Wreck Report for 'Ardanmor', 1882

(No. 1263.)

"ARDANMOR" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 14th and 15th of February 1882, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain GRANT, R.N., and Captain KNOX, R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "ARDANMOR," of Glasgow, whilst on a voyage from Dunkirk to Greenock.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above - mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the said ship was, in all probability, lost during the violent gale which prevailed in the Bristol Channel on the 26th and 27th of November last, but whether she was driven on the rocks or foundered there is nothing to shew.

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

Dated the 15th day of February 1882.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

HENRY KNOX, Captain, R.N.

Assessors.

 

 

JOHN M. G. GRANT, Captain, R.N.

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 14th and 15th days of February instant, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade and Mr. Nelson for the owners of the "Ardanmor." Six wit. nesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, and the depositions of four witnesses and an affidavit having been put in and read, Mr. Muir Mackenzie handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Nelson then addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Muir Mackenzie having replied for the Board of Trade, 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 "Ardanmor" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Glasgow, of 747 tons gross and 474 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 95 horse-power. She was built at Sunderland in the year 1876, and was the property of Messrs. Maclaren, Crum, and Company, of Glasgow, and others, Mr. John Crum, of 16, Bothwell Street, Glasgow, being nominally the managing owner. She left Dunkirk on the 23rd of November last for Greenock, with a crew of 17 hands all told, and having on board a cargo of about 895 1/2 tons of sugar in bags, and about 52 tons of bunker coal. At noon of the 26th she was passed off the Longships by the steamship "Bertha," but shortly afterwards, a strong gale having set in, accompanied by a very heavy sea, the Bertha" was obliged to heave to, and the "Ardanmor" was not again seen. On the 2nd of December, however, the master of a steam vessel called the "Rathkenny," saw, between the Crow Rock and Saint Govan's Head, some floating wreck, which the owner of the "Ardanmor" has told us that he has no doubt belonged to the "Ardanmor." The vessel did not arrive at her destination; it may, therefore, fairly be concluded that she has gone to the bottom, and the object of the present inquiry is to ascertain, if possible, how she has been lost.

Now the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether when the vessel last left the United Kingdom she was in good and seaworthy condition, and whether the load line was so placed as to give her sufficient freeboard, having regard to her construction, and particularly to the size of her hatchways and the quantity of water she was liable to ship on deck?" it seems that the vessel, which, as I have stated, was built in the year 1876, was originally classed in the Liverpool Registry A 1 for 18 years, which Mr. Oldham, formerly surveyor to the Liverpool Registry at Sunderland, but now a consulting engineer at Sunderland and Liverpool, tells us would be a very high class, the difference between that and the highest, or a 20 years' class, being hardly worth mentioning. Immediately on being completed she was bought by Messrs. Maclaren, Crum, and Co., and she appears to have been well kept up by them ever since, and during the last year a sum of no less than 800l. was spent upon her, the hull having been carefully overhauled in April, and the machinery in October last. We have, therefore, no reason to suppose that the vessel was not, when she last left the United Kingdom, in good and seaworthy condition.

As regards the load line we may, I think, take it that it was placed 2 feet 3 inches below the upper side of the deck; Mr. Gulston, the builder, told us that it was placed there when he sold her, and Mr. Crum, the owner, said that, to the best of his belief, it had never been altered since she had been in their possession. I may add that Mr. Jago, the senior shipwright surveyor to the Board of Trade at Glasgow, stated that he had often measured it. and had always found it to be 2 feet 3 inches below the level of the deck at side. But we are asked, "whether the load line was so placed as to " give her sufficient freeboard?" Of course, the mere position of her load line could not affect the freeboard on any given voyage; but what I understand to be meant by the question is, whether the position of the load line was such that it would be unsafe under any the most favourable conditions to load her down to it. This, however, we are not prepared to say; for instance, if she was bound on a short coasting voyage, from Bristol to Cardiff or Newport, or even from London to Portsmouth, in midsummer it would be impossible for us to say that she might not under those circumstances be loaded with safety down to her load line. No doubt it would not have been safe to load her down to her load line on the voyages which she seems usually to have made; that, however, is not the question that is asked us, but whether under no circumstances could she have been safely loaded to her load line; and that we are not prepared to say. We are also asked whether the load line was placed too high, having regard to the construction of the vessel, and of her hatchways. It seems that the vessel had a break aft, a topgallant forecastle forward, and a bridge house amidships, thus forming what are generally known as wells in the fore and after parts of the vessel. She had also very large hatchways, the forward one being 52 feet 6 by 14 feet 6, and the after one 45 feet 9 by 16 feet, each with coamings 3 feet 3 high; so that, as the stevedore at Dunkirk said, her deck seemed to be almost all hatchway. We were also told by Mr. Oldham that the fore well would hold 130 tons of water, and the after well about 70 tons of water; a quantity which it was said would be sufficient to sink her about a foot in the water. No doubt these are circumstances which must be taken into consideration when determining the amount of freeboard which the vessel ought to have for any particular voyage; still, notwithstanding her construction, the size of her hatchways, and the quantity of water which she was liable to ship on deck, we are not prepared to say that the load line was placed so high, that under no circumstances could she have been loaded down to it with safety, which is the question that we are asked.

