# Boards Covering Hatches - Problems with Water Ingress to Holds (1920s Steamer)



## Nswstar2

I'm starting what I hope is a straightforward request for information about the hatch cover arrangement on older steamers. (Continuing my research on SS Camlough's last voyage in January of 1932)

*I'd appreciate any comments from folks who have practical experience of ships with boards fitted to cover their hatches - or who have heard stories from older mariners about this arrangement.*

I've already identified that seawater getting into the stoke hold of SS Camlough was likely to have contributed to her final catastrophic loss of power during a fierce gale.

The information I have about Camlough's hatch arrangements comes from some photos of a beautifully detailed model which was made for the owners of the new ship and her identical sister SS Corteen in 1920, when the ships were launched. (By coincidence, this model happened to come up for sale in 2017). _See photos_

*The attached photos of the model clearly show that her hatches were covered with boards - shorter boards being fitted over the stoke hold hatch.*

It's my understanding that these boards would have been covered with tarpaulins to prevent water getting into the holds.

We know from contemporary accounts that the Camlough took a tremendous battering from waves and wind on its last journey under reduced power. Even though she would have been riding high in the water (traveling light under ballast) they were 'shipping seas fore and aft' and there were 'tremendous waves'. (Met office statistics in their Monthly Summary for January 1932 mention the 'widespread and destructive gales in Scotland' that happened on the 13th and 14th - giving highest wind readings as 86 mph on the 13th at the Butt of Lewis and 95 mph on the 14th at Bell Rock.) 

This is definitely _not_ the kind of weather that a captain would choose to set out in with a repaired/under-powered engine (but of course the ship had become irrevocably committed to its course around the southern tip of the Isle of Man and across open sea to Belfast _before_ it became apparent just how awful the weather was going to become.

*Again - any practical observations about water getting into the holds will be greatly appreciated.*

*Under these conditions, how likely would it be for hatch coverings to become dislodged, allowing seawater into the stoke hold?*

_Footnote: the photo that shows the stern of the Camlough shows almost exactly the portion of the ship which still remains in the sands of the beach at Monreith in Scotland, where she was stranded/wrecked. Only the very bottom section of the ship was left after most had been cut up and taken away for salvage. What remains is a kind of 'footprint', running from just above the stub of the propeller shaft protruding at the far aft to just forward of the supports for her boiler. This wreckage was well-exposed in this past winter's storms, but has now been completely buried under feet of shifting sand._


----------



## tiachapman

yes but there would have been 3 tarps side wedged and secured with 4/ 6 locking bars to hold them in place/ sailed on many a ship with that rig.before steel hatch covers became common.


----------



## eddyw

There's a drawing of traditional system (beams/boards/tarps/battens/wedges etc) on this site.
https://forshipbuilding.com/category/equipment/page/2/
Scroll down to 'Hatch Covers'
The coal bunker hatch , immediately forward of the boiler/engine space, would have been similarly fitted. Some ships had hinged ' trimming doors' in the side trunking and bell mouthed vents on top as in the case of the model of Camlough. If water was getting in to the stokehold I would suspect it came via openings associated with the bunkers or through the aft superstructure. It seems unlikely any water entering the holds would have reached the stokeholds due to intervening WTBs.


----------



## callpor

The attached photo is one I took on my last voyage as Apprentice on the MV Port Wyndham, built in 1934. You can clearly see one of the hatches secured as described by tiachapman, with 3 tarps wedged and secured with locking bars.


----------



## sibby

On the coasters I sailed on they only had two tarpaulins. We never had any leaks, and we sailed in gale force winds.


----------



## Robert Hilton

I also had plenty of experience of wooden hatchboards. However the boards were always fore and aft on thwartship beams. Two or three tarpaulins well wedged would be watertight. The model in the photographs has the boards athwartships with no sign of what supports them. I have never seen this system, so can't compare it with the system I'm used to. Could Camlough's system have become obsolete as found to be flawed?


