Wreck Report for 'Copia', 1883

(No. 1817.)

"COPIA" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the 31st day of May 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Commander BURNEY, R.N., and Captain FORSTER, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "COPIA," of London, together with her crew of 22 hands, whilst on a voyage from Newcastle to Messina in January last.

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 on her last voyage she was in a good and seaworthy condition, and was not overladen, and that there. is no evidence to shew, how she was lost.

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

Dated this 31st day of May 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

HENRY D. BURINEY,

R.N.; J.P.,

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

The "Copia" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of London, of 1,078 tons gross and 688 tons nett, and was fitted with engines of 120 horse power. She was built at Whiteinch, in the county of Lanark, in the year 1874, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Henry Collings, of No. 17, Philpot Lane, in the City of London, and others, Mr. Henry Collings being the managing owner. She left the Tyne between 3 and 4 p.m. of the 25th of January last for Messina, with a crew of 22 hands' all told, and a cargo of 1,000 tons of coal, besides about 305 tons in her bunkers, of which 37 tons remained over from the previous voyage and 268 tons were taken in in the Tyne. Meeting with bad weather in the Channel she had to put into St. Helen's Roads, where she was on the 29th. On the 31st she was signalled from St. Catherine's Point, in the Isle of Wight, and on the following day we are told that she was in company with a vessel called the "Carina;" but from that time to this nothing more has been seen or heard of her, and the object of the present inquiry is to ascertain, if possible, what has become of her.

Now the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether, when the 'Copia' last left " the Tyne she was, as regards her hull, equipments, and machinery in good and seaworthy condition?" The vessel was a spar deck vessel, with a monkey forecastle forward. She had been built, we are told, under special survey, and was classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's. In December 1881 her machinery and boilers were overhauled, and in May 1882, on the occasion of the second special survey, the hull was examined; everything that was required was done to her, and she was continued in her original class. In September last, we are told that she was engaged as a transport to carry some Government stores to Malta, and on that occasion she was carefully inspected and passed by the Admiralty authorities. The Court has seldom, if ever, had better evidence of the efficiency and completeness of the vessel and her fittings than it has had in this case. Mr. Charles Sage, the senior partner of the firm of Messrs. Charles Sage and Sons, of London, engineers, has told us that his firm have for the last 5 years regularly inspected all Messrs. Colling's ships, and the "Copia" amongst the number, and that they had carte blanche to do everything that they considered necessary to keep them in the most efficient state, and were never questioned as to the cost. He also told us that he had himself personally inspected her almost daily whilst she was under repair in December 1881 and in May 1882, and that he was in the habit of receiving two or three letters from the chief engineer each voyage, informing him as to the state and condition of the engines, and that she was always kept in a thorough state of efficiency Under these circumstances the Court has no doubt whatever that when she left the Tyne on her last voyage she was as regards her hull, equipments, and machinery in a perfectly good and seaworthy condition.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the holds were properly ventilated, and the venti- " lators so constructed, fitted, and arranged, as not to " be or become a source of danger in the event of the " vessel shipping heavy seas?" It seems that the vessel was built specially for the fruit trade, and that she was consequently exceptionally well fitted with ventilators. She had six large ventilators having a diameter of 17 inches, and six smaller ones with a diameter of 12 inches; in addition to which she had three ventilating bollards on each side. The ventilators we are told were fixed upon iron coamings, 2 feet 9 inches high, firmly secured to the deck. All except three of the larger ones terminated just below the spar deck, and these three were continued to the lower holds by somewhat smaller tubes 15 inches in diameter, so that they acted: as ventilators not only to the 'tween decks, but also to the lower holds. The vessel, as I have said, was built for the fruit trade, and seeing that it would be a matter of the utmost importance, whilst securing perfect ventilation, to prevent the possibility of any water getting down to the cargo, there can be no doubt that they were so constructed, fitted, and arranged, as not to be or to become a source of danger, even should she ship any heavy seas.

