THE RAILWAY AND PROTECTIVE WORKS.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIII, Issue 1531, 1 July 1873, Page 4

THE RAILWAY AND PROTECTIVE WORKS.

[to the editor.] - Sir, — Being a constant reader of your paper I naturally stumbled across your correspondent, "Index's" letters, com : menting upon the faulty design of the Greymouth and Brunnerton Railway, and in -which he suggests alterations calculated to make the said railway more safe, more efficient, dispel all further fears of epedemics, and, consequently, satisfy the public more generally ; also your comments on the same, and inviting discussion on the matter by all who take an equal interest with "Index" in seeing public works disfcreetly and efficiently carried out. In this morning's issue I read of a meeting held by "principal property-holders," for the purpose of eliciting opinions. Of whom 1 Of the public 1 Of course not ; of v " principal property-holders !" Is this fair; this holding of meetings in the most approved hole-and-corner fashion, when an efficient and well-circulated journal is available ? I thought the public shewed a good deal of indifference in this matter, and that "Index" was striving for notoriety, but that has vanished like smoke. The only inference I can possibly draw is that " Index " is the mouthpiece of "principal property-holders." I would, however, advise the public to consider " Index's" propositions before they accept them as gospel. I agree with "Index" that a higher level is a most important alteration, if carried out — the terminus at the head of Mackay-street I shall refer to hereafter. The viaduct is a foolish piece of clumsiness, such as, should it be completed in accordance with its present design, ought to be named after its designer, and a suitable inscription added to it. But why "Index" should send us down to the most dangerous position on the whole ri ver to eiect coal- wharves, when, from the Transit-shed downwards (where there is plenty of water, and, comparatively speaking, a safe position), there could be erected for one half of the cost of the coal- wharf in "Index's " proposition, sufficient accommodation for all coal-loading purposes, I cannot understand. At the place 1 have indicated, vessels loading can be protected by abrealiwater, or groin run out above the protective works, at or from a point of rock jutting out immediately below Mr Heaphy's residence. Not only would such work shelter the shipping, but it would be invaluable as a preventive against scour along the protective work, which, if not prevented, will assuredly undermine and tumble that heavy ill-devised structure into the river. At "Index's" preposition, breakwater, or groin is impracticable, as it would block ,up the river passage. For coal-wharves let piles be driven about Bft from the stone wall, a distance of 300 ft from Transit-shed downwards (a length sufficient for two vessels to load at one time), the height of which should be 2ft above the present protective-works. . Sills should be fitted on those piles to receive joists, which should be socketed into the stone work, and the planking laid on longitudially, a few angle-bracings of ■ iron as land-tfes, and you have a simple, inexpensive, and efficient structure. Now comes the viaduct. Why. not do away with that, eye-sore altogether, and in lieu of it I will suggest as follows : — Let the level of the rail be the same as the proposed wharf, and let weighted cranes (two in number) be adopted. Those who have visited an English coal shipping port will understand the value of such apparatus and its advantages over shoots. Those who do not understand, can be informed upon the subject by, 1 have no doubt, numbers of persons in this town. As I fear I will be too wearisome as it is, I will nOt at present enter upon any details of the machinery I have here suggested ; suffice to say that it is simple in detail, effective in action, and inexpensive in working. I have witnessed a ship of 800 tons being loaded under one of these cranes in six hours, in South Shields-upon-Tyne, England. I will just take a glance at " Index's" platform arrangement, and try to find the height required. Suppose a vessel of a full line, with long flat floor, to draw 10ft 6in when loaded, and take her draught of water at sft Gin with empty hold. Such vessel, according to approved proportions, should have, when loaded, a clear side of sft, with 2ft 6in bulwarks. " ft. in. The total height of the vessel will be accordingly when empty .. ... 12 6 Average-rise of tide ... ... ... 36 Allowance for rise and fall of river (ordinarily) ... ... 2 6 Thickness of -platform to overhang the hatches ... ..: ... ... 1 6 . (Required above water level) ... ... 20 0 Deductions to be made for height of _ banks (the very most) ... ... 8 0 Giving (actual height required for "Index's "scheme)... ... "..'.12,6 I challenge "Index" or anybody else to refute these figures. I think it will be useless for "Index" further to descant upon the cheapness of his proposed design. Query: Is it " Index's " intention to carry the coal-laden trucks up an inclined plane, say from Camp Reserve to the top. of bis platform apparatus, or. does he propose a viaduct from Mackay street station to the coal-wharf. With reference to the station in, or. npar, Mackay street, I think it is an unnecessary work at present. The river frontage, from Transit-3hed "upwards," is not adapted for shipping business, and there is ample .room between the upper end of the Protective Works and the Transit-shed for stations, coal-sheds, engine-houses, &c, without touching the reserve at the head of Mackay street. But supposing " Index's" plan to be the one to adopt, why not carry-it through Mackay street. That is, indisputably, the most direct course ; that plan has its " collateral advantages " too. Mackay street would be raised to its proper level, and it would save the Governmet the trouble; of buying up all the private property along Tidal Creek from the Reserve to Tainui street. It may not suit "principal propertyholders " so well, perhaps. Of course, people who have property in Hospital street cann ot be considered ' ( principal pro-perty-holders;" they have no right to a voice in the matter. What matter, supposing they have the middle of their street fenced in, with two gateways at each crossing, or a viaduct to( climb, or adoztn accidents per week more or less among their children, to depreciate the value of their property. They are .evidently not "principal property-holdera." Then the

coal dust and the view. Pity we could not have everything we w&nt. The idea that a sane man should have brought such things as coal-dust in the vicinity of private property forward as reasons for altering any public work of importance, had it been otherwise suitably designed, is bo ludicrous that I leave it for discussion to the Greymouth rising generation. 1 challenge "Index" to a comparison of our schemes, by competent practical men, who know how to value work anjd to give an impartial opinion. , I have more to say about public works i of importance, but I must pause before I weary you too much ; ray only excuse for trespassing so long is my earnest desire to see; every matter of public importance publicly and legitimately discussed. I am, &c, War. Wilson, Albert street. Greymouth, June .30, 1873.