Wreck Report for 'City of London' and 'Vesta', 1879

(No. 378.)

"CITY OF LONDON," (S.S.) and "VESTA," (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 11th, 12th, and 13th of September 1879, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Commander FORSTER, R.N., and Captain HIGHT, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the collision between the steamship "City of London," of Aberdeen, and the steamship "Vesta," of Hamburgh, in Barking Reach, River Thames, on the 13th of August 1879, whereby the "City of London" was materially damaged.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, found, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto,-

1. That the sinking of the said ship "City of London " was due to her having been struck by the said ship "Vesta " amidships on the port side.

2. That the lights of the "Vesta" were seen by those on board the "City of London "very shortly after the latter had rounded Tripcock Point, and when she was between that point and the Government Powder Magazine in the upper part of Barking Reach.

3. That the "City of London" did, on seeing the lights of the "Vesta," observe the rules laid down for the navigation of the River Thames, and did continue to observe those rules until the collision.

4. That the lights of the "City of London" were not seen by those on board the "Vesta" until some time after she had rounded Halfway House Point and had straightened up Barking Reach, but when and where precisely she was at that time none of the witnesses were able to say.

5. That the "Vesta" did not, after she had sighted the lights of the "City of London, observe the rules laid down for the navigation of the River Thames, nor did she afterwards continue to observe them until the collision.

6. That there were no special circumstances rendering a departure from the said rules on the part of the "Vesta" necessary.

7. That there was a proper look-out on board the "City of London," and that the lights of the "Vesta" were duly and promptly reported; that on the other hand, although the lights of the "City of London" were not reported as quickly as they might and ought to have been from the "Vesta," they were seen in sufficient time to have enabled her to avoid the collision, had the proper steps been taken for that purpose.

8. That the "City of London" was not being navigated at too great a rate of speed, the engines having been put at half speed when they were about half-way down Galleon's Reach, slowed off the Government Powder Magazine, and stopped and reversed full speed to prevent the vessel going on the south shore. But on the other hand, the "Vesta" was going at an undue rate of speed under the circumstances, her engines having been kept going at full speed until just before the collision.

9. That the "Vesta" 'was solely to blame for the collision.

10. That no one on board the "City of London" in any way contributed to bring about the collision.

11 and 12. That George Swettenham, the pilot in charge of the "Vesta," is alone to blame for the collision, for not having ported his helm when the lights of the "City of London" were first reported to him, and for having starboarded his helm to pass to the south of the two barges which were seen by him ahead, instead of porting and going to the north of them, as he might and ought to have done.

The Court made no order as to costs.

Dated the 20th day of September 1879.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

EDWARD HIGHT,

Assessors.

 

"

GEO. H. FORSTER,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster, on the 11th, 12th, and 13th of September instant, when Mr. Mansel Jones and Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade; Mr. Butt, Q.C., and Mr. Aspinall for the owners of the "City of London," (the Aberdeen Steam Navigation Company,) and for the master, officers, and pilot of that vessel; Mr. Stubbs for the owners, master, and officers of the "Vesta," and Captain Bedford Pim, M.P., for the pilot of the "Vesta." Sixteen witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Mansel Jones stated that he was instructed to ask for the opinion of the Court on the following questions:

"1. What was the cause of the sinking of the 'City of " London'?

"2. When and where did the 'City of London' first " sight the lights of the 'Vesta'?

"3. Did the 'City of London,' when she first sighted " the lights of the 'Vesta,' observe the steering and sail- " ing rules laid down for the navigation of the Thames? " and did she afterwards continue to observe them until " the collision?

"4. When and where did the 'Vesta' first sight the " lights of the 'City of London'?

"5. Did the 'Vesta,' when she first sighted the lights " of the 'City of London,' observe the steering and sailing " rules laid down for the navigation of the Thames? and " did she afterwards continue to observe them until the " collision?

"6. If either vessel did not observe the said rules, were " there any, and if so, what special circumstances rendering " a departure from the said rules necessary? and if there " was a departure, was it in consequence of such special " circumstances?

"7. Was a proper look-out kept on each vessel, and " were the lights duly and promptly reported on each " vessel?

"8. Were both or either, and if so, which of the two " vessels navigated at too high a rate of speed, taking into " account the darkness of the night, the number of craft, " the state of the tide, and other circumstances?

" 9. Was either, and if so, which vessel solely to blame " for the collision?