----------



## Barrie Youde

#6 

I agree with Robert.

I also saw many hatch-boards and it never occurred to me until now that they were all fore-&-aft. What was uppermost in my mind, though - even then - was that the hatch-beams - on which the boards rested - were thwartships - and thus formed an integral part of the strength of the hull. It was common practice to shunt a ship from one berth to another in harbour with hatches open - that is, without hatch-boards in place - but it was always good practice to ensure that hatch-beams were in place in order to provide integral strength in the event of collision - an ever present possibility.


----------



## Barrie Youde

I never did see - and would find it difficult to imagine - any ship with hatch-beams running fore & aft. The idea seems plain wrong.


----------



## Mad Landsman

From an entirely practical point it would make sense for the hatch cover to be shaped in the manner of a carriage roof, with an arc to shed water on either side. 

There is very much in common with the two structures and traditional carriages are/were built with curved cross beams and boards laid fore and aft with a protective covering over all. 
I wonder which came first - I would guess that ships followed land.


----------



## Barrie Youde

Every boarded hatch which I ever saw was flat. The reasons for that, I'd guess,
were twofold. First, any raised camber in the middle, running fore & aft would make the creation of a watertight seal at the fore-end and after end more difficult; and, secondly, a flat hatch-top left a convenient flat open space for deck-cargo, when required.

The more recent McGregor hatches worked on entirely different principles.


----------



## Duncan112

Casting my mind back to Naval Architecture lessons I remember one lecturer describing a system (now against the Rules and even when allowable to be depreciated) whereby hold bilges were in gutterways that could, by opening a sluice valve be allowed to drain to the Engine Room and pumped, reducing the piping arrangements necessary.

I have no idea when this practice ceased and without the GA drawings we can't find out if this applied to "Camlough". Perhaps another member might know when the Rules changed?


----------



## Bill.B

Sailing/motor barge hatch boards were convex. Fore and afters in the middle of the holds and a thwart ship support in middle of main hold. Two tarpaulins and then battens around the bottom in the batten hooks. Wooden wedges with the big square end facing forward. Most of the leaks came from through the bottom as most were wooden hulls.


----------



## sibby

On the coasters I sailed on in 60's they had gutter ways to a strum box before the pump, while washing the holds, which was nearly every trip we had to clear the strum box several times especially after discharging grain.


----------



## woodend

I am sure the ship construction lecturer at Liverpool anaautical, was it Captain Ferryman, must be spinning in his grave with the atriums or whatever on these modern day passenger ships. I can picture him now back in the 50s trying to hammer home to us the importance of hatch beams and hatch boards f9or longditudinal strength. I was on 450 footers then and he impressed it on me. I cringe every time I am aboard one of these behemoths at the memory.
.


----------



## Barrie Youde

The locking-bars, too, contributed to structural integrity as they served to prevent dislodgment of the hatch-boards, which otherwise were held in place only by gravity and canvas.


----------



## eddyw

I very much doubt the model detail is accurate. GA drawings of similar ships of the period all show f&a boards thus supported by transverse beams. The weather conditions appear to have been F12+. The fact that she went ashore and did not founder in deep water indicates that the holds did not fill and so quite likely the hatch covers remained intact. In such conditions even if in ballast heavy seas would have broken over the ship quite likely doing damage. Water would find its way in through openings (the model shows a number in the aft superstructure) as well as the funnel. Particularly vulnerable would be the two bell mouthed vents giving direct access to the stokehold. If they became damaged or detached this would be an obvious way for large volumes of seawater to enter the stokehold and there would have been no practical means of prevention in theprevailing conditions


----------



## barrypriddis

If memory serves me right I am sure that the hatchboards on Palm boats, supported by king and queen beams, had a slight camber to allow water to drain off. Certainly never interferred with deck cargo. The king and queen beams also co-incided with the athwartship beams of supporting the deck.


