Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry

EIGHTH DAY

 

PERCY HILLHOUSE,

naval architect,

 

Recalled.

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

6572. I was asking you, just before you retired, Mr. Hillhouse, the height from the water-line to the underside of each row of port-holes?
- As the vessel was floating immediately before the accident, the heights were as follows: the lower edge of the side-lights ony the shelter deck, 27 feet; those on the upper deck, 19 feet; on the main deck, 11 feet; on the lower deck, 3 feet. Those are the heights at the amidships part of the vessel.

6573. Well, that accounts for four rows?
- Yes, four rows, but as I said those are the heights amidships. Forward, the heights would be about ten feet more than that on account of the sheer of the ship. Aft, they would be about two and a half feet more, and also as there are no lower deck side-lights in the amidships part, we don’t go as low as three feet. The lowest, light is five feet above the water.

6574. Now then, with regard to deck erections, was there a deck-house on the shelter-deck?
- On the shelter deck there was constructed forward a forecastle and amidships a long bridge.

6575. Yes?
- The upper side of the bridge was formed by the lower promenade deck, which extended from the fore end of the bridge right to the stern. On the lower promenade deck there was built amidships a long deck-house. The upper side of the deck-house was the upper promenade deck.

6576. Would that deck-house be carried out to the sides of the ship?
- No, when I speak of a deck-house, I mean a house which does not extend out to the sides of the ship.

6577. What did that deck-house contain?
- That contained some cabins, the library, the cafe, and smoke room.

6578. And then below that, there was another house, I think?
- Above that there was a similar deck-house, built upon the upper promenade deck, which contained cabins, and the music room.

6579. And upon the boat-deck above there was a deck-house for the captain and officers and the chart-room and wheel-house?
- Yes.

6580. And the second-class accommodation, where was that?
- That was on the main and upper decks, at the aft end of the ship, and along the starboard side of the upper deck.

6581. And the accommodation for the engineers?
- Was on the port side of the upper deck.

6582. And also rooms, officers’ mess-rooms, and lavatory?
- Yes.

6583. And the third-class accommodation was forward, I think?
- Yes, upon the lower and main decks.

6584. And the large dining saloon was amidships?
- Yes, on the main deck.

6585. And the smoke-room, ladies’ room, accommodation, and shelter promenade, on the upper deck, and an open promenade on the shelter deck forward?
- That is right.

6586. Now, about the third-class entrances from the shelter deck, how were they arranged?
- They were arranged at the aft end of the forecastle, the doors opening out on to the open promenade space on the shelter deck. From that the stairways went down to the covered promenade on the upper deck, and from that space connected with the accommodation quarters on the main deck and lower deck.

6587. And the firemen’s quarters?
- On the upper deck, on the port side.

6588. Aft?
- Yes, aft.

6589. With a stairway to an open space on the shelter deck?
- Yes.

6590. To the aft part of the shelter deck?
- Yes.

6591. Where were the berths of the crew?
- The seamen and firemen were berthed forward under the forecastle, and the stewards on the port side of the upper deck amidships.

6592. Then there was a fore-and-aft working passage, I think, from end to end of the ship, on the port side of the upper deck?
- That is right.

6593. Now, do any of the plans which you have handed in show the location of the companion ways, are they marked there?
- Yes, the lithographed plan of the accommodation indicates the exits and ladder-ways.

6594. Now, water-ballast tank's - how was the vessel fitted 'out with regard to those?
- She had a cellular double bottom extending from the collision bulkhead forward nearly to the stern of the ship, with a total capacity of between 1,700 and 1,800 tons of water.

6595. The tanks were subdivided transversely?
- Yes, and by a water-tight division along the middle line of the ship.

6596. Describe the general construction of the cellular double bottom, length, height, and capacity in tons?
- Well, I will have to turn to a plan to get that information, I think.

6597. Very well.
- The cellular double bottom extends from a point 35 feet aft of the stem to a point 54 feet forward of the stern post, and it was four feet six inches in depth, and 47 feet in breadth at its widest part.

6598. And what about the capacity?
- The total capacity was 1,522 tons.

6599. Now, was there also a deep water ballast tank in the compartment immediately forward of the bunkers?
- Yes, No. 3 hold, up to the level of the lower deck, was fitted as a deep ballast tank and contained 1,950 tons.

6600. With a water-tight middle line bulkhead?
- Yes.

6601. Very good. Now, about the water-tight bulkheads, will you state how the ship was provided with regard to those?
- There were in all 10 water-tight bulkheads, dividing the ship into eleven water-tight compartments.

