Red Sea Shag Rock

The SS Kingston was a ship of her time and that time was a period of profound change, sail was giving way to steam and the time of Iron ships was fast passing as Bessemer’s cheaper and more efficient steel production would eventually replace it for the construction of stronger, less brittle ships hulls……The Kingston was on the edge of technological change and she herself was a part of that paradigm shift. The Kingston was an Iron hulled Steamer and Brigantine rigged, meaning she was fitted with two masts and capable of deploying sail. That capability itself would linger in ships such as the Kingston, longer than it perhaps should have, given the public’s innate mistrust of mechanical machinery, the steam engines themselves, and various and very public early engine and boiler failures and, on occasion catastrophic explosions that were essentially a part of the almost frenzied Victorian era rush for “progress” 

Kingston was built as a “Screw Steamer” in 1871 and launched 16 February of that year by Thomas (Ridley) Oswald & Co, of Pallion Shipyard Sunderland, her “Type” being a general cargo vessel. Sunderland was known for shipbuilding, in fact it purported itself as “Britain’s Shipbuilding Capital” and several notable yards would have been alongside Oswald & Co, notably George Short’s. Eventually trading as “Short Brothers”, George Short’s would become one of the largest, lasting until 1964:  “In 1869, George Short transferred his timber ship building business from Mowbray Quay in Hylton to Pallion. The running of the business was transferred to his four sons and became known as Short Brothers in 1871, the same year that iron ship construction was adopted”. (Pallion, Sunderland in “Short Brothers Ltd. Shipbuilding Yard, Pallion” On-Line Resource: https://www.northeastheritagelibrary.co.uk/features/short-brothers-ltd.-shipbuilding-yard%2C-pallion Accessed 28/10/2024)

Thomas Oswald had anticipated the transition from wooden built ships to Iron hulls prior to the construction of the Kingston, indeed Kingston would be one of his early Iron hulled ships, and Thomas was well prepared, having essentially taken over an area of the Wear-side to ensure everything he would need would be under his own control: (“Wear Rolling Mills, 1870 ‘OPENING OF THE WEAR ROLLING MILLS” Shields Daily Gazette, 4 November 1870) “On Wednesday afternoon, the opening ceremonial of the extensive iron works, which have been some time in course of erection by Messrs T. Oswald & Co., Hylton Dene, took place. The foundation stone of the work laid during the latter part of April of this year by Mrs T. R Oswald, and from the favourable state of the season and perseverance of the proprietors, their officials and contractors, twelve puddling furnaces have been got into working order. The works will cover an area of twenty-one acres, and are situate on the Hylton Castle estate, belonging Wm. Briggs, Esq., High Sheriff of the county. They will form one of the most extensive and complete works of the kind in the kingdom, and will consist of 120 pudding furnaces, two pudding mills, two plate mills, three bar mills, six steam hammers, ranging from five tons and upwards. On Friday last, fire was got into twelve of the puddling furnaces; and on Tuesday afternoon, steam having been got up, the ponderous engines and machinery were got into motion, with the most satisfactory results….”

SS Kingston’s sailing career did not start without incident as her registration documents evidence, even before her Maiden Voyage, intended to be to Malta, she had to be re-inspected by Lloyds following a fire as her final fitting out was taking place at the South Docks in Sunderland. The Lloyd’s report states “The vessel caught fire under the following circumstances Vis. The funnels to the Donkey Engine being overheated, it set fire to some wood work near at hands, in consequence of which the under sides of the deck became slightly charred….”  (Lloyds Report of Survey for Repairs No 10175 22^nd August 1871) Although the Lloyd’s inspector Joseph Keene went on to certify “She is in good and efficient condition and fit in my opinion to remain as Classed…. 90 A1”

So the Kingston eventually left for Malta, her reputation unscathed and her donkey engine funnel now clad in cement and given a 14” clearance in order to prevent a similar occurrence en route, it would seem that worked well as the journey was unreported as any other than a normal passage. Her Master for the Voyage, and many to follow, was Captain Robert Chitham, who would command Kingston from her Maiden Voyage up until 1877 relinquishing her, presumably following her trip to Colombo, to Captain W A Firth at that point. I believe the Master, Robert Chitham, to be of Colchester in Essex, Chitham is an unusual name and there seems to have been a family of mariners of that name, all of Colchester origin, around that time, a series of schooner and Brigantine investors as well as Master Mariners in the case of two (Richard Chitham being another), the most likely, (being named in the Lloyds Repair Report of 1874 as “Rbt”) being Robert Chitham, his Masters certificate is shown below and would have him aged 63 at the time of the repair and 61 when he initially assumed command of the Kingston 

The Kingston was, as already noted, a general cargo carrier and it is assumption at this point to make any comment on what she would have delivered to Valetta harbour on her arrival in Malta, we can speculate, perhaps with some degree of confidence, that her cargo might have reasonably been coal, given that she was surveyed (following the fire at her donkey engine) in Sunderland’s South Dock and, as stated in the engineer’s report of 22^nd August 1871: “ The ship was surveyed afloat, and laden, (except a portion of one compartment)…..”As Kingston had not moved from her gravings until the survey, and the main cargo of Sunderland at the time was coal our assumption has, at least, some merit

Malta was a burgeoning Empire port in 1871, as steam was gradually overtaking sail in both merchant and Royal navies, coaling was an ever increasing necessity, a safe British Mediterranean port was vitally important to the Empire, to this end the construction of the new Somerset Graving docks, to accommodate increased marine traffic and carry out repairs, had been started in 1865 under Lt Col Andrew Clarke of the Royal Engineers. That construction work had involved the demolition of large parts of the local (Senglea) fortifications, and the removal of Commercial shipyards from French Creek. The dock was completed in 1871 in time for the arrival of the Kingston and, although we cannot be in any way certain, it is fanciful to think one of the vessels variously pictured in the photographs of Valetta harbour is actually of the Kingston

The Kingston unloaded her cargo in Malta and returned to Britain, likely loaded with palm products, oils, wines, cloth and numerous other products in demand in Britain at the time, any Empire comes about primarily to facilitate expansion and that expansion requires plentiful materials as imports as much as it does exports. Malta would have acted as a bridge between the Middle Eastern ports and Britain, the exotic produce of the Arab nations would have been a profitable trade for the Kingston and her owners. Kingston would not restrict herself to the Mediterranean ports alone, we have evidence of voyages much further afield than Malta, indeed in 1874, three years after Malta, we find Kingston in Kronstadt, docking in St Petersburg in Russia off the Island of Kotlin. Russia’s hero, Peter the Great founded Kronstadt in 1703 as a strategic maritime defence of St Petersburg, Russia’s capital city at that time. In 1720 a personal decree from Peter the Great stated “Those sailors skippers, who will have goods on the merchant ships coming to the port of Kronshtadt and St. Petersburg, will give receipts of those goods to the customs and, after inspection and rewriting, they can sell them from the ships to whom they want, and with that sale they shall pay a duty on the goods according to the trade regulations, only for the import, and shall not pay any other duty for sale” (History of Kronshtadt: 1720. On-Line Resource:                           https://kronshtadt.net/history/ Accessed 12/11/2024) The Baltic fleet of Russia’s navy was based at Kronstadt and the port city became a significant international trading centre visited by British, French, German and Nordic commercial traders, and, by 1866, there was a British seaman’s mission, which included a hospital, established in Kronstadt

We can find a good description of Kronstadt contemporary to the Kingston’s visit from a visiting Englishman Fred T Jane: “Kronstadt being a commercial port as well as a naval arsenal, there is an English colony there, and this, combined with the floating population of the merchant ships, leads to an English chaplain being permanently stationed at the place. In connection with the English in Russia, it maybe of some interest to mention that at Kronstadt I found Russian officers with English wives, a third whose mother was an Englishwoman, while a daughter of the Admiral commanding is married to a British naval officer; (“Description of Kronstadt”. Jane. F.T c1890 in https://visit-saint-petersburg.ru/jane/ On-Line resource. Accessed: 13/11/2024). Trade goods at the time would largely have been Russian grain, Nordic fish and British pottery and China ware, which had been popular in Russia since Catherine the Great’s time “….Some of the sets were made to order for the elite: one famous example was the Wedgwood “Green Frog” Service created for Catherine the Great herself.[3] Plenty of ordinary everyday items were also on offer to suit the tastes of Russia’s lesser nobility and merchants. At the end of the 18th century, English factories began to produce a range of pieces specially designed for Russia. Among the first such items were, most likely, the Wedgwood plates decorated with images of the statue of Peter the Great and of the transportation of the Thunder Stone under Catherine the Great, made in the late 1770s and 1780s”   (“ENGLISH POTTERY IN RUSSIA. In the 18th and 19th Centuries”. Darya Tarligina. Heritage Magazine Issue #2 2016 in  On-Line Resource. Accessed 12/11/2024)

Kingston would make several documented voyages between 1874 and her eventual loss in 1880, her routes included voyages from Sunderland, again it is highly likely she would be carrying coal, out  to  Aden (another British outpost and a coaling station for her royal and merchant fleets), arriving sometime in 1874 eventually  returning to London, however her cargo from London is unknown, although she shipped out for two more  journeys to the  Mediterranean in  1874.

Kingston was outward via the west passage in 1875 to Cork, in Ireland, and is then recorded as travelling from Bristol to Colombo in Ceylon, (now known as Sri-Lanka) in 1877, returning to dock in Sunderland. These journeys all seem to have been under her Master Robert Chitham, Captain from her maiden voyage up until 1877, when, following the Ceylon trip, he handed her over to Captain W A Firth, likely at Sunderland, which she left, perhaps again loaded with coal, bound for Rotterdam, Holland sometime in 1878. In 1879 Kingston departed Middlesbrough for the Indian port of Kurachee, returning that same year to Newport, where she may, again, have taken on coal which was then transported to Savannah in the USA, the Kingston arriving in 1880

The owners of the Kingston clearly felt the need to distance themselves from the activities of the crew whilst ashore in Savanna, as this notice in the local newspaper makes clear, Savannah Morning News September 29^th 1880: “Notice. neither the Captain nor Consignees of the British steamship “Kingston” will be responsible for debts contracted by the crew” Savannah in 1880 was one of the largest cities of the USA and had been a confederate stronghold in the civil war because of its port, well connected by rail, it was largely trading in cotton but also rice, lumber, molasses & rum. Savannah had been the first deliberately designed city in the USA based on a grid pattern, now common to many US cities

It seems Kingston docked from Savannah in Birkenhead, again in 1880, where the Kingston was handed to a new Captain, Thomas Richard Cousens, and then sailed to take on a cargo at Cardiff, on what would be her final voyage, once more transiting the Suez Canal into the Red Sea fully loaded with 1210 tons of coal for the bunker stock, bound for Aden, held there for her majesty’s steamers

The journey is well documented and describes in perfunctory manner the early stages into the Red Sea as: “….Having passed through the canal, she left Suez at 8:15 a.m., on the 16^th February last, and was kept on a south course until abreast of Newport lightship, when the course was altered to S. ½ E. At about 12:45 p.m. she passed Zafrand Light…..” (““KINGSTON.” (S.S.) Report of Court” https://plimsoll.southampton.gov.uk/SOTON_Documents/Plimsoll/14738.pdf On-Line Resource. Accessed 13/11/2024) Captain Cousens was sure of his navigation and clearly saw no reason to have his 1^st officer check his course, as he steamed further south until sighting the Ashrafi Lighthouse around 9 to 10 miles off on a S.S.E. bearing. By 10:50 the lighthouse was abreast of the Kingston and Captain Cousens altered course ¼ of a point to South at S.E. ¾ S. At 11:45 the Captain ordered the fore topsail set, as the second mate and sailor appointed to the task were returning from setting the sail, and moving on to the aft to trim the yards, at around 11:45 the Kingston struck Shag Rock on Shab Ali Reef

Captain Cousens had almost made it into the Red Sea, Sha’ab Ali was perhaps the very last obstacle he might have reasonably expected between the Kingston and open water, whatever, the Kingston was aground and soundings taken around her put 1 ½ fathoms (9 feet) at her bows, 3 to 4 fathoms midships and 7 ½ fathoms at her stern, Captain Cousens ordered an anchor to be carried out from her stern in an attempt to winch Kingston off the reef but it was unsuccessful, as was an attempt by the passing steamship Columbian to tow her off (previously the steamship F W Ward had offered to take those aboard who wished to leave, but would not assist with a tow for whatever reason, now lost to history)

Despite jettisoning cargo, and the protracted attempts by Kingston herself, and those of the Columbian, it became clear the Kingston would not be recovered from the reef and the Columbian left her, as evening drew in Kingston began to take on water, the next day, the 19^th Captain Cousens, realising further efforts were futile, gave the order to abandon ship, allowing the 1^st mate and 16 of the crew to board another vessel, the Denny & Son steamer SS Almora (a Red Sea transport based in Port Said), for recovery and repatriation. Captain Cousens and a crew of 5 remained with the Kingston until the 20^th when her boilers went out and she began sinking deeper into the gulf, they would remain on Jubal Island until being taken off on the 24^th by the steamer Strathmore, having become perilously short of water and rowing to mid channel for better chance of rescue

I dived the SS Kingston on a Blue O2 Red Sea liveaboard trip from Blue Horizon in July of 2013 and my Green Navy Log records the dive as: “KINGSTON – RED SEA – Off the boat directly onto the stern of Kingston laying hard into the reef and well broken up. The stern is whole with rudder and prop which we swam through – the whole midships remains but skeletal and just amazing – full of soft and hard corals with all the fish of the most pristine aquarium possible. Just what a Red Sea wreck should be after 100 years under water – the colours are fabulous – a huge fan coral by the prop on the Starboard side just a wonderful marine biologists dream. Masts lay across the stern deck area of the wreck and for-ard of the bridge but little left of the front. Wonderful dive – Air In 200 Out 150 Buddy Craig”

Having just dived the Salem Express, Aida & Numidia, all iconic Red Sea wrecks, in the days prior to the Kingston, the descriptive is somewhat more effusive than I would have expected reading it back. I recall the dive even now as the swim through the large prop and its rudder post was very enjoyable due in some part to the large blades and the beautiful corals that can be seen in Carlos Martinez wonderful shot above. The Kingston is a stunning example of reef and wreck becoming “one”, sometimes hard to see any distinction due to the concretion effect of colonising corals, the habitat produced is brilliantly colourful as Kingston is not a deep wreck by any means, the myriad of Red Sea fish give the effect of being the plastic diver forever suspended from the tiny air-tube in a tropical fish-tank……

To date this is my only dive on the SS Kingston and it is definitely one I would do again, if only to run a good Go-Pro sequence across what I know would be an absolutely brilliant dive. Kingston sits perfectly as she is open but retains her shape, if anything I would spend more time looking for evidence of her bow and the chain lockers and anchor, one of which at least should still be around on the reef somewhere. There is definitely one to find off her stern as captain Cousens had it run out by lifeboat or cutter in order to try to winch her off the reef from the stern. The spare prop was still in place just to the rear of midships and is picture-perfect for photographers

The court enquiry into the loss of the SS Kingston can be found on-line (https://plimsoll.southampton.gov.uk/SOTON_Documents/Plimsoll/14738.pdf) and makes very interesting reading, Captain Cousens had sailed the route previously on three occasions, only once as Master, for him to have not used accepted, even strongly recommended techniques of the time to ascertain his true distance from each of his navigational references (Cross bearings and four point bearings) before making course corrections, then we would not be reviewing this dive. The part I find most telling is perhaps that Cousens was a fairly “New” master in seafaring terms, this only his second trip down the Red Sea as Master of his own vessel, perhaps hubris and a sense of innate need to be seen as master gave him to keep his own council and not seek his 1^st mate’s confirmation of his navigation? In the hearing Captain Cousens made a case that local currents had given rise to the Kingston being off-course, rather than admit his navigation was lacking, as he had no corroboration of this to fall back on the blame for the loss of the Kingston fell entirely on him, his masters certificate being revoked for a year, but the court was lenient on Cousens insomuch as it allowed him to remain certified as first officer for that period, allowing him to continue his career, which he did quite successfully, although not without running two more ships aground at various points…….

I will leave you with the profound echo of words spoken in hallow halls: “That the tides could have set the vessel on the Shag Rock, which is the excuse that the master offers for getting upon it, cannot for one minute be admitted, if we assume that the vessel was on her proper course, or even in mid channel when passing Ashrafi Lighthouse; for the “Red Sea Pilot”, speaking of the tides, tells us, page 13, that “in the narrow straits of Jubal, the channel being narrowed by the islands and reefs lying therein, the rate is from 1 ½ to 2 miles per hour, the flood stream running to the S. E., and the ebb to the N.W., or nearly in the direction of the axis of the channel,” but that “within 2 miles of the reefs, the tides are uncertain in their direction” So long then as the vessel was kept in mid stream or to the west-ward thereof, the tide would merely setting her either up or down the strait, and it is only when she gets within 2 miles of the reefs, which are on the East side, and where she should never have been, that the tides become at all uncertain. In our opinion the case of the stranding of the vessel was that she was allowed to get too far to the eastward of her course before reaching Ashrafi lighthouse, and that a course was then steered which took her directly on to the Shag Rock.”  

As always, this piece would not be half the read without the wonderful photo’s and illustrations that accompany it, and I am therefore very grateful to Lea Francis Ellis, The Ordnance Survey Office, Wilfred Coates, The Engineer Magazine, Lloyds Register Foundation, CrewList.Org, Kronstadt Town History, Abe Books, Georgia State Archive, George N Barnard, Arnoux Hipployte, Google Maps, Clyde Ships, Carlos Martinez, SearleCanada, redseadivers, Blueforcefleet, Rico Oldfield and Plimsoll Southampton for the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giants who went before me!

Ibiza, Balearic Islands

Don Pedro was a Roll-On-Roll-Off vehicle transporter, now more commonly known as Ro-Ro’s, she was built in 1982, yard number 156, at the Santander Astilleros shipyard in Spain, for Transportes Maritimos Del Sur (TRAMASUR) of Algeciras, her keel laid on the 15^th of July 1982 she was launched on the 30^th of September that year and completed fit-out on the 31^st of July of 1984. Don Pedro was a multi-purpose vessel, designed for Island hopping, with areas for cargo and containers, along with her expected lorry and car loads and accommodation for some passengers too. Don Pedro was designed with an area for vehicles both on-deck and below deck, as can be seen from the first picture of her in her early Tramasur days in 1984. Cargo could literally be anything required at the various Islands she was built to service, from containers of general goods, to Lorries of livestock and likely everything in-between. The Don Pedro also catered for a limited number of passengers and had a generously provisioned restaurant with a good selection of hot and cold meals and the usual accompaniment of soft drinks, wines and beers. When she entered service in 1984 with Transport Maritimos Del Sur, (Tramasur), her home port was Algeciras and she was popular with all who travelled on her, lorry drivers, car owners and passengers alike, aboard for whatever purpose

Mainland to Inter-Island Ferry routes were popular in the 1980’s, the cheap travel boom had seen to that, there was hard competition between budget air-lines to fly people abroad for holidays. The Balearic’s and the Canary Isles were popular destinations and it was not uncommon for families to have two-location breaks staying on the mainland for a week and travelling to an island destination for another week on car-ferries such as the Don Pedro, then there were the local islanders, transporting supplies in to sustain their businesses in support of the increased tourism and local enterprise too….This came at a cost though, life aboard for the crew was often fast paced and the holiday season particularly so, the ferry companies needed to service as much of the available commerce in the shortest time possible, ferry turn-around times were punishing and staff learned to cut corners wherever possible……

You may have noticed the Don Pedro is not exactly what you might expect in a Ro-Ro Ferry, her design was, at least from my narrow perspective, “different”? The traditional Ro-Ro design has vehicle entrance at the Bow as in Herald of Free Enterprise, Salem Express, Estonia….several of the dives I have featured in this blog, failures of the design notwithstanding, even the smaller ferries, those servicing the Isle of Wight and those running for Caledonia Mac Brayne in the Hebrides, and similar operations, feature front to rear or front and rear vehicle access. Don Pedro, unusually had a stern access, off-set to Starboard to facilitate her loading up “beam alongside” a quay

Don Pedro worked successfully for over 21 years during which her ownership changed several times, from Tramasur, who commissioned her and owned her until 1989 when she changed hands and was operated by Isleña Marítima de Contenedores S.A. (CIA Iscomer), still out of Algeciras, until new ownership in 1994 by Contenemar SA, at this point her home Port is registered as Santander. Don Pedro’s designers and shipbuilders have a distinguished pedigree amongst Spanish shipyards, “Astilleros de Santander, S.A.U”. (“ASTANDER”) was founded in 1872 by signor Bernardo Lavín predominantly as a as a forge however in 1913 it began repairing shipping locally and in 1922 established a dry dock. This led somewhat inevitably to the yard building its first stand-alone vessel in 1930 this was a success and led to more orders and, in 1950 business had become good enough to require additional space and the original dock was extended to 123 m. Astander took on refurbishment of shipping too, again extending the docks and infrastructure until, in 1957 a 1200t slipway was built, in 1965, the Spanish Ministry of Industry bought all stock from the company, making the yard part of the Astilleros Españoles S.A. Group, and, in 1969 a second and larger dry dock was added to the yard. This ownership continued until late 1999 when ITALMAR, a private investment group, purchased the shipyard’s shares which it still owns today. ASTANDER and the shipyard Astilleros de Canarias S.A. (ASTICAN) are located in the Bay of Biscay and have a facility on the West African Coast respectively, and continue to carry out conversions, refurbishments and ship repair

 In 1999 Don Pedro was bought by Flotamentos Navieros Canarias SL, she and her sistership (Don Fernando) were rebuilt that year in Cartagena, Don Pedro was  re-registered at Las Palmas until being bought by Lerma Sorel SL in 2005, this time keeping her port of registration at Las Palmas. In all that time it seems Don Pedro operated effectively, and without anything I can find that would say she was anything other than capably managed and well captained throughout, no evidence of accident or controversy, in fact she seems to have performed very well for all her owners

So how does an experienced crew, in a refurbished and properly certified (as far as can be determined) ferry, operating profitably for a well-known and established transport company, end up at the bottom of the Mediterranean just off a popular holiday resort Island? I confess, I would not normally dream of going to Ibiza under any circumstances, to me, for over 30 years now, it has represented a sub-culture of teen angst based around musically inept “DJ’s” incapable of any form of originality, pedaling actual musicians creativity, destroyed in multiple asinine loops. It isn’t a wonder those attending such events are encouraged to reach rapid drug & alcohol induced catatonia. But we digress, it was my wife Ellie who suggested we go for a week in October of 2012, both of us were overdue a holiday and I hadn’t dived for a couple of months, and, much to my surprise Ellie had found a wreck I’d never heard of, and one which was stated to be “The largest wreck in the Mediterranean”, Ellie also assured me there was “another side to Ibiza, away from the “Techno Zombies””, so I began a little research……  

On the 11^th July of 2007 the ISCOMAR Roll-on-Roll-off ferry Don Pedro was loading vehicles and cargo at Ibiza, she was due to transit to Denia, a Spanish City Port in Alicante province and the Don Pedro’s home port. Denia is a popular and busy port, known as “The Gateway to the Balearics” with 5 or so crossings scheduled to the Balearic Islands daily, the longest crossing, to Palma, takes around 8 hours so late evening passengers would enjoy the facilities available in the Don Pedro’s bar and restaurant. Don Pedro was scheduled for a late departure and would not sail for Denia until 2:30 a.m, following a busy period loading, and moving various vehicles and 40 trucks around in her holds and on deck, which would have been stressful to a crew already tired after unloading duties on arrival at Ibiza earlier that day

Don Pedro departed Ibiza at 02:00 a.m. bound for Denia, with her pilot guiding the helm as she navigated her way from the Dock and manoeuvred down the short stretch of sheltered water to the open sea. The Pilot disembarked at 2:42 a.m., inside the port dock, between the old mouth of the port of Ibiza and the Botafoch dock, allowing the Captain to resume command with the second officer taking the helm. The Automatic Identification System (AIS) data shows the Don Pedro’s course as 112’ just after passing the Botafoch Dock, the Captain and second officer exchanged course headings, the Captain asked the 2^nd Officer the current course, and he responded that it was 190º. The Captain ordered him to put to port little by little to 180º according to AIS this occurred at 02:45 a.m. little more than 3 minutes after the Pilot left the ship and in that instant the Captain sealed the fate of the Don Pedro……

The Don Pedro, heading out on 112’ doesn’t point the vessel towards Denia, or even Alicante, it points the Don Pedro towards Palma, the travelled distance on 112’ rather than the expected 180’, a route that would have taken the Don Pedro directly South, means the turn instructed by the Captain steers the Don Pedro towards two prominent rock outcrops known as Dado Grande and Dado Pequeno or, in English, Big Dice and Small Dice, I will refrain from any casino puns here despite the obvious opportunity…….. The Don Pedro continued her course, the Captain instructing the Second Officer to put the rudder into automatic mode on the adjusted heading …….

Information from the Spanish Maritime Accident Investigation hearing finalized by the commission 18^th February 2009 (INFORME SOBRE EL HUNDIMIENTO DEL BUQUE “DON PEDRO” EN LAS PROXIMIDADES DEL PUERTO DE IBIZA el día 11 de julio de 2007: On-Line Resource “https://www.transportes.gob.es/recursos_mfom/pdf/ 783B1B8B -CC3A-4C77-9A8D-1BBF55BAF7B4/ 55261/ DonPedro 11Jul2007.pdf” Accessed 03/10/2024) reports that “…….the time period of 3min which the ship sailed on a course of this component, although brief, was decisive in causing the accident, since that when sailing on the aforementioned course of 112º, the ship moved towards the East one distance that, by amending the course and steering at the usual rate – that is, at 180º -, he positioned himself facing the Dice”. As the Big Dice outcrop appeared on the Don Pedro’s RADAR the Captain and First Officer tried desperately to avoid collision…..and they very nearly managed it, the Maritime Accident Report states: “Subsequently, a few minutes before the imminent grounding, the ship fell to port side to try to clear the Large Dice and thus pass between both islets. once free of this obstacle, (it) fell to starboard in an attempt to clear the Small Dice, which (was) at that moment by the bow as a consequence of the previous fall to port. The ship managed to sail between both islets, but could not avoid touching the shallows that surround Small Dado, a collision that took place at 02:52 a.m.”

