Wreck report for 'Carmarthenshire', 1928

S.S. "Carmarthenshire"

Report of Court of Inquiry No. 7863.

Erratum.

In column 2, line 25, of the Print of this Report, for "fore part read "after part".

FOR OFFICIAL USE.

(No. 7863.)

"CARMARTHENSHIRE" (S.S.).

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.

REPORT OF COURT.

In the matter of a Formal Investigation held at Court "B," the Quadrangle, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, W.C., on the 25th, 26th, 29th, 30th and 31st days of October, 1928, and the 8th day of November, 1928, before J. A. R. CAIRNS, Esq., Metropolitan Police Magistrate, assisted by Engineer Rear-Admiral W. RATTEY, C.B., O.B.E., Engineer Lieutenant-Commander W. M. FLETCHER, R.D., R.N.R., and Captain H. P. LEARMONT, R.D., R.N.R., Nautical Assessors, into the circumstances attending, and the cause of, the fire which occurred on board the British steamship "Carmarthenshire" of Belfast, Official Number 136,347, in the River Thames on or about 7th July, 1928, whereby she sustained serious damage.

The Court having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds for the reasons stated in the Annex hereto, that the fire was caused by oil leakage at the ground bushing of the burner attached to the starboard lower furnace of the after port boiler, probably due to the slacking of the housing screw. and that the seriousness of the fire was aggravated by leakage from a defective junction pipe leading to the burners.

Responsibility for the fire does not rest with the Glen Line Limited nor with any of the parties cited in the Inquiry, and no issue arises as to any certificate.

Dated this 8th day of November, 1928.

J. A. R. CAIRNS,

Judge.

We concur in the above Report.

ANNEX TO THE REPORT.

This Inquiry was held at Court "B," the Quadrangle, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, W.C., on the 25th, 26th, 29th, 30th and 31st days of October, 1928, and on the 8th day of November, 1928. Mr. A. T. Bucknill, O.B.E., M.A. (instructed by Sir T. J. Barnes, C.B.E., Solicitor to the Board of Trade), appeared for the Board of Trade. Mr. G. P. Langton, K.C. (instructed by Messrs. Lawrence Jones & Co., Solicitors, London), appeared on behalf of Glen Line Ltd., and on behalf of Mr. Douglas Cameron McGregor, Director and Joint General Manager, Mr. M. E. Hills, Joint General Manager, Mr. Hiram Rooke Houldin, Superintendent Engineer, and Mr. John Hastie Robertson, Relieving Engineer, to Glen Line Ltd. Mr. G. St. Clair Pilcher (instructed by Messrs. Deacon & Co., Solicitors, London) appeared for Messrs. R. and H. Green & Silley Weir, Ltd. Mr. Ward Higgs (of Messrs. Rehder & Higgs, Solicitors, London) watched the proceedings on behalf of the master of the "Carmarthenshire," Captain William Henry Baker. Mr. Douglas Garrett (of Messrs. Parker, Garrett & Co., Solicitors, London) watched the proceedings on behalf of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Co.

The s.s. "Carmarthenshire," official number 136,347, registered at the port of Belfast, is a single-screw steamship, built at Belfast in 1915 by Messrs. Workman, Clark & Co., Ltd., of Belfast, for the Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. Her length is 470.2 feet, beam 58.3 feet, depth 32.2 feet. Her register tonnage is 7,823 gross, 4,969 net. She has two steel decks and is fitted with cellular double bottom divided into eleven tanks. The vessel has seven W.T. bulkheads, electric light, refrigerating machinery, submarine signalling, wireless, and Clayton C.O.2 fire-extinguishing machinery. The propelling machinery consists of one set of inverted direct acting quadruple expansion engines, having cylinders 27½ ins., 39½ ins., 57 ins., and 82 ins. in diameter with a length of stroke of 54 ins. There are four single-ended multitubular forced draught boilers with a total of 16 corrugated furnaces worked from a common stokehold which is 30 feet across with a space of 11 feet between the fore and aft boilers. The working pressure of steam is 215 lbs. per square inch. There is a screen bulkhead between the engine room and the boiler room which goes down to the tank tops and is fitted with drainage spaces. There is a door in the bulkhead giving access to the boiler-room with a passage between the two after boilers into the stokehold. The fan engine is in the engine-room immediately abaft the screen bulkhead. The two settling tanks, of 18 tons each, are in the after part of the engine-room at about tween-deck level. The oil heaters are in the engine-room on the bottom platform in the starboard forward corner just abaft the screen bulkhead. The engineers' accommodation is provided on the upper deck on the port and starboard sides in way of the engine and boiler casing.

