Wreck Report for 'Indus', 1886

(No. 3065.)

"INDUS" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 23rd, 25th, and 26th days of November 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain RONALDSON, Mr. J. H. HALLETT, and Captain KENNEDY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the steamship "INDUS," of Dundee, off Trevose Head, on the 14th of October last, whilst on a voyage from Cardiff to Teneriffe.

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 Cardiff on her last voyage she was, so far as her hull and machinery were concerned, in a good and seaworthy condition, but that she was too deeply laden; and that, whatever may have been the way in which the after hold became filled with water, as to which there is no direct evidence, the fact of her having been so deeply laden in all probability may have contributed to her loss.

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

Dated this 26th day of November 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

 

 

 

J. H. HALLETT,

Assessors.

 

 

H. C. KENNEDY,

 

Annex to Report.

This case was heard at Westminster, on the 23rd, 25th, and 26th days of November instant, when Mr. Mansel Jones appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Gibson for the owners, master, and officers of the "Indus." Eighteen 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. The managing owner and master having been recalled and further examined, Mr. Gibson addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Mansel Jones 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 "Indus" was a steel screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Dundee, of 2,486 tons gross, and 1,616 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 240 horse power. She was built at Dundee in the year 1884, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. John Watson, of No. 2, Fenchurch Avenue, in the City of London, and others, Mr. John Watson being the managing owner. She left Penarth Roads at about 2 p.m. of the 13th day of October last, in charge of a duly licensed pilot, and with a crew of 29 hands all told, one stowaway, 2,465 tons of coal as cargo, and 737 tons in her bunkers, bound to Teneriffe. At about 5 p.m., when off Nash Point, the pilot left her, and she proceeded on her voyage with her engines going at full speed, making about 9 knots an hour, the wind being squally from about west to W.N.W., with a choppy sea. It was the chief officer's watch from midnight to 4 a.m., and at about 3 a.m., the wind having freshened, and there being a good deal of water in the after well, which is between the midship house and the poop, he sent two men to clear the ports; thinking that they were away a long time he went aft to look after them, and then found that there was a great deal of water in the after well. It was now about 1/4 to 4, and about this time the chief engineer came up and reported that there was water coming into the engine-room through the after bulkhead. On his informing the master, who was at that time lying down in the chart room, the latter at once got up and went on deck, but by that time the after well was submerged, the water washing over the vessel from side to side. It being impossible to sound the after hold, the front part of the ventilator, or, as it is called, the ventilating trunk, which was immediately abaft the bridge, was broken in, and on the chief officer being let down it was found that the lower hold was full of water up to the 'tween decks, upon which the master ordered the boats to be swung out ready for lowering and the vessel's head to be turned towards the shore. Previous to this all the pumps had been put on to the after bold, but the water continued to gain, and at 5 a m. the master ordered the engines to be stopped and the boats to be lowered into the water. All hands then got into them, and in about 20 minutes afterwards the vessel foundered, going down stern foremost. The boats lay to until daylight, when they made for the land, and with the assistance of a lifeboat and a fishing-boat, which had put out from the shore, they succeeded in getting safely into Isaac's Bay.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether " the vessel was constructed in all respects in a proper " and satisfactory manner, and whether Lloyd's require- " ments for the construction of steel vessels were " thoroughly carried out, and whether the steel of " which the vessel was constructed was of the manu- " facture and quality therein specified?" The vessel, we are told, was built under special survey, and was classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's, and according to the evidence of the manager to the builders, Messrs. Gourlay and Co., of Dundee, and of Lloyd's surveyor, who superintended the building, she was constructed in all respects in a proper and satisfactory manner, and in accordance with the requirements of Lloyd's for the construction of steel vessels. The plates with which she was constructed were, we were told, Siemens-Martin's plates, from the "Steel Company of Scotland," those plates being, I am informed by Mr. Hallett, one of the assessors, the best quality of steel, and the company being one of high character. It seems that there is a Lloyd's surveyor resident at the company's works, whose duty it is to test and stamp the plates before they are issued. The surveyor also, who superintended the building of the vessel, told us that he carefully inspected the plates before they were put in, and satisfied himself, by the marks and by testing them in the usual way, that they were fully up to the standard. We have therefore no reason to think that the vessel was not properly and efficiently constructed, or that the steel plates were not of the required quality.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the ventilators, hatchways, and all other deck open- " ings were properly constructed; whether they could " be effectively secured in heavy weather, and whether " sufficient means existed whereby the main deck " could be promptly and effectively cleared of water " shipped thereon." In addition to the three ventilators over the engine-room space, there were in all seven ventilators, or ventilating trunks as they are called. No. 1 ventilated the crew space and sail room; No. 2 the fore end, and No. 3 the after end of No. 1 hold; No. 4 the fore end, and No. 5 the after end of No. 2 hold; and No. 6 the fore end, and No. 7 the after end of holds 3 and 4, which were in one. With the exception of ventilator No. 7, which was immediately in front of the poop, and as to which I shall presently have something to say, the ventilators appear to have been well constructed, and to have been so placed as to be well protected from the sea in case of heavy weather. The hatchways, again, seem to have been well and strongly constructed with coamings some 3 feet high, and solid hatches; and there is no reason to think that they were otherwise than perfectly tight and secure. These were apparently the only deck openings through which water could get down into the after hold. As regards the freeing ports, there seem to have been three on each side, but it may perhaps be a question whether it would not have been as well to have had two of these rather further aft, seeing that the vessel was, according to the evidence of the officers, in the habit of taking in a good deal of water into the after well.