Euston - a general history

Completed 10 April 1905; Official No. 119865: Code Letters HCKB.

Owners: April 1905 Webster & Barraclough, West Hartlepool.

Masters: 1905-11 Charles Edward Underwood (b. 1865 Bishop Auckland).

Euston left Hull in June 1911 bound for Tampa, Florida & then for Yokohama with a crew of 31.She was wrecked on a reef near Juan de Nova, Mozambique on 21 November 1911. Leaving their vessel to founder the crew left in their boats & reached the island. The small island was uninhabited except for some 30 natives of the Seychelles who were working there in connection with the phosphate industry. The crew had brought provisions with them & supplemented their diet with coconuts, seabirds & fish. After 23 days they were picked up by the Hamburg steamer Somali & landed at Dar Esh-Salem.

Crew 1911:             Swan, James, 2nd engineer, Seaham Harbour

Wreck Report, Portcities Southampton:

In the matter of a Formal Investigation held at the Municipal Buildings, West Hartlepool, on the 14th, 15th, and 16th days of March, 1912, before ROBERT MARTIN and WILLIAM RICHARD OWEN, Esquires, Justices of the Peace for the County Borough of West Hartlepool, assisted by Captains ALEXANDER WOOD and JOHN TAYLOR, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British steamship "EUSTON," of West Hartlepool, on a reef about two miles south of Juan de Nova Island, Mozambique Channel, on the 21st day of November, 1911, and her subsequent total loss.

Report of Court.

The Court having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds for the reasons stated in the Annex hereto, that the stranding and loss of the vessel appears to have been caused by the set of a tide or ourrent for which allowance was not made; the master, from positions obtained from observations of sun and stars previous to the stranding, not having observed any effect of current on his courses and being unaware of the direction in which any tide or current was setting; and that the loss of the steamship "Euston" was not caused by the wrongful act or default of Charles Edward Underwood, the master. The Court is, however, of opinion that he would have acted more wisely had he set a course to pass the Island of Juan de Nova, during the darkness of night, at a greater distance than that at which he attempted to pass it, in his uncertain knowledge of the direction and strength of tides and currents in its vicinity.

Dated this 16th day of March, 1912.

Annex to the Report.

This Inquiry was held at the Municipal Buildings, West Hartlepool, on the 14th, 15th, and 16th days of March, 1912.

Mr. Percy Corder, solicitor, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, conducted the proceedings on behalf of the Board of Trade, and Mr. J. C. P. Thompson, solicitor, West Hartlepool, appeared on behalf of the master and owners of the vessel.

The "Euston," Official Number 119865, was a British steamship built of steel at Middlesbrough by Messrs. R. Craggs and Sons, Limited, in 1905. She was registered at West Hartlepool, and was of the following dimensions:”Length, 340 feet, breadth, 47·1 feet; depth of hold, 24·7 feet; and her nett registered tonnage, after deducting 1,233·03 tons for propelling power and crew space, was 2,278·19 tons. The vessel had two masts and was schooner-rigged. She was constructed with six watertight bulkheads, and was propelled by triple-expansion direct-acting surface-condensing engines of 260 nominal horse-power combined.

She was owned by Mr. Thomas Barraclough, of West Hartlepool, who was also registered manager of the vessel under advice by his hand received 6th April, 1905.

She carried four boats, placed in chocks under davits (two of which were lifehoats), and was supplied with 40 lifebelts and six lifebuoys. She had three compasses, as described in answers to questions, and a Bliss patent taffrail log, and was in good condition and well equipped in all respects.

The "Euston," having loaded a cargo of 5,490 tons of phosphate at Port Tampa, in the Gulf of Mexico, proceeded on her voyage to Yokohama, and called at Durban, South Africa, for bunker coals, after being supplied with which she left that port on the 16th of November at 6 p.m. and resumed her voyage; her draught of water then being 22 feet 3 inches forward, and 22 feet 4 inches aft. She was under command of Mr. Charles E. Underwood, who holds a master's certificate, numbered 017232, and who had been in continuous command of the vessel since she was built. The crew consisted of 30 hands, all told; there were no passengers on board.

