WHARF COAL "GRAB"

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 285, 28 August 1919, Page 4

WHARF COAL "GRAB"

QUESTION REGARDING ECONOMY. The use of the coal "grab" on, tha Railyiy Wharf formed the subject of a brief discussion at last night's meeting of tho 'Harbour Board, when Mr. C. H. Chapman moved: —"That a comprehensive return Le prepared on the matter of the Priestman 'grab,' showing: (a) Cost; (bl cost of upkeep, including repairs, wire-rope, etc ; (c) statement on depreciation of 'grabs/ cranes, and wireropes; (d) statement as to whether tho cranes used are suitable for work with the 'grab'; (e) statement of charges made for the llse of cranes and 'grabs ; (f) y statement showing whether economy ia secured by tho use of the 'grab' under present circumstances." Mr. Chapman said his object in moving tho resolution was to ascertain whether ecmoiny was obtained by the use of tho "g:ab,- and whether the community, through the board", was reaping the benefit. He believed that economy, was being obtained, but lie thought the board should have the exact position laid before it. Mr. J. W. M'Ewan seconded the motion, saying that in view of the future development of the port it was essential that the board should have the lnformaM. W. A%lch pointed out that the engineer had report-id that the grab would do the work of six men. Iho speaker thought they should act on tho advice of the engineer and use grabswherever possible Mr. C. M. Turrell. said there was no doubt that in "straight ~oi.ig" work the "<n-ab" was of the utmost benefit, but there were certain features in connection with the coal trade in Wellington that' Hifldo the "grab" undvsiraolc lorparticular classes of work. Difficulties sometimes arose in unloading difierent classes or coal from the ono hold by means of- thd "Tab," and {his was the reason why some companies were disinclined to use it. In order to obtain the information which llr Chapman desired, tho users of tha "gral)" should he consulted. The Harhour Board onlv supplied the "grab" for tha use >of other people, and the question whether tho board charged sufficient for its uso did not Indicate whethev the users were obtaining any benefit. The motion was carried.