JOHN REID,
examination resumed.
By Mr. Aspinall:
7608. You told us before luncheon that you thought there was speed upon both of these vesels at the moment of impact?
- No, I did not say so.
7609. Now, let me follow that up.
Lord Mersey:
I certainly thought he did.
Chief Justice McLeod:
I think I said to him: that means that both vessels were in motion, and I understood him to say, yes.
The Witness:
I said that the two vessels mutually came into contact, but I did not say there was speed on both vessels at the time of impact.
By Chief Justice McLeod:
7610. My understanding was that I put the question to you: Do you say that both vessels were moving, and you said ‘yes?’
- I called atention [sic] to the fact that the two vessels came into mutual contact, but I did not say there was speed on both vessels.
Mr. Aspinall:
He means that there was speed, but that he did not say there was speed.
By Lord Mersey:
7611. Mr. Aspinall understood you to mean what you apparently did mean?
- But Mr. Aspinall said I stated that both vessels were at speed.
7612. Do let us understand this. Do you mean to convey to us that in your opinion both vessels were moving at the time of impact?
- No, my Lord; Mr. Aspinall is inferring from something I said that that is what my opinion was.
7613. But is that your opinion?
- Certainly, my Lord, it is.
7614. Then we divined your opinion?
- That is correct.
By Mr. Aspinall:
7615. Now, will you tell me what is your big reason for coming to the conclusion that there was movement on the Empress at the moment of the impact?
- The swing of the Storstad.
7616. Is that the only reason?
- No.
7617. Now, that is the big reason?
- Yes, that is the big reason.
7618. Now, what is the second reason?
- May I use the model to show you? (Witness refers to model). In here, on the port side, you have a rounded shape. Part of that was due, as I have tried to explain, to the crushing over of the bow, but in this bay, on the port side, there is a most distinct evidence of a rolling motion, of a movement, of an action, and the pressure is continued until the two vessels would practically draw apart.
7619. Was that damage which we see on the port bow due probably to the fact that as the Storstad entered in, instead of that plate existing like that, it was curled round the Empress?
- That was one of the contributory causes.
7620. And if that is so, what is happening is that the port bow of the Storstad is impinging upon these curved or driven-in plates of the Empress?
- That, is correct.
7621. Under those circumstances, may not the damage which we find to the Storstad on her port bow have been produced by headway upon the Storstad, which is driving her bow against that curve there?
- Not totally.
7622. To some extent?
- To some extent, certainly.
7623. You said not totally; in what respect do you want to qualify the answer that you have given to me?
- You have on the port side this bay and you have over here another. In here, (indicating on model) you have marks which could only be caused by the turning of the Storstad round there about 100 degrees. When she had finished her swing there were still signs of pressure; when she had gone through this 100 degrees, there were still signs of her being forced down against the side of the vessel.
7624. Aren’t we now getting back to your big reason, the swing?
- Yes.
7625. Your second point was that owing to the damage which we see on the port bow, you came to the conclusion that that was caused by the headway of the Empress?
- Yes.
7626. And I am suggesting to you that if instead of having the straight wall of the Empress’ side as the Storstad goes in she drives the plating back; if there is headway upon the vessel just entering, the result of the headway upon the vessel just entering will be to break the port bow of the Storstad against this curve and produce what we see without headway upon this vessel, if headway is given to be upon the Storstad. Do I make my meaning clear?
- Perfectly, but my answer was to the effect that there were on this curve horizontal traces which showed that this action had gone further than the part you refer to; it had extended and pressed that hollow further aft and formed another.
7627. How can you determine that it had pressed it further on? It might be caused by what I am suggesting to you: namely the entry of the Storstad with way upon her against the stationary and folded back plates of the Empress. Are you in a position to say that there must have been, under those circumstances, headway upon the Empress?
- I find as I say, traces further aft than the part you refer to of that action, which I am calling your attention to.
7628. But you are introducing again your swing?
- The two are locked together.
7629. Now, is there any other reason of importance which leads your mind to the conclusion that there was headway upon the Empress?
- None that can be taken from the evidence that I have been able to gather from this Storstad damage.
7630. Do you mean that you cannot suggest any further reason; is that your answer?
- No, I do not wish to suggest any further reason.
7631. In view of what you have heard and what you have seen, these are the two reasons which lead you to the conclusion that there was headway upon the Empress at the moment of impact?
- That is correct.
7632. Now, is it your view that before the Storstad penetrated the starboard side of the Empress she was damaged in the way we see her now, or it is your view that part of that damage was caused after the Storstad had gone in?
- Part was caused at the time of entrance - penetration - and part afterwards.
7633. The view of Mr. Hillhouse was that the Storstad had impinged at a slight angle leading aft with the starboard side of the stem first in contact with the plating of the Empress, and owing to the strength of the plating of the Empress, supported by these various decks, that that at once broke and damaged the stem bar and the attachments connected therewith. Once the stem bar and the attachments connected therewith were broken, there would be very little to determine the way in which the broken stem would go, and what Mr. Hillhouse told us was that by reason of the impact in the first instance being upon the starboard side of the stem, and the Storstad travelling at a certain speed, that would set over the bows of the Storstad to port. Do I make my meaning clear?
- Perfectly.