"10. Did any, and if so, which of the persons in charge " of the 'City of London" cause or contribute to, or were " they, and if so, which of them, in any way to blame for " the collision?

"11. Did any, and if so, which of the persons in charge " of the 'Vesta' cause or contribute to, or were they, or " any and which of them, in any way to blame for the " collision?

" 12. Was any person, and if so, which person in " charge of either vessel, solely to blame for the collision?"

Mr. Butt, Mr. Stubbs, and Captain Bedford Pim having been heard for their respective parties, and Mr. Mansel Jones in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions that had been laid before them.

This is an inquiry into the circumstances under which a collision occurred between the steamships "City of London" and "Vesta" on the evening of the 13th of August last in Barking Reach, in the River Thames.

The case of the "City of London" is as follows: She is an iron screw steamship belonging to the Port of Aberdeen, of 977 tons gross, and 564 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 275 horse-power. She was built at Glasgow in the year 1871, and at the time of this collision was the property of the Aberdeen Steam Navigation Company. She left Limehouse Wharf at about 8.20 p.m. of the 13th day of August last, bound to Aberdeen, with a crew of 42 hands all told, 94 passengers, and about 200 tons of cargo, and in charge of a duly licensed Trinity House Pilot, named Frederick Spicer. The weather was fine and clear, the wind light from west to S.W., and the tide about two-thirds flood, and the vessel proceeded down the river at half-speed, occasionally slowing and stopping for passing vessels, until she had rounded Blackwall Point; but on entering Bugsby's Hole she proceeded at full speed, until they had got about half-way down Galleon's Reach, when the pilot, observing a number of vessels in the lower part of that Reach, and in the upper part of Barking Reach, ordered the engines to be put down to half-speed. I should have stated that on leaving, the master and pilot were on the upper bridge, the chief mate and carpenter and two hands were on the lower bridge attending to the wheel, the vessel being steered from amidships, and the second mate was forward on the look-out; but after passing Blackwall Point the chief mate went below, and the second mate took his place on the lower bridge, an able seaman named John Smith being stationed on the topgallant forecastle on the look-out. It was now about a quarter-past 9 o'clock, and having passed from 60 to 100 yards outside the floating gunpowder vessel they rounded Tripcock Point in about mid-channel; owing however to there being some barges in the way, which they passed on the starboard hand, they were not able to straighten down the Reach so soon as they would otherwise have done. But on clearing the barges the vessel's helm was ported, and she was brought nearer in towards the south shore. Shortly afterwards the green and masthead lights of a steamer were observed in the lower part of Barking Reach, and about a point on the "City of London's" port bow. For about a minute nothing was done on board the "City of London," the pilot expecting that the approaching steamer as she came up the Reach would open her red light. When however they had got about half-way between Tripcock Point and the Government powder magazine on the south shore of Barking Reach, the helm was slightly ported, and three blasts were blown with the steam whistle to attract the approaching steamer's attention. Seeing that she continued to approach, still showing only the green and masthead lights, orders were given, when they were abreast of the gunpowder magazine, to slow the engines, and the helm was again ported, and when they had got within about two ships' lengths of the south shore the engines were stopped and reversed full speed to prevent the vessel going ashore, and at the same time the whistle was again blown three times. The "Vesta," however, continued her course full speed, still showing only her green and masthead lights, and with her stem struck the "City of London" amidships on the port side, nearly abreast of the funnel, cutting through the coal bunkers into the engine-room, and causing her to make water very rapidly. To prevent the vessel sinking in deep water, in which case there would probably have been a great loss of life, the master of the "City of London" requested the "Vesta" to stand by them, and to push them gradually in towards the shore. The "Vesta's "engines, which had been stopped, were accordingly turned slowly ahead, and in a short time the "City of London" was put ashore. Owing to the skill with which this manœuvre was carried out, and for which those on board the "Vesta" deserve great credit, and to the fact that they were very near the south shore when the collision occurred, no lives were lost, but the vessel and cargo were of course very seriously damaged.

