I understand that the faulty valve that contributed to the sinking of the submarine was made by a sub contractor, not Cammell Laird but by a firm nearby at Wallasey/Seacombe. Anyone confirm?
The query should be within the contract to construct the Thetis where the various sub contractors to Cammell Laird would be recorded.Sub contracting for various works such as the supply of valves and specialised equipment would be the norm with contractual reservations from the Admiralty. Usually the client (in this case the Admiralty) would restrict sub contracting to identified companies who have been vetted for quality assurance and whose products meet the specification of the contract. I have looked through Hansard 1939 for contract information but although comprehensive on naval matters.there is no reference regarding the matter.There is some interesting information on the capital cost of RN ship construction between the wars but nothing on Thetis . Perhaps the detail of the Thetis construction contract is held in the Cammell Laird archives if there is such a source.The report of the Court of Inquiry held in July 1939 might record some detail of the contract. A search for engineering companies based in the Wirral during the prewar era might throw up some likely candidates for valve sub contractors.
Just had a look at the adverts in my copy of Janes Fighting Ships 1944/45. 4 valve manufacturers are listed of which 2 were in the Liverpool area. A Robinson & Co Ltd, Knowsley Road Liverpool The Metallic Valve Co Ltd, Sandford St, Birkenhead. It has always been my understanding that the problem lay with a test cock on a torpedo tube that was blocked with paint and which no one tried to ensure was clear despite tools being provided for the job. Is that a faulty valve? Who applied the paint that caused the blockage? The valve manufacturer or the shipyard that installed it? I would have thought the latter. As the vessel was still under the control of the builder, was the negligence not on the part of the worker who failed to use the tool provided or properly supervise the seaman involved? There was a court case for damages against the shipbuilder brought by a relative of one of those lost and the Admiralty succeeded in blocking production of the contracts, claiming Crown Privilege on the basis that disclosure would be “injurious to the public interest”.
Thank you. for response. I take the point it could have been down to a workman on site. I know the son of Stoker Arnold and this question came up in our conversation.
The valve is described as a test cock which illustrates its function. In contract law,the main contractor is responsible to the client for their sub contractor's work. In this case I would think it would be the responsibility of the sub contractor company if applicable or if done in house,Cammell Laird itself, whose work resulted in the enamel paint blocking the internals of the test cock. Either way, Camel Laird would carry overall responsibility as the main contractor. If there was a sub contractor doing the work, then Cammell Laird would be free to take legal action against their sub contractor. The loss of Thesis still contentious with an accusation that the Admiralty were more concerned in saving the vessel intact rather than opening up the hull to facilitate an air supply to the crew and provide their way of escape from the hull. Interestingly, Ernest Frank Cox of Cox and Danks whose salvage company had extensive experience in salvaging the German Imperial Fleet at Scapa Flow wrote a letter to Mr Justice Buckmill who headed the Court of Inquiry on what should have been done to save Thetis and her commissioning crew.
