Chester

(No. 2782.)

"WAKEFIELD" (S.S.) AND "CHESTER" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at the Town Hall, Hull, on the 29th, 30th, and 31st days of December, before E. C. TWISS, Esquire, Stipendiary Magistrate, assisted by Admiral PICKARD, R.N., and Captain FRENCH and Captain DAVIES, into the circumstances attending the loss of the British steamship "WAKEFIELD," of Grimsby, through collision with the steamship "CHESTER," of Grimsby, in the river Humber, on the 3rd day of December 1885.

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 loss of the said vessel was owing to her and the "Chester" having approached each other too closely before taking the proper precautions of stopping and reversing their engines. The Court does not find the master of the "Chester" in default, but considers that some blame attaches to him for not having reversed sooner than he evidently did. The Court further does not find the master of the "Wakefield" in default, but is of opinion that considerable blame rests with him for not having complied with Articles 16 and 18 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and also for having ordered his engines full speed ahead at a time when he did.

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

Dated this 31st day of December 1885.

(Signed)

E. C. TWISS, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 (Signed)

BENJ. S. PICKARD,

A. P. FRENCH,

T. DAVIES,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This inquiry was held at the Town Hall, Hull, on the 29th, 30th, and 31st of December 1885 when Mr. Saxelbye represented the Board of Trade, and Mr. A. M. Jackson appeared for the master of the " Wakefield," and Mr. Hearfield for the master of the " Chester," whilst Mr. Harper watched the case on behalf of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, the owners of the respective vessels.

The "Wakefield," official number 54.808, was an iron screw steamer, built by Messrs. C. and W. Earle, at Hull, in 1866, and was owned by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, and managed by Mr. George Kenneth Hore, of Grimsby. Her dimensions were: length 200 5/10ft., breadth 26, 5/9 ft., depth of hold 14 5/10 ft., and her registered tonnage 442 tons. She was registered at the Port of Grimsby.

The "Wakefield" left Grimsby at 5.45 p.m. on the 3rd of December instant, bound for Hamburgh, with a general cargo of 220 tons, under the command of Mr. Michael Tierney, who holds a certificate of competency as master, number 102,309. Her crew consisted of 21 hands all told, and she carried 19 passengers.

On leaving port the vessel was well found in every respect, and her engines and steering gear were all in good order.

The weather was fine and clear, but dark, with a fresh breeze from the S.W., the tide being half ebb, which, we were told, would run about 2 knots.

On getting clear of the pier heads the helm was ported to shape a course down the Humber, and she proceeded with engines slow for about five minutes, heading E. by S., when a red light about two points on the starboard bow was reported by the chief officer, who was on the look-out on the forecastle.

The master was on the bridge with the boatswain and cook at the wheel, which was amidships, and the former stated that when the red light was reported to him it appeared to be about a mile distant. He afterwards saw, in addition to the red light, two masthead lights, and he knew by that that she was a steamer making for Grimsby Dock.

Simultaneously with the red light being reported the master observed, about two vessels length off, the riding lights of two vessels, one on his port and the other on his starboard bow. In order to clear the vessel on his starboard bow he starboarded 1/2 a point, as the ebb tide was setting him down on her.

The "Wakefield" was kept under a starboard helm for about two minutes and then steadied, and after she had passed the vessels at anchor her master observed the red light rapidly approaching him, about 1 1/2 points on the starboard bow and, as he said, about four vessels length off.

Thereupon he at once ordered his helm hard astarboard, and put the telegraph to "full speed ahead" with a view of clearing the approaching vessel. In the course of two minutes or so, however, the steamer, which proved to be the "Chester," struck the "Wakefield" a violent blow on the starboard quarter, about the mizen rigging, cutting her down below the water's edge.

The master of the "Wakefield" immediately put the telegraph to "stop," and ordered the helm hard aport, but it was found that the jolly boat had been broken amongst the steering gear, and prevented the gear from acting.

The "Wakefield" was now drifting down the Humber, and orders were given to clear away the boats, and four boats were swung out. Whilst the boats were being cleared a blue light was shown, and it was then reported that the "Chester" was coming after them.

Immediately after the collision it had been reported by the chief officer that a good deal of damage had been sustained, and that the vessel was rapidly filling. Shortly afterwards the ' Chester" came alongside, and the passengers and crew of the "Wakefield," with the exception of a few of the crew who had taken to two of the boats which had been lowered into the water, were passed over one of the "Wakefield's" lifeboats which was hanging in the davits on to the "Chester's" bow. All were passed safely over except the unfortunate stewardess, who, when the passengers and hands were afterwards mustered on board the "Chester," in Grimsby Roads, was unhappily found to be missing.

According to the evidence of the chief officer, the stewardess was last seen standing in the life boat where he had placed her ready to be passed aboard the "Chester," and he stated that he thought he actually had passed her over with the rest; she does not appear to have been seen by any one after this.

The master was the last to leave the "Wakefield," and three or four minutes after he had done so the " Wakefield" was seen to go down. Before the " Chester" left the "Wakefield" both masters made repeated inquiries as to whether all hands had been brought on board the former, and replies were received in the affirmative.