The second question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether the bulwarks were so arranged as to enable the vessel readily to clear herself of water shipped on deck?" From the evidence, and from an examination of the plans, which have been laid before us, I think that we may take the bulwarks to have been something under 4 feet high; the fore well being, as we are told, capable of holding 130 tons of water, the after well 70 tons. Now to clear these wells of water three were 4 ports in the fore well. two on each side, and the same number in the after well, each of the ports being about 30 inches square. No doubt owing to the length and height of the hatchways in the middle of the deck, any water that might be shipped would have some difficulty in escaping; the assessors are, however, of opinion that the clearing ports may be said to have been reasonably sufficient for the purpose for which they were intended.

The third question that we are asked is, "Whether the space under the bridge amidships was properly and efficiently closed in, and whether the arrangement fore and aft such space was sufficient protection against weather and sea?" Owing to the absence of Mr. Maclaren, the real, managing owner, but who has, we are told, been prevented by the illness of some near relative from attending, the evidence on this point has not been so satisfactory as we could have wished. At the same time there is sufficient evidence to show that the bridge, which when the vessel first came into the possession of Messrs. Maclaren, Crum, and Co. was quite open at both end,, had in the year 1877 been closed in by iron bulkheads forward and aft. We were also told that in the fore bulkhead there was only one door and that was on the starboard side; whilst in the after bulkhead there were two doors, one on each side. Whether there was a clear passage through from forward to aft is open to some doubt, Mr. Jago saying that there was, whilst Mr. Donaldson, the superintending engineer of Messrs. Maclaren, Crum, and Co., saying that there was not. The point, however, is not of much importance, for even if there had been a passage through with iron doors at each end it would not have been unusual and could hardly have endangered the safety of the vessel. On the whole we think that the bridge house may be said to have been properly and efficiently closed in, and that the arrangements fore and aft were such as to afford sufficient protection against the weather and sea.

The fourth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether when the vessel left Dunkirk she was in good and seaworthy condition, and whether as laden she had sufficient stability?" There is nothing to show that the vessel was not, when she left Dunkirk, in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition, and as regards the cargo the stevedore told us that it was well stowed, and that it could not shift. As regards, however, the stability, which would depend upon the construction of the vessel, and upon the relative position of the centre of gravity and the metacentre, we have no evidence at all before us, and we can therefore offer no opinion on the point.

The fifth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the vessel then had sufficient freeboard?" This is in our opinion the most important question in the case. According to the pilot, who piloted her from Dunkirk, she was "pretty heavily laden," and was a little down by the head; but, as he then goes on to say that she drew about 15 feet forward and 16 feet aft, it is very difficult to understand how this could be; it is, however, perhaps right to observe that the vessel sailed at midnight, and that the pilot left her at 1 a.m., so that he could not have had much opportunity of seeing what she drew. The stevedore, on the other hand, told us that she drew 15 feet aft, and that the Plimsoll mark was out of water, but how much out he does not say, nor does he say what she drew forward. It is therefore impossible to say from the Dunkirk evidence, what was the vessel's draught of water, or what the amount of her freeboard, when she left that port; there is, however, other evidence which will I think give us the information we require on these points. It seems that in the month of March 1878, whilst the vessel was lying at Glasgow just preparing to start for Barcelona, she was observed by Mr. Jago, the senior shipwright, surveyor to the Board of Trade at that port, to have her load-line some 5 inches below the water; and on his informing his superior officer, Captain Pryce, of the fact, an order was at once issued for her detention. Notwithstanding that order, the vessel it seems proceeded down the river as far as Greenock, and brought up at the tail of the bank, where she was again surveyed by Mr. Jago. who then found, the water there being salt, that she drew 15 feet fore and aft, and that her load-line was about 1 1/2 inches below the water, giving her a freeboard of 2 feet 1 inches. Upon this Captain Pryce ordered her to be detained, until 60 tons should have been taken out of her, which he estimated would raise her 6 inches, giving her a freeboard of 2 feet 7 1/2. This was accordingly done, and on being again inspected by Mr. Jago, she was found to be drawing 14 feet 6 forward and aft, and to have a freeboard of 2 feet 7 1/3 inches, upon which she was allowed to proceed, the Board of Trade officers being of opinion that she was then in a proper condition to prosecute her voyage. It further appears that at this time, and after the 60 tons had been taken out o her, she had remaining on board 757 tons 1 cwt. of cargo, in addition to 185 tons 19 cwt. of bunker coal, it being intended that, after discharging her cargo at Barcelona, she should go on to the Black Sea to bring back a cargo of grain. The total quantity of dead weight, therefore, which she had on board at that time, cargo and bunker coal together, was 943 tons, with which it seems she drew in salt water 14 feet 6 fore and aft, with a freeboard of 2 feet 7 1/2. Now we are told that, when she left Dunkirk, she had on board 9,000 bags of sugar weighing 909,000 kilos, equal as appears from the stevedore's account to 895 tons 11 cwt.; in addition to which we are told that she had about 52 tons of bunker coal, making a total of 947 1/2 tons of deadweight, a very little more than the quantity which she had when she left Greenock for Barcelona in March 1878. If therefore she then drew 14 feet 6 fore and aft, and had a freeboard of 2 feet 7 1/2, it will be fair to assume that that would also be about her draught and freeboard when she left Dunkirk. What then we have now to consider is, whether a freeboard of 2 feet 7 1/2 was sufficient for her, having regard to the nature of the voyage and the season of the year.