In 1918 at the desire of the Ministry of Shipping the vessel was fitted with apparatus of the Zulver-Smith design for burning oil fuel. She continued to run, burning sometimes oil fuel, sometimes coal, until October, 1921, but the Court has no record of coal and oil fuel being burned simultaneously up to October, 1921. In October, 1921, the vessel was brought into the port of London for repairs and survey. The owners decided to substitute the Todd oil fuel apparatus for the Zulver-Smith. They contracted with Mr. D. E. Erickson, London, agent for Todd Burners, Ltd., to fit the Todd burners into the vessel, and Mr. Erickson made a contract in his turn with Messrs. R. & H. Green & Silley Weir Ltd., London, to do the necessary work for effecting the change. The Zulver-Smith system had two burners to each furnace, the Todd system one only; it was therefore necessary to make fresh connecting pipes from the main supply pipes to the burners. The redundant valves belonging to the Zulver-Smith system were retained, but were blanked off.

The vessel continued to run for the Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. until July, 1923, when she was let to the Glen Line Ltd., the latter thereafter appointing the officers and assuming responsibility for the running of the vessel. In December, 1922, Messrs. Burdick & Co., London, a firm which, the Court is informed, has ceased to exist, supplied to the oil fuel system two new short junction pipes to replace pipes which had become defective. The vessel continued to run on oil fuel alone until September, 1924, when she made a passage from Esbjerg to Middlesborough burning oil fuel in one boiler and coal in the other three. The boiler equipment was then altered to provide for the burning of coal in all four boilers, and coal alone was burned until June, 1928, when the vessel arrived again at Middlesborough. It was then decided to revert gradually to oil fuel, and the after port boiler was converted for this purpose. The whole of the oil fuel apparatus, which had been in store, was collected on the back platform of the engine-room, and was examined and overhauled. The appropriate parts for fitting up the after port boiler were selected, overhauled, tested, made good and assembled in place by the Relieving Engineer. He further hydraulically tested the coupled-up oil-burning system, and at a pressure of 140 lbs. per square inch everything was found to be in good sea-going condition. In the course of the examination of the oil fuel apparatus taken from store, three of the short junction pipes were found to be defective. These were sent ashore, and Messrs. Wallace, Miller and Sons, Middlesborough, supplied three new pipes which were placed in store.

At Middlesborough 1,258 tons of Durham coal was laden on board and stowed in the port and starboard lateral bunkers and in the saddle back. The vessel proceeded to King George V Dock, London, burning coal alone, and there on the 3rd July, 1928, 300 tons of Shell Mex oil fuel, standard grade, was taken on board and stowed in numbers 7 and 8 tanks immediately abaft the engine-room. While the oil fuel was being taken on board, a length of the tank-filling pipe was found to be leaking. The supply was discontinued and the defective length of pipe was removed and renewed. When the operation of oil supply had been completed, the oil leakage was thoroughly cleaned up, the escaped oil being collected and returned to the settling tanks.

The vessel was supplied with the following fire-extinguishing appliances:-

As a further precaution the stokehold platform in way of the oil fuel boiler was partitioned off by an improvised dam made of planks on edge, encased by fire bricks and bound by fire clay. This dam was about 15 inches in height. It isolated the front of the oil fuel boiler from the adjacent coal-fired boilers. Anti-smoking notices and naked-light notices were posted in the engine-room, stokehold and engineers' messroom. These were amplified by the following instructions (also posted in the engine-room, stokehold and engineers' mess-room) issued by the Superintendent Engineer of the Company.

"S.S. CARMARTHENSHIRE."

"FUEL OIL BURNING UNDER BOILERS. PREVENTION OF FIRE IN THE BOILER AND ENGINE ROOMS.

In order to prevent the risk of fire cleanliness of tank tops and bilges from oil is of the utmost importance, and all engineers should pay particular attention to this matter whilst the vessel is burning oil.

(1) When taking over the watch the engineers are to make a thorough inspection of the oil fuel installation for leakage, and see that there is no accumulation of oil on the tank tops and bilges of boiler and engine-rooms, reporting at once to the chief engineer if they are not satisfactory. The condition of tank tops and bilges to be entered in the log book each watch.

(2) Stop at once the slightest leakage of fuel oil from any part of the fuel installation, especially in the boiler-room, and wipe up any oil on boiler-room floor plates.

(3) The second engineer must thoroughly wash with the hose the tank tops and bilges in boiler and engine rooms during his watch, viz., twice in 24 hours, and enter the fact in the log book.

Keep the fire-extinguishers ready and handy for instant use.

See that sand boxes have sand in them.

Keep the fire hoses handy and in good condition."