The master, after consulting with other shipmasters while in Durban, decided to proceed on his voyage through the Mozambique Channel, in order to avoid the strongest of the south-east trade winds, and for this purpose obtained the necessary charts of the Mozambique Channel before sailing.

On the 20th of November Europa Island was passed on the starboard side, and was found by a four-point bearing to be 2½ miles distant when abeam at 6.25 a.m. of that day. After passing this island the course was altered from N. 64° E. to N. 36° E. by the standard compass. At noon of this date the position of the vessel was found by observation to be lat. 21° 33' S., long. 40° 39' E.; and at 10.20 p.m. the course was altered from N. 36° E. to N. 38° E., the error on this course being 10° W., which was found by a sun Azimuth.

The chart used in the navigation being a true chart, the error, as found directly from observation, was applied to the courses. A rough book for entering the results of observations taken for deviation was kept in the chart house. From this book, which was produced in Court, it appears that by a mistake on the part of the deck officers the deviations found by observation on the 20th and 21st of November were entered "West" when they should have been "East," but as the errors of the compasses were also there correctly recorded, and these, and not the deviations were used in setting the courses, the mistake in naming the deviation would not affect the position of the vessel at this time, although if subsequently, in consequence of thick weather, it had become necessary to find the compass error by combining the deviation with the variation after the variation had been changed owing to the altered position of the vessel, the error so found would have been incorrect, and if applied to the course, such course would have been erroneous. The master, however, stated that he himself would have discovered this mistake when, according to his usual practice, he entered the deviations from this rough book into a record book of deviations which he kept. This record book was not produced in Court as it had been left in the vessel.

At noon of the 21st of November the position was found by observation to be lat. 18° 27' S., long. 42° 7' E.

At 5 p.m. observations of the sun were taken for longitude, the vessel's position from these observations was calculated independently by the master and second officer, and the position of the vessel was found to be 42° 22' E. At 6 p.m. the chief officer also took an observation of the sun from which he found the longitude to be 42° 25' 45" E. At 6.56 p.m. by observations of two stars the vessel's position was found to be lat. 17° 30' S., long. 42° 28' E. All these observations showed the vessel to have made good the courses the master had set, and also the distance the vessel had run by dead reckoning.

At 4 p.m. the course was altered from N. 20° E. to N. 27° E., but at 8 p.m. the course N. 20° E. was again resumed. The master stated that he made this latter alteration in order to keep a little further off the Island of Juan de Nova while passing it during darkness. On this course the vessel should have passed the island at a distance of 10 miles.

The weather was fine and clear, there being little or no wind and a smooth sea; the vessel was going full speed, making about 8½ knots through the water, and the master anticipated being abreast of the Island of Juan de Nova about 10.20 p.m.

A little after 10 p.m. the master left the bridge temporarily, as he stated, leaving the second officer in charge and an able seaman on the look-out forward. He had just got below when the vessel crashed into a reef with great force. He rushed to the bridge and shouted to the second officer to stop the engines, which the latter was then in the act of doing.

Soundings were taken, and, as entered in the scrap log, 12 feet of water was found forward and 17 fathoms aft at the stern. The master did not put the engines astern as he was afraid the vessel would then sink in deep water.

The hatches were taken off No. 2 hold, and it was found that the bottom of the vessel had been set up. The stanchions were bent and buckled, and water was heard to be rushing into the hold. All available pumping power was put on, but the water gained so rapidly that it was soon above the cargo, and by this time the fore peak was also full.

When the vessel had stranded nothing whatever could be seen of breakers or land for some little time, but afterwards a light was observed at some distance, and signals of distress were made by means of rockets.

