Wreck Report for 'Ardanach', 1882

M 7610/1882

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

The Court of Survey for Glasgow.

IN the Matter of an Appeal by William Edward McLaren, Ship Broker, of No. 13, Exchange Place, Glasgow, Managing Owner of the Steamship "Ardanach," otherwise "Ardenach," of the Port of Glasgow, from the Report of F. Jago and Alfred C. G. Chalmers, the Surveyors appointed by the Board of Trade to survey the said ship, dated the 20th day of February 1882.

I, Henry Cadogan Rothery, Wreck Commissioner for the United Kingdom, do report that, having heard this Appeal, I did, with the concurrence of Captain Alfred Parish, the Assessor appointed by the Board of Trade, and John Ferguson, Esquire, one of the Assessors for the Court of Survey at Glasgow, for the reasons set forth in the annexed statement, order the said ship to be finally detained until she shall have been lightened, so as to have a clear side of not less than 2 feet 4 inches in salt water.

Dated this 9th day of March 1882.

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above Report.

ALFRED PARISH,

JOHN FERGUSON,

Assessors.

ANNEX TO THE REPORT.

This Appeal was heard at the Debts Recovery Court, Glasgow, on the 7th, 8th, and 9th days of March instant, when Mr. Spens appeared for the Appellant and Mr. Trayner and Mr. Johnston for the Board of Trade. Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Trayner asked the Court to order "that the S.S. 'Ardanach' be finally detained " until she is lightened, so as to have a clear side of not less than " 2 feet 6 inches." Fifteen witnesses having then been called on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Spens "craved the court ?? sustain " the Appeal, and to order the release of the ship." Mr. Spens was then heard on behalf of the Appellant, and Mr. Trayner having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment. The facts of the case are as follow:—

The "Ardanach" is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Glasgow, of 868 tons gross, and 545 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 98 horse-power. She was built at Port Glasgow in the year 1878, and is the property of Messrs. McLaren, Crum, & Co. and others, Mr. William Edward McLaren, of No. 16, Bothwell Street, Glasgow, being the managing owner. It seems that on the 16th of February ultimo the vessel was lying at Glasgow, laden with a cargo of bricks, pig iron, and iron tubes, and was about to leave for Barcelona, when she was observed by some of the officers of the Board of Trade, who, believing her to be too deeply laden, detained her pro visionally. Two days afterwards Mr. Jago, principal shipwright surveyor to the Board of Trade, and Captain Chalmers, a nautical surveyor to the Board at this port, went down in company with Mr. Meldrum, a surveyor appointed by the owner, to survey her where she was, then lying off Greenock, at the tail of the bank It was blowing at the time a fresh breeze, which made it difficult to ascertain her exact freeboard; but they appear to have come to the conclusion that she was drawing 14 feet 3 inches forward, and 15 feet 4 inches aft, or a mean of 14 feet 9 1/2 inches, the centra?? of the disc being, we are told, about awash, and Mr. Meldrum added that her freeboard would then be 1 foot 6 inches. On their return Mr. Jago and Captain Chalmers drew up a report, in which they stated that, in their opinion, "she was overladen and " unfit to proceed to sea without serious danger to human life." On the other hand Mr. Meldrum prepared a separate report stating, that he considered "her fully laden, but not dangerously " so, or unfit to proceed on her intended voyage."

It would seem, however, that, not being quite satisfied with their first survey, the same three gentlemen went down a second time, on the 21st, and on that occasion the vessel was moved into Loch Long, in order that she might be in smooth water, and they then found her draught to be 14 feet 3 1/2 inches forward, and 15 feet 1 1/2 inches aft, giving a mean of 14 feet 8 1/2 inches; they also stated that she had a freeboard of 1 foot 7 1/2 inches on the port side and 1 foot 7 3/4 inches on the starboard side, and that the load line was placed at 1 foot 6 inches below the deck. The Board of Trade accordingly determined to detain her, upon which Mr. McLaren entered an appeal, and it is thus that the matter has come before us.

