Wreck Report for 'Blonde' and 'Energy', 1883

(No. 1786.)

"BLONDE" (S.S.) AND "ENERGY" (Barge.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 25th and 26th of April 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain RONALDSON, Captain GRANT, R.N., and Captain HARLAND, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the collision between the steamship "BLONDE" and the sailing barge "ENERGY" in Northfleet Hope, River Thames, on the 14th of March 1883, whereby the said barge was sunk and one life lost.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the collision between the said vessels was due, partly to the "Energy," which was an overtaken vessel, for not having exhibited a white or flare-up light over her stern to the overtaking vessel, as required by Article 8 of the rules and bye-laws for the navigation of the River Thames, and partly to the "Blonde," for proceeding up the river at too great a speed and with too little care and caution having regard to the hazy condition of the atmosphere at that part of the river.

George Hunt, the master of the "Energy," does not hold any certificate; and although John Westley Bastard, the master of the "Blonde," does hold a master's certificate, the Court will not deal with it, seeing that he was to a great extent misled by the neglect of the "Energy" to shew a light over his stern.

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

Dated this 26th day of April 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

 

 

 

JOHN M. G. G GRANT,

Assessors.

 

 

ROBERT HARLAND,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 25th and 26th of April 1883, when Mr. McConnell appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Kennedy for the owners and master of the "Blonde," and Mr. Gaskell for the owners of the "Energy." Fourteen witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. McConnell handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Gaskell then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. McConnell having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked.

The "Energy" was a wooden sprit sail barge belonging to the Port of London, of about 40 tons register. She was built at Northfleet in the year 1867, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Thomas Bevan, of Northfleet. She left Northfleet between 11 and 12 p.m. on the 13th of March last, with a cargo of 90 tons of cement, and having on board a master, a mate, the master's wife, and a little boy of about eight or ten years of age. The night we are told was dark, and she proceeded up Northfleet Hope with the flood tide, which had then begun to make, and a very light wind from the S.W., under fore, main, and mizen sails, the master being at the helm, and the mate forward on the look-out. Soon after leaving the master ordered the mate to take in the foresail, which he did, and he then went and pulled the starboard oar, so as to keep her head straight up the Reach. After they had been under weigh for about 20 minutes, the master on looking round saw the green light of a steamer, which afterwards proved to be the "Blonde," on his starboard quarter coming out of Gravesend Reach. He continued his course up the Reach without paying any further attention to her, and on looking round again some time afterwards observed that the green light had got upon his port quarter, and that she was then from 100 to 200 yards from him. Fearing that she was going to foul his boat which was being towed astern, the master left the tiller and went aft to haul it in, when he heard a man from the steamer shout out to him to get out of the way. He accordingly ran forward, and almost immediately afterwards the steamer came into them, striking the barge on the port side of her stern, and canting her head to the eastward, and in about three minutes afterwards, and before she had gone twice her own length, the barge foundered. The master and mate got hold of a spar or oar, and were rescued by a boat from a barge called the "Success." The master's wife was saved by a boat which had been lowered from the "Blonde," but the little boy was drowned. The place where the barge was sunk was proved by the evidence of Captain Marsden, the harbour master of Gravesend, to be some 400 or 500 yards up the Reach, and about 450 yards from the south, and about 300 from the north shore of the river.

The case of the "Blonde" is as follows. She is an iron screw steam ship belonging to the Port of London, of 282 tons gross and 175 tons nett register, and is fitted with engines of 40 horse-power. She was built at Port Glasgow in the year 1867, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry she was the property of Mr. Joseph Weatherley, of Saint Dunstan's Buildings, London, and two others, Mr. Weatherley being the managing owner. She left Dunkirk at 1 a.m. on the 13th of March last for London in ballast, with a crew of 12 hands all told; and at about 11.20 p.m. of the same day brought up off Gravesend for the purpose of taking on board the Custom House officers and a pilot. Having received the Custom House officers, and a message having been brought that the pilot who usually took her up was too ill to go in her, the master determined to navigate the vessel up the river himself; and accordingly, after a delay there of about three quarters of an hour, orders were given to the engine room to go full speed ahead. They proceeded up Gravesend Reach, steering about a W.N.W. course, the master being on the pilot bridge directing the navigation of the vessel, the mate on the lower bridge close to the speaking tube to pass the word to the engine room, a man at the midship wheel on the bridge, and another forward on the look-out; owing however to the fires having been allowed to go down whilst they were lying off Gravesend, they were not able to get her up to more than 6 knots an hour, her ordinary full speed in ballast being 7 knots. On opening Northfleet Hope the same course was continued until they were about midway between Tilbury Ness and Northfleet Light, when the helm was ported, and she proceeded up the Reach, keeping in the full strength of the flood tide, and a little to the south of mid-channel. Before however the order was given to port the helm, it was observed that they were entering a fog or haze, caused, as we are told, by the smoke from the factories on the south shore settling down the river; and shortly afterwards the sprit sail yard of the "Energy" was observed a little on the starboard bow, upon which orders were at once given to stop and reverse full speed, and to hard-a-starboard the helm; but before the orders had had time to take effect the collision occurred, the steamer striking the barge on the port side of the stern, with the results already stated.