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether the " water-closets' soil pipes were properly constructed; " whether they were sufficiently protected from the " cargo; and whether the valve bends, connected with " the ship's side, were of proper material and strength, " and fitted with efficient storm valves?" It seems that there were immediately in front of the poop two water-closets, one on each side, the soil pipes from which passed through the upper deck into the 'tween decks, and issued from the ship's side at a depth of from 3 1/2 to 4 feet below the upper deck. The upper part of each pipe was of lead, and was attached at the lower end to an iron valve bend about a foot long, securely attached to the ship's side by its flange. It was strongly constructed, the upper part being 11/16ths and 12/16ths thick, whilst the lower part, where it was open to the sea, was an inch thick. The pipes were also protected for their whole length by strong wooden casing. At the bottom of each pipe there was a storm valve hanging from a hinge attached to the upper end, so as to allow the escape of the soil, and at the same time to prevent the ingress of the water. This valve was inside the tube, receded some 4 or 5 inches from the ship's side, so that it was well protected from the action of the waves. On the whole, and apart from the fact that the valve bend was of cast iron, and not, as it should have been, of gun metal, the pipes and valves appear to have been well constructed, and to have been of sufficient strength; and even had they been fractured, there was little danger of any large quantity of sea water getting in by them, seeing that the outlet was only 3 1/2 to 4 feet below the upper or main deck, and therefore, allowing for the sheer aft, well out of the water, even when the vessel was fully laden.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whe- " ther, when the vessel left Cardiff, she was in all " respects in good and seaworthy condition, and " whether she was properly laden?" It seems that, since she has been afloat, the vessel had run down the Girdler Lightship, and had also been aground in the Adelaide River; but after each event she had been put into dry dock, and was found not to have sustained any damage whatever. Altogether she had been four times in dry dock, the last time in May last, when her outside was scraped and painted, and the valves and sea cocks thoroughly overhauled, besides other repairs being done to her. She then took in a cargo of coal, and after delivering it at Aden, proceeded in ballast to Bombay, where she took in a cargo of wheat, which she delivered at Leghorn. From there she went to Odessa, and having brought back a cargo of wheat and barley to Bremen, she returned in water ballast to Cardiff. We are told that both cargoes of grain were delivered in excellent condition, without a particle thereof being damaged. She arrived at Cardiff on the evening of the 7th of October, and went into the Penarth Dock on the following morning, and having taken in her cargo of coal she left on the 13th; and during the whole time she was there, and until she left, she seems not to have made any water. The fair presumption, therefore, would seem to be that, when she left Cardiff, she was in all respects in good and seaworthy condition. Two witnesses, however, named Rich, watermen plying at Cardiff, were produced, who stated that on the evening that the "Indus" arrived, they were in their boat near the West Cardiff Buoy, looking out for a job; that on seeing the "Indus" coming up they pulled towards her, and offered their services, but that they were declined; that she then passed on up the roads, and shortly afterwards ported her helm until her head had come to about east, when she went stem on to the bank, and after remaining there for about 20 minutes came off with the tide, and then dropped her anchor. Now all the witnesses from the "Indus" have sworn positively that they never touched the ground on entering the Penarth Roads, but that when they had got up as far as they thought right the engines were reversed to stop her way, and she then came to an anchor. It is of course quite impossible for us on the unsupported testimony of these two men Rich to say that the whole of the witnesses from the "Indus," the master, the chief officer, the chief and second engineers, the steward, and a seaman, have been guilty of wilful and deliberate perjury when they swear that they had not grounded on entering Cardiff Roads. But the names of three pilots were mentioned by the Richs' as having seen her aground, and Mr. Mansel Jones was at first disposed to ask for an adjournment of the case in order, if it should be found desirable, to produce them. I stated, however, that he did so at the risk of having to pay the costs of the adjournment should it turn out that their evidence was of no use. It seems that the "Indus" had on this occasion come up the river without a pilot, pilotage not being compulsory at Cardiff, which might account for some feeling against her on the part of the pilots and their allies, the watermen. It was doubtful therefore whether, even if the pilots did swear that they had seen her aground, it would have made much difference in the case, or whether we could after such evidence have held that all the witnesses from the "Indus" had been guilty of perjury. Under these circumstances Mr. Mansel Jones withdrew his application for an adjournment. I should add that it is possible that the Richs' may have imagined that she had gone aground, when in fact she was only reversing her engines previous to dropping her anchor. Assuming, too, the truth of the Richs' statement that she did go stem on to the sand, and that she hung there for 20 minutes until she floated with the rising tide, it is not easy to see how that could have damaged her aft. On the whole, we are disposed to think that, when the vessel left Cardiff, she was in all respects in a good and seaworthy condition. As regards the stowage of the cargo, we have the evidence of the trimmer that it was properly stowed, and that she was in good trim when she left the docks.