Condition assessment of the Holland No.5 submarine NATIONAL

Transcription

Condition assessment of the Holland No.5 submarine
English Heritage
NATIONAL HERITAGE PROTECTION COMMISSIONS
PROGRAMME
Project Number 6654
Final Report
January 2014
NAS Project Number: NAS_EHPD6654
Project Manager: Mark Beattie-Edwards, MA MIfA
Condition Assessment of the Holland No.5 Submarine Final Report
NAS Doc Ref: NAS_EH6654
1
Contents
Illustrations
Acknowledgements and Copyright
Document Control Grid
3
5
6
1. Project name
7
2. Summary
7
3. Background
7
4. Aims and objectives
8
5. Project Scope
9
6. Health and Safety
9
7. Method Statement
9
8. Access, data and archiving
10
9. The condition of the Holland No 5 Submarine
10
9.1. 2000/2001 Condition Assessment
11
9.2. 2005 Condition Assessment
13
24
30
37
40
46
49
55
10. Summary of the main hole in the hull of the Holland No.5 Submarine 55
11. Future Monitoring of the Holland No.5 Submarine
68
12. Future Management of the Holland No. 5 Submarine
69
13. Bibliography
72
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
73
74
75
76
2
Illustrations
Figure 1: Side scan sonar survey of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2001
Figure 2: Original multibeam sonar survey undertaken by the ADU in 2005
Figure 3: Modified multibeam sonar survey undertaken by the ADU in 2005
Figure 4: Sketch plan from 2005 showing areas of damage to the Holland No.5
Figure 5: Photographic record of the Holland No.5 in September 2005
Figure 6: The location of a hole in the pressure hull in 2005
Figure 7: Remains of the hydroplane actuator on the port side of the hull
Figure 8: Fishing gear entangled on the submarine by 2005
Figure 9: The starboard stern of the Holland No.5 in 2005 with fishing gear
Figure 10: The stern of the Holland No.5 in September 2005
Figure 11: The bow area of the Holland No.5 in 2005
Figure 12: Exhaust pipe with same damage as seen in 2005
Figure 13: Exhaust box after net and rope clearance
Figure 14: View of the exhaust box from the starboard side
Figure 15: 10 inch ventilator and battery vent pipe
Figure 16: Conning tower cleared of netting and rope in 2006
Figure 17: Fuel filler cap visible underneath the damaged casing
Figure 18: A second exhaust pipe is visible in 2006
Figure 19: Drawing and photo of a hinge of the exhaust box lid in 2006
Figure 20: Holes in the port side of the hull in 2006
Figure 21: Rope and cable still present on the aft section of the wreck in 2006
Figure 22: View of the three propeller blades with all the rope/net removed
Figure 23: View of the propeller boss on the seafloor in 2006
Figure 24: Drawing of the Holland No.5 propeller bolts
Figure 25: The upper part of the bow cap in 2006
Figure 26: The bow cap opening mechanism of the Holland No.5 in 2006
Figure 27: Multibeam sonar survey of the Holland No.5 from 2007
Figure 28: The two exhaust pipes still in place in 2007
Figure 29: The hole in the port side hull in 2007
Figure 30: Fishing gear just aft of the exhaust box in 2007
Figure 31: The protected wreck marker buoy and chain in 2007
Figure 32: The bow cap of the Holland No.5 in 2007
Figure 33: Images of the open bow cap of the Holland No.5 in 2007
Figure 34: Side scan sonar survey of the Holland No.5 in 2008
Figure 35: Three video captures of new small hole in the pressure hull
Figure 36: The condition of the upper parts of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2010
Figure 37: Impact damage evident on the exhaust box in 2010
Figure 38: The damaged upper casing and vent pipe bent back in 2010
Figure 39: The hole on the port side in 2010
Figure 40: The small hole in the port aft section of the Holland No.5
Figure 41: New netting on the conning tower of the Holland No.5 in June 2010
Figure 42: The bow of the Holland No.5 in 2010
Figure 43: The hole in the port side along with three areas of exposed steel in 2011
Figure 44: This strip of exposed steel on the starboard side in 2011
Figure 45: The bow of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2011
Figure 46: The sand bar on the port side of the Holland No.5 in 2012
Figure 47: The holes in the pressure hull in 2012
Figure 48: Rope hanging over the port side of the hull at the stern in 2012
Figure 49: Rope hanging over the starboard side of the hull at the stern in 2012
Figure 50: The stern of the Holland No.5 in 2012
Figure 51: The starboard side fin of the Holland No.1 submarine
Figure 52: The inside of the torpedo tube of the Holland No.5 and the Holland No.1
Figure 53: A screen grab of the online interactive visualisation of the Holland No.5
Figure 54: A photomosaic of the port side of the Holland No. 5 submarine
Figure 55: A photomosaic of the port side of the Holland No. 5 submarine
Figure 56: The sand bar on the port side of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2013
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
27
28
28
28
29
29
32
33
34
34
35
36
36
38
39
41
42
42
43
44
44
45
47
47
48
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
56
57
57
3
Figure 57: Elevation of the port side of the Holland No.5 in 2013
Figure 58: Photomosaic elevation of the starboard side of the Holland No.5
Figure 59: Elevation of the starboard side of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2013
Figure 60: A photomosaic of the plan view of the Holland No. 5 submarine in 2013
using a GoPro Hero2 HD video camera
Figure 61: A photomosaic of the plan view of the Holland No. 5 submarine in 2013
using a Nikon D7000 SLR in video mode
Figure 62: The upper works of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2013
Figure 63: Areas of exposed steel hull on the starboard side of the Holland No.5
Figure 64: Holes and areas of exposed steel hull on the port side of the Holland No.5
Figure 65: The main hole (Hole A) on the port side on the 24th July 2013
Figure 66: The area around the port side hull on the 26th September 2013
Figure 67: The inside of the Holland No.5 in 2013
Figure 68: Man-made fishing materials on the wreck of the Holland No. 5 in 2013
Figure 69: The stern area of the Holland No.5 protected wreck in 2013
Figure 70: The bow area of the Holland No.5 protected wreck in 2013
58
58
58
59
59
60
61
62
63
63
64
65
66
67
4
Acknowledgements:
Supporting information, images and video footage has been kindly provided by;
• Alison James, English Heritage
• Toby Gane, Wessex Archaeology
• Jamie Smith, Tunbridge Wells Sub-Aqua Club
• Mike Postons, 3deep Media Ltd
• Bob Mealings, Royal Navy Submarine Museum
• Mark Callaghan, Nautilus Images
• Nautical Archaeology Society
• Martin Davies, In Depth Photography
• Stuart Philpott
• Sara Hasan
• Daniel Pascoe
• Allen Murray
• Andy Botten
• Sylvia Pryer
• Doug McElvogue
• David Dooley
• Andrew Askwith
• Chris Bartlett
• Charlotte Pham
Copyright:
This report has been undertaken by the Nautical Archaeology Society for and with grant aid
from English Heritage. The report has been written by Mark Beattie-Edwards, MA, MIfA,
NAS Programme Director and licensee of the Holland No.5 submarine. The Nautical
Archaeology Society (NAS) holds the copyright to this report. Individual images remain the
copyright of the originators. The NAS has given permission to English Heritage to use the
report’s findings to assist with the management of the Holland No.5 submarine. Permission
to use particular images from within the report is still required, both from the NAS and the
image originator.