The "Chester" having picked up the remainder of the "Wakefield's" crew from the two boats, proceeded to Grimsby where she arrived the same evening.

The "Chester," official number 90,357, is an iron screw steamer, built at West Hartlepool in 1884, and is also owned by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, and also managed by Mr. George Kenneth Hore, of Grimsby. Her length is 238 feet, breadth 32 feet, and depth of hold 14 feet, and her registered tonnage 651.86 tons. She is registered at the Port of Grimsby.

The "Chester" left Hamburg on the 2nd of December instant, at 12.30 a.m. bound for Grimsby with a general cargo of about 600 tons, and 15 passengers. She was under the command of Mr. Daniel Dunn Lamplough, who holds a certificate of competency as master granted in 1875, with a crew of 23 hands all told.

The "Chester" arrived off the News and Light vessel outside the Humber at 4.45 p.m., on the 3rd instant, and proceeded full speed, at a rate of 8 or 9 knots, up the river. On passing the Bull Light vessel the usual course, N.W. a little to the Northward, was steered and kept until the Cleeness (No. 3) Buoy was passed, and then a course N.W. by W. 1/2 W. was set straight for Grimsby Pier.

Cleeness Buoy having been passed some six minutes, the master of the "Chester" observed a masthead light between the Lockpit and Grimsby Pierhead, and concluding that it was a steamer leaving Grimsby, outward bound, he ported his helm to give the other vessel a clear berth to the Southward. Having ported for a few seconds, and having brought Grimsby Pierhead from 1 1/2 to 2 points on the port bow, the helm was steadied, and the "Chester" continued on her course at full speed. When the master of the "Chester" first saw the masthead light of what afterwards proved to be the "Wakefield," he was about 2 1/2 miles off. The master of the former vessel was on the bridge, the chief officer on the top gallant forecastle, on the look-out, and the boatswain at the wheel on the deckhouse. When about 2 1/4 miles off, the master saw the "Wakefield's" green light clear of the pierhead, and saw him port, and then both vessels continued on their respective courses. When about 3/4 of a mile, to a mile, distant, the master of the "Chester," according to his statement, blew his whistle to attract the attention of the "Wakefield," and stopped his engines. Two or three minutes afterwards, as the "Wakefield" did not alter her course, and when at a distance of about a quarter of a mile, he blew the whistle again and ordered the engines full speed astern. This was done, and the engines were kept astern until the collision, as previously described, took place.

Just before the collision the chief officer of the " Chester" shouted to the "Wakefield," "Ship ahoy, " were are you coming to? we are going full speed " astern," and the reply was, "We are going full " speed ahead."

After the collision it was found that the "Chester's" bows were smashed in, but the pumps were sounded and no water being reported, she turned round to go to the assistance of the "Wakefield," who was showing signals of distress, and ultimately came up with her some two miles below the place of the collision, and took off the crew in the manner already stated.

This was the account of the casualty as given by those on board the "Chester."

It was agreed on all hands that the exact position where the collision took place was a little to the southward and westward of the Burcom (No. 4) Buoy, and that it was at about 5.55 p.m.

There was some discrepancy in the evidence with regard to the distance between the two vessels when the "Chester" first stopped her engines. The master of the "Chester" stated that it was about 3/4 mile off when he did so, and about a quarter of a mile when he reversed, but the entries in the engineer's log were, " 5.53 stop, 5 54 reverse and full speed astern, 5.55 collision." When giving his evidence, however, he stated that perhaps from stopping to the collision it might have been about three minutes. Upon the whole the Court is of opinion that the vessels were in much closer proximity than as stated by the master of the "Chester" when he stopped and reversed his engines.

Those on board the "Wakefield" allege that at the time of the collision the "Chester" was going at a speed of 7 or 8 knots, and that they could see the foam on her bow, whereas, on the other hand, those on the "Chester" said their way was stopped at the time, even if she were not actually going astern, and the boatswain of the "Chester" informed us that just before the collision he looked over the vessel's side and saw the back wash of the propeller as far back as the mizenmast, if not further.

Then, again, the master of the "Wakefield" stated that when he first saw the "Chester's" red light the latter ported, and came along all the time under a port helm until the collision took place. On the other hand the master of the "Chester" stated that lie never ported or altered his course at all, after he had once seen the "Wakefield's" green light. Upon this point the Court feels bound to accept the statement of the master of the "Chester."

Mr. Kenneth Hore, marine superintendent of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company, stated that both masters had been for a number of years in the service of the company, and testified in the strongest manner as to the excellent characters they each bore.

At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Saxelbye submitted the following questions, upon which the Board of Trade asked for the opinion of the Court:-

1. What was the cause of the collision?

2. Whether both or either of the vessels complied with the Rules for Preventing Collisions in the River Humber?

3. Whether the two vessels were meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision within the meaning of Article 15 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and, if so, whether the "Wakefield" was justified in starboarding her helm?

