Boards Covering Hatches - Problems with Water Ingress to Holds (1920s Steamer) - Ships Nostalgia
00:14

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Boards Covering Hatches - Problems with Water Ingress to Holds (1920s Steamer)

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 13th May 2018, 13:10
Nswstar2 Nswstar2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 64
Boards Covering Hatches - Problems with Water Ingress to Holds (1920s Steamer)

I'm starting what I hope is a straightforward request for information about the hatch cover arrangement on older steamers. (Continuing my research on SS Camlough's last voyage in January of 1932)

I'd appreciate any comments from folks who have practical experience of ships with boards fitted to cover their hatches - or who have heard stories from older mariners about this arrangement.

I've already identified that seawater getting into the stoke hold of SS Camlough was likely to have contributed to her final catastrophic loss of power during a fierce gale.

The information I have about Camlough's hatch arrangements comes from some photos of a beautifully detailed model which was made for the owners of the new ship and her identical sister SS Corteen in 1920, when the ships were launched. (By coincidence, this model happened to come up for sale in 2017). See photos

The attached photos of the model clearly show that her hatches were covered with boards - shorter boards being fitted over the stoke hold hatch.

It's my understanding that these boards would have been covered with tarpaulins to prevent water getting into the holds.

We know from contemporary accounts that the Camlough took a tremendous battering from waves and wind on its last journey under reduced power. Even though she would have been riding high in the water (traveling light under ballast) they were 'shipping seas fore and aft' and there were 'tremendous waves'. (Met office statistics in their Monthly Summary for January 1932 mention the 'widespread and destructive gales in Scotland' that happened on the 13th and 14th - giving highest wind readings as 86 mph on the 13th at the Butt of Lewis and 95 mph on the 14th at Bell Rock.)

This is definitely not the kind of weather that a captain would choose to set out in with a repaired/under-powered engine (but of course the ship had become irrevocably committed to its course around the southern tip of the Isle of Man and across open sea to Belfast before it became apparent just how awful the weather was going to become.

Again - any practical observations about water getting into the holds will be greatly appreciated.

Under these conditions, how likely would it be for hatch coverings to become dislodged, allowing seawater into the stoke hold?

Footnote: the photo that shows the stern of the Camlough shows almost exactly the portion of the ship which still remains in the sands of the beach at Monreith in Scotland, where she was stranded/wrecked. Only the very bottom section of the ship was left after most had been cut up and taken away for salvage. What remains is a kind of 'footprint', running from just above the stub of the propeller shaft protruding at the far aft to just forward of the supports for her boiler. This wreckage was well-exposed in this past winter's storms, but has now been completely buried under feet of shifting sand.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg S.S-Corteen-Camlough-2.jpg (244.3 KB, 112 views)
File Type: jpg S.S-Corteen-Camlough-9.jpg (216.9 KB, 106 views)
File Type: jpg S.S-Corteen-Camlough-1.jpg (242.9 KB, 96 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 13th May 2018, 13:27
tiachapman tiachapman is offline  
Senior Member
Active: 1954 - 1981
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,651
yes but there would have been 3 tarps side wedged and secured with 4/ 6 locking bars to hold them in place/ sailed on many a ship with that rig.before steel hatch covers became common.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13th May 2018, 13:59
eddyw eddyw is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,593
There's a drawing of traditional system (beams/boards/tarps/battens/wedges etc) on this site.
https://forshipbuilding.com/category/equipment/page/2/
Scroll down to 'Hatch Covers'
The coal bunker hatch , immediately forward of the boiler/engine space, would have been similarly fitted. Some ships had hinged ' trimming doors' in the side trunking and bell mouthed vents on top as in the case of the model of Camlough. If water was getting in to the stokehold I would suspect it came via openings associated with the bunkers or through the aft superstructure. It seems unlikely any water entering the holds would have reached the stokeholds due to intervening WTBs.