5
Document Control Grid
Document Title: Condition assessment of the Holland No.5 submarine
English Heritage reference: Fund Name: NHPCP, Project Number: 6654
NAS report reference: NAS_EHPD6654
Author: Mark Beattie-Edwards, Nautical Archaeology Society
Derivation: Project Proposal, November 2012
Origination date: 21st October 2013
Reviser: Mark Beattie-Edwards, Nautical Archaeology Society
Report date: 9th January 2014
Revisions: Version 1 - November 2013, Version 2 – January 2014
Date of final revision:
Version: 2
Status: Submitted to English Heritage for consideration
Circulation: Alison James, Mark Dunkley, Kath Buxton and Gareth Watkins at English
Heritage
File Name: Holland 5 condition assessment_ Final Report_V2.pdf
File Location: Victory/My Documents/NAS Office General/Projects/Holland 5/EH condition
assessment study 2012/Final Report
Approval:
6
1. Project Name: Condition assessment of the Holland No.5 submarine
2. Summary:
The Holland No.5 submarine was designated as a historic wreck under the Protection of
Wrecks Act (1973) in 2005. In 2011 the Holland No.5 was added to the Heritage at Risk
Register by English Heritage. Since 2005 investigation work on the Holland No.5 submarine
has principally been undertaken by Innes McCartney, Wessex Archaeology (WA) and the
Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS). Over this time returning visitors to the wreck have
noted that the condition of the submarine has deteriorated with parts that were originally
present and visible on the hull now missing or lying on the seabed around the submarine.
This deterioration has been reported to English Heritage via licensee annual reports and
contractors reports.
This study analyses previous video and photographic surveys of the Holland No.5, held by
the NAS, WA, English Heritage and other licence holders, as well as annual licensee reports
submitted to English Heritage and presents an assessment of the deterioration. This desk
based assessment was used to inform a condition assessment undertaken in 2013 and
makes suggestions of areas of the wreck which should continue to be monitored in future
years and assist in future management decisions about the site.
3. Background:
A summary history of activities on the Holland No.5 submarine are:
• 1995: Local diver Gerry Dowd identified an upstanding feature on the seabed by
using an echo-sounder. Following a dive it he is convinced the wreck is that of a
Holland class submarine;
• 2000: Gerry Dowd provided Innes McCartney and his dive team the exact position of
the wreck which they dive in the same year; Innes McCartney confirms that the wreck
is that of the Holland No.5;
• 2000: The Archaeological Diving Unit (ADU) carry out a geophysical survey of the
site. They report that the boat is sitting upright on the seabed with the periscope or
ventilator still standing. Results however were poor due to bad weather at the time of
the survey;
• 2001: The ADU visits the site and carries out further geophysical survey of the wreck
and the immediate area using side scan sonar. The class of submarine is confirmed
and a limited assessment of its condition is made. The ADU recommends it for
designation;
• 2005: The Holland No.5 is designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. The
ADU conducts a multibeam survey of the site, on behalf of English Heritage. Local
diver Barry Smith obtains a visitor licence. The NAS obtains a survey licence and
runs two courses on identifying and recording submarines followed by two site visits
to the Holland No.5 site. The licensee report to English Heritage states that “damage
sustained on site has been caused unintentionally by commercial fishing. The wreck
is very heavily netted (much more so than in 2001) ….. Alarmingly there is also a
steel cable wrapped over the wreck, which needs to be cut off in 2006. Cables and
net have almost certainly been the cause of the destruction of the submarine’s upper
works and external features” (NAS 2005). WA conducts diving investigations on the
site. During the visit a local, unidentified dive boat circles Xplorer, apparently to
identify the position (Wessex Archaeology 2006: Ref: 53111.03ii);
• 2006: Innes McCartney is granted a survey licence for the site. With a group of NAS
divers Mr McCartney and Mark Beattie-Edwards from the NAS cleared two major
nets, They also undertake further measurements and photographic and video survey
7
•
•
•
•
•
•
of the wreck for comparison with HMS/m Holland No. 1 (NAS 2006). English Heritage
commission the construction of a protected wreck marker buoy
2007: In August, Mr McCartney and Mr Beattie-Edwards take another NAS field
school out to the wreck to continue survey work on the site, however they are unable
to complete their work due to poor weather. A protected wreck marker buoy is
installed in August 2007, but is later reported missing by Dover Coastguard in
November 2007. WA conducted a monitoring survey of the site in August and
September (Wessex Archaeology 2007: Ref: 53111.03aaa). This report identifies a
seabed scour and states that “The size and extent of the scour may require
monitoring to determine if it may present a risk of undercutting the wreck and altering
its current upright position on the seabed”. The report also states that “The damage
to the exhaust pipes has continued and the pipe bent over the starboard side of the
vessel is now gone” and goes on to say that “The hole for the hydroplane drive
actuator in the port side of the vessel has enlarged slightly since WA’s 2005 visit to
the site”. The report goes on to state that “The top port side propeller blade may have
received some slight damage from the marker buoy chain”.