----------



## lakercapt

Barrypriddis is correct in mentioning the two differant types of beams as there were two sizes of hatch boards. Having lifted many in my days it was unlikely there was water entering through the bunker hatch. It was secured for sea the same as the cargo holds. The king beam was the one with the ridge down the certre to fit the boards. The queen beam was flat and the support in the middle for the long hatch boards. I built muscles tossing these things!!


----------



## eddyw

I should have gone to Specsavers! Looking closely at the model photos it is clear that the inner ends of hatch boards for the holds are supported by a slightly raised longitudinal central beam giving a degree of camber. So transverse hatch boards rather than the usual sort. I was clearly in error to doubt the accuracy of the model. I agree with lakercapt that there is no reason to think the hatch covers to holds or bunker were breached as she would have foundered rather than stranded. The reason she could not be salvaged was she was driven so far on shore on the high tide. She was clearly not waterlogged. "Camlough" sister ship "Corteen" was renamed "Ballyclare " in 1951. Photo here (modernised ) in ballast or part loaded:
http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/1/2/2/1181221.jpg
There does not appear to be a trimming door to the trunk of the coal bunker. The door adjacent would lead directly via access ladder to the stokehold. Probably weather tight rather than watertight. The other openings in the aft superstructure are visible. In these raised quarterdeck ships, bunker, boiler and engine space formed a single watertight compartment. Any seawater getting in would find its way down to the stoke hold, the floor of which was lower than the rest of the compartment. I wonder if there survives a photo of "Camlough" ashore? It would be interesting to see if the stokehold vents survived the tempest.
PS There is one on wrecksite.eu. Vents and boats in situ but signs of disturbance:
https://www.wrecksite.eu/img/wrecks/camlough_aground_adj_auto_corr_j_wilson.jpg


----------



## eddyw

Afterthought. Once the engine had stopped Camlough would have fallen off the wind and broached to, drifting downwind more or less beam to sea. This would have resulted in severe rolling and in the sea conditions large volumes of breaking water coming over the bulwarks aft some of which would inevitably find its way below.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Taff should be able to tell some answers. He was in a similar design collier SHEAF ARROW in 1952.

Here is a photo of one of the larger colliers, SHEAF FIELD. Basic design. Especially it show the bunker hatch just forward of the funnel... and with some boards not in position.

The weather deck doors (CAMLOUGH) seem to be simple wooden doors (shown on the model) no way to batten down the door.

Next message I will upload two images. Interesting images... pls wait for a few minutes. I need a strong tea!

Stephen


----------



## Nswstar2

Yep - the photos on wrecksite eu are ones that I put there (smile).

The one taken looking up at Camlough's stern section (which was provided by a friend who grew up in Monreith) corresponds almost exactly to the footprint of remaining wreckage on the beach, as she was cut up and salvaged in situ, except for the very bottom of the stern section. (It may have been sinking into sand even back in 1935 when salvage operations ceased, and given that at that point the salvour had just lost a _second_ small ship in the process, they may well have just considered that final bit of the ship would have been more trouble that it was worth.) 

The other photo on Camlough's Wrecksite page is one from the stern looking forwards, showing that what remains is the floors and very bottom of the ship, just a few feet from about the level of the stub of the propeller shaft which protrudes at the far stern (she's lying at a slight tilt to port and stern, so I've not yet seen everything that's at the very stern of the wreckage).

By saying that these are my photos - 'Nswstar' has effectively 'decloaked' as a gal rather than a guy - and one who before the extensive research I've been drawn into - and without the most helpful information from responses on _Ships Nostalgia_ had absolutely *no* practical experience of ships - and certainly not of steam coasters. It's been a real education - and a fascinating one!

I'll be sure to post some of my summary findings on this forum, when they have reached a point a bit further in their development. Folks on this forum have helped me to put together numbers of pieces that were missing from my understanding of what conditions would have been like in the engine and boiler room.

