Wreck Report for 'Joseph Ferens', 1880

(No. 529.)

"JOSEPH FERENS," (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Assize Court, Moot Hall, Newcastie-upon-Tyne, on the 19th of February 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by J. R. RAVENHILL, Esquire, C.E., Captain FORSTER, and Captain CASTLE, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "JOSEPH FERENS," of London, whilst on a voyage from the Tyne to Lisbon.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed,-

1. That the probable cause of the steamship "Joseph Ferens" not having been heard of since she left the Tyne on the 29th of November 1879 is that she foundered in one of the gales which she encountered.

2. That the said steamship was overladen when she left the Tyne.

3. That the said steamship as laden had not sufficient stability.

4. That her pumping arrangements were sufficient.

5. That although the holds of the said steamship appear not to have been properly ventilated, that had nothing to do with the loss.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated the 19th of February 1880.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

 

 

"

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

"

JOHN R. RAVENHILL,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on the 19th of February instant, when Mr. De Hamel appeared for the Board of Trade and Mr. Sewell for the owners of the "Joseph Ferens." Eight witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. De Hamel stated that the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:-

" 1. What in the opinion of the Court from the evidence " before them was the cause of the steamship 'Joseph " Ferens' not having been heard of since leaving the " Tyne on the 29th of November 1879?

" 2. Whether the said steamship was overladen?

" 3. Whether as laden the said steamship had sufficient " stability?

" 4. Whether her pumping arrangement was efficient?

" 5. Whether the holds of the said steamship were pro- " perly ventilated?"

Mr. Sewell was asked whether he wished for an adjournment to produce further evidence, but he stated that he was prepared to go to a hearing on the evidence as it stood. He then addressed the Court on behalf of the owners, and Mr. De Hamel having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:-

The "Joseph Ferens" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of London, of 1,803 tons gross and 1,176 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 170 horse-power. She was built by Messrs C. Mitchell & Co., at Low Walker-on-the-Tyne, in the year 1877, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Charles Samuel Hunting, of No. 38, Quayside, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and others, Mr. Hunting being the managing owner. She left the Tyne on the 29th of November last with a cargo of coals bound to Lisbon, and having a crew of 27 hands all told; and from that time to this nothing more has been heard of her. And it is under these circumstances that we have been asked to hold this inquiry, with a view, if possible, to ascertain what has become of her. Unfortunately, however, the evidence, which has been laid before us is of so unsatisfactory a character that we have very considerable difficulty in answering the question. Captain Brunton, the gentleman who managed the vessel for the owners, has, we are told, been suddenly called away by the serious illness of a daughter; and Mr. Hunting, the managing owner, who was called in his stead, unfortunatelly knew nothing of the state and condition of the vessel when she left on her last voyage. But we have had before us Mr. Charles Henry Tate, the chief draughtsman in Messrs. Mitchell's yard and the designer of the vessel, and from his evidence and from the plans which have been laid before us, we find her description to be as follows:-

She was a vessel of the usual three-decked class, having two decks laid, the upper of wood, the main deck of iron, and with orlop beams below. Forward was a raised forecastle 34 feet long, and aft was a poop about 30 feet long, and standing some 2 feet above the upper deck. Her total length was 270 feet. She had her engines amidships, with water-tight bulkheads forward and aft. Between the engine-room compartment and the collision bulkhead was a large hold divided in two by a wooden bulkhead, and with two hatches, a fore and a main hatch. Abaft the engine-room was another hold also with two hatches, a large and a small one. She had permanent side and thwartship bunkers capable of containing about 259 tons of coal; in addition to which 14 feet of the after part of the forehold immediately forward of the engine-room compartment was partitioned off to be used either as a spare thwartship bunker, or for cargo; this compartment went right up to the upper deck, and would contain about 92 tons of coal in the 'tween decks, and 164 tons in the lower hold, or a total of about 256 tons. According to a plan which has been laid before us, the cargo space of the lower foreholds contained 48,500 cubic feet, the fore 'tween decks 20,000, the lower after hold 32,500, and the after 'tween decks 15,200, so that the cubical contents of the 'tween decks for the purposes of cargo was a little less than one half of the lower holds. The vessel had also two ballast tanks, one under the engine-room extending from the forward bulkhead to within about 4 feet of the after bulkhead, leaving a space aft for a small well; the other extended the whole length of the after hold, except for a space of 4 feet aft, where there was another small well. The top of the tank under the engine-room was about 4 feet above the keel, and in the after hold about 5 feet above it, but what quantity of water they severally contained we could not ascertain. She had also holes cut in the main deck half-way between the centre line and the sides of the ship to serve as trimming hatches; of these there were six in the foreholds, two forward of the fore hatch, two between the fore and main hatches, and two abaft the main hatch; and in the after hold there were four, two before and two abaft the principal hatchway.

