Wreck Report for 'Inversnaid', 1887

(No. 3168.)

"INVERSNAID."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Cardiff on the 14th of February 1887, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Vice-Admiral PICKARD and Captain COSENS, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the sailing ship "INVERSNAID," of Liverpool, with her crew of 30 hands, whilst on a voyage from Odessa to Singapore with a cargo of coals.

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 in a good and seaworthy condition so far as her hull and equipments were concerned; that, although not overladen, she was laden down to her extreme limits; that the cargo was not properly trimmed and stowed; and that she foundered off Lundy Island, probably owing to the cargo having shifted during the gale which she encountered on the 15th and 16th of October last,

The Court is also of opinion that the master of the "Flying Fox" made every possible effort to render her all the assistance in his power.

Dated this 14th day of February 1887.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

BENJ. S. PICKARD,

Assessors.

 

 

WILLIAM COSENS,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Cardiff on the 14th of February instant, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Downing for the owners of the "Inversnaid." Eleven 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. Downing then produced a witness, and recalled the owner's superintendent, and having addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Howard Smith having replied for the Board of Trade, 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 "Inversnaid," which was an iron sailing ship, belonging to the Port of Liverpool, of 1,613 tons gross, and 1,549 tons net register, was built at Greenock in the year 882, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Andrew Malcolm Anderson, of Fenwick Chambers, Fenwick Street, Liverpool, and others, Mr. Andrew Malcolm Anderson being the managing owner. She left the Penarth Docks at about 7 a.m. of the 14th of October last, with a cargo of 2,316 tons of coal, besides 22 tons for ship's use, a crew of 30 hands all told, and in tow of a tug called the "Brilliant Star," and having a Cardiff pilot on board, bound to Singapore. The pilot left her, at about 8 a.m., in the lower part of Cardiff Roads, but she continued in tow of the tug until they had arrived about 15 miles to the westward of Lundy Island, when the tug cast off, and the vessel proceeded on her course, with her head to the westward, the wind being about S. by W. It was then about 11.30 p.m., and the master of the tug, having satisfied himself that the captain of the "Inversnaid" knew where he was, stood away for Milford Haven, but in about two hours afterwards the wind changed to the W.S.W. and began to blow a gale. From the time the steam tug left her nothing more was seen or heard of the "Inversnaid" until about 9.30 a.m. of the 16th of the same month, when she was seen by a steam tug called the "Flying Fox," about 2 miles from the north end of the island with her head to the S.E., and attempting to weather the island, the wind at the time blowing a gale from the north. The "Flying Fox," which had been lying during the preceding night under the shelter of Lundy Island, and had only just then got under way for the purpose of proceeding to Cardiff Roads, at once altered her course, and endeavoured to get to her by passing close to the north end of the island, and between it and the White Horses. On getting, however, out of shelter of the land, the "Flying Fox" found that she could make no way against the wind and sea; and at the same time the "Inversnaid," finding that she would not be able to weather the north end of the island, put her helm up to run down the west side of it. The "lying Fox" thereupon also altered her course, and ran down the east side, intending to pick up the "Inversnaid" at the south point. At about 10.30 a.m. a Bristol pilot named Rowland, who had been lying for 2 days under shelter of the island, saw the "Inversnaid" running down the west side of the island under two upper topsails and fore-topmast staysail, laboring very heavily, and apparently in distress, with her lower topsails, main staysail and jib blown away, and having a strong list to starboard. In the meantime the "Flying Fox" had reached the south point of the island, when her master saw the "Inversnaid" running before the wind with her head to the south or S.S.W., and he then observed that she had a list to starboard, although the wind was a little on her starboard quarter. He accordingly ran down to her, and having got upon her port quarter advised the master to keep his helm over and try to get under the lee of the island. The master of the "Inversnaid" then asked him, what he would ask to take him to Cardiff Roads, but the captain of the "Flying Fox" answered that it was not the time or place to make any agreement; upon which the master of the "Inversnaid" said that he had plenty of sea room, and that he should keep her at sea. Thereupon the master of the "Flying Fox" turned to get under the shelter of Lundy Island, but shortly afterwards, seeing that she was hailed from the "Inversnaid," he put about again, and went towards her, and on getting within speaking distance the captain of the "Inversnaid" said that he would give him a hawser. But they were then exposed to the full violence of the wind and sea, so that it was quite impossible to pass a hawser on board, and accordingly the master of the "Flying Fox" signalled to him to put his helm up, and get under the shelter of Lundy Island; but whether it was that she would not answer her helm, owing to the heavy list which she had, or to a spar, which we are told was hanging over the starboard side, the "Inversnaid" continued her course to the westward, but the "Flying Fox," not being able to follow her, owing to the violence of the wind and sea, brought her her head to the N.W. At this time a squall came on, which concealed the "Inversnaid" from them, and on its clearing off she was no longer to be seen. The master of the "Flying Fox" remained three for about three quarters of an hour, when seeing nothing more of the vessel he put about and ran up to Cardiff. From that time nothing more has been seen or heard of the "Inversnaid," and there can be no doubt whatever that she has foundered with all hands.