We were very anxious to ascertain from Captain Pryce how he had come to the conclusion that the vessel, when she left Glasgow in March 1878 for Barcelona, would be safe with a freeboard of 2 feet 7 1/2; and the way in which he said that he had arrived at that result, was by taking Mr. Martell's Tables, which he said he had found to give in most cases approximately the same result as Mr. Rundell's and others. He said that a vessel with the dimensions of the "Ardanmor" would have a co-efficient of fineness of .73, and that consequently by Mr. Martell's Tables she ought, if she had been a flush-decked ship, to have had a freeboard of 3 feet 1 3/4, but from this an allowance would have to be made for the spare buoyancy due to the break deck, the bridge house, and the hatchways, for which he considered that he might fairly allow, he said 5 inches, but he must have meant 6 inches, thus reducing the required amount of freeboard from 3 feet 1 1/2 to 2 feet 7 1/2, which he thought would be a safe freeboard for her. Mr. Oldham indeed claimed an allowance for the break and the bridge house of about 5 to 6 inches, and for the hatchways of about 5 to 6 inches more, making a deduction of about 11 inches to a foot, thus reducing the freeboard to from 3 feet 1 1/4, which a flush deck ship of these dimensions ought according to Mr. Rundell's Tables to have had, to about 2 feet to 2 feet 3, which he thought would be quite sufficient; indeed he went on to say that the vessel could not be worked with a profit, unless she was loaded to that extent. The way however, in which Mr. Oldham dealt with Mr. Rundell's Tables was not calculated to inspire us with much confidence; and we prefer to rely upon the evidence of Captain Pryce, a gentleman who has obtained a deservedly high reputation at Glasgow, as to the amount of freeboard which this vessel ought to have had. Captain Pryce admitted that the deduction of 6 inches for the break, bridge house, and hatchways was of a somewhat empirical character, that it was, in fact, nothing more than a guess, but he said that it was the best estimate which he could form from the information before him, for that he had not seen the vessel himself, and formed his opinion merely from Mr. Martell's tables, making such an allowance as appeared to him to be just for the break, bridge house, and hatchways. Now if 2 feet 7 1/2 inches was a sufficient freeboard for this vessel for a voyage across the Bay of Biscay to Barcelona, it seems to follow that it would be sufficient for her for a voyage from Dunkirk to Greenock; and the fact that in the former case the voyage commenced in March, whereas in the latter case it had taken place in November, would make no difference, seeing that vessels are as likely to encounter violent gales and heavy seas in March in the Bay of Biscay as they are on the coast of England in the month of November. I should add that the vessel had a great shear both forward and aft. Taking, then, all these circumstances into consideration, we are of opinion that the vessel had a sufficient freeboard on leaving Dunkirk.

The sixth question on which our opinion has been asked is, "What, in the opinion of the Court on the evidence before them, is the cause of the vessel not having been heard of since she was seen off the Longships on the 26th of November last?" in some of the cases which have recently come before it, the Court has had ample evidence of the violence of the gale which raged during the 26th and 27th of November last in the Bristol and Irish Channels, and which has caused the loss of a great number of vessels, and there seems to be little doubt that it was in that gale that this vessel was lost. Whether she was driven upon the rocks, or whether she foundered, there is nothing to show, and we are not disposed to speculate on the point. We have said that according to the best opinion which we can form on the evidence before us, she had sufficient freeboard; at the same time it is to be observed that she belonged to that class of vessels commonly called well-decked ships, of which Captain Pryce, and, indeed, Mr. Gulston, the builder, have expressed very strong disapproval. Mr. Nelson has told us that some years ago this class of vessel was popular, but that they are now, as he said, happily going out. Whether this be so or not the Court is not able to say, but there can be no doubt that the large quantities of water which these vessels are capable of taking and retaining on their decks render them much more liable to founder or to capsize than flush-decked vessels. But whether this circumstance in any way led to the loss of the "Ardanmor" there is nothing to show.

The seventh and last question is, "Whether, in the opinion of the Court from the evidence before it, any, and what blame, attaches to anyone, and, if so, to whom, in respect of the casualty?" It has not, in our opinion, been shewn that blame attaches to anyone in this case. The vessel was a strong and substantial vessel, and, so far as we are able to judge from the materials before us, she was not overladen. Seeing, however, the very heavy loss that has taken place, both of property and of life, we think that it was a very proper case for an inquiry; and it must be satisfactory to the owners to know that they are relieved of all responsibility for the casualty.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

HENRY KNOX, Captain, R.N.

Assessors.

 

 

JOHN M. G. GRANT, Captain, R.N.

 

L 367. 1033. 150.—2/82. Wt. 203. E. & S.