A Remarkable Survivor - Part 5

By Niel Marsden

In 1936, ‘Ralph Brocklebank’ as she was named until that year, had been afloat for thirty three years and as we have seen already, had undergone a number of changes and alterations to adapt her for the differing roles for which she had been used.

We saw in Part 4 that her predecessor, ‘Charles Galloway’ a vessel, which would seem to have been specifically designed for the dual role of ‘Inspection Vessel’ and tug had been scrapped in 1929, when just a year older than ‘Ralph Brocklebank’ was now.

In Part 1, I referred to ‘average lifespan’ for ships in general terms as about 30 years, thus the scrapping of ‘Charles Galloway’ at 34 years and as we now know, the breaking up of ‘W.E.Dorrington’ a year on in 1937, when just 31 years old, would seem to conform with this theory.

The 1930’s certainly seems to have been a significant decade for British shipping, the beginning being marked by the effects of a worldwide depression, with hundreds of ships laid up and thousands of seafarers without work. We know of instances of ships manned almost entirely by highly qualified crews, cases of every engineer with a Chief’s ticket and deck crews with similar proportions of qualified Masters. With the largest Merchant fleet in the world at that time, the drop in trade would have had a devastating effect, not only to shipping companies large and small, but to so many other related industries, not least amongst these the shipyards with greatly reduced order books. The overall effect must have impacted upon the entire industry and beyond.

Government efforts to kick start a recovery, with schemes such as the ‘Scrap and Build’ programme and other inducements to slim down what clearly was a case of excess capacity must have left owners in a quandary of what to do for the best.

It was a period when hundreds of ships were scrapped long before the end of their useful lives, only to be replaced, in many cases by vessels only marginally improved over them. There were some innovative exceptions, but in the main, most were simple ‘like for like’ replacements, utilising virtually identical designs and building methods. In later years it was this resistance to change, that allowed other nations with little or no shipbuilding experience to capitalise on techniques developed during WWII for the rapid construction of new vessels and to develop whilst UK yards went into decline.

In the midst of all this, one project, which was to have a very relevant side effect to this story, was struggling for it’s own survival. At the yard of John Brown Shipbuilders, Clydebank, work on ‘Hull 534’ started in late 1930, had been halted within just a year. Thousands of shipyard workers were laid off. It was a similar story in the Belfast yard of Harland & Wolff, where the newly laid keel of what had been planned as the largest ‘White Star’ Liner (‘Oceanic’ (III)) at over 60,000 Tons, was broken up as the contract was cancelled. Public pressure on the Government of the day to re-start work, provide employment and regain British pride was conditional on the two ship-owners involved agreeing to a merger. White Star Line resisted, but their financial position was such that the merger was inevitable and in May 1934, White Star and Cunard emerged as the ‘Cunard White Star Line’ In September that year ‘Hull 534’ was launched and named ‘Queen Mary’

The vessel was completed and made her maiden voyage in May 1936. Shortly afterward she regained the coveted ‘Blue Riband’ for Britain and the rest is, as they say, history.

Well perhaps not all, the merger resulted in the disposal of a number of White Star ships and perhaps just as noteworthy, again in 1934 the Company’s offices in James Street, Liverpool (left). Dating from 1897, this instantly recognizable building still stands as possibly the last most tangible piece of White Star history.

So it is possible that many factors influenced the decision to refurbish the ‘Ralph Brocklebank.’ Although new tugs joined the MSC Co. in this period, these were more powerful, traffic tugs, better suited to the every day needs of the canal company. With similar machinery they did not actually represent any major technical advance, nor is it likely, they could be easily adapted to perform the dual role performed by ‘Ralph Brocklebank’

I can only speculate on the facts which determined the modifications, but I believe, in the economic climate of the time, whilst a ‘new build’ would have been a risky venture, a major alteration would improve the vessel considerably and with the depressed market, could be had at a considerably lesser cost than in more buoyant times.

The story goes that a Director of the MSC Co. was an early passenger on board ‘Queen Mary’ or that he may have seen some of the interiors during construction. Whatever the chronology, it seems that the workmanship of ‘John Brown’s’ craftsmen so impressed the individual, that he suggested their skills could transform the saloon interiors of his own company’s vessel.

It is safe to assume that the MSC Co’s budget was not quite on a par with that of the Government supported Cunard, White Star Line, but I think a look at the following interior view of ‘Queen Mary’s’ main staircase, will show to some degree the influence it may have had in providing the ‘image’ they wished to project?