These being the facts of the case, the first question on which the Board of Trade have asked for our opinion is, "Whether, when the master of the 'Energy' first " saw the steamer on his starboard quarter, he was " justified in neglecting to shew a white light or flare- " up light from the stern, as required by Article 8 of " the rules and bye-laws for the navigation of the " River Thames sanctioned by Order in Council, dated " 18th March 1880?" The question here is, whether the "Energy" was being overtaken by the "Blonde;" for, if so, it was clearly her duty to shew a light over her stern. It was said by the master of the "Energy" that they were close in to the south shore, so close to it, indeed, that they were on the line of the red and white sectors of the Northfleet Light; when, therefore, he saw the green light of the "Blonde" on his starboard quarter he thought that she would keep well away to the eastward of them and in mid-channel, and that she would not come near him. He told us that in his opinion he was only required to shew a light when both lights of the overtaking vessel were visible astern, and that seeing only the green light he thought that there was no necessity for him to shew a light; and that had there been any necessity he could easily have done it, as he had the riding lamp alight and close beside him on the hatchway. Under these circumstances Mr. Gaskell contended that, as the master of the "Energy" could not have expected that the "Blonde" would come so far out of her course and on to the south shore as to run into him, he would have no reason to think, when he saw her green light over his starboard quarter, that he was being overtaken, and that there was, therefore, no obligation upon him to shew a light over his stern. That the "Energy" may at some time or other have been on the line of the white and red sectors of the Northfleet Light is quite probable, seeing that she had sailed from Northfleet Wharf, which is on the south shore; but that she was on that line at or near the time of the collison is in our opinion extremely doubtful. In the first place, we find that soon after leaving the master ordered the mate to take in the foresail, and then to pull the starboard oar, obviously to prevent the vessel's head going towards the north shore, which it seems to have had a tendency to do. We have also the fact established by the evidence of Captain Marsden, the harbour master of Gravesend, that the vessel lay sunk at about 450 yards from the south and about 300 yards from the north shore; and as we are told that, after being struck she did not go more than twice her own length before she sank, it is pretty clear that the collision could not have taken place, as is pretended, close in to the south shore, but must have been, if to the south of, at all events not very far from mid-channel. If this was so, it appears to us that the "Blonde" was not out of her course, for we are told that with the first of the flood all vessels, steam as well as sailing vessels, keep to the southward of mid-channel on entering Northfleet Hope, so as to get the strength of the tide. When, therefore, the master of the "Energy" saw the green light of the "Blonde" on his starboard quarter coming out of Gravesend Reach, he must have known that she would not continue on that course, for if so she would have gone ashore at Northfleet, but that she would port her helm, and come up the Reach, keeping the usual course, namely, a little to the south of mid-channel. This, then, would bring her almost, if not directly, astern of the "Energy," and in that case it would be his duty, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, to shew a light over his stern. As regards also the master's statement that he had the riding light at hand ready to shew had there appeared to be any necessity for it, I may observe that the master is on this point directly contradicted by the mate, who told us that he took down the riding light, extinguished it, and put it away in the cabin, and that this was the usual practice on board the barge, so that, if they ever had occasion to shew a light over the stern, they had to go down into the cabin, get the lamp out, and light it. Be this, however, as it may, no light was exhibited over the stern of the "Energy," as it ought to have been, and she has therefore clearly violated the 8th Article of the rules and bye-laws for the navigation of the River Thames.

