Wreck Report for 'Cato' and 'Duke of Cambridge', 1880

(No. 692.)

"CATO" (S.S.) and "DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

Report of Court.

IN the matter of the formal investigation held at Westminster on the 3rd of August 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain BEASLEY and Captain COMYN, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the material damage caused to the British steamship "CATO," of London, through collision with the British steamship "DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE," off Gravesend, on the 5th of July last.

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

1. That the master of the "Cato" did not observe rule 24 of the Rules and Bye-laws for the Regulation of the Navigation of the River Thames.

2. That it was the duty of the master of the "Cato" to have kept out of the way of the "Duke of Cambridge;" that he did not take proper means to do so; and that he should have stopped and allowed the "Duke of Cambridge" to pass.

3. That the course which the master of the "Duke of Cambridge" steered in going inside the "Australian" was a proper one.

4. That there was nothing to prevent the master of the "Duke of Cambridge," after he had cleared the "Australian," from hard-a-starboarding his helm, and going to the north of the "Cato," and that he should have done so.

5. That the master of the "Duke of Cambridge" ought to have stopped and reversed his engines sooner.

6. That both the master of the "Cato" and the master of the "Duke of Cambridge" are to blame for the collision.

The Court is of opinion that, under the circumstances, the certificate of the master of the "Cato" should not be dealt with.

The Court is not asked to make any order as to costs.

Dated this 3rd day of August 1880.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

THOS. BEASLEY,

Assessors.

 

 

D. R. COMYN,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 3rd of August instant, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Wickens for the lessee and master of the "Duke of Cambridge," and Mr. Andrewes for the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company, the owners of the "Cato." Ten witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Mackenzie asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:-

" 1. What was the cause of the collision?

" 2. Did the master of the 'Cato' observe the steer- " ing and sailing rules for the navigation of the " Thames?

" 3. Was it, under the circumstances, the duty of the " master of the 'Cato' to keep out of the way of the " Duke of Cambridge,' and did the master take proper " means to do so? If not, in what respect was he in " default?

" 4. Was the course which the master of the 'Duke " of Cambridge' steered in going inside the 'Australian " a proper one? and, if not, what course ought he to " have taken in approaching Gravesend?

" 5. Could the master of the 'Duke of Cambridge,' " after she was steered inside the 'Australian,' have " kept out of the way of the 'Cato,' and ought he to " have done so?

" 6. Ought the master of the 'Duke of Cambridge' " to have stopped and reversed his engines sooner?

" 7. Is the master of the 'Cato' or the master of the " 'Duke of Cambridge' to blame for the collision?"

Mr. Mackenzie also stated that in the opinion of the Board of Trade "the certificate of the master of the " 'Cato' should be dealt with," and he added that, had the master of the "Duke of Cambridge" held a certificate, a similar application would have been made to the Court in respect of him.

All parties having stated that they had no further evidence to produce, Mr. Wickens and Mr. Andrewes then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Mackenzie having replied, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked.

The "Cato," which is a small steam ferry boat, belonging to the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company, of 127 tons gross, and 80 tons net register, and which is fitted with engines of 56 horse power, left Tilbury at noon of the 5th of July last for Gravesend, having on board a crew of six hands and about 25 passengers. On leaving the pier, her head being down stream, she took a sweep round to the eastward, it being about the first quarter ebb, and then came round with her head about S.W. to make for the town pier. On approaching the south shore she had to pass under the stern of a large ship, which was lying at one of the buoys, and in doing so the captain, in accordance with his usual practice, eased his engines, lest some boat or craft should be in the way. Having cleared the ship's stern, he observed a steamer, which afterwards proved to be the "Duke of Cambridge," near the south shore, and inside the tiers of vessels on the south side, and coming down at full speed, and with the ebb tide in her favour. Believing no doubt that he could reach the pier in time, he again set on at full speed, and had got within 40 or 50 yards of the pier, when the "Duke of Cambridge" ran into her, striking her on the fore part of the fore sponson on the starboard side, and doing her considerable damage. The above is the "Cato's" story.

The story told by the "Duke of Cambridge" is, that she is a vessel of 92 tons gross and 49 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 50 horse power. She belongs to the London Steam Boat Company, Limited, but is chartered for 21 years to Mr. Lever. She left London Bridge at 9.30 a.m. of the 5th of July last with a crew of 11 hands all told, and having from 250 to 260 passengers on board, bound to Gravesend, Southend, and Sheerness. On arriving in Gravesend Reach she took the course along the south shore inside the line of buoys, that being the course, we are told, which is almost invariably taken on an ebb tide by steamers intending to call at Gravesend. It was her intention to land her passengers at the Terrace Pier, which is some 150 yards lower down the river than the Town Pier. Before reaching the Town Pier she observed the "Cato" coming round the stern of the ship at anchor, and saw her ease her engines. The "Duke of Cambridge" thereupon continued her course full speed past a yacht called the "Australian," which was lying at anchor a little above the pier; and just after passing the "Australian" the "Cato" was observed crossing her bows, and making for the Town Pier. Orders were at once given to stop and reverse full speed; but it was too late, and almost immediately afterwards she struck the "Cato" on the fore sponson on the starboard side, driving her by the force of the blow against the pier.