The conclusion of the Spanish Maritime Investigation falls short of absolute blame on the Captain and indeed of the First Officer, several scenarios are noted as “possible cause” including human error, fatigue and lack of an agreed & documented (prescribed) course from Ibiza to Denia or Alicante, variously attributed to navigation error, poor information exchange between the pilot and Captain,  along with the punishing shifts, & human error implicit in Ro-Ro Ferry schedules between the Balearic’s, imposed by shipping owners, these, compounded by a lack of mandatory documental processes (route planning), and the Pilot leaving the Don Pedro earlier than was usual, whilst still at the harbour entrance, were contributory to what became the largest vessel lost in the Mediterranean at that time, or indeed to this day (October 2024). Was this something of a “Whitewash”, perhaps, on Spanish protocol I cannot be completely clear, it may have been the commission was only to determine the sequence and specifics of the grounding, and that a subsequent legal hearing would then attribute blame accordingly, I cannot find any evidence of a follow-on court case, but there may ultimately have been one? But, and it is a big “But”, the grounding was not what killed the Don Pedro, at least not what dealt the “Coup de Grace”, that lies in events before Don Pedro even left the slipway at the Santander Astilleros shipyard, buried deep in her design, and as in the Titanic, although there were no fatalities in the loss of the Don Pedro, there was a fatal flaw which eventually left her resting on the sandy shale bottom of the Mediterranean between Malvines Del Norte & Dado Grande

The Don Pedro was a multi-cargo vessel, she was also a passenger carrier and facilities aboard included catering and entertainment in the form of a bar. In typical Spanish fashion, both were served by a winery set aside to allow (presumably) temperature and humidity control, or perhaps simply to prevent stock from being interfered with? One can only presume this was a source of pride to the ship owners and maybe even a selling point to passengers, tired after travel and looking forward to a meal and a glass of properly served and conserved domestic Spanish wines or even expensive imported classics……  The Don Pedro had survived the impact with Small Dice and, despite taking on water and developing a distinct list to Port, the side of the impact, continued to stay afloat overnight and that facilitated the safe evacuation of all those aboard, passengers and crew alike

The Maritime Report details the actions taken “…..the Captain sounded the general alarm signal and notified the pilots of the accident, Ibiza requested immediate assistance from a tugboat. He also stated that he observed that the ship was taking a slight list to port, he called the Chief Engineer and he said that they should ballast the two starboard double bottom tanks that were empty, in order to be able to counteract the aforementioned list to port and right the ship. At the same time, the Captain ordered the 2nd Officer to prepare the lifeboat” As in every accident investigation, no “one” cause is usually fatal, it is almost invariably multiple combined effects that cause such disasters…..

The irony here is that, in trying to save the vessel, the assigned tug, although careful to not compromise the stability of the flooding Don Pedro, inadvertently ensured she went to the sea-bed. The commission report goes to great lengths to mathematically calculate scenarios which affected the ship’s stability before concluding that forward motion and continual ingress (somewhat increased by the action of towing her forwards) eventually allowed water to flood the Don Pedro to the extent the open connection between her winery and warehouse 12 increased the list to port which fatally and categorically doomed Don Pedro: “…In this case the winery and the winery are connected to 12. The point of communication (flood) is located in the longitudinal position of 93.4 meters from the stern perpendicular, on the main deck and at a distance of spanned 8.5 meters. This point corresponds to the opening in the main deck that would produce the beginning of the shipment of water, from the warehouse to the winery If the progressive flooding process continued, a situation would reach a limit for warehouse and cellar filling values ​​of 82.5% and 1.2% respectively. In this condition, the shelter cover submerges and stability would be practically zero….” 

The loss of the Don Pedro was avoidable, had auxiliary water pumps perhaps been used in sufficient time, the ingress of water may have been offset sufficiently to facilitate towing her back into Ibiza. However, you could argue that such a combination of events resulting in her grounding on Small Dice, the breach of her hull, her subsequent foundering and her hours drifting at the mercy of wind and tide until attempted salvage later that morning, meant nothing on Earth was going to be allowed to save this long serving stalwart Island Ferry…..I am a believer in fate, the circumstances of the loss of the Don Pedro seem, at the very least, to have been an irresistible temptation to fate, and from “Fate’s” perspective, if you were presented with such a sequence of events, and such an opportunity, would you have allowed  the Don Pedro to have escaped you…..?

The Don Pedro could have been an ecological disaster, some might equally say it was, however, extensive efforts immediately undertaken by the Spanish prevented a tourist nightmare. Vessels were dispatched to contain and limit further potential pollutants from becoming distributed around the Mediterranean “…..The multipurpose rescue ship Clara Campoamor” and the rapid intervention rescue “Salvamar Markab” began the work of laying of anti-pollution and fuel suction barriers in the area of ​​the sinking using skimmers and absorbent material” (INFORME SOBRE EL HUNDIMIENTO DEL BUQUE “DON PEDRO” EN LAS PROXIMIDADES DEL PUERTO DE IBIZA el día 11 de julio de 2007: On-Line Resource “https://www.transportes.gob.es/recursos_mfom/pdf/ 783B1B8B -CC3A-4C77-9A8D-1BBF55BAF7B4/ 55261/ DonPedro 11Jul2007.pdf” Accessed 03/10/2024) 

The ISCOMAR company appointed Dutch salvors to investigate the wreck and appropriate salvage efforts “….Iscomar explained that the work is continuing to remove the oil which remains in the hold of the Don Pedro, which on Thursday amounted to 47 tons. In this respect, the shipping company added that “it is not known exactly how long this extraction work will take”, as it has not been possible to establish precisely the severity of the leaks due to the movements of the ship” (Majorca Daily Bulletin: ““Don Pedro” payments to start tomorrow” 05/08/2007. Staff Reporter. On-Line Resource  https://www.majorcadailybulletin.com / news/local/2007/08/05/16544/ 147-don-pedro-148-payments-start-tomorrow.html Accessed 03/10/2024) The Dutch team managed to ascertain the condition of the wreck and salvage options, including a chance of complete recovery, a preferred option to the Spanish Government until likely costs were proposed. It is perhaps unsurprising that efforts to obtain compensation for the sinking are still in progress until as late as 2013, a full 6 years after the sinking   

Greenpeace pursued ISCOMAR for the unlicensed transportation of dangerous waste, 3016Kg of used car batteries and 12 drums of “potentially dangerous substances” in September of 2013 stating “This lack of control and non compliance with European directives confirms that the management of dangerous waste in Spain is very deficient and has grave consequences, car batteries, they added, have been declared dangerous waste by the European Union because they contain sulphuric acid, a very corrosive substance, and lead, a highly toxic heavy metal” It would not be until November of 2013 that the Spanish Government declared the Don Pedro wreck finally and effectively cleaned  “The cleaning up process took place over two phases, the first of which involved extracting all potentially contaminating liquids from the water. These were principally combustible fuel (oil and gas), paints, solvents and lubricating oil but included other potentially dangerous liquids. The second phase saw the recovery of any further materials which could upset the nautical environment, like oil drums and containers filled with battery fluid”. (Majorca Daily Bulletin: “Don Pedro clean up operation completed”. 30/11/2013. On-Line Resource https:// www.majorcadailybulletin.com /news/local/ 2013/11/30/17252/ don-pedro-clean-operation-completed.html Accessed 03/10/2024)

I dived the Don Pedro in October of 2012 whilst penetration was strictly forbidden as the clean-up had not been officially declared completed, despite the Ibizan Islanders assurances that it had ended long since, my Green Navy log book records: “IBIZA Balearic Islands Wreck of the “Don Pedro” a huge intra-island car-truck ferry not dissimilar from Zenobia. Hit an island in 2008 and went down close to Large Dice Isl I dived it with Natalie from Punta Dive. Down first onto the stern past the rudders to the huge 6 blade modern (twist) prop on her starboard side well pronounced thermocline @ 40m very chilly! Along the starboard hull chine to the bow through a large shoal of 10-15 lb serving dish sized silver fish. Round the huge anchor in its hawse & round to the deck @ 90’ vertical past the bow deck & hawses & on over acres of deck to the bridge area & round the accommodation & bridge wing – all the technology RADAR rigs intact & great to look over. Round the rear cargo doors to the stern & the shot. Could easily do another 5 or six great dives on this awesome wreck largest in the Med! Air In 190 Out 90 Viz 20m Buddy Natalie”

Remembering this dive is easy, I was sadly only going to get one chance on her as the dive centre had committed to other dives that week and this was a one-off opportunity in the holiday, the trip out was uncomfortable, a 45 minute trip in choppy seas which had me sea-sick for the first time in years, nonetheless I was looking forward to diving the Don Pedro and I wasn’t disappointed, she was huge and I knew from the off there was no chance of getting anything more than an overview of her in one dive. I knew a large part of the dive would be finning over her huge deck area, with little to see until we reached the bow, it was either that or stay in only one area throughout and I didn’t want to do that, rather see as much as I could of her in the 45 minutes we would have to dive

The size of Don Pedro is immediately impressive, her condition, after only 7 years underwater, was little short of stunning and everything on her was of a scale that leaves you feeling ant-like. Most impressive to me was her six bladed prop, a beautiful piece, “modern art meets mechanical perfection” sprang to mind and it was easy to imagine it driving Don Pedro effortlessly to her ultimate destruction, although it was far more difficult to see how such a minor impact had doomed her…….. truly a Lemony Snicket tale if ever there was one, the only good thing to come out of this was the saving of all hands and passengers alike, for that I was grateful, there was no strewn luggage, no abandoned toys, nor sunk lifeboats here as there are on Salem Express, a very similar vessel in size and purpose with an agonizingly tragic story surrounding her loss

Nowadays it is possible to enter and further explore the Don Pedro, something I will hopefully, one day, get the chance to do. At the time of my dive in 2012, it was expressly forbidden to enter her and hatches had been welded closed and bridge windows barred across by the salvage and cleaning teams employed by ISCOMAR in order to prevent anyone doing so

As ever, this piece would be far poorer without the amazing photos and illustrations used to visualize the story of the Loss of the Don Pedro, I am very grateful on that account to the anonymous photographer at scubaibiza.com and padi.com for the web photos reproduced here and to the Spanish Maritime Investigation Commission and Ministerio De Fomento for the illustrations and photographs of the loss and clean-up of the Don Pedro and, lastly, to Natalie from Punta Dive Centre for putting up with me as a dive buddy

The Steamship Volnay was a Gow Harrison & Company vessel, built for the general cargo trade in the yards of Russell & Company in the Port of Glasgow, launched on the 13^th of March 1910. She would have an uneventful four years from her launch, until the outbreak of the First World War on the 28^th of July 1914. There is little to indicate her voyages in those four years, save an entry or two in the National Archives, the little that remains includes a collision between the Volnay and the Aetna (Devonport Dock, 31^st December 1916), an iron dockyard paddle tug, (Launched 1.9.1883, Yard No 517, by Laird Brothers, Birkenhead: 530 tons, 128x25x10ft and 850ihp) which served in Devonport, and a log entry for a journey from 14^th August of 1913 to 12^th of October of 1914, although there are no noted ports of call. Volnay was a Clydebank vessel, built by Russell & Company, her keel laid in 1909, she was launched 31^st of March in 1910. According to Graces’ guide (Online resource: https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Russell_and_Co  Accessed 20/08/2024) “Russell and Co of Port Glasgow on the Clyde were ship builders, later to be known as Lithgows.”

There is some ambiguity as to precisely when Russell & Company were founded, the main source of information for this piece, Grace’s Guide, mentions both 1870 and 1873 although that isn’t of paramount importance here. The  Company, whenever actually  founded, was  a partnership between Joseph Russell, Anderson Rodger and William Todd Lithgow, they leased the “Bay Yard”, a small yard in the east end of Glasgow, and it is said (again, Grace’s guide) to have had “…..accommodation to build three ships of average carrying capacity” In the following years Russell & Company increased their build capacity by acquiring a lease for the Port-Glasgow graving dock, taking over J E Scott’s shipyard in Main-street, Greenock. William Lithgow took over Kingston and Cartsdyke (Greenock) shipyards under the name Russell and Co, using money loaned by Russell, and Grace’s Guide has it that: “…. The men still retained a business relationship though mainly through financing and purchasing”. Lithgow’s produced mainly “steam tramps”, typically smaller two hold ships for the coastal trade, this was profitable business and the yard did well. Throughout the early 1900s Lithgow’s yard also made various “tankers” for a number of different companies, they even undertook building more than a dozen liners. During the period of the lead up to, and 4 years of WWI, they built 315,141 tons of shipping, a huge output considering they only produced one truly “Naval” vessel, a relatively small patrol boat. Following the end of WWI, in 1919, the company renamed itself Lithgow’s and changed the partnership to a private limited company

The Volnay was a typical steamship of the era, a robust, general cargo vessel displacing 2928 GRT capable of sailing almost anywhere on the planet. This was the Victoria epoch, a time of unrivalled travel and commerce, Britain’s empire was vast and her colonies both needed and supplied an immense range of goods from grain to oil with everything including people and livestock in-between……. The Volnay was destined to carry many cargoes to and from wherever in the Empire her owners could secure them.

Volnay Specification:

  We can, with reasonable confidence, infer the Volnay was well designed and well-built from a piece in one of the prime mechanical magazines of the era, “The Engineer” who said: “This enterprising firm will, in fact, build anything in the shape of a ship that may be ordered of them; but, all the same, it is as designers and builders of iron and steel sailing vessels that they have mainly earned their reputation. No other shipbuilding firm in the world can approach them in the amount produced of this description of tonnage. Many builders who have won renown for their Atlantic, East Indian, and Australian liners would find much worth studying in the designs and arrangements of the commercially successful sailing vessels turned out in such large numbers every year by the firm of Russell and Co.” (The Engineer: “MESSRS. RUSSELL AND CO.’S SHIPYARD, KINGSTON, N.B.” 4 September, 1891. in on line resource www.inverclydeshipbuilding.com/russell-co Accessed 30/08/2024)

Volnay was following her Blue Funnel peers, (you will find my connection and some more details in another area of this blog) at least in some of her journeys, one photograph shows her docked in Pyrmont (a couple of years before her loss) in 1912. Pyrmont was a dock area off Sydney Harbour, Australia, and the photo below shows the kind of cargo loading set-out on the actual dock itself. There was good trade to be made to and from Australia back in the early 1900’s, the colony required the trappings and luxury goods that allowed her society a growing sense of modernity, and her commerce was a wealth of trade goods from Wool and frozen Lamb to vegetable oils and minerals, all making the incredibly long journey one of profitability in both directions  

Volnay’s owners, Gow Harrison & Company were started by Leonard Gow (1859–1936) who is listed as a “Ship Owner, Philanthropist, and Collector of Chinese Art” , born in Glasgow, Scotland in the year his father (Leonard Gow Snr 1824–1910) inherited the “Allan C. Gow and Company, Shipping Firm” from his brother. The owners had recognized significant advantages of steam over sail with the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, and Grace’s Guide states: “……..the elder Gow formed the Glen Line to trade between London, Singapore, China, and Japan. Leonard junior eventually became a partner in Allan C. Gow and, following his father’s retirement, expanded the firm and renamed it Gow, Harrison and Company.” The Gow Harrison trading routes were global, they traded to and from Australia, the Persian Gulf, Jamaica, Nova Scotia, Panama…..wherever trading was profitable, and Volnay certainly was capable of safe carriage between any of those locations.

Early detail of the voyages undertaken is scarce, I have been able to find some records, even a crew list for a 1915 voyage in the National Maritime Archives, this lists out a compliment of 26 crew from Master, George Moodie (Seemingly of Aden) to cooks, those comprise a spread of nationalities, notably, English, Australian, Scottish, Irish Welsh, but mostly British on this particular journey  

Another of the earlier mentions of the Volnay that I can find is the 1916 December 31^st collision, whilst at Devonport docks, with the Aetna, an iron paddle tug mentioned in the opening paragraph of this piece. It can perhaps be assumed Volnay was loading cargo for an outbound voyage, possibly to Canada, expecting to return with vital war supplies for both civil and military use. By 1917 Volnay had carried thousands of tonnes of vital supplies, from global ports, in support of the British fight against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, indeed after over 3 years of war duties, it looked like Volnay might just survive the war, that is until Captain Henry Plough commanded her on her voyage from Montreal in Canada, December of 1917, where she had loaded a general cargo including tinned meats, butter, jam, coffee, tea, peanuts, cases of coffee, butter and jam, cartons of cigarettes, potato crisps and 18 Pound artillery shrapnel shells destined for the Western Front……..

Germany were perhaps the first to realise an Island nation like Great Britain is reliant on the supplies of a wide range of foreign nations, indeed the British Empire was founded on the exploitation of trade and conquest, both in the name of “progress” and “adventure” in an age that was boundless in its pursuit of expansion as were many nations before and indeed after the industrial revolution…..If you go to war with a global “Empire” it follows that you want to deny them as much of their access to an extended supply chain in order to reduce their capability to prosecute a defence against you, such it was with WWI, and Germany employed its large fleet of submarines, “Unterseeboots” in German, or “U Boats” for short, to effect a blockade against Great Britain and her Empire to try to shorten the war by starving her of foreign resource, effectively an attempt to sap her will to fight, at the tables of her population, just as much as her ability to procure ammunition with which to attack on the battle front

German preparation for war had been thorough, the arms race between Kaiser Wilhelm and his Grandmother Queen Victoria and her Naval Commanders was an open “secret” with both nations essentially spying on each other’s capabilities at events such as the British Naval Fleet review at Spithead, and in return the German Kiel Regatta’s, (although both sides would dispute clear indications of impending war in various publications), in fact the German Kaiser’s own memoirs would have us all believe war was entirely of Serbia and Austro-Hungaria’s making, that Russia and Great Britain were preparing for conflict, but that Germany was entirely unprepared for war “At the very time that the Czar was announcing his summer war program I was busy at Corfu excavating antiquities; then I went to Wiesbaden, and, finally, to Norway.  A monarch who wishes war and prepares it in such a way that he can suddenly fall upon his neighbours – a task requiring long secret mobilization preparations and concentration of troops – does not spend months outside his own country and does not allow his Chief of the General Staff to go to Carlsbad on leave of absence.  My enemies, in the meantime, planned their preparations for an attack” (Online Resource firstworldwar.com “Kaiser Wilhelm’s Account of the Events of July 1914, Reproduced from the English translation of his memoirs”. Accessed 30/08/2024)

Those assurances have little truth in them when a lens is placed over the rapid increase in size of the German Naval fleet, including its U-Boats….. at the outbreak of WWI Germany had 20, and by 1917, just 3 years later, they had 140. In general Germany was ramping up tensions with it’s “WeltpolitiK” (world politics) global expansion, (or domination if you prefer) view “German figures (1910-1914) depict notable increases in all areas of national development. For instance, German military personnel approximately rose by 30% (67% over Britain), relative shares of manufacturing output grew by 15% (14% above Britain), total industrial potential increased by 80% (8% over Britain), iron and steel production increased by 30% (128% over Britain) and more importantly, warship tonnage increased by 35% (about 50% less than Britain).” (Stevenson, David. “Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy”. New York: Basic Books, (2004) in “THE TINDERBOX: GERMANY’S NAVAL BUILD-UP, THE GREAT WAR OF 1914, AND THE BALANCE OF POWER” Alcantara Captain B.R. CIMSEC 21/01/2021: Online Resource, Accessed 30/08/2024)

To effect the blockade of UK global trade, Germany had developed their U-Boat designs accordingly, U64, Volnays’ eventual nemesis, was of the  UC-II series (an improved version of the UC-I class which were perceived to be too light and too weak). The series comprised 64 planned units, classified as UC16 to UC79, which were distributed across four production yards, Blohm & Voss, Weser, Vulcan and Germaniawerft. The class improvements covered several areas, the draft of the boat was raised to 3.7 meters, armaments were improved, some carried 105 rather than 88mm guns and there were two additional torpedo tubes added at the front, and another at the stern, increasing targeting capability. There were already 6 mine laying compartments arranged centre and front of the conning tower which could deliver 18 mines, 3 out of each tube, additional to the 7 torpedoes carried.  The first UCII boat launch took place in February 1916 (the last in March 1917). Their range was 13,500-17,130 km, which was further improved to 18,500 by the end of the production run. The UCII boats had a reasonably impressive surface speed of 11.5 to 12 knots, with engines supplying power ranging from 500 to 600 hp depending on the individual boat and final engine selection. The UCII class was popular, and their service continued until the end of the war, ironically, a little longer than that of the shipyard at Kiel, which, on 29^th October of 1918, when sailors of two of the Kaiser’s navy failed to return to duty, sparked a revolt amongst the remainder of the battleship & cruiser crews, this spread to other shipyards and, eventually, to local council and government offices, by November 09^th this had caused a national demand for reform, forcing the Kaiser to abdicate, and Germany to capitulate to the allies

Christmas of 1917 found SS Volnay in Montreal, Canada, loaded with vital war provisions bound for the UK port of Barry in South Wales, where the convoy would separate and Volnay would coast hop, zig-zagging the whole journey in order to avoid the enemy threat, on the way to Plymouth to unload. Captain Henry Plough was in command and had overseen the loading of a varied cargo, tinned meat, jam, butter, coffee, tea, peanuts, potato crisps, cigarettes, perfume, timber and 18 pound artillery shells. The trip from Montreal was in convoy, in order to give the very best chance of avoiding contact with enemy U-Boats such as U64. Oberleutnant Erich Hecht had taken command of UC64 on 13^th September 1917, a successful commander, Hecht had already been responsible for the destruction of 11 allied ships, seven of which were steamers like the Volnay. The last ship credited to Oberleutnant Hecht had been the steamer Manchester Mariner on the 04^th December which had been damaged but not lost, somewhere between the 04^th and the 14^th of December Hecht’s U64 would lay some of her mines off the manacles, and, despite seemingly being in a “cleared” channel, Volnay would seal her fate, hitting one of U64’s mines on her Port side at her No1 hold at around 12:45 that evening

 It could have been far worse for Captain Plough, Hold No1 had artillery shells stacked alongside other cargo in that hold, but they did not detonate and Volnay would remain, her engines still usable as Captain Plough tried to run her ashore at Falmouth, that however was a little overambitious. There is a report which has her being supported by two tugs into Porthallow bay: “…..When she was just off the Manacles, there was an explosion under her bows which was presumed to be a from a mine laid by the German submarine UC-64. The bang was so big that Captain Plough and his first mate, 25-year-old Peter Drysdale, both immediately thought their cargo had exploded. In the dark, her captain couldn’t see the extent of the damage caused to his ship but as none of his crew were injured, he made for Falmouth. At this point he did not know if he had been torpedoed or mined. He sent a ‘’sub attack’’ signal and sent his crew to man the old gun at the stern of the ship. She was starting to fill with water and her bow started to dip low, Captain Plough decided to make for the nearest land instead and he very nearly made it…Two tugs managed to bring her to Porthallow on the 14th of December 1917, though she was anchored a quarter of a mile from Porthkerris rather being beached. All aboard abandoned the ship safely.She then went on to sink, with only her masts showing…” (Facebook.com: Porthkerris Divers. “Wreck of the week! The Volnay” 07/06/2020. Online Resource: https://www.facebook.com/porthkerris/posts/wreck-of-the-weekthe-volnaythe-volnay-was-a-british-385ft-4610-tonne-cargo-ship-/10157317305915796/ Accessed 16/09/2024)

The Volnay would remain in Porthallow bay with her masts showing her position, a half mile offshore from Porthkerris, with her cargo coming ashore at successive tides, indeed, Porthkerris divers has it that “…..After an Easterly wind had picked up, her precious cargo started to flow ashore covering the beach with boxes and crates. Boats from Porthallow couldn’t launch and it was impossible to even walk along the beach with the number of crates blocking the way! They contained items such as cigarettes, jams, biscuits, coffee and tea – luxuries that had rarely been seen in the country for the past two years, were piled up to 6 foot high….” Despite the apparent bounty for locals from her cargo, Volnay’s wreckage was clearly an inconvenience to the local shipping traffic, and it would not be long before the admiralty intervened and she was cleared by the Navy and blown apart to prevent further tragedies from occurring

In the side-scan shot (above) you can see the lines of Hull Ribs lain flat by the Navy disposal teams activities of the day, although I am sure tidal influences have played a part, it is evident the intention was to significantly reduce the profile of Volnays’ wreckage. As Volnay lies in only around 17m of water, it is clear, especially with her masts rising above the surface, that Volnay would have been an accident waiting to happen had the Admiralty ignored her for long

The Volnay was officially declared a loss on the 02^nd of March 1918 and the register was closed with the statement “…vessel torpedoed or mined 14. 12. 17 certificate lost with vessel advice from manager per form 20 received 4. 3. 18”….a terse sentence, as is the way of maritime officials with such events, no matter their gravity, and an end to a stalwart of the defence of the British nation

I dived the Volnay with Atlantic Scuba, run by my friend Mark Milburn, who is also responsible for the wreck side-scan in this piece, back in June of 2012, my Green Log book records: “Wreck of the Volnay in Falmouth bay. Down the shot to what was very broken up wreckage – just steel ribs & plates from what was a riveted construction ship. Interesting root round with some Wrasse – Bib & a Spider Crab, some egg cases hanging in the prop tunnel (broken pieces) good fun Air In 200 Out 180 Viz 3m Buddy Andy” Another of my rather terse descriptions of a dive that I found very enjoyable at the time.

I recall both Andy Stringer and I rooting around all sorts of metal pieces looking for anything that would tell us which way the wreck was actually lying. I did not know the wreck had been blasted by the Navy at that time, however it was easy to see that this was more a debris site than most I had dived so far, on similar lines to Herzogin Cecile in terms of distribution.

I was keen to find a discernible bow and perhaps anchor or chain locker location, but, despite a good look around, Andy had got low on air and we returned to the surface with no more idea than we had when we first descended on her.

I have seen many shell cases and detonators that have been recovered from the site, even the bell which went up for sale on the Bamford auction site not so long ago (Feb 2024), sadly we saw nothing of that kind on our dive though, just luck I guess!