6602. Will you please let us have them in detail?
- Well, bulkhead No. 1 was on frame 229, at a distance of 34½ feet abaft the bow.

Bulkhead No. 2 was on frame 211, 40½ feet abaft No. 1 bulkhead.

Bulkhead No. 3 was on frame No. 189 and was 49½ feet abaft No. 2 bulkhead.

6603. Pardon me a moment, bulkheads Nos. 1 and 2, had they any doors in them?
- None whatever.

Bulkhead No. 4 was on frame 166, and was 51¾ feet abaft bulkhead No. 3.

6604. You have spoken of bulkhead No. 3 already?
- Yes.

6605. Were there any water-tight doors in bulkhead No. 3?
- Yes, in bulkhead No. 3 there were two doors at the main deck level.

6606. One on the port side and one on the starboard side?
- Yes, one on the port side and one on the starboard side.

6607. And the dimensions of these doors?
- Six feet six inches by three feet.

6608. What sort of doors were they?
- Horizontal sliding doors.

6609. How were they operated, and from where?
- Operated by gearing from the upper deck level.

6610. Now, that brings you to bulkhead No. 4?
- Yes. Bulkhead No. 4 was on frame 166, 51¾ feet abaft bulkhead No. 3.

6611. And what about doors in bulkhead No. 4?
- In bulkhead No. 4 there were two horizontal sliding doors at the main deck level, and one horizontal sliding door at the lower deck level.

6612. The same size?
- The one on the lower deck level was six feet by three feet, but those on the main deck level were 6 feet 6 inches by 3 feet.

6613. And what about bulkhead No. 5?
- Bulkhead No. 5 was on frame No. 127 and was situated 87¾ feet abaft bulkhead No. 4.

6614. And that one was stepped forward, was it not?
- Yes, it was stepped forward between the main and upper decks to frame 138.

6615. And then carried up?
- Yes, and then carried up in that frame to the upper deck.

6616. A passageway connecting that with the aft boiler-room?
- Yes, that passageway extended from the bulkhead to the fore-side of the aft boiler-room, and there was a water-tight passage forming part of the bulkhead and having a watertight door at the aft end.

6617. State what doors there were in No. 5 bulkhead?
- In the upper part of it, in frame 138, there were two horizontal sliding doors, 6 feet 6 inches, by 3 feet, at the main deck level.

6618. One on each side?
- Yes, one on each side. Then at the lower deck level, between the upper coal bunkers of the forward boiler room and the upper coal bunkers of the aft boiler room were two horizontal sliding doors, each six feet by three feet, one to port and one to starboard. And at the aft end of the tunnel to the aft boiler room was one vertical sliding door 5 feet 6 inches by two feet, on the centre line.

6619. A pipe passageway?
- Yes, there was also a steam-pipe passage extending from the bulkhead to the fore side of the aft boiler room which passage was water-tight.

6620. Now, let us come to No. 6 bulkhead.
- No. 6 bulkhead was on frame No. 88.

6621. And forming the aft end of the aft boiler-room?
- Yes, it divided the aft boiler-room from the engine-room. It had a recess forward to frame No. 90, a distance of 4 feet 6 inches. The main part of the bulkhead was 87¾ feet abaft No. 5 bulkhead.

6622. It was stepped aft on the main deck and carried up to the upper deck?
- Yes, on one side there was a small recess aft to frame 82, and then two doors in that bulkhead on the main deck level, on frame 82, one horizontal sliding door, six feet six inches by three feet, on the starboard side, in the main bulkhead in the lower deck level, two horizontal sliding doors, 6 feet by 3 feet, and at frame 90, at the stokehold level, one vertical sliding door, 5 feet 6 inches by two feet.

6623. Is that the one that communicated with the engine-room?
- Yes.

6624. And now, No. 7 bulkhead?
- No. 7 bulkhead formed the aft end of the engine room and was on frame 57 from the keel to the orlop deck. It was then stepped forward to frame 65, in which frame it continued to the upper deck.

6625. And is there a water-tight door?
- Yes, at the orlop deck level. The lower part of that bulkhead is situated 69¾ feet abaft No. 6 bulkhead.

6626. Well what water-tight doors are there?
- In the lower part of it there was one horizontal sliding door five feet by two feet one inch, and in the upper part, the main deck level, on frame 65, two horizontal sliding doors, 6 feet 6 inches by 3 feet.

6627. From where were those operated?
- From the upper deck.

6628. Were all those doors operated from the upper deck?
- Yes.

6629. Now take bulkhead No. 8?
- Bulkhead No. 8 is on frame No. 47, 22½ feet abaft No. 7 bulkhead.

6630. What about the water-tight doors?
- It had two horizontal sliding doors on the main deck level, 6 feet 6 inches by 3 feet, and two horizontal sliding doors in the hold, 5 feet by 2 feet 1 inch, leading to the shaft tunnels.