These being the facts of the case, the first question on which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether, " when the 'Inversnaid' left Cardiff, she was in all " respects in a good and seaworthy condition?" The vessel, which it seems was built under special survey, was launched in the year 1882, and was classed 100 A1 at Lloyd's. She did not, however, come into Mr. Anderson's possession until September, 1886, when, thinking that she was too heavily masted, or at any rate more heavily masted than his other vessels, he reduced considerably the fore and main top-gallant masts, and took away the lower top-gallant yard, and reduced the upper top-gallant yards; and he also reduced the jib-boom 12 ft. After spending something like 2000l. upon her she left London on the 2nd October, in tow of a tug, for Cardiff, and there took on board the cargo with which she sailed on her last voyage. Mr. McWhinnie, the gentleman who superintended the alterations which were done to her in London between the 11th September and the 2nd October, told us that she was in first-class order in every way. Mr. Major, also, engineer and shipwright surveyor to the Board of Trade at Cardiff, said that he had occasion to visit heron the 6th and 7th of October, to see if the ventilators were good, and he told us that in his opinion she was a fine noble ship, We have, therefore, no doubt that, so far as the hull, rigging, and equipments of the vessel are concerned, she was in thoroughly good condition.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " her cargo was properly trimmed and stowed, and " whether proper and sufficient measures were taken " to prevent it from shifting." From the evidence of Matthews, the foreman trimmer, it appears that the centre of the vessel was full, but that there was an empty space in the after part of the lower hold sufficient to contain about 150 tons, and the same in the after part of the 'tween decks; whilst forward, in the lower hold, there was an empty space capable of containing about 80 tons, and in the 'tween decks about 100 tons. We are also told that, with a view to prevent the coals from shifting, there were shifting-boards in the 'tween decks, formed out of the boards or coverings of two nearly continuous openings, one on each side of the centre line of the vessel, and extending from the fore to the after hatch. These shifting-boards extended as far as the coal, and went up from the 'tween decks to within about 9 inches of the beams; but there were no shifting-boards in the lower hold, nor was there anything to prevent the coals from falling into the large empty spaces forward and aft in the lower hold, as well as in the 'tween decks, in case of the vessel pitching or rolling very heavily. Nor, indeed, have we any security that the coals were properly trimmed up into the wings of the vessel, more especially in the lower hold, for Matthews, the foreman trimmer, told us that there were no hatches in the wings, and that it would have been of great assistance to them in trimming the cargo if there had been. On the other hand, Mr. Neels, the Agent to the British India Steam Navigation Company, the shippers and owners of the cargo, told us that to the best of his belief there were feeding-hatches in the wings. But the evidence does not stop here, for Mr. McWhinnie, who superintended the repairs in London from the 11th September to the 2nd October, has told us that there were four feeding-hatches on each side, each of them about eight or ten feet long, and about two feet broad, and that he had a very distinct recollection of them, for that, when he was going round the vessel with Lloyd's surveyor, one of these hatches was open, and the surveyor remarked how extremely dangerous it was to leave them open, and assisted him to put the hatch on. It is clear, therefore, that these hatches were there, and that the trimmers made no use of them when they were loading the vessel, although they admit that they would have been of great assistance to them in trimming the coals into the wings. With these facts before us-that they did not make use of those means which would have enabled them to trim this cargo into the wings; that very large empty spaces were left at the ends, into which the coal might easily have shifted; and that when last seen she had a strong list to starboard, we are induced to think that the cargo shifted owing to its not having been so effectually trimmed and stowed as it should have been, and that proper and sufficient measures were not taken to prevent it from shifting.