As usual I am deeply  indebted to those who have provided the various photographs and background information used for this piece, Michiel Vos (https://anbollenessor.com/), AennaLa, U-Boat.Net and John Liddiard especially. It is poignant to personally remember many happy dives and several dive trips with Mark Milburn of Atlantic Scuba, a local Cornish dive legend, TV star and author, and someone I considered a friend

Salem Express began life as the Fred Scamaroni, a jewel in the crown of Compagnie GénéraleTransatlantique, or CGT, a French shipping company started in 1855 by the brothers Émile and Issac Péreire. The Fred Scamaroni’s keel was laid down in June of 1963, at La Seyne-sur-Mer, and she was delivered to fit-out at Port-de-Bouc shipyards, following which, her finishing touches were again carried out at La Seyne-sur-Mer. Her naming was in remembrance and celebration of a French Resistance hero of WWII, Captain Fred Scamaroni of the Free French Forces, captured and tortured to death at the hands of the Nazis.  The Fred Scamaroni had a relatively successful early career, albeit one that had an ever darkening and foreboding undercurrent from the outset, before her planned service commencement she had suffered a fire aboard, during fit-out, delaying her official launch into service by almost 12 months until 30 November of 1964

The French shipping company “Compagnie Générale Maritime” (CGM) had been established in 1855 to carry mail to North America on behalf of the French Government, from which the brothers Émile and Issac Péreire received a guarantee of subsidy and a contract to deliver for a period of 20 years. The French colonies were growing in North America and in competition with the British colonial interests, frequent, reliable mail services had become imperative between France and her New World colonists. The two entrepreneurial brothers acquired land (not presumably at too much hardship, they were in fact head of the Société Générale de Credit Mobilier, a financing organisation which became the main shareholder in CGM) near Saint-Nazaire and founded the Chantiers et Ateliers de Saint-Nazaire shipyard and brought across engineers from the Scottish shipyards of John Scott to train French workers and maritime architects

There were alternate shipyards already established in La Seyne Sur Mer, however they charged a hefty premium, which the financially astute Péreire brothers wanted to avoid.  The resulting ships engines would be purchased from Le Creusot, a former mining town in the Bourgogne region of Eastern France. Despite a disastrously impractical growth, and exponential diversity of pioneer shipping routes, which threatened to bankrupt the company through poor profitability, CGT survived and eventually thrived. According to the History of the Shipyards of La Seyne sur Mer (Shipyards in Provence “History of the shipyards of La Seyne sur Mer” Online resource: https://www.archives-films-paca.net/memoire-chantiers-navals/interviews-et-ressources/histoire-des-chantiers-navals-en-provence/item/1047-histoire-des-chantiers-navals-de-la-seyne-sur-mer.html Accessed 19/07/2024) : “In 1872, the Forges were powerful enough to acquire the very important Chantiers du Havre. In 1913, they included four sites (La Seyne, Le Havre, Granville and Marseille) and occupied a total of 45 ha, including 22 in La Seyne. Major works led in 1927 to the installation of two enormous caissons to obtain the largest basin in the world. After the two world wars, activity resumed thanks to the company’s recapitalization policy combined with the action of the staff engaged in the “battle of production”, initiated by the Communist Party and the CGT. The site was transformed and the FCM experienced a long period of prosperity until their liquidation in 1966”

Drawing down the unprofitable routes and focussing their efforts on transatlantic liner services, which concentrated on passenger service, migration and a smaller, more profitable number of regular routes between France and New York, Panama, Guadeloupe and Mexico. The company changed its name to Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, a name it held until merging with “Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes de Marseille” to form the Compagnie Générale Maritime (CGM) in 1976, partly the result of increasing oil prices in 1973 during the oil crisis, and partly due to the French Government’s stopping of the subsidies under which it had managed to continue up until that point. Compagnie Générale Maritime was a container shipping business, as were most shipping lines that remained afloat in that period, those who were not either went under due to direct competition with the easier, more practical, container based commercial model, or turned to alternate cargoes such as LPG and Crude Oil transport, or, as with CGM to the coastal “ferry” trade, which is where we see them commission the Fred Scamaroni, and several other ferries of the same design    

Pielstick Société d’Etudes des Machines Thermiques (Company of Thermal Machine Studies), more commonly known as SEMT, was a French company that designed and built large diesel engines. The Fred Scamaroni was fitted with two of their Pielstick PC2 Engines, specifically designed to be lower profile, which would suit restricted area applications such as roll-on-Roll-off ferries. The Pielstick were 6 cylinder, diesel burning engines with a 400mm bore developing 7,440 Hp each (14,880 combined HP), later PC series engines developed 16,300 Hp.  Founded in 1948, SEMT was bought by MAN Diesel in 2006 and the PC range is still available in its latest iteration

Watch the re-construction of La Seyne shipyards after WWII, it’s in French, however that’s hopefully not too much of a surprise, and it is remarkable footage of the modernisation and re-construction of the yards with some ship building too, it’s well worth a look

https://www.ina.fr/ina-eclaire-actu/video/afe04002056/chantiers-de-la-seyne

France had not long since emerged from WWII to a landscape of devastation, some of which can clearly be seen in the Video above, her shipyards were re-built but the legacy of those that defended France and gave their lives for France would not go forgotten. The new Ferry for the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique would become a source of pride on several levels, by far the most poignant being for its namesake, Captain Fred Scamaroni of the Free French Forces

Fred Scamaroni had passed studies at the college of Brive, then at the high school of Charleville-Mézières, following which he went on to pass his baccalaureate in Paris and turned to studying law, by 1934 he was head of the cabinet of the prefect of Calvados, Normandy, a position he held until the declaration of war. Fred joined the 119th Infantry Regiment based in Cherbourg however the hiatus of the phony-war, a period where war was expected but nothing had happened for some time, clearly affected him and he volunteered for service in the air-force, passing as a qualified observer May 17, 1940. In June of 1940 he made his way to England and volunteered for the Free French Forces. Fred was accepted and with his diplomatic past clearly noticed as an asset, he was offered and accepted, a mission to hand Governor General Boisson a letter from General de Gaulle. The World War II history site WWW.Normandy1944 has it that Fred “…….. Embarked on September 6 in Liverpool on the cruiser Australia, he arrived in Freetown in Sierra-Leone on September 17 and flew with eight volunteer aviators to Ouakam airport near Dakar where they must “fraternize” with the soldiers of Vichy and convince them to join the free French. Immediately arrested, they are imprisoned in painful conditions, sentenced to death, threatened with execution then repatriated to France, they are finally released on December 28, 1940. Fred Scamaroni, suffering from malaria, is hospitalized in Clermont-Ferrand and released on December 7 January 1941” (Online Resource: https://www.normandy1944.info/stories/fred-scamaroni: Accessed 19/07/2024)

Following recovery from Malaria, Fred went to Vichy, a French autonomous state that had aligned with Germany, Fred’s known sympathy with the Allies cause meant he could only get work as a clerk. Whilst in that job he founded a resistance network called “Copernic” and travelled to Corsica several times as an acknowledged Free French Forces covert agent. Corsica had been a French territory until 80,000 Italians invaded in November of 1942, joined by 14,000 Germans in June of 1943 as “…..Corsica, Sicily and Sardinia became strategic outposts to be defended. Furthermore, Germany feared that the population of Corsica was hoping for and would help with a possible Anglo-American landing. In December 1942, General Giraud, co-President of the Comité Français de Libération Nationale (French Committee of National Liberation) with General de Gaulle, sent the Pearl Harbor mission to Corsica on the submarine Casabianca to set up Résistance networks” (Ministre des Armees, in “Chemins de Memoire”: https://www.cheminsdememoire.gouv.fr/index.php/en/liberation-corsica-9-september-4-october-1943 On-Line resource accessed 22/07/2024). During a mission in Corsica (“Sea Urchin”) under the pseudo-name Captain François Edmond Severi (otherwise also known as “Pot”, and sometimes “Grimaldi”), Scamaroni was landed by the submarine HMS Tribune with agents from the Special Operations Executive (SOE) including Lieutenant Pamela “Jackie” Porter, Lieutenant Ticknell & Major Hellier, to prepare the liberation of the island and to unify the local resistance

Jackie Porter’s SOE history & Sea Urchin details can be read here: https://bylines.scot/lifestyle/jackie-of-the-special-operations-executive/

Despite a successful landing the mission was betrayed by a double-agent, Major Hellier was capture by the Germans and tortured into giving the details of the remaining agents before being executed. Only Lieutenant Ticknell and Lieutenant Jackie Porter would escape Corsica (Jackie, at least, would survive the war), Major Hellier had sealed Captain Scamaroni’s fate and he was captured at his home in Ajaccio by Italian counter-intelligence and given to the Nazis. The escape of Lieutenant’s Porter and Ticknell in no doubt owe a great deal to Captain Scamaroni’s courage and self-sacrifice, despite what would, I have no doubt, be barbaric torture (for there is no other kind) Captain Scamaroni said nothing, choosing instead to end his life, in a manner that itself can only invoke horror, in order to prevent the Nazis from learning anything from him (Online Resource: https://www.normandy1944.info/stories/fred-scamaroni: Accessed 19/07/2024) “Brought back to his cell in the citadel of Ajaccio, rather than risking speaking and being recognized under his true identity, he prefers to cut his throat with a wire, leaving a final message written with his blood: “Long live France, long live de Gaulle. ” He died three hours later, on March 20, 1943 at 8 p.m., without having revealed anything about his mission.”

The intended routes for the brand new Compagnie Générale Maritime ferry were obviously at the forefront of whom-ever was responsible for naming her, Marseilles to Ajaccio, Captain Scamaroni’s final battle ground and his resting place. What better, or more fitting, memorial could there be than the constant, and unhindered connection between mainland France and the Island of Corsica that Captain Fred Scamaroni gave his life for……….

Fred Scamaroni Notable Historical Routes/Events:

Keel Laid June 1963

Nov 30 1964: Launched & then towed to Port De Bouc for fit-out

Jun 1965: Delivered to CGT Marseille

June 26/27 1965: Sailed to La Seyne, Engine room fire delayed her in-service date

May 17 1966: First Service Sailing: Marseille – Ajaccio

May 27 1966: First docking @ Nice

Jan 20^th 1967: Collides with Ajaccio Quayside

July 01^st 1969: Transferred to CG Trasmediterránea Marseille

Apr 23 1970: En route to Bastia, Corsica, caught fire & returned to Marseilles

March 16 1976: Transferred to Societe Nationale Maritime Corse-Mediterranee Marseille

Fred Scamaroni Notable Historical Routes/Events (Cont’d):

Jan 31 1980 sold to Ole Lauritzen Ribe for Denmark $3,930,000. Re-named Nuits Saint Georges

May 15 1980: Entered Service form Dunkirque to Ramsgate for the Danish Olau Line

Aug 29 1980: ran aground outside Ramsgate

Fred Scamaroni Notable Historical Routes/Events (Cont’d):

Sep 04^th 1980: Owners (Olau Line) went bankrupt, Nuits Saint Georges laid up in Vlissingen, Holland and subsequently seized for non-payment of harbour duties and associated costs

Fred Scamaroni Notable Historical Routes/Events (Cont’d):

Nov 1980: Sold for 3.6m Dutch Guilders to Lord Maritime Enterprise, Egypt. Renamed Lord Sinai

1981: Entered service Aqaba-Suez

1984: Renamed Al Tahra

1988: Sold to Samtour Shipping Co Suez. Renamed Salem Express

1988: Suez-Jeddah

Dec 16 1991: Ran aground & sank Safaga

Routes & Details: Courtesy of Nigel Thornton & Ray Goodfellow (Dover Ferry Photos Group)

There is nothing unusual about the slow “death-in-service” of the Fred Scamaroni, a long history of hard work, initially as a modern and brand new vessel and then, following the usual high octane life of a Roll-on-Roll-off ferry, as profits reduce and the asset ages, she is sold on and becomes more of a work-horse than a thoroughbred. So it was with the Nuits Saint Georges, a short history of channel crossing between Dunkirk and Ramsgate and an eventual grounding off the port, her sale to the Egyptians after an ignominious period docked at Vlissingen where her humility was only compounded by the bankruptcy of the Olau Line, no doubt due in part to her need of repair and the fees whilst she lay alongside, waiting for a decision by her owners that never came. The Nuit Saint Georges was seized for unpaid fees and was sold on to an Egyptian concern, the “Lord Maritime Enterprise”, her new owners re-naming her the Lord Sinai and, latterly, the Al Tahra. Used in different seas, under different masters and in very different circumstances, to and from regular ports of call, as with any investment, a high return is only possible if an asset is well-used, as we see from her transfer to the less prestigious service and routes in Egypt, where clientele are “herded” rather than “Feted”, the Fred Scamaroni was now already in her death throws, albeit still afloat, sold again to the Samtour Shipping Line of Alexandria, and re-named Salem Express she now ferries passengers around the Sinai peninsula and takes part, briefly in the 1991 Gulf War as a troop transport

On her return from service she is based out of Safaga, her passengers now the thousands of workers en-route to the myriad  construction sites in Saudi and those going to, and returning from the Haj of Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, sailing between Safaga in Egypt and Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. This was a cheap route for the less wealthy Muslim to undertake their pilgrimage, some might say an “honest” route, rather than the easily available, but considerably more expensive, jet flights connecting from just about any airport following the introduction of airliners in the early 1960’s

Safaga, Salem Express’ home port, is an island off the coastal Red Sea with a population of around 38,000 lying in the Eastern Desert of Egypt, which rises steeply from the Nile valley to an arid plateau, the familiar homeland of the Bedouin tribesmen. The lowlands slope upwards to a mountain range, the resultant peaks reaching 7,150 feet in height. The Port itself lies in the shelter of the Island making it an ideal anchorage when the Red Sea is belligerent, which it can be and often is. The Nile runs for 746 miles from the Aswan High Dam in the south to the Mediterranean delta, with two main branches at Damietta and Rosetta, it is one of the mainstay incomes to the Egyptians and large quantities of cotton are grown in the river delta. Egypt imports alumina via Safaga, destined for an Aluminium (MISR) plant on the banks of the Nile in Southern Egypt. One of the main reasons for the Aswan Dam construction was powering industrial enterprise and smelting Aluminium requires large scale and constant electrical supplies, the hydro-electric turbines of Aswan being ideal for such power transmission. The resulting Aluminium products, ingots, wire…. etc are exported out of Safaga Port

The port is both industrial and a transport hub, seasonally, tens of thousands of Islamic pilgrims travel from Safaga bound for Jeddah to see and worship at the Great Mosques of Mecca. The ferry port has room for six ferries at any one time, all moored stern first in what is locally known as ‘Mediterranean Moor’ style (which could be from “mooring” a vessel, to “Moor” from the colloquial term for “Arab”, known in Europe for centuries as “Moors”) to the quay. Other ferry routes include Duba and Yanbu in Saudi Arabia, and international trade to Sudan, additional African countries and even South East Asia and Australia

Those of us who have been lucky enough to holiday at Red Sea resort destinations, including those at or near Safaga, will have a picture in their minds about the relative calm of the Red Sea itself. Many will have been snorkelling and swimming in idyllic conditions, despite the occasional headline stories of shark attacks, which sometimes present themselves, on slow news days in TV News programmes. Mostly the Red Sea can be considered benign, peaceful…… even tranquil…..however, there are those of us who perhaps have spent time on Liveaboards, in the more remote areas of the sea, those who have been exposed to more inclement weather on occasion, as I myself have. Those people will maybe understand the Red Sea has another side, a more maleficent side, one that can rear up, very unexpectedly, and turn it into a dangerous place to be…..on occasion an incredibly dangerous place to be……..

For pilgrims returning from Jeddah on the 14^th of December 1991 all seemed calm at departure, in fact the weather could be described as distinctly average, the recorded temperatures at King Abdul-Aziz Airport shows the day held an average of 25’….but there were tell-tale low spikes recorded too, closer to 15’ and not at all “average”…….the barometer was dropping it seems. Nonetheless the Salem Express departed with a set of full decks, (two days late in sailing due to mechanical concerns, although what those concerns or repairs were has been seemingly lost in the latter years) as she always did, officially there were 690 passengers and crew, although there were always considerably more “unofficial” passengers. Lucky pilgrims found shade from the Sun in areas inside the ferry, but those outside would have enjoyed the Red Sea breeze and would have not felt themselves inconvenienced by being under a stair-well or on the open deck, that is, up until the Salem Express had put Jeddah behind her and the weather started to take a turn for the worse. I can find no specifics on when that turn took hold, but it is clear that the usual 36 hour, 521 nautical mile journey to Safaga would become, at first, a deluge of rain, and then deteriorate into high winds as well as a torrent of rainwater, leaving those who could not find shelter in Salem Express’ crowded interior at the full mercy of what would become talked of as a full-on storm. Captain Hassan Khalil Moro had worked for the Samatour Shipping Line In command of the Salem Express since 1988, he was clearly familiar and comfortable with the route, he would, no doubt though, have been keen to get back to Safaga following the enforced two day additional lay-over in Jeddah

Perhaps it was this that influenced him to use a short cut, or maybe humanity towards those forced to endured hours ensconced on the rain lashed decks, as Salem Express approached Sha’ab Hamdallah, loosely translated to “Young Man Thank God” to the immediate front of Sha’ab Sheer, a far larger outcrop and to the Port (Left) of Sha’ab Claude. Captain Moro is said by some crew to have used the shortcut beforehand, (saving almost two hours over the longer passage between the reefs to make a later turn to Port and enter Safaga bay), it is also said the shortcut was not an approved one, especially considering Salem Express was approaching at close to 12 O’Clock at night in storm conditions and pitch black of night. The Los Angeles Times Report describes the first sign of the disaster: “Captain Hassan Khalil Moro was in his cabin–he normally didn’t pilot the ferry, except to guide it into the harbor, crew members said, and on most nights he rested quietly in his cabin until the final approach. First Officer Mustafa Hamad Abdel Gowad was on the bridge piloting the vessel; Second Officer Khalid Mamdough Ahmed awoke in his cabin at about 11:10 p.m., ready to relieve Gowad at midnight. Three minutes later, he said, a crash resounded through the ship, which began shaking hard. Ahmed rushed to the bridge and found Gowad. “I asked him what happened. He said, ‘The ship is grounded.’ ” (L.A. Times: Murphy, K. Dec 17 1991: “Ferry Survivors Describe a Night of Horror, Heroism: Sea disaster: 485 are still missing in sinking of Egyptian vessel. First officer’s actions questioned”)

The Salem Express’ fate was sealed, she had hit one of the isolated rock outcrops near Hyndman Reef, it is a tragedy that, having dived her many times, all around her is empty, flat sea-bed, to have hit in such a manner with such tragic consequences must have been the most ill-fated luck possible. Kim Murphy goes on to write in her LA Times piece: “Egyptian authorities said Monday that they have detained seven surviving crew members in an attempt to learn how the ferry–which was nearing the end of its 36-hour journey from Jidda, Saudi Arabia, to Safaga on Egypt’s Red Sea coast–moved off course on a treacherous approach into the harbor and slammed into the reef, sinking in just minutes. Was it, as the ship’s second officer insists, because high winds blew the 1,104-ton vessel off course? Or was it, as some passengers and crew suggested in interviews, because the first officer was taking a shortcut into the harbor so the crew could get a full night’s sleep in Safaga? “What’s clear is that (the ship) left the proper sea lanes, and whether it’s a human error or whether the winds drove it off course, we can’t say yet,” said an Egyptian investigating officer. “This question of whether they were trying to take a shortcut is a technical question that we can’t answer yet.”” (LA Times. Online Resource: “https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-12-17-mn-596-story.html” Accessed 23/07/2024) The technical question will likely remain unanswered, whilst First Officer Mustafa Hamad Abdel Gowad was piloting the Salem Express and has said his piece, Captain Moro was lost with his ship, his body being found some days later in the bridge area of the vessel by divers hired to recover bodies by the Egyptian Government, and Second Officer Khalid Mamdough Ahmed was off-duty in his bunk until immediately prior to the impact

I first Dived the Salem Express from the Liveaboard vessel Contessa Mia, in August of 2011, twenty years after her loss, my Green Navy Dive Log records the dive: “Red Sea – Salem Express- A very atmospheric wreck which I will not enter beyond the external companionways nor the lit area of the car decks in respect to the many (1600 +) pilgrims who died when she sank hitting a low reef in poor conditions. We dropped on the bridge area and down to the sea bed on her starboard side passing along the walkway past the funnels & lifeboats beached under her. Along to the stern & into the car deck & the limit of natural light then out and up past the prop & over the hull to follow a centre line to the bows passing the shelter deck where the open deck had tables & bench seats & was covered with plastic “wriggly” sheets to the funnels & between them to pass the bridge & on to the bow to see the impact damage & the anchor. Up for 5 mins deco fantastic dive Air In 210 Out 100 30% Buddy Craig Viz 25m”

The loss of the Salem Express was announced to the world on the 16^th of December of 1991, a full day and night after her sinking, the Cairo based LA Times reporter Kim Murphy one of the first if not actually the first international newspaper writer to break the story: “A ferryboat carrying hundreds of Egyptian workers and pilgrims across a stormy Red Sea slammed into a coral reef and sank early Sunday, plunging up to 658 passengers and crew into the midnight waters about six miles off the coast of Egypt. As many as 470 passengers were still missing Sunday night after a daylong rescue effort hampered by high winds and 10-foot waves. Some were believed possibly still stranded on lifeboats that drifted from the rescue scene, where U.S. and Australian navy helicopters briefly joined an Egyptian armada plucking stricken passengers from the sea. Egyptian and Saudi authorities said the ferry apparently drifted off course sometime before midnight Saturday and struck one of the jagged coral reefs that lurk beneath the surface off Egypt’s Red Sea coast. The vessel sounded a distress signal before midnight Saturday and apparently sank about 20 minutes later, they said. Rescuers could not begin work until dawn because of bad weather, the authorities said, although three Egyptian air force C-130 transport planes dropped life jackets and rubber rafts to aid passengers from the stricken vessel. Low clouds, occasional drizzle and 10-foot seas plagued the relief effort throughout the day”. (LA Times. Dec 16 1991. Murphy. K. “Up to 470 Missing as Egyptian Ferry Hits Red Sea Reef, Sinks”)  

My second dive on Salem Express was the same day in August of 2011 after a couple of hour’s surface interval and breakfast. My log book entry states: “Red Sea “Salem Express” Second dive after 2 hours S.I. back in but to the bow & under the prow to see into the nose through the bulkhead joint then past the starboard anchor & down to run the whole ship length starboard side. Through the bridge galley to the companionway right to the stern. Into the car deck & down to the BMW which is inverted & to the light limit. I turned while Craig carried on. This was planned & I went to the props and between the rudder at port, then on up the hull to meet Craig at the loading door. We dropped in to do the Port side companionway the full length to the bridge then on to the bow top side & on up for 2 min deco Air In 220 Out 120 28% Viz 20m Buddy Craig 27’” I had stuck to my decision not to go beyond the light penetration zone and to respect those lost aboard in that manner. It would be another trip where I felt the loss of those souls perhaps a little less profoundly, and allowed myself to make my way deeper into the wreck. I recall my initial hesitation to do so was based on stories of interference with the belongings of those lost. I had no desire to see such acts which I consider to be grossly disrespectful, I visit shipwrecks to physically and emotionally connect to the history surrounding the loss of the vessel, I am always deeply aware of the human tragedies that are inseparable from shipwrecks but in the same way, to visit such places is to remember the souls lost aboard…..and to keep their stories alive when they can no longer tell them

It would be another two years before I could return to the Red Sea, this time in July of 2013, I was, again, lucky enough to dive the Salem Express and recorded it so: “Red Sea – Salem Express- Safaga Moored mid ships this meant we dropped down the shot & into the Port side of the wreck & went down the companionway to the bows – across the forecastle deck & to the bow door & the damage from ramming the reef dropping past the bent bow we then swam the starboard companionway bow to stern and exited at the garage to view the props and then penetrate through the garage & up to the Port side exit. Terribly poignant and eerie until we exited and swam a little off from the wreck paralleling the decks to mid ships then into the Port companionway – down into the galley & restaurant area on out to the stern exit – back to mid ships shot line to decompress & out Air In 180 Out 60 Buddy Craig Go Pro Filter Failure”

The 2013 trip was an absolute gem, we were with an experienced captain on Blue Horizon, a live-aboard that knew how to please tech divers and that stayed where we wanted to for as long as we liked, rather than trying to skimp on fuel, or get back North quickly. This afforded us a very rare treat, a night dive on the Salem:  “22/07/13 Red Sea – Night Dive – Salem Express. What an absolute privilege to do a night dive on such a wreck. Eerie does not get close to describing the experience of the traverse stern to bow down the companionway on the upper Port side then across the bows past the bent impact area and the sprung open door, up to the anchor then to the bridge & through the Port most windows to exit for’ard of the funnels. Over & round the stack and into the hall of the restaurant then back to the props via the rear of the Portside of the companionway to drop into the garage through the open stern doors. Back out to the props then mid-section winches & on to deco on the shot/mooring line. Wonderful dive Air In 200 Out 100 Buddy Craig”

Let’s take a minute to look at the increasing penetration of the Salem Express over the years I have now dived her, and the ethics and morals implicit. I started out in 2011 reluctant to do more than visit the wreck, she was only an occasional wreck on the Southern liveaboard itinerary, very much, I am told, dependant on individual skippers and their family ties to her by loss of friends or relatives. As her popularity as a dive increased, so did the visits by divers insisting on visiting her, as with all similar cases, this is driven by varied motivations, morbid curiosity, bragging rights, genuine respect and perhaps a sense of pushing one’s own mortality in the way scuba-diving naturally does, but with the increased focus on a wreck that can be intimidating in and of itself

