THE TIMARU HARBOR.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2612, 25 January 1894, Page 4

THE TIMARU HARBOR.

REPORT OP THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

The Shingle Question. (Concluded). "The Commissioners' proposal.—The position for the dredge chosen by the Commissioners is the one proposed by myself. They say : ' The dredge suction pipe would be connected to the fixed pipe by means of a ball and socket aud telescopic joint,' etc. That is all very well to say, but they do not show how it is to be done. That is where the last Commissioners' plan broke down. There is also another point which I think would be scarcely workable. The platform to carry the end of the pipe extends beyond the end of the wharf a distance of 26 feet and in front a distance of 9 feet, behind which the dredge would have to be moored to enable the joint to be made, and I think it would have to be carried still further in front of the wharf, as the foundation blocks of the breakwater there project abont 3 feet in front of the monolith. The harbormaster ought to be consulted if he thinks it possible to introduce a vessel of that size into that position, and make it sufficiently fast to be able to make and keep a joint as suggested. The position for the pipe crane I consider about right, but I am inclined xo think they have placed the horizontal pipe "too high above the water to obtain the requisite speed of the water in the pipes to lift the shingle even at high water, especially with the number of bends in the pipes; and at low water I doubt if it would lift at all. lam also of opinion that they have not allowed enough for the cost. The weight to be carried by the crane —pipes and water — would be about 10 tons on the end of the jib. The distance from the point of support is 70 feet. The reach of the crane Samson is 23 feet, that is to say the reach of the pipe crane is three times that of the Samson. The load of the pipe crane is 10 tons; three times ten is 30 tons, so that the pipe crane will have to be as strong as the Samson crane. I will leave you to judge if £I6OO is sufficient to fit up the scheme. " There are also several things which they are not decided on themselves. For instance they say, 'The suction pipe would be about two feet in diameter, and the uptake pipe probably a little less, but the exact size cau hardly be fixed without knowing what the discharge of the pump i« likely to be when lifting shingle or sand, as determined by trial, nor can the details of the connection of the dredge to the suction pipe be decided without full information as to the joints of the suction pipe fitted on dredge.' They also say,' We do not anticipate any trouble will be experienced in working the suction pipe in the waves, nor any very serious difficulty in working the dredge when attached to the fixed suction pipe, as there should be generally plenty of suitable weather to choose from.' A scheme which can only work in ' suitable weather' I think will scarcely do. One of the main conditions in my opinion ought to be ability to work in all weathers, and I do not Bee how a plan can claim acceptance when some of the fundamental points are not worked out. It is not enough for the outlines of a scheme to be laid down, the whole of the details should be worked out beyond dispute. " Finally, Mr Marchant, when advocating his own scheme, completely condems their plan when he says * This system leaves the floating machinery and arrangements entirely distinct and unconnected with the gear ashore, which I consider is a sine qua non to successful working.' This is equal to saying the Commissioners' scheme is impracticable. "Mr Marchant's proposal is better than the Commissioners', in so far as it would work to a certain extent, whereas the Commissioners' plan would not work at all. He says,' the enclosure containing 2000 cubic yards or more.' An enclosure of the size mentioned would contain 2000 cubic yards or thereabout, but only 1500 yards could be got in in the manner described, and it could only deliver about 700 yards if it were made as proposed. The largest quantity that could be made to run out would be 1000 yards. The objections to Mr Marchant's plan are, as stated by the Commissioners, that in case of a serious breakdown there is very little room for storage, and the great expense of working, as there would be two liftings, one by the Priestnian and one by the dredge. Very often two or three by the Pxießtman, as was the case in the shingle hopper experiment. '• The Commissioners say Mr Marohant states that he has known a storm carry the toe of the shingle bank out as much as 80 feet. 11l 1890 and 18911 made notes of the position of the top edge of the shiDgle slope. On July 28th, 1890, it stood at 430 feet; AugUßt 4th, 380 feet | September 22nd, 510 feet 5 November 3rd, 520 feet; December Bth, 540 feet; January sth, 1891, 530 feet; March oth, 670 feet; June 22nd, 630 feet. On December 15th last, it stood Ift 6in outside Mr Marchant's survey pegs, 690 feet; on the Bth of January it stood at 790 feet. I scarcely think Mr Marchant's scheme would be sufficiently elastic id cope with the above changes. And they certainly emphasize the remarks of Messrs O'Connor and Goodall in their objections to 'suggestion 1' (page 4 of their report) :—' Priestman grab dredgers (as man* 7 as may be found necessary) to work on the breakwater . . . , the stuff

to be taken from thence by steam hopper This would probably be a cheap process, hat it bad to be rejected, for the reabon that it would only work satisfactorily, for any considerable length of time, in the event of the shingle accumulation reaching the breakwater in a uniform progressive manner. This it would not be at all safe to reckon upon, It certainly has not been so in the past.' I do not think the above needs any comment.

