Wreck Report for 'Alton Tower', 1880

(No. 480.)

"ALTON TOWER," (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 15th January 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain HOLT, I.N., Captain HARRIS and Captain RONALDSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding and loss of the British steamship "ALTON TOWER," of Liverpool, on the Coast near Lydd Coastguard Station, on the 19th October last, whilst on a voyage from Havre to London.

Report of Court.

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

(1.) That the stranding and loss of the said vessel was due to her having been laid on too northerly a course.

(2.) That the course steered was not a right course, having regard to the fact that the tide was ebbing and the weather thick; and that the direction of the wind and the state of the vessel's compasses had nothing to do with the casualty.

(3.) That the master was not justified in neglecting to use the lead from the time of passing the Royal Sovereign Lightship till she stranded.

(4.) That the master was not justified in mistaking the Dungeness Lights for those of a sailing vessel; and that the course which he adopted, after sighting the red light, of starboarding his helm was not right, even assuming it to have been the light of a vessel.

(5.) That the master is alone to blame for the casualty.

The Court accordingly suspends the certificate of James McNab, the master of the "Alton Tower," for three months from this date, but recommends that during the period of such suspension he be allowed a first mate's certificate.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated the 15th day of January 1880.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

G. TREFUSIS HOLT,

 

 

"

HY. HARRIS,

Assessors.

 

"

A. RONALDSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster, on the 15th of January 1880, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Crofton for the master of the "Alton Tower," and Mr. Coward for the owners. Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Mackenzie asked for the opinion of the Court on the following questions:-

" 1. What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?

" 2. Was the course which the captain steered after " passing the 'Royal Sovereign' the right one, having " regard to-

" (a.) The state of the wind, tide, and weather.

" (b.) The deviation of the ship's compasses?

" 3. Was the master justified in neglecting to use the lead " from the time of leaving the 'Royal Sovereign' Light- " ship till the ship stranded?

" 4. Was the master justified in mistaking the Dungeness " Lights for those of a sailing vessel, and was the course " which he adopted after sighting them justifiable?

" 5. Is the master, or any of the officers, and if so, who, " to blame for the casualty?

" The Board of Trade state that in their opinion the " certificate of the master should be dealt with."

Mr. Crofton having been heard on behalf of the master and Mr. Mackenzie having replied, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions which had been submitted for its opinion. The circumstances of the case are as follow:-

The "Alton Tower" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Liverpool, of 1,964 tons gross and 1,279 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 225 horse-power combined. She was built at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the year 1879, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Frederick Stumore, of No. 20, Water Street, Liverpool, and a number of other gentlemen, Mr. Stumore being the managing owner. She sailed from Madras with a cargo of from 1,600 to 1,700 tons of general goods, and having a crew of 26 hands all told; having discharged a portion of her cargo at Havre, she left that place at 11 a.m. of the 18th of October last, bound to London. At 8 p.m. of the same day Beachy Head was sighted, bearing E.N.E., distant 20 to 22 miles, upon which an E. by S. course was steered with a view of passing to the southward of the Royal Sovereign Lightship. At 9 p.m. the weather began to get thick, and at 11.30 p.m. they were abreast of the Royal Sovereign, bearing N. by W., distant, according to the master, from 4 to 5 miles, the weather at the time being a little clearer, but the wind strong, and increasing from W.S.W., the vessel making about 7 knots. What course was steered from this point we shall presently have to consider, but according to the master she was laid so as to pass 5 miles to the south of Dungeness. Soon afterwards the weather became thick again, but the vessel was still kept at full speed, until about 1.30 a.m., when the engines were put for a short time at half speed, and then at dead slow. Shortly before 2 a.m. a bright light was seen, a little on the starboard bow, upon which the helm was ported to go to the southward of it; but when the light had been brought a little on the port bow a red light was observed ahead of it; upon which the helm was starboarded and the vessel's head again paid off to the northward. Soon afterwards land was observed on the port side, orders were at once given to stop and reverse the engines full speed, but too late, for the vessel almost immediately took the ground broadside on, and as the tide was falling she became fast. The place at which she grounded was opposite the Coastguard Station at Lydd, and about 3 miles to the westward of Dungeness Point. After a time communication was established with the shore by means of a rope thrown by the rocket apparatus; and as the sea was breaking over her the whole of the crew landed; but the vessel is still on the shore, and we are told is likely to become a total wreck.