I have heard many reasons given over the years, on the various dive trips I have taken to Salem Express, I have heard divers try to influence others not to penetrate the wreck, and those equally determined to do so. I have seen Egyptian dive guides who gave long speeches about the profound nature of the hallowed status of the wreck in dive briefs, and then found them routing through the cases of those lost for whatever reason known only to themselves……..My perspective is simple, I visit shipwrecks where lives have been lost, I do so with the utmost respect for those lives and for the relatives of those who lost family or friends in such tragedies. I do so out of a wish to physically touch history and to undertake very real time travel, back to a point where circumstance brought hubris to book. It is almost impossible to avoid tragedy in such circumstances, as I am sure any archaeologists will attest, wherever there is tangible history, there is also almost omnipresent loss. I also do so knowing that I am keeping the story of those who, tragically, lost their lives, alive and undying in the present day. I would truly hope, should I pass in similar circumstances, that others would do the same for me

The losses on Salem Express cannot be accurately stated, there are several reasons for this but the main one is the culture of the area itself and the outlook of the people of the region to some extent. I do not condemn any part of this perspective however my view is, by nature, a Western European’s view ……. Tickets were sold by the shipping agency for the Salem Express and would have been to her full capacity, there were clearly far more seeking passage on her than would obtain legitimate tickets, the deck crew and the locals know this and take advantage of it, as, I am sure do the booking clerks of the shipping company on occasion. It is not an irregular occurrence for booking agents to overbook places on modern aircraft or ships, knowing some passengers will cancel, or fail to make any particular departure for a multitude of reasons from health to traffic problems, this happens in 1^st world premium agencies, let alone what could only be called 3^rd world areas such as areas of the Sinai and Arab nations. Then there are the opportunists, those aboard turning a blind eye to boarders without tickets, or, worse, selling places for cash at point of entry to those less fortunate but desperate to travel…….it’s a cottage industry in the area and a source of additional income to those who, I can only imagine, are paid a pittance by their employers as it is……   Official figures place the passenger total capacity at 1256 and crew at 60, this from her Lloyds register and certification at launch, the estimates of actual passengers on the day wildly differ, from source to source, the official Egyptian Government figures for the lost are 464 and a believed total aboard of 658 recorded by the shipping agent’s manifest, which included 71 crew, however, it is likely twice as many died. The Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, declared on Egyptian television that 178 had been rescued. The official Lloyds Maritime Casualties Report states there were 644 passengers in total, of which there were 180 survivors, furthermore there were 117 bodies recovered, from a total of 464 victims. At no point will there ever be a full and accurate accounting as anyone who has been aboard a ferry in such areas will perhaps understand but it is likely close to 1000 people died in her sinking

The speed at which the Salem Express went down undoubtedly meant there was little chance for those below decks to escape, roll-on-roll-off ferries are latterly known for very fast sinking’s (Herald of Free Enterprise, Estonia…..) due to the huge open areas which serve as car and lorry parking, which sit just above the waterline to facilitate easy loading and unloading, if this area becomes deluged a problem called the free surface effect can occur, the water ingress, moving from one side to the other, acting as a tipping agent sending the ferry over far faster than would be expected with bulkheads reducing that occurrence (as in Titanic’s sinking)

The Captain was not on the bridge at the time of the course changes nor at point of grounding “Captain Hassan Khalil Moro was in his cabin–he normally didn’t pilot the ferry, except to guide it into the harbor, crew members said, and on most nights he rested quietly in his cabin until the final approach. First Officer Mustafa Hamad Abdel Gowad was on the bridge piloting the vessel ” (L.A. Times: Murphy, K. Dec 17 1991: “Ferry Survivors Describe a Night of Horror, Heroism: Sea disaster: 485 are still missing in sinking of Egyptian vessel. First officer’s actions questioned”). Survivors stories at the time were reported by Kim Murphy in her pieces for the LA Times (as previously cited): “First Officer Mustafa Hamad Abdel Gowad was on the bridge piloting the vessel; Second Officer Khalid Mamdough Ahmed awoke in his cabin at about 11:10 p.m., ready to relieve Gowad at midnight. Three minutes later, he said, a crash resounded through the ship, which began shaking hard. Ahmed rushed to the bridge and found Gowad. “I asked him what happened. He said, ‘The ship is grounded.’ ” The confusion on the bridge does not seem to have prevented the Captain from calling for help: “Hanan Salah, the ship’s nurse, ran into the radio room and heard the captain transmit: “Hello, this is Salem Express. We are due to enter port at 11:30. We’re 30 kilometers offshore, and we’re sinking!” Everything reported about the sinking leads you to conclude it was a harrowing and rapid loss, at night, far offshore in storm conditions, it is perhaps unsurprising an overloaded and ageing ferry, off-course for whatever reason, with an inaccurate and woefully under-represented passenger manifest led to such huge loss of life

The weather was challenging and the rescue attempts of the evening do not seem to have been effective although “……three Egyptian air force C-130 transport planes dropped life jackets and rubber rafts to aid passengers from the stricken vessel. Low clouds, occasional drizzle and 10-foot seas plagued the relief effort throughout the day.” The Cairo National radio station had reported that “…….Samatour officials as saying the ship had veered off course in bad weather and that attempts had been made, apparently unsuccessfully, to warn it”. Whilst the International picture had it that: “….. U.S. Navy officials in Bahrain said that warships on patrol in the Red Sea had not received a distress signal from the stricken vessel,” The Salem Express had undoubtedly gone down very quickly, the survivor reports included one from Second Officer Khalid Mamdough Ahmed, who said  “The crew managed to get only one of the 10 lifeboats into the water, and a number of rubber rafts floated into the sea from the decks. The lights on the ferry were extinguished. In about 11 minutes, the ship was under water, trapping hundreds of passengers still in their cabins on lower decks, despite some crew members’ attempts to rush to the lower cabins, yelling and banging on doors”

Second Officer Ahmed reports that he: “……was helping lower the first lifeboat when a rush of water slammed him into the smokestack. “I said, for sure there is no time for thinking, and I jumped,” he said. “People were screaming and panicking. You know the Titanic? Just like the Titanic. I was on the boat, and then I looked back, and there was no sign of it at all.” Ahmed went on to say he was “sucked down with the ship and grew disoriented in the dark water, unsure which way was up. But (he) fought his way to the surface and found the lone lifeboat close by. and made his way into It.” Surviving passengers did not paint a picture of the crew’s behaviour in quite the same manner “…….other crew members, angry passengers said, grabbed the available life vests and headed for the lifeboat, ignoring panicked passengers’ pleas for help”

Unless you have been in a situation such as this, (and I, personally, and very thankfully have not), it is impossible to imagine what truly occurred on that night, undoubtedly there were acts of heroism, and, no doubt, the opposite too! Likely, most would be in utter confusion and disarray, those lucky enough to escape the lower decks emerging to a picture from their worst nightmares, whilst those who had awoken at impact, or who could not find escape from the rain and storm, and were already awake, would be scrambling for any kind of means to get off the ship and then survive…….a picture that warrants “hell” in any imagination. Those who survived, by whatever means, through the night would have feared exposure, sharks and the feeling of isolation, adrift in the sea, far from land…….their only hope being rescue by emergency services as the weather gradually became flyable and ships could risk getting a little closer to the reefs themselves. Nurse Salah’s ordeal was documented by Kim Murphy: “…..nurse Salah sought to open a box containing an inflatable life raft. She finally grabbed an oar as the water closed in, clinging to it with a man. They clutched the oar until 4 a.m., when they came across a rubber life raft filled with water but still bouncing in the huge, wind-whipped waves. Inside the raft were three bodies. Salah said her companion bailed the water from the boat; they then pulled 15 people aboard. Everything was fine, she said, until 7 a.m., when high waves turned the boat over. Unable to hold on to its slippery underside, Salah found another man clinging to an oar and she grabbed it. About 9:30, she said, they spotted a ship 1 1/2 miles away. The man began to swim for it, although he although he apparently never made it as the ship sailed off. Salah waited until 11:30 a.m., when a tourist boat came by and rescued her”. One man, Ismail Abdel Hassan, an agricultural engineer returning to Egypt after working in Saudi Arabia managed to swim to Port from the wreck, an odyssey of some 18 hours in the water, another, Shaaban abu Siriya reportedly floated on his back until 3:30 a.m., then found a wooden door which three others were clinging to, two of the men were lost to crashing waves, Siriya and the last man managed to hang on until a passing tourist launch found them the next afternoon

The aftermath is no less a confusion, as with all such incidents it will not be the “truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth” and each agency and participant, at least those that survived, will tell a slightly different variation specific to their own perspective and agenda. From the ship itself there can be no testament from the Captain as Hassan Khalil Moro, by accident or design, went down with his ship……..what useful testimony he might have made could only have been one of partial responsibility, I have no idea what Egyptian law says about a Captain, it is likely he was perfectly at liberty to rest until the vessel was approaching port, however, on such a night, with reefs in the direct path of the Salem Express, I doubt it would be considered “best practice” for a Captain to allow the First Officer to command the vessel in such circumstances. The First Officer, Mustafa Hamad Abdel Gowad, on the bridge piloting the vessel at the time of impact, survived in the one lifeboat that got away safely, Ahmed, the second officer, according to Kim Murphy, said it is “….his job to chart the ship’s course, and no revisions were made in the routine approach to Safaga” and the authorities would state “…..the ferry apparently drifted off course sometime before midnight Saturday and struck one of the jagged coral reefs that lurk beneath the surface off Egypt’s Red Sea coast. The vessel sounded a distress signal before midnight Saturday and apparently sank about 20 minutes later” a statement which mirrored Samatour’s official position on the sinking, they would also assert that: “……all of the 4,117-ton ship’s operating documents were in order and the craft was believed to be seaworthy”. Egyptian Prime Minister Atef Sedki and Interior Minister Abdel-Halim Moussa visited the site of the disaster and ordered an investigation into the cause of the accident. Authorities eventually said there was no immediate explanation, but acknowledged that there were reports the Salem Express had drifted outside regular sea lanes 18 miles off Safaga where it grounded and sank……The Egyptian public did not perhaps entirely agree with either the Samatour, nor the Egyptian Government’s version of the sinking with at least one Egyptian journalist, Sara Abou Bakr, sceptical of the entire version of events which you can read for yourself here: https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/04/07/the-dead-of-the-salem-express

I dived the Salem Express again in 2015 another liveaboard with Blue O Two, an outfit at least part owned, as far as I know, by an Army colleague I had served under at Warminster, Major Malcolm Strickland, mentioned elsewhere in this blog. Blue O Two were an excellent outfit and have only recently (2023) been taken over I am told. My two dives in August of 2015 did not add anything descriptive to those already undertaken, in any real way, so I have not included them here, suffice to say the feeling of an eerie melancholy still pervaded the Salem Express, and, I have no doubt, always will

The story of the loss of the Salem Express cannot but affect you as you descend onto her and, as I have just returned from another dive on her taken in May of this year (2024), she still invokes a deep sorrow for those who tragically lost their lives, as a result of either a second officer’s compassionate wish to reduce the suffering of those forced to remain on her decks during an awful winter storm off Safaga, or the crew’s rather selfish desire to get back to port quickly after a delayed sailing, or even perhaps a vessel that drifted off-course on a terrible night in very bad conditions and a confusion of poor navigation…………..no one will ever be in a position to say conclusively which it was, but perhaps a thousand souls, many of them passing completely anonymously and therefore un-mourned, were lost, whatever the reality of the circumstances…….. 

Why not take a look yourself: 2015 Salem Express Dive with Craig Topliss:

Those of you who take the time to read these pieces will know I am indebted to many who make them what they are and without whom they would be little if anything, namely Derek Aughton, Mark Milburn (RIP), Gary Newbold, and The History of the Town of Ajaccio (Facebook) for their excellent photos and to Holger Buss for his amazing photogrammetry of the Salem Express https://dive3d.eu/models/egypt/salem-express/ Also to Normandy 1944 for details on Captain Scamaroni https://www.normandy1944.info/stories/fred-scamaroni

Lastly, my express personal thanks and gratitude to all those attributed individually for the pieces used here

SS Numidia

The Steamship Numidia was brand new, launched 04^th February in 1901 by D&W Henderson and Company of Glasgow (her port of registration), for the Anchor line. Owned and operated by a Mr William Meiklereid again of Glasgow, when she left Glasgow 28^th Feb of that year, bound for Calcutta (modern day Kolkata, India) via Liverpool. Her maiden journey passed without incident, as far as there is no mention of anything unusual prior to her second sailing from Liverpool 06^th July of 1901, where she had loaded a “general” cargo of 7000 tons bound again for Calcutta, under her Master, Captain John Craig

The Anchor Line had its beginnings in 1838, started by Nicol & Robert Handyside, Nicol was the Russian Consul, an official appointed by the government of a country to look after its commercial interests and the welfare of its citizens in another country, although the “interests” of Russia at that time, expressly in Glasgow, even in Scotland in general were lost to me… However, in the 1890’s Russia completed their Trans-Siberian Railway pushing East, and the British were expanding our large-scale commercial activities in China through Hong Kong, and the “treaty ports” of China. Russia very much desired an all season port south of Vladivostok, and both nations were fearful of Japanese plans of expansionism in the Far East (apparently more so than they were wary of each other), meaning both saw a benefit to mutual collaboration. It, therefore, is not as surprising as it might seem that Russia had a consular representative in Great Britain and, as Russia was also a customer for British Shipping, including Warships, perhaps that makes a case for a Russian consul in Glasgow…….. The Handyside brothers traded with Russia and the Baltic under charter arrangements and were merchant ship-brokers operating as N&R Handyside &Co (Jisc Archives Hub: “Records of Anchor Line, shipping company, Scotland. Administrative/Biographical History” Online resource: https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/93c7f198-d46d3c15a46ae692c2cfb038?terms= %22Anchor%20Line%20Ltd%20 (shipping%20company%20%3A%201852-%20%3A%20Scotland). Accessed 29/12/22)

In 1852 Thomas Henderson, Master Mariner, joined the company having retired from the sea, but bringing with him a desire to run shipping to Canada & the USA. In 1854 the first of many vessels was bought and a year later, in 1855, Thomas became a full partner, the business changed its name to Handysides & Henderson, converted a former clipper to steam power, and, trading under the “Anchor Line” title, began running steam packets across the Atlantic to New York

In 1857 two Anchor Line ships were chartered by the British Government to take troops to India to quell the Indian Mutiny, that year also saw Thomas’ two brothers begin the Finnieston Steamship Works Co primarily to construct steam engines (for conversions from sail to steam and for supply to other shipbuilders) but eventually becoming D&W Henderson c1858 and engaging in full ship builds of their own. In 1865 “Henderson Brothers” opened the Anchor Line Office in New York, followed by an office in Londonderry, Ireland, in 1869 which was quickly followed by offices in Liverpool & Dundee whilst services expanded to add Italy (Naples) to New York and increased to include India on the opening of the Suez Canal, which was heralded by an Anchor line vessel, the SS Dido, becoming the first vessel to pass through the canal February 17^th 1867, although it would not “officially” open until November of 1869

In 1690 The Honourable East India Company (EIC) had established a trade post in what was “Kalikata” under the Mughal Emperor Akbar (until 1605), Job Charnock of the EIC had attempted to establish trade at the Hooghly river but had not managed a sufficiently equitable relationship with the local officials there, and had moved on to what was then named Kolkata, and became, in English, Calcutta from that point.  (Britannica: “History of Kolkata, the early period” https://www.britannica.com/place/Kolkata/History Accessed: 30/12/2022)  The Hooghly river was both wide and deep at Calcutta making it a natural choice for a port of sorts, although there were marshes and swamps near, there were local Indian merchants who had moved down from the rivers increasingly silted upper reaches, so commerce was practical and there was clearly a market for trade in both directions, into and out of the Indian continent

There were various resistances to trade and “Empire” with notable sackings of the town in 1756 by Siraj al-Dawlah, which saw British prisoners interred in what would become known as “The Black Hole of Calcutta”, with many deaths attributed to the heat and appalling conditions. Robert “Clive of India” Clive re-took the town defeating al-Dawlah in June of 1757, building Fort William to consolidate the British presence there. The continued military presence and the increasing wealth of the town saw it become the British Capital of India in 1772, drainage reduced the swamps and correspondingly the outbreaks of Malaria, this had the additional effect of increasing the density of population, and the quality of the “palatial” residences being built by the wealthy local merchants

Calcutta’s influence spread throughout India and with the coming of the railways in 1854 Calcutta connected its trade to Peshawar, now part of Pakistan. This British influence in India, and the imposition of British officials had become an irritation to the Indian aristocracy and the Indian Brahmans, Priests who maintained themselves as highest of what was and still largely is a “Caste” or status divided secularity (where “untouchables” are the lowest “class” then workers, then traders, then warriors and at the upper level the Aristocrats & Brahmins……), this lead to inevitable discontent, which erupted in a rebellion, beginning amongst the locally employed East India “Sepoy” Troops spreading from Meerut through Delhi, Agra, Kanpur and Lucknow and was called by the Indians the “First War of Independence”. The British would not cede India and the Anchor Line was amongst several shipping companies to supply troops and much needed supplies to besieged British Troops, and some loyal Sepoy throughout India, resulting in bloody battles with massacres committed by both Indian and British troops. Following protracted sieges, notably at Delhi and Lucknow, and vicious sporadic fighting, the British quelled the uprising and eventually re-established complete control in July of 1859

  With their connection to India already made supporting the re-supply during the Indian Mutiny of 1857, continued trade to India and the carriage of those trading there to and fro, meant the Anchor line had a regular scheduled departure from Glasgow, calling at Liverpool and then sailing to Calcutta via the Suez Canal. Three of the Anchor line ships had been specifically built to undertake this trade route, the Assyria built 1900, yard number 418, The SS Numidia built 1901, yard number 419, and the Circassia built 1902, yard number 431. Numidia was built as a steam cargo ship of 6,399 GRT by D. & W. Henderson & Co., Ltd.at Meadowside Shipyard (85 Castlebank Street, Glasgow, Scotland), for the Anchor Line Ltd. She was launched and delivered on 04 February 1901 and her propulsion was provided by a triple-expansion steam engine through a single prop-shaft giving her a top speed of 12 knots. For those of you immersed in technical details here is the specification for the Numidia

Perhaps the only chance we will get to look at the Numidia is to look at her sistership Circassia II, the sad loss of Numidia on the Brother Islands on what was her second journey, means to date there are no photographs I’ve been able to find anywhere, and I include in that search R. S. McLellan’s “Anchor Line 1856 – 1956” a detailed history reference which has many of the line’s ships represented, but sadly not Numidia. I truly hope one will emerge but to this day not even the Anchor Line archives at Liverpool have yielded one. I will continue to look and if I find one I will add it to the piece, for now, Circassia II, Numidia’s sistership, shown below, is the nearest direct comparison we have and, as she was constructed in 1902 off the same plans, we can be sure Numidia looked pretty much identical, those photos and pictures you see on articles and wreck pieces similar to this one, claiming to be Numidia, are invariably incorrectly attributed, often to the “Numidian”

Numidia had a particularly striking stern, Victorian steamships had developed from the sleek sailing ships and clippers, some still operating well after steam power proved more reliable and generally (with distinct exceptions) faster than the best of the clippers. With the opening of the Suez Canal the few clippers still trading were generally on the Australian routes, where the wind could be relied on to make them competitive against the coal fuelled steamers. The residual full rig sailing masts & sails remaining on early steamships displayed the lack of trust in steam in the early days, on occasion they proved their worth too, when steam powered ships had failures at sea and limped back on sail power. But the other remainder of the sail era prominent on the early steam vessels was the overhanging, rounded stern, a beautifully stylised feature that persisted long after the sails and masts had gone for ever. Numidia had a particular stern, she featured a deeply curved stern hull transition down to the main deck which can be seen in the main Circassian photo at the opening of this piece, just behind the funnel of her tug at the stern on her starboard side, the cut features on the for’ard deck transitions from quarterdeck to main and again from main to forecastle     

The brand new Numidia set sail on her maiden voyage on the 28^th February 1901 departing from Glasgow, she was captained by John Craig and bound for Calcutta, it seems this was an entirely successful voyage which saw her back safe in Liverpool re-victualling and loading for a departure on the 06 July 1901. Numidia was carrying 7000 Tons of “general cargo” and casting off with a crew of 97. Numidia successfully transited the Suez Canal via Port Said exiting from Port Tewfik, the city of Suez, early on 19 July and continued south into the Red Sea. Numidia passed the island of Shadwan at 1900 that evening. Captain Craig, altered course at 2300 and two hours later, at 0100 in the dark morning hours of the 20^th the Big Brothers Island Light was sighted off of the port bow. John Craig altered the ship’s course again intending to pass a mile to the west of Big Brothers

Captain Craig, clearly happy with the Numidia’s progress and position, left the Bridge in the hands of the Officer of the Watch with the instruction that he be notified when the Big Brothers light was abeam of the ship. It is not clear exactly why Captain Craig was not woken, the belief at the enquiry into Numidia’s loss was that the Watch Officer had fallen asleep, but at 0210 the sound of Numidia running aground on the northern plateau of Big Brothers in clear view of the lighthouse rent the night! Captain Craig, on reaching the Bridge, tried in vain to get Numidia off the reef by reversing her, after almost two hours she was still firm on the rocks, Numidia’s bow had sustained serious damage and she was taking on water, realising the futility of the situation Captain Craig ordered the engines stopped

It didn’t take Captain Craig long to realise the bow damage had doomed Numidia, despite assistance from ships including the SS Rhipens, which came into view at around 07:40 on the 20^th July only hours after Numidia hit the rocks, and then took despatches from Numidia to Suez calling for assistance. All following attempts to get Numidia off the reef were unsuccessful, the bow was too damaged and the water in her bow was helping to pin her to the rocks, all that remained was for Captain Craig to give the abandon ship order and permit the crew to be rescued and taken back to Suez. Captain Craig remained with his ship for seven weeks after the grounding supervising the removal of Mail and cargo and no doubt ensuring the same was not looted from the site by local boatmen and tribesmen, as was often the case in the remoter of regions of the Red Sea at the time. Numidia inevitably broke her back on the reef, separating just for’ard of her bridge, although tides are minimal in the area, there is a range of a metre or so and there can be quite fierce seas on occasion too. The loss of Numidia would be laid at the feet of the Officer of the watch who the Board of Trade enquiry believed fell asleep, failing to navigate the Brothers Island leading to the vessel striking the reef, it would cost him his ticket for 9 months, although I do not know his details and cannot say if he sailed again after Numidia’s loss

The steep angle of the reef and the stresses of tide and sea state left the bow of Numidia in the shallows and the main part of the wreck upright but lying down the reef to its base, her stern and prop at around 80m, over the years she has become a part of the reef, especially midships where the upper length of her hull has collapsed into it and her bridge area is just ruined and indistinguishable metal and coral. I first dived Numidia on my fourth Red Sea trip, we were diving off the MV Hurricane (a great Liveaboard that burned out with tragic the loss of 3 British divers in June of 2023), this was the first “Southern Red Sea” expedition and a new area to me entirely, my Green Navy Log records: “28/04/10 BIG BROTHER ISLAND “Numidia” This is an awesome wreck and actually is defying gravity as she is almost vertical on the reef. One good storm and she looks as though she would disappear! We dropped down the Port side to 50m at the stern mast which is still upright in and around the lower deck which is easily accessible as the wood is all gone. Again there is a classic engine room air intake in the hull but more broken. Up along the prop shaft tunnel and into the broken through centre section, this is heavily rotted but navigable with caution. Out onto the deck area round the mid ships block house & then through into the centre section to come out of the between decks to decompress again on the reef where we saw two turtles and a conger – sorry spotted Moray ell to be accurate! Plenty of Pipe Fish & Big Eye Jacks and shoals of Anthea along with beautiful hard & soft corals – amazing dive! Buddy Craig & Gaz & Claire Air In 200 Out 100”

 My next dive on Numidia would be just a year later, clearly the Southern Red Sea Wrecks had impressed me and another entry in the Green Navy Log records: “02/08/11 Red Sea “Numidia” Big Brother, dropped in & down the side to 40m & up through the port companionway, half way up we dropped starboard into the engine room to exit the bridge which is broken open. Back in through the Starboard Bridge area and down & through the bridge area coming out at the rear of where the funnel would be – in and through again and out the Port side to see the whole hull going into the deep – wonderfull! There were too many fish & corals to mention but two Napoleon Wrasse got close & a 3’ Barracuda being cleaned on the reef by a tiny & brave blue cleaner Wrasse – a magnificent dive Viz 30m Air In 210 Out 150 Buddy Craig 28%”

I was lucky enough to get back to the Red Sea in 2013 and again we were on a wreck safari including the Southern wrecks, this time there was quite a current as you will see “28/07/13 NUMIDIA – RED SEA _ Brothers A maul to get down to her in a very fast current (4kt ish) but wonderful to rest at the hatch combing looking at the stern rail & bollards. Into the hull for a circuit through the hold winding through the collapsed decking & bulkheads – engine room & to the break at the for’ard bridge area. Round the hull and on to the reef to deco and watch her disappear from view. A fantastic dive Air In 200 Out 100 Buddy Craig”

I have often heard divers extol reef diving over wreck diving, I have never really understood that perspective, I love the colours and diversity of a reef as much as anyone, however every wreck acts as an artificial reef anyhow, the first minute or so a ship goes down fish and marine life are drawn to it. I have dived in some barren locations where the only thing there is a wreck, and usually, as a result it is teeming with life, fish of all sizes, crustaceans, eels, soft and hard coral and that’s not just in warm seas, anyone who has dived the James Egan Layne will attest to the fields of dead man’s fingers down her sides and the shoals of Bib & Pouting swimming through her

Numidia is a very good case in point, her hull settled on a reef, undoubtedly there were corals and marine organisms already, but those have now colonised Numidia too, and what’s more Numidia has history, a connection to distant pasts and many lives even after only two brief voyages, you don’t generally get that from an isolated Atoll or a rock outcrop or a barren sea-bed, unless of course some poor unfortunate vessel happens to land on them…….and when you’ve finished your exploration of as much of the wreck as you can, then there is decompression……..that’s what reefs are for!

