Wreck Report for 'Jones Brothers', 1880

(No. 544.)

"JONES BROTHERS," (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Town Hall, Newport, Monmouth, on the 11th and 12th of March 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY. Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by J. R. RAVENHILL, Esquire, C.E., Captain PARFITT and Captain WILSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the explosion of a boiler on board the steamship "JONES BROTHERS," of Newport, Monmouth, at Bilbao, on the 27th of January 1880, whereby three lives were lost.

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

1. That there is no reason to suppose that the boilers of the "Jones Brothers" were not properly tested and examined in June 1879; but that Mr. Keydell, Lloyd's surveyor, was not justified in allowing the boilers to be worked at a pressure of 42 lbs., after testing them by hydraulic pressure up to 50 lbs. only.

2. That proper measures were not taken by the chief engineers to ascertain the thickness of the plates, and the condition of the boilers from the 31st July 1879, when Thomas left, to the 27th of January 1890, when the explosion occurred.

3. That the owners of the "Jones Brothers" were not justified, under the circumstances, in leaving the superintendence of the engines and the boilers solely to their chief engineers, more especially after June 1879; but knowing nothing of the proper management of steamers themselves, they should have employed a superintendent, or consulting engineer, or some competent and independent person to examine the machinery and boilers from time to time on the return of the vessel to this country.

4. That the owners did not take fit and proper measures to ensure the safety of the "Jones Brothers" and her machinery.

5. That the boilers were on the 27th of January 1880 worked at too high a pressure, considering the state in which they were.

6. That the pressure in the boilers was about 33 lbs. when the explosion occurred.

7. That the cause of the bursting of the bottom plate of the port combustion chamber was the total neglect to which the boilers had been subjected for some time previously, and to the consequent reduction of that plate at the place of fracture to a bare 16th of an inch thick.

8. That the master is not, but that the owners are to blame for the explosion and loss of life resulting therefrom.

The Court, on the application of counsel for the Board of Trade, condemns William Jones, of Newport, in the county of Monmouth, shipowner, the managing owner of the "Jones Brothers," in the sum of one hundred pounds (100l.) nomine expensarum, fifty pounds thereof to go towards the expenses of the Court, and fifty pounds towards the expenses of the Board of Trade.

Dated this 12th day of March 1880.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

 

 

"

R. WILSON,

Assessors.

 

"

JOHN R. RANENKHILL,

 

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1951 to 1876.

In the matter of a formal Investigation held at the Town Hall, Newport, Monmouth, on the 11th and 12th days of March 1880, before Henry Cadogan Rothery, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by John R. Ravenhill, Esquire, C.E., Captain Parfitt and Captain Wilson, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the explosion of a boiler on board the steamship "Jones Brothers," of Newport, Monmouth at Bilbao, on the 27th of January 1880, whereby three lives were lost.

The Court orders that William Jones, of Newport, in the county of Monmouth, shipowner, the managing owner of the said steamship "Jones Brothers," do pay to the solicitor to the Board of Trade the sum of one hundred pounds (100l.) on account of the expenses of this investigation.

Given under my hand this 12th day of March 1880.

 

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Newport on the 11th and 12th of March instant, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Ingledew for the owners, and Mr. Pain for the master of the "Jones Brothers." Before the proceedings commenced it was arranged by consent of all parties that the inquiry should be held in a court ordinarily used as a police court, there being no other suitable place available for the purpose. Twelve witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Howard Smith asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:-

" 1. Were the boilers of the 'Jones Brothers' properly " tested and examined in June 1879, and was Mr. Key- " dell, Lloyd's surveyor, justified in giving the report he " did?

" 2. Were proper measures taken by the chief engineers " to ascertain the thickness of the plates and the condition " of the boilers from time to time from June 1879 to the " 27th January 1880?

" 3. Were the owners of the 'Jones Brothers' justified " in leaving the superintendence of the engines and the " boilers solely to their chief engineers before, and especially " after June 1879, or should they have continued to " employ a superintendent engineer, or to have employed " consulting engineers?

