TIMARU HARBOR BOARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2662, 22 May 1894, Page 4

TIMARU HARBOR BOARD.

. THE NEW TUG DREDGE. The following is the conclusion of Mr Barr’s report on the new tug-dredge:— “ In this investigation I have assumed that it is your intention to reclaim an area of land along the shore between the breakwater and the north wall, and I have also assumed the possibility of your discharging some soil to the north or south of the boundary walls of the harbor, so that the extreme travel from the entrance to the seaward face of the reclamation will be about one-third of a mile, and the half-width of the harbor, and the length of piping in that direction would be about 600 feet. I find also that you have six surf-boats in good condition, but for the purpose for which I design them some outlay would be necessary for decking. The greatest extent of water over which the delivery-pipes would be placed would be 600 feet, because 1 purpose that those pipes which would be along its length should be laid either on the north wall or along the wharf at the breakwater—preferably the former. Of the 600 feet only one-half could be compassed by the boats now on hand, so that it would be necessary “to provide an equal number, but they could be of smaller size, as the old ones are larger than is requisite for the weight to be carried. The pipes to carry the spoil would be provided with flexible joints, so that they might conform to the motion of the water. “ The estimate, therefore, for the plant required to enable the dredgings from the harbor basin to be pumped away is as follows: Six additional pontoons and decks upon the present ones, £650 ; 600 feet of steel piping and contingencies, £300; total, £950 ; piping to lead from extremity of harbor to the reclamation site, £490; total, £1440. I have put in separate figures the coat of such plant, as would enable you to sand the material across the breakwater or the north wall, as a suggestion, in case you should consider it advisable to discharge the spoil in that manner until you have secured the requisite sanction for the reclamation, and, indeed, if you desire to work the plant during the term that the contractors are responsible for its maintenance I do not see any better method of getting rid of the spoil. Before, however, incurring the whole of that expense, I would recommend you to make a trial as close up to the north wall as it is desirable ti go, having in view the expediency of retaining some shoal-water along it, and this trial, which would determine the prudence of proceeding with the larger outlay, could be carried out with two or three of the boats now on hand, and the expenditure for piping and other necessaries would not exceed £IOO. “ The cost of dredging the harbor to a low-water depth of 23 feet, with the exception of 100 feet in front of the north wall, would be £9780, and the time a little over two years. I am of opinion that if this were done the annual deposits within the harbor would be inconsiderable. “ With regard to the shingle, I have already expressed my opinion that this plant is adequate for its disposal, and that such material could be filled into the hopper and carried to sea. 1 understand that the possibility of the dredge being put to shift the shingle from the south to the north of the breakwater has been considered, but no definite plan of work has been determined upon. I would strongly discourage any scheme of work which involves raising the spoil more than once, as other methods of a less wasteful character can be practised, and that in this respect the method proposed by your inspector of works (Mr Parr) has much to commend it to a trial. That, however, is open to the objection of introducing a quantity of shingle to tha bottom of the harbor, from which it has to be raised by the dredge. The scheme which I weuld suggest would be founded upon the practice on the goldfields, where large quantifies of similar material are I elevated by jets of water. In this case 1 4,redge would have to supply the 'otive forge, for which it is quite able, as fV i ■■■*• ft'ow the jingle the top of the rne m* re y OU should ever hopper is m. K jingle diffidetermine to deal of culty in this manner the . - itfQ principle I am confident would g. factory results. “ As there are still three or four months of maintenance time to go there will be ample opportunity of giving the whole plant a tnorongh trial before it is finally taken off the contractors’ hands. In the meantime I may repeat that the dredge in almost every part seems to have been skilfully designed and faithfully built, but in thus expressing myself it is also necessary to point out that the winch barrels are not quite satisfactory in form, as they cause an unnecessary amount of trouble to the men in charge, to prevent over-riding in the chain. I must also mention the omission of a telegraph or speaking tube between the man at the pipe nozzle and the engine-room. Further, the dynamo and its engine did so: run with the continuity which is requisite, but for the short time the light was in operation the feed was steady and satisfactory. I am in hopes that a slight overhaul of the details will result in this part of the plant working up to contract conditions. “ When my inspection of the other and larger part of the plant was completed the two grab dredges were not ready for trial but I hope to attend to them before your first meeting. “ With expressions of satisfaction at tho courtesy and readiness to give information with which 1 was received in all quarters, I have, etc., “ Gbokge M. Baku, M. Inst. C.E.” THE EXTENSION QUESTION. The following report to the Governor by Messrs Ussheraud Hay, tho late Royal Com mission ers, was read : “Your Excellency, at tho earnest request of the Timaru Harbour Board, having been pleased to refer back to us our report of the 27 th of October last, on the plans find estimate of a proposed extension of the south mole of the Timaru harbour for reconsideration and further report on certain suggestions by tho Timaru Harbour Board, we now have the honour to report an commanded. o , ‘Tta suggestions of the Timrru FT-iphmiv Hoani above referred to are contained in a solution passed on the 27th February last a transmitted to the Hon. M i„inter for Mri, M1 ‘ lll(]u ,n dated 28th of same month. “ This resolution asks that wo nn' v : requested to amend tho plans of (ho pro-' posed extension so as to give it such stability as wo deem sufficient, tho board being satisfied with our objections as to the insufficient strength of the proposed works, and it also asks that having so amended tho plans that wo should approve of the same. “ Wo could only do so by completely abandoning tho conclusions we arrived at in our report, and for this tho board advances the following masons only ; “Ist. That the proposal to lift, the shingle 300 to 500 feet shoreward <4 tho end of the main wharf permanently

