Preston - wreck report

"PRESTON" (S.S.)

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at West Hartlepool on the 2nd, and at Westminster on the 23rd of July instant, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain CASTLE, Admiral POWELL, C.B., and W. ROBINSON, Esquire, Chief Constructor R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "PRESTON," of West Hartlepool, with her crew of 29 hands, whilst on a voyage from New York to Avonmouth in January last.

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 New York on her last voyage she appears to have been in a good and seaworthy condition in all respects, save in having been very deeply laden, if not overladen; and that her loss was probably due either to the exceptionally bad weather which prevailed, or to the fields of ice or icebergs which were at that time floating about in the North Atlantic.

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

Dated this 23rd day of July 1885.
Annex to the Report.

This case was commenced at West Hartlepool on the 2nd, and was concluded at Westminster on the 23rd of of July instant. Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Roche for the owners of the "Preston." Nine witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, and the depositions of five witnesses taken at New York and of two taken at West Hartlepool having been put in and read, Mr. Howard Smith handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Two witnesses having been then produced by Mr. Roche and examined, the inquiry was, at his application, and with Mr. Howard Smith's consent, adjourned sine die. On the inquiry being resumed at Westminster, a further witness was produced by the Board of Trade and examined, and Mr. Roche having brought in the depositions of five witnesses taken at New York, then addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Howard Smith 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 "Preston" was an iron screw steamship belonging to the port of West Hartlepool, of 2538 gross, 2233 under deck, and 1641 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 300 horse-power. She was built at West Hartlepool in the year 1882, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Robert Ropner, of George Street, West Hartlepool, and others, Mr. Robert Ropner being the managing owner. She left New York on the 21st of January last, with a crew of 29 hands all told, and a cargo consisting, we are told, of 2,560 tons of wheat, in bulk and in bags, 309 tons of other produce, and about 374 tons of coal in her bunkers, bound to Avonmouth near Bristol. The pilot left her at about 9 a.m. of that day outside the bar at Sandy Hook, 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.

The first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, Whether the steamship 'Preston' was constructed in all respects in a proper and satisfactory " manner; and whether Lloyd's requirements with " reference to the tensile strength of the iron and to " its being tested by a surveyor were complied with?" Mr. Jones, the manager to Messrs. W. Gray and Co., shipbuilders, of West Hartlepool, by whom the ship was designed and under whose superintendence she was built, has told us that she was a first class vessel built under special survey, and classed 100 A1. In this he was confirmed by Mr. Davidson, the surveyor who inspected her whilst she was building, and who told us that she was in all respects up to the requirements of Lloyd's. On being asked whether he had subjected the plates to a tensile strain of 20 tons to an inch as required by Lloyd's rules, he stated that the tests to which the plates were subjected in the process of punching and bending them satisfied him that they were of first-class quality; and that he had. therefore, not thought it necessary to apply the tensile strain, the matter being one entirely for his discretion; but that, had he had any reason to doubt the goodness of the plates, he should at once have applied the test. in our opinion there is no reason to think that the vessel was not constructed in all respects in a proper and satisfactory manner, or that the iron was other than of good quality.

The second question which we are asked is, Whether the vessel was of sufficient strength amidships?" It appears that on the first voyage the vessel took the ground, and sustained so much damage that it was found necessary to put her into dry dock at Shields, where she was repaired at a cost of from 9,000l. to 10,000l. On that occasion the owners took it upon themselves to put a doubling plate into her for three fourths of her length, weighing about 15 tons, as an additional precaution, and without being required to do so by Lloyd's, so as to strengthen her amidships, in case she might have been strained by grounding. But there is nothing to shew that either before or after the accident she had not sufficient strength amidships.

The third question which we are asked is, Whether the boiler seats were properly constructed, and whether the boilers were properly secured? Mr. Belk the outside manager to Messrs. P. Richardson and Sons, who supplied the boilers, has laid before us a plan shewing the way in which they were seated; and the assessors are of opinion that the boiler seats were properly constructed and the boilers properly secured.