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " she had sufficient freeboard?" We were told by the master that when she left Penarth Dock, after taking in her cargo, she drew 21 feet 7 forward and 23 feet 2 aft, and that the water was then about an inch above the centre of the disc, and as the disc was at 4 feet 10 1/2 below the deck line that would give her a freeboard of 4 feet 9 1/2. But then it is said that she would, on getting into salt water, rise about 2 inches, which would give her a freeboard of 4 feet 11 inches and a half when she got out to sea. Whether this was or was not a sufficient freeboard for her at that season of the year does not appear to have occurred to the Board of Trade, for they produced no evidence on the point. On finding, however, that it was one of the questions on which they asked for the opinion of the Court, I directed the managing owner to be recalled, and on being questioned he informed us that prior to May last, when she underwent her last overhaul, the disc had been placed at 5 feet 4 below the deck line, but that the owners had then applied to Lloyd's to assign them a freeboard. In due time they received the following letter from Lloyd's, dated the 27th of the same month:—"Gentlemen,—With reference to your request " that a freeboard might be assigned by the Committee " of the Society to the steel screw steamer 'Indus,' " 2486 tons, I am directed to acquaint you that they " have assigned to her the freeboard as set forth " below, and I shall feel obliged by your informing me " if you accept the same, and when and at what port " it will be marked on the vessel's sides, as shewn in " the accompanying copy of Notice 572, in order that " the Society's surveyor may be instructed to report " promptly the fact, and that a record thereof " may be made in the register book." And then at the bottom of the letter is this note. "Freeboard " assigned amidships to top of iron upper deck-in " winter 5 feet 2 inches, in summer 4 feet 10 1/2 inches. " During the winter months in the North Atlantic, " 5 feet 6 inches." The owners thereupon accepted that scale of freeboard, and had the disc raised to 4 feet 10 1/2 inches. Mr. Watson, the managing owner, said that he had sent that letter or a copy of it to the captain, and that he had left the loading of the ship entirely to the captain and the charterers. I then directed the master to be recalled, when he stated that he did not know whether he had or had not ever seen that letter from Lloyd's, that it had no doubt been sent to him and put away with the ship's papers, but that he and Captain Moon, the owners' overlooker, had agreed that, if she was loaded so that the water stood an inch above the centre of the disc in Penarth Dock, that would give her a proper freeboard. It is clear, however, that this vessel, having left on the 13th of October, ought to have had a minimum freeboard of 5 feet 2, the winter season commencing on the 1st of October and ending on the 31st of March, and that consequently 4 feet 11 1/2 inches was not sufficient for her under the circumstances.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "What " was the reason of the quantity of water shipped on the " well deck aft?" We are told that she was in the habit of shipping water in the after well; and looking at the dimensions of the vessel, that she is 310 feet long, with a main breadth of 37.3 feet, and a depth of hold of 25.2 feet, this is hardly to be wondered at. She was one of those long three-decked vessels with little beam and considerable depth of hold, of which so many have been lost, and which, we are happy to say, are fast disappearing from the British merchant navy. This, added to the fact that she was much too deeply laden, fully accounts for her having taken so large a quantity of water into her after well.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether, when the chief officer went on watch at " midnight of 'the 13-14th October, and from time " to time thereafter, he took proper and sufficient " measures to satisfy himself that there was nothing " unusual in the trim and appearance of the vessel?" It seems that the vessel had been pumped out at midnight, and we are told that at that time there was not much water on the deck of the after well. Before 2 a.m., however, the chief officer on going aft observed some water there, and sent two men to clear the ports; and he seems to have done it again at 3, but it was not until about 1/2 past 3 or 1/4 to 4, on his going aft to see what the men were about, that his fears were really excited, for then the well seems to have been nearly full of water. The fact, however, that the vessel used to ship water, especially in the after well, whenever there was any sea on, would naturally lull his suspicions; and we are not disposed to blame him for not having sooner detected the danger to the vessel; he seems to have been attentive to his duties.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " in the opinion of the Court, the after hold suddenly " filled with water, and if so, what was the cause " thereof?" and I will take with that the tenth question, which is, "What was the cause of the loss of " the vessel?" for it is obvious that the filling of the after hold was the cause of the loss of the vessel. And first, is it the fact, as is here suggested, that the after hold did fill suddenly? We were told by the chief engineer that it was the practice on board the vessel to pump out the holds every watch, every four hours, and that it generally took only a few minutes to do. He also told us that the pumps had been put on the after hold at 8 p.m., and that they had sucked in two or three minutes. The chief engineer could not say whether they had been put on at midnight, but the third engineer, whose watch it was, told us that they had been, and that it had been found necessary to keep them going for half to three quarters of an hour before they sucked. Unfortunately it was the third engineer's first voyage, and he does not seem to have appreciated the full importance of this fact, and consequently did not communicate it to the chief officer. Had he done so, the chief engineer would at once have known that there was something wrong. The fact, however, shews that water was already coming into the after hold before midnight, and in no inconsiderable quantity, for it required from half to three quaters of an hour to pump it out. It cannot be said therefore that the hold suddenly filled, for it seems to have taken several hours to do so.