The first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "What was the cause of the collision?" This is a general question, which will be best answered in the answers which we shall give to the questions that follow.

The second question is, "Did the master of the 'Cato' " observe the steering and sailing rules for the navigation " of the Thames?" The 24th section of the Rules and Byelaws for the Regulation of the Navigation of the Thames, which were passed on the 18th of March last, is in these Words: "Steam vessels crossing from one side of the " river towards the other side shall keep out of the way " of vessels navigating up and down the river." It was contended on behalf of the "Cato" that this rule did not apply to ferry steam boats, and that it certainly would not apply to the "Cato," which was at the time of the collision so near her destination, or as the captain called it, so near home. But in our opinion it does apply to ferry boats crossing the river, and especially to the "Cato" in the present instance. It is admitted that, when she cleared the stern of the ship at anchor, she observed the "Duke of Cambridge" coming down the river on the south shore, and it was therefore her duty to have stopped to let her go by, and not to have gone on ahead to make for the pier.

The answer then to the third question is, in our opinion, quite clear; it was "under the circumstances the duty " of the master of the 'Cato' to keep out of the way of " the 'Duke of Cambridge,'" and to "take proper " means to do so;" but which he did not do, and in this respect therefore he is in default; he should have stopped his vessel as soon as he had cleared the stern of the large vessel riding at anchor, and saw that the "Duke of Cambridge" was coming down at full speed with the ebb tide, and should have allowed her to pass before continuing his course.

The fourth question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Was the course, which the master of the " 'Duke of Cambridge' steered in going inside the " 'Australian,' a proper one; and, if not, what course " ought he to have taken in approaching Gravesend?" In our opinion the course taken by the master of the "Duke of Cambridge" was, under the circumstances, the proper course. His destination was the Terrace Pier at Gravesend, and had he gone outside the buoys he might have found it difficult, with the strong ebb tide which was then running, to make the pier.

The fifth question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Could the master of the 'Duke of Cambridge,' " after she was steered inside the 'Australian,' have " kept out of the way of the 'Cato,' and ought he to " have done so?" In our opinion the "Duke of Cambridge" ought, as soon as she had cleared the stern of the "Australian," to have at once starboarded her helm, which would have taken her to the north of the "Cato;" instead of which, she slightly ported her helm, which brought her head round towards the "Cato." So far as appears, there was nothing to have prevented her starboarding her helm, and had she done so there would probably have been no collision.

The sixth question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Ought the master of the 'Duke of Cambridge' " to have stopped and reversed his engines sooner?" In our opinion he should have done so. It is clear from the evidence of the engineer of the "Duke of Cambridge" that the order to stop and to reverse was not given until immediately before the collision; and that there was only time for the engines to make two or three revolutions astern, when they were into the "Cato." The reason appears to be this:-The master of the "Duke of Cambridge," who gave his evidence very fairly, told us that he observed the "Cato" coming round the stern of this vessel at anchor, saw her stop, and thought that she was going to allow them to pass ahead of her; that his attention was then drawn off to the starboard side of the vessel, and that he didn't see her again until she was crossing his bows, when he gave the order to stop and reverse. Unfortunately too shortly before they reached the Town Pier, the look-out man who was stationed forward just abaft the windlass, was called off by the mate to help to get the gangway ready for the passengers who were about to land at Gravesend, so that there was no one forward on the look out. It also appears that there was at the time on the bridge with the master about 15 passengers, who would be not unlikely to distract his attention. We think that the "Duke of Cambridge" should have stopped and reversed her engines sooner, and that the reason why she did not do so was, because there was no good look-out at the time, and that the "Cato" was not seen until it was too late to avoid a collision.

The seventh question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Is the master of the 'Cato' or the master of " the 'Duke of Cambridge' to blame for the collision?" In our opinion, both are to blame; the "Cato" for not having stopped after rounding the vessel at anchor, so as to allow the "Duke of Cambridge" to pass ahead of her, as she was bound and ought to have done; and the Duke of Cambridge" for not having stopped and reversed sooner, owing to not having a good look-out at the time, and for having ported instead of hard-a-starboarding her helm as soon as she had cleared the "Australian."

Counsel for the Board of Trade has also stated that in his opinion "the certificate of the master of the " 'Cato' should be dealt with." But we think that the mistake of which he has been guilty is a mere error of judgment; it is therefore one for which we should not be disposed to touch his certificate.

The Court made no order as to costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

THOS. BEASLEY,

Assessors.

 

 

D. R. COMYN,

 

L 367. 462, 200.-8/80. Wt. 47. E. & S.