NORMAN SELFE. LXVII. 



1 2 in. x 6 in. at the ends, and they were put on the pile over 

 " Ruberoid " pile covering. In the case of the bearing piles the 

 " fish " was secured by four hoops of galvanised iron, each 3^ 

 in. x f in. section, and by twelve 1 in. galvanised bolts, nuts, 

 and washers. The intermediate spaces between the fish pieces 

 underneath the hoops were filled up with chocks driven hard the 

 reverse way of the taper of the fish pieces, and kept from shifting 

 by ^ in. spikes. 



In the case of the diagonal piles, which run up to 140 ft. in 

 length, and which might be subjected to a tensional strain in the 

 case of lateral pressure by a vessel against the jetty, there were 

 no hoops used; but 24 1 in. bolts were inserted instead of 

 twelve, as in the other piles. The stipulated minimum diameter 

 of the top of the long piles (that is, the small end of tree), was 19 

 in. ; and, in order to secure this size, the timber was often 

 much above the specified diameter at the butt, as just referred to. 



There is nothing unusual to note about the deck framing and 

 planking, but as the piles were so large and heavy, 12 ft. 

 centres were adopted, instead of the more usual distance of 10 ft. 

 and the head stocks were 16 in. x 14 in. ironbark, instead of 

 14 in. x 14 in., which is the more common scantling. 



These pieces of timber (every one in one piece 60 ft. long 

 16 in. x 14 in., and carefully hewn from selected ironbark 

 trees), were magnificent samples of what our native forests can 

 produce. The 12 in. x 12 in. ironbark joisting girders at 4 ft. 

 centres were cogged down 2 in. ; and the 12 in. x 12 in. 

 diagonal deck bracing was fitted up from below. The planking 

 is 4 in., and the kerb 12 in. x 12 in. all very much as usual in 

 the port. 



With regard to the use of diagonal piles to support a jetty, 

 instead of walings and braces above the water line, it is generally 

 known that they were first proposed in Sydney by the author 25 

 years ago, in connection with the improvements he designed for 

 the Circular Quay ; and although his proposals were not adopted 

 in their entirety, Parliament subsequently voted a gratuity of 

 £500 to him for his services in the matter, and this system of 



