Anyone Interested in Ships

[Bon Accord]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

As I understand it, the stern car-loading doors on Princess Victoria were battered in by heavy seas as she attempted to leave Loch Ryan going astern; that is, the doors failed rather than the ship being pooped by a sea overtopping them.  She remained afloat for some hours after this event despite broaching and whatever FSE she suffered, suggesting that her scuppers mostly coped, but that the length of time she was at sea in those conditions and the resultant accumulation of water aboard her ultimately overwhelmed her.  A feature of the Estonia sinking was her captain’s insistence on maintaining full speed in adverse conditions. 
 

 

Perhaps part of their training should involve an obstacle race against the clock in which they have to carry a shallow tray of water without spilling any…

 

As Princess Victoria was a stern loader there would have been no need to leave her berth stern first and even less to leave the Loch in such a manner.

At that time the railway steamers berthed in Stranraer itself, with the entrance to the Loch some 8 miles away.

The wind at the time was a NW gale which wouldn't been so noticeable in the Loch as she headed out, that would only have become apparent as she rounded Milleur Point into the North Channel. The wind speed later increased to hurricane force (120mph).

The BOT report into her sinking makes it clear her stern doors were stoved in after she left Loch Ryan. As well as admitting enough water to cause her to list significantly, it also precipitated a cargo shift which made things worse at which point she was beyond saving.

Concern had previously been expressed by crews as to the vulnerability of her stern doors - which were of the sliding variety and little more substantial than a sheet steel fence - as well as the capacity of the scuppers to remove water from the vehicle deck.

[The Johnster]

Princess Victoria’s captain had little choice; he had to leave the berth at Stranraer to prevent damage to the ship in the swell coming up the Loch, and the wind combined with the swell made turning the ship in the Loch impossible.  The nearest effective shelter was in fact at Larne, his destination anyway, and the plan was apparently to go astern out of Loch Ryan and then head for Larne bow-on to the seas.  The stern door failed almost as soon as he cleared Milluer Point into open sea, before she made any progress forwards, and from that moment on the ship could not be controlled. 
 

Hindsight would suggest that anchoring in Loch Ryan might have saved the day, but she’d probably have dragged in the swell.  I am reminded of the Samtampa wreck at Sker point, Porthcawl, six years earlier. Samtampa, a liberty in ballast on passage from Middlesborough to Newport.  Liberties had a lot of windage, especially in ballast.  She’d broached in heavy following seas several times after rounding Land’s End, and her captain, concerned at the deteriorating weather and of the opinion that he would not be able to pick up a pilot in Barry Roads, attempted to anchor in the shelter of Porlock Bay, but tidal current and heavy seas meant that she dragged her anchor and control could not be regained.  After several hours of being pushed around the Bristol Channel by the seas, tides, and wind, barely avoiding the Nash Sands and Tusker Rock, fully seaworthy and with her engines running, she was driven northwards out of control, still dragging as the anchors could not be winched back up, and struck at Sker in failing light, breaking up immediately.  All hands and the crew of the Mumbles lifeboat were lost. 
 

The pilot boats were operating out of Barry despite the conditions and he’d have probably been ok if he’d held his course after Foreland Point; another Liberty, also in ballast, picked up her pilot and docked at Avonmouth the same evening on the same tide without issue.  But I wasn’t there, and cannot imagine the exhaustion of her captain and crew after what had been a very rough passage, or the apparent mood of despair and hopelessness that seems to have pervaded that day aboard Samtampa, and eventually became a self-fulfilling prophesy.  
 

The story of this wreck, five years before I was born, made a big impression on me as a child; her boiler remained visible on the rocks at Sker for many years afterwards and what is left of her engine can still be sometimes seen where she broke up on low spring tides.  My dad, a Cardiff pilot, was of the view that Liberties were unsafe in these conditions (he’d spent the last two years of the war in one in the Indian Ocean and Far East as 2/O, the tropical condensation and rampant mould aboard this poorly ventilated vessel gave him TB and nearly killed him), but she’d been passed as seaworthy at Middlesborough.  The amount of ballast was called into question at the BoT inquiry, but not held to be a factor in her loss despite the fact that it obviously was; dad reckoned this was a bit of a whitewash, as nearly a third of the British mercantile fleet were liberties at the time, as these ships were war surplus and needed to replace the heavy wartime losses. Eight knots is barely enough to hold ground against a Bristol Channel tide even in good conditions, but liberties were a common sight during my childhood, certainly up to the early sixties and there were still a few around a decade after that

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

If the doors were, indeed, damaged during departure then one does have to question why the Master insisted on continuing with his voyage. Easy to say with hindsight, of course, but surely he would have been made aware of the damage down aft? Or was he a martinet - we know the type - "My way or the gangway, mister. I'M THE MASTER, and don't you forget it"? As such, were his Officers scared to report damage to him?

