cHUSAN" AND "atory."
(Engineering, Nov. 6th.)
Among the shipping casualties which occurred during the recent storms are two which, with the others, naturally attracted public attention, owing involved, but sufficient importance has, it appears to us, scarcely yet been attached to them, 1 men regard them as two of the and. instructive, although deplorable losses, that have occurred for some years. We refer to the wreck of the paddle-Steamer Chusan off Ardrossan, on the 22nd of last month, when the vessel' parted in two, the bow floating into harbour, and the stern ug outside; and to the even worse case of the steamer Mary on the same day, which vessel suddenly broke off amidships as she was steaming across the Bay of Biscay, and sank in a tew minotes. Much has. been written within the last year or two about the weakness of mew iron ships, and the host of new steamers which within the same time put to sea and were never afterwards heard of, gave rise to very considerable doubt and apprehension, This feeling has, however, been somewhat subsiding of late, but the breaking off in the middle of these two new steamers on the same day is likely to excite alarm, and with the winter months still before us, return of the excitement and mistrust of inst year and the year before is much to be feared. It is important to bear in mind that neither of these vessels can be said to have formed part of the mercantile marine of this country, although they were built here. They were abnormal specimens of naval architecture, and 90 far as we can learn were designed chiefly for coasting trades abroad. Neither of them was classed, and their fate is sufficient to show that their scantlings and strength were not such as to bring them within the magic pale of 'A 1 Loy:
'A Board of Trade inquiry is now being held at Ardrossan into the circumstan the loss of the Chusan, doubtless soon be held to investigate the of the Mary; under these circumstances we are anxious to confine ourselves to the general and well-known features of the questi involved in the loss of these vessels, pointing to the direction these inquiries should take and leaving to others to appttion the blame, as blame there must obviously be somewhere, earn, about 1,000 tons register, and she had a at this season of the year? Our own Govern-peculiarly formed section, resembling somewhat the shape——~, the bilge curving down about 3 ft. on each side, 80 as to be as low down as the bottom of the deep centre keel. The depth of hold at the middle line w: about 10 ft., and at each side about 13 ft. It will be at once conceded that this enormous Tength for such a shallow depth rendered the vessela monstrosity as a seagoing ocean steam Te may, on the other hand, be asked why, if the vestd was merely intended for coasting, did she start for an ocean voyage towards the end of October, when she was almost certain to fall in with heavy weather? She was built by the firm of John Elder and Ca., one of the largest and best known firms on the Clyde, for Messrs, Baring Brothers, the well-known bankers, who, we believe, are acting in the matter as agents for the foreign owners of the vessel, These names are sufficient guarantee that the. vessel was built and sent to sea in good faith, How far ignorance in matters of this kind begets responsibility is, however, a serious matter, and one into which we do not care to enter. The Chusan sailed from the Clyde for Shanghai on the 10th ult., and soon met with heavy weather in the [tish Sea. She is said to have had 1,200 tons of cargo on hoard, and she was found to be straining 40 'There appears to be little doubt that the vessel badly' that she ud to pat into Waterford was found to be bending up and down longitudinally, and that much vibration and straining was observable. The insurance for the voyage out had been effected before she left Glasgow to the amount of £60,000 at the ordinary premium of £3, At Waterford it was decided that the vessel was too weak to proceed of: her voyage, and it was determined to take ler back to the Clyde to be strengthened. The underwriters appear to have taken an additional risk on her of ten shillings per cent. fur the voyage back to the Clyde, after having sent a representative to examine the vessel at Waterford, After leavin Waterford on the return voyage, she met wit a frightful storm, and in trying to make the Clyde she seems to have become as unmanageable as any disabled sailing ship on a lee shore, although her engi kept working. Indespai her sufficiently to windward to reach the Clyde, the pilot tried to run her into Ardro: harbour, and in the attempt to do this she struck th Crinan rock within two hundred y: harbour's mouth, and immediately broke in two. It is not clear whether she struck the rock at the part where she separated, or whether the shock of striking nearer the bow or stern was sufficient to cause her to break where she did through inherent weakness. This is a material point which we hope to s cleared up by the inquiry. She broke off at about 100 ft., one: id of her len th, from the bow, in the boiler space, just abaft a water-ight bulkhead, the term part sinking out side, and the fore part floating into, the harbour as stated aber hho hay seen the wreck that the plating is lo than half an inch thick, and that the framing of the vessel is quite inadequate for a sea. aoing ship of her size, Iti alto stated that Where the vessel parted thee was an enormous opening 30 ft. wide in the deck. But ti are matters which will doubt! be gated by the Court of Inquiry.
That the vessel was weak appears to be admitted. That owing to her form and proportions ah © unmanageable, and could not keep off a lee shore, appears to be equally clear. But the fact of her strike rock before breaking leaves a doubt at present whether her loss was due to hier weakness, or whether a much stronger vessel under the same circumstances would not have gone to pieces, The case of the Mary, however, admits of no such doubt, Hers was a pure case of breaking in two through sheer structural weakness, without the aid of rocks. She aleo was built for a foreign firm, for coasting purposes, and was on her to Tri dad Frith 150 tons of cargo on board, whet moderately rough weather ships, avd suddenly built' on the Clyde Seath, and was a vessel of about 300 tons, but ber dimensions have not yet transpired.
Te will doubtless be asked in this case also, if the vessel was not intended for seagoing The Chusan was a vessel 300 ft. long, 60 ft. purposes, why was she sent on a long voyage ment have before now built ironclad monitors
seaworthy, for the defence of Bombay and in this country that could scarcely be termed Melbourne harbours; but before sending them out to their destination, precautions have always been taken to render them perfectly seaworthy for the voyage, or they have been out in the summer months.
There can be little doubt that the practice of building vessels of extremely light scantlings in this country for trade abroad requires the most serious attention of foreign owners, as well as of English and foreign underwriters, and even of Government. would not be difficult to point to other vessels now building, intended for over the seas, whose chances, if they met rough weather, would be little better than those of the Jar; or the Chusan. Speaking generally—without any reference to the two vessels we have entioned—itis but too true that foreign owners often come or send agents to thi country to order vessels with impossible ce ditions as to size, carrying capacity, speed, and draught of water, or else unduly restricted. as to cost, and, after expecting to get good seaworthy British-Luilt ships, find themselves eventually with slim, unsubstantial rattletraps, that no decent English owner would venture to trade with, and no register society of repute would look at for classification, except for river purposes only.
Where unusual lightness of hull is sought, in order to obtain light draught of water, the utmost care and skill of the naval architect is required in order to insure efficiency as to strength, avd often complicated devices, firing much thought have to be resorted to in the construction, which lead to increased. cost of workmanship. Unfortunately, however, the building of these light vessels falls frequently into the hands of builders who have no claims whatever to the title of skilful naval architects, and with them there is
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.