exposes the breakwater, wharf and shipping to the fuli force of the prevailing storms. The advantages the board would derive from its own proposals, if carried out, as regards to the breakwater, would be the difference in the cost of maintenance between the length proposed to be buried and the extension to be built. This would probably be trifling, even if in favour of their proposal at all. And as regards the wharf and shipping, no doubt considerable relief would be obtained from the evil effects of S.E. gales along the outer 300 feet or so of the wharf, but this only means a certain annual loss of time available for loading ships along this length of wharf. “ 2nd. The resolution further says that our proposals are directly opposed to the entire evidence taken by us at Timaru, an expression of opinion to which we cannot agree, and then goes on to state that ‘ every answer of the chairman, secretary, foreman, and harbourmaster, plainly indicated that obtaining permanent shelter up to the end of the main wharf was the essential desideratum for which the board sought the legal sanction of a Royal Commission to the extension.’

“ When asked by the Secretary for Marine to formulate its reasons for asking for the approval of the plans for the proposed extension, the board in reply, after enumerating several reasons as to the preservation and safety of the harbor and facilities for dealing with the shingle, claimed ‘ That considerable protection will be afforded to the wharf and shipping, and the permanent preservation of the breakwater secured,’ and the memorandum concludes by stating that ‘ Mr Parr has prepared and will submit to the Commissioners in writing the ground on which the board considers themselves justified in asking for the Governor’s sanction to the proposed works.’ This statement, which was duly given to us, contains no reference to the value placed by the board ou the protection expected to be obtained by the construction of the extension, but explicitly states that ‘ the object of this extension of the breakwater is to provide an easy access to the shingle between high and low water for the purpose of removal in accordance with the Commissioners, Messrs O’Ccnuoj and Goodall, appointed to report on the shingle question, April 2nd, 1891. Their recommendation is, as described ou page 4, D 4, to be a hopper dredge of 300 tons capacity to lie alongside the wharf as shown on the plan attached to the report. The board have now on the way out from England a ji°PP er dredge of 403 tons capacity, but'the position shown on the plan for it to lie is not suitable, there being too much range and not enough water to enable it to work at all states of the tide. It is, therefore, proposed to extend the breakwater in a straight line from the commencement of the curve for a distance of 300 feet, and allow the shingle to accumulate until it can be dredged past the outer end of the wharf, clear of the shipping, and so avoid taking up a berth at the wharf.” “ The above statements, with subsequent verbal and written ones as to the value of increased protection from the shingle accumulation to tho harbor, made up the boord’s case under this head, but nothing was put before ua that warrants so strong a statement as the concluding contention of the resolution, ‘ that the essential desideratum sought for by the construction of the extension was permanent protection up to the end of the main wharf,’

4 ‘ Nevertheless, in arriving at the decision given in our report we still consider we gave due weight to all the board’s statements as to the value of the protection likely to be afforded by the increased accumulation of shingle contemplated iu the board’s proposals, and also to the value to the port of the time likely to be lost (as estimated for us by tfie board) through bad weather by ships moored at tfio outer berth of the main wharf. And as no further nor stronger evidence has been advanced by the board iu support of its case, we can see no reason for reversing our former decision, for even if the objects sought for by the construction of the extension were attained they are not such as would justify, in our opinion, the expenditure necessary to carry out the works, as no annual saving iu the cost of the breakwater maintenance or of shingle removal is likely to result Hjpppfrom.” 1 The folj.ovving reply was drafted by the y.-'trnjas with' tl(0 concurrence of the Standing Committee, atWrßS9g4 to the Minister of Marine : : “ I have the honour by directum of the Timaru Harbour Board to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 26th April, 1894, enclosing supplementary report by Messrs Ussher and Hay on ‘Proposed extension of south mole to retain shingle, and in reoly to say that the board desire me to record their great disappointment and regret that the Commissioners decline to amend the plans by giving the proposed extension such additional strength as they deem sufficient, and then to approve and recommend His Excellency the Governor to sanction the same. “ The board are satisfied that the point in conflict is a shipping and financial rather than an engineering one, and that the Commissioners in granting our urgent request would not be any former conclusions of a professional character.