Also, some of the Scottish newspaper comments about the _amount_ of water in the stokehold may well have been made about conditions after the boiler had failed - but reported in the newspaper in an out-of-sequence format. This is true of other parts of these newspaper accounts, where there are glimpses of facts shining out of a sometimes confused and jumbled sequence of events. The Camlough certainly would have been bobbing and rolling in the heavy seas, as she was pushed back by the gale force (hurricane) wind.

Thanks to everyone for lots more suggestions about points of entry for unwanted sea water in these conditions... and yes, of course, the engine room _would_ have been the low point for water to ac***ulate.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Hold your horses! More to come!

Here is a lovely cutaway of a simple collier. Similar in many way so it will give a lot of answers. This vessel is larger than yours so some things will be different. In the cutaway there seems to be a bulkhead between engine room a boiler room. Note that the back end of the boiler might have protruded through the bulkhead. For access there would have been a simple watertight door in the bulkhead. That would stop flooding. However, if the boiler had collapsed the damage might have allowed a lot of things, like steam escaping through the bulkhead. If there is no bulkhead then what is showing is just a very heavy transverse web frame but watertight floors under the machinery spaces.

Hatch boards: MERCHANT SHIP CONSTRUCTION by Pursey 1942. Here shown in the diagram, Page 131. Beams run athwartships OR a combination of 'FORE and AFTERS'. So, the model is quite correct and hatch boards could be laid as shown in the photo.

Stephen


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Here is the missing cutaway.

Stephen


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Mad Landsman said:


> From an entirely practical point it would make sense for the hatch cover to be shaped in the manner of a carriage roof,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it seems they did it this way... with the 'fore and afters' beams. Perhaps the athwartship beam system was better if you were loading a flat platform for cargo.
> 
> Stephen


----------



## Nswstar2

That is, indeed, a BEAUTIFUL cut-away image of a collier (great when zoomed up to 200% for close scrutiny). Thanks!


----------



## tsell

Stephen J. Card said:


> Taff should be able to tell some answers. He was in a similar design collier SHEAF ARROW in 1952.
> 
> Here is a photo of one of the larger colliers, SHEAF FIELD. Basic design. Especially it show the bunker hatch just forward of the funnel... and with some boards not in position.
> 
> The weather deck doors (CAMLOUGH) seem to be simple wooden doors (shown on the model) no way to batten down the door.
> 
> Next message I will upload two images. Interesting images... pls wait for a few minutes. I need a strong tea!
> 
> Stephen


Hi, Stephen, I sailed on three ships that had the hatchboards laid athwartships that I recall and possibly one of the Norwegian ships.

'Sheaf Arrow' - couldn't ever forget replacing and re-cleating the two tarps on one hold, during the Biscay storm. It took four of us just to carry a folded tarp and we were under water most of the time - without snorkels!!

'Afon Gwili', also had her single tarp ripped in a storm - likewise replaced after shipping water. The coal was that wet it probably never burned!

'Trelew', Argentina - during filming in the storm depicted in Chapter 63 in Bahia Blanca adventures, reposted in Tusitala thread, 9/5/18, #329 .

As Lakercapt said, above, tossing those things around, built muscles!

Cheers,

Taff


----------



## eddyw

WTBs. Interesting cut-away of the "Tudor Queen" . Not all the apparent divisions would have been Water Tight Bulkheads. "Tudor Queen" entry in LR cites '3BH' so three WTBs:- These would be (1)collision bulkhead, forward of cargo space;(2) bulkhead at forward end of bunker/boiler/machinery space; (3) bulkhead between this space and after-peak. "Camlough" similar, '3BH'. This seems to have been usual for aft engine coasters below about 200' oa at this period. 
I wonder if there was a Board of Trade 'Formal Inquiry' into stranding of the 'Camlough'? A report would have been published by HMSO. There isn't one in the on-line collection at plimsoll.org. The reports usually have a detailed technical description of the ship as well as examining the cir***stances of the loss.


----------



## noelmavisk

*Hatchboards.*

Actually I have a coffee-table in my living room that is made from a real wooden hatch-board complete with 2 metal banding bars and 2 metal hand-bars for lifting.. Quite a conversation piece. I covered it with tooling resin and it looks primo.
I know on the ships I sailed on they were placed thwart-ships.