" 4. Did the owners take fit and proper measures to " ensure the safety of the 'Jones Brothers' and her " machinery?

" 5. Were the boilers on the 27th of January 1880 worked " at too high a pressure?

" 6. What was the pressure when the explosion took " place?

" 7. What was the cause of the bursting of the bottom " plate of the port combustion chamber?

"8. Is the master or are the owners of the 'Jones " Brothers' to blame for the explosion and the loss of life " thereby occasioned"

One of the witnesses having been recalled and two further witnesses produced and examined on behalf of the owners, Mr. Pain and Mr. Ingledew addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties; and Mr. Howard Smith 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 "Jones Brothers" is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Newport, Monmouthshire, of 743 tons gross and 481 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 80 horse-power. She was built by Mr. William Harkiss, at Middlesbrough-on-Tees, in the year 1871, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry was the property of Messrs. Jones Brothers, of Newport, and of Mr. Harkiss, the builder, Mr. William Jones, one of the partners in Messrs. Jones Brothers firm, being the managing owner. It happened very unfortunately that the managing owner was ill whilst the inquiry was proceeding, so that we were not able to take his evidence, his two brothers, however, Mr. George Inglis Jones and Mr. Morgan Middleton Jones, were examined, and we have no reason to think that our views would have been materially altered even had Mr. William Jones been examined.

The vessel left Bilbao, in Spain, at about 2 p.m. of the 27th of January last, with a cargo of 800 to 900 tons of iron ore, bound to Newport, and having a crew of 17 hands all told. She proceeded down the river, in charge of a pilot, and on nearing the bar, observing that the signal was against her, she dropped anchor. Shortly afterwards the signal was raised, and she proceeded, but a vessel ahead of her having grounded on the bar she was again obliged to bring up. In the meantime the second engineer, David Rees, had observed water coming out of the port furnace, and he immediately called the first engineer's attention to it; the latter however, on the fires being raked out, said that he thought that the leak would take up, and he accordingly gave no further directions at that time. On coming to anchor, however, the second time, the steam, which in going down the river had been kept up to 30 lbs., increased to 34 lbs., upon which the second engineer, who was in charge of the engines, opened the safety valve to allow it to escape, and it then fell to 33 lbs. On then going into the stoke-hole he observed that the flow of water from the port furnace had increased considerably, upon which he called the first engineer down, and was directed by him to go on deck and tell the captain that they must not go to sea. The second engineer accordingly went up, and whilst speaking to the captain an explosion took place in the engine-room, by which Cameron, the chief engineer, Robert Allen, the donkey-man, and a fireman named John Sullivan, were severely scalded. Cameron and Allen succeeded in getting on deck, but Sullivan was so seriously injured that he had to be brought up, and they were thereupon sent off in the pilot's boat to the hospital, but before they reached the shore Sullivan died, and the same evening Cameron and Allen died also. After the explosion the vessel seems to have been taken back to Bilbao; and it was then found that the explosion had been caused by the fracture of the bottom plate of the port combustion chamber. Accordingly the old plate was cut out, and a new one was put in its place; and the corresponding plate in the starboard combustion chamber, which was also found to be very thin, having been doubled, the vessel resumed her voyage, and arrived safely in this country. And it is under these circumstances that this inquiry has been ordered.