The story told by the "Vesta" is as follows: She is a screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Hamburgh, of 1,050 tons gross, and 623 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 160 horse-power. She left Hamburgh at 7 a.m. on the 12th August bound to London, having a crew of 25 hands all told, 15 passengers, and about 600 tons of cargo on board. She arrived off Gravesend at about 8 p.m. of the 13th, English time, and having there landed some passengers and taken on board a Trinity House pilot, named George Swettenham, she proceeded at full speed up the river, the master, mate, and pilot being on the bridge, and a look-out stationed on the topgallant forecastle. At about 9.15 p.m. they were off Halfway House or Crossness Point, and having rounded the Point in about mid-channel, or a little to the north of it, the vessel was continued on her course up Barking Reach, the engines still going at full speed, until the lights of the "City of London" were observed coming down the Reach. According to the pilot, the lights first seen by him were the green and masthead lights; but according to all the rest of the witnesses from the "Vesta," the only lights of the "City of London" which were seen up to the time of the collision were the masthead and red lights. But whether it was the green or the red lights which was seen, it is admitted by all the witnesses from the "Vesta" that she continued on her course at full speed, without altering her helm either to the one side or to the other, until she neared two sailing barges which were going up the river; upon which her helm was starboarded to pass to the southward of them, but no sooner was she clear of the barges than the red light of the "City of London" was observed ahead crossing her bows; upon which the engines were at once stopped and turned full speed astern, but before she had lost much way she ran stem on into the "City of London's" port side, striking her in the way and with the results which I have already stated.

And first let me observe, as there seems to be some misapprehension on the point, that this Court, whilst it is bound to say whether either and which of these two vessels is to blame for this collision, is not called upon to determine the civil liabilities of the parties. The question, too, whether the pilot who was at the time in charge of one or other of the vessels was or was not there by compulsion of law is one with which this Court need not trouble itself, for certainly it would never think of punishing a master for acts done by the pilot, even though that pilot might have been taken on board voluntarily, and not by compulsion of law.

Before, however, I proceed to answer the questions upon which our opinion has been asked, and to say who was to blame for the casualty, it will be necessary to call attention to the shape of the Reach in which the collision occurred, and to the position of each vessel when they first came within sight of one another.

And first, as to the form or direction of Barking Reach. If a chart of the River Thames be looked at, it will be seen that the course of Barking Reach is not straight, but that it has near the middle of it what some of the witnesses called an elbow or knuckle, whilst others called it a false point, so that a vessel entering the Reach at the top could not lay a straight course down the Reach. At first her course would be about E.S.E., and gradually she would have to haul more to the northward, so that before leaving the Reach her course would be about E. 1/2 N., provided that she kept down mid-channel all the way, following a course parallel to the banks. In the same way a vessel entering the Reach at the lower end would first lay with her head W. 1/2 S., and as she came up the Reach she would gradually haul up more and more to the northward, so that when at the upper part of the Reach her head would be about W.N.W. It will be seen from this that the usual and proper coarse of a vessel in the upper part of the Reach going down the river would be E.S.E., whereas that of a vessel in the lower part of the Reach coming up would be W. 1/2 S., not end on to one another, but with a difference of 2 1/2 points between their respective courses, so that the port side of the vessel going down must necessarily be exposed to the starboard side of the up going vessel; and at night, therefore, the red light of the vessel going down would be alone visible to those on board the vessel going up, and the green light of the latter to those on board the former; and this, too, whether they were in mid-channel or whether they were to the north or south of it, provided that is that the course of each was parallel to the banks at that part of the Reach where each happened to be at the time.