----------



## Monreith Boy

eddyw said:


> .
> I wonder if there was a Board of Trade 'Formal Inquiry' into stranding of the 'Camlough'? A report would have been published by HMSO. There isn't one in the on-line collection at plimsoll.org. The reports usually have a detailed technical description of the ship as well as examining the cir***stances of the loss.


Haven't been able to trace one,eddyw. It would have made interesting reading! If one is found, I would love to be pointed towards it, please.


----------



## Colin Johnson

*Colin Johnson*

I sailed on Bank Line Motor Vessels built in the early 50's which had wooden hatch covers covered with tarpaulin. On one trip we encountered a hurricane with extremely heavy seas without water ingress through the hatch covers.


----------



## tsell

Colin Johnson said:


> I sailed on Bank Line Motor Vessels built in the early 50's which had wooden hatch covers covered with tarpaulin. On one trip we encountered a hurricane with extremely heavy seas without water ingress through the hatch covers.


Hi, Colin, of the three times I had to tend torn tarps, each one had come away at a corner of the hatch. This was a common problem caused by lack of diligence in cleating and wedging. Wedges had to be checked and hammered often, as some would tend to ease after a few days.
I'm talking about ships in the early 50s, but I'm aware that there were later improvements.

Coincidentally, a while back, I was reading about the loss of the Edmund Fitzgerald on the Great Lakes in November 1975.
The report by the Coast Guard Board concluded that the hold flooded as a result of "ineffective hatch closure". It was further stated that this was due to the failure of the crew to properly maintain hatch covers, coamings and clamps that hold the covers securely in place, which played a significant role in the sinking.
Water entering a hold displaces the volume of air and as more water enters, the rising air pocket causes the hatch covers to explode away from the coamings, which has a compounding effect.
I recall reading that the initial gaps in between the hatch boards were only a half inch wide. It doesn't take much!

Taff


----------



## pbrock_2001

barrypriddis said:


> If memory serves me right I am sure that the hatchboards on Palm boats, supported by king and queen beams, had a slight camber to allow water to drain off. Certainly never interferred with deck cargo. The king and queen beams also co-incided with the athwartship beams of supporting the deck.


I have many fond memories of being on the Badagary palm, going along the west coast of Africa and all the deck cargoes.


----------



## spongebob

Wooden hatch boards 
This takes me back to 1951 when hatch covers became a disputed item during the lead up to the New Zealand waterfront strike and the de registration of the NZ Waterfront workers Union.
This led to the Government sending in the armed forces, police units , and other willing bodies , including the crews of stranded ships , to provide cargo handling labour for more than three months until a new trade union was established .
This emergency labour was paid hourly rates the same as those paid to the recalcitrant original workers and the ships turnaround rates exceeded that of many preceding years . Most of the military earnings went into social funds for the troops etc while ships crews worked outside their ship duty hours to receive a good return.
I have read posts a year or to back from SN members who were beneficiaries .

Getting back to the hatch boards , a liberty ship laden with sorely needed wheat had arrived in stream and was anchored due to port crowding and to a decision by the waterside workers that the wooden hatch boards only had one hand hold each end and that the weight of each plank necessitated hand holds for four men. 
It was an outrageous claim for a piece of say 10" x 2 1/2 " Oregon timber 12' to 15' long.
Poultry farmers in urgent need of wheat feed for their flocks formed a protest group that stormed the ship in stream accompanied by the press and photographers and a elderly slightly built farmer was photographed holding a hatch board above his head.
This excited most of the public fence sitters to lose patience with the "Wharfies " ,as they were known , and subsequent events led to the sackings. 
I was a 16 year old schoolboy at the time and travelling to school every day on the Harbour ferries I had a ringside view of the goings on. At one stage there were 17 overseas ships at anchor in the inner harbour and several more sitting in the Rangitoto Channel .