Now the first question on which our opinion has been asked is, whether "the boilers of the 'Jones Brothers' were properly tested and examined in June 1879," and whether "Mr. Keydell, Lloyd's surveyor, was justified in giving the report he did?" it seems that the vessel having grounded in the Bilbao River, on the 7th of May and 3rd June 1879, was on her return to this country surveyed by Mr. Keydell, Lloyd's surveyor for the Bristol Channel District; when he found her boilers to be in a very bad condition. He told us that there were seven patches screwed on the backs of the combustion chambers covering cracks in the plates, as well as some screw stays drawn, and exhibiting a leaky appearance. He accordingly ordered the patches to be taken off; the cracked and defective parts to be cut out; 28 screw stays to be taken out and renewed; and four additional stays to be fitted, for the purpose of strengthening the plates of the combustion chambers, which he said showed signs of buckling. He also told us that he sounded the sides and bottom of the combustion chambers with a hammer; and after the repairs were completed he tested the boilers with a hydraulic pressure of 50 lbs., and then authorised the safety valves to be weighted to 42 lbs. He further informed us that, although the boilers were in a bad state when he made his first survey of them, they were in a thoroughly good and efficient condition when he left them. The fact that they were in a very bad state when The explosion orcurred seven months afterwards is no proof that they were not thoroughly surveyed by Mr. Keydell in June 1879, for they might easily have been reduced to the condition in which they were found, if during the interval they were neglected to the extent which we were told they were. But when Mr. Keydell tells us that after testing the boilers up to 50 lbs. he authorised the safety valves to be weighted to 42 lbs. we think that he committed a grave error of judgment. Mr. Bone, a Board of Trade surveyor, stated that he considered that boilers, new as well as old, should be tested to double the working pressure. Mr. Loxdale, another Board of Trade surveyor, stated that he thought there ought to be a distinction made between new and old boilers, and that whilst new boilers should be tested to double the working pressure old boilers should only be tested to about one and a half. They were, however, both strongly of opinion that to pass boilers for a working pressure of 42 lbs. when they had been tested only up to 50 lbs. was not right, and in that opinion the assessors concur. Whilst, therefore, we are of opinion that Mr. Keydell did thoroughly survey the boilers on that occasion, we think that he was not justified in allowing the safely valves to be loaded to the extent to which he did.

Before, however, I proceed to deal with the other questions which have been asked us it may be well to see what arrangements were made from time to time by the owners in regard to the inspection of their engines and boilers. It seems that at first the "Jones Brothers" was the only steamer which they possessed; but having subsequently purchased two others, they in the year 1873 appointed a Mr. Faull to be their superintending engineer at a salary of 170l. a year, for which he was to give the whole of his time to their service. Mr. Faull remained in their employ till about August or September 1878, when he resigned, and in November or December following was succeeded by a Mr. Pile, who agreed to accept 30l. for each vessel, or 90l. for the three, but he was not required to give his whole time to their service. Mr. Pile res gned in February 1879, and from that time no other superintending engineer was appointed to succeed him. The first reason given by Mr. Morgan Middleton Jones, one of the owners, for not appointing another superintending engineer after Mr. Pile's resignation, was because the chief engineers complained that when they wanted anything done the superintendent would not do it for them. That was the first reason which he gave; but he subsequently stated that what he meant to say was, that the chief engineers complained that if they did any repairs to the engines whilst they were away the superintending engineer on their return would complain of the way in which they had been done; which is a very different thing. But however this may be, from the time when Mr. Pile resigned in February 1879 the owners appointed no other superintending engineer; but each chief engineer was expected to look after his own engines and boilers, both afloat and in port. As Mr. Morgan Middleton Jones stated, the owners preferred to have, as he called it, an undivided responsibility, and to trust entirely to the chief engineer of each vessel for the proper state of the machinery.