And, first, it may be well to give some description of the vessel, of her dimensions, and of the nature and character of her construction. It seems that she was built in the year 1878, and was classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's; that her length was 210.05 feet; her beam, 29 4 feet; and the depth of her hold, 14 95 feet. She was what is commonly known as a well-decked ship, having a raised quarter deck aft, 79 feet long, immediately forward of which was the bridge house, 31.2 feet long; then a well or exposed main deck, 63.6 feet long; and then a raised forecastle, about 30 feet long. The bridge and the forecastle stood about 7 feet above the exposed main deck, the raised quarter deck being 2 feet 3 inches below the top of the bridge house and, therefore, about 4 feet 9 inches above the main deck. At the after-part of the forecastle was a wooden bulkhead, in which, we are told, there were no less than six doors. But, at the forepart of the bridge house, the bulkhead was of iron, with a door on each side leading to the galley and storeroom, and beyond it, other iron doors leading to the engine-room and stoke-hole. There were bulwarks extending from the bridge house to the forecastle, standing about 4 feet 6 inches above the exposed part of the main deck, and having three water-ports, 2 feet 3 inches by 17 1/2 inches, and two scuppers on each side. The camber of the deck was 9 inches, and we are told that she had a sheer forward of 3 feet 9 inches, and aft of 2 feet 4 inches.

And now as to her deck openings: In the well she had a forehatch 9.1 feet by 6 feet, with coamings 2 feet 2 inches high, abaft of which was the main hatch, 29.9 feet long by 10 feet wide, with coamings 3.5 feet high. On the bridge house were the fiddley gratings and the engine-room skylight, the dimensions of which were not given to us; and, on the raised quarter deck aft there was first a hatch, 4 feet abaft the bridge house, measuring 23 feet by 9 feet, and with coamings 2 feet 2 inches high; then a small hatch 3 feet by 6 feet; and then a skylight with a flat wooden top and glazed sides, a companion, and a booby-hatch leading to the engineer's quarters, forming nearly a continuous opening.

Let us now proceed to inquire what, according to the best judgment that we can form on the subject, would be a proper freeboard for such a vessel for a voyage from Glasgow to Barcelona at this season of the year. I have stated that the vessel's freeboard, when she was surveyed in Loch Long, was 1 foot 7 1/2 inches on the port, and 1 foot 7 3/4 inches on the starboard side; and, as the water in Loch Long has, we are told, a specific gravity of 1,024, as against 1,028, the specific gravity of the water in the Atlantic, we may take it that her freeboard at that time in salt water would have been 1 foot 7 1/2 inches to 1 foot 8 inches. Now, all the witnesses who have been produced by the Board of Trade, have told us that, in their opinion, for a voyage to Barcelona at that season of the year, she should have had a freeboard of not less than 2 feet 6 inches, or about 2 inches for every foot depth of hold. On the other hand, the witnesses for the owners seem to have thought that a freeboard of 1 foot 3 inches to 1 foot 6 inches would be quite sufficient, except, indeed, Mr. Mansel, one of the Appellant's witnesses, who seemed to think that 1 foot 9 inches would be the proper amount of freeboard for her; and the question which we have to decide is to which side the greater weight is due. Mr. Spens has told us, that if we are to decide this case upon the evidence as it has been laid before us, we must decide in favour of his client, for that the weight of the evidence is on that side; but we are not prepared to say that that is so, and in estimating wh??t value should be given to the evidence on the one side and on the other, I must be guided mainly by the advice of the two skilled gentlemen who sit with me on the present occasion as assessors.

Now, we were told, that although the witnesses who have been produced by the Board of Trade, were no doubt gentlemen of high character and standing, they were for the most part officers attached to the department; and further, that although they may have had a large experience at sea, they had not, with the exception of one of them, had any experience of well-decked ships. The fact, however, that they had been selected by the Board of Trade to fill positions of trust, would rather lead one to think that they have special qualification for the discharge of their duties; and their want of experience in well-decked ships does not, in our opinion, disqualify them from forming an opinion as to the amount of freeboard which such a vessel as the "Ardanach" should have. On the other hand, who are the witnesses who have been produced on behalf of the owner? It seems to us that they may be divided into three classes. First, there were a number of shipbuilders, gentlemen undoubtedly of very high character, but who had had no experience at sea, and who whilst saying that 1 foot 6 inches would, in their opinion, be a proper amount of freeboard for the "Ardanach," and that it would be the place at which the load line would generally be placed by them, were very careful to inform us that they never accepted any responsibility for the position of the load line, but put it wherever the owner told them. Another class of witnesses were masters who had commanded well-decked ships, and who told us that they had navigated them with safety with fabulously low freeboards, and that, although the seas would break over the bridge and smash the boats on the top of it, they would only leave a sprinkling of water in the well. One, indeed, of these witnesses admitted that his vessel had been detained by the Board of Trade officers, when she was loaded down to her load line, and that on that occasion he had taken out a portion of the cargo; but that afterwards, when he could escape the vigilance of the Board of Trade officers, he continued, to load her down to her load line. The third class of witnesses were the officers who had served on board the "Ardanach" on previous voyages, and who would be hardly likely to say that they thought that she had on those occasions been too deeply loaded. It appeared, however, from their evidence, that the "Ardanach's" load line had originally been placed at 2 feet from the deck; it had then been raised to 1 foot 9 inches, and lastly to 1 foot 6 inches, at which it was when she was detained. One observation, too, applies to both the two last-mentioned classes of witnesses, and that is, that they are all officers; and that it would, perhaps, have been as well, if we had seen some of the seamen who had served on board those vessels, and ascertained whether they would confirm the evidence of the officers as to there being only an occasional sprinkling of water in the well; for it very often happens that there is a remarkable difference in these cases between the evidence of the officers and the men, the former being generally in the after-part of the ship, on the bridge or the quarter deck, and high above the water, whilst the men are, for the most part, confined either to the well or the forecastle. On the whole, I am inclined to think that the weight of the evidence does not preponderate in favour of the Appellant, even though the witnesses whom he has produced have, no doubt, had a great deal more experience of well-decked ships than have the witnesses produced for the Board of Trade.