Bob


----------



## stillwaters

Doing a number of trips on the MV Piri, an explosive carrying ship of 275 tons, bring the cargo back from Altona, Melbourne to NZ. We carried the cases of Gelignite in the main hold which had to kept bone dry as I believe water had a devastating effect if mixed. We too had the Hatch Boards and Tarps and regular inspections was the norm, with very little freeboard when loaded it was a full time watch on the hatch.. The detonators were kept in the Forepeak locker as obviously the two don't mix, unless you wanted to leave the Planet.. So yes the Hatch Boards and Tarps did a great job, most times.
Cheers
Ewen


----------



## AncientCanuckMariner

*Boards covering hatches*

When I was serving my time (1945-1949) all our ships had this arrangement, with three tarps, battens and wedges. Never any trouble.


----------



## price

Some of the smaller old coasters did in fact have longitudinal beams with thwartship hatch boards, one that springs to mind was the 1931 built Irvings coaster "Ashdene", unusual yes, but there were exceptions to the norm. Bruce


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Quite possibility the boards are longitudinal means the hatch can built to for special hatch width. If the board are laid athwartships it means the hatch can less or more than what the standard boards can laid.

Stephen


----------



## spongebob

What was the standard length, width and thickness of a hatch board and what was the normal timber used?

Bob


----------



## Cisco

Hatchboard ex 'Captain Leonidas' ( built 1937 , wrecked 1968 on Bajo Cotapaxi ) in use at the CONAF base at Puerto Eden, Chile. Quite a few of these can be found around the town in use as 'duckboards'..

The footprints should give an idea of size.... the wood must be pretty durable as it is still sound. Steel banding can be seen at the ends. Two planks to a board and I think they were maybe two and a half inches thick.

By the mid 1950's Clan Line was using wooden 'slab' hatches maybe 6' x 6' with traditional boards as shown in the pic at the sides so that holds and cargoes could be ventilated at sea .

Canvas was oldest on top, second oldest on the hatch and newest in the middle.... or the other way around.....


----------



## lakercapt

Hatch boards were of two sizes(digging far into the memory banks) and a standard width. 6 feet and 12 feet and 2 feet wide in two parts. I think they were about 4 inch thick.They were made with hard wood and banded at each end. Handles were cut out and a metal band used for lifting. The handles were not opposite but at a cock. Initially they were marked for each hold so they ciuldnot be mixed. As I mentioned earlier they were heavy but with two of you lifting and swinging in rythm you stacked them on top of the hatch and two others would spread them marrying them if necessary. As I said it was a long time ago so I might be mistaken.


----------



## Cisco

And also.... if you look closely bottom right on the pic above.... you can see a circle... full of ice.... that is where the wood is 'scooped out' and a bit of steel bar maybe a centimetre in diameter fitted as a handle.


----------



## Aberdonian

Certainly in the 50s it was laid down that wooden hatchboards be at least 2.5 inches thick and athwartship beams placed so that unsupported length of board does not exceed 4.5 feet. The steel angles on which the ends rest are at least 2.5 inches wide.

Keith


----------



## Wallace Slough

I sailed on Victory, C-2's and C-3's, all of which had wooden hatch boards. The steel hatch beams were placed thwart ships into slots in the hatch coaming, and the wooden hatch boards were placed fore and aft onto the steel hatch beams. Tarps, cross battens, and wedges were installed over the hatch boards to secure the hatch. I also recall steel pontoons which were used in the lower holds if memory serves correctly.
As a very young Chief Mate, I was instructed by the Captain to make sure that all the wedges were installed in the forward hatches as the improper securing of Hatch #1 had lead to the loss of the Pan Oceanic Faith a couple of years earlier. I forwarded this order to the Bosun who failed to carry out my order and then caught holy hell from the Captain as his order had not been carried out. It was an excellent lesson for a very young mate that just because he'd given an order did not mean that it had been carried out.