And now how was it that the water got into the after hold? A number of suggestions have been offered to the Court, many of which may be at once dismissed. And first I should observe that all the pipes which led from the engine room to the after hold were fitted with non-return valves, and we are told that it was therefore not possible for the water to get in through these. It was suggested, however, that the sea water might possibly have come in through a fracture of one of the soil pipes; but the fact that the outlet of those pipes was only some 3 1/2 to 4 feet below the upper deck, and consequently high out of the water, having regard to the sheer of the vessel aft, it is not possible that sufficient water could have come in there to sink the vessel, at all events before the stern was deep down in the water. There was, however, a small pipe for supplying the captain's bath, which passed down through the after part of the after hold and screw tunnel to the bottom of the vessel, the lower end of which was, it seems, always left open, so that the captain might pump water into the bath whenever he required it. The effect, however, would be that the water would always stand in it to a level with the water outside; and it was suggested that, if this pipe had been fractured above the screw tunnel, the water would flow from it into the after hold. But we are told that this pipe, which had only a diameter of 1 1/2 inches, was made of lead, and it was pointed out by Mr. Mansel Jones that if it had been broken by any part of the cargo striking it, the tendency would be rather to close than to increase the orifice. We think, therefore, that this suggestion may be dismissed. It was also suggested that possibly she might, as she lay in the Penarth Roads, after coming out of the Penarth Docks, have grounded upon some anchor, it being spring tides, and thus pierced a hole in her bottom; but there is no evidence that she ever did ground there. Again, it was said' that she might possibly have struck some wreckage, but every witness who was on board the vessel stated that they had not felt any blow, and Lloyd's surveyor told us that, looking at the strength of the plates of which the vessel was constructed, it was in his opinion almost impossible that a blow which would have been sufficient to break one of these plates should not have been perceived by those on board. There is also one suggestion, which may or may not be entitled to consideration, and to which I will now proceed to call attention. There was, as we have seen, in the after part of the after well, and immediately in front of the poop, a ventilator, or, as it is called, a ventilating trunk, for the purpose of ventilating the after part of the after hold, in the back part of which was a smaller tube for ventilating the after part of the screw tunnel. This ventilator had not, as is usual, a circular front, but it was in a rectangular form, being 8 feet wide by 2 feet deep, and was constructed of 4/16ths iron. Now, if the front of this trunk above the main deck had by any accident been stove in, we could well understand how water could have got into the after hold amply sufficient to have sunk the vessel, seeing that the after part of the after well seems never to have been wholly free from water It was said, however, that the weight of the water would not have been sufficient to burst in the front of the ventilator, and that, so far as was known, there was no object in the after well which would have done so. It seems, however, that there was usually a forge and an anvil kept on deck in the fore part of the well, which, if they had got loose, would, as the captain said, have broken through everything; but the chief engineer told us that, seeing that the weather looked dirty, he had had them taken below before they left the roads. Unless, therefore, the weight of water was sufficient to break in the front of the ventilator, there is nothing else, so far as appears, which could have done so. At the same time it must be borne in mind that this ventilator was in a very exposed position, and that its front being flat, and 8 feet across, and apparently without internal support, would offer much less resistance to the force of the waves than if it had been circular, like the bulkhead in front of a bridge is sometimes made. It was also said that if water had got down that ventilating trunk a portion of it would have found its way down through the tube into the screw tunnel, and have been seen by the engineers. But the chief officer told us that on the voyage home from Odessa he had stopped up the upper part of that tube with a sack, and that the sack was still in the tube when they left Cardiff. It is possible that the casualty may have been brought about by the bursting in of the front of this ventilating trunk, and it certainly is to be regretted that it was not more strongly constructed. The manner in which the water got into the after hold must, however, after all be mere matter of conjecture; and there is now little likelihood of the question ever being solved, the vessel having sunk in 27 fathoms of water.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " after the engineer reported water in the after com- " partment, every possible effort was made to save the " vessel?" In our opinion, as soon as the officers became aware of the dangerous condition in which the vessel was, they did everything that they could to save her, but it was then too late.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, "Whether she was navigated with proper and sea- " manlike care?" We see nothing to complain of in the way in which she was navigated.

