Wreck Report for 'Blanche', 1885

(No. 2740.)

"BLANCHE" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 26th day of November 1885, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains METHVEN and KIDDLE, R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the abandonment and loss of the steamship "BLANCHE," of Newcastle, off the Leman and Ower Lightship, in the North Sea, on the 11th ultimo, whilst on a voyage from the Tyne to Amsterdam.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that when the said vessel left the Tyne on her last voyage she was, so far as her hull was concerned, in a good and seaworthy condition, that she was not overladen, and that she had not too heavy a deck cargo; but that she was undermanned, that the cargo on deck as well as that in the hold was not properly secured from shifting, and that the loss of the vessel was due to the machinery in the hold having got adrift and damaged the vessel causing her to make so much water that the master and crew were compelled to abandon her, and that they were fully justified in doing so.

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

Dated this 26th day of November 1885.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

JAMES KIDDLE,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Newcastle on the 26th day of November instant, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Roche for the owners, and Mr. Forster for the master of the "Blanche." Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Howard Smith handed in a statement of the questions, upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Roche then addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Howard Smith having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions, upon which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "Blanche" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Newcastle-on-Tyne, of 128 tons gross, and 72 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 22 horse power. She was built at Whitehill Point on the Tyne in the year 1884, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Robert Jackson, of Royal Insurance Buildings, Newcastle, and others, Mr. Robert Jackson being the managing owner. She left the Tyne at about midday of the 9th of October last, with a crew of 5 hands all told, and a cargo of about 112 tons of machinery, besides 18 tons of bunker coal, bound to Amsterdam, and at 10 p.m. of the following day, was about 30 miles to the east of the Leman and Ower Lightship. At this time the wind was blowing a fresh breeze from the E.N.E., and the vessel was proceeding at full speed, making about six knots an hour, and steering a S.E. by E. course. The wind continued to increase, until it blew a hard gale, and at about 2 a.m. of the following day it was observed that the vessel had a list to starboard, and that the cargo both in the hold and on deck had shifted. Accordingly the vessel was put on the other tack, with her head to the N.E., and the deck cargo having been secured she was kept under easy steam, head to wind and sea; the vessel however remained with a heavy list to starboard, it being impossible to get at the under deck cargo to right it. At about 4 a.m. it was found that she was making water, upon which orders were at once given by the master to set the donkey engine at work; but soon afterwards the engine-room skylight with the tarpaulin attached was washed away, and the water then came into the engine-room in large quantities, as well through the skylight, as through the fiddley gratings. An attempt was made with partial success to cover up the openings; but finding that the water was gaining upon them signals for assistance were made, and a fishing smack called the "Clement," of Lowestoft, having come up, she consented to stay by them. On the following day the water still continuing to gain, and there being about four feet of water in the hold, it was determined to abandon her, and at about 2.30 p.m. all hands got into the smack's boat, and left her. The smack remained in the neighbourhood during the night, and on the following morning, the 12th, not seeing anything of the "Blanche," she bore away for Lowestoft, which they reached on the 13th, and there the crew of the "Blanche" was landed.

These being the facts of the case, the Board of Trade has put a number of questions to us, and I think it will be more convenient if I take the first five questions together as they all relate to the cargo. They are as follow:—

"(1.) Whether the vessel's cargo?" (by which I understand is meant the under deck cargo) "was properly " stowed and secured, and whether the skin of the " vessel was properly and sufficiently protected?"

"(2.) Whether, having regard to the construction of " the vessel and the voyage she was about to undertake, " and the season of the year, she carried too heavy a " deck cargo?"

"(3.) Whether the deck cargo was properly and " efficiently secured?"

"(4.) Whether she was overladen?"

and "(5.) What was the cause of a portion of the deck " cargo breaking loose, and whether prompt and proper " measures were taken to secure it?"

The vessel, as I have said, was built in the year 1884, she was consequently nearly a new vessel; and according to Mr. Dempsey, the Manager to the Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company, the builders, and Mr. Gravell, Surveyor to the Bureau Veritas in the Newcastle District, who surveyed her for classification, she was a strong solid vessel, built not with the very best materials, but of ordinary ship's iron. Mr. Gravell told us that he gave her a 3/3 P. 1.1. class, being a first class for a coasting vessel, the letter? standing for "petit cabotage," and that class she retained up to the time when she was lost. Such then being the character of the vessel, she had a cargo of about 112 tons of hydraulic machinery, in addition to 18 tons of bunker coal, or a total dead weight of 130 tons, being very little more than the amount of her gross tonnage which would not, primâ facie, be too much for her. Mr. Jackson the owner has also brought in a list of the cargoes, which she has carried on ten several occasions, shewing her to have had as much as from 140 to 160 tons of cargo in her at a time, being some 30 to 50 tons more than she had on the last occasion. It is true that all these were purely coasting voyages, which it cannot be said that the voyage to Amsterdam was; but the difference in the weight of the cargo is very considerable, and we are told that on the occasion when she carried 160 tons from Queensferry to the Tyne she encountered a very severe gale of wind, and that she behaved very well. As regards her freeboard we are told that, when she left the Tyne on the last occasion, the water was about 9 inches below the centre of the disc, and as the load line was 9 inches below the deck line, that would give her a freeboard of about 18 inches; to which we should have to add an inch for rise on getting into salt water, giving her a freeboard of 1 foot 7 inches, which the assessors think was amply sufficient for her. In our opinion, therefore, the vessel was not overladen.

