Wreck Report for 'Coranbrook', 1887

(No. 3220.)

"CORANBROOK" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 4th of April 1887, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains RONALDSON and KIDDLE, R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "CRANBROOK," of North Shields, with a crew of 23 hands, whilst on a voyage from Newport to New York.

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 Newport on her last voyage she was in all respects in a good and seaworthy condition; that she was not overladen; that her cargo was properly stowed; and that there is nothing to shew how she was lost.

Dated this 4th day of April 1887.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

JAMES KIDDLE,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 4th of April instant, when Mr. Baden Powell appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Botterell for the owners of the "Cranbrook." Ten witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Baden Powell handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Botterell then addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Baden Powell 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 "Cranbrook" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of North Shields, of 1,919 tons gross and 1,246 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 180 horse-power. She was built at Wellington Quay on Tyne, in the year 1881, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. George Cleugh, of Etal Villa, North Shields, and others, Mr. Cleugh being the managing owner. She left the Alexandra Dock, Newport, at about 9.30 a.m. of the 30th of November last, with a crew of 23 hands all told, and a cargo of about 1,500 tons of steel blooms, 350 tons of tin plates, and 150 tons of arsenic, making a total of about 2,000 tons dead weight, besides about 500 tons of coals in her bunkers, bound to New York. Thomas Phillips, a Newport pilot, took her down as far as Breaksea Point, and there left her; and from that time she has not been seen or heard of; and the object of the present inquiry is to ascertain, if possible, what has become of her.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether, " when the vessel left Newport, she was in all respects " in good and seaworthy condition?" The vessel, it appears, was built under special survey, and was classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's; and Mr. Bone, the managing director of the Tyne Iron Ship Building Company, the builders, has told us that she was built in many respects above the requirements of Lloyds. Thus, the lower deck as well as 110 feet of the upper deck were of iron. There was also a stringer on each side, immediately below the upper deck beams, for a length of about 80 feet in the way of the engine-room, which would give her very great additional strength. Mr. Bone told us that she was again in their hands in March, 1885, when she underwent her first time survey, and that she was then in excellent condition. Mr. Baird, also an inspecting engineer, residing at North Shields, told us that he examined the vessel in dry dock in March 1886, and found her bottom to be in thoroughly good condition, except that there were a few rivets which required to be refastened, and that that was done. He also told us that in August last he overhauled her engines, and found them to be in very good condition, and that the boilers, which had been in her from the time she was launched in 1881, had had two new furnace tops, and were in other respects in fair condition. There is also Captain Harvey, who commanded her from February 1884 until she left Newport on her last voyage, and he also speaks to her being in first-rate condition when she left. We have therefore no reason to think [that when she last left Newport she was not in all respects in a good and seaworthy condition, so far as her hull, machinery, and equipments were concerned.