7634. In other words, if I were to run against that wall in the dark and hit my nose against it, just what would happen would be that my nose would probably go over to the left. That is what I want to convey to you.
- I understand perfectly.
7635. Do you think that is a right explanation of this?
- I certainly do not.
7636. It would be a simple explanation.
- Not when you take the stem that you refer to and knock a piece right off; that is, part of the stem, the broken stem, is gone altogether.
7637. How does that in any way affect the suggestion I am making?
- It affects it this way: You cannot get an impulse upon this whole stem by knocking off the top of it. The impulse is gone; you have knocked it off, and that is all there is to it.
7638. Now you have told us - and I suppose you attach some importance to it - that lower down on the broken stem there is some slight portion of it slightly set to starboard?
- That is correct.
7639. What importance do you attach to that fact? You mentioned it at the outset of your explanation.
- I attach this importance: that I was very anxious to find out what was the first feature of the Storstad to touch the Empress and where it touched it.
7640. Is that the only importance you attach to it?
- That is the only importance.
7641. It was curiosity, which might enable you to draw some conclusion?
- Perfectly.
7642. It has not enabled you to draw any conclusion has it?
- It has.
7643. Has it enabled you to draw any useful conclusion?
- I think so.
7644. What is the useful conclusion that you draw from the fact that some where down the stem of the Storstad you find it slightly set to starboard?
- I find that the stem, assuming an angle of about 45 degrees for the meeting of the two vessels, the stem could just reach - I admit that the calculation is a little delicate, but the stem could just reach the most projecting part of the Empress’ side and about the same time the projecting anchor on the starboard side of the Storstad was just ready to come in contact; therefore there was going to be a conflict of tendencies and that would send it over; that conflict of tendencies I described, and its connection with the opening of this scarf. When the other tendency disappeared, the greater tendency through the anchor being rolled between the two decks of the Storstad and the Empress started the stem turning, and that tendency was continued down by the side, and this starboard side of the stem and the plating came in contact with each deck much further down projecting a little further out -
7645. Excuse me; that is a statement of fact you have just made.
- That is as near the facts as the question can get.
7646. What I am asking you is this: Does the fact that the bow of the Storstad was at that one place slightly set to starboard enable you to draw any conclusions which assist you?
- Certainly.
7647. In arriving at your final conclusion as to the headway upon the Empress?
- No, I am not looking for that. When I started out I was looking for the angle of contact. It does help me; you asked me if it helped me. I was looking for the angle of contact, and I found that suited my angle of contact.
7648. It was only for the purpose of enabling you to arrive at the angle of contact?
- That was my first step.
7649. Looking at a case of this kind quite broadly, if the Storstad crashes into the Empress and the Empress is moving and represents, I think I am right in saying, a displacement weight of about 18,000 tons, the momentum which would result from the headway of that mass would be very, very great would it not?
- It would indeed.
7650. Now, assuming that the Storstad crushes into the side of the Empress and this great mass is moving from port to starboard, wouldn’t you expect the nose or the stem of the Storstad to be apparently driven over to starboard?
- I am sorry that I do not quite get the trend of your question. Do I take it that you have given the Empress motion?
7651. Yes, that is what I am driving at; I want to test whether the motion in fact existed or not. You have told me that the momentum due to the moving of the Empress, in view of her great displacement, would be very great; of course the greater the speed the greater the momentum.
- Yes.
7652. Now, if the Storstad drives into this moving mass and that moving mass is moving from port to starboard across the bows of the Storstad, wouldn’t you expect the forward structure of the Storstad, the stem and parts adjacent thereto, to be bodily carried over to starboard?
- Not at all; it all depends upon the nature of the penetration and the speed of penetration.
7653. My suggestion to you is that in view of the fact that so far from the stem being set to starboard, it is actually set to port, that negatives the suggestion of headway upon the Empress. You do not agree with that suggestion?
- No.
By Lord Mersey:
7654. That appears to me to be important. Would you tell me why the stem would not under those circumstances be bent over to starboard, the stem of the Storstad?
- May I say, my Lord, that one has to take the angle at which I find the penetration taking place, into account.
7655. I am aware of that. Here is the Storstad hitting against the Empress of Ireland; here is the stem of the Empress of Ireland; there is her stern. The Storstad strikes her at about that angle (indicating)?
- Yes.
7656. And at once penetrates in through the skin of the Empress. If this vessel, the Empress, is moving - I have forgotten how many thousand tons, Mr. Aspinall?
Mr. Aspinall:
18,000 tons displacement.
By Lord Mersey:
7657. 18,000 tons, she has an immense momentum, has she not? She grasps hold, so to speak, of the bow of the Storstad and she is coming along with this great momentum. Can you tell me why the effect of the moving mass of the Empress will not twist this stem round to starboard?
- Because, my Lord -
7658. You may be right, you know; I want to understand it.
- The penetration is a matter of a very short interval of time. The stem, as I explained it, got a violent impulse to the port side by reason of this anchor which crushed between the decks and which leaves its trace of its pushing up the stem; that can be clearly indicated. That started this stem turning in the other way, and though it had that initial tendency that your Lordship refers to, it did try to get to starboard, and then finally went over to port.
7659. Then, as I understand you, you agree with Mr. Aspinall that the first tendency of the Empress would be to twist the stem of the Storstad to starboard?