Princess Victoria’s car doors were not damaged during departure, but some time and distance into the passage when the ship reached open sea, when the conditions were such that attempting to turn the ship to return to Stranraer would have been risky and the best option was to press on to Larne, the best available shelter from a NW force 12. The captain was fully aware of the situation and ordered passengers to put on their lifejackets shortly afterwards.  I do not get the impression that his officers or crew had any difficulty communicating openly and fully with him, or that he was any sort of Captain Bligh-type martinet, and tbh it feels a bit off IMHO to impute this when there is no evidence for it.  
 

As far as Estonia is concerned, some reports at the time suggested that her captain was a somewhat gung-ho sort of character out to prove that he wasn’t scared of a few waves, though I have no idea if this is true either, and it is possible that other interests were in play and had axes to grind or *rses to cover.  Estonia had thick steel inner car-deck bow doors behind the ‘cosmetic’ shaped outer ‘visor’ doors, and both sets of doors were fully closed and properly secured; they were simply stove in by the force of the seas and the 18-knot speed of the ship. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by The Johnster

[MarkC]

21 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Princess Victoria’s car doors were not damaged during departure, but some time and distance into the passage when the ship reached open sea, when the conditions were such that attempting to turn the ship to return to Stranraer would have been risky and the best option was to press on to Larne, the best available shelter from a NW force 12. The captain was fully aware of the situation and ordered passengers to put on their lifejackets shortly afterwards.  I do not get the impression that his officers or crew had any difficulty communicating openly and fully with him, or that he was any sort of Captain Bligh-type martinet, and tbh it feels a bit off IMHO to impute this when there is no evidence for it.  
 

As far as Estonia is concerned, some reports at the time suggested that her captain was a somewhat gung-ho sort of character out to prove that he wasn’t scared of a few waves, though I have no idea if this is true either, and it is possible that other interests were in play and had axes to grind or *rses to cover.  Estonia had thick steel inner car-deck bow doors behind the ‘cosmetic’ shaped outer ‘visor’ doors, and both sets of doors were fully closed and properly secured; they were simply stove in by the force of the seas and the 18-knot speed of the ship. 

So the doors were indeed stove in whilst in open water - and that North Channel is an utter swine, particularly in a NW storm. Once in open water, and with damaged stern doors, yes, turning wasn't an option. So basically she was overwhelmed, although as Bon Accord has confirmed that the aft doors were flimsy, they were basically unfit for purpose. I only wondered about the possibility of the Master being perhaps unapproachable because, sadly, sometimes this can be a factor in disasters, & not just maritime ones. (I offer the BEA Trident that stalled after takeoff from Heathrow in 1972, killing all on board, as a good example of this). It's good to know that he wasn't.

 

"Estonia" is certainly a puzzle - wasn't there a story doing the rounds that diving on the wreck was ruled to be forbidden? If so, what are the powers that be hiding?

 

In any case, RIP all who died in these incidents; indeed to all who set off on a voyage not knowing that, through no fault of their own, they would not reach their destination alive.

 

Mark

[Bon Accord]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Princess Victoria’s captain had little choice; he had to leave the berth at Stranraer to prevent damage to the ship in the swell coming up the Loch, and the wind combined with the swell made turning the ship in the Loch impossible.  The nearest effective shelter was in fact at Larne, his destination anyway, and the plan was apparently to go astern out of Loch Ryan and then head for Larne bow-on to the seas.  The stern door failed almost as soon as he cleared Milluer Point into open sea, before she made any progress forwards, and from that moment on the ship could not be controlled.

 

That's not what the official report states.