Now the first question on which our opinion has been asked, "What in the opinion of the Court from the " evidence before them was the cause of the steamship " 'Joseph Ferens' not having been heard of since leaving " the Tyne on the 29th of November 1879?" had better stand over until we have dealt with the other questions; and we will therefore at once proceed to consider the second question, namely, was the said steamship overladen when she left the Tyne on her last voyage? According to the evidence which has been laid before us the quantity of cargo coal which this vessel had on board was 1,863 tons, in addition to which she had 810 tons of bunker coal, or a total of 2,673 tons of coal. The evidence as to how this coal was distributed in the vessel is not very satisfactory. It is admitted that the lower holds were quite full. In the after 'tween decks the coal came to about half-way along the small after hatch, whence it sloped backwards; but in the fore 'tween decks we were told that there was room for about 300 tons more. It is admitted, however, that there were 810 tons of bunker coal altogether taken on board to serve for the out and home voyages, and as the permanent side and thwartship bunkers could hold only 259 tons, and the spare thwartship bunker only 256 more, making a total of 515 tons, we have 295 tons remaining, which had to be put somewhere. According to the coal trimmer these 295 tons were put into the fore 'tween decks, which seems reasonable enough, if, after putting the cargo on board, they had room for about 300 tons more here; and if these 295 tons were not put there we are at a loss to imagine where they can have been put. The conclusion then to which we have come is that when we were told that the fore 'tween decks contained only from 30 to 40 tons, and that there was room for 300 tons more there, it must be understood to mean that this was after the cargo alone had been shipped; but that after this 295 tons of bunker coal were put into this compartment, which would nearly fill it up. If this be so, as we assume it was, the vessel was nearly full of coal in the lower holds, the 'tween decks, and the permanent and spare bunkers; she was as full as she could well be.

Now we were told by Mr. Tate, the chief draughtsman to Messrs. C. Mitchell & Co. and the designer of this vessel, that she was built to carry a dead weight of 2,650 tons, with a draught of 21 feet 6 inches, which he said would give her a freeboard of 5 feet 3 1/2 inches. The specification indeed says that the carrying capacity is to be 2,550 tons, with a draught of 21 feet 6 inches, but this we were told was a mistake. But be this as it may, the vessel, as we have seen, had a total of cargo and bunker coal of 2,673 tons, which was slightly in excess of her carrying capacity according to Mr. Tate's estimate, but very considerably more than that stated in the specification. Moreover, it is to be observed that in the 2,673 tons of dead weight no allowance is made for the engines, which according to the assessors should be added; and that seems to be in accordance with the terms of the specification, for what Messrs. Mitchell & Co. contract to do is to build a steamer capable of carrying 2,550 tons on a mean draught of 21 feet 6 inches without any mention being made of the engines; it was a contract merely for the hull of a vessel capable of carrying a certain dead weight on a certain draught of water, and leaving it to Messrs. Hunting afterwards to put in what weight of engines they thought proper. Messrs. Mitchell could hardly have contracted that the vessel should carry 2,550 tons on that draught of water whatever the weight of the engines that might be put into her. On these grounds we think that in calculating the total dead weight to be carried the weight of the engines should be added, which at 1 ton for every horse-power gives an additional 170 tons, making the total dead weight which this vessel carried when she left the Tyne on the 29th of November last to amount to no less than 2,873 tons, or more than 200 tons in excess of what Mr. Tate stated that she was designed to carry, and more than 300 tons in excess of what is mentioned in the specification. But Mr. Tate has also told us that the vessel would sink an inch for every 17 1/2 tons; if then with 2,650 tons her draught would be 21 feet 6 inches, and her freeboard would be 5 feet 3 1/2 inches, with 2,873 tons her draught would be about 22 feet 6 inches, and her freeboard consequently only about 4 feet 3 1/2 inches. We have been compelled to go into these calculations, because we have no evidence at all as to what water she drew when she left the dock, or where the load line on her side was placed, or whether that load line was immersed, or if above the water how far above it. The only evidence on this point is from a person named Alexander, the deputy dockmaster at Tyne Dock, who told us that to the best of his recollection she drew about 22 feet, but that that was only approximate, for she was in motion when he looked at her; he said also that he did'nt notice the disc on her side, or whether it was immersed or not, and that he could'nt say whether she was very deep or not. Captain Brunton might possibly have given us these particulars, but unfortunately he was not produced, and none of the other witnesses could give us any information on this point.

Whether then we look at the amount of dead weight which this vessel had on board, and which is so much in excess of what she was built to carry, and still more of that mentioned in the specification; or whether we look at the probable amount of her freeboard as being 4 feet 3 1/2 inches, which on a depth of hold of 24.5 feet gives only a trifle above 2 inches to every foot of hold, we can hardly come to any other conclusion than that this vessel was overladen when she left the Tyne; having regard also to the fact that she was nearly, if not quite chock full of either cargo or bunker coal, and that she carried a very large quantity of it in her 'tween decks.