- That is my belief and my statement.
7660. That appears to me to be right, if I may say so. Now, will you tell me how the two vessels changed their minds, and having begun by pressing the stem of the Storstad over to starboard, began pressing the stem of the Storstad over to port?
- I can explain it with the model, my Lord. Here is a place on the starboard side where this projecting anchor cut. That anchor is a projecting thing on the Storstad’s bow from the hawse pipe, and is isolated.
7661. Isolated how?
- It gets in between the stem and the side of the Empress and it is all by itself. In other words, it is a projecting thing; it prevents the contact of the stem at this height directly with the plates and the framing of the moving Empress. That anchor shoved over the stem bodily, and broke this very heavy casting. The deck did not want to go over, because it had not been roughly treated, and it burst this stem away from its plating, and so this tendency to go over to port, unless the stem had turned -
7662. I cannot understand this. The first result of the impact is, in your opinion, to twist the stem of the Storstad over to starboard?
- I have so stated, my Lord.
7663. Now then, will you try to explain to me, the Empress being a moving mass of 18,000 tons or thereabouts, with enormous momentum; will you explain to me how that moving mass, doing what you naturally would expect it to do, push in the stem of the Storstad to starboard, would suddenly change and begin to push that stem to port?
- Because you have two component forces in the direction of the side of the Empress, but you have a far greater component force driving this whole bow and crushing its way into the Empress, and that comes to bear first upon this anchor.
7664. Does that involve the notion in your mind that the Storstad was moving at considerable speed?
- Not at considerable speed, my Lord. I want to point out that this force was isolated. You had the whole weight of the Storstad - it is 13,000 or 14,000 tons - behind a small spot on this stem. The anchor is in the way between the Storstad and the Empress’ side and it gives the stem an initial twist.
7665. Then does the explanation of what I call the change in the mind of these two vessels hang upon the anchor?
- That is the initial tendency, my Lord; to pitch the stem over to the port side. The anchor got in there as a buffer between the two ships, and the trace of the anchor and its action upon the stem can be clearly indicated, not only in this model but in those photographs; it is clearly shown. Having once got the impulse the stem continued to that side.
By Chief Justice McLeod:
7666. The Storstad was heavily loaded, and the vessel would not swing, except if the Empress were moving she would swing towards the stern of the Empress?
- That is so, my Lord.
7667. The bow of the Storstad being fixed in the side of the Empress, the whole weight of the Storstad being behind, the swinging towards the stern of the Empress would have some connection with the turning of the bow?
- It did not affect the stem, my Lord. This tendency I speak of, is the initial tendency of penetration when the anchor first caught, but it was rolled and it caught in between the starboard side of the bow of the Storstad and the Empress’s framing, and that shoved the stem over. That trace is most prominent in the Storstad in the photographs which you have seen.
By Mr. Aspinall:
7668. Your view, Mr. Reid, as I understand it is this: that in consequence of that anchor being brought against the forward part of the wound in the Empress, it acted as a buffer, as you say, and drove the stem over to port in the way we now see it?
- That is before the wound has attained any dimensions or got hold of the anchor.
7669. Be it so. The anchor is a buffer, you say, causing that, but equally so was not the port side of the Storstad in immediate contact with the advancing Empress, if she were advancing?
- Not at that moment.
7670. But why not? She is in; you have got the anchor in contact on the starboard side.
- But she is not in.
7671. She is not in?
- No, she is not in.
7672. She has not then gone in?
- She is just going in. It is at the moment of contact that I refer to this anchor as being a buffer.
7673. If the anchor has not gone in, it cannot be a buffer, can it? It is outside the wound.
- I leave it outside the wound.
7674. Then, if you leave it outside the wound, how is it a buffer? If I have a buffer, you know, it is something I should think, that prevents me from being buffetted. Isn’t that the idea of a buffer, a fender?
- That is what they call a buffer, certainly.
7675. Then how can you have your buffer outside the wound? How does your buffer operate?
- The buffer operates by being brought into contact with the Empress standing from the side of the Storstad, and is caught between the two decks at an angle such as enables it to come to bear almost on a flat surface.
7676. Isn’t that rather a fanciful suggestion?
- Not in the least. Perhaps I do not make myself fully clear.
7677. You do indeed. Now then, that at any rate is sufficient to overcome this great driving power that the momentum of the Empress would give. It not only equalizes it but it overcomes it, and the result is we find the stem, instead of being set to starboard, is set to port.
- That is correct.
7678. These are the two forces that are fighting, and this force which is due to your theory proves the stronger of the two.
- I should explain there that the anchor starts this tendency before any actual penetration has been done.
7679. You have suggested that.
- The Empress does not, therefore, get the grip of the stem that you seem to assume. I hold that the stem bar never did get a grip of the Empress.
7680. Although it penetrated through the bilge keel and the orlop decks?
- I do not assume that.
7681. Then I must ask you about that. How could it, even according to your angle, escape going through these various steel decks and the orlop stringer? Your view is that the stem of the Storstad never penetrated these steel decks that Mr. Hillhouse thought it did, or the stringer that is just inside the orlop deck.
