PROPOSED NEW WHARF.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13655, 25 July 1908, Page 6

PROPOSED NEW WHARF.

TO BE BUILT OF TIMBER, The resident engineer submitted to tno Harbour Board yesterday m S B 'J%-> for a new wharf between the Moody Wharf and North Mole. His report, on the plans is as follows: "It is proposed to construct the whair parallel- to the Moody Wharf, leaving a space 300 feet wide between thin. IHe new wharf will have a width of 48 fcet 6 inches between the kerbs, and tlio outer or seaward end will be semi-circular in shape. The extreme length ot uia structure over all' is 796 feet, "The wharf, as designed, will anoid 1140 feet (570 feet on cither side) of berthage accommodation, with a depth of 30 feet at L.W.O.S. tides. ",At the north side of the jetty, near the shore end, a commodious boat-landing stage is provided, principally to accommodate the fishing industry. "The plans submitted are for a wharf to be constructed of ironbark timber, and should last for 35 or 40 years, and probably longer. (An estimate of cost was given—not to be published.) .... "To construct a wharf of similar dimensions in ferro-concrete, 1 estimate, would cost fully £36,000, and owing to the range or scend in the harbour during heaw weather, such a wharf would require timber fender piling to relieve it from the shock of vessels moored alongside. "In February, 1907, a firm quoted for u. wharf at the north mole 1300 feet long by 12 feet 6 inches wide, equal to 16,250 square feet of surface ami, for the sum of £32,000. This works out at 39s per square foot, and allowing for a very liberal reduction in cost since then, say, 20s per square foot now. At this rate the present proposal'in ferro-concrete would cost £40,000.

"The Engineer of the. Lyttelton Harbour Board, when dealing .with a similar matter in the early part of the present year, estimated the cost of ferro-concrele to be about double that of an ironbark structure.

"As tearing on this subject of ferroconcrete versus timber it will be noticed in the recent leport furnished to the Lytttllon Harbour Board by Messrs Cootie, Son. and Matthews, on the canal scheme, etc., that they recommend timber wharves similar to those, already constructed at Lvttelton.

" There appears to be no doubt about the (durability of unsheathed ironbark piles 'in these waters, u and one of the old piles in the Moody Wharf recently examined confirms • this, for (with the exception of the sapwood)' the timber is in a perfect state of preservation.

" Taking all the circumstances into consi

deration, I think an ironbark limber wharf, if the cost does-not materially -exceed the amount estimated, will-bo the better proposal to adopt." The Standing GomniiHee recommended: .—" (1) That seventy-eight weeks be allowed to the contractor, during which the work shall be completed. (2) That £2O per week shall be the penalty for any time over and above the seventy-eight weeks. (5) That the contractor shall main-tain tho works for one month after completion. (4) That the deposit shall be £500."The chairman moved—'• That the plans, conditions, and specifications for the proposed timber wharf between the Moody Wharf and the North Mol« be adopted, and on the same being approved by the -Marino■ Department" tenders to be- invitediu Australia and the Dominion, six weeks being allowed for tho iceeipt of the tenders." ' :

Mr Bowkcr said- he would have preferred ferroconcrete, the coining material for that sort of work, but as they could not afford it they must be content wit.!) timber. The repairs to wooden wharves had cost £20,000 in the last 22 years. Mr Thew said they would save interest in 22 years enough to build another wharf. The chairman'*; motion was carried' unanimously, and the Standing Committee's recommendaton was also adopted.