6631. That bulkhead was also stepped forward with a water-tight flat?
- Yes, one frame space.

6632. And carried up to the upper deck?
- Yes.

6633. And No. 9 bulkhead?
- No. 9 bulkhead was in frame No. 29, 40½ feet abaff No. 8, and had two horizontal sliding doors at the main deck level.

6634. And No. 10?
- No. 10 was on frame 14, and stepped aft to frame 5, and was 33¾ feet abaft bulkhead No. 9, and 31¾ feet forward of the stem.

6635. Were there any doors in that bulkhead?
- Yes, at the orlop deck level there was one horizontal sliding door 4 feet by 2 feet.

6636. On the port side?
- One foot on the port side, giving access to the steering compartment.

6637. And that was the only door in this bulkhead?
- Yes.

6638. And what was the size of the doors in bulkhead No. 9?
- Six feet 6 inches by 3 feet.

6639. Now, have you described these doors as we went along, Mr. Hillhouse - they were sliding doors, you have stated, and were all worked from the upper deck?
- Yes.

6640. Well, would you describe what the operation would be from the upper deck to close these doors or to work them?
- Well, on the upper deck, there were keys or handles which had to be fitted to the square ends of shafting and turned around by hand. These shafts work toothed wheels which gear with a rack upon the door, and push the door along horizontally.

6641. How long would it take to close one of these doors?
- I have no idea.

6642. Well you know whether it would take five minutes or half an hour?
- Nearer five minutes than half an hour.

6643. Would they close as slowly, for instance, as a window in your cabin screws up when you try to fasten that?
- Well, I can’t tell you. I have never tried to shut a water-tight door, personally.

 

By Lord Mersey:

 

6644. You say you don’t know the time it would take to close all these doors?
- Mr. Newcombe asked my how long it would take to close one door.

6645. Yes, how long would it take, say at the slowest?
- I can’t tell that, my Lord. I don’t know how long it takes to close these doors.

. 6646. Well, it doesn’t take a week, I suppose?
- No, sir, not a week.

6647. Well, can you give us any idea?
- I should think it would be done within five minutes, if not sooner.

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

6648. And each door has to be closed by an independent operation?
- Yes.

6649. Each one has its own separate gear, and has to be closed separately, the same as you would have to close each one of these windows separately, if they were opened?
- Yes.

 

By Lord Mersey:

 

6650. And as I understand it, a man on board the ship has to be appointed to each door?
- At least one man.

6651. And there is a man, or there is supposed to be a man on the ship to close each door? He has a particular door to deal with?
- Yes, my Lord.

6652. There is one man, at all events, for each door, and that man knows which door is his?
- Yes, that is a matter of which personally I have no knowledge, it belongs to the discipline of the ship.

6653. But that is only what should be done, and you believe that to be the practice?
- Yes, so I understand.

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

6654. And these keys, to open and close these doors, would be located in the ship immediately on top of the door, I suppose?
- Well, in close proximity to the door.

6655. In close proximity to the vertical line?
- Yes, it might not be able to go straight up in every case, but very nearly straight up.

6656. Can you tell me whether these bulkheads were built in compliance with the representations of the bulkhead committtee of the ’91 Board of Trade?
- Yes, the specification calls for the ship to be subdivided in accordance with those recommendations for a low draught of 27 feet 6 inches, and the ship was so built and subdivided.

6657. The plans handed in, I suppose show these particulars that you have given us?
- Yes.

6658. Are you sure these particulars do appear on the plans which have been handed in, as otherwise a plan should be produced showing them?
- Well I know that they were marked upon certain copies of these plans, but if you like I will check them all over and make certain of that. I will do that during the luncheon hour.

6659. I wish you would, Mr. Hillhouse.

 

By Sir Adolphe Routhier:

 

6660. Is it possible to close the doors when the water is coming in?

The Witness:
Do you mean while the water is passing through the opening?

6661. When the water is coming in?
- Yes.

6662. It is possible?
- It should be possible to shut the doors even if water is passing through the doorway.

6663. Supposing an order is given to close the doors, how long would it take to close all the doors?
- I cannot tell you that. That information I think can be got better from the officers of the ship who have actually performed the operation.

 

By Lord Mersey:

 

6664. If all the men were at their respective doors at the same time, then all these doors can, as I understand it, be closed in about five minutes?
- Yes.

6665. That is right?
- Yes, my Lord, but as I say I have not seen them actually shut them, and I don’t actually know in what time they can be shut.