There may be better illustrations of the point I am trying to make, but in a nutshell, I would venture to suggest that some of the well reported ‘Art Deco’ features we find aboard ‘Daniel Adamson’ certainly appear to have been inspired by those found in ‘Queen Mary’ (right) I will leave the reader to judge for themselves.

I have basically covered the main alterations in previous articles, so will only add some detail, as I understand it or know to be the case from the actual vessel.

Starting with the lower saloon, the overall dimension have obviously been confined to those imposed by the ship’s original design, so that aside from the décor change, the main difference is the absence of a chain locker and the removal of the fresh water tank (originally fitted for the use of the midships galley)

As I understand it, the anchor windlass was retained until the early 1980’s although with no chain locker, I cannot be sure of the use to which it was put after 1936. A set of large double cruciform bitts were mounted forward of the windlass and these remain today.

According to some reports, the extended upper saloon certainly made working around the windlass difficult and it was said to have been a tight squeeze on occasion.

 [We do anticipate that for our restoration and proposed area of operation, the windlass and anchor(s) will need to be re-fitted, this will be subject to some very careful consideration made in conjunction with the Maritime & Coastguard Agency]

As has been stated the alteration to the upper saloon was considerable, as the plan shows, the forward bulkhead was extended forward and all ports replaced with rectangular windows. These were fitted with sliding glass panes, set into individual wooden panels. Two knurled brass handles per window secured them in the desired position, a further brass insert, set in the upper part of the glass allowed it to be moved safely.

Towards the after part of the upper saloon, the removal of the old galley afforded a free passageway to the stairway leading down to the lower saloon, whilst the toilet facilities were adapted so that the ladies was accessible from within the saloon, while the gentlemen’s facility was only accessible from outside on the main deck. Both were contoured to allow free passage around the upper saloon and to the entrance doors to port and starboard.

The central stairway became a more prominent feature and the area of the saloon around it effectively became a mezzanine, fitted out with armchairs and round-topped tables. All bulkheads and the stairway were panelled with assorted veneers in complimentary colours, these in turn were emphasised by boldly contrasting strips of ebonised wood inlay. Similar ebonised pieces were used in the lower saloon, to form a ‘stepped effect’ to the side panels. The forward panel of the lower saloon comprised a full length engraved mirror, which served to enhance the effect of space.

 The saloons were fully carpeted throughout and furnished with armchairs upholstered in a complimentary fabric. In the lower saloon the chairs were set in groups around similar round-topped tables to those used in the upper saloon. A large central light set in a fabric shade illuminated the stairway, while shaded ‘wall’ lights comprised the remaining illumination. All fittings in the lower saloon were in chrome and included the stairway handrails, whilst those in the upper saloon were of polished brass. Veneered pelmets trimmed with ebonised edgings, fitted with curtains and tiebacks, completed the décor.

 A report by a visiting conservator, suggested that no less than seven different veneers made up the main panels, which must have been an impressive sight.  We fully intend that the restoration will reproduce this sumptuous interior as closely as is possible.

(Please refer to Historic Photos page for saloon views)

 As mentioned, the fitting of fixed awning supports, the extension of the upper saloon and the displacement of the steering engine, crew heads and lamp room to allow installation of stairways, port and starboard to the promenade deck, all contributed to the need to raise the ship’s steering position. This open wheelhouse was fashioned from teak and extended the whole width of the promenade deck. The steam steering engine (by Alley & McClellan and of the ‘Sentinel’ pattern) was designed so that steering could be accomplished, either with the engine engaged, (normal use) or by hand in an emergency. Chains led from the steering engine, in channels to the bridge wings, from here they descended through pipes attached to the wheelhouse support frames to main deck level. Chain wheels at this location allowed the chain to turn through 90 degrees, then via a combination of adjustable rod links and additional chain sections to connect to the rudder quadrant.

Twin (Robinson) engine-room telegraphs were installed, each capable of providing engine orders for both main engines and connected to operate in tandem. The operating chains from the telegraphs were routed down below via a boxed section of the wheelhouse steps, which also carried a voice pipe to the engineer’s position. The telegraphs were located adjacent to the port and starboard bridge wings, so that engine movements could be simply controlled from either station when manoeuvring. The wheelhouse was fitted with a basic framework over the helm position, which could support a canvas cover providing some protection from the elements, however, the bridge was essentially wide open to the weather, as had been the case since 1903!