About 3 a.m. a boat came to the vessel, and the master made arrangements with the man in charge of the island, who was a French subject, to assist him in jettisoning cargo, his intention being to get the vessel afloat with the view of taking her back to Durban.

On the 22nd, the agent or man in charge of the island strongly advised the crew to come on shore, and warned them that if they remained on board and the weather changed (of which there was some indication) they would have great difficulty in getting ashore through the surf. in accordance with this advice, at 3 p.m. all hands landed on the island safely.

On the 23rd the vessel broke in two parts, and on the 24th the only part of the vessel to be seen above water was the poop.

The place of stranding is said to be two miles south of the Island of Juan de Nova, but it does not appear from the chart that there is any reef on the south side of the island extending to a distance approaching two miles from it.

The steamship "Somali," of Hamburg, eventually took the crew of the "Euston" off the Island of Juan de Nova.

It was pointed out by the solicitor to the Board of Trade that if the deviation had been applied to the course, between the time of obtaining the position by observation at about 7 p.m. and the time of stranding, under the same (wrong) name as it was entered in the rough deck book, this mistake would bring the vessel close to the place where she stranded. But, as opposed to this solution, there is the statement of the master and officers that the error was applied to the compass course directly as it was found from observation without having regard as to what part of it consisted of deviation or variation, and, again, the course by standard compass was before the Court and also the error on this course, from which the Court found that the true course steered was as the master laid it down on the chart.

The helmsman, George Henry Barnes, who steered the vessel for about a quarter-of-an-hour, from 10 p.m. till the vessel stranded, stated, and persisted in stating, that the course he got and steered was N.E. by E. ¼ E. by the steering compass. His evidence, on this point, was in direct conflict with that of the master, second officer, and apprentice, Frank Henry Perry, whom he relieved, who had been between two and three years in the vessel, and impressed the Court as being a very intelligent witness. These witnesses all stated that the course by steering compass was N. by E. ¼ E. The Court has no difficulty in accepting the statement of the latter witnesses on this point. Barnes also stated that just before stranding, the vessel's head was swept off to N. by W. against the helm; now, if the course steered were as he stated, her head would have passed over an are of six points of the compass. As reflecting on the credibility of the evidence of Barnes, he further stated that, at the time of stranding, the speed of the vessel was 10 knots, and, when pressed on this point, asserted that it was between 10 and 11. whereas all the other evidence on this point is to the effect that the speed was about 8½, and this evidence is confirmed by reference to the log book. On the transcript of register, the vessel's speed, when new, is stated to have been 9½ knots.

With regard to the vessel being carried so far off her course, between 6.56 p.m. (when her position was obtained by observation) and the time of stranding, after full and deliberate consideration, the Court found that the main cause was probably a tide or current setting to the eastward after the last position was found by observation. This theory was strongly contended for by the master's solicitor, who, in support of it, produced the report of the Inquiry into the loss of the steamship "Tottenham," held at Durban on the 21st of March, 1911, a letter from the captain of the "Somali," who took the crew of the "Euston" off the Island of Juan de Nova, and also a statement which the master said was made by fishermen regarding the uncertainty and occasional strength of an easterly current.