The second question which we are asked is," Whether " the ventilators, hatchways, and all other deck open- " ings were so arranged that they could be properly " protected and secured in heavy weather?" It seems that the hatchways were solid, 2 1/2 inches thick, with iron coamings rising about 2 feet above the deck. The ventilators had iron coamings about 2 feet high, and were fitted with wooden plugs, and iron screw caps and tarpaulins. We are told that access to the engine room was obtained through a door in the after part of the midship house or engine-room casing, which had a sill about 18 inches high to prevent the water getting below, and that there were no doors or openings in the alley ways. And it appears to us that the vessel was exceptionally well fitted as regards ventilators, hatchways, and other deck openings.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " her disc was so placed as to give the vessel sufficient " freeboard?" There seems to be no question that the disc was originally so placed on the vessel's side as that the centre should be about 4 feet 6 inches below the line of the upper deck, and that it remained practically in the same position down to the time of her loss. Now Mr. Bone, the builder, as well as Mr. Brown, surveyor to the Board of Trade in the Consultative Department, have laid before us calculations as to the freeboard which this vessel ought to have had under the existing rules, and they have told us that her minimum freeboard should have been 4 feet 2 1/2 inches for a summer voyage, 4 feet 6 for a winter voyage, and 4 feet 10 1/3 for a North Atlantic voyage. And as the centre of the disc was 4 feet 6 below the deck, it is obvious that it was not placed too high, indeed it might fairly have been placed at 4 feet 2 1/2 inches—the summer freeboard.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the cargo was properly stowed so as to make the " vessel as easy as possible in a seaway, and whether it " was properly and efficiently secured?" Mr. Howell, the head stevedore, under whose supervision this cargo was loaded, and who appeared to us to be a very intelligent person, told us that he has had twenty years' experience of stowing this description of cargo, and that he stowed the "Cranbrook's" cargo in the way in which he has always done. He put about 1,420 tons of it in the lower hold, and about 580 tons in the 'tween decks, the larger portion of course being towards the centre of the ship in holds Nos. 2 and 3. The steel blooms, of which there was about 1,500 tons, were laid upon the decks from side to side, but dovetailed so as to allow spaces between them, and thus in a measure distribute the weight. Owing, however, to the great weight of the cargo, there was necessarily large empty spaces left above the cargo in all the holds, both in the lower holds and in the 'tween decks. And to prevent the cargo from shifting they tommed it off from above by planks with a notch cut in the upper end to fit into the beams above, and cleated below to planks laid athwartships on the top of the cargo, and above to planks or battens running fore and aft down the centre. The cargo was also shored off from the sides of the vessel with battens and planks laid lengthways, thus forming a kind of dunnage. No doubt it would have been better when carrying such a heavy dead weight cargo, if a trunk had been formed inside, so that the centre of gravity might have been raised, and the cargo effectually fended off from the sides, and at the same time prevented from shifting; but it could hardly be expected that the owner would go to this expense, when possibly on the next voyage she might have to carry a cargo of grain or general merchandize, for the stowage of which the trunk would not only be of no use, but would be a positive incumbrance. Mr. Bone has also told us that he has calculated what would probably have been the metacentric height of this vessel with her cargo distributed in the way in which we are told it was, and that he has found it to be about 1.62 feet, which would be a good metacentric height for a vessel of this description. On the whole, although by constructing a trunk the cargo might no doubt have been made to ride more easily and more securely, we are of opinion that it was stowed as well and as securely as could reasonably be expected under the circumstances.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " she was overladen" Captain Harvey, who had commanded her since February, 1884, told us that, although obliged to remain on shore for this voyage, he had at the owner's request taken the vessel to Newport, and stayed there to see her loaded, and that she had about 100 tons less cargo on this last occasion than she had ever before had whilst he had commanded her, from which it may fairly be presumed that she was not overladen. But the case does not rest there, for Thomas, the constable on the out-door staff of the Board of Trade at Newport, told us that he saw her just before she left the docks, and that at that time the water was about three inches below the centre of the disc, which would therefore give her a freeboard of 4 feet 9. She was then, however, in fresh water, so that we must allow for a rise of some 5 to 6 inches on her getting to sea, which would make her freeboard from 5 feet 2 to 5 feet 3 inches. And as she is only required to have a freeboard of 4 feet 10 1/2 inches even for a North Atlantic voyage, it is clear that she must have had an ample freeboard, and that she was consequently not overladen.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "What was " the cost of the vessel to her owner?" Mr. Cleugh has told us that she was built for them, and that she cost 26,500l.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What " was her value at the time the vessel last left New- " port?" Mr. Cleugh could not tell us what was her value, but he has said that he would not have taken 20,000l. for her, and the assessors are disposed to think, looking at all the circumstances, and at the manner in which the vessel was kept up, that that would not be in excess of her value.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "What " were the insurances effected, and how were they " apportioned?" The vessel, we were told, was insured for 20,000l.; and the freight for 1,500l. The freight on the present occasion was only about 900l., and of this between 200l. and 300l. had been advanced; but the policies were time policies effected in February in each year, and there can be no doubt that the homeward freights even from New York would generally be much in excess of this. There was no insurance on either outfit or disbursements.

The last 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 the pilot left her off Breaksea on the " 30th November last" The vessel not having arrived at her destination, there can be no doubt that she has long since gone to the bottom, but how she was lost it is quite impossible for us to say, no one, so far as we are aware, having been saved from her, and not a particle of the wreckage having been found. We know that very severe gales prevailed in the North Atlantic in the early part of last December, arriving on this country on the 8th and following days, and it is quite possible that she may have fallen in with them. Whether her engines broke down, or her cargo shifted, and she got into the trough of the sea, and was overwhelmed in one of these gales; or whether, as is suggested, she may have met with a collision, there is nothing to shew. All that can be said is that she had a new captain, who would probably not know how to handle her in a gale so well as Captain Harvey, who had commanded her for between two and three years; but there was nothing in the state or condition of the vessel from which we are able to account for her loss.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

JAMES KIDDLE,

 

50022—131. 180.—4/87. Wt. 12. E. & S.