2008: Mr Beattie-Edwards with members of the NAS dive the site in April and
establish that there is minimal coverage of the wreck by fishing nets. An NAS field
school is scheduled to survey the site in August but is cancelled due to poor weather
conditions (NAS 2008). WA conducted a monitoring survey of the site and as part of
a separate project conducted a sidescan sonar and magnetometer survey of the site
and its environs. WA publish a study looking at the ecology of the wreck site (Wessex
Archaeology 2008: Ref: 57456.02);
2009: The NAS is unable to dive the site all year due to poor weather conditions
(NAS 2009);
2010: The NAS dives the site on three occasions and in June 2010 reports that the
bow cap of the Holland No.5 is no longer attached to the hull. Fresh damage to the
upper parts of the hull and the presence of new netting over the site is reported to
English Heritage in the licensee annual report (NAS 2010). The NAS assisted MSc
student Duncan Harwood with his dissertation on The corrosion of the Holland 5
submarine (Harwood 2010, Unpublished thesis, copy held by the NAS and WA);
2011: The NAS is able to dive the site on three occasions. A small scale diver search
is unsuccessful in relocating the bow cap. No new netting is reported (NAS 2011);
2012: The NAS is able to dive the site on three occasions including filming for an
episode of Time Team. Video collected by Innes McCartney during this visit
chronicles the deterioration of the site since he last visited it in 2006. He highlights
the issue of diver shot lines possibly causing damage to the site. Some possible new
netting is reported by the licensee (NAS 2012). WA undertake a study, on behalf of
English Heritage to look at developing a methodology to measure the corrosion of
steel wrecks and use the Holland No.5 as one of the test sites (Wessex Archaeology
2012: Ref: 83800.23.
(Chronology of activity on the Holland 5 partly taken from Wessex Archaeology reports; Ref: 53111.03ii (2006)
and 53111.03aaa (2007).
The large number of visits to the site since 2005 and the extensive amount of video and
photographic information means that an assessment of the changes on the Holland No.5
submarine can be used to help inform the future management of the site.
8
4. Aims and objectives:
The research aim of the project is undertake a condition assessment of the Holland No.5
submarine, to catalogue changes to the site since 2005 so that suggestions can be made
regarding future monitoring and future management decisions about the wreck.
The objectives of the project are:
• To review video and photographic surveys of the site since 2005;
• To determine how the condition of the site has changed since 2005;
• To suggest why the condition of the site has changed since 2005;
• To determine which areas of the site are most likely to deteriorate in the future;
• To suggest areas of the site which must in future years be monitored for their
condition;
• To suggest how the site may be managed in future years.
5. Project Scope:
It is not within the scope of this project to complete a detailed survey of every part of the
Holland No.5 submarine, only the condition of particular parts as outlined below in Section 7.
This study will only make comparisons to the condition of the site in 2013 compared to that
evidenced in previous surveys and visits to the wreck.
6. Health and Safety:
All work for the project has been conducted in accordance with the NAS “Health and Safety
Policy”. A copy of this policy can be found online on the NAS website at:
www.nauticalarchaeologysociety.org/about/pdfs/HealthandSafetyPolicy_June2006.pdf.
Diving investigations in 2013 were undertaken by the NAS, which is a registered diving
contractor with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The condition assessment visit to the
wreck was manged under a task specific diving code of practice and was undertaken by an
HSE qualified dive team, which included two divers, a safety stand-by diver and a diving
supervisor.
7. Method Statement:
The review of the photographic and video surveys of the Holland No.5 has been undertaken
by systematically reviewing in chronological order all the videos and photographs held by the
NAS, by WA, English Heritage and other licence holders that were made available to this
project. This review was done by a project officer at the NAS office in Portsmouth, after all
the data had been acquired.
The evidence collected has been separated into particular parts of the site and by particular
aspects of the condition. The particular areas for investigation have been:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The size and nature of the sand bar that cuts across the site.
The condition of the upper parts of the submarines hull, including broken pipes
The location and size of holes in the pressure hull
The presence and nature of any man made fishing materials on the site, including
trawling gear, floats, ropes, cable and monofilament fishing line.
5. The condition of the stern of the site including material lying on the seafloor
6. The condition of the bow of the site, including the bow cap before it went missing
sometime in 2010.
The report summarises these areas of change from 2001 until 2013 and makes
recommendations for which areas of the site should be monitored in future years. The
condition assessment visit in 2013 specifically concentrated on the six aspects of the study
9
(as outline above) to provide a timeline of change from 2005 until 2013. The condition
assessment was carried out by video and photographic survey as well as detailed
measurements of particular holes on the pressure hull to illustrate how they have changed
over time.
8. Access, data and archiving:
The study has relied on information provided by English Heritage, WA and other licence
holders under the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973). Information and data provided by them
will remain their copyright.
