FUNNEL BUILT INTO THE SHIP.

Cairns Post, Wednesday 14 June, 1911.

Captain Sim, Commander of the

Grantala, said he had charge of the

Yongala four years ago, and would

describe her as a very good sea boat

indeed. He had no fault to find with

her at all. He had heard outside

rumours from people who had never

been in her that she was "cranky."

While he was with her she encountered 

several heavy gales across the Great 

Australian Bight. On the night of the 

loss of the Yongala he was coming 

south with the Grantala and finding 

the weather dirty put back to Cape 

Bowling Green, and anchored. 

The wind veered round from S.S.E. to 

N.W., which proved that he was on 

the right of the western margin of 

the right hand of the semicircle of 

a cyclone. He did not believe the 

Yongala went on the reefs. He had 

formed no idea as to how she met 

her fate (but she didn't go on the reefs). 
He did not think it likely that Captain 
Knight could have taken the inside 
course between Armit and Gumbrell  
Islands after passing Dent Island, 
because he could not have seen 
the islands. He thought it possible 
for the Yongala to  have run across 
the vortex of the cyclone, but she might 
have struck something before getting clear. 
The weather was very thick that night.

Looking at the image below it makes sense; it was evidently more hazardous tracking through the maze of islands to Gumbrell and Armit, than bypassing the Whitsundays. But the Cannon Valley residents saw Yongala heading towards Armit and Gumbrell - oh dear, this was not a cautious master.

Captain Knight had given witness

the course inside the islands, but he

did not know if it was true, as had

been stated by the second officer,

that Captain Knight. always used

that course in all weathers.

It is almost bizarre that the second officer claimed that Captain Knight used the inner, inside passage in 'all weathers'. What was there to be achieved from this apart from substantially increased risk of running aground? Yes, time could be saved but there was theoretically no rush to make Townsville by morning, next day, normal circumstances. This fact reflected poorly on Captain Knight, a distinct pattern of his actions emerging as master of Yongala.

A few more tons of cargo on one side 
than the other would give the Yongala 
a list. 

Why would Captain Sim have mentioned this? Was he in fact stating that Yongala had a prominently top heavy tendency, equilibrium easily upset by shifting centre of gravity marginally to one side or the other? It's almost as though he was trying to say something of importance about the stability of the Yongala but did not wish to put it in so many words. 

If the cargo was well stowed

it could not shift, neither could the

coal.

Again a round about way of stating that it was vitally important that cargo and coal were securely stowed in vessels such as Yongala and Grantala - no room for error.

Where he was on the night of the 
storm the wind was not travelling

more than 70 or 80 miles an hour. 

The storm was at its worst from 

11 o'clock at night until 3  o'clock 

next morning. There was nothing in 

the storm as he experienced it to make 

control of the vessel impossible.

So, in other words, it was a bad storm but not an exceptional one. However, HE did not choose to be out at sea during the onslaught! In a previous report Captain Sim narrowed the worst of the storm down to between 1 and 2 am, 24 March. 11 to 3 o'clock opens the range to include foundering by midnight, which is my conclusion (see later posts).  

He noticed nothing abnormal in the tides 

and currents. All the ships of the Company 

were well equipped. He did not think the

Yongala could have been overcome by

 the elements alone.

Although he was not willing to risk Grantala in the storm the point is well made that the conditions were not as extreme as implied (thus far) and Yongala in good trim with hatches securely fastened could have made it through unscathed. But she didn't.

Henry Adamson, superintendent

engineer of the Adelaide Company

said the Yongala was built by an

excellent firm to good specifications.

She had excellent machinery and all

her engine shafting was from 20 to

25 per cent above requirements so

they could not break. He never had

the slightest fear of her under any

conditions. Her funnel was peculiar

having been built into the ship,

it would have stood alone even if

the guides had been blown away.

This is most intriguing. If you examine the image of Yongala below there is no doubt that the prominent funnel presented a further component of top heaviness and susceptibility to wind force. In a gale the funnel would assist in forcing the Yongala into a list to leeward. It might have been better if the funnel could have broken off in such circumstances rather than helping to drag the steamer over.  

By Mr. O'Shea "The loss of the

funnel would not necessarily mean

disaster to the Yongala."

He admitted that the funnel could have been 'broken off', which ironically (I believe) could have helped circumstances. Strange thing to suggest on the part of a witness - drawing unnecessary attention to the funnel of the Yongala. How the things said trigger red flags... 

He came up first to Sydney, and to 

Brisbane in the Yongala on her last 

trip. He estimated at the time of the 

disaster, that Yongala had free board 

of eleven feet to the weather deck. 

Witness was in England throughout 

the building of the Yongala. He saw

the specifications carried out. The

builders were responsible for the

design of the vessel which was 

registered in the highest class of 

Lloyd's and remained at that class

up to the time of her loss.

A freeboard of 11 ft. in a steamer of this size was substantial and further points to a low draught. It is fascinating that a similar approach was taken at the Waratah Inquiry. Although representatives of the owners wanted to assure the Court that Yongala (as with Waratah) was in the highest class of Lloyd's, responsibility for the design lay squarely in the court of the builders. Talk about hedging one's bets and in the case of both steamers the owners were very particular about specification requirements - which is shared responsibility.