Wreck Report for 'Astraea', 1888

(No. 3657.)

"ASTRAEA" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at the Public Board Room, Post Office Chambers, Middlesbrough, on the 13th, 14th and 15th days of November 1888, before CHARLES JAMES COLEMAN, Esq., Judge, assisted by Captains METHVEN and CASTLE, and J. H. HALLETT, Esq., C.E., in the circumstances attending he casualty on board the British Steamship "ASTRAEA," of West Hartlepool, on the 21st July 1888.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto, that the casualty was caused by reason of the chief engineer (Thomas Henry Sharp, 1st class certificate, No. 17,896) failing to test the water sufficiently often, and not taking any means to prevent a deposit of salt forming on the furnace crowns of the starboard boiler. The Court finds the chief engineer, Thomas Henry Sharp, in default, and suspends his certificate for three calendar months from this day.

Dated this 15th day of November 1888.

 

(Signed)

CHAS. JAS. COLEMAN, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

 

 

 

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

 

J. H. HALLETT,

 

Annex to the Report.

"Astraea," official number 92,907, is a screw steam vessel of 2,040.35 gross, and of 1,390.48 register tonnage. She was built of steel by W. Gray and Co., of West Hartlepool, in 1886, and was registered also at West Hartlepool. She was fitted with triple expansion compound engines of 200 horse-power combined, manufactured by Messrs. The Central Marine Engineering Company, West Hartlepool, had two steel boilers fitted with Foxe's corrugated furnaces. The boilers were pressed to 150 lbs, per square inch.

She is owned by Mr. John Rickinson and others, Mr. John Rickinson being the managing owner. The vessel was schooner-rigged, and appears by copy of the Register to have been commanded by David Nicholas, whose certificate is numbered 18,997.

On the 23rd of June the "Astraea," laden with a cargo of 2,710 tons of iron, was ready for sea, and had a crew all told of 22, Thomas Henry Sharpe being chief engineer with first-class certificate, No. 17,896; W. G. Dickinson was second engineer, and John Henry Sargent third engineer. The last was not a certificated officer, but had served in the "Astraea" eleven months in the above capacity, and had duly served an apprenticeship in an engineering factory.

She sailed on the 23rd June. The evidence showed that the vessel in the engine department was in good order, and that the boilers and furnaces had been thoroughly overhauled and cleaned just previous to sailing. She entered the Suez Canal on the 8th of July, and had passed through it by the 11th July. All had gone well hitherto in relation to the voyage, and continued so until the 21st of July, when, at 2.15 a.m., the ship had arrived in latitude 15° 24 north and longitude 60° 34 east in the Arabian Sea, over which the S.W. monsoon was blowing at a force of six to seven, with a heavy sea. At this time (2.15 a.m.) the third engineer was in charge of the engine-room, when it was reported to him by one of the firemen that the crowns of both furnaces of the starboard boiler were coming down. Be immediately directed the fires of these furnaces to be drawn, opened the safety valves, blew through the gauge glasses, and saw that the water returned to the same level in the glass as it was previously, viz., five inches. He then called the chief engineer and reported the circumstances, and he at once proceeded to the engine-room, on his way calling the second. engineer. After the fires were drawn the starboard boiler was blown off, and when it had cooled down it was entered and examined, and a deposit of solid salt extending the whole length of the furnaces (specimens of which were produced in Court, and which varied in thickness from 1 1/4 to 2 inches) nearly level with the top of the corrugations. As nothing could be done with regard to repairing damage, the ship then proceeded on her voyage to Bombay, steaming with the port boiler, and arrived there on the 25th July, when the damaged furnaces were removed and new furnaces of a temporary character were fitted; the ship then returned to England under reduced steam. This is the narrative of the course of events of the outer passage, so far as it came before the Court.

At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Dendy put in the following questions, upon which the opinion of the Court was desired by the Board of Trade:-

1. Whether when the vessel left Middlesbrough the boilers and furnaces were in good conditon and properly cleaned?

2. Whether from time to time during the voyage, and particularly on or about the 21st of July last, the chief engineer took proper measures to ascertain the density of the water in the starboard boiler?

3. Whether at the time of the accident there was a sufficient quantity of water in the starboard boiler?

4. Whether the engineers took proper measures to prevent the water in the boilers increasing in density, and to prevent or minimise the deposit of salt?

5. What was the cause of the furnaces collapsing?

6. Whether the chief and third engineers are, or either of them is, in default?

In the opinion of the Board of Trade the certificate of Thomas Henry Sharp, the chief engineer, should be dealt with.

To which the Court replied as follows:-

1. From the evidence adduced the Court is satisfied that the boilers and furnaces were clean and in good condition when the ship left Middlesbrough.

2. From the evidence of the chief engineer it would appear that no means whatever were taken to test the density of the water in the boilers from the time of leaving Middlesbrough on June 23rd until July 11th, after the ship had left Suez on her passage to Bombay ; but the entry in the engineer's log showed that no test was taken until the 14th of July, after which date daily tests were taken and entered in the log-book. The evidence showed most clearly that there had been great loss of feed water, which necessitated the frequent use of the auxilary feed. We are of opinion that there was great want of proper care exercised in the management of the boiler by the chief engineer. Neither of the other engineers ever saw the salinometer used prior to the casualty, or the boiler surfaced, or blown down.

3. We have every reason to believe there was sufficient water in the starboard boiler. The evidence proved that the tops of the combustion chambers and tube plates were not in the least damaged, which would have been the case had the water been below them. We were told both by the Board of Trade surveyor, who surveyed the boiler on the return of the vessel, that there were no signs of any damage to the other parts of the boiler.

4. The chief engineer did not take proper measures to prevent the water in the boiler increasing in density, which was proved by the specimens of salt produced both by the Board of Trade surveyor and also by the third engineer.

5. The cause of the furnaces collapsing was through the accumulation of solid salt in the starboard boiler. The samples of salt produced in Court proved most conclusively that the water in the boiler must have been very strongly impregnated with salt.

6. We consider the chief engineer solely to blame for the damage to the furnaces in the starboard boiler in his neglect to use the means at his disposal to test the water from time to time, and in not changing the water in the boilers as required.

We think that the chief engineer solely to blame for the damage to the furnaces in the starboard boiler. This neglect to test the water sufficiently often was proved to our satisfaction. The casualty was brought about by the negligent discharge of his important duties as engineer. This is, most undoubtedly, a very serious case, and it is providential that no accident happened to those on board. It is impossible to treat the case as one of mere error of judgment, for it is in our opinion one of great neglect of duty. We find the chief engineer in default, and suspend his certificate for three months from this date. The Court makes no order as to costs.

 

(Signed)

CHARLES JAMES COLEMAN, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

 

 

 

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

 

J. H. HALLETT,

 

Dated this 15th day of November 1888.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE,

BY EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE,

PRINTERS TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.

And to be purchased, either directly or through any Bookseller, from EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, EAST HARDING STREET, FLEET STREET, E.C.; or ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK, 6 NORTH BRIDGE, EDINBURGH; or HODGES, FIGGIS, & Co., 104, GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN.

1888.

Price Twopence.

54010-165. 250.-11/88. Wt. 23. E. & S.