The fourth question which we are asked is, Whether the steering gear was of proper construction, and " whether the chains and rope leading from the gear to the tiller were of sufficient strength? The gear connecting the midship wheel with the rudder was of the usual construction, and consisted of wire rope and chain; and although we are told that they had both parted on the previous voyage, it seems that on the arrival of the vessel at Liverpool they were sent on shore and thoroughly repaired, a new 4 3/4 inch steel rope being supplied in place of the previous 4 1/2 inch rope, and a chain of 15/16ths of an inch in place of the previous one of 14/16ths. Whether indeed the wire and chain with which she had been originally supplied were or were not strong enough, it is certain that before the last voyage she had had a stronger wire rope and chain supplied to her, and the assessors are of opinion that they were fully sufficient for the purpose.

The fifth question which we are asked is, Whether the openings in the deck for the ventilation of coal " cargoes were provided with sufficient means for closing them when coal is not carried? The ventilators with which the vessel was fitted were constructed so as to ventilate the lower holds as well as the 'tween decks, the lower portion of the tubes having a smaller diameter than the upper part. We are told that there were metal caps as well as plugs and tarpaulins, which could be fitted over them in case of bad weather; and there is no reason to think that the means provided were not sufficient to prevent water getting down below.

The 6th question which we are asked is, Whether the load line disc was so placed as to give the vessel sufficient freeboard provided she was loaded down to it? It seems that the load line was originally placed on the ship's side by the directions of Mr. Rooke, the owner's superintendent, at 4 feet below the upper line of the deck, giving her 2 inches for every foot depth of hold, that being in his opinion the proper place at which to put it, and he stated that to the best of his belief it had always remained in the same place. It seems, however, that on the 17th of October last, whilst the vessel was taking in her coals in the dock at West Hartlepool, Mr. Chalmers, the Board of Trade surveyor, observed her, and thinking that the load line was placed rather high up on the ship's side, he first carefully checked the deck line, and then measured the distance between it and the load line, and found it to be exactly 3 feet 6 inches. Mr. Chalmers produced his pocket book, in which he had made a note of the fact at the time, and although strongly cross-examined on the point, his evidence was not in any degree shaken. It was suggested, however, by Mr. Roche, that possibly the load line might have been again subsequently lowered to 4 feet, but there is no evidence of this; and as Mr. Chalmers measured it only in October last, the presumption is that it remained at 3 feet 6 to the last. Assuming, however, the load line to have been placed at 4 feet below the deck, would that have given her a sufficient freeboard, had she been loaded down to it.

From the plans which have been laid before us, and the explanations which we have received from Mr. Jones, who designed and superintended the building of the ship, we can form a fair idea of her dimensions and construction. Her length was 300 feet between perpendiculars, and she had an unusually large beam of 40 feet, with a depth of hold of 24.5 feet. Forward was a top gallant forecastle 78 feet long, having an iron bulkhead placed at a distance of 34 feet from the stem, and a partial bulkhead aft with two openings in it 8 feet wide each. There was then an open space 28 feet wide, which we may call the fore well, abaft of which was the midship house 78 feet long with close watertight iron bulkheads at each end. Abaft of this was another open space 26 feet long, which we will call the after well; and then there was a poop 86 feet 6 inches long having a partial bulkhead forward with two openings in it each 10 feet wide. We are told, however, that these openings were afterwards closed up, owing to a complaint by a former master that they allowed the water to get under the poop, and that two strong substantial doors were constructed in their place, one on each side. The bulkheads, we are told, were of iron 5/16ths or 6/16ths thick, and the engine room casing, which stood some 3 feet 6 inches above the bridge, was also of 5/16ths iron. She had also four hatches; No. 1, which was under the top gallant forecastle, was 12 feet by 10 feet with coamings 15 inches high; No. 2, which was in the fore well, was 22 feet by 12 feet with coamings of 30 inches high; No. 3, which was in the after well, was also 22 feet by 12 feet with coamings 30 inches high; and No. 4, which was under the poop, was 18 feet by 12 feet with coamings 15 inches high. There were also double gangways connecting the poop with the midship house, and the midship house with the top gallant forecastle, to enable the crew to pass readily from end to end of the vessel. There can be no doubt that the vessel was a very good vessel, well constructed, with a large beam, and exceptionally well fitted as regards her deck erections; and what we have now to consider is, what amount of freeboard ought such a vessel to have had.

