MR BLACKETT AGAIN.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2362, 12 October 1880, Page 4

MR BLACKETT AGAIN.

Mr Blackett, Colonial Marine Engineer, is again to the fore with a report on the damage done to the railway by the Breakwater. The report is dated August 19, and is as follows : 1 reported on the Timaru Harbor works on February 2 last, and described the nature of the damage suffered by the coast to the north of these works, and the consequent necessity for protective works to insure the safety of the railway line. I also recommended that the further execution of the harbor works should be stopped. No action was taken in the latter direction ; but a copy of the report was sent to the Timaru Harbor Board, in order that they might make such remarks and observations on it as the case might demand. The Chairman of the Harbor Board accordingly sent a reply, dated June 10, remarking on such portions of the report as demanded notice, and enclosing notes of evidence taken by the Board ; as also a report on the subject by the Board’s engineer. On this reply I was invited to report; but, before doing so, sent a copy to Mr J. H. Lowe, Engineer for Working Railways, Middle Island, in order that he might be allowed to make his remarks on it, and also that he might furnish, in support of my first report, such additional evidence as ho might have collected since his former reports on the subject. Mr Lowe has collected additional evidence (which I felt sure would be forthcoming), showing that the work of destruction is still going on, and at such a rate as can leave no doubt on the mind of an impartial observer that the cause of it is what I before insisted on —the stoppage of the flow of shingle by the Breakwater, the coast thus being deprived of its natural protection. Mr Lowe’s report, which is simply a record of observed facts, substantiated by actual and careful measurements, will obviate the necessity of my replying in detail to the numerous objections toTmy last, report by the Board, and those gentlemen whose evidence they have incorporated in their reply. I shall therefore simply remark that I consider the additional evidence now submitted fully confirms the position I took up in my last report; and the position of affairs may bo fairly stated as follows, namely : The railway was opened for traffic between Timaru and Temuka on October 26, 1875. From that time until September, 1878, when the Breakwater was commenced, there was no expense incurred in protecting the viaducts and the shore to the north of it.

Since then, and notably since the gales in June, 1879, an expenditure of £2700 has been incurred for protective works at and near Whale’s Creek ; and later, at the end of July, the inroads of the sea became so rapid that the second viaduct was in danger, and an application was made for a further sum of £IOOO, the most of which has also been expended ; and further demands will doubtless be made before long. The cliffs at and near these viaducts are certainly being destroyed at a rate far beyond that of which any evidence has yet been given as relating to previous years. The shingle beach across the Waimataitai Lagoon is steadily and surely being lessened in width at a rate that can be measured (c.y., 20,000 cubic yards in three months), and which must lead to the result before predicted. The changes in the shore-line at the cliffs and the shingle-beach are well shown in the plan attached to Mr Lowe’s report. The shingle is gradually aad certainly gathering to the south of the Breakwater, necessitating the removal seaward of the southern landing service ; a process which, doubtless, will have to to be repeated before long, and from time to time : and, until the line of shingle has advanced so far seaward as to allow it to pass the end of the Breakwater, the denudation of the coast to the north must go on, and protective w'orks and more expenditure will be required as a n cessity. The close connection of these changes with the building of the Breakwater is so apparent that the responsibility for the expenditure described above clearly ►rests with the builders of it; and a demand can therefore be fairly made on them to contribute a very large proportion, if not the whole, of the expense now devolving on Government in protecting the railway works. John Blackett, Marine Engineer. The Hon the Minister having Charge of the Marine Department.

In reference to the value of Lyttelton and Timaru stone, Mr J. H. Lowe reports : P.S. —Mr Kirby’s evidence on the relative cost of the Lyttelton and, Timaru stone appears to be based on some understanding he has obtained of the cost of loading and haulage. How he arrived at such figures he does not state. Mr Kirby states his price was 9s per yard ; but we have another contract after his at 7s 6d per yard. The cost of the Lyttelton stone, quarried, loaded, and hauled to the works, all costs aad charges included, was less than the cheapest Timaru stone. As to the relative quality, there is no doubt the Timaru is the better stone for housebuilding, bnt it is inferior for the purpose of resisting the action of the sea, as any person can see for himself by inspecting the stones as they lie side by side on the beach. Every stone with edges rounded off is from Timaru quarries, and those with sharp, defined edges are from Lyttelton. The Timaru stone loses all its edges by wear in three or four weeks ; the Lyttelion shows no sign of wear in as many months. The Lyttelton stone being just now less easily procured than formerly, we are calling tenders for a further supply of Timaru stone. Tenders have been called for in such a manner as to allow of competition between the large and small quarries, whether nearer remote from the W'orks. A full opportunity is therefore given to the Timaru quarry-owners to show whether they are prepared to supply stone of required size at a reasonable price.—J.H.L.