MALACCA - 1866

MALACCA - 1866

Postby davidships » Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:22 am

After using it for over 30 years, I just noticed an surprising error in the P&O Fleet History (WSS 1988): the whole technical description section - even the Official Number! - of MALACCA (Richardson, Denton, Duck & Co Ltd, Hartlepool, Yd 60) has been repeated from the Denny-built GEELONG on the same page. Not properly proof-read, I suppose.
Unfortunately some of that data has been assimilated into other sources over the years - including Miramar, and a little bit here:
http://www.teesbuiltships.co.uk/view.php?ref=165592
So having rechecked with MNL, LR, newspapers suggest following:

original tonnages: 1683grt 1238nrt
later: 1873 1698grt 1037nrt; 1874 1709grt 1045nrt; 1890 1720grt 1071nrt
engined T Richardson & Sons, Middleton

laid down on spec
1865 bought by Anglo-Greek Steam Navigation & Trading Co Ltd - mng Stefanos Xenos, London
5/10/1865 launched as KING OF THE GREEKS
15/3/1866 trials (still as KING OF THE GREEKS)
27/3/1866 purchased by P&O
24/5/1866 reg London as MALACCA
11/8/1866 sailed Hartlepool for Southampton
c24/8/1866 sailed on maiden voyage to Bombay
.....
1882 sold to Sultan of Zanzibar
1890 sold to James Testaferrata, Alexandria - reg Bombay
1892 George A Essayan, Manchester
1894 reg Liverpool
26/9/1894 sailed Shields (after a period of lay-up) in tow tug NORDZEE for Rotterdam, for demolition.

The remaining question is: was MALACCA's engine replaced or compounded by Denny in 1873, or is that jusr another copy-over from GEELONG?
Last edited by davidships on Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
davidships
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 11:25 pm

Re: MALACCA - 1866

Postby northeast » Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:42 am

Many thanks David, all updated,
northeast
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6074
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 5:13 pm
Location: East Yorkshire

Re: MALACCA - 1866

Postby davidships » Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:59 am

Just one point, George.
The ship was never completed for Anglo-Greek Steam Navigation. By the time of the trials, Anglo-Greek was already being wound up amid allegations of financial irregularities. No doubt P&O required modifications before acceptance, so I would put the completion as 5/1866 and the first owner as P&O (as you had before), and file under MALACCA (KING OF THE GREEKS as launch name)
davidships
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 11:25 pm

Re: MALACCA - 1866

Postby northeast » Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:43 pm

Never simple, is it! All a matter of how you define 'completion' .... if she went to sea on trials as KOTG then the builders clearly regarded her then as a completed vessel, though delivery to her intended owners was by then impossible, so she was still owned by the builder 'on completion'. P&O bought her only 12 days after trials and if they did have her modified prior to the registration date, it does not mean that she was not 'complete' when they bought her?
northeast
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6074
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 5:13 pm
Location: East Yorkshire

Re: MALACCA - 1866

Postby davidships » Tue Mar 03, 2020 6:22 pm

I think it likely that these were builder's engine trials as they already knew that Anglo-Greek would not be taking delivery - and we don't know whether those trials successfully met the contract that had agreed with Anglo-Greek when they purchased what had initially been a spec build. It is certain that Anglo-Greek were never the owners of a completed ship and, at most, they sold an uncompleted shipbuilding contract to P&O.

It seems that P&O did not consider the ship complete at the time of purchase as they purchased the vessel "while fitting out" and it was another two months before they attested their ownership at registration. P&O presumably had further fitting-out/alterations made after delivery as she did not leave Hartlepool and go into service until August.

My general rule of thumb has been that completion is when a fully-functioning ship is delivered to the buyer to sail away and the building contract is completed, even if modified (and subject only to time-limited contractual guarantees retentions), or the yard puts it into service on its own account. But I would welcome Ian Buxton's view on this - I don't know whether he watches these pages, so I'll raise in the Clyde forum.

Similar considerations will probably apply in the case of SUNDA (Backhouse Dixon, Yd 12), which I still working on.
davidships
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 11:25 pm

Re: MALACCA - 1866

Postby Ian Buxton » Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:23 pm

Yes P&O book is wrong. I have correct info on British Shipbuilding Database.
I suggested to WSS that an updated P&O book would be worthwhile (I have many other corrections) but it seems unlikely.
Xenos was hit by the failure of Overend Gurney bankers.
I use reg name as 'completed' name. Actual delivery by builder to owner was usually a few days later.
A trial is just that, although for simple ships in 19C trial and delivery were sometimes the same day.
When engines were compounded (or tripled) it was quite commonly done by the original engine builder. So Prob Richardsons, Denton, Duck.
Ian Buxton
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: MALACCA - 1866

Postby davidships » Thu Mar 05, 2020 2:56 am

Thanks Ian.
Delivery could be before or after registration (or of course the same day), and sometimes that registration was initially in the name of the shipbbuilder or its nominee - often where the builder was contractually required to deliver the ship elsewhere.
But when first registration was in the name of the intended shipowner, I am struggling to understand how that worked. In the registration formalities, as I understand it, the shipowner has to produce both the builder's certificate of completion and make a declaration of ownership, so how can at least the latter be done if the ship has not yet been delivered? What can be done before delivery is allocation of the ON, so that it can be carved while at the shipyard.

But perhaps there have been changes in practice over the centuries.

Apropos 1865 ships from Richardson, Denton, Duck & Co, the launch report of LEVANT (Yd 61) in the Newcastle Daily Chronicle of Monday 9 October 1865 it gives the builder as Denton, Gray & Co, and then goes on the say "This is the last vessel that will be launched by this firm, all others belonging to Messrs Richardson, Denton, Duck & Co Ltd."
davidships
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 11:25 pm

Re: MALACCA - 1866

Postby Ian Buxton » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:20 am

A builder's certificate shows that the ship was 'built' by xxx, not necessarily delivered, so that it could be registered by the owner. I can't recall a bldr cert dated on or after delivery. The usual date sequence was Launch, Bldr Cert, Reg, Trial, Delivered. Where each is available I try to record in British Shipbuilding Database. BSD available at Marine Technology Special Collection, Newcastle University (Google that) or ask me (ian.buxton@newcastle.ac.uk)
I record the builder as the company at delivery, not launch. So LEVANT built by RDD, even tho launched when Denton Gray.
Ian Buxton
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:26 pm


Return to Shipbuilding on the Tees

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests