A Remarkable Survivor - Part 3

I would never have supposed when embarking on this article that it would have developed into a series of several parts, moreover, I never anticipated that I would find myself turning into an amateur ‘industrial archaeologist’ into the bargain!

I admit I flatter myself by using the term, however, it seems that without realising it, I have found myself discovering many details of the ‘Daniel Adamson’ that I for one never knew before. Since joining ‘D.A.P.S.’ in May 2004, I have attended nearly every ‘working party’ from then on, believing that having literally crawled all over the ship, exploring every nook and cranny, I knew the ‘old girl’ pretty well. I was very much mistaken.

It should be pointed out that the opinions expressed in these articles are entirely my own and based on the best information available at the time of writing. I am therefore happy to accept any additional assistance or an alternative opinion from readers and would commend the site ‘Guest Book’ as the first point of open contact, for this purpose.

Moving on, in Parts 1 & 2, I have made much mention of the 1907 photograph of ‘Ralph Brocklebank’ and to various reference points on the vessel, to indicate that an apparently major change in appearance took place at some stage, either prior to, or about the time, the vessel passed to the ownership of the MSC.Co.  Realising this single photograph is key to this point and may not be too clear in its’ present format I have ‘cropped’ the image for greater clarity and reproduce it here.

I would venture that the features I noted previously regarding the extended deck-house/casing are much clearer when the picture is enlarged!

In addition to the fenders, overboard discharge and length of promenade deck aft of the funnel, the photograph reveals even more features absent from later views. Note two ports and what appears to be a doorway, visible below the lifeboat stowed across the aft end of the promenade deck. Note also what appears to be the passenger boarding position between the second lifebuoy and the ship’s boat, in my submission the forward portion of which denotes the line at which the casing was reduced in length.

Clearly the present engine-room casing once formed part of the original extended deck-house, no doubt with a suitable sky-light set into the promenade deck above.

I do know that to this day evidence, in the form of two parallel strips of steel immediately aft of the existing engine casing, denote the location of the original towing gear, but had not quite appreciated how different the ship’s appearance would have been.

No doubt it is this appearance that gave rise to more observant commentators’ statements to the effect, ‘she looked like an American tug’ which I now concede is very true and by way of apology produce a photograph (the best I could find) of just such a vessel!

Photo- David Boone Collection, with acknowledgments to CamdenCountyCollection.com New Jersey, USA

Even I must admit, that aside from the enclosed wheelhouse (or ‘Pilothouse’ to use the American term) there is a distinct similarity.

 While searching for information on US Tugs of the early 20^th Century, I chanced upon the following web-site, which not only provides many good views of such a vessel, but a remarkably coincidental restoration project, involving another ‘Remarkable Survivor’ I recommend a visit to http://scard.buffnet.net/tugbaltimore/index.html

Visiting the ‘Daniel Adamson’ today, we notice that the loading hatches for the coal bunkers, are incorporated into the top of the engine casing and contoured to match the curve of the stairways to the promenade deck. This is most certainly a modification dating from the 1936 alterations and conveniently a good point to move on to the plan elevation of the drawing as discussed in Part 2.

As will be seen from the drawing (hopefully) the bunker itself was slightly larger then than now, with wings projecting forward into the stokehold itself, whereas today the bunker is confined to the area denoted by the tunnel or passageway between engine and boiler room, rising to the casing hatch level. The plan shows that two circular shaped coal scuttles were located port and starboard at main deck level, the foremost scuttle allowing the small side or wing bunkers to be ‘topped off’ when coaling.

No doubt the wings were open to the main bunker and must have been angled to allow coal to flow into it. It seems unlikely that the wings extended to the bilge as in the case of the main bunker and most probably formed an angled ‘box structure’ above the positions occupied by the hot-well and feed pump to port and the general service pump/valve chest to starboard which remain today.  This supposition seems to be supported by the fact that ‘as built’ bunker capacity is quoted as 28 tons, while post 1936, this is reduced to 21 tons.

Why change this arrangement?

As ‘Ralph Brocklebank’ it would have allowed for the extended deckhouse design. Later when part of the deckhouse was replaced by a more conventional engine casing, the coal capacity would have remained constant having little effect on the frequency of coaling. Only the change to ‘Daniel Adamson’ brought about the need to modify these arrangements, as it appears boiler replacement had been unimpeded by the side (wing) bunker’s location.

The 1936 alterations, involving the widening of the promenade deck to the ship’s sides, would have isolated the forward scuttles under the overhang, rendering them difficult if not impossible to use. Presumably the wing bunkers therefore became unusable and were removed, while the main bunker could now be filled to the level of the new hatch openings, thereby offsetting some of the lost capacity.

From the plan, I hope it is possible to make out the location of the steering engine mentioned in Part 2. It’s in the middle, between the crew W.C. and Lamp Room (shown with chequered tile floors) in the narrow block aft of the boiler room entrance doors. With no detail of the actual operating mechanism, it is impossible to know for sure how this functioned, or how the rod/chain gear was routed from here to the steering quadrant aft. I feel reasonably certain that its’ position would have remained unaltered until the wheelhouse was raised in the 1936 re-build and the steering mechanism changed to suit.

Still with the plan, note the location of the galley and ladies/gents W.C. originally located in the aft part of the upper saloon, also the appropriately ‘horse hair’ filled, ‘horse-shoe’ shaped seat enclosing the stairway to the lower saloon area.

The lower saloon is rather Spartan by comparison with the much-improved facilities installed in 1936, albeit no doubt adequate for the original designed operations.

It is fairly clear that, as built the main casing/deckhouse, extended to the position denoted by the aft end of the (later) engine casing/first tow bow, that the two ports shown on the 1907 photograph probably provided additional light to the upper part of the engine-room but no additional accommodation or stores. The engine-room entrances (port and starboard) would have been via full height doors at the after end of this casing, in exactly the location of their half size replacements today!

Aside from the considerably better access to the engine-room this extended deckhouse provided, it seems it’s main purpose was to provide a large bridge/promenade deck for passengers, whilst at the same time giving the vessel a more proportional, well balanced appearance. In Part 4, which is now inevitable! I hope to cover the changes from which ‘Daniel Adamson’ emerged.