But apart from the evidence of the witnesses, let us see what are the grounds on which the owner contends. that about 1 foot 6 inches would be a proper freeboard for this vessel for a voyage to Barcelona at this season of the year. I think that it was generally admitted that, had this been a flushed-decked ship, about 2.15 inches to every foot depth of hold, which is what would be allowed by Sir Digby Murray's tables, would be a proper freeboard for her; this would give a freeboard of 2 feet 8 inches and a fraction, the depth of the vessel's hold being 14.95 feet. Now from this the owner claims a variety of deductions; he claimed for extra sheer 2 inches, for extra camber 2 inches, for extra height of floor 2 inches, for the extra height of the hatch coamings 1 inch, for the iron main deck, with which the vessel was fitted, 3 3/8 inches, and for the deck erections at first, I think, 6 inches, but ultimately 3 inches, making a total of from 1 foot 1 inch to 1 foot 2 inches, thus reducing the freeboard from 2 feet 8 inches and a fraction to 1 foot 6 inches or 1 foot 7 inches. It may be well then to examine the grounds on which these several deductions are claimed, and to see how far and to what extent they may be allowed. And first, as to the sheer; we are told that the vessel had a sheer, forward, of 3 feet 9 inches, and aft of 2 feet 4 inches, giving a mean sheer of about 3 feet. Now it is admitted that a sheer of 15 inches for every 100 feet in length would be a fair allowance, and as she is 210 feet long a fair allowance of sheer for her would be 31.5 inches; and seeing that she had a mean sheer of 36 inches she would have an excess of sheer of 4.5 inches. Of this Mr. McLaren claims about one half as a deduction from freeboard, but in the opinion of the Assessors the proper allowance would be one-fourth, or 1.1 inch. Secondly, as to the camber of the deck; it is admitted by both parties that the proper camber for a vessel would be a quarter of an inch for every foot of beam, and as the beam is 29.4 feet that would give a camber of 7.4 inches; and as she had, we are told, a camber of 9 inches, this would show an excess of camber over the average of 1.6 inch. Mr. McLaren has claimed the whole of this as a deduction from freeboard, indeed, he has claimed rather more, making the difference between the normal and actual camber to be 2 inches, but which it is not. Mr. McLaren seems to think that, because the centre line of the ship is raised 1.6 inches above the normal height, that is equivalent to raising not only the centre, but also the sides of the ship 1.6 inches. But in the opinion of the Assessors the claim is untenable; they think that one-fourth of the extra camber, or .4 of an inch, would be sufficient to allow as freeboard. Mr. McLaren has also claimed an allowance on account of the high coamings to the hatchways, those of the fore hatch being 2 feet 2 inches, whilst those of the main hatch were 3 feet 5 inches. On the other hand, however, it was said that the main hatchway on the exposed part of the main deck was very long, which it certainly was, being upwards of 29 feet. On the whole we think that the one may fairly be set off against the other, and that the increased height of the coamings of the main hatch will fully compensate for its more than ordinary length. In the next place Mr. McLaren claims an allowance of 3 3/8 inches for the difference in thickness between an iron and wooden deck; he stated that the iron deck, with which the vessel was fitted, was only five-eighths of an inch thick, but that it was as strong as a wooden deck 4 inches thick, and he claimed the difference as an allowance for freeboard. But as a matter of fact the vessel had not a wooden deck, if she had had one no doubt the upper part of the deck, with the same draught of water, would have been 3 3/8 inches higher out of the water; but as she had an iron deck the Assessors are clearly of opinion that the freeboard must be taken from the upper line of the iron deck, and not from the upper line of an imaginary wooden deck. Lastly, we have the deck erections, for which Mr. McLaren claimed at first a very large deduction. He first claimed an allowance for the forecastle, but seeing that the bull head at the after end of it was of wood, and had six doors in it; we are clearly of opinion that no allowance should be made for it But for the raised quarter deck, which was 79 feet long, and 4 fest 9 inches above the main deck, and which had full scantlings carried up to the top, and for the deck house, which was 32 feet long, and stood 7 feet above the main deck, and had a strong iron bulkhead in front, we think that an allowance of 3 inches should be made; and that was the allowance which Mr. McLaren ?? ultimately willing to accept. The only deductions then, which we are disposed to allow, are 1.1 inches for extra sheer, .4 inches for extra camber, and 3 inches for deck erections, or a total of 4 1/?? inches; and deducting this from the 2 feet 8 inches and a fraction, which she would have as a flush-deck ship, there remains about 2 feet 4 inches as the proper amount of freeboard which this vessel ought to have.

