TAHITI INQUIRY

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 12 September 1930, Page 9

TAHITI INQUIRY

STOPPING IN-RUSH OF WATER

BULKHEAD DOOR BARRICADE

SECOND ENGINEER 'S ACTION

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Sept. 12. The Tahiti inquiry was 'continued' today. Mr A. Thomson, second engineer, continuing his evidence, to Mr J. Prendevillo (appearing for the Marine Department) said he had had' no previous experience of a broken; shaft. To Mr E. P. Hay (for the engineers) ho said the chief engineer, and not the master, took charge in the engine room. The master provided everything that, was required. When he rushed into, the tunnel lie did uot contemplate closing the intermediate door. It was humanly impossible to close it owing to the amount off water flowing in. It would have meant exerting his own personal 1 strength against the water. The flow of the water was indicated by the fact that, when he. got back to the main bulkhead, it had overtaken him. After the bulkhead door ovas closed bv gear he gave it. a few "knocks, with a hammer to insure that it was 1 closed. The door was kept open for the, reason that bearings of the shafting in the tunnel had to be inspected every half-hour. The, door was tested every Sunday under normal conditions and on the Sunday before they arrived at Wellington the- door was closed and opened. It then appeared to be in perfect working order and there was no indication of any apertures at the sides.

To Mr White (for the Union Company) witness said the engineers and greasers we nit along the tun ne 1 every half-hour in the ordinary course of their work.

To Captain Warra.ll he said the fact that the water, when lie first saw it, was shooting across from starboard to port showed the vessel’.<? stern was punctured on the starboard side. That was what he reported. Captain Worrall put a number of questions relating to the quick sinking of the ship after it was abandoned anct pressed witness concerning the question of the doors being shut. Witness was positive the doors, were shut.

To Mr 'Parker (engineer assessor) witness said the shaft was last inspected on June ’6. The gland had never run hot to witness’s knowledge. By the time the bulkhead door was closed he thought water was about the plates at the; after end of the engine room. _ To Mr Hunt'ly (naval architect) witness said that if there was only a rent in the side of the ship at the stern- that iwould not- account for the water coming into the ship after the bulkhead door was closed. There must have been rents into number three or four holds. Six months .ago he had the bulkhead door chipped andi painted and it was in good order then. To Mr S. Kirkealdie (for the master and deck officers) witness agreed that the dancing of the broken shaft, being sufficient, to shake the boilers, might also bo sufficient to damage or crack -the bulkhead. There was only a shaft clearance through the bulkhead. There was no gland or bearing. To Mr Page, iS.M., witness said it was his opinion that -the bulkhead was •injured by the mishap. As he had said, six months earlier he had had it chipped and painted and so personally had seen it. -It was. in good order and condition.

Mr McPherson, chief engineer, said lie had been on the Tahiti about two years. When leaving Wellington nothing -out of the ordinary happened. Witness said he was asleep when the accident happened, but was awakened by the vibration. When lie got to the engine room the tunnel door was shut and the engine was stopped. Water was coming from ar-ound the door, very much more than would be the case ordinarily. It was squirting through. The door, normally, was a pretty close wedge-shaped fit. The water entering indicated pressure in the bulkhead or a bulge iii the d-ooiy itself. Witness got the pumps, gmng and reported to the master straight away. He asked for a carpenter and that- shoring he sent down for the bulkhead door.

Witness went on to detail the steps taken to accomplish this. The water gained all the time till about 6 o’clock, when it was about 3ft 6in deep at the bulkhead. The port engine was kept going slowly throughout. He could see a bubbling of water below, suggesting a fracture. He made an inspection and there appeared to he a fracture from the door to the starboard shaft. He could not tell the length nor width of the opening. With the pressure of water this was later extended and, as far as he could see, reached to the p-ort shaft. When he left the ship witness left the pumps running with the door -of the stokehold closed. Witness said the tail and shaft was put in last July. It appeared nojt to be a new shaft and appeared to have been used before. There were two small radial cracks in the flange of the -starboard stern bush, but, even • bad these gone right through, they, would not have affected the propeller or shaft hush. Witness 1 remarked that the cracks were about seven feet- long. He .considered that, when the shaft broke, the engine end, trying to overtake the broken part-, caused it to whip round to the fracture side of the ship ; also the top of the bearing might have been pushed through the bossing. The water got int-o No. 3 and 4 holds only very slowly and might easily have been the result even -of a, strained gland. If they had struck a mine more people in the after end of the ship would, he thought, have known of it. To Air Kirkcnldie, witness said the inrush of water into the tunnel imprisoning the air would have a hydraulic or hammer effect on the tunnel walls and the bulkhead connection. The crack in the bulkhead seemed to increase in length all the time. They wore fighting to keep the ship afloat.

Tn reply to various questions, witness said there were certain pipes into the tunnel, hut these were closed. Tn regard to an old,’ closed ventilator which the second engineer had mentioned, witness did not think this would have any connection with the water getting into- the holds. To Captain W-orrall witness said he thought- vibration was the primary cause of the fracture of the bulkhead door. By the way the door lay he had the impression that the door frame itself was fractured. To Air. Page, witness said he had no doubt whatever that there was a fracture of the tail shaft; also that the side of the ship was fractured.

To Air. Hay witness gave a:s a reason for not using the port engine after the first two hours the fact that he had

discovered a crack in the -bulkhead and was afraid the vibration of the engine would hasten it towards the port .shaft, to which it ultimately reached. AVitness did not know how far the crack extended on the, starboard side. Questioned a's to broken shafts, lie said lie had no experience of one. Broken shafts were not uncommon, particularly with some ships. He quoted two oases of ships, one of which liacl lost 17 and the other 21. He did not mean always at sea, but including the • shafts taken out when the vessels were docked and flaws discovered which would have ultimately meant breakage at sea. He knew of no case of a. broken shaft causing such damage as had occurred to the Tahiti. Damage from broken .shafts was rare. He himself knew ol -only one other case and on that occasion it was the after-peak that filled with- water, hut there was no damage to the tunnel walls or bulkheads. Shafts broke most frequently where shafts were long and where ships were lightly built art. He thought tlie shaft was out of alignment or fouled. He had no doubt that some damage was done to the- bulkhead b) the .shaft getting out of alignment and further by the racing of the engine.