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " she was overladen, and whether, as laden, she had suf- " ficient stability?" Her cargo consisted of 2,316 tons of coal as cargo, besides 22 tons 10 cwts. for ship's use. This, Mr. Anderson told us, was not so much as she had carried before he had bought her, having, he was informed, carried on one occasion from San Francisco to Liverpool as much as 2,436 tons. But, even if this had occurred during the time that Mr. Anderson had had her, it would not be conclusive proof that she was not too heavily laden on that occasion. What we have to see is, what was her draft, and what her freeboard with the cargo which she had in her when she last left Cardiff. it seems that the centre of the disc was placed at 4 feet 4 inches below the deck, and, as the pilot has told us that the bottom of the disc was just clear of the water, that would have given her a freeboard on leaving the dock of 4 feet 10 inches. According to Mr. Neels, who took the draft and the freeboard as she left the dock, the bottom of the disc was from half-an-inch to an inch out of water, which would give her a freeboard on leaving dock of about 4 feet 10 1/2 inches to 4 feet 11 inches. To this, however, would have to be added an inch and a-half for her rise on getting into salt water, the water in Penarth Dock being brackish, which would make the freeboard from 4 feet 11 1/2 inches to 5 feet and half-an-inch. It may be well, however, to see what would be the amount of her freeboard as estimated from her draft on leaving the dock. According to the pilot, she drew 20 feet forward and 20 feet 7 inches aft, giving a mean of 20 feet 3 1/2 inches; according to Mr. Neels, she drew 20 feet and half-an-inch forward, and 20 feet 7 inches aft, giving her a mean of 20 feet 3 3/4 inches, a difference of only a quarter of an inch between the two. Now, Mr. Anderson has told us that he has carefully examined the plans of the vessel, which are deposited at Lloyd's, and that he finds that the depth of her hold was 22 feet 11 inches; the ceiling, 3 inches; the floors 2 feet and half-an-inch; the main deck, 4 inches; and the keel, 9 1/2 inches—making a total of 26 feet 4 inches; and deducting 10 1/4 inches for camber, leaves a depth at side of 25 feet 5 3/4 inches; and if from this we deduct the mean draft, 20 feet 3 inches, we get a freeboard of 5 feet 2 inches. On the other hand, Mr. Major, engineer and shipwright surveyor to the Board of Trade at Cardiff, arrives at the freeboard in a somewhat different way. He says that the moulded depth at side amidships was 24 feet 3 inches; the upper deck, 4 inches; and the depth of keel 9 1/2 inches, giving a total depth at side of 25 feet 4 1/2 inches; and deducting from this the mean draft of 20 feet 3 3/4 inches, leaves a freeboard of 5 feet and three-quarters of an inch. The difference is not very great between the two, Mr. Anderson making the freeboard 5 feet 2 inches, and Mr. Major making it 5 feet and three-quarters of an inch; and perhaps the difference between them may be explained in this way, that Mr. Major assumes the moulded depth amidships to have been 24 feet 3 inches, whilst at the same time he says that the lowest point of sheer was 32 feet abaft the midships; but if 24 feet 3 inches was the moulded depth at the lowest point of sheer, and not at amidships, we should have to add something for sheer to ascertain the depth of side at midships. But be this as it may, the conclusion to which we should be disposed to come from the evidence of these gentlemen is, that her freeboard on leaving the dock was about 5 feet 1 inch to 5 feet 2 inches, to which would have to be added 1 1/2 inches for rise on going to sea, so that on this showing we may take her freeboard in salt water when she left to have been about 5 feet 3 inches. And now let us see what ought to have been her freeboard. According to the calculations laid before us by Mr. Major, taking her moulded depth amidships to have been 24 feet 3 inches, her co-efficient of fineness .71, her camber 10 1/4 inches, her sheer forward 24 inches, and aft nil, and the lowest point of sheer 32 feet abaft the midships, her freeboard in salt water should have been not less than 5 feet 1 inch. If, then, her freeboard was, according to the pilot and Mr. Neels, from 4 feet 11 1/2 inches to 5 feet and half-an-inch, she would barely have had sufficient freeboard; if, on the other hand, the freeboard was 5 feet 3 inches, as Mr. Anderson thinks, she would have had sufficient freeboard. On the whole it appears to us that the vessel was very near the limit, although we are not prepared to say that she was overladen. We have no reason to think that she was unstable, for Mr. Neels and the pilot, as well as the master of the steam tug which towed her down beyond Lundy, told us that she appeared to be perfectly upright then.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " her hatchways, ventilators, and all other deck open- " ings were properly covered, protected, and secured?" It seems that Mr. Anderson had put six new ventilators into her when she was in London. Two of them were under the shelter of the top-gallant forecastle, two in front of the poop, and two on the poop, and all appear to have been provided with screw covers; and Mr. Major has told us that he went on board specially to examine the ventilation, and that he was perfectly satisfied with it. The pilot has also told us that the hatchways and other deck openings were all properly secured before he left her. We may add that Captain Dodds, her master, is said by Mr. Anderson to have been a well-known captain, who was very much sought after; and we may, therefore, very naturally assume that he would see that everything was done to put her into a proper condition before she got down Channel.