HARBOUR BOARD SHEDS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2756, 27 April 1916, Page 8

HARBOUR BOARD SHEDS

ELECTRIFYING MACHINERY

TO COST £32,000

,■_ At Inst evening's meeting of tlie Wellington Harbour Board, tiio Engineer (Jlr. James Marchbanks) submitted a report and plans dealing -vvi'th electrification of the cargo-handling machinery in tho existing wharf sheds and the older wool stores (now fitted with hydraulic gear). 'In his report Mr. Marchbanks said:— • "At prosont all the wharf sheds, exNo. ,1 Shed, Pipitea Wharf, are furnished with hydraulic* jiggers for handling cargo. For loading straight lifts with light cargo they do very well, but for heavy goods stacked near the sides of the shed and for stacking high the jiggers are slow and expensivo to operate. Further, when the sheds are fairly full and the goods have to be stacked well back, or transported from tho stack to the vehicle, a very much greater risk of. damage, to tho goods exists, becauso of the difficulty of transporting them across the shed, whereas tile electric travelling crane can pick anything up and place it whore required. With regard to the. cost of handling general cargo in the sheds, i.e., stacking and loading .vehicles, the records kept by the board do not enable this information to bo obtained, since, owing to the varied nature of the work, it is difficult to get accurately this cost, but an attempt is being made to obtain some information on the matter. In the meantime I have had Mr. Martin, acting-chief mechanic, making observations as to the relative efficiency of the electric cranes in Pipitea Shed No. 1 compared with the hydraulio jiggers in King's Wharf Shed No. 1, both handling English cargoes: -After careful observation and consideration he has come to tho. conclusion that the electric overhead crane is on a.busy day more than twice as efficient as the hydraulic jiggers. When the sheds are congested and the cargo is stacked high over the shed floors, the difference is as 3 to 1, the on'y exception being in an empty shed, when loading light cases the jigger is more efficient than the crano."

The rest of the report went into i&oro technical .details'of the proposed.plan, and also submitted three alternative plans, for dealing, with tho King's Wharf sheds, with' approximate estimates of the cost.

The chairman said that the work of altering trie sheds' would cost about £18,000, and the machinery for them about £14,000, in all about £32,000. He asked that the recommendation that the Engineers plans be approved and the work gone-on with at an opportune time be agreed to. There was going to be a busy timo in. this port alter the war is over, and they ought to be ready for. it.' He had been given to -understand that it was a good paying proposition that would soon, pay for itself. Mr.'M. Cohen urged that. "II" Shed should be equipped similarly to "J" Shed as early as possible, as he under- , stood that the machinery had its'greatest utility in handling wool. The chairman: "No—in the handling of the general merchandise of the country."- It. affected economies in doing the work, and would, he was assured, reduce the wages by half. Instead of the carts going into the sheds and blocking them, they would draw up at the door of the shed and have tho goods placed in them there.

Mr. Jletcher supported Mr. Cohen in his contention that "0"' Shed sbouldibe electrically equipped at once, and said that it had been a revelation to him to see how the work was done in "J" Shed. '.' •

_ Mr. H. L. Nathan said that tho Engineer's report dealt with the proposed scheme very fully, but he took it that the board would not go very far with the work during the continuance of the war. ~ The total expenditure involved was over £31,000, and it was a question whether, in view of this large expenditure, the Engineer had provided tor the latest and most up-to-date cranes available, and whether they would not be. wise in dispatching the Engineer on a trip to inspect the big ports of the Old Country and America.- Hcwas quite sure if that were done.he would uot come Iback empty-handed. Mr. Hildretli 'thought Mr. Nathan'.s idea a good one, for as they were to spend £80,000, they should get the very best, and he thought that the money that such a trip would cost would bo well laid out,- and seeing that the war was on, time was not such a consideration. : '

Mr. W. Cable, as the original mover of the motion to electrify the shed machinery, was pleased to see the spirit in .which tlie board was taking it. Ho (supported the idea of sending Mr. Marchbanks on a trip to inspect the working of the large ports. ■ Mr. Hindrnarsh: "Ana the dock?" (Laughter.) . Continuing, Mr. Cable said that the chances wero that the board would shortly have to' consider the question of''establishing its own electric light and power plant. Mr. It. li'letcher: That was-decided years ago.

Mr. Cable: Xes, but nothing was | dono. There was a g&od deal of mas--1 terly inactivity shown. The chairman said that the plans 'had been : under consideration for six months, and there was still details to he added, la regard to Mr. Cohen's suggestion ■ lie pointed out that "U" shed wa s only in U6O three months in the year, during tho wool season, and. that other sheds, which were in use all the year round, were of equal importance In his opinion, the Engineer was more competent to judge than he, as he had all the factg before him, prior to reporting on the work to be done. In referring to Mr. Nathan's suggestion, he doubted if the Engineer would be able to visit the places referred to owing to the war. When he saw the Tilbury docks, he was very proud of Wellington, and ho did not think they had anything much to learn there. Mr. Marchbanks was about to pay a holiday visit to Australia, where he would doubtless learn something, and later it might be a very wise proceeding for the board to send him farther afield. In the meantime he asked that the motion be carried. ' !■ The motion was carried.