Last edited by eddyw; 13th May 2018 at 14:24..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13th May 2018, 14:01
callpor callpor is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1962 - Present
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 763
The attached photo is one I took on my last voyage as Apprentice on the MV Port Wyndham, built in 1934. You can clearly see one of the hatches secured as described by tiachapman, with 3 tarps wedged and secured with locking bars.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2007-07-18-1233-41 (2).jpg (176.5 KB, 159 views)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 13th May 2018, 14:47
sibby sibby is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1961 - 1968
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 255
On the coasters I sailed on they only had two tarpaulins. We never had any leaks, and we sailed in gale force winds.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 13th May 2018, 19:56
Robert Hilton's Avatar
Robert Hilton Robert Hilton is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1956 - Present
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
My location
Posts: 1,407
I also had plenty of experience of wooden hatchboards. However the boards were always fore and aft on thwartship beams. Two or three tarpaulins well wedged would be watertight. The model in the photographs has the boards athwartships with no sign of what supports them. I have never seen this system, so can't compare it with the system I'm used to. Could Camlough's system have become obsolete as found to be flawed?
__________________
Getting worse and enjoying every minute.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 13th May 2018, 22:27
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,765
#6

I agree with Robert.

I also saw many hatch-boards and it never occurred to me until now that they were all fore-&-aft. What was uppermost in my mind, though - even then - was that the hatch-beams - on which the boards rested - were thwartships - and thus formed an integral part of the strength of the hull. It was common practice to shunt a ship from one berth to another in harbour with hatches open - that is, without hatch-boards in place - but it was always good practice to ensure that hatch-beams were in place in order to provide integral strength in the event of collision - an ever present possibility.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 13th May 2018, 22:37
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,765
I never did see - and would find it difficult to imagine - any ship with hatch-beams running fore & aft. The idea seems plain wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 14th May 2018, 08:32
Mad Landsman's Avatar
Mad Landsman Mad Landsman is online now  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,209
From an entirely practical point it would make sense for the hatch cover to be shaped in the manner of a carriage roof, with an arc to shed water on either side.

There is very much in common with the two structures and traditional carriages are/were built with curved cross beams and boards laid fore and aft with a protective covering over all.
I wonder which came first - I would guess that ships followed land.
__________________
Malcolm.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 14th May 2018, 08:48
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,765
Every boarded hatch which I ever saw was flat. The reasons for that, I'd guess,
were twofold. First, any raised camber in the middle, running fore & aft would make the creation of a watertight seal at the fore-end and after end more difficult; and, secondly, a flat hatch-top left a convenient flat open space for deck-cargo, when required.

The more recent McGregor hatches worked on entirely different principles.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 14th May 2018, 09:18
Duncan112's Avatar
Duncan112 Duncan112 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1981 - 2003
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
My location
Posts: 3,442
Casting my mind back to Naval Architecture lessons I remember one lecturer describing a system (now against the Rules and even when allowable to be depreciated) whereby hold bilges were in gutterways that could, by opening a sluice valve be allowed to drain to the Engine Room and pumped, reducing the piping arrangements necessary.