I will take the second, third, fourth, and fifth questions together; they are as follow:—

" 2. Whether the 'Blonde' was navigated with care " and caution as required by Article 3 of the said rules " and bye-laws?

" 3. Whether near Northfleet Hope and the Cement " Factories the weather was thick or hazy with smoke, " and if so, whether the master of the 'Blonde' was " justified in neglecting to reduce the speed of the " vessel?

" 4. Whether every possible effort was made by the " master of the 'Blonde' to look out for and to keep " out of the way of the barge, as required by Article 16 " of the said rules? and,

" 5. Whether a good and proper look-out was kept on " board the 'Blonde'?"

We are told that, although the order to the engineroom was to go at full speed, the vessel was not going at her full speed, which is 7 knots, owing to the fires having been allowed to go down whilst they were lying off Gravesend, and that the utmost which they were able to get out of her before the collision was about 6 knots. In addition to which, however, she had a 2-knots tide with her, so that she was going over the ground at the rate of about 8 knots an hour. Now we are quite prepared to admit that the "Blonde" had a good look-out at the time, the master being on the upper bridge, the mate on the lower bridge, and a lookout man forward on the topgallant forecastle. We are also prepared to admit that, as soon as the barge was seen, orders were promptly given to stop and reverse full speed and to hard-a-starboard the helm, and that the collision occurred before there was time for the orders to take effect. The fact, however, remains that they were going at such a rate of speed that, although they had a good look-out, and although prompt and proper measures were taken to avoid a collision, they were so close upon the barge before they saw her that it was not possible to clear her in time. Now we are not prepared to say whether the fog or haze which prevented the barge being seen in time for the "Blonde" to clear her was due to the general hazy condition of the atmosphere, or to the smoke from the factories on the south shore settling down on the river, nor in our opinion does it make any difference to what cause the fog was due. If the atmosphere was generally so thick as to render it impossible for them to see a vessel in time to have avoided her at the speed at which they were going, they ought to have been going at a less speed; and if, as is pretended, they could not have gone at a less speed consistently with keeping the vessel properly under command, they should not have been under weigh at all. Again, if the atmosphere was not so thick, and the haziness was caused by the smoke from the factories on the south shore, the master of the "Blonde," who had had so many years' experience of the river, should have known that with the wind in that quarter and with a tendency to rain, the smoke, if there was any coming from the factories, would be very likely to be found at the entrance to Northfleet Hope, and he ought therefore in accordance with the 11th Article of the rules and bye-laws, to have been proceeding "with the greatest caution," and that, we think, he was not doing, seeing that his engines were going ahead as fast as they could do, and that the vessel was going over the ground at the rate of 8 knots an hour. The master wished us to believe that he came suddenly upon this fog and the barge at the same moment, and that there was no time to reduce the speed; but this is contrary to his evidence, for he told us that he entered the fog before he gave the order to port the helm to straighten the vessel up the Reach, and we have it clearly established by the evidence that the collision took place some 400 or 500 yards up the Reach. In our opinion the "Blonde" was not being navigated with care and caution and at a speed and in such a manner so as not to endanger the safety of other vessels, and she has therefore violated Articles 3, 11, and 16 of the rules and bye-laws referred to.

I will take the 6th and 7th questions together; they are as follow:—

" 6. Whether both vessels were navigated with pro- " per and seamanlike care?" and,

" 7. Whether the master of the 'Energy' and the " master and officers of the 'Blonde' are or either of " them is in default?"

It is added that "the Board of Trade are of opinion " that the certificate of the master of the 'Blonde' " should be dealt with." In our opinion neither vessel was being navigated with proper and seamanlike care, the fault of the "Energy" being that she did not exhibit a light over her stern, and of the "Blonde" that she was proceeding at too great a speed having regard to the hazy condition of the atmosphere at that part of the river. The master of the "Energy" does not hold any certificate; and as regards the master of the "Blonde," seeing that he was led into error by the neglect of the master of the "Energy" to shew a light over the stern, we shall, under the circumstances, not deal with his certificate.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

 

 

 

JOHN M. G. GRANT,

Assessors.

 

 

ROBERT HARLAND,

 

L 367. 1558. 150.—5/83. Wt. 73. E. & S.