And now as to the particular part of the Reach where each of these vessels was, not when they first saw each other's lights, but when they first came within sight of one another. A good deal was said by the counsel as to the speed at which these two vessels were going, as evidenced by the time occupied by the "City of London" in coming from Limehouse Wharf, and by the "Vesta" in coming from Gravesend. I think, however, that it was very clearly proved by the evidence that although the "City of London" may have been going at full speed as far as the middle of Galleon's Reach, she was after that only going at half-speed, whereas it is admitted by those on board the "Vesta" that she was going at full speed from the time of leaving Gravesend until just before the collision. Now according to the evidence of the captain of the "Vesta" her full speed was 11 knots, and according to the engineers the engines were going at full speed from the time of leaving Gravesend; add to this the tide, which was from 1 1/2 to 2 knots, and we get from 12 to 13 knots an hour as the speed over the ground at which the "Vesta" was going until almost immediately before the collision. On the other hand the half speed of the "City of London" was, we are told, about seven knots, and deducting the tide which was against her, and which would not be so strong on the south shore where she was as it would be in midstream, it gives us about six knots as the speed at which the "City of London" was going over the ground. So that the speed of the "Vesta "over the ground was about double that of the "City of London," and the former would cover about twice the amount of ground which the latter would in the same time. Now the place at which the collision occurred is, we are told, as nearly as possible 1,400 feet below the Government Powder Magazine, and as this is 1,700 feet from Tripcock Point, the whole distance from the place of collision to Tripcock Point would be a little over 1,000 yards. But this place is about 2,000 yards from Halfway House Point, and as the speed of the "Vesta" with the tide was, as we have said, about double that of the "City of London" against the tide, we should have the "Vesta" doing the 2,000 yards from Halfway House Point in about the same time that it would take the "City of London" to do the 1,000 yards from Tripcock Point to the place of collision. If we are right in these conclusions, it follows that when the "City of London" was rounding Tripcock Point, the "Vesta" would be rounding Halfway House Point, and therefore, as soon as they had each straightened into the Reach, the former in the upper part, the latter in the lower part, the port side of the "City of London," and therefore her red light, would be open to those on board the "Vesta," whilst the starboard side of the "Vesta," and therefore her green light, would be turned towards the "City of London"; and it would be physically impossible after the "City of London" had straightened down the Reach, whether she was in mid-channel or whether she was to the north or south thereof, for her green or starboard light to have become visible to those on board the "Vesta." If so, the evidence of Swettenham, who said that he saw the green light of the "City of London "only a short time before the collision, and just as he was nearing the two barges, for which he starboarded his helm, must be untrue. His evidence, too, was directly contradicted by all the other witnesses from the "Vesta," who say that they never saw any other lights of the "City of London" than the red and masthead lights.' Under these circumstances we are clearly of opinion that Swettenham never could have seen that green light, and that he must either have seen some other green light, or that he has been endeavouring to deceive the Court with the view of justifying himself for starboarding his helm.

These points then being clearly established, let us see whether the courses pursued by the respective vessels are or are not in accordance with the rules laid down for the navigation of the River Thames. We have seen that when the "City of London" had rounded Tripcock Point and saw the green light of the "Vesta" in the lower part of the Reach, she would, as Spicer has stated, naturally expect that as that vessel came up the river, following the course of the river, she would gradually, when she had rounded the elbow or knuckle, bring her red light into view. The pilot of the "City of London" was therefore, in our opinion, perfectly right to port his helm and thus keep the ship to the south side of mid-channel. Mr. Butt has very clearly shown that these two vessels, if they were both in mid-channel (and the evidence shows that they were both in mid-channel, or very near it), would, if they had continued their respective courses, ultimately come end on to one another, and that they were therefore practically meeting vessels, and that it was therefore the duty of each to pass port side to port side. Apart, too, from the question whether it would be expedient to lay down a rule that steam vessels navigating the River Thames should keep to that side of mid-channel which is on their starboard hand, it appears to us that this was the case of meeting vessels, and then Rule 29 (d.) provides that they shall pass port side to port side. The fact of the "City of London" seeing the green light of the "Vesta" was, owing to the shape of the Reach, quite consistent with the latter being, as in fact she was, in mid-channel and that they were meeting vessels, and she was therefore quite right to port her helm as she did, thus bringing herself nearer to the south shore and giving the "Vesta" more room to pass her. Seeing, too, the "Vesta" coming on and still showing her green light she did right first to slow, at the same time porting her helm, and then to stop and reverse full speed when she had got to within two ships' lengths of the bank, to prevent herself from going ashore. It seems to us that she could have done nothing else, and that she was very near the shore at the time of the collision is clearly proved by the fact that she was almost immediately afterwards laid on the bank, and that thus a large sacrifice of life was probably avoided. In our opinion the "City of London" did all that she could and was required to do.

And now let us see what the "Vesta" did. The fact of seeing the red and masthead lights of a steamer in the upper part of the Reach should have told her that the vessel was coming down the river, and if she was pursuing the usual course she might reasonably expect that she was either in mid-channel or to the south of it. Her proper course then under these circumstances would be to keep to the north of mid-channel so as to pass port side to port side. Instead, however, of doing so she continues her course, heading for the south shore, until she sees two barges ahead of her, and she then starboards her helm and of course runs into the "City of London." The master of the "Vesta," who gave his evidence in a very clear and straightforward way, told us that if he had had the charge of the ship he should certainly have ported if he had had room to do so, but that they were so close to the barges before he saw them that there was then no room to clear them by porting. The mate, however, of the "Vesta" told us there was room to have gone to the north of the barges when they were first seen. The pilot said that when he first saw these barges they were a quarter of a mile off, and if so there was ample room to have gone to the north of them, and there was nothing so far as we can see to prevent his doing so. The only reason that he gives for not going to the north of the barges is that he saw the green light of the "City of London," but this, as we have shewn from the relative positions in which the two vessels were, was physically impossible. Having the red light of the "City of London" open to her all the time, it was the bounden duty of the "Vesta" to have ported her helm long before she came to those barges, and not to have continued her course until she got into that position, when she must either starboard her helm and run into the steamer or port her helm and run the barges down.

