HOW MUCH DECK CARGO WAS THERE IN REALITY?

Inquiry:

The vessel left Brisbane on the 21st March with a total dead weight of 1,885 tons, fully manned, equipped, in excellent trim, draft aft 22 feet 6 inches, forward 17 feet 9 inches, leaving a clear side of 10 feet 6 inches, with a general cargo and passengers for Northern ports, and reached Mackay on the 23rd March. The weight of cargo in the vessel was 667 tons, almost entirely in the lower hold, and was properly stowed. There were 43 tons in the between decks, 40 of which were for Mackay; and 11 tons on deck, 10 of which were also for Mackay.

Dead weight accounted for just over 50% of potential, fully loaded operational dead weight. Cargo represented about 36% of usual cargo component on this route (1800 tons max. capacity). The difference between the draught aft and forward was 4.75 ft. No wonder Yongala was described as 'lively' without pig iron ballast to increase the draught forward, and settle the bow. 

According to this extract from the Inquiry Yongala departed Mackay with 617 tons of cargo stowed in the lower hold and only 1 ton on deck.

THE YONGALA'S CARGO.

The Yongala was well down towards her

load line, having altogether 1800 tons of

weight below her decks, and drawing 22ft.

6in. of water aft, and 17ft. 9in. forward.

Thus there was no suspicion of her being

top-heavy, more especially as her decks

were comparatively clear of cargo, having

upon them nothing more than five tons

of oils and a racehorse named Moonshine.

She carried 703 tons of cargo, exclusive

of what was landed at Mackay, her water

tanks hold another 406 tons, and her

permanent coal bunkers were completely

filled at Brisbane with 650 tons, and 

another 100 tons being filled into the 

reserve bunkers at the bottom of the 

main hold.

Mr. Wareham, in supplying these details,

....

The above figures give us a total of 1859 tons dead weight, 26 tons short of the Inquiry figure of 1885 tons - this probably being accounted for by fresh water, baggage, mails, crew and passengers. It is very interesting to compare these initial figures issued by Mr. Wareham and those given at the Inquiry. 703 tons is 86 tons more, as is four tons more on deck!  One can imagine Mr. Wareham exaggerating to fend off accusations of 'top heaviness', but he did let slip deck cargo (kerosene) to the tune of 5 tons rather than 1 ton. Was this an error or were the final figures adjusted to minimise the implications of 'movable' weight on deck? It is also strange that he claimed Yongala was almost down to her load line with only between 36 and 39% of cargo capacity and absence of 164 tons of pig iron.  

I accept that newspaper reports could be inaccurate but at this early stage after the loss of the Yongala I have a distinct impression that the Brisbane manager tried to steer conjecture away from a top heavy steamer falling foul of a cyclone.

1911 - courtesy Bonzle Ships Photo Collection.