This being so, it becomes important to see who were the persons who acted as chief engineers of the "Jones Brothers," at all events during the last few years of her life, and perhaps there is no one who could give us better information on this point than David Rees, the second engineer. He was taken on originally as an apprentice, was afterwards made third engineer, and in August 1879 was promoted to be second engineer; and he served continuously in her from July 1877 to about a week before this inquiry commenced, when he left the owner's service. Rees tells us that during the first six months after joining her a Mr. Israel was the chief engineer, he was succeeded by a Mr. Pomeroy, who remained in her for between two and three months. Mr. Thomas then took charge of the engines, and remained in her from May or June 1878 until the 31st July 1879, when having met with an accident he was obliged to go ashore. A Mr. Shepherd was thereupon appointed the chief engineer; he remained in her until the beginning of November 1879, when he was replaced by a Mr. Jones, who after about a month was succeeded by Mr. Cameron, the engineer who was in charge of the engines when the casualty occurred. It will thus be seen that between June 1879, when she was surveyed, and the boilers repaired under Mr. Keydell's instructions, and the 27th of January 1880, when the explosion took place, a period of about seven months, there were no less than four chief engineers successively in charge of the engines of this vessel, namely, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Cameron. The fact of these frequent changes in the chief engineers could hardly have been otherwise than injurious to the machinery. Whether indeed the owners were dissatisfied with their engineers, or the engineers with their engines, matters not; in any case, it could not but create some suspicion that all was not quite right.

I now proceed to answer the second question upon which our opinion is asked, namely, "Were proper measures " taken by the chief engineers to ascertain the thickness " of the plates, and the condition of the boilers from time " to time, from June 1879 to 27th January 1880?" According to David Rees, of the four chief engineers, who had charge of the engines from June 1879 to the time of the explosion, not one except Mr. Thomas ever tested the boiler plates with a hammer. Now we are told that owing to the position of the plate in the port combustion chamber which gave way the only proper mode of testing its condition would be by tapping it with a hammer, and yet, if we are to believe David Rees, and I do not know why we should not do so, neither Shepherd, Jones, or Cameron ever tested any of the boiler plates with a hammer during the whole time that they were in the vessel. They occasionally, it is true, cleaned out the boilers, but even that seems not to have been done very efficiently, for Rees tells us that whilst they were lying at Bilbao finding that there was an accumulation of salt in one part of the boilers, he got out the tools for the purpose of cleaning them, but Cameron, who was then the chief engineer, said that he did not think it mattered, and accordingly the tools were put back again. But the condition in which the fractured plate was when the explosion occurred, is a sufficient proof that it could not have been tested with a hammer at all events for a considerable time before. That plate was produced in court, and its thickness measured by several of the witnesses in our presence, and they all agreed that the whole of the surface on the water side was considerably eaten away, and that at the place of fracture it was a bare, or as one of the witnesses said, a thin 16th of an inch thick; so that it could not have borne the slightest blow of the hammer without giving way. The corresponding plate also of the starboard combustion chamber would equally have yielded to a blow of the hammer, and Mr. Loxdale, one of the Board of Trade surveyors, produced two pieces of the plate which had come out when he had struck it with a hammer, and which were each only the eighth of an inch in thickness. All the witnesses, too, agree that the deterioration must have been going on for a considerable time, and that it was the result of long continued neglect. We have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that proper means were not taken by the chief engineers to ascertain the thickness of the plates and the condition of the boilers, at all events after the 31st of July 1879, when Mr. Thomas left, to the 27th of January 1880, when the explosion occurred.

The third question on which our opinion was asked is, whether "the owners of the 'Jones Brothers' were justi- " fied in leaving the superintendence of the engines and " boilers solely to their chief engineers before, and espe- " cially after June 1879?" or whether they should "have " continued to employ a superintending engineer or have " employed consulting engineers?" It was said by Mr. Ingledew that owners do sometimes entrust the machinery to the chief engineer, without having either a superintending or consulting engineer; and he produced a Mr. Hallett, who told us that in some of the vessels on board of which he had served he had had the sole charge of the engines without being subjected to any supervision. Mr. Hallett, however, it was quite clear, had a thorough knowledge of his duties, and was receiving 20l. a month, whilst the chief engineers of the "Jones Brothers" were receiving only 14l.; and it would be a very different thing to appoint such a man to the sole charge of the engines to appointing such men as Shepherd, Jones, and Cameron, who have shown their utter incapacity for the position by never having once tested the boiler plates during the whole time that they were on board the vessel in the only way in which they could be properly tested. We have therefore no hesitation in saying that the owners of the "Jones Brothers "were not justified in leaving the charge of the engines and boilers to the men whom they thought fit to appoint to be the chief engineers, and without having any superintendent or consulting engineer over them.

