OUR CRUSHER PLANT

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume XXX, Issue 8498, 5 August 1933, Page 3

OUR CRUSHER PLANT

DISCUSSED BY BOROUGH COUNCIL

CRITICISM OF ENGINEER

NEW PLANT TO BE INSTALLED

Referred back to the special committee for further investigation and a written report, the much-discussed question of the condition of the crushing plant at the Grand Junction tip and the supply of road metal was again before the Waihi Borough Council at Wednesday night’s meeting.

The committee, consisting of Councillors C. F. Butcher (deputy-Mayor) and A. B. Robinson, and the borough engineer, Mr M. F. Haszard, had been requested to ascertain and state the quantity of each class of metal required, the condition of the plant and the cost of putting it in good order, and also to make inquiries as to the possibility of purchasing a good second-hand crusher

“LET THE COUNCIL DOWN?’

There was, however, no written report and Cr. Robinson in introducing the subject said the present crusher had been found to bo terribly out of order. The committee had consulted members of the Thames foundry owners, Messrs Judd Bros, and Messrs Price Bros., and both had inspected the plant, after which Mr Judd had given a price for repairing the crusher (£7O) but was not inclined to give a guarantee. Mr Price had not submitted a quotation for repairs, but had offered to supply a new crusher, complete with pulley, fly wheel and manganese steel jaws (f.0.b.) for £2BO. The question the council now had to decide was whether it would purchase the sec-ond-hand outfit in Auckland —inspected by the borough engineer—a f . a cost of £195 or buy the new crusher offered by Price Bros. The council had been assured by Mr Haszard that manganese steel jaws could not bo procured in New Zealand, yet Mr Price had told the committee that the jaws had been manufactured at his foundry for years. The replacements of iron jaws had been the chief cause of the crusher trouble. As to the cost of metal, the engineer had always let the council down badly in that he had never been within a shilling of his estimate.

THE ENGINEER’S REPLY

Mr Haszard, replying, said that Cr. Robinson had not put the position correctly. He (the speaker) had never said that the type of jaw referred to was not procurable in New Zealand; what he had informed the council was that from information he had gathered from representatives of different engineering firms the only place where the steel manganese jaws could be procured was Christchurch. Mr Price had not said that his firm had been making these jaws for years but that it had been casting the steel jaws for some time. With regard to the allegation that he had been “letting the council down on the cost of metal supplies” he would point out that in 1927, when ho took over the position of consulting engineer, he had found that the metal requirements as estimated by his predecessor for the current year provided for 2600 yards, of which 1000 yards was unbroken metal, 1000 yards from the crusher and 600 yards chips and fines from the crusher or purchased outside; the estimated costs delivered on the roads of this quantity to be 8s for the unbroken metal, 10s for the broken metal and 15s for chips and fines. APer the installation of the small crusher at the Grond Junction tip and later the larger crusher at the same place the metal handled increased to 2213 yards in 1928, 4891 yards in 1929, 5015 yards in 1930, 8092 yards in 1931 and 8750 yards in 1932. The cost of this metal delivered on the roads had been approximately 7s 6d per yard and the greater portion of the metal now used was creek metal of superior quality.

ATTACK NOT JUSTIFIED Cr. H. W. Hopkins deprecated the action of Cr. Robinson and his attack on the engineer. It was extremely wrong and extremely unjust for the councillor to make those wild and exaggerated statements. The report of the special committee was pitiable. Cr. Butcher complained that the borough engineer had gone to Auckland to inquire about a second-hand crusher without consulting either Cr. Robinson or himself. He was disgusted with the whole thing, and as far as he was concerned that was the reason for the absence of a written report. He had, in fact, washed his hands of the affair. He was satisfied that the present crusher was set too low on the ground, with the result that there was no possible chance of keeping it clean. Cr. J. J. Callaghan said he was opposed to spending any more money on the present crusher. Repairs to date had cost nearly £2OO, and it would not be the first crusher that had been discarded for practical purposes. In the interests of the ratepayers he would advise the purchase of a new crusher from Price Bros., who had given a reasonable quotation, and would move to that effect. This was seconded by the Mayor.

HASTE DEPRECATED Cr. Hopkins said he was not in favour of moving quite so quickly, and thought it a great pity that the special committee had not been able to submit a proper report. He would move an amendment that the engineer be instructed to obtain particulars of a similar crusher to that offered by Price Bros., inspect it and report. This was seconded by Cr. A. T. Maunder. Cr. .1. Mitchell contended that the crusher in use had not bad fair treatment and said that before spending £2BO on a new crusher he would like some guarantee that it would be domiciled in a proper place. Cr. Hopkins suggested that a wooden cover should be provided to protect the working parts of the crusher. Cr. Robinson thought the council should consider the question of moving the crusher to the site of the old Barry road quarry. The Mayor then put Cr. Hopkins’ amendment which, on a show of hands, was lost by five votes to two. Cr. Calalghan’s motion that a new

crusher be purchased from Price Bros, being then carried. On the motion of Cr. Mitchell, seconded by Cr. Callaghan, it was decided that the council inspect the Barry road and any other suggested sites on Saturday afternoon, the decision as to the location of the crusher then to be decided.