Information in the form of site plans, digital photographs and videos were kindly provided by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wessex Archaeology
English Heritage
Mike Postons, 3deep Media Ltd
Martin Dean, University of St Andrews, formally of the Archaeological Diving Unit
Jamie Smith, Tunbridge Wells Sub-Aqua Club
Sylvia Pryer, NAS visiting diver 2008-2013
Martin Davies, In Depth Photography and NAS dive team
Mark Callaghan, Nautilus Images
Duncan Harwood, NAS member/MA Student 2010
Stuart Philpott, NAS visiting diver 2012
David Dooley, Chris Bartlett, Charlotte Pham, NAS visiting divers 2005 and 2006
Jane Morgan, NAS visiting diver 2006
Sara Hasan, NAS dive team 2013
Doug McElvogue, NAS visiting diver 2010
Daniel Pascoe, NAS dive team 2013
Allen Murray, NAS visiting diver 2013
Andy Botten, NAS Visiting diver 2013
Unfortunately the project was not able to gain access to any photographs or video footage
held by Innes McCartney from the years 2000-2007 or from his visit in 2012 as part of filming
for an episode of the Time Team television programme. This was because the project
budget did not allow for the purchase of this material from Mr McCartney.
A digital copy of the report has been submitted to English Heritage Project Assurance Officer
as a pdf file which can be read in Adobe Reader. A printed copy has also been supplied to
English Heritage. The digital and hardcopy archive of information related to the project will
be held by the Nautical Archaeology Society in perpetuity. A record of the work has been
lodged with OASIS.
9. The condition of the Holland No 5 Submarine:
As stated in Section 7 the condition of the Holland No.5 submarine on the seabed has been
evaluated by concentrating on six particular areas of the submarine and the surrounding
environment. Each of these areas will be dealt with and presented in chronological order
from 2000 until 2013.
10
9.1.
2000/2001 Condition Assessment
Sources
Format
Archaeological Diving Unit Report No. Word Document, no images. Provided by
01/10 - HM Submarine Holland No.5
English Heritage. Digital copy held by the
NAS
Side scan sonar images
3 digital images files. Provided by Martin
Dean (formally Archaeological Diving Unit).
Digital copies held by the NAS
Lost Submarines of the Royal Navy, Seven DVD published by Periscope Publishing.
Famous British Submarine Wrecks” DVD
Copy held by the NAS
In 2000 and 2001 the Archaeological Diving Unit (ADU) conducted geophysical surveys of
the submarine showing it to be complete and intact (Figure 1). “The Holland No.5 is shown
sitting upright on the seabed with the periscope standard or a ventilator apparently still
upstanding. Photographs of the wreck show it to be virtually complete (only the lighter
external fittings are missing) and closed up, therefore it is likely that all internal fittings are in
place and in good condition” (ADU 2001).
Seabed anomaly,
possibly for vessel
mooring
c.15m long sand bar
running off the port
side of submarine
Bow
Submarine hull
Stern
Seabed anomaly,
possibly for vessel
mooring
Figure 1: Side scan sonar survey of the Holland No.5 submarine undertaken by the ADU in April 2001
(left image) and on the 26th September 2000 (right images) using an Imaginex sidescan sonar system.
Images courtesy of Martin Dean.
The ADU’s 2001 report states that “The most immediate threat to the submarine is from
vandalism by trophy collecting divers. The divers who originally located the boat have
passed that information onto others who, although not openly revealing the position, may
have been less than discreet about the position. A substantial mooring line and large buoy,
suitable for a small salvage vessel, was found attached to the wreck but the original finders
11
and their friends had no knowledge of it. There is trawling in the area but it does not appear
to be a significant a threat” (ADU 2001).
The report goes on to state that “The potential survival of the technological detail of the
submarine is good. The boat is closed up and intact and the excellent survival of organic
material in similar situations on the Holland 1 and A1, indicates that degradation of the
interior will have been retarded. Externally there is evidence that the ventilators and/or
periscope are still standing” (ADU 2001).
It would appear from the ADU report that no diver surveys were conducted on the Holland
No.5 submarine by the ADU in 2000 or 2001 as the report makes clear that “No diving
operations were undertaken at the time of the visit because of adverse conditions” (ADU
2001). However the ADU must have dived the wreck at some time or were perhaps provided
with photographs by the finders of the submarine as they state that “Photographs of the
wreck show that some elements of lighter construction, such as the stern planes, are absent”
(ADU 2001). A request for information from English Heritage who hold the archive for the
Holland No.5 submarine indicated that they did not have any images or video from 2000 or
2001.
The only other available source of information available pertaining to the condition of the
Holland No.5 from 2000 or 2001, comes from video footage published by Innes McCartney in
his “Lost Submarines of the Royal Navy, Seven Famous British Submarine Wrecks” DVD
(Published by Periscope Publishing). The DVD includes 2 minutes 9 seconds of underwater
footage of the Holland No.5 submarine. The footage clearly shows the wreckage in excellent
5-10m in water visibility and many features are clearly identifiable.
It appears that there was no (or very little) fishing gear on the wreck as there is none
obviously visible in the footage. This conclusion is supported by the ADU’s report which does
not state that fishing gear was present. The Periscope Publishing video footage corroborates
the ADU’s report that the stern fins or “plates” were not present in 2000/2001. Some of the
exhaust pipes at the upper stern of the submarine can be seen, as can the conning tower,
periscope socket and bow cap. Examination of the footage appears to show that the bow
cap is slightly open. The section of footage that shows the bow cap clearly indicates that
there is no fishing gear attached to it and that the seabed scours out underneath the bow by
at least 1-2 metres. The video also shows a prominent sand bar on the port side of the hull
near to the bow. Whilst it is not clear how high or long the sand bar is at this time, it appears
to be approximately 15m in length on the ADU side scan surveys in 2000 and 2001.
