Question No1, Why were the lifeboat davits rusted on such a new ship preventing them from being swung out to launch a boat unless a steam winch was used to move them?
Answer Q1, The lifeboat davits were never rusted, the type of davits supplied to the Waratah were known as rotating davits with the shafts that extended from the boat deck to the next deck below.
The blue arrow points to a circular bracket (oiled or greased) attached to the boat deck, the red arrow points to the deck socket (greased) and secured by heavy bolts through the deck. This diagram shows the davit inboard of the ships side, many ships such as the Waratah had their davits secured to the outside of the ship. The reason they could not be moved in the normal manner for launching was due to the fact that they became slightly bent at the round boat deck brackets caused by the heavy boat deck moving. When the Waratah rolled in a seaway the boat deck moved laterally to the bottom structure of the ship, this action is known as racking.
Racking is more usual in ships when sailing empty however excessive top weight such as the boat deck of the Waratah had a similar effect.
SS WARATAH AT STEAMERS WHARF ADELAIDE ON HER FINAL VOYAGE JULY 1909.
The top arrow is the boat deck bracket where the slight bending would have taken place, the lower arrow is the base socket.
Swinging a boat out with this type of davit has always been hard work requiring a lot of strength and brawn with a good ten or twelve men to push one end of the boat out at time causing the davit to rotate out over the ships side. There was plenty of proof that the boat deck moved when the ship rolled, deck planking opened up and needed re-caulking, a bolt had snapped off and fell onto the promenade deck as well as gap opening up above the saloon doorway so wide that a man could put his fingers in it. Here we have an actual eye witness on the second voyage, Nicholas Sharp Able Seaman (AB) who gives a definitive account of trying to move a life boat.
Giving evidence Nicholas Sharp said," after arriving in Sydney, and when she was berthed at the wharf (Millers Wharf), I saw some of the crew trying to lift No 6 boat off the chocks. I was off duty at the time, on account of sickness. The removal of the boat was necessary for the purpose of bunkering. Between ten and fifteen men were hauling on the tackle falls of No 6 boat. They had difficulty in raising the boat off the chocks (wooden cradles that the boat sits in on the deck) because of a rope to big a gauge through the block. The chief officer was present shortly afterwards, and the men tried to haul the davits round by hand but failed. then a tackle was rigged (block and tackle) and the men hauled on the tackle but could not shift the davits.
Block and tackle the men used but could not move the davits.
By the direction of the chief officer who came on deck at the time, a four inch rope was passed around the end of the davit and attached to a steam winch; the steam was applied and the davits were pulled around in that way, the davits were rusted in (so they thought). The ship was lying over on the wharf at Sydney, it was a very big list. When the vessel arrived in Sydney I was under treatment by the ship's doctor, and I asked for a discharge on the ground of sickness. I did not want to go back on the ship, I was well enough to have gone back. I asked to leave the vessel because I thought she was unseaworthy. I was given my discharge and left the vessel on the 17th of June 1909". Here was an experienced seaman of many years experience who because of his fear of the ship made out he was a sick man in desperation to save himself.
SWINGING OUT A LIFE BOAT DURING A DRILL IN 1897.
This obviously is only a drill as the lifeboat cover is still intact. and the ship is underway, probably it's the first time for this crew judging by the amount of officers supervising the crew who appear to be Lascars. (From the Indian Sub Continent)
Question No 2, Was Captain Ilbery driving or pushing the Waratah on the second voyage home?
Answer Q 2, Yes without a doubt he was driving his ship hard to arrive in London at the earliest.
In the court of inquiry Mr.Laing for the Board of Trade mentions a letter in July 1909 from the Melbourne agent of the owners to Captain Ilbery in which they expressed a wish that the Waratah should make a good passage home. He did did not give instructions for the captain to push the vessel home. She arrived at Durban one day ahead, but that was because a considerable latitude was allowed, he was instructed to leave one day early. During the course of my research I came across the actual letter which virtually inferred that Captain Ilbery should make a fast passage. The letter was written by John Sanderson to Messrs Lund in London.