- I want to show you what I mean by the stem bar. I mean this actual bar was not the agency that penetrated through these decks to the orlop stringer. The stem bar was in contact for a moment with something that represents the orlop stringer.
7682. But the thing in its present distorted form did go into the Empress?
- I admit that.
7683. In order to reach its resting place inside the Empress must it not have gone through these steel decks?
- No, these steel decks were rolled over and pushed in and there is no trace of that whatever
7684. In other words, they gave before it?
- They gave before this blow, through this portion here (indicating on model).
7685. They gave before it in the sense that it didn’t go in, you mean?
- That is right.
7686. If they had not given before it, that distorted mass would not have gone as far into the side of the Empress as it did, would it?
- I did not get your question.
7687. At any rate, these steel decks were rolled back before the advancing Storstad?
- Rolled back or pushed up.
7688. It is your view, as I understand, that the side of the after boiler space was pierced, and that alone.
- That is my view.
7689. That is your view of the matter?
- Yes.
7690. We have the evidence of a man called O’Donovan, who was one of the engineers on the Empress of Ireland, who was in the forward boiler space, that is, forward of the bulkhead we are discussing, and he says that about twenty seconds after the impact the water rushed through the starboard No. 2 bunker into the stoke-hole. Does that fit with your theory?
- Apparently not.
7691. Would you like to reconsider your theory?
- No, not at all.
7692. And that doesn’t influence you?
- Not the slightest.
7693. You have no reason to doubt its accuracy?
Lord Mersey:
Wait a moment, Mr. Aspinall, I will ask a question or two.
7694. If that is true, is it consistent with your theory?
- It is not, my Lord, although I would have to go into the interior bunker arrangements of the ship to examine it carefully.
7695. No, but is the evidence of O’Donovan inconsistent with your theory?
- It is.
7696. Then either O’Donovan must be mistaken in what he told us or must be trying to deceive us, one thing or another - he says he saw it?
- I should like to know my Lord, just when he saw this water pouring in.
7697. I thought you said that answer of O’Donovan’s was inconsistent with your theory?
- Ultimately, my Lord, the water would be getting in at various places and would get to that bunker.
7698. Do you still wish to say it is inconsistent with your theory?
- Yes, my Lord.
7699. Then it seems to me to follow that O’Donovan, who says he saw it, is mistaken in saying so, or else he is deceiving us?
- My Lord, I think the time factor comes into play. I don’t know when O’Donovan saw this water coming from the bunker.
7700. Then you go back to the position I put to you before, that his answer may be consistent, but is not necessarily accurate?
- That is perhaps correct, my Lord.
7701. But that is not what you said. You told me it was inconsistent and now you only say it may be inconsistent?
Mr. Aspinall:
Perhaps I did not draw your attention to it as directly as I should have, and let me read again the answer of O’Donovan. That is not a question, but an answer he volunteered. At page 760 of the evidence taken on Friday, June 19, he was asked:
Q. Can you tell us what happened; what was the first thing you felt?
- After the impact, about twenty seconds after, water rushed through the star" board No. 2 bunker into the stoke-hole.
I am putting emphasis upon the words ‘ twenty seconds after’ - now if it was twenty seconds after, will your theory fit that evidence?
- No.
7702. Then it comes to that, that this will not fit with your theory?
- Yes, it comes to that.
7703. Now, with regard to the swing of the Storstad, I want, if you will, to have you listen to the engineers’ log of the Storstad, to see what she did according to her log - I don’t know whether this log is to be rejected later or not, but at present it is in evidence. What he says is: Full speed to three o’clock; slow speed to 3.02; then stop; then 3.05, full speed astern; 3.10 stop; 3.20 slow speed ahead. Now if that log be right there is five minutes reversing at full speed frpm 3.05 to 3.10 and we are told that that just about fits, within thirty seconds, of the time when the two ships struck. Now, will you keep that in your mind?
- I will try to.
7704. Now what I want to ask you is this: assuming that the Storstad came into the side of the stationary Empress - because I wish to make that assumption if you will - and that she had steerage way upon her and was swinging under hard-a-port helm - can you make that assumption for me, Mr. Reid?
- Yes.
7705. The tendency would be that she would be pressing her starboard side against the forward part of the wound, that is, the rudder would be doing its best to be effective in that direction, that is right, isn’t it. She then starts going full speed astern -
- Pardon me, I do not assume what you said. Her rudder is to starboard, and the effect of that with a stern screw is to press the stern up to starboard, which is not the same as what you said.
7706. I agree with that?
- Yes, and you asked me to assume certain things, and I do not think your assumption is correct.
7707. What I want you to assume is this: when she came on to the side of the Empress she had, as you have told us, headway which drove her on to the side of the Empress? She had headway on?
- Yes.
7708. And she had her helm hard-a-port - the result of that would be that she would have a tendency to go to starboard?
- Yes.
7709. And there would be a difficulty in going to starboard, because her stem is pressing against the Empress?
- Yes.
7710. And the Empress is preventing it from going to starboard?
- Yes, that is correct.
7711. Just about this time that she has entered, the engines are reversed, and the result is she is going to the Empress with a swing to starboard, and as she emerges from the hole - which, in the view of every one was extremely quickly, it would be under engines going astern, and the tendency is a cant to starboard, under the engines going astern?
- A slight tendency.
