WELLINGTON DOCK

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 128, 3 June 1919, Page 8

WELLINGTON DOCK

HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT

TSE CLYDE QUAY FAILURE

A COSTLY DISAPPOINTMENT.

RENEWAL OF THE' AGITATION,

To recount the full history of the drydock movement in Wellington would require a volume. Its origin was, of course, the fact thai the port had no facilities for the overhaul or repair of ships except the privately-owned Patent Slip, the maximum capacity of which is a vessel of 300 feet in length and 2000 tons weight. , The first public agitation on the subject began in 1897;' and after much debate it was resolved to proceed with a scheme for equipping Wellington with a graving dock. The ultimate plan provided for a graving-dock capable of taking in vessels up to the size of the then largest men-of-war likely to visit these waters—ships with a length of 425 feet and a beam of 78 feet. In 1899 the Harbour Board's Engineer (Mr Wil-. liam Ferguson) submitted a report. In 1900 he paid a visit to Europe and other parts of the world, to investigate various port equipments; and, in the following year, reported, recommending the building of a graving dock large enough to accommodate the biggest vessels likely to visit the. port. Legislation was ' enacted in 1902 and 1903-4, first empowering, and subsequently making mandatory, the construction of a clock. Tenders were called in 1906, and a contract "was entered into with Messrs. M'Lean and Sons, for the construction of a dock, their tender being £196,261 5s 4d. The site of the dock was the reclamation on the city side of the Clyde-quay wharf. THE GREAT CONCRETE PUZZLE. In 1908 the contractors began work, the actual basin for the dock having been excavated by the Harbour Board's dredge. It. was intended to build the structure of concrete by depositing it under the water,' which was 45 feet deep, but after about a year's work, it was found that the concrete was not' setting satisfactorily. Experiments were made to discover the cause of the trouble, and it appeared to be due to some mechanical effect, the result of which was that the fine particles of cement separated out from the pass, and left the remainder rotten. Owing to the milkiness which was apparent in the water over the concrete, this effect was called "laitance." A hot controversy raged. It was alleged on the one hand that the contractors found tho, difficulty insuperable in spite of all efforts; on tho other, that concrete was in fact laid successfully under water elsewhere, and at even greater depths, and that more efficient plant and methods would have succeeded. The proposal was, of course, made to lay the concrete "in the dry," by building a cofferdam across the mouth of the excavation, and pumping out the water; but this plan was rejected on the score of expense. THE WORK ABANDONED. Operations were suspended owing to the 'unsettled difficulties, but in April, 1910, the contractors were instructed by the board to proceed; and there ensued a "conversation," in which the board endeavoured to hold the builders to their bargain, and the latter endeavoured to release themselves with the least possible loss from a. predicament that threatened them with the most serious results. The contractors were jointed; an extension of time; but in August they asked for release and that the board should pay half their estimated loss of £30,000. Tho then Chairman of the board (the late Mr. R. Fletcher) subsequently reported (September, 1910) that ho had consistently maintained that the board was under no liability for any loss by the contractors. The board held a special meeting to consider the contractors' proposal to abandon tho work,, and approved the termination of the contract, if the necessary legislation could be effected, and if no claim was made by the contractors. The board's expenditure up to that point totalled £38,957, including ike cost of dredging, £16.378, and payments to the contractors, £13.632. The release of the contractors, involving' the stoppage of tho work, concerned the board directly because it was under a mandate from Parliament to build the dock, and legislation had1 to be enacted to make the work optional instead of compulsory. The required Act was passed at the end of 1910. It released the board from the previous compulsion to carry out the project, and contained the following important provision: "The board'may at any time construct a dock, and may apply the sum of £250,000, part of the loan authorised by the Wellington Harbour Board' Reclamation and Empowering Act, 1908, to tho construction of such dock and works incidental thereto." In 1911, the board decided to have a wall built across the front of the dock site, so that the excavation into which go much money had boen,thrown could be filled!-xip. The site is now marked by no noticeable sig-ns of the attempted I scheme; and the ground is still vacant. The board was not further involved subsequently, but there was litigation bo- ■ tween. the- contractors and sub-contract-ors as the outcome of. the release. A FINANCIAL COMMENT. Mr. Fletcher, in outlining in September, 1910, the future policy of the board with respect to the dock question, pointed out that the total cost, including equipment, of such a dock as had been contemplated, would bo about £350,000, and interest, sinking and depreciation funds would total 6 ; ', per cent., or £21,875 per annum. The loss on working he put dowti as at least £2000 per annum. These obligations would, lie 'thought,,impose on the board a burden which the port could not carry, and which would retard its progress for many years to come. Mr. Fletcher's statement reflected an opinion widely held; and this, with a similarly widely held view that the Clyde-quay site was the wrong one, created the general impression that the Harbour Board was well out of an unfortunate venture. RENEWED DISCUSSION. From the ; end of the Clj de-quay fiasco until recently, the dock question remained in abeyance, though the releasing legislation obtained in 1910 gave the Board power to enter again upon a similar enterprise. But if the. possession of a- dock is not an unmixed, blessing, the lack of it is a symptom of incompleteness in a port having large ambitions. Moreover, while some consider that a dock cannot pay its own expenses, others hold that it brings in an adequate return to the community indirectly. The proof of this contention is, of course,, exceedingly difficult, because the indirect benefit may be distributed through a hundred unrecognisable channels. In 1915, the subject of docking facilities was brought before the Harbour Board by a deputation of small ship owners, who raised two important points of grievance against tho existing Patent Slip—that owing tc the extensive use made of it |jy the Union Company (which owns, the slip, through the Patent Slip Company) it. was difficult to got tbn. lisa of it for other vessels i »i»« that tho

charges levied .were excessive. The deputation urged the provision of a floating dock. Mr. William Cable then appeared on the board as a champion of the floating dock, recommending one of abo.it 1000 tons capacity, in order to meet the requirements of small vessels, including the' board's dredge. The subject drifted, however, so far as the public were mads aware, until the beginning of 1916, when Mr. Cable renewed his attack, only to have the subject shelved again on the ground of inexpediency at that time. BOARD'S LATEST DECISION. The question has how been brought forward again. As readers of The Post will readily recall, Mr. Cable succeeded, on 21st May; in securing, a resolution by tha board to have provision made on. the plans of the Thorndon Reclamation for a berth and approaches thereto for a floating dock. The board was not thereby j committed to more tlian expenditure upon drawings and other ofhee work, so that the questions of dry dock or floating dock, and big dock or little dock, clock or no dock, remain still to bo settled. It will be clear from the history of the matter generally that the answer to the question dock or no dock is by no means easily to bo arrived at. It is of co.urse the first to be dealt with, even though it is concealed under a controversy as to size or type. It is all a matter of finance and urgency after all. The board has been '' stung '' once, and it was a very unpleasant experience. The dock advocates are now, however, fortified by the recommendation of the Dominion Royal Commission for the establishment of large docks where required in, the self-gov-erning Dominions, and by the probable growth of the Panama Canal traffic as an element in the necessity for such provision. These points of course count only in favour of a dock of large capacity. The question of a small dock must stand or fall by the requirements of the small vessels and the alleged inadequacy of the Patent Slip. But it might bo got rid of by the provision of a big dock. There remains the selection of the type of dock to be adopted, if any. : The Post explained on Saturday in a popular way the difference between floating and graving docks, and those who have r&d that article will have realised that the choice of one or the other is no task for a layman. It is indeed very complicated, and must be left to experts in engineering and port finance.