Wreck Report for 'Dione' and 'Camden', 1884

(No. 2297.)

"DIONE" (S.S.) AND "CAMDEN (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, and 29th days of August 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esq., Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain RONALDSON and Captain HARLAND, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the collision between the steamships "DIONE" and "CAMDEN," in the River Thames, on the 3rd of August 1884, whereby the "DIONE" was sunk and 23 lives 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 in question was caused by. the neglect. and default of Frederick John Collier Hood, the master of the "Dione," and it accordingly, suspends his certificate for six months, but on the application of his solicitor recommends that during the suspension of his. master's certificate he be allowed a chief mate's.

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

Dated this 29th day of August 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

ROBERT HARLAND,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, and 29th days of August 1884, when Mr. Mansel Jones appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Gully, Q.C., for the owners, and Mr. Botterell for the master of the "Dione," Mr. Baden Powell for the owners, master, and officers of the "Camden," and Mr. Nelson for the pilot thereof, and for the owners of the steam tug "Bantam Cock." Twenty-one witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Mansel Jones handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Two witnesses were then produced on behalf of the owners of the "Dione," and Mr. Baden Powell, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Gully, and Mr. Botterell having addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Mansel Jones having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked.

The "Dione" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of Stockton, of 732 tons gross, and 422 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 120 horse-power. She was built at Stockton in the year 1868, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, was the property of the Tees Union Shipping Company, Limited, Mr. James Taylor, of Middlesbrough, being the managing owner. She left the Free Trade Wharf, London, at about 10 minutes to 10 p.m. of the 2nd of August instant, with a crew of 20 hands all told, 20 passengers, 300 tons of wheat, and about 150 tons of general merchandise, and in charge of a river pilot. At about five minutes after midnight, and when between Rosherville and Gravesend Town Pier she landed her pilot, and the Weather being clear and fine, she proceeded on her Voyage down the river, the captain being on the bridge directing the navigation, a man at the wheel amidships, and another forward on the look-out. Shortly afterwards a light, which proved to be that of a yacht called the "Ceylon," and which was lying at anchor about midway between the mouth of the Thames and Medway Canal and the Ship and Lobster Tavern, was observed right ahead, upon which the helm of the "Dione" was ported about a point for. the purpose of going to the south of her, and when clear of her, the helm was again starboarded about a point and. a half to bring her back to her course. They had to ease the engines to land the pilot, but it is admitted' by the master that. after passing the "Ceylon" they proceeded at full speed, which, we are told, was about 10 knots, and .as the tide was ebbing at the rate of about 2 knots, this would give her a speed of about 12 knots over the ground. On clearing the "Ceylon," the mast head and green lights of two steam tugs were observed at a considerable distance off, and well on the "Dione's" port bow, and soon afterwards the green light of the vessel, which they were towing, and which proved to be. the "Camden," was also seen. The lights continued to draw ahead, and when they were from a 1/4 to 1/2 a point on the "Dione's" port bow, the green lights were shut in, and the red lights appeared, and the "Dione" continued her course, keeping the lights a little on her port bow.