"I may say that two months ago I thoroughly explained to Mr Marchant my scheme for shingle removal by trench (with auxiliary aid of Priestman if necessary) to the inside of the harbor, to be there sucked up by the dredge from the bottom, aud in so far as he now proposes to suck up the shingle after it has been deposited in the inside of the harbor, it is simply adopting the plan which I was the first to advocate. I may also say that when Mr Marehaut was planning the arrangements for the shingle shifting experiment I suggested the travelling band for conveying the shingle under the wharf, but ho did not sac the advantages until ho found the water sluiciug was not a great auooeaa.

if through a serious breakdown, necessitating lengthened repairs, and a combination of heavy seas, it could not be taken away, there is room for about 13,000 tons, or ten or eleven weeks' accumulation, without causing a great deal of inconvenience, and in such a position that it could be easily dealt with by any kind of dredge. ' Also the funds necessary for the construction of an extension of the south mole if spent in internal dredging and in increased wharfage accommodation, would greatly relieve the port from the inconvenience experienced during S.E. gales and seas and be otherwise beneficial.' I should say it would be just the opposite. Ido not see how dredging the harbor or building wharves will tend to stop the range or make mooring to the wharves more secure, as the Commissioners seem to imply it would. If there were more wharves as they propose, and they were occupied, there would be a greater difficulty in providing for the safety of the shipping, in a heavy sea, than there is now. What is wanted is either more room or a quieter harbor. Neither dredging nor more wharfage would have any effect in either of these directions, aud I do not see how the money could be spent in dredging, as you have the hands and the dredge to keep as it is, and as the Commissioners say there will be ample time to dredge the shingle and the harbor too.

" There is one point which I think has been to a considerable extent lost sight of. That is the amount of extra labor which has to be employed when there is a heavy range in the harbor, and also the extra wear on the ropes. A certain amount of this would certainly be saved by the extension, the amount of course it would be impossible to say, but it would be something, and let it make the harbor ever so little quieter it would be a great gain, as the range is the sore place. " The Financial aspect:—ln sny estimates I have taken the Commissioners' figures, where available, to avoid dispute. The Commissioners calculate the cost of the construction of the extension for 500 feet at £20,000. They calculate the increased area of reclaimed land to be 11 acres, and allowing 4 acres for streets leaves 7 acres, and the value fixed by Messrs O'Connor and Goodall is £2500 per acre, £17,000, value of three years' shingle removal saved, being the time allowed for the shingle to reach the point at which we propose to commence dredging, of £2250 per annum, £6750; together £21,250. The above represents the capital value, and according to the Commissioners' own showing it leaves £4250 in favor of the extension, besides which there are the following advantages, namely : protection of 300 feet of breakwater, and a certain amount of shelter to the shipping and harbor, which are both conceded by the Commissioners. "I will now go into the current expenses of the two methods, as there really are only two methods to be discussed, lifting by the Priestman crane at once, and passing it through a trench three years henoe. I have had some difficulty in ascertaining what the cost of working the Priestman has been in the past, but it was at work on Moody wharf for 68 days in 1886, and the expense was £485 10a. Dredging from the wharf 68 days, which was all the time it was dredging in that year, gives a little over £7 per day, which, allowing 300 working days in the year gives £2IOO per annum. But to be on the safe side, as shingle would not be quite so bad to dredge, I will take onehalf, say, £llOO, as the annual running expense of the Priestman crane. The shingle-shifting experiment with the Priestman and hopper lasted three months, and the expense of the dredgin g according to the annual balance-sheets was £245, which comes to very near the same amount. Current expenses £llOO, interest on price of cfan9 £6O, deprecaition £6O, interest and depreciation, etc., on bins £SO; estimated annual cost of Mr Marchant's plan £1270. " Interest on cost of 500 feet extension (20,000) being the annual coßt by my plan £IOOO. " The expense of lifting by the new dredge being the same in both oases, the balance in favour of the trench in current expenses alone is £270 per annum. " And then we have all the contingent advantages of enlarged reclamation, quieting of the harbour, and saving of three years shifting to the good, as well as the very important consideration that the berthage accommodation will not be interfered with. "Wit, Parr. « January 15th, 1894." A letter was read from Messrs Perry, Perry and Kinnerney, the board's solicitors, on the board's legal responsibility with regard to any destruction of land on the northern beaches—" a suggestion underlying the Commissioners' observations) of responsibility by the board for anticipated ftitUra damage. 0 The solicitors quoted the board's authority and a number of decisions of the Courts at Home in parallel cases, and concluded: —" We are of opinion that your board is irresponsible for any injury that may result from the northern foreshore being denuded of shingle as a result of works constructed by your board uoder statutory authority, ana tliat your board would not be justified in undertaking any such responsibility, its power in that respect being only coextensive with its duty."