Where have you got the idea that they went stern first out of the loch?

The pier in Stranraer is aligned on a NW/SE axis, and with the ship being a stern loader her bow would have been pointing into the wind on departure so no need to turn in the loch.

The old loading ramp was on the south side of the pier, therefore sheltered from any swell.

Once she was in difficulty in the North Channel there was an attempt to run stern first back into the loch using her bow rudder to steer, thereby keeping her bow into the wind and minimising further water ingress through the by-then smashed in stern gates.

However, the crew were unable to remove the securing pin from the bow rudder to free it due to heavy seas breaking over the fo'c'sle continuously.

[MarkC]

1 minute ago, Bon Accord said:

 

That's not what the official report states.

Where have you got the idea that they went stern first out of the loch?

The pier in Stranraer is aligned on a NW/SE axis, and with the ship being a stern loader her bow would have been pointing into the wind on departure so no need to turn in the loch.

The old loading ramp was on the south side of the pier, therefore sheltered from any swell.

Once she was in difficulty in the North Channel there was an attempt to run stern first back into the loch using her bow rudder to steer, thereby keeping her bow into the wind and minimising further water ingress through the by-then smashed in stern gates.

However, the crew were unable to remove the securing pin from the bow rudder to free it due to heavy seas breaking over the fo'c'sle continuously.

A bow rudder? For the time, that would have been advanced technology, certainly on a seagoing vessel. The idea of using it as you suggest they wanted to makes good sense, although quite how effective it would have been in mountainous seas is another question. Even a modern bow thruster would struggle, I think.

 

Even today, to get onto the foc's'le in bad weather can be a potentially lethal business - nothing changes there...

 

Mark

[Bon Accord]

12 minutes ago, MarkC said:

A bow rudder? For the time, that would have been advanced technology, certainly on a seagoing vessel. The idea of using it as you suggest they wanted to makes good sense, although quite how effective it would have been in mountainous seas is another question. Even a modern bow thruster would struggle, I think.

 

Even today, to get onto the foc's'le in bad weather can be a potentially lethal business - nothing changes there...

 

Mark

 

Not as advanced as you might think Mark.

They were fairly rudimentary but very useful for running stern first into awkward ports. Well used by ships on the Dover Ocean and elsewhere.

They were usually controlled from a wheel on the fo'c'sle, so an AB/QM had to be down there to operate it with instructions from the bridge being either by pea whistle, loud hailer or telegraph.

Some newer ships had controls on the bridge but by that point everyone was moving over to bowthrusters, although I believe some of the 60s/70s Sealink ferries on the channel had both thrusters and a bow rudder, the latter so they could proceed faster astern and retain steerage.

Regarding advanced technology I read somewhere that one of the pre war IOM steamers had a steam turbine bowthruster, now that's something I'd have liked to have seen and you have to wonder how it worked! I have it in my head it was the 1927 Lady of Mann, but I can't remember for certain.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Bon Accord

[johnofwessex]

Manxman (1955) had her bow rudder controlled from the bridge wings 

 

You can certainly see on some ships the wheel for the bow rudder right in the bow but I would have thought that it was far from ideal.

 

The two IoMSP ships with steam driven bow thrust were the 1965 Ben My Cree & 1962 Manx Maid and boy did they shift with the thruster on.

 

They were powered by a 500hp turbine and the main stop was above the control platform in the engine room

Edited July 28, 2023 by johnofwessex

[MarkC]

27 minutes ago, Bon Accord said:

 

Not as advanced as you might think Mark.

They were fairly rudimentary but very useful for running stern first into awkward ports. Well used by ships on the Dover Ocean and elsewhere.

They were usually controlled from a wheel on the fo'c'sle, so an AB/QM had to be down there to operate it with instructions from the bridge being either by pea whistle, loud hailer or telegraph.

Some newer ships had controls on the bridge but by that point everyone was moving over to bowthrusters, although I believe some of the 60s/70s Sealink ferries on the channel had both thrusters and a bow rudder, the latter so they could proceed faster astern and retain steerage.

Regarding advanced technology I read somewhere that one of the pre war IOM steamers had a steam turbine bowthruster, now that's something I'd have liked to have seen and you have to wonder how it worked! I have it in my head it was the 1927 Lady of Mann, but I can't remember for certain.