4. Whether the "Wakefield" could with safety have passed the "Chester" to the southward, and ought she to have done so; and ought she to have kept on the south side of the River after leaving Grimsby?

5. Whether the two vessels were crossing vessels, so as to involve risk of collision within the meaning of Article 16 of the said Regulations, and, if so, whether the "Wakefield" did all in her power to keep out of the way of the "Chester," and whether the "Chester " altered her course; if so, was she justified in so doing, having regard to Article 22 of the said Regulations?

6. Whether the master of the "Wakefield" was justified in ordering her engines full speed ahead when he did?

7. Whether the "Wakefield" ought not, at some time after the "Chester" was first seen, to have slackened her speed, or to have stopped and reversed, in compliance with Article 18 of the said Regulations?

8. Whether the "Chester" was going up the river at too great a rate of speed, and whether she slackened her speed, stopped and reversed in sufficient time, and complied with Article 18 of the said Regulations?

9. Whether the "Chester" was justified in using her whistle as she did, or, under the circumstances, ought she to have used it (if at all), in full compliance with Article 19 of the said Regulations, and in no other manner?

10. Whether either vessel complied with Article 21 of the said Regulations, and, if not, whether they were justified in omitting to do so?

11. Whether a good and proper look-out was kept on both vessels?

12. What was the cause of the loss of life, and whether every possible effort was made to avoid it?

13. Whether both vessels were navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

14. And whether the masters or officers of both vessels are, or either of them is, in default?

The Board of Trade is of opinion that the certificates of the masters of the "Wakefield" and the "Chester" should be dealt with.

Mr. A. M. Jackson having addressed the Court on behalf of the master of the "Wakefield," Mr. Hearfield followed for the master of the "Chester," and Mr. Saxelbye having replied on the part of the Board of Trade, the Court gave judgment upon the questions submitted for its opinion.

1. The collision was caused by the two vessels approaching each other too closely, before they took the proper precautions of stopping and reversing.

2. After the "Wakefield" had got clear of the Grimsby pierheads and was shaping her course down the Humber, the two vessels were crossing vessels, and the "Wakefield" ought, therefore, to have kept out of the way of the "Chester" which was on her starboard side. The "Chester," ported on seeing the "Wake- " field's" mast head light between the pierheads, and then kept her course. The "Chester" cannot, therefore, be said, in having ported when she did, to have infringed the Regulations for Preventing Collisions in the River Humber.

3. The vessels were not meeting vessels, within the meaning of Article 15 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

4. The "Wakefield," after passing the smack at anchor, according to the evidence, could not have passed with safety to the southward of the "Chester." She was on the south side of the river after leaving Grimsby.

5. The two vessels were crossing vessels, so as to involve risk of collision within the meaning of Article 16 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and the Court does not consider that the "Wakefield" did all that she could to keep out of the way of the "Chester." After the vessels became, in the opinion of the Court, crossing vessels, the "Chester" did not alter her course.

6. The Court does not consider that the master of the "Wakefield" Was justified in ordering her engines full speed ahead when he did.

7. The Court is of opinion that the "Wakefield" ought at some time after seeing the "Chester" to have stopped and reversed, in compliance with Article 18 of the said Regulations.

8. The "Chester" was not going up the river at too great a rate of speed. She did not stop and reverse in sufficient time, and did not therefore comply with Article 18 of the said Regulations.

9. The "Chester" was justified in using her whistle as she did. The Court does not consider that there was any obligation upon her when using it to do so in compliance with Article 19 of the said Regulations, and in no other manner.

10. Having regard to the fact that one vessel was just leaving and the other just making port, the Court is of opinion that the provisions of Article 21 do not here apply.

11. A good and proper look-out was kept on both vessels.

12. There is no evidence to show what was the actual cause of the loss of the stewardess of the "Wakefield," but every possible effort appears to have been made to avoid loss of life.

13. For reasons already stated it cannot be said that either vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care.

14. The Court, having regard to all the circumstances, does not find either the masters or officers in default, but considers some blame attaches to the master of the "Chester" for not reversing sooner than he evidently did. The Court is further of opinion that considerable blame attaches to the master of the "Wakefield" for not having complied with Articles 16 and 18 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and also for having ordered his engines full speed ahead at the time when he did.

(Signed)

E. C. TWISS, Judge.

We concur.

(Signed)

BENJ. S. PICKARD.

A. P. FRENCH.

T. DAVIES.

Extract from the January 1959 issue of Sea Breezes:

"The Chester was lost in collision in the Elbe at Brunsbuttelkoog in September 1910, with the Norwegian steamer Hugin, bound from the Baltic to Rotterdam. Inward bound for Hamburg, the Chester later sank after 700 cases of herrings had been discharged into lighters and brought into Altona. A quantity was later washed out, landed at Cuxhaven and sold by public auction. The Hugin, holed on the starboard side above the waterline, put back for repairs. Damage to the Chester was later described as "hole on the starboard side extending for five plates, false keels on both sides broken off, bottom torn for whole length of port false keel, bridge and boat deck smashed, rails carried away, funnel broken and funnel casing completely stove in."