Wreck Report for 'Alecto', 1882

(No. 1620.)

"ALECTO" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 22nd and 23rd of December 1882, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains RONALDSON and REES, and J. H. HALLETT, Esquire, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the less of the steamship "ALECTO," of London, through drifting ashore at Cape Levi, near Cherbourg, on the 13th of November 1882.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the position of the injection valve on the vessel's side was such as to render it liable to be exposed when she encountered bad weather, and that in that case the engines would lose their necessary vacuum; and that she should not have been allowed to leave Dover without the injection valve being moved, as it might easily have been, some two-and-a-half feet lower down; but that the loss of the said ship was due to her boiler having given way, owing probably to the engineer having drawn off too much water, and thus exposed the tubes and crowns of the furnaces.

The Court is not asked to make any order as to costs, or to deal with the certificate of the engineer, who was the only certificated officer on board.

Dated this 23rd day of December 1882.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

 

 

 

F. B. REES,

Assessors.

 

 

J. H. HALLETT,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 22nd and 23rd of December 1882, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Jackson for the owner and master of the "Alecto," and Mr. Tyser for the owners of the cargo on board the said vessel. Thirteen witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Muir Mackenzie handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Tyser then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Muir Mackenzie 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 "Alecto" was an iron screw steamship. schooner rigged, belonging to the Port of London, of 204 tons gross, and 124 tons net register, and was fitted with two compound surface condensing engines of 30 horse power. She was built during the present year at Cubitt Town, on the River Thames, by Messrs. Edwards and Symes to the order of Messrs. Pile and Company, of 34, Great St. Helen's, in the city of London, and her engines were made and fitted in the ship by Messrs. Charles Burrell and Sons, of Thetford, in Norfolk. The trial trip took place on the 21st of September last, and on the following day she was bought by Mr. Thomas Banks, of 47, Cobham-street, Gravesend, Kent, for the sum of 4,200l., and he was subsequently appointed managing owner. Having taken on board a cargo of 201 1/2 tons of flour in sacks and 20 tons of coal, she left St. Saviour's Dock, Bermondsey, in October last, but was hardly clear of the dock when she came into collision with some barges, owing to some defect in her steering gear, and some of the plates in her starboard bow having been damaged, she put into Millwall Dock for repairs, and after a detention of about a fortnight she again left on the 1st of November, bound on a voyage to Bristol, and having a crew on board of 8 hands all told, namely, a master, a mate, 3 deck hands, an engineer, and two firemen. Having brought up at Gravesend, she there took in 10 more tons of coal. and shipped two fresh hands in the place of two who refused to go any further with her. The same evening she dropped down the river and brought up a little below the East Blyth Buoy, and as the tide was falling, she took the ground. After remaining there for about a couple of hours she came off again, apparently without having sustained any damage; and on the following morning at about 7.30 a.m. again left, but meeting with contrary winds, she brought up in the Downs at about 4 p.m. of the same day, and there remained until 2 p.m. of the 6th, when the wind having moderated and gone round to the east, she got under way and proceeded down channel. Off Dungeness the wind again headed her, and she had to take in all her sails, but she continued her course till about 11 p.m., when on nearing the Sovereign Lightship the engineer reported that he found it impossible to keep up the vacuum, and by his advice the captain put the vessel about and ran for Dover, where they arrived at about 7.30 a.m. of the following day, the 7th. Information was at once sent to Mr. Banks, the owner, who came down, and having communicated with Messrs. Pile and Company on the subject, a Mr. Sage, a consulting engineer, was by Messrs. Pile and Co's recommendation sent down to examine the engines. Mr. Sage could find nothing wrong in them, but he recommended that a baffle plate should be put into the condenser, so as to distribute the water more equally over the tubes of the condenser, and that they must thus get a better vacuum, but beyond this nothing seems to have been done, except some few trifling repairs, which it is unnecessary to mention. Whilst, however, she was lying at Dover, the engineer and the whole of the crew, with the exception of the master and mate, refused to go any further with her, and accordingly a new engineer and a new crew were engaged in their places, and she left Dover at about 10.30 a.m. of the 12th, and proceeded down channel, the weather at the time being fine, and the wind light from the east. At 10 p.m. however, the wind began to rise accompanied with rain, and by midnight it was blowing a hard gale. They, however, continued their course until about 2 o'clock, when the engines suddenly broke down, some of the tubes having burst, and the crown of the port furnace having come down, and they were obliged to draw the fires. They were then about 10 miles to the east of the Owers Lightship, and, all sail having been set, they continued their course down channel, intending to put into the nearest port, but in about half an hour she broached to on the port tack, and the mainsail blew away, upon which the master endeavoured to bring her head to the north, but finding that she would not answer her helm, he hauled down the jib and set the mizen, but at this time the steering gear gave way, and she fell off into the trough of the sea, which soon made a clean breach over her, carrying away the boat, the bridge ladder, and everything loose on deck. In the course of the morning a French vessel, the "Albert, of Brest," hove in sight, and was asked to take them in tow; this, however, the master refused to do, but he offered to take them off the wreck, and with that view lowered a boat, and let her out by a rope towards the "Alecto," but before she was half way she nearly filled with water, upon which they hauled the boat on board again and then left them. In the meantime the "Alecto" had been drifting before the gale, which was then blowing from the N.E., and at about 2.30 p.m. Barfleur Lighthouse came in sight. She continued to drive before the gale, and at about 4 p.m. grounded about half a mile to the westward of Cape Levi. With the assistance of the people on shore a communication was established with the beach, and all the crew were safely landed, but the vessel herself became a total wreck.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether having regard to the construction of the vessel, her engines, boilers, and machinery, she was of sufficient strength to make a voyage from London to Bristol in the winter?" It does not appear to us that there was anything in the strength of the vessel, her engines, boilers, or machinery which rendered it improper that she should be sent on a voyage from London to Bristol in the winter season.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether the load line disc was so placed as to give the vessel a sufficient freeboard?" We are told that the centre of the disc was 10 inches below the deck, and the question, therefore, which we have to consider is, Whether, if she had been loaded down to it, she would have had sufficient freeboard? We are told by the Board of Trade rules that a vessel of her dimensions should for a winter voyage have 2 inches of freeboard for every foot depth of hold, and as her hold was 9.8 feet deep that would give us 19.6 inches, or about I foot 7 1/2 inches of freeboard. As regards Lloyd's rules we have not all the materials necessary to enable us to say with perfect accuracy what ought to have been her freeboard according to them. I think, however, that we shall not be very far wrong if we assume that she had a co-officient of fineness of about .84, and a moulded depth of about 10 feet 6; if so, Table A would give 1 foot 6 1/2 inches as the minimum freeboard, which she ought to have had. There is little difference between them; and assuming that the results obtained are to be relied on, as we think they may be, it is obvious that a freeboard of only 10 1/2 inches would have been wholly insufficient.

