Wreck Report for 'Ludworth', 1881

(No. 1143.)

"LUDWORTH" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 3rd and 4th of November 1881, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain BEASLEY and Captain RONALDSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the steamship "LUDWORTH," of London, on the 2nd of October 1881, whilst on a voyage from Hartlepool to London.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the loss of the said ship was due to her having sprung a leak forward of the collision bulkhead, which opened as well into the forepeak as into the tank beneath it, but that there is nothing to show how the leak was caused; and that the master was not justified in opening the sluices between the tanks and the drain cock from the after tank so as to allow the water to run from forward into the bilges aft. Seeing, however, that the fault of which the master was guilty was an error of judgment only, and not a wrongful act or default, the Court will not deal with his certificate.

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

Dated the 4th day of November 1881.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

THOS. BEASLEY,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 3rd and 4th of November instant, when Mr. Snagge appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Dickens for the master, and Mr. Nelson for the owners of the "Ludworth." Twelve witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Snagge handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Dickens having then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Snagge 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 "Ludworth" was an iron screw steamship belonging to the Port of London, of 447 tons gross and 304 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 70 horse power. She was built at Whiteinch, in the county of Lanark, in the year 1866, and at the time of her loss was the property of Messrs. Green and Holland, of No. 16, Coal Exchange, London, Mr. William Green being the managing owner. She left Hartlepool at 10 a.m. of the 1st of October ultimo for London, with a crew of 14 hands all told, one female passenger, and a cargo of from 530 to 540 tons of coal, besides 36 tons in the bunkers, drawing about 10 feet 10 inches forward and about 13 feet 3 or 4 inches aft, and having a freeboard of from 2 feet 11 to 3 feet amidships. The weather at the time was fine, and the wind light from the west. Towards evening the wind chopped round to the cast, and began to blow strong with a nasty cross sea. At midnight the first officer was relieved by the second, and at 1 a.m. the master came on deck, at which time the vessel was, we are told, about midway between Cromer and the Dudgeon. and was steering a S.S.E. course, with the wind blowing a topgallant breeze from about E. by S. At about twenty minutes after two, the master perceiving that the vessel did not steer well, and that she appeared to be down by the head, sent Pegg, the lookout man, to see if she was making water forward. Pegg went into the forecastle, and on raising the hatch and looking down saw water in the fore-peak, which he estimated to be from 2 to 3 feet above the water tank in the bottom.

I ought here to state that the vessel had her engines aft, forward of which was the main-hold, then the forehold, and then the fore-peak, with water-tight bulkheads between all the compartments, the collision bulkhead being between the fore-peak and fore-hold, and in the bottom of each of the three foremost compartments (the fore-peak, the fore-hold. and the main-hold) were watertight tanks, all communicating with one another by sluices amidships. On finding that there was water in the fore-peak, the captain gave orders to set the pumps going; accordingly the chief engineer started the centrifugal pump, which is worked by the donkey engine, and which was used to pump the water out of the ballast tanks; but according to the second engineer it did not throw any water for the first quarter of an hour, shewing that there was then no water in the after ballast tank. The bilge pumps, I should observe, which are connected with the main engines, were already at work, but there was then, we are told, no water in the bilges. At about 3 a.m. the master, seeing the vessel to be down by the head, ordered the sluices, which connected the tanks as well as the drain cock, which opened from the after tank into the engine room, to be opened, thinking thereby to bring the water aft to the pumps, and to relieve the vessel forward; and immediately the water began to flow through the drain cock into the engine room, and although the bilge and centrifugal pumps, as well as the two after deck pumps, were kept continually going, it was found impossible to keep the water from gaining. The water at length got above the stokehole plates, and the captain, fearing that the vessel would sink in deep water, turned her head in towards the shore, and made for a gap some 600 to 700 yards to the northward of Hasborough High Light. where he succeeded in beaching her just in time, and before the fires were quite extinguished. Shortly afterwards a rocket was thrown from the shore, but fell short; and upon a second rocket being thrown, and also falling short, the master determined to launch the starboard lifeboat, which they succeeded in doing. and the mate and 5 of the crew, and the female passenger, having got into her, they pulled ashore, reaching the land in safety. Soon afterwards the Hasborough lifeboat came alongside, and having taken off the captain and the remainder of the crew landed them in safety, but the vessel herself became a total wreck, and was lost, together with her cargo.