These then being the undisputed facts of the case, the first question on which the opinion of the Court was asked is, "What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?" and in order to answer this question it will be necessary to ascertain what course was really steered after passing the Royal Sovereign Lightship. According to the master the course steered was E. 1/2 N. by the standard compass, or E. 1/4 S. magnetic, the standard compass having an easterly deviation of 3/4 of a point on that course. We were told that she was continued on that course going full speed until 1.30 a.m., when the engines were put at half speed, and then dead slow. At 1.45 a.m. the master said that he first saw a bright light bearing E. by S. 1/2 S. by the standard compass, or about 2 points on the starboard bow, thinking that it was Dungeness Light, for which he had been looking, he ordered the helm to be ported so as to pass to the southward of it, and he had brought the light a little on the port bow, when he suddenly observed the red light appear, and then thinking that it was the port light of a vessel, and that the white light came either from the binnacle or from the cabin, he ordered the helm to be starboarded, and brought the vessel's head to about E. by N. 1/2 N., or 1 point further to the north than he had been on before. Very soon afterwards the land was seen. The evidence of the mate is very similar to that of the master as to the course steered from the Royal Sovereign, but he told us that when he saw the bright light he thought that it was the light of a vessel, and that the helm was ported to pass under her stern. But how the white light could show him which was her head and which her stern he was not able to say. He also confirmed the master in the fact that when the red light was seen the vessel was brought back to E. by N. 1/2 N., which he called her "original course," whereas, according to him, the course which they were steering before they saw the white light was E. 1/2 N.

On the other hand, the evidence of Charles Ingram, the man who was at the helm from 12 to 2 o'clock, was that the course given to him when he first went to the wheel was E. 3/4 N. by the wheel-house compass, that from time to time he got orders to starboard the helm, and that he did so, and that at a little before 2 he was steering N.E. by E. 1/2 E.; and that just before he was relieved by a man named Harper he was ordered to starboard half a point more, and that when he gave up the helm the vessel was heading N.E. by E. by the wheel-house compass.

Now it was contended by Mr. Crofton that the evidence of Ingram was not necessarily inconsistent with that of the master and mate, the latter having given the ship's course by the bridge or standard compass, whereas the former had given it by the compass in the wheel-house. To a certain extent this is true as to the course steered immediately after passing the Royal Sovereign, for the deviation of the two compasses might have been different, although according to the deviation cards which have been brought in the deviation on an easterly course was about the same in both. There is, however, one point in which the evidence is directly conflicting, for according to the master and mate the vessel was kept from 11.30 p.m. when they passed the Royal Sovereign, until nearly 2 a.m. when the white light was seen on an E. 1/2 N. course; whereas, according to Ingram, the course was altered from time to time by starboarding the helm, until a little before 2 she was heading N.E. by E. 1/2 E., and that when he gave up the wheel soon after 2 she was heading N.E. by E. Let us then see to which of these two statements the greater credence is to be given.

We were told by the master that when they were off the Royal Sovereign it was the slack of high water, and between there and Dungeness they met the ebb tide, it being about half ebb when they took the ground. Now assuming the statements of the master and mate to be correct that the course steered from a place 5 miles to the south of the Royal Sovereign was E. 1/2 N. by the standard compass, equivalent to E. 1/4 S. magnetic allowing 3/4 of a point of easterly deviation it will be seen that such a course would take her not 5 miles to the southward of Dungeness as the master stated, but well away to the eastward of the Ridge and Varne, and with the ebb tide on her port bow put her far out of her course; and it is difficult to understand how, if this really was her course, she could possibly have got ashore opposite Lydd Coastguard Station. On the other hand, if we take the evidence of Ingram, the man at the wheel, that she was first heading E. 3/4 N., and was gradually brought more and more to the northward, so that when he left the wheel soon after 2 she was heading N.E. by E., and assuming also, as the deviation cards seem to show, that there was very little deviation either in the standard or in the wheel-house compasses on those courses, the course which he steered would have taken her ashore where we find her, for on looking at a chart it will be seen that a line drawn from about 5 miles south of the Royal Sovereign to Lydd Coastguard Station would be as nearly as possible in a N.E. by E. 1/2 E. direction. Ingram's evidence being thus consistent with the facts of the case, whereas that of the master and mate is not, we are bound to accept it in preference to theirs. And the conclusion therefore to which we have to come is that the course steered after passing the Royal Sovereign was not as the master and mate have told us E. 1/2 N. by the standard compass, but that it was E. 3/4 N., and that it was gradually altered more and more to the north until at last she was on a N.E. by E. course, which would fully account for the casualty.