Oh, I knew it would be pretty basic in its execution - but what a good idea. Certainly proves the old maxim about "nothing new under the sun".

 

A steam turbine bowthruster in 1927 - I doubt that it would have a controllable pitch impeller, allowing it to run at a constant speed, so reversing it would take time. As you say, that would be fascinating to find out more about it.

 

Post edited after John posted more details - by the 1960s technology had moved on a lot.

 

As an aside, I once travelled on the 1965 Ben My Cree - lovely ship :)

 

Mark

Edited July 28, 2023 by MarkC

[johnofwessex]

I loved the old Ben, always got a warm welcome on her, the boiler room was something else

[jjb1970]

Ro-Ro ferries and cruise ships are fundamentally different. There are well known inherent vulnerabilities with free surface effect for Ro-Ro ships, vulnerabilities which were recognized long before the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy. Industry and maritime regulators decided to play the odds, even after the Estonia tragedy the Stockholm rules to enhance safety were limited to a small group of countries and it wasn't until 2010 that similar requirements in SOLAS entered into force. And that still leaves a huge number of ferries out of scope since SOLAS does not apply to ships which only trade domestically (unless the owner has them certificated under SOLAS voluntarily for commercial flexibility).

 

Something generally lost in discussion of the Costa Concordia is that the naval architects and hull did their jobs well and things went badly despite the efforts of the hull to give people time to get off. The ships went around in a circle after ripping the hull open with a loss of steering control before going aground again, the abandon order was ridiculously late (after the second grounding) as the ship really started to list. Despite the delay and only really starting after things were dire and with an imbecile in charge of a bungled reaction the vast majority of people got off safely, which indicates that the ship was trying to save everyone despite the best efforts of the captain to do the opposite. Sadly the engineers who designed the ship weren't as good given the emergency generator overloaded and led to a full black out. With safe return to port the main machinery would have been much less susceptible to failing and stability reserve much greater.

[jjb1970]

14 hours ago, MarkC said:

"Estonia" is certainly a puzzle - wasn't there a story doing the rounds that diving on the wreck was ruled to be forbidden? If so, what are the powers that be hiding?

 

 

There's a treaty preventing diving the wreck other than for investigative purposes, but only a handful of countries are signatories so for most of the world it is down to national policies on diving wrecks. It's always a problem, there are constant issues with the remains of Force Z in the Gulf of Thailand. 

[jjb1970]

On maritime tragedies, it's good to remember the Dona Paz disaster in which significantly more people died than for the Titanic, Estonia and Herald of Free Enterprise combined (over 4000) but which is largely unknown outside of the Philippines and in maritime circles:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Doña_Paz

 

Not even ancient history, very close to the Herald tragedy in time.

[Ozexpatriate]

50 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

... there are constant issues with the remains of Force Z in the Gulf of Thailand.

Indeed so. It doesn't help that the wrecks are of what might be considered contemporaneously in the region as being of "colonialists".

[KeithMacdonald]

As a rest from distressing stories of ships that sunk (but didn't intend to), how about a tale of 80+ ships that were deliberately sunk?

 

Quote

Largest ships' graveyard in maritime Britain ~ Following intentional beaching of a small fleet of semi-redundant timber lighters, in the winter of 1909, to strengthen the nearby eroding canal bank, that the site, now know as the ‘Purton Ships’ Graveyard’ would ultimately form a collection of some 86 beached vessels, stretching from Sharpness to Purton. The largest assembly of maritime artefacts on the foreshore of mainland Britain. This website catalogues over twenty years of research, initiated by Paul Barnett. Leading to the formation of the ‘Friends of Purton‘, a society dedicated to the research and protection of this and other ships’ graveyards.

 

https://www.friendsofpurton.org.uk/

 

 

 

 

[burgundy]

Within a stone's throw of Portishead.....

There was a third tug just around the corner and she is now tied up in Portbury dock. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[woodenhead]

And what keeps ships safe - lighthouses:

 

[BR traction instructor]

The Fri Lake is discharging furnace bottom slag for concrete block manufacture nr Silloth this morning...most likely originating from Kilroot P.S. Ireland...