Now there are two scales or rules for estimating the proper freeboard for a vessel, which have been issued by two very competent and responsible bodies, Lloyd's and the Board of Trade; and although the principles on which they proceed are apparently very different, the results at which they arrive are not very dissimilar. It was said, however, by Mr. Roche, that it is very difficult to say what is a proper freeboard for any vessel, and that there is great difference of opinion on the subject; but this ought to make us only the more cautious not to adopt any theories of our own as to the proper amount of freeboard to be given to any vessel, and which might be found to conflict with the scales issued by Lloyd's and the Board of Trade. It is true that these rules are, so to say, empirical, but they are based on the experience of very competent persons; and although a time may possibly come when a better and more reliable rule may be discovered, until then we are bound to follow these rules, in preference to our own crude notions on the subject. This being so, let us see what freeboard would be assigned to such a vessel as the "Preston," by Lloyd's, as well as by the Board of Trade rules.

Taking, first, Lloyd's rules, Mr. Jones has told us that the moulded depth, allowing 2 3/4 inches drop, whilst building, was 25 feet 10 1/2 inches; and that the coefficient of fineness being .76, her freeboard, by Table A, would be 5 feet 5 inches. From this, however, he said there would have to be a deduction of a 1/4 of an inch for excess of sheer, of 9 3/4 inches for deck erections, and of 2 inches for the iron deck, and on the other hand, an addition of 1 inch for deficiency of camber; or in other words, a deduction of 12 inches, and an addition of 1 inch, leaving 4 feet 6 as the minimum amount of freeboard for this vessel, according to Lloyd's rules. And now as to the Board of Trade rules. Mr. Jones told us that the vessel being 300 feet long, the co-efficient by the table would be 2.6 inches, and this multiplied into 24.5 feet, the depth of hold, gives us a freeboard of 5 feet 3 3/4 inches. From this, however, would have to be deducted 6 inches for deck erections, and 1 inch for high coamings, leaving 4 feet 8 3/4 as the minimum freeboard, which she ought to have had under the most favourable circumstances of summer weather, according to the Board of Trade rules. So that, according to Mr. Jones, the designer and builder of the vessel, the minimum amount of freeboard which she ought to have had, under the most favourable circumstances, was, according to Lloyd's rules, 4 feet 6 inches, and according to the Board of Trade rules, 4 feet 8 3/4 inches; and the same results were arrived at by Mr. Chalmers, the Board of Trade surveyor at West Hartlepool. This being so, it seems to follow that whether the load line was placed at 3 feet 6 inches or at 4 feet, the freeboard which the vessel would have had, had she been loaded down to her load line, would not have been sufficient.