By Lord Mersey:
7712. That is to send her around in the direction in which her helm is turned?
- Yes.
By Mr. Aspinall:
7713. Given those two things, wouldn’t those two things well account for what the witnesses say, that when she withdrew, her course was become more or less on a parallel line with the Empress?
- No, sir.
7714. Why not?
- Because this component carrying the stem of the Storstad around through the swing caused by the stern screw is of a very small amount. It has to deal with an enormous vessel. If you had an initial swing it would continue, but if you start from a condition without swing, she would take some time to get that up.
7715. But I am assuming now that my case is right and that she had an initial swing to starboard. I am assuming that this vessel hard-a-ported her helm, with good steerage way upon her, and if that is so it gives me my initial swing?
- No, that initial swing is immediately stopped by the contact.
7716. At any rate, assuming what I have said, I have the initial swing when she enters?
- You have.
7717. And you say the swing is checked by reason of coming in contact with the Empress?
- Perfectly.
7718. But the helm is in the proper position for that?
- Yes.
7719. For a swing to starboard?
- Yes.
7720. Then she is in a very short space of time feeling the effects, as she swings, of the reversing engines?
- No, it takes quite a little while for the force to get into play. It is so small that it won’t really be felt by the vessel for a certain time.
7721. Are you a nautical gentleman?
- I am not a man who has to do with the handling of ships.
7722. Neither am I, but I have heard a good deal about it, as I suppose you have?
- Yes, sir.
7723. If you had put your helm a-port - I presume you have heard something about what will happen if you put your helm a-port or a-starboard with your engines going stern?
- Yes.
7724. Then you do know this fact, that with a single screw, if you reverse it, with your helm either a-port or a-starboard, it cants your head that way, the way your helm is put?
- Pardon me. I should say it cants the stern the other way.
7725. I quite agree. It is better for some point of my case, it cants the stern to port and puts the stem to starboard?
- If you have an initial impulse, but by reversing the screw from a position where you have come to rest, the bow hardly moves, but the stem goes to port.
7726. The stem goes to port, and the stem to starboard - the result is to head around to starboard.
- No, the head of the vessel may stay in its place.
By Lord Mersey:
7727. If the stern moves?
- This action of the reversed wheel has the tendency first of all, starting from rest, to carry the stem over.
7728. Yes, to carry the stern over before what?
- Before the bow begins to move, before the bow begins to get under way at all.
7729. But the vessel is not a serpent that can twist itself? The stem must head one way and the stern another?
- Yes, but the bow does not swing, the stem moves over, and then the bow begins to get into action, and the whole thing is at the same time complicated by the whole vessel trying to go astern. The bow is hardly moving.
7730. But the bow at all events is bringing you around - you cannot move the stern of the vessel without moving the stem?
- It is the swing that I was trying to get right, my Lord.
By Mr. Aspinall:
7731. Well do you think you can move the stem of the vessel without moving the bow?
- It is the swing I am talking about.
7732. Now, assuming that to be the ship - I am illustrating with a lead pencil, and assuming this end of the pencil to be the stem, and the other end of the pencil to be the stem, and the single screw on the right hand in action, if the engines go astern the result is to bring the stern over this way?
- That is correct.
7733. And the moment that leaves the point to come this way, at the very same moment of time the other end moves around the other way, doesn’t it?
- It changes its direction, yes.
7734. Well, that is what I have been asking you?
- No, we have been talking about the swing.
7735. Well, I will use the word ‘swing’ - if the stern is swung one point to port, isn’t the bow swung one point to starboard?
- Not necessarily.
7736. Why not?
- Because if you are swinging about a point close to the bow, the bow does not take the swing at all, but it is the stern that takes the swing.
By Lord Mersey:
7737. But isn’t there a corresponding movement of the bow?
- Not a lateral swing. It ultimately comes to a swing, but it does not do so from a state of rest. I think I could explain that better in a diagram.
7738. Supposing this is a ship and that is the stern and that is the stem, if you move the stern around, can you imagine the stem remaining stationary?
- Not absolutely, my Lord.
7739. Unless, you know, there is a joint in the middle of the ship?
- No, my Lord, but the ship does not swing about its centre of length in a condition such as we are assuming.
7740. I don’t know what the conditions are that we are assuming, but it seems to me that if you move the stern of a ship around you must move the stem?
- I think if you allow me to make a diagram that I can explain it better.
7741. If you think you can help us by doing so, I would like you to make a diagram?
- Yes, my Lord, I have made one. Here is a ship, my Lord. You start the right-hand screw going reverse. Normally, when a ship swings under any action, it swings more or less about the centre of its length. If it is not in rapid motion, it goes around.
7742. But that is the axis on which it swings?
- Yes.
7743. Oh, that is not the swing of the ship?
- When you start the action of the screw the tendency is for the vessel to pivot, as it were, about the bow.
7744. Well now, after it has swung, that is after the stern has swung to port, show me where the bow would be?
- Yes, here it is, the new position. Now the head has changed its bearings, but it has not swung, my Lord. The swinging is done by the stern.
7745. Oh, all you mean is this, that if you have the stem here and the stern there, you can move the stem that way and move it right around? All that alters with regard to the stem is its bearing?
- Yes, my Lord.