The Anchor Line was another of those Liverpool Shipping Lines that made the city the hub of Britain’s international trade, for the most part far more trade passed through Liverpool than did London, the Anchor Line was a piece of Liverpool’s history, although began in Glasgow around 1854 with the Handyside Brother’s outright ownership of their first vessel “Phantom”, Following the docking of “Tempest” out of Bombay 29^th December of 1856, Liverpool would be the main departure port for their Atlantic & Mediterranean sailings, eventually becoming equally as important to them as Glasgow and New York (McLellan R. S. “Anchor Line 1856-1956”. P17: Anchor Line Limited Glasgow 1956)

My last dive on Numidia was August of 2015 with Blue O2 off Blue Melody (another fantastic Red Sea Dive Liveaboard), on the Best of Wrecks tour, there were some staggeringly good dives on that trip, some you might read of elsewhere in this self-indulgent retrospective, but you can find those if you will, my Navy Log write-up says: “04/08/15 NUMIDIA Big Brother Island Red Sea – Fair current when we dropped in & descent was rapid which “pinched” my ear – down to the stern hold and a look round to see the beautiful lines of this iconic steamer sunk in 1901 – swam up the deck to enter just short of the accomm/bridge and then wended our way through the starboard gangway & in and out of the various rooms – most are featureless now but collapse has meant you can access the engine room & the upper holds then come back into the bridge & accomm block through the gaping holes left in the hull and bulkheads. Wonderful dive with half an hour deco swimming with a shoal of fish on the reef past magnificent fan corals & brain corals & hordes of Red Sea fish Great! Air In 200 Out 70 Buddy Craig”

The loss of Numidia bears scant comment in the Anchor Line History with Mr McLellan recording it thus: “….The following year one ship was sold and one lost, and three new ships joined the fleet. One of these, the Numidia, was lost on her second voyage to Calcutta; she went ashore on Northern Brothers Island in the Red Sea and became a total loss.” (McLellan R. S. “Anchor Line 1856-1956”. P55: Anchor Line Limited Glasgow 1956) ………so ended the story of SS Numidia

As ever without the reference sources and photos this piece would not be what it is, I will be forever grateful to those who’s shoulders I stand on: Derek Aughton, Jesper Kjoller & Gary Newbold for the Photos of our diving, Rico Oldfield for the brilliant wreck Illustration, Ned Middleton & R. S. McLellan for the history & archive material & my long time dive buddy Craig for his patience

Now why not take a dive on Numidia with me, but be advised this is a long one…..

Portland Dorset

There was little glamorous about coal in the Victorian era, it was the fuel that built the industrial revolution and arguably made the largest contribution to the Victorian era and, therefore, by extension, the British Empire. The Ashington Coal Co of Newcastle on Tyne had it’s origins in the late 1840’s, at one time Ashington was “….proudly proclaimed as the largest pit village in the world….”  (Thornton. S in “History Lesson – Ashington No.5: Today’s history lesson – Ashington Coal company No.5” Online resource:  https://northtynesiderailway.blogspot.com/2020/07/history-lesson-ashington-no5.html Accessed: 25/05/2023). The town had the largest private railway system in Northumberland, possibly even in the whole of the North East of England

The Railway was constructed in 1879 and ran from 1880, it was 2ft Gauge to begin with and built to ferry miners between Ashington & Pegwood Colliery, miners alighting at Hirst Platform (Ashington Colliery), it used four and six wheel coaches and was operated by the colliery company (Young. A in “Disused Stations Site Record: Station name: Hirst Platform” Online resource: http://disused-stations.org.uk/h/hirst_platform/index.shtml Accessed: 25/05/2023)

The intimate connection between Ships, Trains and coal was visceral in the Victorian era, without coal there was no steam, without steam there were no steam trains or steamships and without steamships and steam trains there was little or no travel, especially global travel. Whilst Sailing ships and windjammers carried trade across the world for a hundred years, coal and steam power revolutionised industry and travel, shortening distance and travel time to a degree never before possible…… Ashington lies around 4 miles from Morpeth and 15 miles North of Newcastle Upon Tyne and was part of the Hamlet of Bothal (hence the engine name above). Owned by the Duke of Portland, Ashington only really developed into a large town when local men were granted permission to mine in the area paying royalties to the Duke for the privilege. Between 1840 and 1867 the town grew to include “…..Six hundred and sixty five houses (had been) built in eleven long rows, running from East to West, to accommodate the colliers” (Sense of Place North East, Northumberland Communities, Ashington Online resource: https:// communities.northumberland.gov.uk/Ashington.htm Accessed 25/05/2023)

The Steam Collier Ashington was built for the Ashington Coal Company and launched in May of 1892 by William Dobson and Co from their Wincomblee Road Yard, (between Mitchell’s Low Walker Yard and, latterly, the Walker Naval Yard). The Wincomblee yard had three berths and could construct vessels up to 10,000 tons, there was a smaller berth for building tugs and hopper barges

The Ashington was decidedly functional and of her time, utilitarian it could be said, she had forward and aft holds, a meager accommodation and engine room, an open bridge, and was powered by a 3 cylinder compound steam engine & boilers by John Dickinson & Sons of Sunderland. Purpose built as a cargo steamer this was a workhorse, and at around 530 Tons Net weight, she could carry around the same in coal for a dead-weight of 1300 Tons, a coaster destined to be moving coal from pit quay to the corners of empire via much grander passenger and transports of the time

It is truly remarkable to find a receipt for Boiler Steel in the Lloyds Register Foundation Archives where John Dickinson of Sunderland has purchased Steel Plates from David Colville & Sons of Motherwell on the 20^th of March of 1890, it is very likely these plates would become a part of the Ashington’s Boiler…….

William Dobson & Co, Newcastle upon Tyne was started by its namesake William Dobson in 1883, Dobson had previously worked for Barclay & Curle on the Clyde and then moved to Newcastle in 1863 to manage Mitchell’s Yard at Low Walker. The Wincomblee Yard was started in 1883 on land adjacent to the Low Walker Yard and had 3 berths for mid-range vessels up to 10,000 Tonnes and a smaller slipway for Tugs and hopper barges (Tyne Built Ships “William Dobson & Co (1883-1928) – History” Online resource:  http://www.tynebuiltships.co.uk/Dobson-History.html Accessed 02/06/2023)

The Dobson & Co yard built special orders, some for the Russian market, coasters and river boats mainly. It is interesting to note some of these vessels were built and then dismantled to be shipped abroad for re-construction in foreign yards, presumably to allow local fit-out and finish and avoid having the expense of additional work at higher British prices, however there is no note to confirm a specific reason.  William Dobson & Co lasted under the ownership of his sons following William’s death in 1907, they would keep it until the last known vessel, White Crest, was finished in 1928 when the yard was taken over in July of that year by Armstrong-Whitworth

For those of you who love the technical details:

The Ashington Coal Company bought at least one additional steamer, the Woodhorn, built in 1894 by J L Thompson & Sons of Northsands, again using a John Dickinson Engine and boiler, it is the Woodhorn that gives an idea of the routes these vessels would typically run as she was torpedoed on a journey from Blyth in Northumberland en route to Sarpsborg, Norway. Likely these steam colliers would be largely employed on UK coastal journeys, but occasionally see longer trips to Nordic and other North-sea ports, wherever their cargoes would fetch a better price assuredly

One particular journey does become a matter of record however for a distinctly different reason and found in a rather unexpected journal: (The British Medical Journal October 15^th 1892. P 864: “Cases of Asiatic Cholera in the United Kingdom, 1892.”)  where a case of Asiatic Cholera was recorded in a member of the Ashington’s crew arriving in Blyth 06^th Sept of 1892 from Hamburg in Germany. Luckily for him the sailor survived following treatment at Blyth Port Hospital, as Cholera had been expected in Britain having been a large scale epidemic in Europe in the summer of 1892, so much so that The medical Department in the UK deployed a Dr Barry to monitor the spread in Europe. His observations lead to the issuing of precautionary advice and prompted measures to control immigration and preventative emergency arrangements in London and British ports (Hardy. A in “Cholera, quarantine and the English preventive system 1850-1895” Para 2, P 265. Online resource: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/ PMC1036746/ pdf/medhist00042-0032.pdf Accessed 31/05/2023)

 It is clear from the British Medical Journal (Vol 2 No 1659 (Oct 15^th 1892) P864-868, that there was little support for the re-imposition of a period of Quarantine to prevent the wider spread of the disease through Britain from Europe. The report states containment of individuals showing symptoms at the ports had effectively prevented the spread. A perhaps less than expected conclusion from a respected medical journal, especially in light of the Government “overkill” response to our recent viral Covid pandemic. It is interesting to see how easily the Ashington and her steam driven peers demonstrate the huge influence advancing steam technology had on global travel and the spread of populations (and diseases) around the globe……..    

One thing immediately obvious which made Ashington stand out is her forepeak, the pronounced “Crown” or perhaps more Tiara-like bow peak above her Hawses is very distinctive, I can’t recall seeing another like it. In truth, although Ashington lacks the glamour of a Liner, or the more prestigious look of a passenger steamer, she has something distinct about her, an honest swagger if you like! Ashington was sold to a Dutch company, Firma W H Berghuys of Amsterdam, (Noord-Holland) Netherlands in 1905 and re-named Betsy Anna to honour the director’s British Wife. In an odd parody, the Dutch registration of the company who bought her is “Maatschappij tot exploitatie van het Betsy Anna” literally translated as “The company to exploit Betsy Anna”, hopefully the director’s wife had no Dutch language skills otherwise I could foresee some awkward conversations over the dinner table in the Berghuys home……..

There is at least one incident in Betsy Anna’s life with the Berghuys coal shipping company, as the postcard view above illustrates, Betsy Anna aground off the seaside resort town of Egmond aan Zee (by the sea) on the North Coast of the Netherlands, best known for the Dutch painters Cornelis Beelt and Jacob van Ruisdael painting around the area in the 1600’s and, in the time of the Ashington era of our vessel, the small colony of artists hosted by Egmond Binnen including the Americans George Hitchcock, Gari Melchers and Walter MacEwen in the mid 1880’s

The Betsy Anna stranding is detailed in a piece on her in the Dutch Maritime History Databank and describes the event of the 31^st of January 1914: “The steamship was loaded with 1100 tons of coal, came from West Hartlepool and was destined for Amsterdam. In view of the bad weather, the crew, consisting of 17 people, was taken ashore by the Egmonder lifeboat. According to the captain’s report, they had become entangled in the fog. On Saturday afternoon, the tug ‘ATLAS’ left for the beaching location to try and make it off. This succeeded towards evening, and the ‘BETSY ANNA’ was towed into IJmuiden on Sunday morning. (Source: Kleine Courant,’t Vliegend Blaadje, for Helder Texel; 04.02.1914 RN – Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad 31-12-1915)” The sources quoted are the small (local) newspaper “Flying Blade of Helder” 04^th Feb 1914 and the “Rotterdam Newspaper” of 31^st December of 1915

It seems that Ships have been coming ashore at Egmond by the sea for millennia, however it is clear the Betsy Anna did not do so intentionally from the tug Atlas, of Zur Muhlen & Co, towing her off the sandbar evident in the postcard. I can only assume that the small boat attached to Betsy Anna’s bow is attempting to keep her straight as she is hauled to prevent her capsizing during the tow. Betsy Anna’s home port was Amsterdam, however her coaling for North Sea, Baltic and European journeys was often carried out from Rotterdam and in 1910 she would be sold again, this time to another Dutch company, W H Berghuys Kolenhandel N. V. clearly a subsidiary of the original Firma Berghuys but now indicating “Coal Trade” (Kolenhandel) in the title, not just “Firm” (Firma) however Betsy Anna was still managed by The company to exploit Betsy Anna………. This period of Betsy Anna’s life was not without incident and a measure of controversy too, way before Jarrow became a focus for the unemployed marching to parliament in October of 1936, the crew of the Betsy Anna refused to sail her back to Rotterdam from Hull in 1915 in fear of the German U Boat Threat to sink “neutral” (those ostensibly not declared at war) shipping. The crew claimed they were on strike, the shipowners, Naamlooze Vennootschap (limited company) W H Berghuys Kolenhandel, decided to use a strike exemption clause to force the issue, (Schofield. J: “Laytime & Demurrage Interruptions and exceptions to laytime” Ch 4.340 P 36 Seventh Edition Published by Informa Law from Routledge, 711 Third Avenue, New York 2016) the judge (J. Sankey) allowed the use stating “…..I do not think it would be possible to say the abstention of a workman from mere fear to do a particular thing or perform a particular contract would necessarily constitute a strike” the crew were instructed to sail……..

I expect there will be manifests and crew registers available for any native Dutch speaker to find, presuming the records survived the First World War, it would be fascinating to see the extent of the Betsy Anna’s travels, sadly I have no Dutch and can find nothing easily available through the usual myriad sources. The Betsy Anna would definitely have seen some service in the Nordic States as on the 29th December of 1915 she was sold to a Norwegian Company, this again from the Dutch Maritime History site: “The steamship BETSY ANNA, of the shipping company W.H. Berghuis, over here, was sold to Norway for, it is said 350,000 NLG” Even allowing for a decimal place being out (35,000) 35,000 Dutch Guilders in 1915 would be equivalent to just over a million UK£ today

What is abundantly clear is that Betsy Anna continued to cross the North Sea to the UK as, on the 17^th August of 1926, whilst in ballast (empty of coal or cargo) and travelling from Fleetwood in the UK back to Rotterdam, she ran aground at Prawle Point in Devon. I can only imagine Betsy Anna had been carrying coal for the Fleetwood steam trawlers and had unloaded there, the weather on the outbound journey was calm enough but towards Devon she ran into a dense fog, this was all before RADAR or GPS, at that time navigation was by Chart, Compass and Sextant…..or dead reckoning, line of sight essentially, and coast hugging, for some that perhaps lacked sufficient formal maritime navigation training. Betsy Anna ran aground in dense fog at Prawle Point, more specifically just past Gammon Head and Maceley cove on the rocks between Elender Cove and Black Cove, you can clearly see Gammon Head behind her in the photographs taken at the time of her stranding 

As in the Egmond incident, Betsy Anna would be re-floated in an attempt to salvage her, and plans were laid to get her to Cowes in the Isle of Wight for repair. On the 03^rd October of 1926 she was towed off the rocks by the tug Trustee and beached at Salcombe, in order to make temporary repairs before making the onward journey to Cowes

By the 12^th of October the temporary repairs at Salcombe were complete, Betsy Anna was ready and prepared for the Cowes journey. Towing her to Cowes would mean a journey of around 115 miles, taking her past Portland, sadly Betsy Anna did not make Cowes, barely half way and taking on water her towing lines would break off Portland Bill, she would drift the few more miles to The Needles, East of Swanage, where she sank and lies broken apart to this day  

I dived the Betsy Anna in September of 2007 on the Inspiration with Mike Baker, visibility was not great, which is something you put up with fairly often in UK diving, but it does mean you get quite zoned in on smaller areas of the wreck, anyhow the Green Navy Log records: “BETSY ANN SWANAGE DORSET Very Dingy dive – glad of the torch – great hunt round over a very broken old steamer hawse & chain still in place and so was the prop – shaft tunnel very broken up but a full boiler had 2 conger in one small & one which was very large – small lobster under the prop tunnel buddy Mike Baker Viz 2m” I clearly enjoyed the dive even though there was a great deal of debris and you had to make out what you were looking at because of the low viz and lack of wider context, she’s a wreck I’d like to see again in better light, sadly to date that’s the only dive I have done on Betsy Anna……..but you never know!

The loss of the Betsy Anna gets scant mention, although there is an entry in the Dutch Shipping Journal of October 1926:

Het Schip (The Ship) P300 Shipping & Shipbuilding 01 October 1926

“Ship losses. The sea freight steamship Betsy Anna, size 880 bru to reg. to show 1300 ton deadweight, in 1890 by W . Dobson & Co. in New castle built on Tyne belonging to Berghuys’ Kolenhandel te Amsterdam, recently stranded at Prawl point, must be regarded as totally lost“

As always this piece is greatly enhanced by those who illustrate it so beautifully, I am immeasurably grateful for the photos and illustrations of Dorset Diving, underwateradventures.co.uk, michaelmafadyenscuba.info, tynebuiltships.co.uk, marhistdata.nl, Billy Embleton, Ashington Colliery Railway, disusedstations.org.uk, northtynesiderailway.blogspot.com and Lloyds Register Foundation and the Tyne & Wear Archives

Soviet T-43 Class Minesweeper- Hurghada- Egypt

The Russians built 178 T-43 Class Minesweepers during the latter stages of WWII, they were based on a design variously attributed to either the UK or the US. Presumably, as the Soviet Union was an ally to the West at the time, the design was shared freely, although there seems to be no definitive record of that or the specific design origin either. The Soviet T-43 minesweepers were built in Russia (Leningrad & Kerch), in Poland and even in China (Licensed kits at first and then wholly locally). The Russians sold or gifted 44 of these vessels to Pro-Soviet regimes or satellites, with Egypt receiving 7 of them after the Moscow-Cairo arms deal, of 24th of September 1955, negotiated between  Russia’s First Secretary of the Communist Party, (the country’s leader) Nikita Khrushchev and Egypt’s President Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser

The Egyptian declaration nationalising the Suez Canal Company 26^th July of 1956 provoked swift retribution, Israel invaded, backed by Britain and France (Operation Musketeer) in an attempt to oust Nasser and re-establish control over the strategic maritime highway and trading route. The Soviet Union, seeing this as an attempt to undermine their own efforts to increase their influence in the region, began to make serious threats to back Egypt, this pushed the United States to issue stern warnings to Moscow to stay out of the conflict, it looked like a Third World War was imminent

It took the threat of economic sanctions against Israel, Britain & France by Eisenhower (US President) to end the conflict. Britain & France withdrew in December of 1956 and Israel followed shortly after leaving a United Nations peacekeeping force in the area to monitor the situation and allow Egypt to re-open the Canal in March of 1957. It seems the region has always been and perhaps always will be just “one step closer to the edge” than the rest of the world…….but let us steer back towards the El Minya, newly delivered to the Egyptian Navy and, as far as I can determine, playing no part in the Suez Crisis other than perhaps as a catalyst to the wider picture in terms of international political allegiances…….

El Minya was delivered in spring 1956, one of four T-43 ocean-going minesweepers built in former USSR, and delivered as part of a $120 million arms supply. The four T-43 minesweepers delivered in 1956 were named after four different Egyptian cities: Minya, Bahaira, Gharbia and Assiout the hometown of President Nasser himself. For those of you who love the technical details Minya & the T-43 minesweepers were configured like this:

If you thought the end of the “Suez Crisis” would bring about peace in the area events would prove otherwise and although Britain and France withdrew, as the Israeli’s did, eventually, really what ensued was just a lull. The area was rife with tensions, the Israeli’s were on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were named as an official body by the areas Arab League, a loose confederation of Middle eastern Nations supposedly sharing power in the region. The source of the Jordan River was to be diverted into Syria to the benefit of Syria and the Lebanon, but to the detriment of Israel, and Syria was sponsoring PLO attacks into Israel to weaken its hold on Gaza (“The Six Day War (1967)” Ynetnews Online resource: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3611488,00.html Accessed: 18/05/2023). April 07^th 1967 heralded the shooting down of six Syrian MIG fighter jets by Israel, following a border incursion over Israeli territory, Syria turned to Egypt for support

By May Egypt’s response and it’s rhetoric was ramping up, President Nasser sent nearly 1000 tanks and seven divisions of Egyptian troops into Syria. That move was somewhat influenced by Russia’s insistence to Egypt that the Israeli’s had deployed in force along the Syrian-Israeli border, Nasser demanded the removal of all UN troops from the Sinai and Gaza, immediately following that evacuation Jordan deployed troops along Amman’s Israeli border and war was inevitable. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, a direct provocation to Israel “if IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin wants war, then he was welcome to it.” (Nasser quoted in “The Six Day War (1967) Ynetnews) Jordan pledged its troops to Egypt, Iraq and her allies followed suit and in answer Israel formed a new government and made the now global figure, Moshe Dayan, its minister of defence. June 4^th Israel carried out a pre-emptive air strike and by the next day had destroyed 350 Arab Alliance aircraft and obliterated their airfield runways for the loss of only 20 of their own jets. At first Egyptian airfields were hit, closely followed by those of Syria and Jordan in what was called “Operation Focus”, when it ended over 450 alliance aircraft were destroyed giving Israel almost complete air superiority for the loss of just 46 IAF jets

Whilst the air battle was swift and decisive, the war on the ground was a more drawn out affair. This is mainly a tale of the Air and the Sea more than it is of land battles, suffice to say that despite very large Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian forces the Israeli’s strategy and execution overwhelmed the alliance force. I suggest those of you who want to learn more of the land conflict read the Ynet news pieces quoted in this text, but I will leave you with this quote from the 6 day war article: “The Six Day War saw the military advantage held by Israel’s neighboring Arab countries annihilated as hundreds of tanks were destroyed, over 15,000 enemy soldiers were killed or wounded and some 6,000 were taken prisoner”. A decisive victory for Israel

Eventually, what started as a violent war fell again into a lull, now known as “The War of Attrition” and, although there is no officially recognised start date, it can be considered in effect from around March of 1969. (“War of Attrition (1969-1970)” Online Resource: Ynetnews 22/10/2008 Accessed: 18/05/2023). Nasser was determined to regain Sinai and started shelling the Israeli’s, and both sides executed raids and incursions, but no land was won or lost and the fighting concentrated around Suez. In October of 1967 the Egyptian Navy sank the Israeli destroyer INS Eilat off Rumani and in 1968 Egyptian forces bombarded IDF outposts in the Suez Canal and in 1969 the Egyptian Navy took possession of the Soviet T-43 Class Minesweeper El Minya………

Now there isn’t a great deal I can say about El Minya’s journey to the Red Sea port of Hurghada, there isn’t a great deal available to review and I’m sure what was available at one time, and likely classified information at that, was very limited. The Egyptian Navy would keep vessel movements limited to those who needed to know to avoid military compromise but by whatever means El Minya arrived in the Southern Red Sea port of Hurghada and anchored off the commercial dock to the South of what was then a small fishing village and port, what has become in more recent times a busy tourist area and diving resort

201 Squadron originated as a result of the Suez Campaign, using Kurnasse Phantom 4E aircraft deployed to Ramat David in October 1956. They were the first Israeli Air Force (IAF) Squadron to operate F-4E Phantoms. In September of 1969 they were under the command of Shmuel Hetz, the unit was tasked to carry out anti-RADAR and anti-Surface to Air Missile site attacks against the alliance bases in Suez and the Red Sea coast. Operation Priha (Blossom) was planned as a series of strikes against targets in the Egyptian heartland. The strikes were carried out by the 201 sqn Phantoms and the squadron achieved its first IAF kill (11th November 1969) against an Egyptian Air Force (Soviet) Mig-21, one of the Priha attacks is known to have been executed against a SAM site near Abu Sueir in October 1969

On the evening of the 06^th February 1970 Kurnasse Phantoms of 201 squadron streaked low over the gulf from the East, beneath Egyptian RADAR capability, giving them the element of complete surprise as they attacked the Air Base and nearby air defence systems at Hurghada. It isn’t known if the Israeli’s knew in advance that El Minya was anchored in the harbour, but her anti-aircraft guns would have made her a significant threat and a high value target of opportunity in any case. It was only 15 hours earlier that Egyptian commandos had attacked two Israeli naval vessels moored in Elath harbour in the Gulf of Aqaba, one of the vessels, a 500‐ ton supply vessel, sank within an hour after magnetic mines attached to her hull exploded, reports say most if not all her crew escaped the sinking ship. El Minya would meet a similar fate that day, hit by at least one charge on her starboard side at her bow, probably another landed in close proximity as there is clear percussion damage toward her stern, likely from air to ground missiles from the 201 squadron “Heavy Hammer” (Kurnasse) Phantom’s

New York Times reporter James Feron made the first page with his report from Jerusalem:  (Feron.J. New York Times Feb 07 1970 (P1)) “JERUSALEM, Feb. 6 — Israeli jets attacked and sank a 700‐ton Egyptian minelayer with a crew of 80 in the Gulf of Suez this evening, the Israelis reported. The attack apparently was in retaliation for the sinking of an Israeli coastal vessel in Elath harbor before dawn. The Israeli planes were reported to have caught the Egyptian ship about 35 miles south of Shadwan, the Egyptian island occupied briefly by Israeli commandos recently, at the entrance to the Gulf of Suez. Military officials here said that the minelayer was used in antisubmarine warfare. They said that she carried two gun turrets with double-barrelled 37‐mm cannons and other armament.”

I first dived the El Minya in November of 2008, by this time my “Little Red Wreck Book” was full and the dive is written up in the Green Navy Log and records: “El Mina – HURGHADA HARBOUR Sunk in the Arab Israeli War in 1972 whilst at anchor the wreck lies on its Port Side from the bows @ 17m to the stern @ 32 we opted for 32% mix and Decoplanner software led by the dive guide Nick. The wreck is fantastic – an Egyptian minesweeper. We finned off the shot and up the Port side from the stern to the bow. Open hatches show the mess of debris & wiring collapsed inside. There are 2 wire winches for the towed sweep – one is big – very large bore cable. There are 50 cal AA guns and smaller AA machine guns. Along the deck there are two different sized tow buoys. There is little damage to the main structure and we swam up along the deck to the forward guns and the bow. Six Lion Fish & a shoal of Glass Fish resident at the anchor chains. The starboard side has the blast hole just forward of the bridge area & that opens up the main hull. Would be a good penetration & overall this was a great dive. 32% Nitrox Gas In 220 Out 110 50% Deco for 41 mins (40 on bottom) Buddy Craig/Mark”

I have been lucky enough to visit the Red Sea many times, it’s a place of contrast, from the occasional soldiers isolated for a tour of duty on the Brothers Islands, squat campfire and meagre rations, to the ever developing markets and hotels at Sharm El Sheik, when I first visited Hurghada it was little more than a fishing village and one road town, still distinctly “Arab” despite the two modern hotels stuck at the far end of the quay between the town and its harbour, now Hurghada has swelled and there are new areas of development with more up market hotels and the ubiquitous Hard Rock Café diners, it’s not bad to see, just different. In 1970 when El Minya was attacked Hurghada was a very different place, no hotels, a shanty town road of poor quality buildings and the fisherman’s quay, but perhaps that is a little disingenuous, it was after all not yet a diving resort destination, just an Egyptian fishing village, now even the Brothers Islands sell T Shirts and tourist bracelets….But I digress…..

