TAHITI DISASTER

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 370, 13 September 1930, Page 8

TAHITI DISASTER

INQUIRY CONTINUED EVIDENCE OF ENGINEERS RAPID ENTRY OF WATER CRACK IN THE BULKHEAD [ Per Press Association. ] WELLINGTON, Sept. 12. The Tahiti inquiry was continued today, Mr Thomson, second engineer, continuing his evidence. To Mr Prendeville, he said that he had had no previous experience of a broken shaft. To Mr Hay, he said that the chief engineer and not the master took charge of the engine-room. The master provided everything that was required. While in the tunnel, when he rushed into it he did not contemplate closing the intermediate door. It was humanly impossible to close it owing to the amount of water flowing in. It would have meant exerting his own persona! strength against the water. The flow of water was indicated by the fact that when he got back to the main bulkhead it had overtaken him. After the bulkhead door was closed by the gear, he gave it a few knocks with a hammer to ensure that it was closed. The door was kept open for the reason that the bearings of the shafting in the tunnel had to be inspected every half-hour. The door was tested every Sunday under normal conditions, and the Sunday before they arrived at Wellington the door was closed and opened. It appeared to be in perfect working order and there was no indication of any apertures at the sides. To Mr White: Engineers and greasers wont along the tunnel every halfhour in the ordinary course of their work.

To Captain Worrall.—The fact that the water when he first saw it was shooting across from the starboard to port showed that the vessel ’s stern was punctured on the starboard side. That was what he reported. Doors Were Shut. Captain Worrall put a number of questions relating to the quick sinking Df the ship after she was abandoned and pressed witness if the doors were shut. Witness was positive that the doors were shut. To Mr Parker: 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 that the water was above the plates at the after end of the engine room. To Mr Hawle: If there was only a rent in the side of the ship at the stern that would 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 and painted and it was in good order then. To Mr Kirkcaldie: Witness agreed that the dancing of the broken shaft being sufficient to shake the boilers might also be sufficient to damage or erack the bulkhead. There was only 1 shaft clearance through the bulkhead and no gland or bearing. To Mr Page: 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. Chief Engineer’s Views. Mr McPherson (chief engineer), laid that he had been on the Tahiti for ibout two years. When leaving Wellington nothing out of the ordinary happened. Witness said that he was asleep when the accident happened, but was awakened by the vibration. When he got to the engine-room the tunnel door was shut, the engine was stopped, and water was coming from around 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 in the door Itself. Witness got the pumps going and reported to the master straight away. He asked for the carpenter and to send down shoring 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. 6ia. deep at the bulkhead. The port engine was kept going slowly throughout. He could see the bubbling of water below, suggesting a fracture. He inspected and there appeared to be 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 later extended, and as far as he could see, reached to the port shaft. When he left the ship witness left t’ e pumps running with the door to the stokehold closed. Witness said that the tail end of the shaft was put in last July. It appeared not to be a new shaft and appeared to have been used before. There were two small radical cracks in the flange of the starboard stern bush, but even had these gone right through they would not have affected the propeller or shaft. The bush, witnessed remarked, was about seven feet long. Witness considered that when the shaft broke the engine end in trying to overtake

the broken part caused it to whip round and fracture the side of the ship, also the top of the bearing might have been pushed through the bossing. The water got into number three and four 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, he thought, would have known of it. Crack Increases. To Mr Kirkcaldie, witness said that the inrush of water into the tunnel imprisoning the air would have given a hydraulic or a hammer effect on the tunnel walls and the bulkhead. The crack in the bulkhead seemed to increase in length all the time they were fighting to keep the ship afloat. ' In reply to various questions, witness said that there were certain pipes into the tunnel, but these were closed. In regard to the old closed- ventilator the second engineer had mentioned, witness did not think this would have any connection with the water getting into the holds. To Mr W. Hay: The initial fatal Ramage was what happened to the bulkhead door. To Captain Worrall: He thought the vibration was the primary cause of the fracture of the bulkhead door. By the way the door lay or sat, he had the impression that the door frame itself was fractured.

To Mr Page: He had no doubt whatever that there was a fracture of the tail shaft, also that the side of the ship was fractured.

To Mr Hay: Witness gave as the reason for not using the port engine after the first two hours, the fact that he had a crack in the bulkhead, and was afraid that the vibration of the engine would hasten it towards the port shaft, to which it ultimately reached. Witness did not know how far the crack extended on the starboard side. Broken Shafts. Questioned as to broken shafts, he said that he had had no experience of one. Broken shafts were not uncommon, particularly with some ships. He quoted two cases of ships, one of which had lost 17 and the other 21. He did not mean always at sea, but including shafts taken out when the vessels were docked out and the flaws discovered, which would have ultimately meant a breakage at sea. He knew of no case of a broken shaft causing such damage as had occurred to the Tahiti. The damage from broken shafts was rare. He himself knew of only one other case, and that occasion was after the peak had filled with water, but there was no damage to the tunnel walls or bulkheads. Shafts break most frequently where the shafts were long and where the ships were lightly built aft. He thought that the shaft was out of alignment or fouled. He had no doubts that some damage was done to the bulkheads by the shaft getting out of alignment and further by racing the engine. When the enquiry was resumed this afternoon, D. A. Gibb, fifth engineer, said that between 4 a.m. and 4.20 a.mhe was in the tunnel, when everything was all right. He detailed the turning off of the power and the stopping of the engines. He saw water coming through the door as the second engineer came out of the tunnel. It was about a minute between the time the engines raced and the time the door was shut- He took a quick glance and saw water coming from the bottom and sides of the door- The watertight door seemed to dose prefectly and worked quickly. Noise Terrific Other evidence of a technical nature was given by members of the engineroom and stokehold. All agreed that the noise was terrific. Then the engines raced. Robert Gillies, assistant superintending engineer for the Union Company, produced survey records showing that the vessel was classed “A” in 1928The starboard tail shaft was replaced in 1928 and the stern shaft in 1929. The vessel was due for a complete survey in October, 1930. John Foster, marine superintendent for the Union Company, gave evidence of the vessel’s insurance. Despite her age of 26 years, the Tahiti’s plates were still good and in advance of Lloyd’s requirements.

Mr Kirkcaldie, for the master and deck officers, said the inquiry was unique through a complete absence of any suggestion of dereliction of duty, which he thought the Court should place on record, together with the fact that all the members of the ciew had worthily upheld the traditions of the service. Mr White, on behalf of the Union Company, supported Mr Kirkcaldie’s remarks and said that thanks should be recorded to the captain, officers and crew of the Penybryn. The assistance of the Ventura already had been recognised. Mr Page said the Court would take time to consider the evidence. A decision probably would be delivered next week.