 

BeRTIe

Edited August 1, 2023 by BR traction instructor

[SHMD]

1 hour ago, BR traction instructor said:

The Fri lake is discharging furnace bottom slag for concrete block manufacture nr Silloth this morning...

 

BeRTIe

 

That ship looks small but I think that truck is going to have to make a LOT of trips just to empty one of her bays.

 

Also, what ever they are hiding under that camouflage isn't very!

 

 

Kev.

[BR traction instructor]

...half a dozen such trucks are serving her...no knowledge re the netting.

 

BeRTIe

[KeithMacdonald]

25 minutes ago, SHMD said:

Also, what ever they are hiding under that camouflage isn't very!

 

Some might say that looks the kind of "special" cargo that gets collected in the dead of night by "dodgy geezers in vans".

[johnofwessex]

My wife was watching 'Who Do You Think You Are' last night, the subject was Adrian Ramsey.

 

His Grandfather served on HMS Ulster Queen in WW2

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ulster_Queen

 

The Belfast Steamship Co. received three 3,700 ton Harland and Wolff-built motorships in 1929 and 1930, the world's first diesel cross-channel ships. Ulster Queen was the second of these.[2]

 

From what I can see, almost all 'non railway' Irish Sea ferries, and indeed some railway ones like Princess Victoria were Motor Ships from this point, ditto the Belgium ships, some of which were good for 25 knots.

 

At the same time Captain Shippick and his backers were building some very nice motor ships for cross channel day excursions like

 

https://www.derbysulzers.com/shipqueenchannel.html

 

I understand that the economics of motor ships were not always that straightforward, and that many British Shipbuilders recommended steam because they built there own engines however Dennys had a Sulzer licence and Harland & Wolff built diesel engines before WW2 

 

So why did the railways and the Isle of Man Steam Packet stick with steam until the mid 1960's?  Yes we got some lovely ships like Manxman and Maid of Kent  BUT they were not cheap to run 

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

7 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

So why did the railways and the Isle of Man Steam Packet stick with steam until the mid 1960's? 

 

The reasons might be lost in the mists of time, and the murky history of what became CalMac Ferries.

 

1851 David Hutcheson -->

1878 MacBrayne's -->

1923 Caledonian Steam Packet Company

1928 Coast Lines and the LMS -->

1948 British Transport Commission & Clyde Shipping Services -->

1969 Scottish Transport Group -->

1973 Caledonian MacBrayne

 

Combinations of vested interests and government interference management probably put a stop to what would have been good fleet management.

Deju vu?

Cough, did someone mention Ferguson Marine?

[Bon Accord]

9 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

The reasons might be lost in the mists of time, and the murky history of what became CalMac Ferries.

 

1851 David Hutcheson -->

1878 MacBrayne's -->

1923 Caledonian Steam Packet Company

1928 Coast Lines and the LMS -->

1948 British Transport Commission & Clyde Shipping Services -->

1969 Scottish Transport Group -->

1973 Caledonian MacBrayne

 

Combinations of vested interests and government interference management probably put a stop to what would have been good fleet management.

Deju vu?

Cough, did someone mention Ferguson Marine?

 

You're quite wrong.

MacBraynes - whose history you list above - was in fact an early proponent of modern technology including internal combustion, with all of their vessels built from 1930 onwards being exclusively diesel powered.

By way of stark comparison; the Cal in Calmac (Caledonian Steam Packet) was the former BR/LMS/LNER owned vessels and in contrast they were exclusively building steam powered vessels - with one exception - until the 1950s.

In terms of propulsion technology it's also worth nothing that the CSP/railways built their last paddle steamer in 1953, whereas MacBraynes built their last paddler a full 65 years before, way back in 1888.

It's therefore quite clear that the railways were just as technologically and ideologically conservative when it came to motive power at sea as they were on land.

It's also worth noting that the two ships being built at Fergusons are to have dual fuel (Diesel/LNG) machinery, this was to be a first for a UK flag passenger vessel and therefore new territory for the MCA and that in itself was one source of many problems.

Ironically one beneficiary of some of the to/from between CMAL/Fergusons/MCA over regulations is P&O Cruises as their two most recent vessels can run on LNG.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Bon Accord

[The Johnster]

On 30/07/2023 at 01:09, woodenhead said:

And what keeps ships safe - lighthouses:

 

 

Great vid, very interesting. 