Let us now turn to the "Camden." She also was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of. London, of 1,491 tons gross, and. 969 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 150 horse power, She was built at Low Walker on the Tyne in the year 1878, and at the time of the casualty was the property of Mr. Edmund Hannay Watts, formerly of 85, Gracechurch Street, City, but now of Whittington Avenue, Leadenhall Street, and others, Mr. Edmund Hannay Watts being the managing owner. She had left Frontera de Tabasco in the Gulf of Mexico with a cargo of mahogany, and having had the misfortune to lose her propeller, she had to take the assistance of a passing steam vessel, and was towed by her into Falmouth. There the steam-tug "Eagle" was engaged to tow her to London, and a pilot named James William Gillman having come on board at Dungeness, they arrived safely off Southend on the evening of the 2nd of August. There a second tug, the "Bantam Cock," was engaged, and at 9,30 p.m. they proceeded up the river, the "Bantam Cock" being upon the starboard bow, the "Eagle" upon the port bow. At about 11 p.m. they passed the Mucking Light, and proceeded up the Lower Hope, making about 5 knots through the water, or 3 knots over the ground, the. tide running about 2 knots against them, and a few minutes after 12 o'clock they were nearing the Oven's Buoy off Coalhouse Point. At this time the pilot Gillman was forward on the top gallant forecastle directing the navigation, the carpenter was alongside of him keeping a good look out; the second officer was on the bridge, and there were two men at the wheel. The captain, we are told, had shortly before gone into the chart room for the purpose of measuring the distance from the Mucking Light to Coalhouse Point on his chart. The vessel continued her course, keeping about mid-channel, until they were abreast of the Oven's Buoy, when the pilot ordered the helms to be ported. Both the tugs accordingly ported their helms, and the helm of the "Camden" being also ported, they proceeded to round Coal House Point, the "Camden" following in the wake of the tugs. At this moment the mast-head and the red lights of the "Dione" were observed a considerable distance up the river, and about a point or a point and a half on the "Camden's" starboard bow; but as they rounded the Point the lights were brought ahead or a little on the port bow. At this time the "Dione" had arrived within two or three ship's lengths of the tugs, upon which the master ordered the helm to be slightly ported to give them more room. The pilot of the "Camden," however, seeing the "Dione" bearing down upon them at great speed, and fearing a collision, ordered the helms to be hard-a-ported. The tugs being short vessels at once paid off under their port helms, until they had got about two points on the "Camden's" starboard bow; but the "Camden" being a longer vessel did not come round so readily. In the meantime the "Dione" continued her course, and when abreast of and some 50 or 60 feet from the "Eagle," the master of the "Dione" ordered the helm to be put hard-a-port, but too late to avoid a collision, and the two vessels came together port side to port side, and in a very short time, and before the "Dione" had had time to get out any of her boats, she went down carrying all on board with her. No time appears to have been lost by the "Camden" and her tugs in launching their boats; and, with the assistance of a waterman who was passing, they succeeded in picking up 10 of the crew and 7 of the passengers, the other 10 hands and 13 of the passengers were, however, drowned. In the meantime the "Camden" had been drifting with the ebb tide down the river, both the tow ropes having parted at the moment of the collision; but as soon as their boat had been launched, the master gave orders to drop the anchor, and she was brought up nearly off the Oven's Buoy, the "Dione" having sunk a little further down the river, and nearer to the south shore. The "Dione," we are told, has since been raised, and it was then found that she had a hole in her port side at the turn of the bilge, some 66 to 67 feet long by about 10 or 11 feet wide at the middle, tapering at each end to 3 feet forward, and about 4 feet aft, which fully accounted for her having sunk so rapidly.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether a good and proper look out was kept on board both " vessels?" There seems to be no doubt that both vessels were keeping a good look out, and that each saw the other in ample time to have avoided a collision, had the proper steps been taken for that purpose, the "Dione" having seen the lights of the tugs and of the "Camden" when they were rounding the Oven's Buoy at a distance of something like a mile and a half, and the "Camden" and the tugs having seen the lights of the "Dione" at about the same distance.

I will now take the second and third questions together; they are as follow:—"2. Whether both " vessels complied with the bye-laws for the regulation " of the navigation of the river Thames, more especially " bye-laws 3, 14, 15, and 23, and whether both vessels " were navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" and "3. Was the 'Dione' navigated at a proper rate of " speed?"

It is admitted that the speed of the "Dione" through the water was about 10 knots, so that with the ebb tide which was running at the rate of about 2 knots, she would have a speed of about 12 knots over the ground. On the other hand the "Camden" had a speed of about 5 knots through the water, and with the ebb tide against her would be making about 3 knots over the ground. The speed of the "Dione" was consequently about four times that of the "Camden." Now bye-law 3 is in these words: "Every steam vessel navigating the river " shall be navigated with care and caution, and at a " speed and in a manner which shall not endanger the " safety of other vessels," &c. The night, we are told, was-clear, and lights could be seen at a considerable distance, so that there was nothing in the state of the weather to prevent the vessel whilst in that part of the river going at what speed she pleased; but if she did so, she did it at her own risk, and it was incumbent upon her to take every precaution to see that she was not endangering the safety of other vessels. We shall see presently whether she did so or not.