These being the facts of the case, the Board of Trade has put to us a number of questions, not so much with the object of making charges against the owners, but more with the view, as I understand Mr. Snagge, of obtaining from the Court an expression of opinion upon the various points which have been raised in the course of this inquiry. And the first question which we are asked is, "Whether the 'Ludworth' was properly and efficiently repaired by Messrs. Fletcher in the year 1880?" The vessel, as I have stated, was originally built in the year 1866, and was classed A B 1, which Mr. Davey, the principal Surveyor to Lloyd's Register in London, tells us is, although not quite the highest, still a very good class. She continued in that class till the beginning of 1878. when she met with a very serious collision with the "C. M. Palmer," her bows being crushed in, so that it was necessary to give her a new bow; but on the completion of the repairs, which we are told by Mr. Davey were done to the entire satisfaction of Lloyd's, she was again classed at A B 1 until, towards the end of 1879, when her class having expired. the owners, for reasons best known to themselves, did not think proper to renew it. In September 1880, it having been found that the vessel was making water, she was put into Messrs. Fletcher's Union Dock at Limehouse, with her water tanks full of water; and it was then found that her hull was quite sound, but that there was a leak in her valve box, through which the ballast tanks are fitted; on a new leather however being fitted the leak stopped. We are told also that on that occasion she was carefully examined, and that her butts were found to be in as good condition as those of a new vessel. We have therefore no reason to think that she was not, when she left Messrs. Fletcher's dock in September 1880, in a proper and efficient state of repair. It is true that in the following month she was again in Messrs. Fletcher's dock, and that on that occasion some 50 rivets were knocked out and replaced, and a new lining was put to the stern bush; but these repairs are not such as to justify as in saying that she had not been thoroughly and efficiently repaired.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether the vessel was properly examined on Messrs. Withy's Hard in September last, and whether she was then properly and efficiently repaired?" She seems to have had some trifling repairs done to her engines in December 1880, and after that nothing more was done to her until September 1881, when she was put upon Messrs. Withy's Hard at Hartlepool, not, as we are told, because she needed any repairs, but simply for the purpose of examining her bottom. On that occasion it was found that two rivet heads were defective, the counter sinkings being out; these were knocked out and new ones put in; but nothing else appears to have been either done or required. We have therefore no reason to think that, when she left Messrs. Withy's Hard, she was not in a proper and efficient state of repair.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether, when the vessel left Hartlepool, she was in good and seaworthy condition?" Seeing that this was her first voyage after coming off Messrs. Withy's Hard, it would follow that she must have been, so far as appears, in a good and seaworthy condition at that time.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether the pumps were efficient and in good order?" It seems that she had two bilge pumps connected with the main engines, a centrifugal pump worked by the donkey engine and connected with the ballast tanks, in addition to which there were five hand pumps, two aft and three forward. This being so, it would certainly seem that she had sufficient pumps, and, so far as appears, they were all in good working order. The only thing, however, which seems to have been wanting was, that there should have been some means of turning the main pumps on to the holds, whereas it would appear that the pumps connected with the main engines bore only on the bilges, whilst the centrifugal pump, which was worked by the donkey engine, was only available for emptying the ballast tanks. Except in this respect, the pumps appeared to be sufficient and to be all in good order.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether the cargo was properly stowed?" It seems that both holds were full, with the exception of the fore part of the fore-hold, where there was an empty space, the coals sloping down forward. This, we were told by the trimmer, was the way in which she was usually loaded, the object being to keep the bows well out of the water, and the assessors are of opinion that the cargo was properly stowed.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether she was overladen?" It seems that she had from 530 to 540 tons of cargo, besides 36 tons of bunker coal. Now 530 to 540 tons of coal would give about 80 per cent. above her net register tonnage, which is certainly a very full cargo; at the same time, seeing that she had performed a great number of voyages with the same amount of cargo in perfect safety (54 voyages I believe last year, and 57 in the preceding year) and that she had been thus engaged for the last ten years, we are not prepared to say that she was overladen.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the vessel springing a leak forward on the morning of the 2nd of October?" This is a question which it is extremely difficult for the Court to answer. All that we can say is that there is nothing to show that the leak arose from any defect in the construction of the vessel. We were told that a day or two after the vessel was beached, a large portion of sunken wreck was towed ashore in the neighbourhood, and it was suggested that she might possibly have struck a piece of wreck when pitching in the sea. It is true that neither the captain nor any of the crew were conscious of her having done so, but they say that it is quite possible that it may have happened without their perceiving it. That there was a leak forward there can be no doubt; but how it was caused it is not possible for us to say.