The fourth question on which our opinion is asked is, "Did the owners take proper measures to ensure the safety of the 'Jones Brothers' and her machinery?" If owners will take upon themselves to leave the sole charge of the machinery, on which the safety of those on board depends, to the chief engineer, it behoves them to take especial care that they appoint competent persons for the duty; and if they do not do so they must be held responsible for their neglect. It must be remembered that the boilers of this vessel had been in pretty constant use for between seven and eight years, and all the skilled witnesses tell us that, although boilers may last for 10 years and more they require after five years to be very carefully watched. Indeed, Mr. Faull told us that he had informed two of the owners. Mr. George Inglis Jones and Mr. Morgan Middleton Jones, that it would lie necessary to have the boilers examined every three or four months. It is true that both the Messrs. Jones denied Mr. Faull's statement, Mr. George Inglis Jones adding that had he received any such intimation from Mr. Faull he should have been alarmed, for that he was under the impression that boilers ought to run for 6 or even 12 months without being examined; and he explained that by "examined" he meant examined by a Board of Trade or Lloyd's surveyor. But if so, we are somewhat at a loss to understand why the vessel was allowed to go from April 1877 until June 1879, as we are told she was, without being surveyed, and how it was that she was not surveyed by Lloyd's until it became absolutely necessary to do so owing to her having grounded twice in the Bilbao River. If a survey by Lloyd's was to supersede the necessity for employing a superintending or consulting engineer, we should have thought that Lloyd's surveyor would have been more frequently called in. It appears to us that in leaving the charge of the machinery entirely in the hands of men who were utterly incompetent for the duty, and of whose qualifications they were bound to assure themselves, the owners have not taken "Proper " measures to ensure the safety of the 'Jones Brothers' " and her machinery," and I will add of the lives of those on board.

The next questions on which our opinion was asked are, "Were the boilers on the 27th of January 1880 working at too high a pressure?" and "What was the pressure when the explosion took place?" Messrs. Bone and Loxdale, the Board of Trade surveyors, told us that when they examined the safety valves after the return of the vessel to this country they found them weighted, the one to 38 lbs., the other to 44 lbs. It seems, however, from the evidence of David Rees that at the time of the explosion they were not being worked up to this pressure, for he told us that when they brought up, finding that the pressure had risen to 34 lbs., he opened the safety valve and let it down to 33 lbs; and that that was the pressure when he went up on deck to speak to the captain; he also told us that after he left the engine-room the steam continued to blow off until the explosion occurred; we may therefore fairly assume that the pressure at the time of the explosion would not be more than, if as much, as 33 lbs. No doubt, if the boilers had been in a good and efficient condition, 33 lbs. would not have been too great a pressure at which to work them; but in the state in which they were, with the bottom plate of the port combustion chamber reduced to a bare or thin 16th, and the corresponding plate of the starboard combustion chamber only an eighth thick, it was much too high a pressure. According to the Board of Trade surveyors those boilers could not in the state in which they were have borne a pressure of even 5 Ibs.

The next question on which our opinion was asked is, "What was the cause of the bursting of the bottom plate of the port combustion chamber?" The cause of the bursting of this plate was the neglect to which the boilers had been subjected from the time when they were repaired under Mr. Keydell's instructions to the time of the explosion, whereby the plate had, on the inner or water side, become so corroded and eaten away as to be only a bare or thin 16th in one part. This, in our opinion, is quite sufficient to account for its bursting.

