NEW HARBOUR DREDGE

Otago Witness, Issue 3775, 20 July 1926, Page 9

NEW HARBOUR DREDGE

i THE QUESTION OF TYPE. The question of the type of dredge to be procured by the Otago Harbour Board was discussed for two hours at an adJ'ourned special meeting of the board on Fuly 12, and it was decided that the delay that would be occasioned by awaiting the engineer’s return could not be afforded, ana as a result it was resolved that the engineer should decide the matter and call for tenders. The vexed problem of the place of manufacture was discussed, but consideration ended with an agreement that there was nothing to prevent local firms tendering. Mr J. Loudon presided. Others present were Captain C. M’Donald, Messrs W. Wilkinson, A. Cable, T. Anderson, D. F. H. Sharpe, J. E. MacManus, W. Gow, D. Larnach, K. S. Ramsay, H. M. Driver, H. C. Campbell, and H. E. Moller. The letter from Messrs Btevenson and Cook, of Port Chalmers, already published, in repect of the place of manufacture of the new dredge, which the boa- ' proposed purchasing, was first considered by the meeting. In this letter the Port Chalmers firm urged that local mai.jfact; 3 should be driven an opportunity to prove their ability to undertake the work to the satisfaction of all concerned. “We feel,” said the letter, “that we can be confident in stating that the work can be done as well in our city as elsewhere, and at no greater cost.” The importance, of placing the order locally was specially stressed. A letter from the Manufacturers' Association supporting the letter from Messrs Stevenson and Cook was also read, intimating that a deputation would wait on the board. This deputation met the board last week. The Chairman asked members to express their opinion on the representations made by the local firm and the deputation. Mr K. S. Ramsay said he would like to know why the deputation did not awake to the importance of their mission last November, when the matter was first mooted. The present move would merely serve to delay the acquisition of the dredge for 12 months. MR WILKTE'C MISSION. Mr Anderson moved that the board should safeguard its interests in the future as to the decision of the type of dredge and its place of manufacture by not. hastening to a definite decision in that direction and that the board should accordingly cable its engineer requesting that he should expedite his tour of investigation and return as quickly as possible. The motion also provided that nothing should be done until the engineer had reported fully to the board after his return to the Dominion. Mr Anderson said it was not a matter of why the question was not raised in November. They were awaiting the results of the engineer’s experience gained through his tour abroad. The question which faced them was the bar in its relation to dredging operations. The bar was most dangerous, and it was more than probable that t.hev would eventually lose their dredge. There were outside all sorts of conditions to contend with. The old dredge, he said, had served her purpose. A stationary dredge had proved a great boon in other important ports. Until the engineer had studied all the conditions that governed dredge operations, and had thrown into the matter the experience of his inspection abroad, he considered that the matter of the type of dredge to be adopted should be waived in the meantime. There was too much at stake to make a hasty deci--81011. „ . , Mr Cable produced o section of a model of a continuous bucket dredge which eliminated the link in the present dredge owned by the board and provided 33 1-3 per cent, greater efficiency by having three buckets where two were supplied on the tioard's present dredge. This type of dredge had already been used successfully in the Dominion, and he suggested that such equipment might be considered in connection with the new vessel. The particulars tabled by the engineer made the following comparison with 222 (the old dredge):—New dredge: Length 330 ft, beam 53ft, draught 17ft. Old dredge: Length 212 ft, beam 40ft, draught 14ft. He could not pass these comparisons without expressing his admiration of the pioneer members of the board for adopting such a far-seeing policy by obtaining at BUch an early date a dredge large enough to last the board 40 years. He said this because at the time they secured the 222 they had in the Victoria Channel a depth of only 9ft, and a width of about 70ft. To-day they had a depth of 19ft to 20ft, and an average width of 250 ft. This went to show that they were not making any mistake in regard to size. Again, thiß dredge already agreed to by the board should have a carrying capacity of about 3500 tons, and when working on the bar should load in one hour, and, as mooring would be required, would lift about 21,000 tons in eight working hours, or, say, in 121 days 2,500,000 tons of sand would be removed. This number of days dredging would make a channel on the bar 40ft deep and 1200 ft wide. Again, the dredge decided on would have three motions —that is to say, she would 611 her own hopper or pump to the shore and to barges alongside. A good deal was heard about the advantages of a stationary dredge, with sufficient hoppers to keep the dredge constantly at work. Such a method had always been turned down wherever possible on account of expense. But there were places where barges had to he adopted at any cost. Take the Clyde, in Scotland. When the trust was first formed they had neither land nor waterway, for the reason that the landowners on each side of the river had the rights to the centre of the river from each side; in consequence, the trust had to battle away until they got the waterway free by compensating tne landowners. They therefore had to take the spoil 40 or 50 miles. On this account, the trust built self-propelling stea mhoppers, regardless of expense. A similar condition prevailed in Melbourne. He saw no reason for delaying the building of the new dredge—as all matters of detail should be settled by the engineer while he was in Great Britain. There were many points to be dealt with that could be done only on the spot by the board's engineer, who muat take the