9.1.1. 2000/2001 Condition Assessment Summary
Whilst it has not been possible to obtain much information about the condition of the Holland
No.5 from 2000 and 2001 it is possible to ascertain that the sand bar on the port side of the
wreckage was approximately 15m long. Using the ADU side scan sonar images it is also
possible to see that several anomalies lay on the seabed around the wreckage. It was
suggested by the ADU that these may be associated with vessel moorings that had been
deposited on the seabed.
From the Periscope Publishing DVD it is possible to see that very little fishing gear appears
to be on the wreck or on the seabed around the site. Finally it is possible from both the ADU
reports and the Periscope Publishing DVD to see that the stern area is broken up, that some
of the exhaust pipes are still in place on the upper hull at the stern and that the bow cap is in
place and probably slightly open.
12
9.2.
2005 Condition Assessment
Sources
Report on visit and survey of Holland 5, by
Innes McCartney and Mark BeattieEdwards
Underwater images and notes from NAS
visiting diver David Dooley
Holland 5 Preliminary Site Report. Pending
Approval of Application to be licensee.
Innes McCartney
HMS/m Holland No.5. Designated Site
Assessment Archaeological Report. Ref
53111.03ii April 2006
Format
Protected Wreck Licensee Report, 28th
October 2005. Pdf document. Digital and
paper copy held by NAS
Jpeg images and supporting pdf documents.
Digital copies held by NAS
Pdf document held by NAS
Pdf document. Digital copy held by
Archaeological Data Service and English
Heritage. Digital and paper copy held by
NAS
Video footage and photographs from Jpeg images and 13 MP4 videos converted
Wessex Archaeology visit in September from diver helmet camera. Digital copies held
by Wessex Archaeology and NAS
2005
Multibeam
sonar
survey
by
the Digital Tiff files held by NAS.
Archaeological Diving Unit
The principle source of information on the condition of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2005
comes from a designated site assessment report published in 2006 by Wessex Archaeology
The report summarises diving operations which took place in September 2005. “Eleven
dives were conducted (By WA), achieving a total dive time of 307 minutes. Diving
investigations concentrated on an assessment of the wreck itself, supported by a
photographic and video survey. A sketch plan of the remains was produced. Two anomalies
close to the site were also investigated, with one proving to be geological in origin. The
second anomaly proved to be a large metal object of unknown function, which was not
considered to be a part of the vessel but may have formed part of the towing arrangement
used during its transit to Sheerness”.
“Fishing activities on or near the site have caused physical damage to external features of
the wreck itself. Elements of the exhaust system have become detached in recent times,
probably as a direct result of this fishing activity. Given the limited amount of damage and
detached elements to the wreck site, it is still fair to say that the remains when visited were
at least equal in quality to, if not better than, those of Holland No.1” (Wessex Archaeology
2006).
An analysis of the thirteen Wessex Archaeology videos captured from diver helmets camera
showed that only nine videos usefully illustrate the condition of the Holland No.5 submarine.
These nine helmet camera videos amount to just over two and a half hours of useful footage
on the wreckage.
Wessex Archaeology
Date of dive Archive File Name
08/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_390
08/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_391
09/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_392
09/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_393
Total time of useful
footage
(hour/min/sec)
Notes
00:08:17 Good starboard side
Bow to stern upper parts
00:14:51 of hull
Photographing stern
00:17:01 and upper parts of hull
00:12:38 Stern and starboard
13
10/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_395
10/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_396
11/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_398
00:20:47
00:22:50
00:00:00
11/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_399
00:09:11
12/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_402
00:13:40
12/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_403
17/09/2005 HollandV_2005_Dive_408
Unknown HollandV_2005_Dryshots
HollandV_2005_Unknown
08/09/2005 dive
Total
00:15:55
00:17:09
00:00:00
00:00:00
02:30:19
side
Photographing stern
and upper works
Includes port side
Of seabed anomaly 1
Bow area including
fishing gear on seabed
Starboard side stern to
bow
Photographing parts of
hull
Very dark/not useful
On boat / on surface
This is the same footage
as Dive 390 on 08/09/05
9.2.1. The size and nature of the sand bar that cuts across the site in 2005
The 2006 report of the investigations undertaken by Wessex Archaeology in September
2005 includes a multibeam sonar survey undertaken by the Archaeological Diving Unit as
well as a site plan illustrating the condition of key components of the submarine. The georeferenced multibeam survey (Figure 2) of the wreck was undertaken by the ADU, at St
Andrews University, and “modified” by Wessex Archaeology (Wessex Archaeology 2006:2).
Sand bar
Bow
Stern
Stern
Anomaly
off the
stern of
the wreck
Figure 2: Original multibeam sonar survey undertaken by the ADU in 2005 showing the wreck of the
Holland No.5, a sand bar and a circular anomaly off the stern of the wreck.
The multibeam images for the wreck site undertaken by the ADU appear to show the sand
bar that has built up around the wreckage, as well as an anomaly off the stern of the wreck
14
(Figure 2). The unexpected feature of this multibeam sonar survey is the direction of the
sand bar which seems to be contrary to the direction published by Wessex Archaeology in
their 2006 report (Figure 3) (Wessex Archaeology 2006:18). In the ADU survey the sand bar
appears to be running in a south-easterly direction off the starboard side of the wreck. In the
Wessex Archaeology “modified” version of the multibeam survey the large sand bar appears
to be running in a north-easterly direction off the port side of the submarine with a small sand
mound slightly aft on the starboard side.
Anomaly 2
Sand bar on port side
Stern
Small sand mound
on starboard side
Anomaly 1
Bow
Figure 3: Multibeam sonar survey undertaken by the ADU in 2005 (following post processing)
showing the wreck of the Holland No.5, a sand bar and two anomalies. This “modified” version of the
2005 survey was published by Wessex Archaeology in their 2006 report (Wessex Archaeology
2006:18).