I have no idea when this practice ceased and without the GA drawings we can't find out if this applied to "Camlough". Perhaps another member might know when the Rules changed?
__________________
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 14th May 2018, 11:37
Bill.B Bill.B is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Radio Officer
Active: 1970 - 1985
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 616
Sailing/motor barge hatch boards were convex. Fore and afters in the middle of the holds and a thwart ship support in middle of main hold. Two tarpaulins and then battens around the bottom in the batten hooks. Wooden wedges with the big square end facing forward. Most of the leaks came from through the bottom as most were wooden hulls.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 14th May 2018, 13:55
sibby sibby is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1961 - 1968
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 255
On the coasters I sailed on in 60's they had gutter ways to a strum box before the pump, while washing the holds, which was nearly every trip we had to clear the strum box several times especially after discharging grain.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 14th May 2018, 15:24
woodend's Avatar
woodend woodend is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1955 - Present
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,087
I am sure the ship construction lecturer at Liverpool anaautical, was it Captain Ferryman, must be spinning in his grave with the atriums or whatever on these modern day passenger ships. I can picture him now back in the 50s trying to hammer home to us the importance of hatch beams and hatch boards f9or longditudinal strength. I was on 450 footers then and he impressed it on me. I cringe every time I am aboard one of these behemoths at the memory.
.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 14th May 2018, 16:04
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,765
The locking-bars, too, contributed to structural integrity as they served to prevent dislodgment of the hatch-boards, which otherwise were held in place only by gravity and canvas.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 14th May 2018, 18:36
eddyw eddyw is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,593
I very much doubt the model detail is accurate. GA drawings of similar ships of the period all show f&a boards thus supported by transverse beams. The weather conditions appear to have been F12+. The fact that she went ashore and did not founder in deep water indicates that the holds did not fill and so quite likely the hatch covers remained intact. In such conditions even if in ballast heavy seas would have broken over the ship quite likely doing damage. Water would find its way in through openings (the model shows a number in the aft superstructure) as well as the funnel. Particularly vulnerable would be the two bell mouthed vents giving direct access to the stokehold. If they became damaged or detached this would be an obvious way for large volumes of seawater to enter the stokehold and there would have been no practical means of prevention in theprevailing conditions
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 14th May 2018, 18:53
barrypriddis's Avatar
barrypriddis barrypriddis is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
My location
Posts: 2,264
If memory serves me right I am sure that the hatchboards on Palm boats, supported by king and queen beams, had a slight camber to allow water to drain off. Certainly never interferred with deck cargo. The king and queen beams also co-incided with the athwartship beams of supporting the deck.
__________________
Barry

There's nothing wrong with going nowhere slowly, but I want to go nowhere fast.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 14th May 2018, 20:40
lakercapt lakercapt is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1952 - 1998
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
My location
Posts: 2,653
Barrypriddis is correct in mentioning the two differant types of beams as there were two sizes of hatch boards. Having lifted many in my days it was unlikely there was water entering through the bunker hatch. It was secured for sea the same as the cargo holds. The king beam was the one with the ridge down the certre to fit the boards. The queen beam was flat and the support in the middle for the long hatch boards. I built muscles tossing these things!!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 15th May 2018, 02:04
eddyw eddyw is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,593
I should have gone to Specsavers! Looking closely at the model photos it is clear that the inner ends of hatch boards for the holds are supported by a slightly raised longitudinal central beam giving a degree of camber. So transverse hatch boards rather than the usual sort. I was clearly in error to doubt the accuracy of the model. I agree with lakercapt that there is no reason to think the hatch covers to holds or bunker were breached as she would have foundered rather than stranded. The reason she could not be salvaged was she was driven so far on shore on the high tide. She was clearly not waterlogged. "Camlough" sister ship "Corteen" was renamed "Ballyclare " in 1951. Photo here (modernised ) in ballast or part loaded:
http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/m.../2/1181221.jpg
There does not appear to be a trimming door to the trunk of the coal bunker. The door adjacent would lead directly via access ladder to the stokehold. Probably weather tight rather than watertight. The other openings in the aft superstructure are visible. In these raised quarterdeck ships, bunker, boiler and engine space formed a single watertight compartment. Any seawater getting in would find its way down to the stoke hold, the floor of which was lower than the rest of the compartment. I wonder if there survives a photo of "Camlough" ashore? It would be interesting to see if the stokehold vents survived the tempest.
PS There is one on wrecksite.eu. Vents and boats in situ but signs of disturbance:
https://www.wrecksite.eu/img/wrecks/...r_j_wilson.jpg

Last edited by eddyw; 15th May 2018 at 11:09..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 15th May 2018, 15:31
eddyw eddyw is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,593
Afterthought. Once the engine had stopped Camlough would have fallen off the wind and broached to, drifting downwind more or less beam to sea. This would have resulted in severe rolling and in the sea conditions large volumes of breaking water coming over the bulwarks aft some of which would inevitably find its way below.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 15th May 2018, 17:21
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is online now  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,309
Taff should be able to tell some answers. He was in a similar design collier SHEAF ARROW in 1952.

Here is a photo of one of the larger colliers, SHEAF FIELD. Basic design. Especially it show the bunker hatch just forward of the funnel... and with some boards not in position.

The weather deck doors (CAMLOUGH) seem to be simple wooden doors (shown on the model) no way to batten down the door.

Next message I will upload two images. Interesting images... pls wait for a few minutes. I need a strong tea!