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether every possible effort was made to ascertain the cause of and to stop the leak?" So far as appears no effort whatever was made to ascertain the cause of the leak. The captain seems to have thought that there was water in the fore-hold. bu the took no means to ascertain whether there was or not. He said that it would have been impossible, as no doubt it would have been in such weather, to lift the hatches; and that it was also impossible to sound the wells either in the fore or main holds. I should however have thought that there were some means of letting water out of the main and foreholds into the bilges (independently of the drain cock which opened from the ballast tank), and by which it could have been ascertained whether there was or was not any water in the holds; if there were any such means, the master and engineers appear to have been ignorant of them. Be this however as it may, it does not appear that any steps were taken to ascertain the cause of the leak.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Whether the master was justified in ordering the sluices in the bulkheads to be opened, and subsequently, when it was found that the pumps were unable to keep the ship free, ought they not to have been again closed?" Mr. Dickens has said that the opening of the sluices and drain cock would not have contributed to the casualty unless there had been three leaks, one in the fore-peak above the tank, another in the tank of the fore-peak, and a third in the fore-hold; but in this we are not prepared to agree with him. No doubt the water did get into the fore-peak above the tank, because it was there when first discovered by Pegg; we know also that it must have got into the tank, otherwise the water would not have found its way through the drain cock into the bilges, and thus filled the vessel aft when the sluices between the tanks were opened. We do not however know, and there is not a particle of evidence to shew, that there was ever any water in the fore-hold other than that in the tank Mr. Dickens also said that the master was bound to open the sluices to let the water aft to the pumps, for that, if he had not done so, the water would have continued to rise until the vessel had gone down by the head; but this is on the assumption that there was a leak in the fore-hold, of which there is not a particle of proof. On the contrary, if the leak had been only in the fore-peak, and the sluice in the collision bulkhead had been kept closed, the water would have risenlin the fore-peak to the level of the sea outside, and would then have stopped. The object indeed of a collision bulkhead is to enable the vessel to float should she make water about the bows; and we are told that after her collision with the "C. M. Palmer," when the bows were broken in and the fore compartment was completely filled with water, her crew managed to keep her afloat and to get her safely into harbour. It appears to us that all the facts of this case are quite consistent with the vessel having sprung only one leak in the fore peak on a line with the top of the tank, giving free access both to the tank and to the space in the fore-peak above the tank. And if this was so, nothing could have been more injudicious than to have opened the sluice, thus allowing the water to run aft and fill the vessel; every effort should have been made to keep the water forward of the collision bulkhead, and this could only have been done by keeping the sluices firmly closed down. The vessel would probably have been more down by the head than would be desirable, but she would not have sunk, and might thus have been got into some port. In our opinion the master was not justified in opening the sluices, and when he found that the pump were not able to keep the water under, the sluices should have been at once closed.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Whether every possible effort was thereafter made to keep the water under?" Apart from opening the sluices, we think that every possible effort was made by the captain to keep the water under. The bilge pumps, the centrifugal pump, and the two after-deck pumps, the only pumps that could be worked, were kept going until the vessel grounded.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, "Whether the master was justified in beaching the vessel?" With a vessel in the condition in which she was, the water half-way up the bars of the midship furnace, hardly able to keep the fires alight, and With only 5 lbs. of steam in the boiler, and the water still gaining, the only thing that the master could do was to beach the vessel; and he was, in our opinion, quite justified in so doing.

The twelfth question which we are asked is, "Whether she was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?? Except in the matter of opening the sluices and drain cock, we have every reason to think that the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care.

Lastly we are asked, "Whether the owners, master, or officers are, or either of them is, in default, and whether blame attaches to any other person or persons, and if so to whom?" And it is added that, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, "the master's certificate should be dealt with." It is clear that the only person who is in any way to blame for the loss of this vessel is the master. The error, however, of which we have found him guilty, can hardly be said to amount to a wrongful act or default or even to an act of negligence; in our opinion it was a mere error of judgment. The master was in a difficult position; he found the water coming in forward, and his ship more down by the head than in the opinion of himself and the officers was consistent with her safety; and instead of remembering that so long as the collision bulkhead was kept closed his vessel would float, he unfortunately opened the sluices to allow the water to run aft to the pumps, hoping thereby to ease the vessel forward. It was a great error of judgment, for the only effect was to open a direct communication between the sea and the after part of the vessel. In our opinion, however, it was not such a fault as would justify us in dealing with his certificate.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

THOS. BEASLEY,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

L 367. 913. 150.—11/81. Wt. 203. E. & S.