LETTER,
"WARATAH", this steamer arrived on the morning of Monday, the 28th Ist., and to this effect we cabled you as per interpretation slip (list of cargo shipped from Melbourne). She leaves here tomorrow -i c., one day ahead of her programmed time. This has been arranged so as to avoid as much overtime as possible at Adelaide. She is getting a very good cargo here, and will have nearly 2,000 bales of wool. A quantity of this wool is for Dunkirk and for America and it is essential it should be delivered as quickly as possible.
We had in competition with us for this wool (which is out of a sale which was held last week, the Indragheiri ,which vessel went via the Suez Canal. We are very anxious that her arrival dates should not be to greatly ahead of those of the Waratah. We explained this to Captain Ilbery and he knows the necessity of reaching London at the earliest possible opportunity.
SS INDRAGHERI COMPETITOR TO WARATAH FOR THE WOOL CARGO.
Added to the above letter by the agent, Mr. Hodder the Chief Engineer wrote a letter from Durban on July 25th 1909 to Mr. Shanks engineer superintendent for Lund's in London. He stated that on account of the ship being deep I could not fill No 8 tank with 250 tons of fresh water. I was instructed by Captain Ilbery to drive home (full steam on all boilers) and take sufficient for same, it being a winter passage, I took sufficient coal to run no risks. There is an obvious miss report by a newspaper for we know that No 8 tank is a saltwater ballast tank holding 222 tons. What Mr. Hodder meant, was that he wanted to fill No 8 tank with salt water but was unable to do so because the Waratah was either sitting on the bottom at her berth at C shed or very close to it. The reason he couldn't fill the tank was that the pipe from the sea chest (water inlet on the bottom of the hull) to the valve that lets in the water when opened up was completely blocked. Why did he need to fill that particular tank? the answer lies in the fact that there was a note written on the stability graph. The note states "if any condition is to be considered that the vessel has insufficient stability, the filling of No 8 tank increases the GM by about 4" inches. We know that the ship had a list and we are told that the coal needed to be trimmed to make the ship level and Captain Ilbery held up the sailing until the ship was upright. I do not believe the Waratah was as stable as the court implied when she sailed from Durban. 240 tons of cargo was unloaded at Durban, but I have a statement to say a great deal more was off loaded and no cargo taken in. Room had to be made due the fact that she was going to load bagged maize at Capetown for London which was going to be stowed in No 1 hold, no mention of this was made at the Inquiry.
Racking is more usual in ships when sailing empty however excessive top weight such as the boat deck of the Waratah had a similar effect.
SS WARATAH AT STEAMERS WHARF ADELAIDE ON HER FINAL VOYAGE JULY 1909.
The top arrow is the boat deck bracket where the slight bending would have taken place, the lower arrow is the base socket.
Swinging a boat out with this type of davit has always been hard work requiring a lot of strength and brawn with a good ten or twelve men to push one end of the boat out at time causing the davit to rotate out over the ships side. There was plenty of proof that the boat deck moved when the ship rolled, deck planking opened up and needed re-caulking, a bolt had snapped off and fell onto the promenade deck as well as gap opening up above the saloon doorway so wide that a man could put his fingers in it. Here we have an actual eye witness on the second voyage, Nicholas Sharp Able Seaman (AB) who gives a definitive account of trying to move a life boat.
Giving evidence Nicholas Sharp said," after arriving in Sydney, and when she was berthed at the wharf (Millers Wharf), I saw some of the crew trying to lift No 6 boat off the chocks. I was off duty at the time, on account of sickness. The removal of the boat was necessary for the purpose of bunkering. Between ten and fifteen men were hauling on the tackle falls of No 6 boat. They had difficulty in raising the boat off the chocks (wooden cradles that the boat sits in on the deck) because of a rope to big a gauge through the block. The chief officer was present shortly afterwards, and the men tried to haul the davits round by hand but failed. then a tackle was rigged (block and tackle) and the men hauled on the tackle but could not shift the davits.