This brings us to the third question, which is, "Whether, when she left London, she was overladen?" Putting aside the evidence of William Kennard, the mate, who told us that when she left London the water was about a couple of feet below the load line, and at the same time said that it was about a foot below the bottom of the disc, I think the fair result of the evidence is that the water was between one and two inches below the lower limb of the disc; this would have given her a freeboard of about 18 inches, or 1 foot 6; and, as we find that by Lloyd's rules and the Board of Trade rules, a freeboard of 1 foot 6 1/2 to 1 foot 7 1/2 would be sufficient, we are not prepared to say that she was overladen, although, no doubt, she was fully laden.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the engines losing their vacuum about 11 p.m. on the 6th of November?" It seems that the injection valve was placed on the ship's side on a level with the engine platform, which we are told was about 3 feet 6 above the top of the keel. And as. the vessel was short, and the engines quite in the stern, it is obvious that in a sea way, when the vessel was pitching heavily, the valve would be liable to come out of the water; and in that case, instead of drawing water, it would only draw air, so that a proper vacuum would not be formed in the condenser. Both Mr. Pile and Mr. Sage at first told us that the injection valve was placed where it was, namely, on a level with the engine platform, so as to comply with Lloyd's and the Board of Trade rules, which require that the valve should be above the stokehole plates, so that it might be readily seen and got at; but on further inquiry it turned out that the stokehole plates were about 2 feet 6 below the engine platform, and that the valve might therefore have been very well placed some two and a half feet lower, and there Mr. Day, the engineer, who did the repairs at Dover, said that it should have been placed; and, indeed, both Mr. Pile and Mr. Sage were afterwards obliged to confess that it would have been better if it had been there. The only objection to its being put there appears to be that it would have required some 2 1/2 feet more of copper piping. This, then, was the only cause, so far as we are aware, why a proper vacuum could not be obtained in the condenser, namely, the high position of the valve on the ship's side.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether proper and sufficient alterations and repairs were effected to the engines at Dover, and whether the master was justified in leaving Dover before having the alterations suggested by Mr. Day completed?" It appears that Mr. Day recommended that the injection valve should be removed from the position in which it was to the level of the stokehole plates, some 2 feet 6 lower, and it is a great pity that this was not done. There would then have been little danger of the valve getting out of the water, and of the engines thus losing their vacuum. All that seems to have been done was to put a baffle plate into the condenser, which may possibly have been of some little use, but was, in our opinion, not sufficient. As to the master, we cannot, however, think that he was in any way to blame for not having seen that the alteration was made before they left Dover; it was his first experience in steam, of which he seems to have known nothing; and seeing that the engines were in charge of professional engineers specially appointed for the purpose by the owner, he might reasonably expect that they would do whatever was required to make them efficient.