The second question on which our opinion is asked is, " Was the course which the master steered after passing " the Royal Sovereign the right one, having regard to-

" (a.) The state of the wind, tide, and weather.

" (b.) The deviation of the ship's compasses"

That question seems to have been already answered in the answer to the previous question, namely, that the courses steered were certainly not proper courses, more especially having regard to the fact that the tide was ebbing, and that heading as she would be she would have the ebb tide on her starboard bow, which would cant her head still further in towards the shore. What could have induced the master to steer the course which he evidently did it is difficult to say, unless indeed he was edging in towards the pilotage ground to the westward of Dungeness Point, and thus got into a dangerous position, and if this really was so the master would have done better to have stated it at once, instead of wishing the Court to believe that it was due to some error in his compasses, of which there is not a particle of evidence.

The third question upon which our opinion is asked is, " Was the master justified in neglecting to use the lead " from the time of leaving the Royal Sovereign Lightship " till the ship stranded?" To this question there can be but one answer; in our opinion he was not justified. If, as he says, he was doubtful as to the amount of the deviation of his standard compass, he had no right to stand on as he did without taking a cast of the lead so as to ascertain his true position. A cast of the lead would have shown him long before he got aground that he was in shallow water, and he had no right on the course on which he was to have gone within the line of the 10-fathoms' soundings. There can be no justification for his not having used the lead.

The fourth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Was the master justified in mistaking the Dunegeness Lights for those of a sailing vessel?" In our opinion he was not. The master told us that when he first saw the bright light he took it to be the Dungeness Light, and as it was about 2 points on his starboard bow he should have known that in that case he would be inside of it, and therefore in dangerous ground, and he ought at once to hare taken a cast of the lead to ascertain his true position. Again, when he sees the red light, instead of endeavouring to ascertain whether he had not got within the red sector of the light he jumps to the conclusion that it is the red or port light of a vessel, and thereupon starboards his helm so as to bring it 3 points on his starboard bow, which is the very thing he ought not to have done if it had been, as he says he supposed it was, the red or port light of an approaching vessel, he was in fact trying to cross her bows.

The last question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the master, or any of the officers, and if so, who, is to blame for the casualty?" The master was on the bridge from 8 o'clock that night until she took the ground and he was alone responsible for the navigation of the vessel; if anybody therefore is to blame it is the master, nor does he deny his responsibility. And the question which we have now to consider is whether we shall accede to the application of the Board of Trade that his certificate should be dealt with. Here is a valuable steam vessel of nearly 2,000 tons gross measurement, built in 1879, with a valuable general cargo of between 1,600 and 1,700 tons has been lost by the neglect of this gentleman to take a cast of the lead, when it was so easy for him to have done, for the vessel had no sail set and was going first half speed, and then dead slow from about half-past 1 o'clock. Nothing could have been easier than to have dropped the hand-lead overboard for a long time before she took the ground, and in that case this casualty would not have occurred. We could not therefore allow him to go unpunished. A very large number of testimonials have, however, been put into our hands showing that this gentleman has been a master since 1854, and that he has commanded a great many vessels, and some of large size, and apparently to the entire satisfaction of the owners. Whilst then our intention at first was to have punished him more severely, yet, looking at the high character which he has received from his former owners, as well as from the owners whose vessel he has just lost; seeing also that he has been detained on shore now for nearly three months waiting for this inquiry, and without being able during that time to earn anything for his living, during which we are told that he will not be entitled to any payment for his detention, we think that under all the circumstances the justice of the case will be met by suspending his certificate for three months from the date of the inquiry; and at the request of his counsel we agreed to recommend to the Board of Trade that during the suspension of his master's certificate he be allowed a first mate's certificate.

No order was made as to costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

G. TREFUSIS HOLT,

 

 

"

HY. HARRIS,

Assessors.

 

"

A. RONALDSON,

 

L 367. 250. 100-2/80. Wt. 47. E. & S.