By Mr. Aspinall:
7746. Whether that is right or not, if the helm is put to port, the ship will come to port, with the reversed engines?
- Yes, that is right.
7747. There is only one other matter I want to trouble you about, and that is in connection with the class of rudder with which this vessel was fitted. You have told us that you know by reputation Dr. Elgar. I have no doubt that you also know by reputation Mr. Hillhouse?
- Yes, I know him by reputation.
7748. And I daresay you have a very high respect for him?
- I have indeed.
7749. Now do you know how the area of the rudder of the Empress of Ireland at the time of the disaster compares with the area of the rudders of other great ships of that class that cross the Atlantic -
- My judgment is, it is considerably smaller.
7750. Well, that is somewhat of a general answer. Can you give me some specific cases? I don’t want many, but can you give me two?
- The answer has to do with the form of the Empress, which is very peculiar, and for which there is no type that you can really absolutely compare with it.
7751. Then we cannot have a comparison?
- Not a very accurate one.
7752. What is the peculiarity in the Empress which prevents you giving a comparison between her and other ships of that character?
- This peculiar formation of the stern above the rudder.
[TIP Note: The next five questions were not numbered in the original transcript.]
Q. The fulness?
- Yes, the fulness.
Q. So you cannot think of any other ship at the moment which would give us any useful information?
- When this subject came up I obtained the best information I could and I found that it is quite small.
By Chief Justice McLeod:
Q. You say the rudder of the Empress is quite small?
- Yes, quite small, my Lord.
By Mr. Haight:
Q. You have been asked, Mr. Reid, about the movements of both vessels, and you have expressed the opinion that both vessels were in motion?
- Yes.
Q. Captain Kendall has stated that as he stood on the bridge when the Storstad first came into sight, that in spite of the fog, and in spite of the distance he was above the water, when the Storstad was approximately 100 feet away from him he could see her coming with a bow wave. I understand his opinion to be that she was going at full speed. Now, will you tell me what, in your opinion, would have been the effect upon the Empress, if the Storstad, constructed as she is, with her angles running fore and aft, had struck the side of the Empress amidships at the angle which you have found?
- While I cannot give any figures on such a question, the penetration would have been sensibly greater. I have that idea.
7753. You have stated that two of your reasons for thinking the Empress was moving, are the swing of the Storstad and the rolling effect on the port bow. Does the impression left by this pad, and by the porthole on the Storstad’s bow, add anything to the data on that point?
- It shows that up to the last minute, when the swing of 100 degrees had been completed, a pressure upon the starboard side of the Storstad was still pushing this hole in the port bow against the Empress’ side.
7754. I do not feel, Mr. Reid, that either the court or counsel quite understood you in connection with the initial tendency to bend the stem of the Storstad to starboard, and the subsequent alteration to the tendency to bend it to port. This exhibit 7-D, the photograph, seems to show the effect of the initial tendency to set the stem of the Storstad to starboard, does it not?
- It does, I think one or two of the other photographs show it better.
7755. Which other?
- Exhibits 7-E and 7-F.
7756. Well, at any rate, am I correct in understanding from the photograph 7-D that there is a perceptible bend to starboard of the stem plate - it is down in the vicinity of the scarf of which you have spoken?
- There is.
7757. That bend in the stem plate is shown in the photograph 7-D and not shown in the other photographs, as I take it?
- I thought you were referring to the anchor.
7758. No, I am talking now about the bend to the starboard?
- Well, that Exhibit 7-D does show that very clearly.
7759. Do I understand you correctly, that the stem of the Storstad, down near the lowest hanging plank in that photograph, was, in your judgment, the first point that struck the widest point on the side of the Empress?
- That is my idea.
7760. Then the forward movement of the Empress, when our stem first touched, tended to set the stem to starboard?
- Yes.
7761. Now where is it the stem gives way at the scarf? Where is it with reference to that lowest plank?
- It is between the lowest plank and the one above. There is a scarf in the stem, a weak spot.
7762. Now when the stem and the side of the Storstad were in their original form, and were touching, as you believe, at an angle of forty degrees, how far would the Empress have to continue on the angle of forty degrees after she touched below the scarf on the stern, before the starboard anchor would strike high up on the ship’s plating?
- The two contacts were almost simultaneous, but I consider the lower one tending to put over the stem to starboard occurred just momentarily before the other.
By Lord Mersey:
7763. What do you mean when you say “momentarily”?
- It is not calculable.
7764. A second?
- Not even a second, my Lord.
By Mr. Haight:
7765. Can you in distance give us an idea of how far the anchor would be separated from the side of the plating of the Empress if you put the stem of the Storstad in its original shape up against the side of the Empress, so that the stem first touched the Empress just below the scarf on your stem?
- No, I cannot give you that in distance, for the anchor would practically be coming in contact between the two decks.
7766. That is, a movement of a few inches, after the stem touched would bring the anchor also into encounter, is that correct?
- I cannot give you any figures.
7767. If we assume that the stern touches low down, just an appreciable instant before the anchor touches, and, as you state, the scarf gives way, will you please state once more what the effect will be of the anchor striking high up on the side of the Empress as to the bending of the stem one way or the other?
- It gives it a much more powerful impulse to the port side.