Mark Beattie-Edwards, the current Holland No.5 protected wreck licensee has suggested
that since he first dived the site in 2005 the sand bar has always run north-easterly off the
port side of the wreck and that the ADU data was flawed with an X-Y axis error that had to
be “modified” by Wessex Archaeology for their report. Analysis of the Wessex Archaeology
video No.392 (WA video file: HollandV_2005_Dive_392) taken from the diver’s helmet
camera on the 9th September 2005 and from video No.398 (WA video file:
HollandV_2005_Dive_398) from the 11th September 2005 also indicate that the main sand
bar ran off the port side in 2005.
The multibeam images for the wreck site used by Wessex Archaeology in their 2006
report depict two small sub-rectangular anomalies lying on the seabed. Anomaly 1 was
found to be a small boulder lying approximately 65m south-west from the bow of the wreck.
Anomaly 2, located 17m north-west of the stern of the wreck was recorded as 1.9m by 2.2m,
upstanding between 1m and 1.5m (Figure 3). Anomaly 2 was “sub-rectangular in plan and
section and was lying at an angle on the seabed in a small scour. It is a manmade metal
object, heavily concreted and of unknown function. This anomaly does not form part of the
15
wreck structure itself but may be associated with the towing gear configuration. This is
possibly borne out by the possible remains of cable lying on the seabed and running back to
the stern of the wreck” (Wessex Archaeology 2006:9). Wessex Archaeology suggested that
Anomaly 2 may be the “remains of a stern sinker attached to the submarine as it was being
towed on the surface. A large, heavy sinker attached to the stern of the submarine would
have acted as a stabilising drogue during towing operations. This theory, however, will
remain pure conjecture until further investigation of the anomaly is conducted. Coincidently,
during the WA site visit to the designated wreck of HMS/m A1, a similar feature was
observed lying close to the site” (Wessex Archaeology 2006:10)
9.2.2. The condition of the upper parts of the submarine’s hull, including broken
pipes in 2005
The Wessex Archaeology 2006 report, based on their September 2005 investigations,
published a sketch plan of the wreckage (Figure 4) with inset photographs of particular areas
of damage, including features on the upper parts of the pressure hull such as the exhaust
box, torpedo loading hatch and conning tower (Wessex Archaeology 2006:20).
Figure 4: Sketch plan from 2005 showing areas of damage to the Holland No.5 submarine (Wessex
Archaeology 2006:20).
These photographs taken as part of the diver survey, and chronicled by the helmet camera
videos, clearly illustrate the impact of fishing activity on the wreck that must have occurred at
some point between 2000/1 and September 2005. This will be discussed further in section
9.2.4. of this report.
16
Worthy of particular note is the 2005 condition of the exhaust box, exhaust pipes, upper
casing, conning tower, and the torpedo loading hatch which run along the upper parts of the
submarine from stern to bow (Figure 5).
Exhaust box lid from above. WA
file ref: PWA_53111_9_Dive
395x. © Wessex Archaeology.
Conning tower from the bow
(50cm scale). WA file ref:
PWA_53111_9_Dive 395x. ©
Wessex Archaeology.
Conning tower incl. glass or
light (50cm scale). WA file ref:
PWA_53111_9_Dive 395x. ©
Wessex Archaeology.
Damaged exhaust pipe (50cm
scale). WA file ref:
PWA_53111_9_Dive 395x. ©
Wessex Archaeology.
Damaged exhaust pipe dangling
over the starboard side of the
wreck (50cm scale). WA file ref:
PWA_53111_9_Dive 395x. ©
Wessex Archaeology.
Damaged upper casing just
forward of the conning tower
(50cm scale). WA file ref:
PWA_53111_9_Dive 403. ©
Wessex Archaeology.
Figure 5: Photographic record of the condition of features on the upper part of the Holland No.5
submarine in September 2005 (Wessex Archaeology 2006).
In 2005 it is clear from diver video, digital photographs and the Wessex Archaeology site
plan (Wessex Archaeology 2006:20) that the exhaust pipes that would have originally run
along the top of the hull, aft to the exhaust box had been damaged (Figure 5). Although
heavily covered with fishing gear and netting one exhaust pipe appeared to have a hole in it
17
approximately 15cm long. In later years this exhaust pipe will become unattached from the
wreck and fall to the sea floor. In 2005 another exhaust pipe would appear to be partly
detached and at the time of the 2005 visit and was recorded lying bent over the starboard
side, aft section (Figure 5). Again in later years this exhaust pipe will become unattached
from the wreck and fall to the sea floor. Wessex Archaeology suggested that “due to the
fact that the upper casing is missing, the exhaust system has become exposed and has
suffered some major damage. It is likely that the large amount of net snagging around the
exhaust piping was directly responsible for this damage” (Wessex Archaeology 2006:8)
9.2.3. The location and size of holes in the pressure hull in 2005
Using information obtained during the 2005 investigation by Wessex Archaeology it is
possible to determine the location and size of one hole in the pressure hole. This hole is
situated on the port side stern of the submarine, just below the exhaust box (Figure 6).
Port side
Hole in pressure hull. (WA
File Ref: Holland_5_5108
from Dive 393 © Wessex
Archaeology)
Exhaust box
Hole in pressure hull. (WA
File Ref: Holland_5_5155
from Dive 395x © Wessex
Archaeology)
Diver helmet video of
hole. (WA File Ref: Video
2005_Dive 393 © Wessex
Archaeology)
Figure 6: The location of a hole in the pressure hull recorded by Wessex Archaeology in 2005
(Wessex Archaeology 2006).