On the 4th July, 1928, steam was raised in the oil-burning boiler and kept up till the vessel left the dock. During this time the burners gave no trouble; no leakage was found at any of the connections and no renewals or repairs were necessary. At 3 p.m. on the 7th July, 1928, the vessel left her berth. Her draught was then 27 ft. 7 ins. forward and 29 ft. 1 in. aft, with a slight list to starboard. At 3.33 p.m. the vessel left the lock and at 4.8 p.m., when clear, proceeded down the river. At 3.58 p.m. the engines were put full speed ahead. Soon after, the junior fifth engineer, in charge of the stokehold, lit the burners in the oil-burning boiler that were not then in use and closed the ashpit doors in all boilers in the usual course of putting the boilers under forced draught. He then proceeded to the oil fuel pump in the engine-room to ascertain whether it was working properly, leaving Eee Ah Pao, a Chinese fireman who had come on duty at 4 p.m., on the look-out in front of the boiler, with instructions that no valves were to be touched. The other firemen who had come on watch at 4 p.m. were cleaning fires in the coal-fired boilers. Eee Ah Pao, to ascertain that the burners in the oil-fired boiler were alight and in order, opened the torch door instead of using the inspection door; he gave as his reason that the mica of the inspection door was blurred. He found all the burners alight. Immediately after this he heard a "pop" and saw a flame coming out from the burner aperture of the lower starboard furnace front. He endeavoured to extinguish the flame by throwing sand on it, but not being successful he raised the alarm of fire. The junior fifth engineer at about this time returned and, observing the flame and smoke, reported fire to the second engineer in the engine-room. He then went back to the stokehold, shut off the oil supply to the burners and directed the use of the fire-extinguishing appliances. The fire alarm brought the chief engineer into the engine-room, and as the smoke in the stokehold was rapidly increasing he sent the junior fifth engineer to the bridge to inform the captain. The fire made rapid progress involving the casing of the forced draught fan engine in the engine-room, which became red hot, and then spreading to the oil heaters, the pipes in connection with them giving out and thus considerably augmenting the fire in the engine-room. In the meantime the engineers had closed down all the oil fuelling arrangements, shutting steam off the oil fuel pump and the forced draught fan, and had brought into use all the fire-extinguishing appliances available, but they were unable to cope with the fire, and some twenty minutes after the out-break the engine-room had to be abandoned. The main engines had been stopped at 4.16 p.m.

The engine room and stokehold having been abandoned and the fire evidently increasing, the master ordered the lifeboats to be turned out, and then, in consultation with the pilot, he decided to beach the vessel. The tugs "Simla" and "Spread Eagle" took hold, and the vessel took ground at 4.30 p.m. on the south shore at the top of Erith Reach. The tug "Simla" then took the pasengers and their baggage on shore. At 5 p.m. the tugs "Simla," "Spread Eagle," "Crown Diamond" and "Commonwealth" came alongside, put hoses on board and commenced pumping. About 5.15 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. the tugs "Muria," "Watercock," "Tamesa," "Sun V," "Sun X" and "Kenia" also placed hoses on board and commenced pumping. At 6.30 p.m. the fire in the engine-room appeared to be under control, but at 7 p.m. fire was observed in number 3 hatch and this increased to such an extent that the hold had to be flooded. At 11 p.m. fire in the engine-room and stokehold had been extinguished, but smoke was seen coming from number 4 hold and water was pumped through the ventilators for a time. A 8.30 a.m. on the 8th July the coal in the bunkers showed signs of fire and the hoses were placed to the best advantage. After the fire had been apparently extinguished and the engine-room and stokehold pumped out, the vessel was floated, taken in tow by six tugs and securely berthed at 7 p.m. on the 9th July at King George V Dock, where all cargo and bunker coal were discharged.

Three possible causes of the origin of the fire, all in connection with the starboard lower furnace of the port after boiler, have been investigated by the Court:-

1. The short junction pipe was found disconnected from its nipple after the fire, the thread being in very bad condition. (The Court considers this a latent defect.) On the other hand, the evidence proves beyond doubt that the pipe was properly jointed and tested and endured without sign of leak or weakness until the fire started. The evidence of the Chinese fireman on watch at the time, the only man who saw the commencement of the fire, is that no leak was visible when lie saw flame issuing from the furnace front.

2. The conditions under which the burners had been worked during the three days preceding the fire, i.e., under natural draught and frequent lighting and extinguishing owing to the small output demanded of the boiler, were particularly favourable to oil passing into the furnaces unconsumed and being deposited in the corrugations of the furnaces and in the smoke-boxes. The fire occurred shortly after the boiler had been put under forced draught; this is a condition favourable to the ignition of any oil so deposited so as to cause a flash back through the jacket tube. The objection to accepting this theory is the absence of any explosion such as would naturally accompany this action. None of the men then in the stokehold noticed an explosion. The fireman on watch at the boiler states that he heard a "pop," which would more appropriately describe the noise accompanying the ignition of a small spray of oil.