The seventh question which we are asked is, Whether she was overladen? Mr. Jones told us that she was designed to carry a total dead weight of 3,480 tons on a draft of 22 feet 9 1/2 and with a freeboard of 4 feet, her total depth at side amidships being 26 feet 9 1/2 inches. Now it was said by Mr. Howard Smith that there is some doubt as to what amount of dead weight the vessel actually had in her when she left New York. According to the affidavits, which have been brought in, made by the persons who superintended the loading at New York, she had 2,560 tons of wheat, besides 309 tons of other produce, but whether or not this included the weight of the bags, in which a large portion of the wheat was stowed, appears to be open to some doubt. As to what amount of bunker coal she had on board the gentlemen at New York could give us no information, but Mr. Ropner, the managing owner, has furnished us with certain particulars, from which an approximate estimate of the amount may be formed. He stated that it appeared from the report which had been made by the chief engineer on the arrival of the vessel at Liverpool from her previous voyage, that she had then 70 tons of coal remaining on board; that he estimated that she would consume about 30 tons in discharging her cargo, leaving her with 40 tons, and adding 50 tons, which she took in at Liverpool, makes 90 tons, of which she would probably consume 60 tons in going round to Newport, so that on her arrival at that place she would have had about 30 tons remaining. At Newport we are told she took in about 799 tons of coal, making a total of 829 tons on board when she left. Of this he said that she would consume on the way out about 405 tons, the passage having occupied 15 days, with an average consumption of 27 tons a day, leaving her with 404 tons upon her arrival at New York, and deducting 30 tons consumed in New York in discharging and taking in cargo she would probably have left there with about 374 tons, sufficient for a voyage of from 10 to 12 days. Assuming this estimate to be correct the total dead weight which the vessel would have had on board, including the 2,560 tons of wheat, 309 tons of other produce, and 374 tons of bunker coal, would be about 3,243 tons. Now the displacement scale shows that with that weight in her the mean draft should have been about 22 feet, and the freeboard about 4 feet 9; but in the notice which was left by the captain with the British Consul at New York previous to his departure, it is stated that she had on leaving a draught of 22 feet 10 forward and 23 feet aft, giving her a mean of 22 feet 11, and that her freeboard was 4 feet 8. And this is confirmed by the certificate, which has been brought in, signed by Mr. Vining, the Chief Inspector of the Bureau of Inspection of the Board of Underwriters at New York, in which it is stated that the vessel drew, when loaded, 22 feet 11 inches, and that she had a freeboard of 56 inches, or 4 feet 8 inches. If, however, we accept Mr. Jones' figures that her total depth at side was only 26 feet 9 1/2, and we think that we must do so, it is impossible that the vessel could have had a mean draft of 22 feet 11, and at the same time a freeboard of 4 feet 8, for that would give her a total depth at side of 27 feet 7. The question is further complicated by an affidavit, which Mr. Roche has brought in, made by Mr. James M. Jenkins, one of the Inspectors of the Bureau of Inspection of the Board of Underwriters, and one of the gentlemen who surveyed her previous to her departure. In the body of this affidavit it is stated that she drew on leaving 20 feet 10 inches forward, and 23 feet aft, giving her a mean of 21 feet 11; but then there is a certificate annexed to his affidavit, in which the draft is given not at 20 feet 10 inches forward, but at 22 feet 10 forward, and 23 feet aft, and the mean at 22 feet 11, and the freeboard at 4 feet 8 inches. With these conflicting statements before us it is almost impossible to say what really was the vessel's draft of water, and what her freeboard, when she last left New York. Seeing, however, that with a dead weight of 3,243 tons she would, according to the displacement scale, have had a mean draft of something like 22 feet, and a freeboard of 4 feet 8 or 9, we are disposed to think that there must have been some mistake made in taking the draft, and that the freeboard was, as stated in the notice left by the master, and in the certificates of the surveyors, about 4 feet 8 inches. This, however, would be the freeboard on leaving New York, and to this would have to be added about 3 inches for the rise on getting into salt water, owing to the large quantity of ice that there was in the river at the time, and which would tend to make the water fresher than it ordinarily is. This would give her a freeboard of 4 feet 11, when she got to sea; and the question which we have to consider is, whether this was a sufficient freeboard for a voyage across the North Atlantic in mid winter. We have seen that according to Lloyd's, the minimum freeboard for this vessel, under the most favourable circumstances, would be 4 feet 6, but to this would have to be added 10 per cent. for a winter voyage across the North Atlantic, making the proper freeboard 4 feet 11 3/8ths. Again by the Board of Trade Rules, the co-efficient for a vessel of 300 feet long for a winter voyage across the North Atlantic would be 3 inches for every foot depth of hold, giving us a freeboard of 6 feet 1 1/2 inches; from this, however, would have to be deducted 6 inches for the deck erections and 1 inch for high coamings, making the freeboard 5 feet 6 1/2 inches. If then the vessel left with a freeboard of 4 feet 11, she would be down to the extreme limit according to Lloyd's Rules, and considerably below the limit by the Board of Trade Rules. And under these circumstances the only conclusion to which we can come is, that she was when she left New York, if not overladen, at all events laden down to the extreme limit, to which it would be either safe or proper to load her.