The next question which we have to consider is, How was this cargo distributed, or in other words, what quantity of it was stowed below, and what above deck? We are told that the owner, in a statement which he had sent to the Board of Trade, had stated that there were about 18 tons of the cargo on deck, but when examined before us he said that this was only a guess, and that he had left the matter to the master. On the other hand, the master stated that in his opinion there was not more than about 12 tons of cargo on deck, and in this he was confirmed by the mate, as well as by Mr. Churnside, the stevedore, who had put the cargo on board; none of them, however, was prepared to say that they had weighed it. As the evidence stands then, the conclusion to which we must come is, that there was about 100 tons below deck, and about 12 tons above it; but however this may be, there is nothing to shew that the deck cargo was too much for her. There seems to be some doubt whether the under deck or the deck cargo first went adrift, none of the witnesses could say; but there is this fact, that after they had replaced the deck cargo and secured it, it did not again break away, although the vessel still retained a heavy list to starboard, caused no doubt by the shifting of the under deck cargo. This would seem to shew that the list was due to the shifting, not of the deck, but of the under deck cargo. At any rate, there is in our opinion no evidence that the deck cargo was too heavy for her.

And now let us see what steps were taken to prevent the cargo from shifting. And first as regards the under deck cargo, which it seems was stowed by Mr.. Churnside, a stevedore, who has been for many years in the employment of Messrs. Armstrong, Mitchell, and Company. He told us that he put the heavy pieces of machinery in the centre of the vessel, and chocked them off from the sides with pieces of soft wood, and that he then put the smaller pieces of machinery in the wings, and chocked them off in the same way from the sides. Nothing seems to have been done to secure the machinery from shifting beyond chocking them off from the sides; but in the opinion of the assessors they should either have been secured by lashings to the stanchions in the centre of the vessel, or have been lashed together, for it is clear that if, by the rolling of the vessel, any of the props or wedges got adrift, the whole of that cargo would have been under way. In this respect, therefore, they think that the under deck cargo was not properly secured. As regards the deck cargo it seems that Mr. Churnside put it on board, but that the master was responsible for its being properly secured. It was all stowed on the top of the main hatchway, rising from a foot to 18 inches above it, and was secured by chains lashed round it and attached to eye-bolts at the base of the coamings; in addition to which there were some wooden props extending from the cargo to the sides of the ship; and the way in which the cargo seems to have got adrift was by the breaking of one of the chains and the eye-bolt to which it was attached. But in the opinion of the assessors there ought to have been lashings carried from the top of the cargo and secured to eye-bolts at the sides, so as to relieve the weight as the vessel rolled. On the whole, the conclusion to which we have come is, that, although the vessel was not too deeply laden, nor the deck load too heavy, neither the cargo on deck nor that below the deck was properly and efficiently secured; although after it had shifted it seems that prompt and proper measures were taken to secure the former. The assessors are clearly of opinion that even for so short a voyage as from the Tyne to Amsterdam, means should have been adopted so as effectually to prevent the cargo from getting adrift, and that this was not done.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "What was " the cause of the vessel making so much water? and " whether every possible effort was made to keep it " under?" We are clearly of opinion that it was not the water, which got down through the engine-room skylight and the fiddley gratings, which caused the loss of this vessel; but that it was owing to some damage done to the plating of the ship by the cargo in the hold getting adrift, and that every possible effort was made to keep the water under.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether " she was sufficiently manned, and otherwise fit for a " a voyage to Amsterdam?" So far as relates to the hull, machinery, and equipments of the vessel, she seems to have been well fitted for the voyage to Amsterdam. As regards the crew, however, we are told that she had a master, a mate, one able seaman, an engineer, and fireman, which would give an officer and one man for one watch, and an officer only for the other; and the assessors are clearly of opinion that this was not a sufficient crew for such a vessel for a voyage across the North Sea at that time of year; they think that she should have had at least one more able seaman so as to have had two hands in each watch. Manned as she was, they think that she was a danger not only to herself, but to other vessels.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Was she " prematurely abandoned?" We are told that when they left her she had a list to starboard, that there were 4 feet of water in her hold, and that although the main and donkey pumps were at work, the water was gaining upon her. Under these circumstances we think that the master and crew were fully justified in abandoning her; and we can hardly have a better proof that they were so, than the fact that the crew of the fishing smack did not think it worth their while to make the attempt to get her into port, which it is clear they would have done had there been the slightest prospect of success.

The ninth and tenth questions which we are asked are, "What was the value of the vessel when she last " left the Tyne?" and "What were the insurances " effected, and how were they apportioned?" We were told by the owner, Mr. Jackson, that they gave 2,825l. for her, and that at the time of her loss she was insured for 2,550l., namely 1,700l. upon the hull, and 850l. on the machinery. And seeing that she was nearly a new vessel, having been built only last year, we do not think that she was insured in excess of her value. The freight, which amounted to about 90l., was, we are told, wholly uninsured; and Mr. Jackson has had to pay back to the shippers, Messrs. Armstrong and Co., a sum of 15l., which they had advanced to the master to pay his expenses.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

JAMES KIDDLE,

Assessors.

L 367. 2517. 180.—12/85. Wt. 408. E. & S.