----------



## lakercapt

Wedges are inserted :-Hypotenuse against the hatch.
From a old "chippy" who was a fund of information.


----------



## Samsette

I remember the newspaper For Sale ads for ex-Liberty ship hatch boards, after a number of those ships had been broken up in Pacific Northwestern yards. Suggestions for use included conversion into coffee tables but, unless you were lucky enough to get one in good condition you would need a lot of sandpaper.


----------



## Wallace Slough

We would always make it a practice to purchase new wooden hatch boards in the Pacific Northwest before traveling south to Los Angeles as they were much cheaper up north. Upon arrival in LA, it was normal practice for an inspection to take place wherein a number of hatch boards would be condemned and we'd replace them with those we'd purchased up north. I'll always remember the sad look on the inspectors face when it turned out we had a surplus of extra hatch boards available and didn't have to order any from what I'm sure was his own supplier!


----------



## Bill.B

#45 Lakercapt. Absolutely right. Would like a pound for every wooden wedge I have seen with the corner knocked off due to being put in the wrong way round.


----------



## tsell

Bill.B said:


> #45 Lakercapt. Absolutely right. Would like a pound for every wooden wedge I have seen with the corner knocked off due to being put in the wrong way round.


I'll never forget my first introduction to wedging the tarps. Working alongside an AB, he took a wedge that I was about to place into a cleat, from my hand and tapped it none too gently on my head saying, "This side in, dummy!" Then showed me which side had hit my head. I never forgot again!

Taff


----------



## Rogerfrench

Barrie Youde said:


> Every boarded hatch which I ever saw was flat. The reasons for that, I'd guess,
> were twofold. First, any raised camber in the middle, running fore & aft would make the creation of a watertight seal at the fore-end and after end more difficult; and, secondly, a flat hatch-top left a convenient flat open space for deck-cargo, when required.
> 
> The more recent McGregor hatches worked on entirely different principles.


Sorry, Barrie, I saw several where the beams and end coamings were cambered, and the boards, laid fore and aft , naturally followed the camber. Not a big camber, maybe the same as the deck? certainly not enough to hamper a watertight seal with tarps, battens and wedges.


----------



## calmseahk

It appears that the discussion has been well and truly exhausted. Nevertheless, the old tramps I sailed on (hungry hogarths) Baron boats were fitted with athwartships portable beams slotting into snugs along the port and starboard coamings. The beams had a very slight camber as did the forward and aft coamings. The hatch boards were fitted in place by hand, removal from the centre, and replacement from the coaming inwards to the centre. One older tarp was fitted over the top. a second newer tarp was tabled and placed on the first. Finally a good quality tarp was overlaid. Both the upper and lower tarps were tucked and a batten inserted, then wedged with the right angle of the wedge facing out and forward. Finally locking bars were connected under the coaming edges and the two sides connected at the centreline where they were tightened. I do not recall ever having an ingress of water into the space below.

The tweendeck had roller beams, again hatch boards were fitted as above and the whole area was flat but a small coaming still existed around the periphery of the hatchway.

On other vessels we had wooden slabs fitted in place using the derricks. These were overlaid with tarps as described above.

On reefer vessels we had athwartship insulated beams in the tweendecks and heavy insulated plugs between them.

Its only after starting to sail on vessels with larger sized steel covers, water ingress became apparent, either across the crossjoint or along the channel bar sealing rubber . It seems these days that most ships have a fairly basic hatch cover system mainly hydraulic driven fore and aft or side opening by chains or wires.

In any system whether hatchboards and tarps or steel covers, if there is a gap, the weather will find it. If there is any fault in sealing and these days its a lack of maintenance, ingress can be expected.

One vessel I attended was carrying a log cargo over hatchcovers consisting of large pontoons, about five or sic covered the hatchway. There was a single useless tarpaulin laid across the top and held down by cargo netting. The cargo bounced several times in heavy weather, the pontoons collapsed and the hold was then flooded. The vessel was grounded to prevent the possibility of loss. Salvage was required.


----------