The next question on which our opinion is asked is, "Whether as laden the said steamship had sufficient stability?" The stability of a vessel would of course depend in a great measure upon the position of her centre of gravity. Where this was we were not told; and, indeed, Mr. Tate, the chief draughtsman of Messrs. Mitchell and the designer of this vessel, has informed us that it is not usual when a ship is built to calculate the position of the centre of gravity; he said that they arrived at it by a kind of rule of thumb. This being so we can only judge of her stability by a comparison of her dimensions. Now it seems that her main breadth was 34.2 feet as against a depth of hold of 24.5 feet, which would give the ratio of depth to beam of .71. This, no doubt, is not so large a co-efficient as that of the vessels with which we had to deal last week, the "Tiara," the "Emblehope," and the "Lufra;" but it is a very high co-efficient, and considering the amount of her cargo and bunker coal, and its position in the vessel, and that, so far as we can see, there was nothing to counterbalance these defects, we are not prepared to say that she had sufficient stability for the voyage on which she was bound.

The next question on which our opinion is asked is "Whether her pumping arrangements were efficient?" It seems that she had a suction pipe from the engines to the after part of the fore hold, with branches to the centre and to the two bilges. She had also a suction pipe to the after well, into which any water in the after hold would pass through a non-return valve. There were also two bilge pumps in the engine-room which could be laid on to the well in the after end of it, and with roses in the centre and in each bilge. The quantity of water that the pumps could throw was altogether about 185 tons an hour, or more than 3 tons a minute, which the assessors consider to be sufficient.

The next question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the holds of the said steamship were properly ventilated?" The evidence on this point, owing to the absence of Captain Brunton, is far from satisfactory. The owner, Mr. Charles Hunting, told us that there were two ventilators in the fore hold and two in the after hold; and from a plan which has been given in, and which appears to have been prepared by Captain Brunton, it would seem that in the fore hold one of the ventilators was between the fore and the main hatch, and the other in the after part of the hold, and just forward of the bridge; in the after hold also it would seem as if there was one ventilator just aft of the bridge, and another behind the small after hatch. If this was the arrangement, and if also there was a clear space below the upper deck in the after hold from one ventilator to the other, so as to allow a free current of air to pass over the surface of the coal it might have been sufficient, so far as that hold was concerned. And the same also in the fore 'tween decks, if they were clear from end to end; but if there was a wooden bulkhead between the two ventilators as seems from the plans to have been the case, these two ventilators would clearly not have been sufficient. But in our opinion the question whether the ventilation was or was not sufficient hardly arises in this case, for it was proved that all the cargo coals which were put on board this vessel came from the Burnhope Colliery and from the Hutton and Busty seams. And we were told by Mr. Barrett, the manager of that colliery, that these coals do not give off explosive gases, he said that an overlooker did certainly go round the mine every morning with a safety lamp to see if there was an accumulation of gas anywhere, but that the colliery is worked with naked lights; and that on one occasion only had he ever observed any appearance of gas, and that then it was so slight that it would not ignite, and had soon passed off. And Mr. Barrett was confirmed in his statement as to the coal not being of a fiery nature by Mr. Bell, the Government inspector for the district. It was also shown that the coals, which were shipped on board this vessel as cargo, had been worked between the 21st and the 27th; and that they had been put on board on the 25th, the 26th, and 27th of November. When the bunker coals were worked we do not know. It is true that there was a good deal of wet when they were being shipped, but Mr. Bell stated that this would not have had any tendency to produce an explosion of gas. I think therefore that we may dismiss any suggestion that the vessel may have been lost owing to the want of proper ventilation.

To return then to the first question upon which our opinion was asked, namely, "What was the cause of the " steamship 'Joseph Ferens' not having been heard of " since leaving the Tyne on the 29th of November 1879?" The only conclusion to which we can come is that she was lost in one of those dreadful gales of which we have had so many during the last few months; and that, owing to her being overladen, and to the fact that she had not the requisite stability, she had not been able to weather it as she might have done had she been less deeply laden, and had she had more beam in proportion to her depth of hold.

Mr. De Hamel did not ask that the owners should be condemned in costs, but he left it to the Court to make what order it thought proper. Seeing, however, that the owners have been deprived, from some unavoidable cause, of the benefit of Captain Brunton's evidence, and that it has not been shown that the owners sent this vessel to sea knowingly in an unseaworthy state, and in wilful disregard of the safety of those on board, the Court made no order as to costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

GEO. H. FORSTER,

 

 

"

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

"

JOHN R. RAVEXHILL,

 

L 367. 299. 100.-3/80. Wt. 47. E. & S.