Page 57 - Bulletin 18 2014

54

cost estimates. He failed Westhofen’s on all three criteria and Methven’s on two:

Westhofen’s·was unnecessarily large and therefore costly in a context of unproven growth of
the industry, and also stood in water deeper than was ever likely to be required by fishing

craft, whereas Methven’s smaller scheme could accommodate 230 craft immediately and by
virtue of its straight breakwater was capable of incremental extension, and was therefore the

more desirable scheme; he regarded both schemes as unsuitable believing that neither the
rubble breakwater (Westhofen) nor the mass concrete one (Methven) would survive in the

highly exposed environment and he recommended that 30 ton concrete blocks be used on the

outer face and 10 tonners on the inner faces, with rubble infill between; however, he
recommended that the northern breakwater, being less exposed, should be inexpensive and

formed of rubble. Because of these changes neither scheme’s estimate of costs was sufficient

and he increased Methven’s from £42,750 to £86,200 and Westhofen’s from £76,000 to
£155,000, basing these estimates on the prices for similar work being undertaken in the

construction of Simon’s Town dockyard.

The gantries

These were large sums of money for a Colony emerging from war and entering a post-war

Depression. So the harbour plans had to be shelved and an interim solution sought. The
fishermen believed some sort of hoisting system was required that would lift their boats

above the water. In 1905 the KB-MM and the CGR, with the assistance of Mr. Runciman,
MLA, reached agreement to construct on a £ for £ basis a system of gantries made from 46

lb. railway lines footed in concrete blocks sunk into the beach sand. This system, using ropes

and pulleys, worked well for some years but by 1910 the gantry footings had become
unstable causing the whole structure to become rickety. By this time the fleet had grown to

about 40 craft, the third largest on the Cape coast after Rogge Bay and Algoa Bay (Algoa Bay
had one boat more than Kalk Bay), and as there was gantry space for only 20 boats this left

some 50% of the fleet exposed to the seas. (Figs. 2.9 & 2.10.) Something had to be done and
a breakwater was now the only option.