7768. When you assume that the Storstad is moving with 10,400 tons of coal and her own displacement weight, her momentum is also considerable?
- That is right.
7769. That is the mass of the two vessels is not so very much disproportionate, is it? The Empress is supposed to displace 18,000—can you give me roughly what the Storstad would displace?
- Between 13,000 and 14,000 tons.
7770. Now, after the anchor touches, I understand that for an appreciable instant the anchor is the butt - it is the isolated projection which sustains the full force of the contact?
- That is correct.
7771. Until it has been crushed by the force of the penetration into the side of the Empress?
- Yes.
7772. Now, after the initial impulse had been received from the projection of the anchor, you spoke about a continuing impulse down?
- Yes.
7773. What is it? After the anchor has affected the stem, the force that caused the stem to bend is continuing to bend it in the same direction?
- Coming in contact with each of the decks which are each projecting a little farther as the Storstad came within the ship’s side. There was a tumble-home which makes each deck project a little farther than the one above it.
7774. Which deck projects the farthest with reference to the line of the anchor?
- The main deck and the orlop deck stringer are really the farthest out.
7775. Are they nearest the anchor?
- No, the anchor was in contact with the upper deck of the Empress. Then the lower deck comes next. It projects a little farther out, and then the main deck.
7776. Do I understand that each deck projects farther out than the deck below that?
- I didn’t quite get the question.
7777. Well, the decks didn’t touch all at the same time?
- No, they did not.
7778. There was some deck that hit below the anchor?
- Yes.
7779. Is that one of the decks that projects farthest out or one farthest in?
- It projects farther out.
7780. Then the succession in which the decks came in contact with the starboard bow would begin at the top and work down?
- No, the anchor is in between the two upper decks, that is what caused the initial impulse. Then as you come down, as the anchor pushes in and pushes also the stem over the port, the next contact comes into play lower down, and then a contact below that and always continuing this tendency.
7781. In succession?
- Yes.
7782. And the succession works downwards?
- That is correct.
7783. I think Mr. Aspinall failed to understand your statement that the stem bar did not penetrate. Will you please state what did penetrate into the side of the Empress on your ship?
Lord Mersey:
I did not understand that this gentleman said that the stem bar did not get inside the Empress. I understood him to say that it did get inside. That it penetrated in that sense at any rate.
Mr. Haight:
Yes, my Lord, but I thought Mr. Aspinall had some difficulty with that point in the cross-examination, and I thought perhaps it might be made a little clearer to him.
By Lord Mersey:
7784. It did, of course, penetrate in the sense that it got inside?
- Absolutely; it did not do the cutting.
7785. That is what I understand?
- Perfectly.
By Mr. Haight:
7786. The cutting edge of the Storstad was turned, as I understand it, at the first moment of contact?
- Correct.
7787. You were asked something about the effect of the rudder being to starboard and the wheel being to port and the initial swing caused by the reversing engines. Will you please tell me what effect the reversing of the engines and of the propeller has upon the influence of the rudder?
- Do you mean the rudder being over to starboard?
7788. No matter which way the rudder is going. Does the quick water which is forced forward, as I understand, by the reversed propeller, in any way affect the efficiency of the rudder itself, wherever you put it?
- Certainly.
7789. Now what effect does it have?
- It all depends on which way the rudder is turned. If the rudder is turned to starboard it would neutralize the effect of this going astern wheel.
7790. When your vessel is going forward, with your engines going forward, the rudder as it swings, bears upon the water going astern?
- Yes.
7791. And when you put your engines the other way, how does the water come to bear upon the surface of the rudder?
- Streams come from aft and strike upon the rudder, and if the rudder is over to starboard, that stream more or less neutralizes the stern effect.
7792. The reversed propeller changes the direction of the streams of water?
- That is correct.
7793. And if your rudder is not actually swung out to starboard when you go ahead, the water striking that starboard side of the rudder tends to swing the bow to starboard?
- Correct.
7794. When your propellers are going astern the stream of water is striking on the port side of the rudder, and tends to set your stern to starboard?
- That is right.
7795. I understood you to say when Mr. Aspinall was asking you to make some assumption as to the part which might have been penetrated, that you did not agree with his statement that the Storstad penetrated not only the decks, but the bilge-keel also. Was I correct?
- I examined the bilge-keel.
7796. Why do you think the statement of Mr. Hillhouse is not correct that you cut through the bilge-keel?
- Because about twelve feet from the keel line I have a fore-foot, which makes a circular turn to about twelve feet abaft my vertical perpendicular, and that leaves a part of the stem which could not possibly reach the bilge-keel with the penetration I have found.
7797. In your judgment the bilge-keel was so low down that the stem didn’t reach it?
- Yes, it was so low down, and on the bilge of the Empress - it couldn’t be reached.
7798. The draught of the Empress was not sufficient to bring the stem against the bulge [sic] keel?
- No, the form of the Storstad’s stem was such that it could not reach the bilge-keel of the Empress.
7799. Will you please indicate, Mr. Reid, upon the long working plan of the Empress, the location of the pad and of this port which, in your judgment, left their marks upon the port bow of the Storstad?
- Yes, that was the point there (indicating).
7800. How have you marked it so that it can be identified?
- There is a cross marked here in black, and I put another cross against it.