By the direction of the chief officer who came on deck at the time, a four inch rope was passed around the end of the davit and attached to a steam winch; the steam was applied and the davits were pulled around in that way, the davits were rusted in (so they thought). The ship was lying over on the wharf at Sydney, it was a very big list. When the vessel arrived in Sydney I was under treatment by the ship's doctor, and I asked for a discharge on the ground of sickness. I did not want to go back on the ship, I was well enough to have gone back. I asked to leave the vessel because I thought she was unseaworthy. I was given my discharge and left the vessel on the 17th of June 1909". Here was an experienced seaman of many years experience who because of his fear of the ship made out he was a sick man in desperation to save himself.
SWINGING OUT A LIFE BOAT DURING A DRILL IN 1897.
This obviously is only a drill as the lifeboat cover is still intact. and the ship is underway, probably it's the first time for this crew judging by the amount of officers supervising the crew who appear to be Lascars. (From the Indian Sub Continent)
Question No 2, Was Captain Ilbery driving or pushing the Waratah on the second voyage home?
Answer Q 2, Yes without a doubt he was driving his ship hard to arrive in London at the earliest.
In the court of inquiry Mr.Laing for the Board of Trade mentions a letter in July 1909 from the Melbourne agent of the owners to Captain Ilbery in which they expressed a wish that the Waratah should make a good passage home. He did did not give instructions for the captain to push the vessel home. She arrived at Durban one day ahead, but that was because a considerable latitude was allowed, he was instructed to leave one day early. During the course of my research I came across the actual letter which virtually inferred that Captain Ilbery should make a fast passage. The letter was written by John Sanderson to Messrs Lund in London.
LETTER,
"WARATAH", this steamer arrived on the morning of Monday, the 28th Ist., and to this effect we cabled you as per interpretation slip (list of cargo shipped from Melbourne). She leaves here tomorrow -i c., one day ahead of her programmed time. This has been arranged so as to avoid as much overtime as possible at Adelaide. She is getting a very good cargo here, and will have nearly 2,000 bales of wool. A quantity of this wool is for Dunkirk and for America and it is essential it should be delivered as quickly as possible.
We had in competition with us for this wool (which is out of a sale which was held last week, the Indragheiri ,which vessel went via the Suez Canal. We are very anxious that her arrival dates should not be to greatly ahead of those of the Waratah. We explained this to Captain Ilbery and he knows the necessity of reaching London at the earliest possible opportunity.
SS INDRAGHERI COMPETITOR TO WARATAH FOR THE WOOL CARGO.
Added to the above letter by the agent, Mr. Hodder the Chief Engineer wrote a letter from Durban on July 25th 1909 to Mr. Shanks engineer superintendent for Lund's in London. He stated that on account of the ship being deep I could not fill No 8 tank with 250 tons of fresh water. I was instructed by Captain Ilbery to drive home (full steam on all boilers) and take sufficient for same, it being a winter passage, I took sufficient coal to run no risks. There is an obvious miss report by a newspaper for we know that No 8 tank is a saltwater ballast tank holding 222 tons. What Mr. Hodder meant, was that he wanted to fill No 8 tank with salt water but was unable to do so because the Waratah was either sitting on the bottom at her berth at C shed or very close to it. The reason he couldn't fill the tank was that the pipe from the sea chest (water inlet on the bottom of the hull) to the valve that lets in the water when opened up was completely blocked. Why did he need to fill that particular tank? the answer lies in the fact that there was a note written on the stability graph. The note states "if any condition is to be considered that the vessel has insufficient stability, the filling of No 8 tank increases the GM by about 4" inches. We know that the ship had a list and we are told that the coal needed to be trimmed to make the ship level and Captain Ilbery held up the sailing until the ship was upright. I do not believe the Waratah was as stable as the court implied when she sailed from Durban. 240 tons of cargo was unloaded at Durban, but I have a statement to say a great deal more was off loaded and no cargo taken in. Room had to be made due the fact that she was going to load bagged maize at Capetown for London which was going to be stowed in No 1 hold, no mention of this was made at the Inquiry.