3. There is no positive evidence that the housing screw was slacked back inadvertently, but the appearance of the first flame emerging from the jacket tube accompanied by only a slight noise points to this being the most probable cause. A leak at this point would also account for the fire seen down the front of the boiler, in a position to play on the defective short junction pipe and so cause the nipple to part from the pipe. The Court considers the reasoning in favour of the third possible cause the strongest and most consistent with the evidence.

When coal and oil fuel are burned together in a common stokehold there is danger of damage to the oil fuel fittings by accidental striking with the fire-irons in use for the coal-fired furnaces. The presence of coal dust prevents the attainment of the high standard of cleanliness laid down by the Board of Trade as essential when oil fuel is being burned. The necessary drawing of glowing clinker and ashes on to the stokehold floor plates when cleaning fires adds greatly to the number of naked lights liable to ignite inflammable vapour escaping from the oil fuel installation and affords a ready means of firing a stream of oil escaping from a defective fitting which otherwise might run harmlessly on to the tank top and be dealt with successfully.

At the conclusion of the evidence of witnesses called by the Board, Mr. Bucknill submitted the following questions for the consideration of the Court:-

1. What repairs were effected, or alterations or additions made to the oil pressure pipes and their fittings, or the burners and furnace equipment of the oil fuel installation on board the s.s. "Carmarthenshire" between

and by whom were the goods supplied and the work carried out?

2. When the vessel left No. 3 berth, King George V Dock, Port of London, on the 7th July, 1928:-

3. What was the cause of the fire which broke out on board the vessel at about 4.12 p.m. B.S.T. on the 7th July, 1928? Was serious damage done to the ship by the fire?

4. Would this fire have occurred had either fuel oil or coal alone been used in all the furnaces?

5. Does responsibility for the fire rest with the Glen Line Limited, Mr. Douglas Cameron McGregor, Director and Joint General Manager, Mr. E. Hills, Joint General Manager, Mr. Hiram Rooke Houldin, Superintendent Engineer, and Mr. John Hastie Robertson, Relieving Engineer, or any and, if so, which of them?

6. Is the risk of fire greater when both coal and oil burning furnaces are used at the same time in one common stokehold than when oil fuel is used alone in an oil-tight compartment of a ship from which coal ashes, firing tools and naked lights have been excluded?

Is the practice of using coal and oil burning furnaces at the same time in one common stokehold likely to cause a fire which may become uncontrollable if the ship is at sea?

Witnesses were called by Mr. Langton, and the Court was addressed by Mr. Langton, by Mr. Pilcher and by Mr. Bucknill. The Court delivered judgment and returned the following answers to the questions submitted by the Board of Trade:-

Answers to Questions.

1.-(a) Between the 26th October, 1921, and the 10th January, 1922, the Todd oil fuel system was substituted for the Zulver-Smith system. Conversion from one system to the other involved the replacement of duplicate pipes to each furnace by single pipes and the substitution of Todd burners and furnace fronts. The burner control valves rendered redundant by the conversion were left in position and blanked off, and it was not necessary to disturb the main supply pipes. The burners and furnace fronts were supplied by Todd Oil Burners Ltd., of London, the pipes by Messrs. R. & H. Green & Silley Weir, of London, who installed the Todd system.

(b) Two short junction pipes were supplied between September and December, 1922, by Messrs. Burdick & Co., of London, and three were supplied about June, 1928, by Messrs. Wallace, Miller & Sons, of Middlesborough, to replace pipes which had become defective.

2. When the vessel left No. 3 berth, King George V Dock, Port of London, on the 7th July, 1928:-

3. The Court finds that the fire was caused by oil leakage at the ground bushing of the burner attached to the starboard lower furnace of the after port boiler, probably due to the slacking of the housing screw. and that the seriousness of the fire was aggravated by leakage from a defective junction pipe leading to the burners. Serious damage was done to the ship by the fire.

4. The Court considers that the fire would have occurred had oil fuel alone been used in all the furnaces, but that it would not have occurred had coal alone been used.

5. Responsibility for the fire does not rest with the Glen Line Limited nor with any of the parties cited in the Inquiry.

6. The Court considers that the risk of fire is greater when both coal and oil burning furnaces are used at the same time in a common stokehold than when oil fuel is used alone in an oil-tight compartment from which coal ashes, firing tools and naked lights have been excluded.

The Court considers that the practice of using coal and oil burning furnaces at the same time in a common stokehold substantially increases the risk of fire which may become uncontrollable when the ship is at sea.

J. A. R. CAIRNS,

Judge.

We concur.

(Issued by the Board of Trade in London,

on Monday, the 10th day of December, 1928.)

LONDON:

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE

To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses:

Adastral House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh;

York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff;

15, Donegall Square West, Belfast;

or through any Bookseller.

1928.

Price 6d.