The twelfth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master and officers are, or either of them is, in " default?" We are not asked to deal with the master's certificate, but we cannot acquit him of blame for having taken this vessel to sea so deeply laden as she was, and also for not having taken the trouble to ascertain the depth to which he was entitled to load her, when, as he in fact admits, he had the information in his possession. Blame also attaches to Captain Moon, the owners' overlooker, who must have known well the load line which had been assigned to her by Lloyd's, and that she ought not, at that season of the year, to have left with less than a freeboard of 5 feet 2.

The thirteenth question which we are asked is, "What was the cost of the vessel to the owner?" We were told by the managing owner that she cost them originally, including outfit and everything, 43,154l.

The fourteenth question which we are asked is, "What was her value at the time when she last left " Cardiff?" The owner has told us that she was worth to them at the time about 36,000l. or 37,000l. That no doubt would be a full value, but she was a first-class vessel, had been running for only two years, and seems to have been well kept up.

The fifteenth question which we are asked is, "What " were the insurances effected?" The managing owner has told us that the hull was insured for 35,000l. and the outfit for 2,500l., making a total of 37,500l. In addition to which the freight, which was between 1000l. and. 1100l., but of which about 320l. had been advanced, was insured for 700l. There was also, we were told, a quasi contract for a portion of the return freight, which was not, however, insured.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

 

 

 

J. H. HALLETT,

Assessors.

 

 

H. C. KENNEDY,

 

L 367. 2846. 200.—12/86. Wt. 12. E. & S.