responsibility of the machinery and its working condition, such as sea-going stability in light condition with gear up, also in loaded condition. There was alao the question of trials in regard to speed and satisfactory working of the machinery. The condition of contract and specification in connection with the handing over to the purchaser should be on the following lines, and builders should be aaked to quote accordingly:—After trials for speed and machinery had been carried out to the satisfaction of the purchaser or his representative, the dredge should be handed over at tne port of construction with steam up ana ready for sea; and after trials for speed and machinery had been carrjed out to the satisfaction of the purchaser or his representative, the dredge should be handed over at the* port of Dunedin, the builder paying all expenses until finally taken over by the purchaser. The builders should be asked to give the price for the following:— Dimension b.p., 330 ft and 300 ft, with corresponding beam and depth that would §ive necessary stability and suitable raught. Mr H. M. Driver said that to him the question before them seemed to be whether local firms were to be allowed to tender or not. He thought they should, but he did not know whether they were capable of carrying out the work. That would be determined when tenders were received. He was of the opinion that the engineer should make his report before a decision was made. He would like to stress the importance of fostering local industry. There had been a good bit of delay already and a little more would not do much ahrm. Mr Gow said that he had noticed that the board seemed unable to make up its mind definitely on an important subject. If Mr Anderson's motion were adopted it would mean there would be no dredge for two years, nnd meantime the harbour would suffer. Mr Campbell said he had to agree with the original finding of the board. The old dredge had done good work, But she was done now. Mr Wilkie after his tour would be in a position to state definitely what was required for Otago Harbour, and they should have sufficient faith in their executive officers. He would be guided by builders who had made hundreds of dredges. Board members, if they had the specifications in front of them, would be unable to picture the dredgt in actuality. They should leave it to Mr Wilkie, to whom the harbour was very dear. He had proved himself to the board for many a day. Mr Sharpe said he could not agree with the motion, as the present agitation would defer the arrival of the dredge in D* nedin. This was serious. Many steamers were at present faced with great difficulty in berthing. The type of dredge should be left in the hands of their responsible officer, and the board should be guided by his recommendations. He thought New Zealand firms should be given an opportunity to tender if they could do the work. LOCAL TENDERS. Mr Moller suggested that there was nothing to stop local firms from tendering when the call for tenders had been made in England. The Chairman said the only hindrance would be the fact that English firms •would have their tenders in long before New Zealant. firms could. Mr MacManus: Once the design is decided on will a delay of 40 days matter a great deal? The Chairman: It would have an effect. Mr Campbell: Let Mr Wilkie cable out the type of dredge to be adopted. The Chairman: That would give local firms a chance. MR ANDERSON’S REPLY, Mr Anderson said only a tentative style of dredge had been adopted. Modifications or improvements were probable. It had not been decided whether a stationary or self-propelling dredge should be secured, and the board should not be asked to decide on forwarded specifications. The engineer should come back and report his findings. The arguments already stated had served to prove that delay was nothing, as it would be years after the dredge arrived before the work would be completed. Lyttelton was making arrangements for 20,000 and 25,000 tonners yet to be built, and unless Otago did the same they might as well wipe themselves off the map as a port. It was little wonder that they made no progress they decried the province by refusing to allow the dredge to be built in New Zealand. The engineer should be instructed to return as soon as possible and report. MOTION DEFEATED. The Chairman then put the motion, which was lost by seven votes to five. ALLEGED OVERRIDING. The Chairman then sail that as the motion was lost an alteration iD the original decision had been suggested. Mr Wilkie had had a certain amount of diffidence in undertaking the calling for lenders on his own account. He had been relieved at a suggestion from the speaker that they should calloborate in the matter. But the speaker’s departure had been delayed from July 20 to August 17, and the engineer would have three weeks longer in London than was originally intended. He could spend that time looking round for the type he preferred. ~Then when the speaker joined him they could together call tenders. Mr Anderson objected tnat that would mean the removal of the responsibility f rom the shoulders of the engineer. The Chairman: Not at all. The recommendation will be Mr Wilkie’s. When you receive a cablegram from me it will read: “Engineer recommends such and such a dredge.” Mr MacManus: Then why go Home. Several Members: Finance! Finance! Mr Wilkinson said that such procedure constituted an overriding of the board’s instructions, nd 'he objected to it. Mr Loudon said he objected strongly to the suggestion that he had overridden the board’s instructions. Mr Wilkinson: But it is a fact, and it's here in black and white. The Chairman explained that it was not an instruction and had not been passed by the board. There was no overriding of instructions. Mr Wilkinson said he submitted that any deviation from the original decision of the board was out of order. It was decided to let the original plan stand, that members of the board might not be divided.

It was decided to cable Mr Wilkie to call for tenders as soon as possible, the clause in the minute concerning Mr Loudon’s suggestion as to collaboration to be deleted.