Mr. Haight:
Witness indicates with a check mark and also with a check on the cross, the pad immediately below the cargo door, which cargo door is directly under the forward side of the aft funnel.
Your Lordships can see, perhaps, the cargo door on this plan, with the pad under it.
7801. Now, the port-hole which you think also marked the side of the Storstad, is where?
- Just above and forward.
7802. That is, the port-hole across which you have marked a cross in lead pencil?
- Yes.
Chief Justice McLeod:
Is that plan in evidence, Mr. Haight?
Mr. Haight:
I understood it was put in evidence this morning, my Lord, and marked. If not, I would like to put it in evidence now.
(The working plan of the Empress is put in and marked as Exhibit D-1.)
Lord Mersey:
Do you want to ask anything, Mr. Aspinall?
Mr. Aspinall:
No, I do not want to ask this witness any questions. What I wanted was to be allowed to recall Mr. Hillhouse to deal with the suggestion that this rudder was deficient to the credit of the company and the credit of the builder.
By Mr. Haight:
7803. How does the point of this pad and the port which you have just marked compare with room 328 as shown on the plan of the ship?
- If you make the penetration go under the bulkhead upon which that number was attached, you are about right - go under the cabin bulkhead on which that number was carried you are about right. I did not use that number till later when it was discovered.
7804. Then the centre wound would be about under the bulkhead?
- The centre line of the Storstad going into the Empress would be about under the bulkhead on which that number was found.
By Lord Mersey:
7805. Have you a sketch giving the profile of the stem of the Storstad as it existed before the collision?
- I have a plan of the Storstad which I can put in and I made a sketch of the profile of the stem of the Storstad.
7806. Before the accident?
- Before the accident.
7807. Did you do it before the accident?
- No, I took it off the plan.
7808. Probably if we saw the plan, it would be sufficient. Have you a plan of the Storstad?
- This plan on a small scale shows the general arrangement of the Storstad.
Lord Mersey:
That is all we want.
Mr. Haight:
Would your Lordship like to have everything we have in the way of plans?
Lord Mersey:
I would not.
Mr. Haight:
Perhaps the assessors would. I would be very glad to turn over everything we have. (Plan of general arrangement of Storstad put in and marked Exhibit 22.)
By Mr. Newcombe:
7809. Just one question for my own information, Mr. Reid, because I do not quite understand your statement. Is it your opinion that if there had been no anchors on the bow of this ship the bow would have sheered off to starboard?
- I would hardly say that, Mr. Newcombe. I think the initial tendency was to go to starboard, but whether it would have continued I could not say.
7810. I want to clear up the fact as to whether you would have expected to have found the twisted bow, or the sheered off bow, if there had been no anchors hanging over the bow?
- No, I think that ultimately the stem would still have gone off to port because the tumble-home of the Empress’ side allowed this portion of the bow, which projects very considerably, to come in contact at the same time as this (indicating) came in contact, even in spite of the 18-inch projection of the anchor.
7811. There was a corresponding anchor on the port side?
- There was.
7812. Did that cut any figure in the matter at all?
- No, it was clear at the time of contact but ultimately it ceased to be a force in play when the penetration took place and it was forced into the centre of the ship, and not carried along on the starboard side.
7813. Irrespective of the anchors, assuming the Empress to have been going in a direction from port to starboard across the bow of the Storstad would you still have found the bow twisted over to the port side?
- I am inclined to think so.
Lord Mersey:
Let us see that model. (Model of bow of Storstad passed up to the Court.)
By Lord Mersey:
7814. Did you use the expression that the cutting edge was in contact?
- No sir, the cutting edge did not come into play; otherwise,there would be a mark.
7815. What do you understand by cutting edge?
- The face of the stem bar.
7816. Do you mean this (indicating)?
- Perfectly.
7817. I understood you to say that the stem bar did not strike in the first instance at all?
- It is my view that it was only the starboard side that struck.
7818. Did you not tell us that something parted at the first moment of contact? It is suggested that you said that the cutting edge parted at the first moment of contact? Did you say that?
- I do not think so, because I made the statement that the cutting edge did not come into play at all.
Mr. Haight:
I am afraid the expression was mine and apparently it was not a good one.
Lord Mersey:
Our officer got it into his head that the expression was used. Mr. Reid says he did not use it.
Mr. Haight:
I think I was guilty of that.
Lord Mersey:
Do you know what that means?
Mr. Haight:
It means this: You have a sharp axe; the edge having been turned, you may strike a bow with it, it is not really the original edge which cuts, or penetrates, but it is the plane of the rolled and newer edge which penetrates.
Lord Mersey:
Do you mean to say that the stem bar was deflected?
Mr. Haight:
As I understand it the effect of the contact between this anchor which was projecting -
Lord Mersey:
We are not dealing with the anchor.
Mr. Haight:
The whole stem is practically a series of triangles. You remember that Mr. Reid had testified that there are -
Lord Mersey:
The whole stem a series of triangles?
Mr. Haight:
The whole stem, by virtue of the construction of this ship, the cross strengtheners going from starboard to port -
Lord Mersey:
I only want this question answered: What does cutting edge mean that you allege was turned over at the first moment of contact?
Mr. Haight:
By that term I mean the stem bar. I should have so stated.
Witness retired.