“ The Commissioners imply that the noucarrying out of the board’s proposals only means a certain annual loss of time available for loading ships along the outer 300 or 350 feet of wharf. This is the oply part of the Commissioners’ report that tho board iu tha interest and necessities of the harbor, desire to protest against. “ This question being purely a shipping one, the board’s chief authority thereon was the harbor master, and the ovideuoo given by him dealing with that part of the wharf is entirely absent from the report. The board can only conclude that Messrs Ussher and Hay inadvertently overlooked their notes on this point. Succinctly stated, Captain Clarkson’s evidence was ‘ Tho berth at the end of the main wharf is the only one the largo freezers cm bo moored to with safety, as we require the solid work of the breakwater for the bow moorings, and the steamers’ length averaging from 400 to 450 feel wo require not has than 500 feet of wharf to moorothe n. In bringing the large steamers alongside and taking them to sea there is not room to turn or mauccuvro them from any other berth.’ Tho board desire to emphasise the importance of the foregoing evidence by restating that a groat portion of the grain and wool exported from Timaru is now shipped with the largo steamers, and that there is neither wharfage nor depth of wafer else-a in. rn to meet tile require--11101.*“ W‘ !L ' ioero". :ing sizi.

« qq 10 c-if™ 11 # f - le k ' ard ’ s P rr) ' posal means dtejier to the wharf and shipping/ n S the shingle 350 foot shoreward of 0* uia £ u wharf means ‘ permanent exposure to the wharf and shipping,’ and consequent occasional stoppage of working cargo. “ Tho extract quoted by tho Commissioner;! that tho object of tlie board was ‘for the purpose >-f removal in acc<>r lance with tho plans of iiessrs O’Connor and Guodall iu 1891’ un-

mistakeably refers only to the method of lifting. The context not only condemned the position chosen for doing so as but plainly states that the board’s intention was to allow the shingle to accumulate until it can be dredged past the outer end of the wharf. Not a word was written or spoken by the board’s officials bearing the construction that the board: purposed lifting the shingle shoreward of the end of the main wharf. Had such been the intention, there is no statutory disability standing iu the way of the board doing so at will. Tho plans, formulated statement, and evidence plainly showed that lifting shingle was not contemplated until the shingle bank had reached the end of the main wharf, thereby providing the essential desideratum of shelter throughout. The board showed that before such results could be attained, prudence demanded that a new extension was requisite to prevent the toe of the shingle bank being swept swiftly round the curve. The essential and only object of the board in asking for a Royal Commission was to obtain their sanction to the proposed new structure, in compliance with the provisions of the Timaru Harbor Act, 1876. The 1891 Commission recommended lifting shingle at 560 feet from the beginning of the mole, but fortunately this advice was not given effect to, chiefly through the prompt protestations of the inhabitants of the entire rating district. The experience of tho past three years has furnished a valuable object lesson in the shingle reclamation, showing at a glance what the board have escaped in the cost of a three years’ dredging, and what has been won in further needful protection to breakwater, wharves and shipping, as another berth can now be worked where the driving spray formerly frequently “ Messrs Ussher and Hay iu their original report state that ‘if the new dredge proves as efficient as should be expected from its size and cost, it should only take 150 days work at 5 loads per day to deepen, say, 40 acres of the inner harbour to the extent of 3 feet.” The value of any conclusions based on such expectations can now be appraised. The new tug dredge has arrived and has been thoroughly tested, with the result that the inner harbour silt cannot possibly be dealt with by pumping it into the hopper, and the vessel’s grabs cannot be expected to average more than two loads in three days, when the spoil is favorable for lifting. The present board is not responsible for leading anyone to assume that fine silt would settle in the hopper direct from the pump at such a /ate as to enable 5 loads (2000 tons) per day to be lifted and conveyed away by that process, interfered with working of cargo. “ With the views of the board uow before yon the board trust that the Royal Commission may see their way to sanction the desired extension; but if not, the board earnestly request that the Marine Department will grant permission for the filling iu of the parapet recess and the widening of a small part of the breakwater at the curve, as per plan enclosed herewith.” The plan referred to is the original one prepared by Mr Parr, showing what may be called the butt-end of the extension which the Commission was asked to approve; Considerable discussion followed. Mr Talbot thought if any extension was made it should be from tha eud of the curve. Mr Hill thought that atl the trouble had arisen through having no nautical men ou the Commission. Mr Pringle thought if £SOO would keep the shingle back 2J years it would be a good investment. It was not to cost much, and would be strengthening the work. A resolution was then put and carried — “ That the reply to the supplementary report of the Royal Commission prepared by the standing committee, be approved and adopted.” Messrs Talbot, Manchester, Wilson and Teschemaker opposed it; Mr Flatman did not vote.