I will take the third and fourth questions together; they are, "Whether the load-line disc was so placed " as to give the vessel sufficient freeboard?" and " Whether the vessel was overladen?" There is some doubt in this case as to where exactly the load line was placed, not a single witness being able to say that they had ever measured its distance from the top of the spar deck. In all the official log books and ship's articles for previous voyages which have been brought in it is stated indeed to have been 5 feet below the top of the deck; and as the witnesses who saw the vessel before she sailed tell us that the water was within 2 or 3 inches of the bottom of the disc, that would give her a freeboard on leaving of 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 9 inches. But there would seem to have been some mistake here, for although no one could tell us what she drew on leaving, the probability would seem to be that she drew about 17 feet mean, that being about her mean draft according to the displacement scale with about 1,300 tons dead weight on board, making due allowance for the increase which we might expect in the draft owing to her age. And now let us see what clear side she would have with a mean draft of 17 feet. According to the builder, which is the best evidence we have on the point, her moulded depth from the top of the spar deck was 22 feet 7 inches; adding 8 inches for the keel and 3 1/2 inches for the thickness of the wooden deck, that would give a total depth at side of 23 feet 6 1/2 inches, and deducting 17 feet for the mean draft, leaves a clear side amidships of 6 feet 6 1/2 inches. Now would that be a proper freeboard for her as a spar deck ship according to Lloyd's Rules P Taking the length from the inside of the stem to the fore side of the rudder post to be about 225 feet, that would give us a co-efficient of fineness of about '71; and deducting 6 feet 6 inches for the height of the spar deck above the main deck, we get the moulded depth to the main deck to be about 16 feet 1 inch. With these dimensions, then, the freeboard required by Table B. of Lloyd's Rules would be about 6 feet, and if her clear side was 6 feet 6 inches, that would, it appears to us, to have been sufficient. We are asked, however, whether the load line was so placed that if loaded down to it she would have had sufficient freeboard, and our answer must be that she would not; but it is not suggested that she was, at all events on the voyage in question, loaded down to it; the evidence seems to be that it was some 8 or 9 inches-out of the water.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "What, in " the opinion of the Court, is the cause of this vessel " not having been heard of since the 31st of January " last?" It seems that on the 17th of February a lifebuoy with the words "Copia, of London" painted on it came ashore near Salcombe, on the coast of Devonshire; and that either on the same day or a day or two afterwards the "Copia's" lifeboat was picked up uninjured, as well as the stern of another of her boats, and that at about the same time and place a great quantity of deals were washed ashore, the cargo apparently of some timber laden ship; and it is suggested that there may have been a collision between the "Copia" and some timber ship, and that both foundered with all hands. We are also told that the "Carina," the vessel which was in company with her on the 1st of February, encountered soon afterwards a very severe gale which swept her decks and compelled her to put back for repairs. Whether the "Copia" was lost after collision with some timber laden vessel, or whether she foundered in the gale which the "Carina" encountered can be only a matter of conjecture. One thing, however, appears certain, that there was nothing in the condition of the vessel, in her hull, her equipments, or her machinery, or in the weight or nature of her cargo, or in the character of her officers and crew which would lead us to think that her loss was in any way due there to.

As to the cargo it seems that it consisted of Carr's Hartley coal from the Seghill Colliery, a coal, we were told by Mr. Willis, the Government Inspector for the district, and other competent witnesses, which is not of a fiery nature, and which does not give off any large quantity of explosive gases; but even if it did there was little danger of explosion, owing to the exceptionally good system of ventilation which existed on board. The coal, no doubt, contained a small portion of iron pyrites, but we were told that it occurred in nodules and was capable of being easily separated, and that this is done whilst it is on the screens by men specially detailed for the duty. I may add that the shortness of the voyage renders it in the highest degree improbable that the loss of the vessel could have been due to spontaneous combustion; for, as Mr. Willis said, with the small quantity of iron pyrites in this coal it would probably require weeks or even months before any danger would be likely to arise from the spontaneous combustion of the cargo.

As regards the officers and crew, we are told that the master, Captain Collings, who was brother of the managing owner, and had been in her from the time she was built, was an officer of the highest character, a teetotaller, and a most careful navigator. The chief engineer also had been in her for some years, and Mr. Sage told us that he knew him well, that he was a man of exceptionally high character, and that there was not a better man afloat. The first and second officer had also been in her for some time. Indeed, as one of the witnesses said, "she was almost a family ship," so many of the crew having been in her for so many years We have therefore no reason to think that her loss was in any way due to any deficiency in that respect.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

HENRY D. BURNEY,

N.R., J.P.,

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

Assessors.

L 367. 1589. 150.—6/83. Wt. 73. E. & S.