The 14th bye-law is in these words,—" Every steam " vessel when approaching another vessel so as to " involve risk of collision, shall slacken her speed, and " shall stop and reverse if necessary." But from the view that we have taken of this case, it does not appear to us that it is a question of slackening or of stopping and reversing, but rather of getting out of the way. Bye-law 15 also relates to the navigation of the river above Barking Creek.

We then come to bye-law 23, which is as follows:— " Steam vessels navigating against the tide shall, before " rounding the following points, viz., Coalhouse Point, " &c., ease their engines and wait until any other " vessels rounding the Point with the tide have passed " clear." It was contended by Mr. Gully that under this bye-law it was the duty of the "Camden" to have eased her engines when she saw the "Dione" approaching, and to have waited until she had passed. There was a good deal of discussion as to the place where the collision occurred; but I think that the fair result of the evidence is that it took place at least a quarter of a mile above the Oven's Buoy, and from that to half a mile above it. Now the speed of the "Dione" being four times that of the "Camden," it will be seen that during the time that the "Camden" would have been doing a quarter of a mile, the "Dione" Would have done a mile; so that when the "Camden" was abreast of the Oven's Buoy, and just about to round the Point, the "Dione" would have been at least mile and a quarter above the Oven's Buoy, if not more tender these circumstances it can hardly be contended that when the "Dione" was at so great a distance, it was the duty .of the "Camden" to wait until the "Dione" had rounded the Point; if so, it would be difficult to say when the "Camden" would have got round it, as there would probably be always some steamer or other within that distance of the Point coming down the river. But then it was said by Mr. Gully that "before rounding" does not mean before beginning to round the Point, but before she has completely rounded it; and that even at the moment of the collision the "Camden" could not be said to have got completely round the Point; and that it was consequently, her duty, when she saw the "Dione" coming down upon her with the ebb tide, to stop and allow her to pass. But I cannot agree to that view for, as was truly observed by Mr. Nelson, there is nothing which the "Camden" could have done which would have been more likely to have brought about a collision than if she had signalled to the tags to stop when she saw the "Dione" approaching her; the necessary result would have been that the tide would have caught the "Camden's" bows, and drifted her right across the course of the "Dione," and the only mode of preventing this was by the tugs continuing to tow on her starboard bow. It appears to us, therefore, that the "Camden" did not violate rule 23.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the collision?" It was said by the "Dione" that the only way in which the collision could have been brought about was either by the "Dione" starboarding her helm, or by the "Camden" sheering. That there was evidence that the "Dione" had not starboarded, and that consequently the collision must have been brought about by the "Camden" sheering, and that this view was confirmed by the nature of the damage, which shewed that it must have been done by the stem and fore foot of the "Camden." On the other hand it was said that there was no evidence that the stem and fore foot of the "Camden" had ever come in contact with the "Dione's" side, for that since the collision the "Camden" had been carefully surveyed in dry dock, and that not a trace of any damage had been found either on the stem or fore foot. How it was that a hole 66 to 67 feet long by 11 feet wide at the middle, tapering off at each end to 3 feet forward and 4 feet aft, was made in the "Dione's" port side, we are not prepared to say, nor whether it was or was not done by the stem and fore foot of the "Camden;" nor is there anything to shew that the "Dione" starboarded her helm. On the other hand, however, we are quite satisfied that the "Camden" did not sheer; indeed, in the opinion of the assessors, it would have been almost impossible for her, with two powerful tugs on her starboard bow, to have sheered to the southward. The way in which the collision in our opinion occurred was as follows:—The "Dione," which was going down the river at the rate of 12 knots an hour, chose, although she saw the lights of the "Camden" and her tugs nearly ahead, and there was sufficient room for her to pass to the southward of them, to continue her course until she was within a couple of lengths of them, when she slightly ported her helm, and it was only when she was abreast of the tugs, and therefore at a distance of about 40 fathoms (the length of the tow rope) from the "Camden," that