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " on the 16th October, the vessel's cargo had shifted?" Rowland, the Bristol pilot, tells us that when he saw the vessel off the south point of Lundy Island he went out with a view to see whether his services were required, and finding, on inquiring from the master of the "Flying Fox," that she was only bound to Cardiff Roads, and not to Bristol, and that there was a tug in attendance, he turned back and ran under Lundy again for shelter. Rowland told us that at that time she had a strong list to starboard, although the wind was then on her starboard quarter. The master and mate of the "Flying Fox" also told us that she had a list to starboard. That she had a list, therefore, is undoubted; but whether it was caused by the shifting of her cargo or not, it is, of course, impossible for us to say; but we know of no other cause which would have given her this list.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " having regard to her condition at that time, the mas- " ter of the 'Flying Fox' made every possible effort to " render assistance?" It seems to be quite clear that the master of the "Flying Fox" did go to the vessel as soon as he sighted her, with a view to render her assistance; indeed it is only reasonable to suppose that he would have done so, it being part of his regular work to render assistance to vessels in distress. It is equally clear that the master of the "Inversnaid" wished to make a bargain with him for his services, and that the master of the "Flying Fox" very naturally replied that it was neither the time nor the place to make an agreement. It is also clear that the master of the "Inversnaid" on receiving this answer determined to run to the westward with a view of getting more sea-room, and it was only when he found that, owing to the list or other cause, it would not be proper to adopt that course, that he signalled to the "Flying Fox" to come back to him, which she at once did. At that time, however, it was, we have no doubt, quite impossible to pass a rope from the one vessel to the other, and accordingly the "Flying Fox" hailed her to get under the shelter of Lundy Island, where she would have been able to take his hawser. Why it was that the "Inversnaid" did not follow that course it is quite impossible for us to say; whether it was owing to the violence of the gale, or to the list which she had, or to the spar hanging over the starboard side, we shall probably never know; but there is nothing in the evidence to shew us that the master of the "Flying Fox" did not make every possible effort to render all the assistance in his power to her. He was obliged, owing to the violence of the gale, to put his head to wind and sea, whilst the "Inversnaid" was apparently running away to the westward; and whilst in this position a squall came over them, which concealed the vessel, and when it cleared off she was nowhere to be seen. We see no reason whatever to blame the master of the "Flying Fox" for anything that he did, or to doubt that he made every possible effort to render her assistance.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What " was the cost of the vessel to her owner?" Mr. Anderson has told us that he gave 11,300l. for her in September last, and that he then spent 2,000l. in altering and improving her, and he thinks that he got a very good bargain.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "What was her value when she left Cardiff?" Mr. Anderson has valued her at the sum of 13,000l., and we have no reason to think that that is an excessive value to put upon her.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "What " were the insurances effected, and how were they " apportioned?" Mr. Anderson has told us that he insured the hull for 13,000l., but of that his firm took 1,000l. He stated also that the freight was 1,794l., of which 1,117l. was advanced, leaving 677l. to be received on the arrival of the vessel at Singapore. This he said was insured for 1,000l., but there was no insurance on outfit or disbursements.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "What in " the opinion of the Court, from the evidence before " them, is the cause of this vessel not having been " heard of since she was seen off Lundy Island on the " 16th October?" There can be little doubt that the vessel foundered during the squall which struck her when she was lost sight of by the "Flying Fox;" and that the cause of her foundering was the violence of the wind and sea, conjoined with the heavy list which she had to starboard.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

BENJ. S. PICKARD,

Assessors.

 

 

WILLIAM COSENS,

 

50022—79. 200.—2/87. Wt. 12. E. & S.