The sixth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether, when the vessel left Dover, she was in a fit state to proceed on a voyage to Bristol in the winter, and whether she then had a sufficient freeboard?" Although the vessel appears to have had a sufficient freeboard, she was, in our opinion, not in a fit state to proceed on a voyage to Bristol in the winter season seeing that if she encountered bad weather, as she might reasonably expect to do, she would be liable to lose her vacuum. It is proper, however, to observe that this was not, as we shall presently see, the proximate cause of her loss.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the giving way of the tubes on the starboard side of the boiler about 2 a.m. on the 13th of November?" The facts of the case would seem to be as follow:—Molony, the engineer who had joined the vessel at Dover when the former engineer, Taylor, left her, told us that some time after midnight on the night in question he observed the water to be rising in the glass, and thinking that one of the tubes in the condenser might be leaking he scummed her down until he saw the surface of the water appear again in the glass, and he then estimated the boiler to be about three parts full. Some time afterwards the vessel took two or three heavy lurches, which scattered them all in the engine-room, and at the same time he heard several loud reports in the back of the boiler, as though the boiler tubes had given way; he accordingly ordered the fires to be drawn, and then saw that the crown of the port furnace had come down. Now it was suggested that possibly the bursting of the tubes and the collapse of the furnaces might have been caused by the salting of the boiler, but I am informed by Mr. Hallett, the engineer assessor who sits with me, that the boiler could hardly have become salted in so short a time, and that in his opinion the damage to the tubes and the crowns of the furnaces must have been caused by their having become exposed owing to there being too little water in the boiler. It seems that shortly before the explosions occurred the engineer was assisting the fireman to fire instead of having his whole attention directed to the working of the engines, and it may therefore well be that when he thought that there was too much there may have been too little water in the boiler, and that by then scumming her down he may have exposed the tubes and the crowns of the furnaces. This is the only way in which it seems possible to account for the accident.

Our answers to the eigth and ninth questions, namely, "Whether every possible effort was subsequently made to save the vessel?" and "Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" must be that, so far as we can see, every possible effort was made to save the vessel, and that she seems to have been navigated with proper and reasonable care. The engines having broken down, one of the sails blown away, and the steering gear having become useless, there was nothing that the master could do to keep her from going ashore.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Whether the master and engineer are, or either of them is, in default?" So far as we can see the master is not in any way to blame; and as regards the engineer, although no doubt it was a great mistake to blow down the boiler unless he was quite satisfied that there was too much water in it, it must be remembered that he was the only engineer on board, that the two firemen were men of whom he knew nothing, and whom he had picked up in the streets of Dover, and that, when the explosion occurred, he was helping them to fire, the engines working very badly, owing to their having an insufficient vacuum. Looking at all these facts we think that some allowance should be made for this engineer, who seems not to have left the engine room from the time of their leaving Dover until the accident. We are told that many of these small coasting vessels are navigated with only one engineer and a couple of firemen, one of whom is made leading fireman, and acts as assistant engineer; but it must be remembered that this was the vessel's first voyage, when additional work is always thrown upon the engineer's department; and seeing that she had had to put back to Dover on account of some defects in her engines, it would have been more prudent, considering that it was the winter season, when bad weather might be expected, that a second engineer should have been sent in her.

The eleventh question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether any blame attaches to the managing owner?" It seems that Mr. Banks is a gentleman of independent means, who has hitherto owned only a few sailing barges, and that this was his first venture in steam. He seems to have given a very full price for her, more than 20l. a ton on her gross tonnage, and nearly 34l. a ton on her net tonnage. He might, therefore, naturally have expected that he would have a good vessel for his money, and, apart from the position of the injection valve, he no doubt had. He had no practical knowledge of steam vessels, and although in the eye of the law that would perhaps not relieve him from his responsibilities as the managing owner, still it cannot be altogether left out of sight, for he endeavoured to obtain the best advice that he could on the subject. Immediately he hears of the vessel having had to put back to Dover he goes there himself, sends down a professional engineer, Mr. Sage, who is recommended to him by Messrs. Pile to examine the vessel. It is true that Mr. Day recommends him to lower the position of the injection valve; but Mr. Sage does not think that it is at all necessary, and Messrs. Pile seem to ridicule the idea, telling him that they have a sister ship with the valve in exactly the same position, and which has been running for some time without accident. We cannot therefore think that Mr. Banks is very greatly to blame in this case, seeing that he took what may be considered reasonable precautions to see that the vessel was sent to sea in a seaworthy condition. If blame rests anywhere it seems to rest with Messrs. Pile and Mr. Sage, his advisers in the matter; but we are not asked to express any opinion as to them.

The Court was not asked to make any order as to costs, or to deal with the certificate of the engineer, who was the only certificated officer on board.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON

 

 

 

F. B. REES,

Assessors.

 

 

J. H. HALLETT,

 

L 367. 1392. 150.—1/83. Wt. 171. E. & S.