Before we leave the question of the deductions it may be well to refer to the subject of the deck openings on the quarterdeck, for which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, some addition should be made to the freeboard. The assessors, however, do not concur in that opinion; they say that, taking into account the height of the quarter-deck, 4 feet 9 inches, the sheer aft of 2 feet 4 inches, and the freeboard which the vessel has of 1 foot 7 inches to 1 foot 8 inches, it would put the quarterdeck about 8 feet 8 inches to 8 feet 9 inches above the water; added to which there would be the coamings of the skylight and other deck openings; and under these circumstances they are of opinion that they would be at such a height above the water that no danger could fairly be anticipated from the character extent of these deck openings.

Viewing the matter in this way, then, the conclusion to Which we have come is that a freeboard of 2 feet 4 inches in salt wat?? would be a proper amount for this vessel for a voyage to Barcelo?? at this season in the year; and it is strange how this conclusin?? is borne out when we come to calculate the amount of spar?? buoyancy which she would have at that draught. In doing so, propose to take the figures given to us by Mr. Mansel, one of the witnesses produced on behalf of the appellant, and a gentleman, we are told, of high authority on such subjects. Mr. Mansel told us that he had gone carefully into the calculations, and had found the total under-deck tonnage of the vessel to be 676 tons, the tonnage above the deck 192 tons, of which he would allow one half, or 96 tons, to count for spare buoyancy, making the total amount with which we have to deal 772 tons. He also told us that, with a freeboard of 1 foot 9 inches, which is what he thought she ought to have, she would have a spare buoyancy under the deck, including the camber and sheer, of 97 tons; adding this to the 96 tons of available spare buoyancy above deck gives us 193 tons. And, as 193 tons is exactly one fourth of 772 tons the total tonnage, we get on a draught of 1 foot 9 inches a spare buoyancy of 25 per cent., which is what he considered she ought to have. in arriving, however, at those results, Mr. Mansel admitted that in the 192 tons above-deck tonnage he had included the forecastle, but when he was told that the bulkhead at the after part of it was of wood, and had six doors in it, he admitted that it should not be allowed for, and that 20 tons ought to be deducted on that account, making the tonnage above deck available for spare buoyancy 76 instead of 96 tons. This 76 tons, then, added to the under-deck tonnage, gives a total of 752 tons, and adding the 76 tons to the 97 tons under-deck gives us 173 tons available for spare buoyancy; but that makes not 25 per cent. of spare buoyancy, which Mr. Mansel said she ought to have, but only 23 per cent.

Again, it will have been observed that Mr. Mansel took one half of the above-deck tonnage as available for spare buoyancy, whereas the more usual allowance, as he admitted, was only one third, as was stated by even some of the owner's witnesses. Taking, then, the above deck tonnage to be 172 tons, one third of this would give us 57 tons; this, added to 676 tons, the total under-deck tonnage, gives 733 tons. Again, 57 tons, the available spare buoyancy above deck, added to the 97 tons of spare buoyancy under deck on a draft of 1 foot 9 inches, gives us 154 tons. But 154 is only 21 per cent. of 733, so that, with a draught of 1 foot 9 inches, we should thus have only 21 per cent, of spare buoyancy. "whom, and may assess the amount." I am of opinion, there having been no consent in this case, that I had no power to make any order on the application.

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner,

We concur

ALFRED PARISH,

JOHN FERGUSON,

Assessors.

LONDON:

Printed by GEORGE E. EYRE and WILLIAM SPOTTISWO??K, Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty. For Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

[3861.—50.—6/82.]

17

R 1426—1. Wt. 3861.