I next dived El Minya in August of 2011: “Red Sea “El Minya” in Hurghada harbour. The ex-Russian mine-sweeper given to Egypt in the ‘60’s on her Port side about 60 m bow to stern! Sunk by missile from Israeli Phantom Jets. We dropped on the stern & past the props through the rudders to get to the deck area and went to the bows along the sea bed past the Stern Guns (AA) and bridge to the deck 50’ cal’s with cases of ammo in a speed loader nearby. From the bow back down the deck at centre line& over the funnel & bridge looking for entry/exits then back from stern to mid-ships where we entered the forward missile damage & went down the ward room to its bulkhead & turned round to swim back through & exit at the bow section bulkhead through a million & more Glassfish in huge shoals which made a great exit & lovely dive end. Air In 200 Out 70 Viz 20m Buddy Craig VR3 deco 2@12 then 8 @ 4.5 W Temp 27’”

I dived her again in 2013 and once more on my last Red Sea trip in 2015. Every time there is something new to see or something different about her. The 2015 dive we took a look at the barge not far from El Minya, I’ve no idea if it was sunk in the same attack or a later event but there is always something that makes you want to dive her again, she’s a small boat but she has a big piece of history surrounding her and is the only vessel I have dived sunk as a result of a modern rocket attack by Iconic Phantom jets…….

Each dive I have done on El Minya has been a good one, the visibility sometimes in harbour areas can be poor, I’ve been lucky every time on her. The interior has limited opportunity to penetrate but there are places you can get in and swim through, which makes her a challenge on occasion as, by her size, the spaces are somewhat confined. I will post a GoPro dive from 2015 with this piece and you can see one of the routes for yourselves, you can tour the barge too on this one. I do love diving El Minya, there are some who overlook her on the Liveaboards in the area, I don’t understand them, I love rounding off a dive trip with a last dive round this brave reminder of a war most have forgotten long ago

I will leave you with my last dive on El Minya taking in the barge and described in my Navy Log as: “El Minya – A visit to the brave little ex Russian 6 day war victim caught by Israeli Phantoms at anchor – she went down with her anti-aircraft guns blazing & shell cases still remain on the sea bed at her bows in evidence – guns are pointed airborne!! In and out of her along the length from her props at the stern to the bow past the shattered hole in her starboard hull – along the main corridor to exit at the bridge area & back to the stern – I love this dive – Air in 230 Out 100 Buddy Craig”

As usual this piece is only possible due to the generosity of those who bring it to life and I am grateful for the use of photos taken by kiwibavarianphotography.com, ahramonline, Divers-Guide, the IDF Spokespersons Unit,Ynetnews, navypedia, The Imperial War Museum, history.navy.mil, Diver Magazine and the brilliant illustrations by Rico Oldfield and courtesy of drive2.ru

Now why not enjoy a dive with me on El Minya

Faro de Punta Rasca Tenerife

The Cita En El Mar was a typical Canaries Tuna Vessel, built in 1961 in Madeira, Portugal….. apparently, although to date I can find no evidence of that, nor can I find a reference to a shipyard or shipbuilder in Funchal, or any other Madeiran Port that might have constructed her, so we begin this story with a conundrum, the bigger mystery becomes how and why she sank off Punta de Rasca in 1995. Even the date of the sinking of the Cita En El Mar (City on the Sea) cannot be comprehensively evidenced, I have seen 3 different dates quoted on the few diving sites that are local to the wreck, as the most invested in the sinking, Sergio Hanquet, a local Los Cristianos diver is likely the most accurate and he has the sinking on the 14^th of May of 1995

Sergio was confronted by two of the crew, still wet from their ordeal, arrived from the sunken vessel in his Los Cristianos shop, and, as a well-known local diver, was asked to dive the wreck and recover documents on behalf of the captain and crew. Sergio dived the wreck that day, so I believe he is likely to be most accurate in reference to the sinking, his photos of the wreck are a record of her condition immediately after her loss and are visually quite stunning. The Canaries and their surrounding Atlantic waters have three national maritime (jurisdictional) borders, with Portugal, Morocco and Western Sahara (Africa). In its 2014 study on Tuna fishing in the Canaries the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna stated: “The location of the Canary Islands (between 27°N – 29°N and 13°W – 18°W) and their oceanographic characteristics, which are shaped by the cold Canary Current, the trade winds and proximity to African shores (particularly the easternmost islands), attract most species of tuna from both the temperate-albacore (Thunnus alalunga) and Atlantic Bluefin (Thunnus thynnus)—and the typically tropical groups—Bigeye (Thunnus obesus), Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares). These highly migratory fish reach the islands from several areas of the Atlantic at different times of the year and are the main fishery resource of the Canary Islands”. (“ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA (THUNNUS THYNNUS) (LINNAEUS, 1758) FISHERY IN THE CANARY ISLANDS” Delgado de Molina. A, Rodriguez-Marin. E Delgado de Molina. R and Carlos Santana. J: Online resource https://www.iccat.int/Documents/CVSP/CV070_2014/n_2/CV070020499.pdf Accessed: 24/04/2023). The report goes on to detail trends in the Canaries Fishing from early data sources reaching as far back (Blue Fin Tuna) as 1965, but more on that later…….

The seafloor “bathymetry”, the contours representing the same detail as used in an Ordnance Survey Map on land, show the Ocean around the islands has a typically abrupt fall away to the depths, with a narrow shelf surrounding the Islands but a steep slope dropping to over a 1000 m depth. This produces conditions similar to the open ocean very close to the Island’s shores. The Island group or “archipelago” is conveniently located in a cold water current which, in a similar fashion to the UK’s Gulf Stream Gyre (rotating current), acts as a moderator to the Islands and their maritime climate. The European Parliamentary Fisheries Policy document “Fisheries in the Canary Islands” (2013) piece states, in its executive study: (Part 3)  “The presence of upwelling along the West African coast brings deep cold nutrient-rich waters to the surface and stimulates primary productivity. As compared with the very rich fishing grounds in the upwelling area, waters around the Canaries are relatively poor(er)…….” (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/495852/IPOL-PECH_NT(2013)495852_EN.pdf On-Line Resource: Accessed 24/04/2023). This is clearly concluding the Tuna fishing in the region is better off the African Continental shelf than it is off the smaller Island masses of the Canaries

For those of you who I know will need the details:

The same report goes on to detail some of the more recent figures in regard to Tuna fishing (P10: Para 9) “Tunas have constantly formed the large majority of the landings in recent years. Bigeye tuna was the most common species in 2011, with 31.7% of the total quantity and 26.7% of the value. Skipjack tuna represented 12.5% of the production and 5.1% of its value, but significantly increased in 2012 – up to four times the 2011 figure. Yellowfin tuna and albacore are also major species in terms of value (10.4% and 6% respectively)”. The European Parliament, or at least the Fisheries Policy Department, identifies the deeply rooted reliance the Canaries have on fishing and especially smaller scale, family type businesses: “The structure of the Canarian fishing fleet shows a high social and economic dependency on small-scale fishing. Apart from some specific areas such as Las Palmas and Arrecife, small vessels are the most important segment. The boats less than 12 m long represent 86.7% of the number of vessels and account for 7.8% of the total capacity”  Which confirms the Cita En El Mar as one of the larger of the Canaries Tuna Fleet as she was around 21m in length with a beam around 6m

The Cita En El Mar was a typical trawler of the day and of her region, the Tuna fleet of the Canaries were largely very similar, if not actually sister-ships of the Cita, having long rising bows and fairly open stern decks, ideal for deploying deck mounted or hold stored nets Port or Starboard, using the main mast and derrick gear aboard. The typical type of fishing carried out by these vessels in and around the Canaries and African coats is known as “Purse Seine” netting and uses large scale synthetic nets which can be deployed quickly by a fast boat around shoals of Tuna which can be drawn closed at their base before being hauled aboard. The Tuna boats spray water onto the surface which is an artifice to attract shoals of Tuna by simulating the disturbances made by small fish feeding at the surface. The top of the nets have floats attached, and the bottom have weights, the “Purse Line” is a line running round the base of the net through “Purse Rings” which, when reeled in, closes the bottom of the net on itself trapping the Tuna. It is also highly likely one of the reasons we continue to use the expression “keeping your purse strings tight” as early money purses used the same method of closure

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (“Fisheries and Aquaculture: Tuna purse seining, Handling Mode” Online Resource: https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/fishtech/40 Accessed 02/11/22) details the method as described above but also goes on to describe the difficulties of storing the catch “Storage of tuna once it is caught presents a problem, for the size of the fish is large. Some vessels are equipped to bulk-freeze the catch, but the commonest method is to keep the fish in refrigerated brine tanks (brine at 0 °C), which form much of the lower parts of the hull and are equipped with batteries of seawater pumps for circulation” The Cita En El Mar, although not strictly speaking, a “large Vessel” nevertheless had seawater tanks for keeping the Tuna catch fresh on the journey back from the North African fishing grounds that she frequented

The American Institution NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Association) describe Yellowfin Tuna as: “……torpedo-shaped, they are metallic dark blue on the back and upper sides, and change from yellow to silver on the belly. True to their name, their dorsal and anal fins and finlets are bright yellow, Yellowfin tuna can be distinguished from other tunas by their long, bright yellow dorsal fin and a yellow strip down the side, they are also more slender than Bluefin tuna. Yellowfin tuna grow fairly fast, up to 400 pounds, and have a somewhat short life span of about 7 years” The Atlantic population are not considered at risk or overfished at the time of writing this so they are “sustainable” and an important source of both income and nutrition to a wide sector of the population (Online resource: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/atlantic-yellowfin-tuna Accessed 25/04/2023). The fishing fleets of the Canaries have hunted Yellowfin Tuna off the Saharan African Coast, formerly known as the “Spanish Sahara” (since Spanish occupation in 1884, up until 1975 when Spain abandoned the Western Saharan region) “Canarian fishermen had been working in these waters since the 16th century (Rumeu de Armas, 1956, 1977), when the population in such coasts did not carried out fishing activities” (La web de los “artesanos del Mar” grancanario: Online resource: https://www.grancanariapescaenred.com/en/about-us/brief-history/ Accessed 25/04/2023)

There are very few references to the build location of the Cita En El Mar, as I said at the beginning of this piece I found it difficult to state with any level of confidence that one was definitive whilst researching the vessel. I should state now and for the record that, despite several direct requests to the shipyards I suspected likely to have built her, none have responded and so there is at present no confirmed builder for this workhorse of the Canaries Tuna fleet which I find rather sad. The locations stated for her build include Madeira (Aquarius Diving Tenerife) which I would expect to be Funchal (the main port), the only reference I could find to shipbuilding there was in the time of Henry the Navigator, when Madeira wood was used on Caravels for sailors such as Vasco De Gama

I can find no shipyard in the 1950-1960’s associated with the Port which makes it seem unlikely the Cita En El Mar was built there. I corresponded with a Senor Gutierrez Gimeno, who is involved with the history of Canaries Fishing vessels and has a great archive of photographs of various Tuna Boats. Senor Gutierrez Gimeno believes the Cita En El Mar to be from the Astilleros Balanciaga (Balenciaga Shipyards) on the Urola river mouth at Zumaia in Spain. The Balenciaga yard began by building wooden fishing vessels in 1921 and still builds ships, although now much larger vessels, but still heavily involved with the fishing industry. I have to say, the similarity in the historic photos of wooden hulled Balenciaga Tuna vessels shows a very close similarity to the lines of the Cita En El Mar, sadly the yard did not respond to my requests for confirmation or information, so up to now although “likely” there is nothing to categorically state the Cita En El Mar was built at Balenciaga

So from her launch around 1961 the Cita En El Mar operated off the Spanish Saharan continental shelf and, over her 34 year career, no doubt brought home many thousands of Tons of Tuna from the rich grounds off the African Coast. The times were to change over that period and quite considerably so. What was a traditional and deeply rooted cultural occupation for the Canary Islands would come under attack from several directions, eventually becoming a paradigm shift that had unparalleled consequences for the Islanders and their way of life. In 1975 Spain withdrew from the Western Sahara region, this heralded a change to the fishing areas of the traditional Canary Fleet “The change was traumatic for the Canarian fishing sector, in particular for the artisanal fleet, as it led to the loss of the rich Saharan fishing grounds. Spain signed an agreement with Morocco and Mauritania in 1975, through which a fishing franchise was established for 20 years on the Saharan coastline for vessels based in the Canary Islands. As a result of the agreement, many vessels from other Spanish communities registered in the Canaries, which caused an artificial increase of the fleet and led Morocco to reconsider the agreement” (European Parliamentary Policy Report: Ch 2 Fisheries Management, Para 2: https:// www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/note/ join/2013/495852/IPOL-PECH_NT(2013)495852_EN.pdf On-Line Resource: Accessed 24/04/2023)

It isn’t a surprise to find the situation changed again following the Canary Islands achieving a “State of Autonomy” from Spain in 1982. This brought some control over their fishing and allowed them exclusive rights to inland waters. In 1986 Spain joined the European Community, although it would not be until 1991 that the Canary Islands became subject to the EU Common Fisheries Policy and accepted the 3 maritime “Zones” contained in the agreement limiting inland waters to to the Canary Islands, the 12 miles from the limitation line becoming Spanish waters and the area from the 12 mile to 200 miles offshore belonging to the EU member countries as common fisheries

These zone changes and the shift in access to the traditional Moroccan and Saharan continental shelf grounds undoubtedly had an effect on the Tuna fleets although it would not be until a similar shift in policy by Morocco in December of 2011 when the Canary Islands Government would quantify the impacts on the fishing community such a change imposed “The rejection of the agreement on 14 December 2011 prevented 26 Canarian vessels from fishing in Moroccan waters (20 tuna vessels and 6 artisanal vessels). The Canarian Government showed that the rejection negatively affected the fishing sector and the related economic activities, and estimated a decrease of more than 50% of the landings at first-sales points, a loss of 250 direct jobs and more than 1000 indirect jobs, as well as a loss of more than 11 million EUR for the fishing companies and of more than 18 million EUR for the Producers Organisations and commercial agents”

It doesn’t take much imagination to understand what impacts such changes had on the Canary Islanders and their traditional way of life, fuel prices were going up, catch sizes were going down, and slowly but surely those families and fishermen started to look to other ways of earning a living. Coincidentally albeit anecdotally the Canary Island Tourist Industry began to bloom, as air-fares decreased and budget airlines like Easy Jet entered the market bringing cheaper, and more accessible Island Holidays with them

So, to the story of the loss of the Cita En El Mar, an ignominious end for such a vibrant and vital part of the Canaries psyche for over 3 decades and the lifeblood of an economy intertwined with the Island life, its simplicity, and its obvious attraction to those of us with hectic treadmill like existences. There are three versions of the loss, all have a central thread and all have an air of authenticity…….which is the absolute truth?……I doubt any but the captain of the vessel on the day truly know. So version one of the sinking of the Cita En El Mar goes that her crew were celebrating a catch far better than they had seen in a long time, heading back for the fishing quay at Puerto Las Galletes. A storm caught the Cita En El Mar as she headed back loaded down with her catch and, with the crew and obviously the Captain somewhat distracted, their navigation fell short and the Cita En El Mar hit the headland at Punta Rasca. Her hull breached, the plucky little boat sat on the rocks as the Captain sent a mayday call out, the call brought other vessels to her aid but the damage to her bow had been too great to survive and, despite being dragged back off the rocks successfully, she foundered pretty much against the headland. The water is deep fairly close in at that spot, the Cita En El Mar took her fishing gear and her catch down with her to 50m, where the sand met the rocks of the headland just a few tens of meters out, and there she lay until her wooden hull was torn from her steel bridge, her wheelhouse and crew accommodation, and was smashed to matchwood over the coming years, leaving only her superstructure on the seabed

Perhaps the only luck to come from the wreck of the Cita En El mar came to Diver Sergio Hanquet, (I believe the photo from diariodeavisos to be one of his superb shots taken the day after the sinking) when, whilst behind the counter in his sweetshop in Los Cristianos, Sergio was confronted by two fishermen from the Cita En El Mar who had asked a friend of his if anyone could help retrieve the ships documents from the wreck. Sergio was a well-known diver locally and must have thought all his birthdays had come at once as the story unfolded. I doubt it took more than a couple of seconds for him to agree to dive the wreck and we are left with some of the most eerie and artful photos any wreck diver has probably seen

Version two of the sinking of the Cita En El Mar has the same core, navigational error, but has the crew simply too insensitive from celebration to notice their course onto the Headland at Punta Rasca, so no storm……just a combination of enthusiastic reverence and a complete disregard for either time, or distance, the end result, the vessel and catch lost to the depths in the same place and manner as version 1. Whilst “possible” (in a similar manner to the Italian Job and the bus ending up hanging over the cliff edge) it is unlikely that a crew, dependent on the revenue from their supposedly record catch, would start to celebrate before that catch was safely landed and the money in the bank…….It’s entirely “possible”, but I find it rather unlikely

So version three of the story again has the same core, the Cita Loaded with a record catch heading back to her Quay to unload, however this version has it that the storm and the sheer size of the catch made her hard to control and, nearing the headland, that situation got worse and she became unmanageable and was essentially driven onto the rocks by a combination of weather and an unusually large catch, in one telling of this version by our dive guide there was a possibility the nets became tangled in her prop as she approached the headland in the storm, pitching and rolling due to the size of her catch……..so it seems the Cita En El Mar, a perfectly sound fishing vessel, having just made a fabulous catch and about to land that catch and make her crew a lot better off, found her way onto a headland that it is hard to imagine a radar would miss, let alone an auto-pilot, or even a Captain & crew somewhat worse for wear and celebration……….or…….. there is another possibility, that despite a good catch, perhaps exactly because of that catch, the owner of the vessel had decided enough was enough, that Tuna fishing had run its course and that it was time to bow out and cash in………I have no idea if the Cita En El Mar carried insurance, I am not for one moment suggesting that a vessel laden with a record catch of Tuna, and clearly beyond any real suspicion in light of that catch, would have been purposefully driven onto a shore, in sight of a lighthouse, placed there to warn vessels away from a treacherous headland……….but you never really know…..do you

I was lucky enough to dive the Cita En El Mar in August of 2005, the Green Navy Dive Log records: “08/04/05 Tenerife CITA DEL MAR Los Galletas Great Descent, whole wreck was visible from about 20m down & lies bow deep to 53m stern at approx. 40m, large wooden fishing trawler which the wood has mostly broken/rotted away from but the metal is fully intact bridge & railings, fuel tanks etc – very picturesque dive nets wound as if caught in the prop (a theory as to its demise from one local diver). Huge shoal of local tropical fish at stern & 1 large Ray swam off as we arrived – beautiful & well worth 15 mins deco! Viz 30m Air In 230 Out 75 Buddy Pieto (Polish dvr)” She was a deep dive and I relished the clear warm Blue of the Atlantic off Tenerife, the long descent with the spectacle of the disembodied superstructure visible very early on, the abandoned nets still evident around the bridge and trailing out to where the stern used to be. It was very odd to see such a strange sight, if anything I had been used to the remnants of ships’ hulls, far more often than their superstructures. In most wooden shipwrecks, if anything, the deck houses and wheelhouses are the first to become flattened or dislodged, usually during the initial sinking. It is a short time below the waves until the surge of current and tide carries the smashed remains away from the hull and therefore these pieces of the ships structure are often absent, but to see an absent hull, that was a different thing altogether………

I hope, in the future, I get confirmation of the shipyard that built the Cita En El Mar. I would very much like to confirm that and perhaps even get hold of her plans……but until that happens I will just thank those who’s help with this piece cannot be underestimated, the wonderful & haunting photos of Senor Sergio Hanquet, Holidaydiver, DanSea, astillerosbalenciaga.com and the photos, information and help provided by Senor Emmanuel Gutierrez Gimeno to both of whom I am very grateful and without whom this piece would be a far lesser telling of the story of the Cita En El Mar

Vassilios T

Vasilios T would start her life in Osaka, Japan as Yard Number 10, she would eventually be named Eastern Temple and become part of the war requirements of the USA, following their entry into World War 1, 02^nd April of 1917. For those of you who love the technical detail:

When The USA finally joined the First World War in 1917 it was after a series of meetings between the First Sea-Lord of the British Admiralty, Winston Churchill, and the US President Woodrow Wilson, Wilson did not want to commit US troops to the war in Europe however Churchill was desperate that he did….. Some say it was no co-incidence that two years earlier, in 1915, the Luxury Liner Lusitania continued to cross the Atlantic carrying American citizens aboard despite the war, and despite the Germans declaring unrestricted warfare on the high seas

Lusitania’s owners, the Cunard Line were British and trade was brisk, Lusitania was one of the fastest ships afloat, between 1907 & 1909 she had won the Blue Riband for the fastest crossing between Queenstown, Ireland and Sandy Hook in New York, no less than 4 times, a crossing of 2780 Nautical Miles, completed in 4 days Sixteen hours and 40 minutes, almost a full 12 hours better than the previous holder, the German Liner Deutschland. There was something to be said for Cunard’s assertion that Lusitania, capable of 25 Knots (47 MPH), could outrun any U-Boat, but the Lusitania didn’t have to outrun any German U Boat……She had to outrun their torpedo’s

It only took one of those torpedo’s, from the German Type 19 U-Boat, U20 on the 07^th May of 1915, to send the Lusitania, to the bottom of the Atlantic off Old Kinsale Head in Southern Ireland, just a couple of hours out of Liverpool and safety. Lusitania had been carrying 1266 passengers with a high contingent of US citizens aboard it, 123 of whom perished in the attack, Germany issued a statement in which they claimed that because Lusitania “carried contraband of war” and that she “was classed as an auxiliary cruiser,” which, in the eyes of the German’s meant U20 had a right to destroy her regardless of any passengers aboard

Germany also pointed to warnings printed in the US papers, alongside all advertising by Cunard and the major passenger liner companies, stating any passengers sailing on British ships did so at their own risk, it didn’t stop international outrage at the sinking of the Lusitania, but it is doubtful Kapitanleutnant Walter Schweiger or the crew of U20, suspected they had sewn the seeds that would bring the US into the war on the side of Britain and her allies almost two years later

Why did Woodrow Wilson wait two years to enter the war, with 123 US citizens at the bottom of the Atlantic you could be forgiven for thinking an act of war against the US had been carried out, and immediate response was necessary, as I am sure Winston Churchill believed, but Wilson was determined to stay neutral and act as nothing more than peacemaker between Britain & Germany, Germany apologized for the loss of American lives on the Lusitania and pledged to end unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic from that point

In 1917 Germany, suffering from the effects of British sea blockades around their very small coastal region, and, with a population on the verge of starvation, declared a return to unrestricted submarine warfare and worse, the Germans were caught red-handed (Zimmerman Telegram) offering Mexico support for any action towards the return of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico (if they supported Germany against Britain and her allies) should the US join the war on the side of Britain…….

Enough was enough it seemed and despite the obvious reluctance to join the “European” conflict that had coloured US public opinion for the intervening years, in April of 1917 Woodrow Wilson went to the US Congress and asked for a formal declaration of war against Germany & her allies. The request went to Congress and the House of Representatives but, after both agreed, on the 07^th of December 1917 The United States finally declared war on German and her ally Austria-Hungary

So what has U20, the sinking of the Lusitania, and the USA’s entry into World War I got to do with the Vasilios T, or as she was known in 1918, The Eastern Temple? To understand this we need to go back a little, before the sinking of Lusitania, indeed to 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, when it seemed the USA had little ambition for international ocean trading (Day, Edmund E. “The American Merchant Fleet: A War Achievement, a Peace Problem” in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 34, No 4, pp1-41. Aug 1920. Oxford University Press. Online Resource: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1885158.pdf Accessed 26/01/2022) “In 1910 the American fleet had fallen to one-twentieth the size of the British; and less than one-tenth of American seaborne foreign trade moved under United States flag. For years before the war, attempts to foster merchant shipping met with stolid indifference when not with vigorous opposition. The business men of the country were convinced that ocean transportation was an industry in which American labor and capital could not profitably engage” As the conflict in Europe became more and more likely to drag the US unwillingly, and ill-prepared into war, the Americans, perhaps realizing their merchant fleet was unlikely to serve their needs in regards to increasing trade between the US and the needs of those in Europe (on both sides, for supplies and materials to immediately sustain their populations, and to enable them to continue fighting) opened their merchant shipping registry (Day, Edmund E. “The American Merchant Fleet: A War Achievement, a Peace Problem” in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 34, No 4, P570. Aug 1920. Oxford University Press. Online Resource: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1885158.pdf Accessed 26/01/2022) Edmund Day has it that the Panama Canal Act of August 24 1912, supplemented by an act of August 19, 1914, removing a five year age limit on vessels applying for registry, accepted that: “Foreign-built vessels thereafter could obtain American registry upon passing the Steamboat Inspection Service test for seaworthiness. Numerous owners of foreign-built vessels quickly took advantage of the free registry act. The greater safety under neutral flag was apparently more than an offset to more expensive American operation.”  Meanwhile cries were going up in the US press for more home built ships…..