Wessex Archaeology reported that this circular hole in the pressure hull measured 0.10m in
diameter in 2005 and that “the Licensee (Innes McCartney) reports that this is the hole for
the hydroplane drive actuator, and that this has enlarged considerably since his visit to the
site in 2000” (Wessex Archaeology 2006:8). It is the author’s belief that this hole is actually
not from the hydroplane drive actuator which would have allowed the hydroplanes to be
adjusted from inside the submarine. The reason for this is that part of the hydroplane
actuator is still visible below the hole in the pressure hull. In 2005 this feature was recorded
by Wessex Archaeology in both the diver helmet video and by digital photography (Figure 6).
18
Figure 7: Remains of the hydroplane actuator projecting out from the port side of the hull, just below
the hole in the pressure hull, compared to the general arrangement drawings. WA file ref:
Holland_5_5018 from Dive 392x © Wessex Archaeology.
9.2.4. The presence and nature of any man made fishing materials on the site,
including trawling gear, floats, ropes, cable, monofilament fishing line in 2005
In their 2006 report, based on their 2005 investigation Wessex Archaeology state that “close
to the wreck and lying on the seabed are a number of concreted metal objects. Along the
portside, stern quarter and along the starboard side, bow quarter is the remains of a thick
metal cable, measuring around 0.04m to 0.05m in diameter. Both cables are heavily
corroded and are broken in places. Their exact function is unsure, but it is highly possible
that they are the remains of the towing gear used at the time of its loss in 1912.
However, given the amount of fishing gear around the wreck the possibility that these cables
are related to the netting remains. The extent of corrosion would seem to argue against this
hypothesis as it would appear to suggest that the cable is much older than any of the fishing
gear remaining on the wreck (i.e. all netting is post-2000 as there was no net snagging was
observed during The Licensee’s first visit). Between Anomaly Two and the stern of the wreck
a number of broken pieces of concreted metal objects were encountered, as well as the
possible remains of more cables.
Again, all fragments observed were highly corroded, fragmentary and covered in large
amounts of concretion, thereby masking their exact function. Given that they continue up to
the Anomaly it is possible that they may have been at one stage connected” (Wessex
The report goes on to say that “During the August 2005 student visit by the NAS the
Licensee removed a large portion of the trawl net snagging in the bow area. When WA
visited the site the remains of the net removed from the bow area were found to be lying on
the seabed c.10m to the north-east of the bow. As a result of this clearance the forward
section of the wreck site, starting two metres forward of the conning tower, continuing over
the torpedo hatch and ending with the bow cap, is now largely clear of net snagging. This
19
clearance allowed an unhindered video and digital stills survey of this section of the wreck to
be made and was extremely helpful to the WA diving investigation.
Whilst a large amount of net has clearly been removed from the forward area, some net
snagging remains. The situation was markedly different during Innes McCartney’s first visit in
2000 when the wreck was completely free of netting………..This is probably broken trawl
gear but may also represent the remains of: ‘…a substantial buoy …anchored to the site, or
immediately adjacent to it…’, as observed during the ADU site visit in 2000 (ADU 01/10).
During the 2000 ADU survey visit a substantial buoy was discovered floating on the surface
close to the wreck site. However, the ADU did not dive the site at the time and was unable to
confirm that this buoy was actually attached to the wreck. What was observed during
operations may prove detrimental to the integrity of the wreck site. A large amount of thick
rope with net has become snagged under the pressure hull and is being held above the
wreck site for around two metres by a buoy.
This jumble of man-made rope, some of it quite thick (around 0.10m in diameter) is anchored
at its base underneath the hull but mobile along its length. As a result the whole jumble of
rope and net moves in the tide and rubs against the side of the vessel, removing the
protective layer of sessile marine growth on top of the pressure hull and the remains of the
casing” (Wessex Archaeology 2006:5-6).
It is clear from the 2006 report and the archive of video and digital photographs taken during
the 2005 assessment that the biggest change on the site between 2000/1 and August 2005
(when the NAS first visited the site with Innes McCartney) is the impact of fishing gear on the
Holland No.5. (Figures 5, 8, 9). It is not clear whether all the fishing gear (including net, rope
and metal cable) arrived on the site as a result of one incident, or multiple incidents, but it is
clear that the “bulk of soft marine growth and a certain amount of the surface corrosion has
been removed by this net snagging, exposing the underlying metal surfaces to increased
corrosion and erosion processes” (Wessex Archaeology 2006:7).
Rope on the conning tower in
2005. (WA File Ref:
Holland_5_5028 from Dive
392x © Wessex Archaeology
(50cm scale))
Fishing gear and float
wrapped around the bow in
2005. (WA File Ref:
392x © Wessex Archaeology)
Rope over the exhaust box in
2005. (WA File Ref:
392x © Wessex
Archaeology)
Figure 8: Three images showing the extent of the fishing gear that had become entangled on the
submarine by 2005 (Wessex Archaeology 2006).
20
Figure 9: The starboard stern of the Holland No.5 in 2005 showing the extent of the fishing gear that
had become entangled in the wreck. WA file ref: Holland_5_5081 from Dive 392x © Wessex
Archaeology.
9.2.5. The condition of the stern of the site including material lying on the seafloor in
2005
The Wessex Archaeology 2006 report stated that “The three blades for the propeller are
intact and are still in position. However, both the rudder and hydroplanes are missing.
There is a large amount of metal debris scattered around the seabed immediately
underneath the stern and they almost definitely represent the remains of the hydroplane
and rudder blades. Amongst this debris a large lobster pot has become entangled which,
judging from the amount of marine growth covering, has been there for some time”.
“The propeller nose cone is also detached and has travelled some distance from the
main body of wreckage. It now lies around two to three metres south-west of the stern of
the wreck. It seems likely that the propeller nose cone, hydroplane and rudder blades
became detached during the wrecking process, with the nose cone striking the seabed
first and coming to rest in its current position, the other fittings only becoming detached
when the boat settled onto the seabed” (Wessex Archaeology 2006:9).