The last question on which our opinion was asked is, whether "the master or the owners of the 'Jones Brothers' " are to blame for the explosion, and the loss of life thereby " occasioned?" And first as to the master, the charge against him is that lien David Rees, the second engineer, came on deck, and told him that the boiler was leaking, and that they could not go to sea, the master replied that they could not stay where they were, but that they had better give her all they could, and that when they got over the bar he would bring the vessel to anchor and see what was the matter. That charge was made by two of the firemen, David Thomas and George Badcock, who were on deck at the time. It was, however, distinctly denied by the master, and David Rees, the second engineer, told us that he did not hear the master say anything of the kind. But assuming that he did say so, how is he to blame? The bar of the Bilbao is, we are told, extremely dangerous, a fact which is sufficiently confirmed by what we learn from Mr. Keydell's report, that she had touched on it on the 7th of May and on the 3rd of June last; as well as by the statement in the log-book that she grounded after the explosion. If then the master, when spoken to on the subject, did say "let us first get across the bar and then " I will bring the vessel to an anchor and see what is the " matter," we cannot think that he was to blame; he could not know the condition of the boilers, nor did any order of his conduce to the casualty, for the vessel was still at anchor, and they were blowing off steam when the explosion occurred. We must therefore acquit him of all blame.

But we regret to say that we cannot so readily acquit the owners. Mr. Ingledew stated that he was not prepared to defend the conduct of the three last chief engineers, who had had charge of the engines before the explosion; on the contrary, he thought that the boilers could not possibly have got into the state in which they were unless they had totally neglected their duties. But then Mr. Ingledew stated that for this neglect the owners could not be held responsible; that there was no statutory obligation upon them to appoint either a superintending or a consulting engineer, all that the statute required was that the engineers whom they appointed to take charge of the engines should hold Board of Trade certificates, and this they had done. But in our opinion the owners responsibilities do not end there; no doubt it is their duty to see that, the engines are entrusted only to engineers holding Board of Trade certificates, but they are equally bound, if they think fit, to entrust the sole care of the engines to the chief engineers. to see that they are qualified to perform that duty; and that they appear not to have done. A man may be quite fit to take charge of the engines of a small vessel on a short run, and yet not fit to be left in the uncontrolled management of them in harbour, without any supervision by anyone; and at all events these men were not so. The owners, as Mr. Ingledew admitted, were bound wholly independently of any statutory obligation to act as reasonable persons; and this in our opinion they do not appear to have done. As reasonable men they ought to have taken every means in their power to have ascertained that the engineers whom they appointed to this vessel were fully equal to the duties with which they were to be entrusted; and they were more particularly bound to do this after they had ceased to employ either a superintending or a consulting engineer. If they chose to dispense with the services of such a person they should at any rate have caused the vessel to be regularly surveyed by Lloyd's surveyor, or by some other competent and independent person. This, however, they did not do, and the result has been that the boiler of the "Jones Brothers" exploded, and that three lives have been lost. We are therefore of opinion that the owners must be held to blame, both for the explosion, and for the loss of life which resulted therefrom.

After judgment had been given on the merits of the case, Mr. Howard Smith asked that the owners should be condemned in costs. And looking at all the circumstances, the state of utter neglect in which the boiler of this vessel seems to have been left by the three last engineers who were appointed to take charge of her previous to the explosion, and the little care which the owners seem to have taken to ascertain the qualifications of these persons for the duties with which they entrusted them, we were of opinion that the application should be granted. As, however, it is the managing owner who is primarily responsible for the proper management of the vessel and her machinery, we considered that he should be held liable for the costs; we therefore condemned Mr. William Jones, of Newport, Monmouthshire, the managing owner of the "ones Brothers," in the sum of one hundred pounds (100l.) nomine expensarum, fifty pounds thereof to go towards the expenses of the Court and fifty pounds towards the expenses of the Board of Trade; and we ordered that the whole amount should be paid by Mr. William Jones to the solicitor to the Board of Trade.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

 

 

"

R. WILSON,

Assessors.

 

"

JOHN R. RAVENHILL,

 

L 367. 314 100.-4/80. Wt. 47. E. & S.