Although the US Government took up the cries for merchant shipping production, with ship-yards such as Philadelphia’s Hog Island turning to mass-production techniques and making a significant difference to the speed of construction, the US simply could not keep up with demand for shipping to replace losses, and cope with the increased trade demands of the Allies necessary for the war effort: Charles Geisst, writing in the Encyclopedia of American Business History, “….The domestic yards were swamped with orders and had a backlog of many years. Another shipbuilding boom, reminiscent of that during the civil war, had begun, but builders could not produce ships fast enough to end the crisis” (Geisst, C.R. & Gargano, C. “Encyclopedia of American Business History. P386. Shipbuilding industry, Para2.” Online Resource: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5dGig0fYlj8C&pg=PA386&lpg=PA386&dq=US+cries+for+shipbuilding+1917&source=bl&ots=2vqI-8zYhB&sig=ACfU3U2MYROQVyH0dS2XtDAT7CgGbhmRXA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLsd_239H1AhVPf MAKHZrABxoQ6AF6BAg7EAM#v=onepage&q&f=false  Accessed 27/01/2022) There would have to be another way to ensure the need for merchant shipping was met by the supply of merchant ships

When WWI broke out in 1914 the Japanese had not long ended their war with Russia (the Russo Japanese war of 1904-1905), Russia was an ally to Great Britain against the Austro-Hungarian & German Empire in what was, at that time, mostly a European war as far as the US was concerned. Japan was also an ally of Britain, despite serious misgivings at their motives by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, however his caution was not shared quite so explicitly by Winston Churchill, obviously losing patience with Grey in a terse telegram of August 1914: (Saxon, Timothy, D. “Anglo-Japanese Naval Cooperation, 1914-1918 In: Naval War College Review. Vol 53, No 1, P66, Para 2” Online Resource https://www.jstor.org/stable/44643068?seq=16#metadata _info_tab_contents Accessed 27/01/2022) “I think you are chilling indeed to these people. I can’t see any half way house between having them in and keeping them out. If they are to come in, they may as well be welcomed as comrades. This last telegram [to Japan] is almost hostile.” Churchill rounded off with “You may easily give mortal offence_which will not be forgotten_we are not safe yet_by a long chalk. The storm has yet to burst”

Despite Grey’s obvious concerns, Japan was both an ally and a ready and willing supply source of available merchant shipping, desperately needed for the war effort, there was little choice and an easy decision to be made: “In 1917, Japanese shipyards hastily constructed (in five months) twelve destroyers identical to the Japanese Kaba class for France: Japanese sailors delivered the ships to French forces in the Mediterranean. In December of 1916, the British chancellor of the exchequer sought and gained the War Cabinet’s approval for the purchase of six Japanese merchant ships, totaling 77,500 tons, The British further requested in May 1917 that the Japanese supply shipping for Chinese workers recruited to work in Europe: Japanese warships helped to escort the convoys to France. Later in the war, Japan and the United States agreed that Japanese shipyards would produce 371,000 tons of shipping for the U.S. Shipping Board.” 

(Saxon, Timothy, D. “Anglo-Japanese Naval Cooperation, 1914-1918 In: Naval War College Review. Vol 53, No 1, P77, Para 1” Online Resource https://www.jstor.org/stable/44643068?seq=16#metadata_info_tab_contents Accessed 27/01/2022)

The Japanese had capacity to help the allies and were willing to turn their impressive and modern shipyards to the war effort too, “Across the harbour from Nagasaki are the Akuno-ura Engine Works, and the Mitsubishi Dockyards, the latter one of the largest of its kind in Nippon [Japan]. It was established in 1856 by the Tokugawa shogunate, under the tutelage of Dutch engineers, but was transferred to the Mitsubishi Co. in 1877; since then its growth has been rapid. Battleships and ocean going steamers of large tonnage are built here (ships like the Tenyo Maru and the Chiyo Maru of the Toyo Kisen Kaisha) and upward of 5000 men are employed. There are 3 dry-docks, salvage steamers, etc” (Terry, Philip. “Terry’s Japanese Empire” Houghton & Mifflin Co, Boston & New York, 1914. In “Old Tokyo Mitsubishi Shipyard, Nagasaki, c1910”. Online Resource: http://www.oldtokyo.com/mitsubishi-shipyard-nagasaki-c-1910/ Accessed 27/01/2020)

So, it was to Japan that the US Shipping Board turned to in 1916 following the introduction of the Shipping Act of September 07^th 2016: “The Shipping Act was a compromise between those favoring a comprehensive program of government ownership of merchant shipping and those advocating continued reliance upon private initiative. Under the provisions of the act, the United States Shipping Board was empowered to build, repair or alter, buy, lease, or charter merchant vessels.” (Day, Edmund, E. “The American Merchant Fleet: A War Achievement, a Peace Problem” in “The Quarterly Journal of Economics Aug 1920 Vol 34 No 4 P 571.” Oxford University Press. Online Resource: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1885158.pdf Accessed 28/01/2022). The year following brought an even more significant act of congress when the US introduced the Urgent Deficiencies Appropriation Act of June 15 1917 authorizing Woodrow Wilson, amongst other things, to: “To place an order with any person for such ships or material as the necessities of the Government, to be determined by the President, might require during the period of the war;” Congress authorized $250,000,000 for the spend and Wilson signed an executive order delegating his powers under the act to the Emergency Fleet Corporation and the Shipping Board

As it was clear there were insufficient ships available from the US yards to meet the requirements of war, even with the transfer of part constructed merchant shipping to the war effort, it was necessary to buy from foreign sources, and Japan could help……..Edmund Day (P586) notes “From the Japan- ese, however, it was possible to purchase thirteen steel cargo vessels already constructed and to contract for the building of thirty others.” The Thirteen Japanese ships already complete were given a classification “Eastern” of which the Eastern Temple would become the Vasilios T

Of the Japanese ships from the 1917 contract, there were only the thirteen which had been available from the outset (none of those who’s keels were on the slip, or that were ordered to be built were delivered in time to see service), but of the thirteen that were contracted, only three from the Osaka Iron Works seem to have been delivered in time to take part in the war, the Eastport (Yard No 907), the Eastern Star (Yard No 915) and the Eastern Light (Yard No 951), (McKellar, N.L. The Belgian Shiplover No96, 09/1963, P503. Osaka Iron Works: in “Steel Shipbuilding Under the U.S. Shipping Board, 1917-1921” Online Resource: https://www.shipscribe.com/mckellar/Contract6.pdf Accessed: 29/01/2022) so we know that Vasilios T (Eastern Temple) did not see service in WWI. Information on these ships is elusive; the few sources available hold little information, perhaps due to the tenuous nature of the initial contractual arrangement with the US, perhaps due to the scarcity of remaining WWI records    

The Eastern Temple eventually arrived in the US to no small fanfare, following her departure from Osaka on the 18^th of June of 1920, it seems three vessels were departing for the USA at the same time, each with a Japanese crew and each with a captain determined to make the crossing and arrive on US soil before either of the others, so much so there was a wager between them (Editorial: Morning Oregonian June 24 1920 P20 Online Resource https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1920-06-24/ed-1/seq-20/ocr/ Accessed 09/02/2022)

 “With a prize of $3000 at stake, three Japanese-built freighters for the account of the United States shipping board are racing across the Pacific from Yokohama with San Francisco as their goal. The vessels are the Eastern Leader, Eastern Soldier and the Eastern Temple, and all three left Yokohama within 48 hours of each other. According to reports dispute arose between the skippers of the respective crafts as to their steaming capabilities. It was finally decided that each of the captains put up 91000 In American gold, the vessel making the best elapsed time between the two ports to receive the wager. The vessels sailed from the oriental port June 18”

I have nothing but admiration for the 3 captains who’s names have disappeared into history so far, the vessels were pretty much identical, I suppose the speed of crossing was down to the routes the captains took and their navigational skill, rather than any particular advantage from the vessels themselves, sadly history does not record who actually won the wager

The Eastern Temple’s arrival was announced in the 03^rd August edition of the Morning Oregonian, without fanfare, it could be assumed therefore that she had perhaps not won her captain the wager: “The 5500-ton steamship Eastern Temple, which arrived here last week, will be delivered to the fleet corporation Thursday or Friday. She is a product of the Osaki yard of the Nitta Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha, but will be delivered by the Suzuiki company, which brought her across the Pacific”

It did not take long to put Eastern Temple to work and again the Morning Oregonian (14^th September 1920) has her: “To load lumber for Peru & Chile the Eastern Temple is loading at the Danaher mill. She is taking 60,000 feet there. She will also take 100,000 feet at the St. Paul mill export dock” The mills identified would be Washington Lumber Mills, Danaher’s was a significant operation beginning in 1893 “Danaher had purchased a mill from Abraham Coon Young after the panic of 1893. Danaher eventually acquired mills in California, large tracts of timber throughout the Northwest, and logging camps at Darrington and Port Orchard, Washington. During 1918 and 1919 his mill turned out forty million feet of cut lumber making it the fourth largest mill in Tacoma” (Holcomb, J. “Lumbermen and the Four Ls: It’s Time for All Lumbermen to Spruce Up!“: Pacific University, May 1999 Online Resource: https:// commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File: Logging_crew_and_donkey_engine,_Danaher_Lumber_Company,_ca_1916_(KINSEY_139).jpeg Accessed 09/02/2022)

Lumber was a huge export from the US in the early 1900’s, by 1924 Grays Harbour celebrated loading its billionth foot of board, and the seemingly inexhaustible forests and associated logging trade had named it “King Timber”: (Caldbick, J. “Deep-draft Ports of Washington: King Timber and the Growth of Ports” HistoryLink.org Online Resource https://www.historylink.org/File/9529 Accessed: 09/02/2022) “In the early decades of the twentieth century the forest resource in Washington still seemed infinite, and the magnitude of the harvest each year was staggering. Billions of board feet of lumber and countless tons of raw logs were shipped through the state’s deep-draft ports, and they all cut their teeth on the timber trade.” It couldn’t last, but the US was certainly making hay whilst the Sun shone, and the Eastern Temple would play her part in that

The Eastern Temple was set to the South American trade by her managers, the General Steamship Corporation, her first trip would be carrying the Washington Lumber from Tacoma to Peru & Chile. It seems she narrowly missed a devastating explosion when, on the 10^th September 1920 two barges, both carrying Dynamite, collided in the port of Callao (Peru’s main Port & Docks) and exploded. The blast killed fifty people in the port and surrounds and was reported in the Chicago Daily Tribune (11^th September 1920 P1). Wherever she was headed the Eastern Temple seems to be at the heart of some type of drama from the start of her career……

Even though Eastern Temple had left the US and was now in the South Americas controversy was not far behind her. The arrangement that the US Shipping Board had bought her under was explicit, the ship would be delivered to the US by the selling yard, Osaka, that’s fine, the crew would therefore be Japanese and likely the Captain (although not compelled to be), a US citizen. It clearly had not been lost on the Japanese crew that the US offered a potentially better life than that they enjoyed in Japan, the Oregon Daily Journal of 03^rd August of 1920 (P3): “…..eight Japanese members of the crew of the Japanese liner Eastern Temple were in custody here today charged with attempting to smuggle themselves into this country”. The crew of the Eastern Temple, or at least the eight in custody clearly believed the US was a better prospect than a return to their native Japan. If nothing else, this shows the times were fast turning in favour of the US, immigration into America was on the increase, and it wasn’t just Europeans that believed it to be the land of opportunity. The US immigration officials clearly believed this was a common occurrence, the Oregon Journal goes on to note: “This means of entry, according to immigration officials, is common. Japanese, for a suitable consideration, are said to be signed as part of the ships “crew”, this being merely a ruse.”

Whilst the USA dealt with the problem of absconding crew from the Eastern Temple and other fleet ships bought from Japan in the closing year or so of World War One, other countries were challenged by the conflict, in ways they had not dealt with beforehand, one of those countries was Greece. First we go back to 1917 when Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, known to most as Lenin (embracing the theories of the German philosophers Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels), Leon Trotsky and the Bolshevik workers of Russia overthrew the Romanov Dynasty and brought Communism, with its idealistic socialist rhetoric and its revolutionary fervor, to a huge swathe of Eastern Europe. No one knew of the murders being committed at the time, and seemingly, no one noticed the disappearance in July of 1918 of the entire Romanov family, Tsar Nicholas, Tsarina Alexandra and their 5 children, Olga 22, Tatiana 21, Maria 19, Anastasia 17 and Alexi only 13, who had been herded into a basement room in Ekaterinberg, shot and bayoneted to death….. The murder did not stop at the Tsar and his family, their physician Eugene Botkin and servants Anna Demidova, Alexei Trupp and their cook Ivan Kharitonov were also murdered with them, and then buried in woodland in the Koptyaki forest, but not before grenades were used to ensure identification would be impossible should they be exhumed. To overthrow oppression in the name of human rights it seems first you have to remove the human rights of those that you wish to depose…….

The ripples set in motion by the overthrow and murder of the Romanov family reached far and wide, not just in terms of the next hundred plus years, but likely for generations to come as the insipid reverie & barbarism of “socialism” replaced the hubris and, in Russia’s case, failure of Royal sovereignty. One small country that would feel the fall of the Tsar was Greece, or to be more specific the merchant fleets of the Greek Islands. As Greek merchant shipping was used to transport goods during WWI it is unsurprising there were heavy Greek shipping losses during its 4 year period. Following the war the Greek merchant fleet was considerably reduced but an even greater impact, perhaps, was that of the fall of the Russian monarchy. Traditionally the Greek merchantmen had traded the Black Sea via the Aegean Sea and the Bospherous, the narrow entrance between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea at Constantinople, now Istanbul, a Turkish territory from Byzantine days (following the fall of Constantinople to Sultan Mehmed II, of the Ottoman Empire, in May of 1453)

The Bolshevik revolution would bring about changes to the traditional relationships in the whole Black Sea region, the establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) under Marxist/Leninist doctrine, latterly known as Communism, would oust the traditional carriers to and from the region, and impose restrictions that pushed the Greek steamer fleets making it difficult to trade profitably. It did not help that in May 1919 the Greeks, persuaded largely by the British, had landed a military force in Izmir in the Anatolian region of Turkey. This was an allied attempt to take advantage of the 1914-1918 World War defeat of Austro-Hungary and its Ottoman Turk allies, but also a reaction to the Turkish advances into allied areas. The Turkish military, despite being ordered by the Ottoman Government to stand down following the war, refused and, in an atmosphere of nationalism and resistance to the Allies, had advanced into Greece, French held territories and Armenia (Macfie A. L. “The Chanak Affair” P1 Para1 Online Resource: https://ojs.lib.uom.gr/index.php/BalkanStudies/article/viewFile/5126/5155 Accessed: 15/02/2022). The Turkish Army headed by Mustafa Kemal Pasha would be a rallying call as Turkish nationalists rose against their Government, carrying out massacres of Christians to purge the area, and establishing the boundaries of what is modern day Turkey. Turkish control of Constantinople (Istanbul) was re-established and the Greek push into Antalya not only halted, but, in what the Turks called “The Great Offensive” was routed completely, giving the Turks complete control of the Chanak region, the entry to the Sea of Marmaris and, therefore, by extension the Bosphorous. Not only did this lead to an enduring mutual loathing between Turkey & Greece, but also to the Greek merchant fleet removing itself almost completely from the region in favour of other cargoes and ports…..

Greek vessels of the time were largely family owned, a family would pool together funds, go to the Greek government for a low interest loan and then buy second hand ships, often not in particularly great condition, man and run the vessels with family members throughout. As the Greek mainland is surrounded by Greek Islands, most of the merchant vessels were owned by traditional Island sea-farer families “Almost all of them come from the rocky Greek islands. The neighboring islands of Chios and Inoussai, for example, have produced such shipping families as Lemos, Kulukundis, Pateras, Carras, Papalios—who collectively own more than one-third of Greek shipping” (Editorial “Shipping: The other Greeks” P1. Para3. 15 August 1969. Online Resource: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/ 0,33009,901268,00.html Accessed: 15/02/2022). Some Greek owners had bought before the end of the war, when shipping was scarce, hoping to capitalize on the high price commanded for running supplies between the allies and their critical supply-chains, once the war ended those high priced cargoes were scarce, merchant shipping was in decline and some of those expensive investments started to flounder in fairly suspicious circumstances, so much so that British Insurance Companies apparently “Black Listed” Greek merchant vessels from 1920 (Editorial “From a War to a Crisis (1919-1929)” Para 8. Online Resource https://greekshippingmiracle.org/en/history-2/1919/ Accessed: 15/02/2022)

Now let us return to 1920 and the voyages of the United States Vessel the Eastern Temple! With the help of the US Coastguard and the US National Archive it is possible to dig out the various registration and transfers of Trade routes for Eastern Temple, and that begins with her original registration and the issuing of a Department of Commerce, Bureau of Navigation Number, 31^st of August 1920. The official number was requested for her by Celias Miller of Seattle Washington, her declared purpose was “Ocean Freight”, Celias Miller was acting on behalf of the US Shipping Board, the original purchasers. Eastern Temple had only reached the USA from Osaka in late July of 1920, her first voyage from Tacoma 16^th September of 1920 which would have meant some time for her new crew of 36 and her Master to get the feel of her before departure

The Eastern temple was engaged in Ocean Trade under Master Albert E Winslow out of Seattle in September of 1920, then under Master Constantine Philip Zannaras out of New York in September of 1927, then under Master George D Skeriot out of Norfolk & Newport News in December of 1927, and, then under a Master T Nelson (likely Thorvald) out of Miami in July of 1929 and finally, as far as I can determine, under Master Thorvald Nelson out of Norfolk & Newport News in November of 1935, all the other masters were under registry licensing for coastal trading from the various ports noted. The means of determining this is by no means certain, it is assessed against the registry purpose stated on the license and the Captain and port noted on the license, I’d be delighted if any of the families or descendants of these Masters or crew can enlighten me with more detail from personal archives?

The Eastern Temple continued in both Ocean & Coastal roles between 1920 and 13^th December of 1922 when an entry in the Consolidated Certificate of Enrollment & License, the yearly record of inspection and licensing for the USA has her “To be towed to the James River to Lay Up. No Inspection in Force” The US Shipping Board, presumably running out of cargoes or taskings by this time. It had largely been expected that a huge programme of re-building would take place and that there would be a continued need for shipping, this doesn’t seem to have materialized and the US Shipping Board has clearly got more ships than it requires

The laying up of the Eastern Temple would have been a new phenomenon after WWI, with a surplus of merchant shipping the US created the James River Reserve Fleet, wooden & steel ships moored up on the James River from Hampton Roads, at its height, the fleet consisted of somewhere around 800 ships. With such a huge fleet and the potential problems surrounding maintenance, access, up-keep etc the administration of the reserve fleet was given to the US Maritime Administration, a division of the US Department of Transport, not a military dependency, a civil authority who assigned it to the National Defense Reserve Fleet

Colloquially known as the “James River Ghost Fleet”, not particularly surprisingly, the vessels were gradually reduced in number with some of the wooden boats ending up in the Potomac River. In 1920 around 169 of 218 vessels brought to the Potomac were beached in Mallows Bay (Shomette. D. “The Archeology of Watercraft Abandonment: The United States Shipping Board Fleet at Mallows Bay, Maryland: Inventory & Assessment” Abstract. Online Resource https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-7342-8_6 Accessed 15/02/2022) sadly most did not find further employment “….most were sold at auction in 1922 to the Western Marine and Salvage Corporation for reduction and salvage of the metals” despite several attempts at salvaging from the fleet, eventually they were lined up in rows and burned to the waterline, they rest where they sank, as a macabre but colourful nature reserve to this day

In what must have been a very close run thing, with so many vessels to choose from, the Eastern Temple would be fortunate enough to not share the fate of the Potomac Fleet, and would be brought out of the James River Fleet to go back into service after 5 years at anchor. The Eastern Temple is mentioned this time, 16^th September of 1927, as a “Surrender of Ownership and Change of District” which sees her pass the into private ownership when a mortgage was arranged to the tune of $76000 at a rate of 5% interest on behalf of the High Seas Transportation Inc of 1819 Broadway, New York, a reasonably prestigious address by all accounts, at the Columbus Circle end of Central Park. Her new Master, Constantine Philip Zannaras, would have probably had his work cut out getting her crew to bring her back to inspection standards for her new owners the High Seas Transportation Inc of New York

So Eastern Temple returns to the US Merchant fleet, purchased for the princely sum of $95000 with a balance due by mortgage (Judge Northcote: “The Eastern Temple in The Eastern Temple Zannaras v. United States.” Case 4223   13/01/1938 Online Resource: https:// www.leagle.com/decision/ 193846894f2d3741363 Accessed: 17/02/2022) “The amount secured by the mortgage had been reduced and amounted, in March, 1936, to $34,742.72. The vessel was purchased by High Seas Transportation, Inc.” It would seem that Constantine Philip Zannaras held a position as president of the purchasing company (High Seas Transportation Inc) and had also been employed as chief engineer on the Eastern Temple between September of 1927 and December of 1935 when the Eastern Temple was sold on by the US Marshall and the mortgage was to be cleared. Constantine Philip Zannaras claimed a debt against the sale value (closure of the mortgage) in respect of “wages owed” for the performance of duties other than those of chief engineer, it does not say anywhere I can find that Mr Zannaras was successful in his claim………. If nothing else, the claim of Mr Zannaras, and the various changes of Master and Ports of Registry during these years indicate that the Eastern Temple was at work, occasionally Ocean trading, more often Coastal Trading

The use of “to” dates is not exact, however they are dates we can definitively say those captains had charge, even if some were named “in Lieu” of the former captain as noted when documentation (Port Registry etc) took place in the various ports identified. What this demonstrates is the varied Ports Eastern Temple was operating from and to during her US career. There is no account I can find of cargoes except for the arrival where she brought with her (according to the Morning Oregonian of 23^rd July 1920) to the US “a full cargo of oriental merchandise”. As already noted, the Eastern Temple departed Tacoma with a full cargo of lumber when she left for her first voyage from the US 16^th September of 1920. We can of course speculate at other cargo’s because of the nature of the major exports of a country from particular ports, it is likely The Eastern Temple carried Nitrates from Chile as that was the sole export at the time: “For years the Republic has enjoyed a monopoly of nitrates and supplied the entire world with this product. Chilean prosperity depended almost entirely upon this single industry….” (Green. S. & Lane. R. M. “Trade of the Pacific Coast States with the West Coast of South America: The present economic Condition of Chile” US Dept. of Commerce, Jan 1928, P12 Para1 Online Resource: https://books.google.co.uk/ books? id=F19zJ8JTZFoC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq= Trade+of+the+Pacific +Coast+States+with+the+West+Coast+of+South+America&source=bl&ots=sAhgsSm0xR&sig=ACfU3U2py0JLwGWRmyJk9wMT7Mywzil2uw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj__KXl4n2AhVSXMAKHUHKBGgQ6AF6BAgrEAM#v=onepage&q=Trade%20of%20the%20Pacific%20Coast%20States%20with%20the%20West%20Coast%20of%20South%20America&f=false Accessed: 18/02/2022)

It is at this point we circle back to the Greeks, by 1925 Greece has moved a high percentage of its sea trade to the routes outside of the Sea of Marmaris, leaving the ports of the Black Sea to the Turks and the colonial companies still trying to establish relationships with the USSR and its communist leadership. Despite the move, perhaps because of it, the Greek shipping business was in crisis, the situation wasn’t helped by Britain recognizing the impact of Greek shipping in the 20’s entering their traditional markets for grain, and produce in Argentina and other South American ports, and raising insurance premiums on the Greek fleet. By 1925 with insurance of cargo’s going up and a market in decline: “The commercial secretary of the British Embassy in Buenos Aires reported that ‘the depressed condition of the market resulted in many steamers laying up in the river, and at one time some thirty Greek vessels alone were tied up at Villa Constitucion for several months’. After a short upheaval in 1926, freights fell again in 1927” (Harlaftis. G. “A History of Greek Owned Shipping: The making of an international tramp fleet 1830 to the present day” Routledge 1996. Online Resource: https:// www.academia.edu /5607030/3. _Gelina_Harlaftis_%CE%91_%CE%97istory_of_Greek-Owned_Shipping._The_Making_of_an_International_Tramp_Fleet _ 1830 _to_the_present_day _London _Routledge_1996 Accessed: 18/02/2022). By 1929 major ship-owners submitted a memorandum to the Greek Prime Minister laying out reasons the majority had moved their business to London as a trading base, and suggesting a re-flagging of all Greek shipping was imminent (Editorial “Greek Shipping Miracle: From a War to a Crisis (1919-1929)” Online Resource: https://greekshippingmiracle.org/en/history-2/1919/ Accessed 18/02/2022)

The First World War years saw the Greek fleets hit by torpedo, mine, lost in action etc…. following the losses of  World War I, the World’s Port’s rapid growth was reversed, the USA was not the only country with too many ships and not enough cargo to keep their fleets viable. International trade declined as ravaged countries spent meager funds on reconstruction, then, in the 1930s, came the great depression in the USA and international trade plummeted as a result.  It is surprising to see at least one Greek ship owner seemed to be unconcerned, a Senor E.M. Tricoglu of Eleftherios, Ándros Island, a visionary perhaps? The alarming rate of Greek Shipping  losses of the First World War did not slow in the interwar years and was cause enough to see studies and even books & articles written (“Α history of Greek-Owned Shipping. The Making of an International Tramp Fleet, 1830 to the present day”: Harlaftis, G. Publisher: Routledge, 1996. And “At THE MERCY OF THE WAVES MANAGING RISK AT SEA IN THE GREEK FLEET OF THE INTERWAR PERIOD”: Harlaftis, G. In “The Great Circle” Journal of the Australian Association for Maritime History, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1997: 73-92) in later years trying to explain the unusually high loss rate

The Eastern Temple had operated under the ownership of the United States Shipping Board – USSB, Washington D.C. from 1920 to 1927, being sold on to another American concern, the High Seas Transportation Inc. of New York in 1927 and sailing under their flag until being sold on again by the US Marshall on behalf of the US Secretary of Commerce in 1935 to a Senor E.M. Tricoglu of Andros Island……. Now there had been several ships in the ownership of Senor Tricoglu that came to ignominious ends for one reason or another, the Filia E. Tricoglu, a 274hp, single screw, 3 cylinder steamer of 2489 grt, launched at Bremen 02/12/1895 (formerly the SS RUDELSBURG: 1895-1907, then the BABYLON: 1907 – 1923), which wrecked, “run aground” 27/01/1926 on Siphanto Island on passage from Sulina for Sweden with grain (http://www.teesbuiltships.co.uk/). Then, again in 1926, there was the ELEFTHERIOS M TRICOGLU, another single screw, 3 cylinder Steamship of 269hp & 2659grt (Launched as the SS BEEFORTH: 06/02/1894 – 1908 then as the PRODUGOL: 1908 – 1920, then becoming the ERGINUS 1920 – 1925), wrecked 29th January ’26 on Aranmore Island, County Donegal, on a voyage from Braila to Sligo with a cargo of maize (http://www.tynebuiltships.co.uk/). Finally there was the MINA E. TRICOGLU (Launched as the SS HAWKSER in 1915, becoming the SHEAF MEAD: 1919 – 1930) engaged in ‘deep sea tramping’ along the Pacific coast of North and South America with forays to Australia and the Far East until 9.10.1933 when she became “stranded at Civitavecchia” en-route from the Tyne carrying coal, then being a write-off, scrapped at La Spezia in 1934 (http://www.wrecksite.eu)

Now a loss rate such as that for one ship owner would raise eyebrows under almost any circumstances but war, and, following a global shipping crisis such as that seen between the wars, it cannot have gone unnoticed, however, it is not legally sensible to suggest anything more than a “healthy interest” in what my old boss would have called “previous” whenever such circumstances arose in the behaviors of those engaged in somewhat “concerning” activities…….