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

6666. This system you have described of working these doors separately by hand, by individual stewards, is that still the practice in the construction of ships of this class?
- That is the practice in the majority of ships.

6667. They have different apparatus in some ships, have they not?
- Yes, there are now three or four different systems by which the doors can be simultaneously closed from the bridge.

6668. Closed from the bridge?
- Yes, by hydraulic or electric power.

 

By Chief Justice McLeod:

 

6669. By one man?
- Yes, by one man.

 

By Lord Mersey:

 

6670. That is the very latest system?
- Yes, my Lord, that has only developed within the last few years.

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

GG71. That is an invention developed since this vessel was constructed?
- Yes, my Lord.

 

By Chief Justice McLeod:

 

6672. I suppose that can be applied to any ship?
- Yes.

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

6673. Now, Mr. Hillhouse, will you speak about the gangway and reserve coal and cargo doors?
- Yes.

6674. They were fitted in the ship’s side?
- Yes, a number of coaling ports and passenger entrance doors and cargo doors fitted in the side plating of the ship.

6675. Are they shown on the plans?
- I think they will appear on the lithographed plan of the accommodation.

6676. How were those doors secured?
- The coaling ports are secured by studs screwed up from outside the ship. The passenger gangways and cargo-doors are secured by what we call strong-backs, and screws from the inside of the ship.

6677. Those would be between the upper and main deck and the shelter deck, I suppose?
- Yes, the majority of them are between the main and the upper decks. There is one forward between the upper deck and the shelter deck, and one forward of the forward funnel, between the shelter and the lower promenade deck.

 

By Lord Mersey:

 

6678. Are there any blue prints which you have produced of the shelter deck and the upper deck?
- No, my Lord, I regret that all that I have in that connection are the working plans of the ship, which are somewhat the worse for wear. It would take some days to get tracings and blue prints made of those, but that could be done.

6679. How is it you haven’t blue prints of those from the shelter deck to the main deck?
- The blue prints of the other decks were made from plans in the possession of the owners. But for some reason that I cannot explain, they had no tracings of the upper decks.

6680. Are there any plans prepared of the curves of buoyancy and stability?
- Yes, I have a plan with me.

6681. They are all mentioned as being plans which should have been in existence before the work was started?
- Yes, I have such plans with me, my Lord.

6682. Then I think you had better produce them. Where are they?
- They are here, my Lord, I think. No, the only one I have with me at the moment shows the curve of stability of the vessels at the time of the accident.

6683. What is this?
- The curve of stability of the vessel at the time of the accident.

6684. But that is not what I was asking?
- The other plans are in the hotel, and I can bring them in the afternoon.

6685. Very well, bring them please. I understand this is the curve which you have made for the purpose of this case?
- Yes, my Lord.

6686. This, I suppose, is the curve immediately before the accident?
- Yes, my Lord.

6687. Is that when all the ports are closed?
- Yes, my Lord.

6688. Before the accident?
- Yes, before the accident.

Lord Mersey:
You had better mark this?

(The plan is marked as Exhibit Z.)

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

66S9. Now, speaking with reference to the arrangement of the boat deck, at the time of the construction of the vessel in 1906 - you understand I am referring to the time of original construction, for I believe that the boats were enlarged since then?
- They were increased, yes, later on.

6690. The numbers and positions of the davits and boats and approximate weight, according to the original construction - can you give us that?
- Yes, there were upon the boat deck level 14 steel lifeboats, and upon the level of the lower promenade deck two more steel lifeboats, making 16 lifeboats in all. Each of them would have a weight of about two and a half tons.

6691. And these boats were distributed equally on each side of the ship, I suppose?
- Yes, eight upon each side of the ship.

6692. Under davits?
- Yes.

6693. Now, do you know what, if any, alterations were made in the number of the davits and the boats since 1906?
- I understand that no additional davits were provided, but the davits were lengthened so as to raise the steel boats, and below each steel boat was placed one Englehart collapsible boat. In addition four collapsible boats were placed between the aft pairs of steel boats; and the four or six Berthons on the aft deck amidships.

6694. And you understand the ship carried that additional equipment upon her last voyage?
- Yes.

6695. Now, can you give the approximate weight on the boat deck?
- Well, I estimate that the additional weight would be about 80 tons.

6696. Eighty tons additional weight?
- Yes.

6697. Over and above that in respect of which the construction was originally made?
- Yes.

6698. Now, what effect would that additional weight on top have with regard to the stability of the ship?
- Dealing with the stability of the ship, immediately before the accident, it would have the effect of reducing the metacentric height by two inches.

