THE OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21736, 30 August 1932, Page 7

THE OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD

TO THE EDITOR,

Sib,—For over five years work has been carried'' on at the mole, and one would naturally expect that by now it would be approaching completion; but, if work were stopped now, 1 make bold to say that, despite the fact of an annual expenditure of £IO,OOO, in less than five months all five years' work would be swept away. We have several fine examples of harbour building in New Zealand; one does not need to go further north than Oamaru and see the size of. the blocks of stone with which the mole has been constructed there, and one is justified in expecting that the Otago Board's staff might have seen it,^too. Had Mr Wilkie. the board's engineer, looked up the records of the boards previous mole, he xvould have seen that the largest crane on that job was a 10-ton one, and as that mole has been swept away one would have thought that, profiting by that mistake of using small stones, he would have installed plant capable of handling stone similar to that at Oamaru. Oamaru has a 25-ton crane and Timaru a 20-ton crane, while the Otago Board's plant consists of two cranes—one 10-ton and one seven-ton and two steam shovels. Unfortunately, the 10-ton crane is not fitted with caterpillars, but has to move on rails. Consequently, when the quarry face was narrow was not room for it, and for months the largest stone tipped on the mole was one of seven tons. Oamaru, Timaru, Westport, and Greymouth prefer 20 or 25-ton blocks.. Out board plumps for seven tons. With a lifting limit of seven tons, it follows that all blocks of stone over seven tons have to be blasted, broken and shattered into smaller pieces. So, for years, the board has been endorsing the policy of destroying 20-ton and 25-ton blocks. It prefers three seven-ton blocks to one 20-ton block! Further, instead of doing only a little und then consolidating it properly and putting on a suitable " apron," Mr Wilkie has thrown a narrow "razor-back" right out into the Pacific Ocean, and repeatedly the sea breaks it down and smashes through. One would have thought that he would have been guided by the experience of the Napier Harbour Board, whicti a few years ago had its mole smashed up through not putting, on a satisfactory " apron " and consolidating properly. Briefly, the faults of the mole arc these: (1) The cranes are too iight and small. If Oamaru needs a 25-ton crane, surely the Heads is not suitable for 10-ton blocks. (2) The trucks are unsuitable; they are too'light, small, badly balanced, and unsafe. Timaru uses better trucks, but perhaps the Otago Board dislikes using New Zealand-made trucks. (3) The superstructure of this mole is lighter, narrower, and lower than the previous one. (4) The 10-ton crane should be fitted with caterpillars. It has cost the board hundreds of pounds through buckling rails. (5) The plant should be electrified. It will probably be news to some that the Board hires three drays and horses from a Dunedin carting contractor, paying him over f 200 annually, or over £IOOO since the mole started. As the whole outfit ccull be purchased for £250, why waste £750? Years ago Mr Wilkie recommended purchasing a " Brotherhood ", compressor for the quarry, and the board purchased it for £I3OO. It put it in a nice red shed but did not use it. For a fraction of that money the board could have brought the electric power from Port and electrified the plant and saved hundreds of pounds in wages, coal, and cartage. In conclusion, may I recommend the board to go down and inspect the mole? Perhaps the new member for the country will discover ways of saving his colleagues' money without altering the dues or blocking Mussel Bay reclamation.—l am, etc.. Barnacle Bill. Dunedin, August 20.