In view of the contents of these productions, and the fact stated to be the case that two other vessels were lying wrecked on the reefs near the island where the "Euston" stranded, the solicitor for the master and owners pressed upon the notice of the Court the necessity of recommending that a proper warning of such currents should be entered in the sailing directions and noted on the chart. On referring, however, to the Admiralty sailing directions quoted, in answering the questions, the Court found that cautions are there already entered regarding the uncertainty of the strength and directions of currents in the Mozambique Channel, but, in view of the facts adduced at this investigation, there is an entry in the said book of directions, "Islands in the Southern Indian Ocean, westward of Longitude 80° East, including Madagascar, Second Edition, 1904, published by order of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty," which the Court considers may have had great influence in bringing the master of the "Euston" into his present trouble and may mislead others, viz.:—At page 26, line 21, is an entry which states that vessels bound for the north-west coast of Madagascar "should pass close westward of the Island of Juan de Nova." Although the "Euston" was not bound to the north-west coast of Madagascar, yet her course to Yokohama, through the Mozambique Channel, took her as close to that coast as it was prudent for her to be taken, and from all the oral and written evidence that has been produced, and in view of the uncertainty as to direction and strength of currents, and the fact that soundings do not appear to be obtainable from southward till the reef is reached, the Court considers that to pass close by the Island of Juan de Nova in darkness, or during thick weather, is extremely dangerous navigation, and, also, the risk is unnecessary seeing there is such an extent of clear water to the westward of the Island of Juan de Nova.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the solicitor for the Board of Trade submitted the following questions:

1. What number of compasses had the vessel, were they in good order and sufficient for the safe navigation of the vessel, and when and by whom were they last adjusted?

2. Did the master ascertain the deviation of his compasses by observation from time to time; were the errors correctly ascertained and the proper corrections to the courses applied?

3. Was the vessel supplied with proper and sufficient charts and sailing directions?

4. Was the position of the vessel correctly ascertained at or about 6.25 a.m. of the 20th November last? Were safe and proper courses thereafter steered, and was due and proper allowance made for tide and currents?

5. Were proper measures taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel from time to time after 6.25 a.m. of the 20th November last?

6. Was the lead used before the stranding; if not, should it have been used?

7. Was a good and proper look-out kept?

8. What was the cause of the stranding and loss of the vessel?

9. Was the vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

10. Was the loss of the steamship "Euston" caused by the wrongful act or default of the master?

The solicitor for the master and owners having addressed the Court, and the solicitor for the Board of Trade having replied, the Court answered the questions as follows:”

1. The vessel had three compasses, the Standard compass on the upper bridge by which the courses were set and the vessel navigated, a steering compass on the lower bridge by which the courses were steered, and another compass aft, placed in front of the hand steering-gear. They were in good order and sufficient for the safe navigation of the vessel, and were said to have been last adjusted about three or four years ago by Mr. Stanton, optician, Newport.

2. The master ascertained the deviation of his compasses by observation from time to time; the errors were correctly ascertained and the proper corrections to the courses applied.

3. The vessel was supplied with proper and sufficient charts and sailing directions.

4. The position of the vessel was correctly ascertained at or about 6.25 a.m. of 20th November last. The courses set and steered thereafter were safe and proper provided they had been made good. No allowance was made for tide or currents as the master was unaware of the direction in which any tide or current was setting, and from positions obtained from observations of sun and stars previous to the stranding, he observed no effect of current on his courses; yet considering the warning contained in the Admiralty official book of directions, "Islands in the South Indian Ocean," from pages 20 and 26, the Court considers the master would have acted more wisely had he set a course to have passed the Island of Juan de Nova at a greater distance off during darkness.

5. Proper measures were taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel from time to time after 6.25 a.m. of the 20th November last.

6. The lead was not used before the stranding nor should it have been used; seeing from the Admiralty chart of the Mozambique Channel, No. 597, which was produced in Court, and by which the master was navigating at the time, the use of the lead would not have indicated the vessel's position nor have given any warning of danger as the reef was approached.

7. A good and proper look-out was kept.

8. The stranding and loss of the vessel appears to have been caused by the set of a tide or current, for which allowance was not made.

9. As qualified by answer to question four, the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care.

10. The loss of the steamship "Euston" was not caused by the wrongful act or default of the master, although, as already stated in answer to a previous question, he would have acted more wisely had he set a course to pass the Island of Juan de Nova, during the darkness of night, at a greater distance off than that at which he attempted to pass it, in his uncertain knowledge of the direction and strength of tide and currents in the vicinity.

 (Issued in London by the Board of Trade on the 17th day of April, 1912.)

Related items :