6699. The original metacentric height you have not stated what that is?
- No, it was 40½ inches.

6700. And this additional weight, you say, lowered that?
- Yes, if the extra boats had not been placed upon the boat-deck it would have been 42½ inches.

 

By Lord Mersey:

 

6701. Is that an element of insecurity?
- Every reduction of the metacentric height reduces the stability of the ship.

6702. That is what I meant. Then the placing of these additional life boats on the deck of the ship tended, to some degree, whether it is very much or not, to diminish the stability of the ship?
- Yes, my Lord.

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

6703. Now, would you say whether it tended to do so to a dangerous degree?
- Not in my opinion.

6704. Have you any doubt about that?
- No doubt.

6706. Now, at the time of the construction of the vessel, did you make any calculations to arrive at her floating capacity, assuming one or more compartments to be filled with water?
- Yes.

6706. Will you state what conclusions you came to from those calculations?
- Well, the conclusion that we came to, in conjunction with the Board of Trade, was that the bulkheads were so placed that any two adjacent compartments might be simultaneously filled, without sinking the ship below the margin of safety line, which is a line drawn at a short distance below the upper deck. That is the condition laid down by the bulkhead committee of 1891.

6707. So that she might have any two compartments flooded -

Lord Mersey:
He said: any two adjacent compartments.

Mr. Newcombe:
Yes, my Lord.

6708. Well, she might have any two adjacent compartments flooded and still comply with those requirements of safety?
- Yes.

6709. Now, the two boiler rooms extend nearly one-third the length of the ship?
- Yes, their total length is 175 feet.

6710. Now, supposing the bulkheads between those two rooms to have been destroyed, and the two compartments should be filled with water, and the water-tight doors closed, would the water be confined to these two spaces?
- Yes, sir.

6711. And would the vessel float?
- Yes, sir.

 

By Chief Justice McLeod:

 

6712. Suppose the water-tight compartments are filled, these two, would the water filling these two water-tight compartments have a tendency to list the vessel to her starboard side?
- Yes - well, that would depend entirely upon the manner in which these compartments were filled. If it be assumed that they were filled centrally, so the water flowed equally to each side, then it would not tend to incline the vessel.

6713. But take the case just as this happened here, where they are filled through a hole in the starboard side?
- Well, in that case, it is of course inevitable that the water shall be upon the side of the ship which is struck before it can reach the other side. In that case, a listing effect would be produced.

 

By Lord Mersey:

 

6714. As we are told it was?
- Yes, my Lord.

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

6715. Now, supposing these two compartments filled, what additional immersion would follow?
- Supposing the ship remained upright, the water would rise to a point about half-way between the main and upper decks.

6716. That would take her down how many feet, can you say?
- It would take her down 9 feet 3 inches.

 

By Lord Mersey:

 

6717. It would put her down in the water 9 feet 3 inches lower?
- Yes.

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

6718. And therefore below the line of the lower tier of port-holes?
- Yes.

6719. Now again, supposing the vessel loaded to her low draught, what amount of list would she require to take before the lower line of port-holes was immersed?
- A nine degree inclination would bring the lower row of ports under.

6720. The lower row would be below in any case with the two compartments filled?
- Do you mean after she was sunk the nine feet three inches?

6721. Now, as I understand you, supposing she sank on an even keel by the effect of the filling of these two large compartments with water, that would bring the line of her lower ports down below the water level?
- Yes, that would immerse them.

6722. So assuming that to have happened, you do not need any list to bring those port-holes under water?
- No.

6723. Supposing the ship to be tight, and that you could take hold of her masthead and pull her over nine degrees, that would put this lower line of ports under water?
- Yes.

6724. And how much of a list would put the tier of ports immediately above that under water?
- It would require a list of 18 degress.

6725. Now, of course, you have been here, throughout the conduct of this case, Mr. Hillhouse?
- Yes.

6726. And no doubt have considered the subject very carefully. It is certain the vessel began to list and listed heavily?
- Yes.

6727. Immediately after the accident?
- Yes.

6728. Can you give us any explanation as to why that happened?

 

By Lord Mersey:

 

6729. I think you have explained to us that if the flooding of these two compartments took place from the side, such a flooding would make the ship list?
- Yes, my Lord.

6730. If you introduced the water as an even keel, so that the water introduced spread itself to the port and starboard sides equally, there would be no list?
- No, my Lord.

6731. Then the list came about in the first instance through the water coming in from the starboard side of the ship?
- Yes, my Lord.

 

By Mr. Newcombe:

 

6732. I suppose you know ships of the type of the Etruria and Campania?
- Yes.