Volume Ten - Pre-Victorian to the present day - even more aspects - The Patent for the Penarth Slipway - 1881 . . .

Mr. A. Giles cont'd :

There were many ports with less than 12 feet rise of tide, and that being so, there must be a foundation not laid under water upon a heap of stones, but properly laid by means of a cofferdam, which was something very near what was called a dry dock.

The Authors also spoke of another plan applicable in situations where there was a sufficient range of tide to enclose the upper part of the slip within watertight walls, provided at the bottom with gates. That statement simply meant a dry-dock ; and showed that the system of slips was not quite satisfactory for the largest vessels. The time of getting a ship on the cradle had been taken at one hour, and the hauling up at two hours, but in another place the time had been given as about four and a half hours.

If a slipway was laid upon the shore in an exposed situation, as it must be in some places, and would perhaps be at Penarth, it would depend upon the weather whether the ship could be accurately fitted on the cradle before the process of hauling commenced. It was said that since the slipway had been at work in 1879, no less than one hundred and thirty ships had been hauled up and repaired. Taking the time thus given as three and a half years, that would be at the rate of one ship in about ten days.

In going into the question of finance, the Authors stated that the slipway would cost £25,000, and that it would be much cheaper than a dry dock. Mr. Giles could only say that many years ago he made a dry dock, which would do all that the slip in question could do, for less than £20,000. Before the slipway was regarded as a financial success, the figures should be examined. Five per cent, upon the cost, £25,000, would be £1,250, and the expenses and repairs might be taken at £1 a day, say, in all £1,600.

On that basis as the cost of docking thirty-five ships, the expense was Mr. Giles, nearly £50 a ship, a large price for docking a ship of the size mentioned, and he ventured to think that a good many shipowners would object to pay £50 for such an operation. He should like to ask whether, when the Authors spoke of the financial success of the undertaking, they did not include repairs with the charges for hauling up.