Stephen
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Sheaf Field-05.jpg (239.7 KB, 56 views)

Last edited by Stephen J. Card; 15th May 2018 at 17:26..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 15th May 2018, 17:37
Nswstar2 Nswstar2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 64
Yep - the photos on wrecksite eu are ones that I put there (smile).

The one taken looking up at Camlough's stern section (which was provided by a friend who grew up in Monreith) corresponds almost exactly to the footprint of remaining wreckage on the beach, as she was cut up and salvaged in situ, except for the very bottom of the stern section. (It may have been sinking into sand even back in 1935 when salvage operations ceased, and given that at that point the salvour had just lost a second small ship in the process, they may well have just considered that final bit of the ship would have been more trouble that it was worth.)

The other photo on Camlough's Wrecksite page is one from the stern looking forwards, showing that what remains is the floors and very bottom of the ship, just a few feet from about the level of the stub of the propeller shaft which protrudes at the far stern (she's lying at a slight tilt to port and stern, so I've not yet seen everything that's at the very stern of the wreckage).

By saying that these are my photos - 'Nswstar' has effectively 'decloaked' as a gal rather than a guy - and one who before the extensive research I've been drawn into - and without the most helpful information from responses on Ships Nostalgia had absolutely no practical experience of ships - and certainly not of steam coasters. It's been a real education - and a fascinating one!

I'll be sure to post some of my summary findings on this forum, when they have reached a point a bit further in their development. Folks on this forum have helped me to put together numbers of pieces that were missing from my understanding of what conditions would have been like in the engine and boiler room.

Also, some of the Scottish newspaper comments about the amount of water in the stokehold may well have been made about conditions after the boiler had failed - but reported in the newspaper in an out-of-sequence format. This is true of other parts of these newspaper accounts, where there are glimpses of facts shining out of a sometimes confused and jumbled sequence of events. The Camlough certainly would have been bobbing and rolling in the heavy seas, as she was pushed back by the gale force (hurricane) wind.

Thanks to everyone for lots more suggestions about points of entry for unwanted sea water in these conditions... and yes, of course, the engine room would have been the low point for water to accumulate.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 15th May 2018, 18:24
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is online now  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,309
Hold your horses! More to come!

Here is a lovely cutaway of a simple collier. Similar in many way so it will give a lot of answers. This vessel is larger than yours so some things will be different. In the cutaway there seems to be a bulkhead between engine room a boiler room. Note that the back end of the boiler might have protruded through the bulkhead. For access there would have been a simple watertight door in the bulkhead. That would stop flooding. However, if the boiler had collapsed the damage might have allowed a lot of things, like steam escaping through the bulkhead. If there is no bulkhead then what is showing is just a very heavy transverse web frame but watertight floors under the machinery spaces.

Hatch boards: MERCHANT SHIP CONSTRUCTION by Pursey 1942. Here shown in the diagram, Page 131. Beams run athwartships OR a combination of 'FORE and AFTERS'. So, the model is quite correct and hatch boards could be laid as shown in the photo.

Stephen
Attached Images
File Type: jpg HATCH BOARDS.jpg (246.5 KB, 48 views)

Last edited by Stephen J. Card; 15th May 2018 at 18:28..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 15th May 2018, 18:36
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is online now  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,309
Here is the missing cutaway.

Stephen
Attached Images
File Type: jpg COLLIER CUTAWAY.jpg (289.8 KB, 59 views)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15th May 2018, 18:44
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is online now  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,309
[QUOTE=Mad Landsman;2889642]From an entirely practical point it would make sense for the hatch cover to be shaped in the manner of a carriage roof,




And it seems they did it this way... with the 'fore and afters' beams. Perhaps the athwartship beam system was better if you were loading a flat platform for cargo.

Stephen
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MV Oakwood hatches loganevh Ship Research 5 9th June 2014 02:23
Boxship MSC Idil suffered explosion and water ingress, Caribbean [ODIN] SN NewsCaster News and Views from the Shipping World 0 13th May 2012 04:30
cydondia/camelia hatches loganevh Ship Research 15 31st July 2011 16:56



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.