Suffice to say there are various theories as to the sinking of the Vassilios T, and a variety of possible causes noted:

 (https://dive.site/explore/site/vassilios-t-wreck-q7vR:)

“Vassilios T. is a well-preserved wreck located off Vis Island, Croatia. In 1939, the 105-meter-long steamer loaded with coal was swept by strong winds on its way to Venice. Officially, it hit some rocks and sank off the western side of the island, but rumor has it that the crew sank the ship on purpose to receive compensation from the insurance company”

(https://divingvis.com/vassilios/:)

“In the stormy conditions the rudder of the ship – built in 1920, belonging to Greece and called Vassilios T. – got destroyed. This 104 m long steamer hit the rocks and finished the cruise on the western side of the island of Vis. There is a rumour that the crew specifically caused the accident so that the owner could have received compensation from the insurance company. Although in times of accident such delusions were commonplace, these are only anecdotal conjecture”

I will leave the reader of this piece to come to their own conclusion in regards to the loss of the Vassilios T, so recently the Eastern Temple, bought by a Senor Tricoglu in 1938, having run against the spit of land at Stupišće, within sight of Komiza harbour, indeed within around a 20 minute walk from the town itself, off the island of Vis, 19^th March in 1939………

I first dived the Vassilios T in September of 2016 and have dived her regularly over the last 6 years, she is an outstanding dive lying on her Port side some 50m or so off Stupišće, a promontory just two miles or so out of Komiza, you could shore dive her from the steps leading to the shipping light placed on the spit to prevent other “accidents” to large, old coal carriers absentmindedly passing such a well charted and, even in 1939, well populated island…….Back in my old Navy Log I recorded: “07/09/16 WRECK OF THE VASSILIOS T off Komiza on Vis Island Croatia. This wreck hit the main part of the island in fog with damaged steering & now lies from 30 -55m on its side close in to shore I had serious tooth pain @ 32m descending along the port side towards the stern & had to stay above that to avoid pain. Swam back along the Port rail over 70 or so m of the 100m long wreck and it is a fantastic ship with so much to penetrate as it was an open hold steamer two front two rear this is one to do again. Viz 25m Air In 230 Out 150”

I only got the one dive on that holiday as my tooth really had a problem, it took root canal extraction to sort out and it would not be for another 3 years that I could get back to dive her again, by that time I had moved on to the Blue Dive Log and it records: “15/07/2019 VASSILIOS T KOMIZA CROATIA Redemption following 2016 tooth issue! This is an awesome wreck on its Port side from around 30m down to 50m we dived over the bridge just for’ard & dived along to the stern & over the rudder & prop & back along the starboard rail & in and along the promenade. Passed the bridge and up to the bow then back to the bridge and over the side to decompress the only issue is thick oil inside & tourist beaches don’t mix  so penetration is prohibited Great Dive!”

I managed to get back to Vis in August of 2021 following the Covid 19 outbreak over Christmas of 2019, when I got seriously ill and had a bad couple of months recovering some semblance of respiratory function, one of the few times I wondered if I was going to pull through an illness to be honest. I eventually felt well enough to dive again and arranged a week of diving with Andi & Aniska, the Blue Log recalls: “28/08/21 VASSILIOS T KOMIZA back to this wonderful 1939 wreck another navigational error! On her way from Swansea with a hold or 3 of coal she is sunk on her port side – Dropped in to the buoy on the anchor & swam the bow all down her length with stops at her bridge & mast & funnel, on to her stern mast & up over her railings to the rudder & prop. Carrying a side-mount for deco not room enough to pass between them went back over the side to swim the stern to forecastle & take a trip through the walkway up to the bow then on to deco a wonderful dive”. I dived her again three days later when a turn in the weather prevented us going to the Brioni which lies another hour round the headland, the Blue Book says “31/08/21 VASSILIOS T KOMIZA Back to Vassilios T  for another dive as we cannot get round to Brioni. This time decided to stay around the bridge & forward end & got permission to enter the bridge area. Swam down to midships and over the starboard side& onto & into the bridge deck. Descended to the sea bed & swam round & through on various paths, great picking ways through easy to see & navigate as she is bare of wooden decking. Swam to the bows lighting up the forward hold on the way!”

Why not join me on that dive?

As I had not got much diving done in the August of ’21 I persuaded Ellie to go back in October for a second crack at the B17 and Brioni, as usual I started to work down to the depth taking another dive on the Vassilios: “11/10/21 KOMIZA CROATIA VASSILIOS T Trimix dive 19/19 to use up some of Andi’s spares from last week. Down to the bow then along her from stem to stern, plenty of wonderful fish shoals and Yellow/Purple coral growth on her superstructure & masts. A brief stop @ her bridge then down to her rudder & prop. Up & over her stern to the emergency steering locker & on to her holds & down her length. Another stop to swim through the promenade starboard deck & into the bridge over her spare anchor. Through the bridge & on to her bow & deco” 

And so to this year’s escapade and my last dive to date on the superb wreck that is the Vassilios T and was, so recently before her demise, the Eastern Temple…. I failed to mention earlier that following the October dive on her of 2021 I once again succumbed to Covid 19, this time I was in Komiza and taken seriously ill with what I thought was Diverticulitis, something I have occasionally suffered from over the last ten years or so, I couldn’t stop violent stomach cramps for 4 days and sacked any idea of trying to get into a dry-suit and put on a weight belt….it wasn’t until we got back to the UK I found out it had actually been Covid…..again! Anyhow, I digress, this year everything went perfectly and I started the diving on the pinnacles to break in gently and followed that with Vassilios……. “29/08/22 VASSILIOS T ( EASTERN TEMPLE)  Another fine dive on the Vassilios dropping in to find the anchor & chain then following the bow & starboard side down to the stern, a drop down to the sea bed & then a view of the prop & back up gently past the emergency steering room deck & up to the bridge. A quick swim through the bridge passage then on to the bow & back up for 11 minutes of deco” On this dive I noticed the impact to the bow, and the minor crack in her that eventually led to her demise, such a gentle and almost superficial break which would indicate a very slow speed when she hit Stupišće, perhaps caution in the fog had driven the captain to “slow ahead”…..perhaps…….

You can take a look for yourself on the dive, where you will perhaps also notice the Vassilios rudder looking completely untouched and serviceable……..

I have to say, Vassilios T is an amazing wreck, if there had not been so much doubt about her sinking, and perhaps such restrictions on penetration, maybe she would have been an equal favourite to the Brioni……….

Once again I am indebted to those who have taken or, where I was able to contact them, allowed the use of their photos for this piece, specifically those of the iliveunderwater.com dive blog site, Lindsay Muha & Frankie Witzenburg of the US National Archives at College Park, Scuba Diving Croatia.Com and Andi & Aniska of Manta Divers in Komiza

2024 Update: I returned to Komiza this year to dive with Andi & Aniska again and 1st off was the Vassilios T, in post dive conversation with Andi it turned out the history of the wreck had been largely unknown until her Greek ownership, Andi did not know her as the Eastern Temple and when I mentioned that it sparked a light……There had been, for as long as Andi knew, a bell, seemingly from Vassilios but with the letters RN somewhere as Andi recalled…..It turns out the bell was sat in front of a beach restaurant on the island of Bisevo and is indeed that of the Eastern temple

Tenerife

The Condesito sits in 20m of water just outside the harbour at Las Galletas, in the Canaries off the island of Tenerife, she sank following a storm in September of 1973, engine problems having left her at the mercy of the sea and her proximity to the coast. El Condesito, or the “little count” when translated from Spanish, was a typical coaster, at 41m long she had two For’ard main holds and a smaller Stern hold, and on the 27^th of September, was carrying cement from the Arguineguin cement factory at El Pajar Beach, Gran Canaria, destined for the construction work being carried out at Los Cristianos, hence locally she is known as “The Cement Wreck”

You would not describe the Condesito as elegant and I doubt she would want you to, El Condesito was function over form every way you look, from her no nonsense bow to her rounded stern, she was built to carry as much cargo as a small sub 50m coaster could carry and in an efficient effective manner, enough to profit from Post War austerity whilst building a new future for her owners. Utility was the necessity and the Western World was familiar with frugality, there were no corners cut on Condesito, nor were there frivolities. The Condesito was a workhorse and could be run with minimal crew to eke out slender profits from cash strapped and often shoe-string businesses, as they tried to re-build what had been destroyed during the last 6 years of war in Europe. The previous 3 years of the Spanish Civil War (prior to WWII), didn’t help, as the Spanish economy was at the point of collapse. The Condor Squadron and military support the Nazis had given General Franco had proven a concept of Blitzkrieg, “Lightening War”, emboldening Hitler’s ambitions for a German Empire, which lead into Hitler’s attempt to impose a “1000 year Reich” on Europe, at the cost of anyone and everyone not willing to buy into that ideal

Following the defeat of the Spanish Republicans by General Franco’s Nationalists in 1939, Spain was practically bankrupt. Payments made for arms and support from the various countries and regimes that supported either side had battered the economy, and the various “purges”, street executions of opposition supporters, by both Republicans and Nationalists, would mean large movements of Spanish civilians out of the country trying to escape the violence. It would be international trading that would bring the Spanish economy back to strength, trading with all Europe, and in order to accomplish that, not taking sides with either the Germans or the Allies would be the key

It was into the landscape of political unrest and post-civil war economic austerity that the Astano shipyard had been born in October of 1941. Started in an existing commercial premises on the banks of the Perlio River in Fene by Jose Caruncho (buying a small carpenters yard from Ramon Perez), who, along with his sons Jose & Jacobo, and another half dozen locals, began the repair and, eventually the design and building, of fishing vessels up to 32m in length (Online Resource: fenecom.bogspot.com “Astano in Memory (1), Astano History 1941-2006 1941” Accessed 16/05/2022)

“The company would be controlled as Astilleros y Talleres del Noroeste, SL, in abbreviation it was defined as ASTANO, SL With a duration of twenty years, extendable for the construction and repair of small wooden and steel boats, which would later give way to ships of a certain size. , motivated by the adaptation and expansion of the facilities of its slipway workshops, slipway cars, dry docks and the means of production to the needs of the shipyard” Astano would launch their first fishing vessel a year later in December of 1942, the Comandante Lobo, and by 1943 they had moved from wooden ships to riveted steel hull construction. Astano did well, business was growing and in 1944 they went public as a limited company

El Condesito began life June 22^nd 1945 as the Marujin, sistership to the Rosita Iglesias No2, a Coastal Vessel owned by Enrique Lorenzo registered out of Barcelona, she weighed 168 Tons, and was 41meters from Stern to Bow and powered by a Triple acting Steam Engine pushing 9 Knots through her single prop, but for those of you expecting figures:

The Marujin was a technological leap from her wooden predecessors built at Astano (being a steel hulled, riveted steamship), and would prove her design and serve a long and (presumably) profitable career eventually outlasting her sistership, the Rosita Iglesias (scrapped in Barcelona in July of 1969), by 4 years. It would not be until 1948 that she took on the name we now recognise, El Condesito, when she transferred ownership from Enrique Lorenzo y Compania to the oddly similar Lorenzo Docampo y Compania who would own her until almost the end of her days when, in 1973, she would transfer to Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor……now I am not doubting, for one moment, the legitimacy of these undoubtedly honourable maritime trading edifices…..I am just rather curious as to the continued theme implied by “Lorenzo” in their titles…….however that is another story, bound, and no doubt legally constrained, by the statutes of several sea-faring national interests we will no longer speak of………

The Marujin was originally owned by the Vigo entrepreneur, Enrique Lorenzo Docampo, a businessman who, like so many of his time started with little and worked his way to fortune, first graduating from art school, then working in the Port and later emigrating to Argentina. Enrique returned to Spain in 1915 at 23 and started a workshop making and repairing steamship boilers

By the 1920’s the workshop, known as “La Vulcano” had 40 workers, branching into railway engine boilers in the ‘30’s and elevating Enrique to become a figurehead of local industry and bringing with that wealth and position. In 1941 Enrique and his chief engineer Florencio Garcia de la Riva established a shipyard, initially repairing wooden hulled ships but launching its own steel hulled vessel in 1948 (VigoEmpresa.com “ENRIQUE LORENZO DOCAMPO MEMORY OF A GREAT VIGUES AND UNIQUE MAN” Online Resource: https://www.vigoempresa.com/enrique-lorenzo-docampomemoria-de-un-gran-vigues-y-hombre-singular/ Accessed 18/05/2022). Enrique never forgot his origins, his factory workers were treated well, Enrique funded a co-operative where the Vulcano Factory workers could take out interest free loans to buy houses, and jobs at Vulcano were considered as lifelong, Enrique seems to have been a man of the people, with a philanthropic side, eventually becoming President of the local provincial council

There has been plenty of confusion surrounding the builders of the Marujin, several dive sites and wreck websites continue to state she was built in the Vulcano yards by Enrique’s company, Enrique Lorenzo y Compania, however Lorenzo ordered her built “for” his company, rather than by his company, the reasons seem lost in time, perhaps hidden away in an archive somewhere to this day? The pictures of her launch are distinctly that of the Astano yard, the two buildings noticeable behind the launch party are a clear match for the drawing of Astilleros depicting the yard as it stood in 1943, and even hinting at the sliding doors in the centre of the building. Pictures of the Vulcano yard in the same era would not have had any resemblance as the slipways were not estuarine, as in those at Astillero, but open sea shore at Vulcano. The launch photos of the Marujin also confirm the shipyard slipway at Astillero, the opposite shore of the Perlio river in Fene being clearly visible and again, not in any way resembling the slips of Vulcano. If that is not sufficient for you then the local history of Fene (fenecom.blogspot.com) has the Marujin as Astano yard no NC 007 (although distinctly more Sean Connery’s “Bond” era than Daniel Craig’s)……..

It seems the confusion is easily understood as the current web-site for the Vulcano yard in Spain (Vigo) has a picture of the Marujin docked (see the photo below titled “Marujin Loading at Dockside c1948”) in its “Historical Builds” section (Factorias Vulcano: http://www.factoriasvulcano.com/en/construcciones-historicas “Historical Builds” 1948 Marujin. Online resource: Accessed 25/05/2022) which states: “In 1948, the first vessel built with a 50 metre long steel hulk cargo ship, the MARUJÍN, was delivered.” The key to the confusion being the translation which has the Marujin both “built” and “delivered” the root, it would seem, of the confusion, both in and of itself. Wikipedia does not help as the entry for the Vulcano yard under the 1940’s decade entry (Wikipedia. Online Resource: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Factor%C3%ADas_Vulcano_S.A.&action=edit&section=2 Accessed 10/06/2022) states “At the end of this decade, specifically in 1948, the Marujín cargo ship, 50 meters long, was launched. The ship was commissioned by Enrique Lorenzo himself and was later sold to Naviera Condal.” Although again there is no mention of “built” or “constructed” in the translation, however, it does rather imply Enrique Lorenzo commissioned the Marujin from his own Vulcano yard……..

I asked both the shipyards directly, to confirm the Marujin construction with documentary evidence, I remained convinced that the Marujin was built and launched out of the Astano Yard in 1945, and that any work on her associated with the Vulcano yard was, at most, outfitting, or perhaps enhancement. There is a good case for such work to have been carried out as the Marujin started life as a steamship, and was later converted to Oil, as Enrique’s Vulcano yard at Vigo began life making boilers for rail engines and work barges, it would not be inconceivable it was the Vulcano yard that converted the Marujin to a Heavy Oil fired engine, however it seems that did not take place until c1967

I was delighted when I received an e-mail from Ainhoa Leal Diaz, the documentation librarian at The Exponav Foundation, custodians of the Astano Yard files. Ainhoa confirmed my belief that the Marujin was indeed designed and built at the Astano Yard as NC7 (Her sistership being NC6) of 1944, launched of course, June 22^nd 1945! “The ship you are asking about, the Marujín, was indeed built in the shipyard of Astano. This statement is supported by the following information:The existence of a document that contains a list of ships built in the shipyard; among them is the name Marujín together with its assigned construction number, NC7” I was very privilidged to be allowed to look through the archive of documents from the Marujin and her sistership Rosita Iglesias No2 and have been allowed to use a couple of the design arrangement drawings from the archive in this piece. The first is the hull blueprint which details the Marujin’s conservative lines and utilitarian draught

The second is the Steering Arrangement detail drawings showing the Marujin’s Stern Deck, Wheel-House, her quadrant and the steering linkages. The detail is excellent, as that presented in these drawings always is, they fascinate me and not only as a result of my early exposure to the Blue Funnel ships of my father’s years in the merchant navy, but as living history. There is something about the hand drawn nature of the blueprints which harks back to an age when people carried out the work rather than computers, now there is nothing wrong with computers, I wouldn’t be able to write these dives up were it not for my PC, but they are impersonal and technical tools, they are not the stuff of tangible physical remains, not hand drawn in inks and graphite’s by skilled human beings, but more the stuff of the ethereal more metaphysical and of the future. Perhaps I just feel more connected to the past than I do the future, perhaps as we age all of us do…….

It appears that in 1948 the Marujin was sold to the shipping company Naviera Condal owned by the Condeminas brothers, and based out of Barcelona. At this point she was renamed Condesito, the name she would carry until her eventual loss. The Condesito was re-registered in Barcelona and began sailing in territorial waters on national routes, (“The Little Count” https://www.sacaletatenerife.com/buceo-en-el-condesito/ Online Resource: Accessed 25/05/2022) “….on several occasions they were in the ports of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife although they also made frequent trips to the south” going as far as France and Italy. In February of 1970 the Condesito was again sold, this time for around 2.2M Pesetas, at that time around $38.6k, to Naviera La Palmense, becoming part of a fleet of 7 vessels owned by Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor

So, digging a little deeper into the maritime history of the Canaries and, specifically, Tenerife, it seems the final owner of the Condesito, Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor, was a figurehead and leading entrepreneur of marine trade on the island. Juan Carlos Diaz Lorenzo, writing in Puente de Mando in August of 2018: “For almost thirty years, the name of Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor was part of the maritime environment of the Canary Islands. Since the beginning of the 1960s, he had become the most important of the 20th-century cabotage palm shipowners” (Diaz J. C. “Protagonists of the Sea: The Palmero Shipowner Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor 1911-1999” Puente de Mando Online Resource: https://www.puentedemando.com/el-armador-palmero-filiberto-lorenzo-de-honor-1911-1999/ Accessed 17/05/2021) It is easy to imagine the man himself from the description of Juan Carlos Diaz Lorenzo, a wild child refusing to be constrained by established dogma, and at 9 years old, on the run from school and fascinated by his father’s contacts as a provisioner of local shipping, stowing away on the steamer Viera y Clavijo and ending up as cabin boy and deck hand…….. These were very different days than the cossetted age we find ourselves in today, an age where adventure was still available, even if, in an era where the sun had actually begun setting on the empire, and some of the colonies were actually in open revolt

Filiberto sailed with various steamers, from 1920 the Viera y Clavijo and over the next 20 years others owned and run by the Compañía de Vapores Correos Interinsulares Canarios, then in 1930 with the Compañía Trasmediterránea ending up on Álvaro Rodríguez López’s ship “Sancho II” having become an accomplished ship’s cook by that time. Filiberto changed direction at that point and took up running a hotel in La Palma, it may have been the needs of his hotels and those of his peers and his knowledge of the local steamers and their trades, but something pushed Filiberto into ship ownership. Starting small with a motor-sailer in 1947 Filiberto eventually built a small fleet of ships whilst acting as shipping agent for Naviera La Palmense in Santa Cruz de la Palma, by this time, 1955, his fleet comprised of 7 vessels, Guadarrama, Compostelano, Tío Pepe, Airoso, Aranguín, Nicolás Lafuente and Manen

Right up until the 1970’s Filiberto operated his fleet adapting to the emerging requirements of the islands in typical entrepreneurial style, if it was sand required, his ships carried sand, if it was fresh fish, he acquired refrigerated ships, if it was trucks, Filiberto would make use of the tides and ingenuity to off-load using “thick wooden planks” in the absence of cranage (Diaz J. C. “Protagonists of the Sea: The Palmero Shipowner Filiberto Lorenzo de Honor 1911-1999” Puente de Mando Online Resource: https://www.puentedemando.com/el-armador-palmero-filiberto-lorenzo-de-honor-1911-1999/ Accessed 17/05/2021), these were indeed “different times” as Juan Carlos Diaz Lorenzo has it, quoting Filiberto himself “That was – Filiberto himself recalled -, on the one hand, ignorance and on the other, the desire to make money.”

By 1970 Filiberto’s son, also Filiberto, was now manager of the fleet and bought several ships to supplement it, one of which was the Condesito, acquired in 1970 from the Naviera Condal Company of Barcelona. The Condesito would now find herself shipping cargoes under the ownership of Naviera La Palmense, for Americans, leased out at $300 per day to carry “provisions and water from the palms of Gran Canaria to different farms in the areas of Tarfaya and Agadir. (Morocco).” That wasn’t the only cargo she carried as it is also noted she carried “tubes” and “dynamite” although what type of tubes is not distinct and might easily have been anything from tyres to water pipes. The routes the Condesito sailed broadened too, she would now not only call at Las Palmas, Los Cristianos and Santa Cruz, but wider afield from Barcelona to  the Levant (Istanbul), Spanish Sahara, the Canaries and Cape Verde, adventurous, perhaps even ambitious for a modest 43M, 28 year old veteran coaster…….. 

 The evening of September 27, 1973 should have been no different than any other for the Condesito, she had sailed from the Arguineguin cement factory at El Pajar, Gran Canaria, with full holds of bagged cement, intended to help expand the tourist hotels and infrastructure, and desperately needed to meet the demands of the ever increasing tourist trade on the island of Tenerife. The Condesito was approaching the port at Los Cristianos in what some say was a storm, there are conflicting reports of the events, some describe Condesito colliding with the rocks in the Punta Rasca area, just a mile from her final destination, some suggest the crew abandoned the vessel deliberately, with her insurance to claim, and still others argue that her steering failed and that drove her onto the rocks. I can find no mention of a storm in September of 1973 in the Los Cristianos area, that does not mean a local storm did not occur, there are limitations to any non-native trying to identify events, especially with no local contacts to provide an insight to those long lost news sources from the day, more so as that person is also not a Spanish speaker ………  On the realisation the Condesito was floundering, Local fishermen and maritime services tried to save her, but it seems nothing could be done for the Condesito, she ended up firmly stuck on the rock outcrops of Punta Rasca. The remaining crew, although there is no mention of who or indeed how many, abandoned the Condesito on the morning of the 28^th of September of 1973, when those attempting to save the ship became convinced she might break her back. It only took a few hours more before Condesito lost her fight for survival and slipped beneath the seas where she lies today, broken, and abandoned, save by those she draws in to dive her……….

I dived the Condesito with some of FSAC who had joined me and my family for an early sun seeking dive break April of 2005. As I recall it there was Tracy, Jim, Rob and myself and we used Calipso Diving on the recommendation of Jason, one of my Divemasters and his then girlfriend Nerina, both of whom had moved out to work for Calipso as dive guides for a couple of years, but were back in the UK at the time to see relatives.  My Navy Log records “07/04/05 TENERIFE “Condesito” Los Cristianos Ten minute rib ride out to the right of a small harbour near Los Galetas, past the cactus and palm farm. Spent 15 mins in the gullys with all kinds of small tropical fish – most notable were the pipe-fish the biggest I’ve seen at near 1m long. Some smaller ½ m Barracuda & plenty of Urchins & their small black & blue fish. The Condesito was carrying cement & ran aground near the shore, broken & battered- no bows just the stern but wonderfully sited & a photographers dream. Plenty to get inside for & well worth a few more dives Air In 230 Out 90 Buddy Tim”

Another of my rather short descriptives, lacking much in detail considering I really liked this wreck which I remember quite vividly as being lit marvelously whilst we dived her. She only sits at the deepest in 25 or so meters of water, and the light dances on her making her a very picture perfect wreck. I recall her hull being broken but still in line with her stern at the time and much of it still vertical, there being a host of small fish sheltering amongst the debris

I enjoyed the dive at the time but looking at modern pictures of her she was not as broken when we dived her, I recall more of her hull being upright along her length at least, and her engine not being as exposed as it clearly is more recently. I cannot remember the boiler being exposed to the same extent either, so I have a picture in my mind of more of her structure being almost intact along her hull. Clearly time makes a difference, the photos here are more likely 2020 or so and our dive was a good 15 years earlier, it is hardly strange that she has become far more broken than I recall

Whatever the condition of the Condesito now, she is still an interesting wreck, the opportunities to get in and around her clearly a lot safer than when more of her hull was intact. There was only the one opportunity to dive her at the time, we had another, deeper wreck to visit the next day, so our dive was restricted by common sense and was limited to runs around her and, even then the limited penetration that might have been rewarding on the day, went unmentioned in my log. I recall mainly the deck, and the gully she lay in as dive runs, I remember her prop and rudder, vaguely, but can’t see any sign of them on the shots I can find on the websites and, sadly, Jason has nothing in his photo archive on the little wreck we enjoyed in the flashing of sun-beams, dancing in the shallow gully we found Condesito resting in that April morning in 2005

As ever this piece would not be as complete as it is without the help and generosity of those who have contributed to it. My personal thanks go to Harry Bakker of Aquarius Diving in Tenerife www.aquarius-divingtenerife.com for the use of his excellent photos, and to Ainhoa Leal Diaz of the Exponav Foundation www.exponav.org for the information, launch photos and blueprints of the Marujin used in the piece