the order to hard-a-port was given. Now it is well known that the immediate effect of such an order would be to throw the stern of the vessel to port, and consequently towards the "Camden," and it was this no doubt which brought the two vessels together. But assuming that the "Camden" had sheered a little out, but which the assessors think was almost impossible with the tugs on her starboard bow, that would not, in our opinion, relieve the "Dione from her responsibility, for it was her duty when she saw the lights of the "Camden" and her tugs coming round Coalhouse Point, well knowing from the fact of her having two tugs that she would be a heavy vessel, and possibly in a disabled state, it was her duty to have given them a wide berth. She had no business to cut it so fine as she did, and to have run the risk of a collision, when there was nothing to prevent her keeping away to the southward. The cause of the collision was, in our opinion, that the "Dione" did not alter her course in sufficient time, as she ought to have done to go clear of the "Camden." it was said that the speed of the vessel had nothing to do with the collision; but in our opinion it had a great deal to do with it, for had she not been going at so great a speed the port helm would have had more time to act, and she might then have gone clear of the "Camden." As regards the "Camden," no blame seems to attach to her.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " every possible effort was made to save life?" In our opinion everything that was possible was done to save life. The "Camden," as well as her tugs, launched their boats without delay, and with the [assistance of a waterman, who was passing at the time, contrived to save a good many of the lives, although we are told that no more than two minutes elapsed before the "Dione" went down.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether the master of the 'Dione,' the master and second " officer and pilot of the 'Camden' are, or is either of " them, and, if so, which in default" and it is added that "in the opinion of the Board of Trade the certi- " ficate of the master of the 'Dione' should be dealt " with?" With regard to the master and second officer of the "Camden," no blame whatever attaches to them. The master was in the chart room, where he had gone a few minutes before to examine his chart; and the second officer, who was on the bridge, is admitted by Mr. Nelson to have carried out all the pilot's orders. The blame, if any attaches to the "Camden," rests with the pilot, and with the pilot alone, who was in charge of the vessel. Although this witness was one of the worst that the Court has ever seen, and contradicted himself repeatedly, so that in deciding this case we have had to put his evidence entirely on one side, we are not prepared to say that any blame attaches to him for the collision. It is possible that, if the order to hard-a-port had been given sooner, the "Camden" as well as the tugs might have gone clear; but there was no obligation upon him to hard-a-port until he found that the "Dione" was coming down upon him at great speed; and with a vessel drawing 17 feet 6 water, as this-vessel was, it would not have been prudent for him to get too near to the north shore; he had every reason to expect that the "Dione" would keep away from him, and go. to the south, as she might and ought to have done. It was contended that the "Camden" had got to the south of mid-channel, but why she should have done so it is difficult to understand, seeing that it would be to her interest to keep as near to the Oven's Buoy as she could safely go. In our opinion the "Camden", was still rounding the Point under her port helm, and was as near to the north shore as it was prudent for her to go, when she hard-a-ported her helm.

As regards the master of the "Dione," however, the case is different. Although going at a very great speed—12 knots over the ground—he neglected to take those precautions which it was incumbent upon him to do under the circumstances. He thought no doubt to force the other vessels to give way to him, and held on his course until it was too late, and the result is that 23 lives have been sacrificed. Whether his certificate should be dealt with is a question which I invariably leave to the assessors, and they are of opinion that he has been guilty of such gross negligence, such reckless navigation, that his certificate ought to be dealt with, and in suspending it for six months they think that they have dealt most leniently with him. The master's certificate will therefore, be suspended for six months, but at the application of Mr. Botterell, the Court will recommend to the Board of Trade that during the suspension of his master's certificate he should be allowed a first mate's.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

ROBERT HARLAND,

Assessors.

L 367. 2070. 170.—9/84. Wt. 36. E. & S.