PIG IRON BALLAST.

Inquiry:

'In regard to pig-iron ballast being placed in the vessel whilst in the West Australian trade, and subsequently removed when the ship was transferred to the Queensland trade, it was explained by the general manager that this ballast, amounting to 164 tons, became unnecessary, owing to cargo being obtainable both up and down the Queensland coast. A letter from Captain Knight to the company at the time confirmed this view; and stated that the ship rolled less, and was more comfortable in a seaway.'

Cairns Post, Wednesday 14 June, 1911.

The Yongala Inquiry.

Marine Board inquiry resumed.

Further Evidence.

(By Telegraph.) :

BRISBANE,- Monday.The Queensland 

Marine-Board this morning continued 

its inquiry into the loss of the Yongala, 

which was commenced last week.

Captain Mackay said he thought the Board 

were perfectly satisfied as to the stability of 

the ship. Edward Northcote, general 

manager of the Adelaide Co. and master

mariner, said when the pig-iron was placed 

in No. 2 hold of the Yongala for the West 

Australian run he was not concerned about 

her stability which has been established by 

experience in several voyages, it was put in 

to make the vessel more comfortable, and
to increase her draught when returning 

from the west without cargo, it was found 

it increased her draught six inches forward

and one inch aft, and she was less lively in

a sea way. The iron was removed when the 

ship was placed on the East coast, because

sufficient cargo was obtainable. Masters of 

the Company's boats, had instructions on

no account to race.

It is interesting to note that the 164 tons of pig iron increased draught by 6 inches forward and yet, discharging 50 tons at Mackay, reduced draught by 3 inches. Something was seriously off with these figures.

The impression one is left with is that Yongala required additional ballasting, forward, illustrated by the final voyage figures of 17 ft. 9 in. forward, 22 ft. 6 in aft (as dodgy as they indeed are), a differential of 4.75 ft.. But comfort won of safety and one wonders what roll this played in the disaster. Certainly handling would have been compromised to some extent in a gale.

Interesting that the masters were instructed not to race - implying a cautious code of conduct within the company. What does this say about:

http://yongalarevisited.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/exciting-ocean-race.html

Captain Knight was one of the most experienced 

men in the service, and enjoyed the Company's 

perfect confidence. He was a particularly 

cautious man. The Yongala had less superstructure 

than most modern ships. In the absence or facts 

he hesitated to express  an opinion which would 

be academic as to what happened to the Yongala.

Again I think Captain Mackay protested too much in his description of Captain Knight and the significant top hamper carried by Yongala:

http://yongalarevisited.blogspot.co.za/2016/09/reprehensible-amount-of-over-confidence.html

Yes, there were other steamers with similar and higher superstructures, but in most cases these were stabilised by appropriate ballasting.

I guess the key factor was cargo carried. These steamers were designed to operate with large components of cargo in holds. Without this component stability was compromised even if all ballast tanks were full. 

Running such steamers with 34% of max. cargo in the case of Yongala and 14% in the case of Koombana a year later, plus storm conditions, was never going to end well.

A postcard circa 1910 showing ships tied up to the wharves along the Pioneer River and showing the old Sydney Street Bridge.
(Mackay Historical Society Archive No. 86-71a)