a part of the structure about 780 ft, distant from the shore end. Later, the stricken section, 240 ft. in length, swung outward and dropped into the harbour. The construction of the whole wharf cost 190,000. It is estimated officially that the joss caused by the partial collapse is not less than £25,000. It is not necessary again to discuss the causes of the _ collapse. Most of the wrecked part of the wharf is under water. Lxperts still grope and theorise. It would foe. folly for a layman to postulate an opinion. The questions of first importance now are: What is to be done about the remainder of the wharf ? Js the. structure, as it stands, safe for shipping and the handling of cargo ? Should the board carry out the recommendations of .the commission of civil engineers 1 Commissioners' Recommendations. u The commission was asked io state what works, if any, are recommended to prevent the recurrence or extension of sacti collapse in respect of the balance of the Western Wharf, and what steos are requisite to make good the damage I" Frankly, the answer was disconcerting. ne reply was this: *• The influences which caused the collapse of the outer nart of the Western Wharf are Operating throughout the inner part, and the wharf has "indications that it is disintegrating under the stresses now upon it. The proper and only permanently effective remedy for this state of affairs is to remove the'stress and its resultant strain. This can only be done by taking out tho filling behind the random rubble or concrete retaining wall, removing the wall itself and taking away the rubble mound on which that wall stands." These suggested remedies involved an estimated expenditure of £40,000. The board apparently flinched at the prospect of such a financial outlay, and appointed a minor commission to report on the question of remedies. A progress report has already been submitted and made public, and the final report of this second commission is in preparation. No secret is made of the fact that it is the intention of the hoard to seek a less expensive way to securing the utility of the wharf now standing. It has" been urged on behalf of the board that its decision to use 600 ft. of the wharf as it stands is an&lagous to the right of a perturbed patient to consuli. another surgeon if his trouble docs not appear to warrant a major operation as recommended by a previous adviser. And in this case it is contended that there is no danger in doing without a drastic operation. Condition of Western Wharf. The inspection of the Western Wharf was made at low tide. The structure in parts is a sorry spectacle. Eight hundred feet from the" shore end the wharf terminates in a tangle of shattered concrete piles stubbornly attached to the, submerged but broken decking of the wrecked portion, which lies just under low water, like a flooded pavemjnt. The wreck presents a dredging problem. There is at present no disposition on the part of the Harbour Board to attempt a [solution. Workmen are retrieving the fender piles. This salvage necessitates service of a diver. If in the fczture it be decided to replace the submerged portion of the original wharf, a new structure will 1)6 built outside the eastward line of the littered site. But there appears to be no enthusiasm about reconstruction or extension. Disaster has been discouraging. Evidence of Strain. From the ragged seaward end of the remaining portion of the wharf to a point 180 ft. toward the shore, there is ample evidence of strain and fracture, apparently due to the pull of the collapsed portion, before it was cut away. It is now believed by harbour officials that if a small section of the collapsed portion, at tho end of the shed, had been cut out at the initial stage of the mishap, not less, than 200 ft. of the outer length of the structure would have been saved intact. There are nine bays of piles in. the damaged portion of the wharf now standing, and apparently every one* cf the number is more or less fractured just below the bottom waling or brace near low water mark. The damage does not seem to ne bevond repair. It is certain, however, that essential repairs will involve considerable expense. Plan to Save £55,009, Conditions throughout the remaining 600 ft, of the wharf, alongside which two steamers were, moored yesterday, are such as to have caused resentment jamong members of the harbour board and others at tho report of the Commission oi Inquiry. There aro no prominent signs of material damage either to piles, walings, crossbeams or decking- The coping of the wharf is in fairly true alignment, though the same cannot, be said of the outer row of piles on the western side, behind which thousands of tons of filling had been dumped from low-water level to tho top of the wharf. All that material and a rubble retaining wall, which was built close to the outer row of piles, have been removed. This work represents the removal of not less than 5000 yds of tilling at an estimated labonr cost of 7s per yard.

Since the removal of the spoil behind o wharf th© port administrators and visiting engineers have been impressed .fuh the apparent solidity of the strucr f, R(lcet -> is asserted that : this part of the wharf has not been damaged at all, and that it is absolutely safe for the berthing of ships and the handling of cargo. Now that the wide gap has been Tuade between the wharf and the western tide deflector, a layman is struck oy the lack of land ties to prevent the pud on the wharf seaward bv heavy vessels moored to the narrow structure. . : '" vas recommended bv the commissioners that if the board required the 'Jse of the area between tho back of the l-"'i i ll3o ' tide deflector, the area which has now been cleared of the c,riginal filling should be either covered with a reinforced concrete wharf, or any tilling be held back by a gravity wall on piles driven at a slight rake to provide against forward movement and furnished with adequate land ties. i In tho rubble mound about the pi.'-js of rf ,cro a)l € approximately 03,000 yds .of stone to remove which would cost £,35,000. Tho cost of a reinforced concrete wharf from the present structure to the tide deflector is estimated at £30,000. There appeals to be little prospect of either work being done. It is quite clear there is no intention of ramoving the rubble mound, now that the retaining wall and filling behind it- have been removed. What will be the position, however, if the Marine Department insists upon its removal ? Stability of Prince's Wharf, An inspection of the under part of the shore end of Prince's Wharf did not provide any cause for apprehension. Out of 2252 piles distributed over an area of 104 acres one has been fractured by pressure from a rubble-wall running from the reclaimed land at the entrance to the wharf northward for about two chains. The pile was driven out of alignment to begin with and when the settlement of the retaining wall inevitably applied a strain, the pile was squeezed and frac tured, while a brace was cracked at its joint with the pile. The pressure has been removed, and there is now a clear spaco between the wall and the pile. A buttress of bagged cement provides an additional check to possible further movement of the wali. On the northern face of this retaining wail there is a pronounced crack. Here again counter-support has been given. Careful tests have been made frequently during the past two months without the least particle of evidence of movement. Any suggestion that Prince's Wharf is "on the move" is ridiculed as nonsense.