STRUCK A ROCK?

Queensland Times, Friday 31 March, 1911.

YONGALA DISASTER.

No News of Passengers.

Further Wreckage Picked Up.

Energetic Search Continues.

The question as to how the steamer

met her fate is now evoking considerable 

discussion (says the "Telegraph"). 

Shipmasters are generally agreed 

that the steamer must have

struck a reef or rock, but one or

two authorities still tenaciously

cling to the belief that she was

overturned by the cyclonic 

conditions with which she was 

surrounded on the awful night of 

her disappearance.

In support of this theory, it is

pointed out that in the event of

the steamer having struck a rock

she would most likely have had her

side or bottom ripped out, thus

liberating large quantities of her

cargo. Had she run on a reef she

would have remained there, like all

other known examples of this kind.

The fact that no bodies or deck fittings 

have been discovered, is taken

as a further proof of the suddenness 

of the vessel's disappearance,

such as would have happened

through her being overwhelmed by the

awful velocity of the wind, and the

untold tumultuousness of the water.

In opposition to the theory that

the vessel was overturned, it is stated

that she was for a number of years

employed in the company's Sydney

to Fremantle service, in the course

of which time she frequently weathered 

numberless storms in the Great Australian 

Bight, off the much dreaded Leeuwin, and 

other parts of the coast, coming through

the ordeal triumphantly. Indeed Mr.

Harris, who now holds an important 

official position at Adelaide,

and who for some years was chief

engineer of the Grantala, and who

also had some experience of the

Yongala, has stated that he never had

known a better sea boat than the

latter ship. On the outward run between 

Sydney and the West Australian terminal 

port the coastal steamers usually are well 

laden; but on the return voyage frequently

their cargo does not exceed 100 tons in

weight.

On her last fatal trip, however,

the steamer was carrying 2000 tons

of cargo, ballast, and bunker coal.

The only deck cargo she carried, as

previously stated, was a racehorse, a

stud bull, and 5 tons of kerosene.

The steamer was well protected

against the possibility of shipwreck

by ordinary means, having a double

bottom, which ran practically from

stem to stern, with the exception 

of that portion lying under the 

engine room. In addition to this, 

she was provided with water ballast tanks,

which covered practically the same

area. These tanks were strongly

constructed, the ship having been built

by the famous firm of Armstrong,

Whitworth, and Co., the inner side

of them being some 4ft off the

bottom and sides of the ship.

Provided, therefore, the ship had her

true and false bottom both ripped

out by grazing a reef or rock, there

still would be the water tanks between 

her holds and the sea.

The only rock of any significance which Yongala could have struck was Nares rock, which as I have pointed out in previous posts, would not have equated with the distribution of wreckage found along the Queensland coast. The mere fact that much of the cargo discovered came from the lower hold does suggest that Yongala's side was ripped out. However, this is not the only way in which cargo can be liberated - main hatches failing due to the intensity of the forces causing the vessel to founder. 

It is interesting to note that the double bottom did not include the area directly beneath the engine room which suggests a weak link in protection provided to the steamer. If such a modality is to provide protection, surely it stands to reason that it should be universal and not selective along the length of the hull?

Although the Inquiry suggested only 1 ton of cargo on deck, this report suggests as much as 5 tons of kerosene which could have become dislodged during the cyclone - as had happened previously in another gale - destabilising the Yongala and contributing to her turning over. What the reporter failed to mention is that when Yongala plied the West Australia route she had 150 tons of pig iron to stabilise her. This was taken out long before Yongala sailed into the cyclone, March 23, 1911.

The fact that Yongala only carried just over 600 tons of cargo, made her vulnerable from a GM point of view to the forces exerted by a cyclone. From commentary thus far it does start to emerge that there were marine observers who were concerned that the Yongala had turned over in the storm. This would have had serious implications reverting back to the design of Yongala and Grantala and a degree of responsibility for the accident carried by the owners.