The eighth question which we are asked is, Whether all the regulations of Vining's Bureau of Inspection,  as approved by the Board of Trade, and subject to the Regulations contained in the second schedule of the official notice, dated the 30th December 1880, were complied with? Mr. Vining, the chief inspector of the Bureau of Inspection of the Board of Underwriters of New York, who surveyed holds Nos. 1, 3, and 4, Mr. Jenkins, another of the inspectors, who surveyed hold No. 2, Mr. McCalden, fitter and sealer of ships for grain cargoes at New York, who prepared the vessel for the reception of her cargo, and Mr. Peter Jungren, the stevedore who stowed the cargo, all of them tell us that the regulations of Vining's Bureau were complied with, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

The ninth question which we are asked is, Whether when the vessel left New York on or about the 21st day of January 1885, she was in all respects in good and seaworthy condition? The pilot who took her to sea spoke to her being in good trim and condition, and in every way fitted to proceed on her voyage. Apart, therefore, from the question of loading, there is nothing to shew that she was not in a proper and seaworthy condition when she left.

The tenth question which we are asked is, What was the cost of the vessel to her owners. Mr. Ropner, the managing owner, has told us that they bought her in the year 1882, and that she then cost them 36,805l.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, What was her value at the time she last left New York? Mr. Ropner stated that in his opinion she was at that time worth about 33,000l., or about 13l. a ton on the gross tonnage, and we have no reason to think that that was not a proper value to put on her.

The twelfth question which we are asked is, What were the insurances effected, and how were they  apportioned? We are told that she was insured at Lloyd's for 8,000l., and in the Clubs for 26,000l., making a total of 34,000l. Of this 25,000l. was on the hull, and 9,000l. upon the machinery. I ought to add that the policies under which these insurances were effected, were entered into in February 1884, nearly 12 months before she was lost, and when of course she would be worth more than the 33,000l. at which Mr. Ropner valued her at the time of the loss. He also stated that he had had to pay 700l. in advance on the policy effected at Lloyd's, and that since the loss of the vessel he has paid to the Mutual Clubs about 1,830l. for calls in respect of this vessel, and that he is still liable for some 300l. or 400l. more. The freight also, the gross amount of which was 2,700l., was insured for 2,000l. In answering these questions Mr. Ropner stated that he did so in the belief that it would be a satisfaction to those who had lost any relations or friends to know that he had himself not been a gainer by the casualty, and the Court is of opinion that Mr. Ropner in taking that course has exercised a very proper discretion.

The last question which we are asked is What in the opinion of the Court, from the evidence before it,  is the probable cause of the vessel not being heard of since the pilot left her on the 21st day of January " last?" From the evidence which has been given in other cases which have recently come before the Court, the "Fernwood," the "Clandon," and the "Standard," we know that not only was there exceptionally violent weather in the North Atlantic at the end of January last, but that large fields of ice and icebergs had found their way to the south at a much earlier period of the year than usual; and that the "Preston" might very well have encountered either the one or the other. But whether her loss was due to the exceptionally violent weather, or to her having come into collision with some of the fields of ice or icebergs, which are known to have been in the North Atlantic and in the track of vessels bound from New York to this country, it is quite impossible for us to say.

Whilst then we have been compelled to come to the conclusion that this vessel, when she left New York, was, if not overladen, at all events laden to the extreme limit to which it would be either safe or proper to load her, we must in justice to Mr. Ropner, mention certain facts which have come out in the course of this inquiry. It seems that for the last 20 years Mr. Ropner has owned a good many ships and that at the present time he is the managing owner of 22 steamers, and that this is the first occasion on which he has ever lost a life. He told us that Captain Rooke, the commander of the "Preston," had been in his employ for 17 years, at first as mate, but for the last 7 years as master, and that he was in his opinion the most reliable man that he had. I should add that Mr. Rooke, Mr. Ropner's superintendent, was the captain's father, and that it is hardly reasonable to suppose that he would knowingly have exposed his son to danger by causing the vessel to be too deeply laden. The blame therefore, if blame there is, for having sent her to sea too deeply laden would seem to rest not with Mr. Ropner or his superintendent, but either with the master himself, or with the people who loaded her at New York.
(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

(Signed)

RUSHMORE POWELL,

JOHN S. CASTLE,

W. B. ROBINSON,

Chief Constructor R.N.

Assessors.

Related items :