 

My first reaction to the picture was that it was The Smalls, which reminded me of the real and actual horror story connected with that light. 

 

Back in 1801, it was still in it's original form, an octagonal cabin with the light on top of it supported by (orignally 8, more were added later) timber baulks of about twenty feet in height, the idea being that waves sweeping the rock would pass harmlessly beneath the cabin.  It apparently used to shake violently and must have been pretty daunting in bad weather, but it lasted eighty years in that form before being replaced by the present stone tower.  Apparently, the original design specified iron supports, but it was found that these could not be made strong enough to withstand the seas.

 

There are various versions of the story, but the common features of all of them are these; in those days, Trinity House (who had taken over the running of the light some years before) crewed it with two men on three-week turns of duty, but because of the difficulty of landing and accessing the light (access was via a rope ladder let out of a hatch in the bottom of the cabin), crews were often stranded on this rock 20 miles offshore for much longer periods and the fresh water and food storage areas, dug into the rock, reflected this.  On this occasion, two men named Thomas Howell and Thomas Griffith were given the duty. 

 

These men were known not to get on with each other and had publicly had heated arguments in pubs ashore, but of course duty is duty and they were expected to carry it out with due diligence and professionalism; and there is no actual evidence that either of them failed to do this or argued in a way that affected their ability to keep the light while they were on duty.  You just have to get on with it as best you can in such circumstances.  This was over a very bad winter and the men were isolated on the light by repeated storms for nearly three months.  After some time, the distress beacon was lit, and reported to Trinity House, but the light was maintained throughout the duty, so all that was known ashore was that there was some sort of problem, and the men were asking for assistance, but it could not be provided because of the conditions in any case and clearly, with the light still operational, they were coping; help would arrive when it was possible to send it.  As we'll see, there's coping and then there's coping...

 

After some time into the duty, one of the men, Howell, became ill (there is evidence that he was a heavy drinker when he was ashore and possibly his liver packed up, a horrible death).  Some accounts claim that he suffered an accident of some sort.  According to the logs of both men, Griffith lit the distress beacon and administered such medicinal and other care as was within his ability and the light's store cupboard, but after a week or so, Howell died, in considerable pain.  Griffith, realising that if he committed his colleague's body to the sea (as would have been normal practice in the circumstances), decided to keep the corpse in the cabin in order to assist with eventually having to prove that he had not murdered the man himself, which is what would have almost been certainly assumed had he not done so.  Don't forget that by this time he was hoping for relief soon, but the storms continued and the weeks went on.  Howell's body began in time to decompose and the smell in the small cabin became intolerable, so Griffith, a former cabinet maker, built a coffin and put Howell inside.  He then manhandled the coffin, with Howell, up to the light deck and lashed it as securely as he could to the railings.

 

Still no chance of relief, and the next storm's waves burst the coffin open.  The result of this was that Howell was left hanging upside down out of the coffin, his decomposing pain-wracked death mask at one of the cabin windows with his arm outstretched and the forefinger of the hand set into a crook shape.  As if he was beckoning Griffith to join him in the land of the dead, the arm swaying in the wind, the finger beckoning, beckoning, and the cabin oil lamps flickering so that the dead face looked as if it was mouthing words and expressions, while the waves roared and the wind howled and shreiked like the souls of tormented denizens of hell itself...  It is not clear how long this situation lasted, as Griffith, not unexpectedly, became increasingly unhinged, started hearing voices, and convinced that Howell was actually summoning him from beyond death.  It would, to be fair, have taken a man of considerable fortitude to not be affected by such a ghastly apparition, alone and terrified 20 miles offshore for such a long time, but, to his credit and that of his sense of duty, he kept the light...

 

When relief finally arrived, it was impossible to gain a coherent account of events from him, or a coherent anything; by that time he was a babbling wreck, a broken man, his mind permanently gone, as much a victim of The Smalls as Howell.  His hair had gone white and, once ashore, some of his own relatives did not recognise him, so etched into his face was his suffering and terror.  The incident led to Trinity House manning wave-washed and island lights, and light vessels, with at least three men at all times, a practice which continued up until their automation.  A true and genuine horror story.