And here I may refer to a remark which fell from Mr. Butt, that the way in which the two vessels came together, which all the witnesses state was at an angle of about six points, the blow leading aft, was by each altering her course about three points; but this assumes that their courses to begin with were directly opposite, whereas they were inclined at an angle of about two points, before the helm of either was altered to avoid the collision. Thus the course of the "City of London," when she had straightened down the Reach, was E.S.E., and an alteration of two points to the south would bring her head to S.E. On the other hand, the course of the "Vesta," when she had straightened up the Reach, would be W. 1/2 S., and an alteration of a point and a half, which is what the master told us she altered, would bring her head to W.S.W.; and this would make the vessels come together at an angle of six points, the blow leading aft.

I now come to the question of the look-out which was being kept on board both these vessels. So far as the "City of London" is concerned, there seems no reason whatever to think that the "Vesta" was not seen as soon as she might and ought to have been seen. It is sworn that the green and masthead lights of the "Vesta" were seen when they were between Tripcock Point and the Government Gunpowder Magazine, and when the vessels must have been at more than a mile from one another; and the rules in force for the navigation of the River Thames only contemplate a steamer's lights being seen at a distance of one mile. But as regards the "Vesta" the evidence is not quite so clear that she saw the lights of the "City of London" so soon as she might and ought to have done. None of the witnesses seem to have seen the lights until very shortly before the barges were made out, and to avoid which the helm of the "Vesta" was starboarded. Indeed the pilot told us that he saw the two barges before he saw the lights of the steamer; and yet these barges being bound up the river, their lights would not be visible to the "Vesta," which was approaching them from aft. The evidence, therefore, would seem to show that a good look-out was not being kept on board the "Vesta." But then the question arises, did the want of a good look-out contribute to the collision? and we are bound to say that in our opinion it did not. According to the evidence both of the mate and of the look-out man, the red light was reported to the pilot in ample time to have enabled him to pass to the north of the barges, but instead of doing so he starboarded his helm, and thus brought about the collision.

It only remains for us to say with whom the blame of this collision rests. That the collision was, as Captain Bedford Pim has contended, unavoidable, cannot be admitted for one moment; it was a clear night, the tide was in the last quarter flood, the wind was light, and a vessel's lights could be seen at the distance of at least a mile; and under those circumstances it is impossible to allow that such a collision was the result of an unavoidable accident. In our opinion the blame of the collision rests entirely with the pilot of the "Vesta." It is true that the look-out may not have been what it ought to have been, but in our opinion that was not the direct cause of the collision; the "City of London" was reported in ample time to have avoided the collision had he adopted the proper measures. Something was said, too, as to the speed of the "Vesta," and no doubt her speed was very great, certainly too great if we are to believe the evidence of the master that the barges could not be seen until they were within about 15 yards of them. But on the whole we think that the collision was due to the fault of the pilot in not porting the "Vesta's" helm after the lights of the City of London" had been reported to him, and in attempting to pass to the south of the two barges, when according to his own admission there was ample time and room to pass to the northward of them. As regards the "City of London," no blame whatever can attach to her; she was going at half speed from about the middle of Galleon's Reach; she had a good lookout forward, who reported the lights of the "Vesta" in ample time; her helm was ported to give the "Vesta" more room to pass her to the northward, and her engines were first slowed, and then stopped, and reversed full speed to avoid her going on the south shore; whereas the engines of the "Vesta" were, according to the evidence of her engineers, kept going at full speed until just before the collision.

Under these circumstances the certificates of the master and officers of the "City of London" were returned to them, with the sanction of the Counsel for the Board of Trade, who did not ask that they should be dealt with. As to the "Vesta," which was a Hamburgh vessel, her master and officers being foreigners, the Court would have had no right, even had they been to blame, to deal with their certificates. Nor had it any power to deal with the certificate of George Swettenham, the pilot of the "Vesta," by whose misconduct the collision was brought about.

No costs were asked for, and none were therefore given.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

EDWARD HIGHT,

Assessors.

 

"

GEO. H. FORSTER,

 

(No. 466.)

L 367. 148. 70.°9/79. Wt. 47. E. & S.