The photographic and video archive of the stern from the Wessex Archaeology 2005
investigation is comprehensive as many of the dives appear to have spent time at the stern.
Assessment of the original diver videos and the photographic archive would suggest that the
summary of the condition by Wessex Archaeology (as above) appears to be accurate. The
21
use of the term “propeller nose cone” is perhaps confusing. It is the author’s belief that the
term “propeller boss” would have been more appropriate. The sketch plan produced by
Wessex Archaeology in the 2006 report illustrated the layout of debris at the stern area
(Figure 4). Unfortunately many of the photographs taken by Wessex Archaeology divers in
2005 at the stern are blurred and of poor quality but it is just possible to determine most
features (Figure 10).
A
E
E
B
E
D
A
C
A – Starboard side fin lying on seabed
B – Propeller boss lying to the starboard
side
C – Lobster pot
D – Lower portion of rudder assembly
E – Propeller blade
Figure 10: The stern of the Holland No.5 in September 2005 showing wreckage lying on the seabed
as well as a lobster pot. WA file ref: Holland_5_5007 (left image) and Holland_5_5006 (right image)
from Dive 392x © Wessex Archaeology.
9.2.6. The condition of the bow of the site, including the bow cap in 2005
As already mentioned in Section 9.2.4. the bow area of the Holland No.5 submarine was
impacted in 2005 by the presence of rope, netting and a float suspended on the port side of
the bow (Figure 8). In the 2006 report Wessex Archaeology confirmed that the “bow cap is
still in position but is open slightly on the lower edge. As the casing in this section is almost
completely detached the bow cap opening mechanism is exposed, and appears to be fully
intact” (Wessex Archaeology 2006:6).
This statement is corroborated by NAS diver, David Dooley who reported that the bow cap
was open by approximately 15mm (Dooley 2005). It is just about possible to determine this
from a photograph taken by Wessex Archaeology (Figure 11).
22
Bow cap
open by
c.15mm
The Holland class general arrangement with
upper casing and opening rod removed as seen
on the Holland No. 5 in 2005
The Holland class general arrangement drawing
showing the casing and bow cap opening rod
Figure 11: The bow area of the Holland No.5 in 2005 compared to the general arrangement drawings
(Courtesy of the Royal Navy Submarine Museum) (WA file ref: Holland_5_5183 (top left) from Dive
402 and Holland_5_5139 (top right) from Dive 395x © Wessex Archaeology).
9.2.7. 2005 Condition Assessment Summary
A large amount of data was acquired on the Holland No.5 submarine in 2005. This
assessment has been able to access information from the ADU multibeam sonar survey,
from Wessex Archaeology’s visit in September 2005 and from NAS diver David Dooley who
visited the site in August 2005. It is unfortunate that it has not been possible to access any
of the video footage obtained by Innes McCartney from his visit in August 2005.
The 2006 report published by Wessex Archaeology provides an excellent summary of the
condition of the Holland No.5 in 2005 and combined with the original archive of photographs
and videos illustrates that the site was impacted by fishing gear becoming entangled on the
wreck from the bow, right across to the stern area. In August 2005 the licensee removed
some of the ropes and netting at the bow area, but it was evidenced that the ropes and
metal cables were rubbing the protective layer of marine growth off the submarine’s hull.
Only one small hole was measured on the hull at the port side stern. This hole was recorded
as being 0.10m or 10cm in diameter. In their 2006 report Wessex Archaeology make the
recommendation that thickness surveys of the steel hull should be commissioned to evaluate
23
its condition. Innes McCartney reported that that “damage sustained on site has been
caused unintentionally by commercial fishing. The wreck is very heavily netted. Cables and
net have almost certainly been the cause of the destruction of the submarine’s upper works
and external features. The situation shows no sign of changing currently” (McCartney 2005)
9.3.
Sources
2006 Licensee report as a MS PowerPoint
Presentation, Innes McCartney
Underwater images and notes from NAS
visiting diver David Dooley
Underwater images from visiting diver and
photographer, Jane Morgan.
Underwater images and dive logs from
visiting diver Charlotte Pham
Underwater images from visiting diver
Andrew Askwith
Dive log and sketch from visiting diver Julie
Morrissey
Dive log and sketch from visiting diver Chris
Bartlett
Format
Pdf document held by English Heritage and
the NAS
Jpeg images and supporting pdf documents.
Jpeg images. Digital copies held by NAS
Jpeg images. Pdf document. Digital copies
held by NAS
Jpeg images. Digital copies held by NAS
Pdf document. Digital copies held by NAS
Pdf document. Digital copies held by NAS
In August 2006 the NAS visited the wreck of the Holland No.5 with the site’s licensee, Innes
McCartney. The NAS group dived over three days between the 23rd and the 25th August
2006. The main work undertaken during the course of these dives was to cut away as much
of the rope and netting as possible that was witnessed on the site in 2005. As well as this
task the NAS divers undertook some detailed recording of particular features of the wreck,
as requested by Mr McCartney. None of the photographs held by the NAS illustrate the size
and nature of the sand bar surrounding the submarine and therefore no analysis of this
feature can be undertaken for 2006.
pipes in 2006
From photographs taken in 2006 it is possible to see many of the upper parts of the Holland
No.5 submarine. The visit by Jane Morgan, a photo-journalist in August 2006 meant that a
number of high quality images were obtained in 2006. A selection of these images, including
a second exhaust pipe visible in 2006 are included below in Figures 12-18.
Figure 12: Exhaust pipe with same damage as
seen in 2006 © Jane Morgan.
Figure 13: Exhaust box after net and rope
clearance © Jane Morgan.
24
Figure 14: View of the exhaust box from the
starboard side with some rope/net still covering
the stern end © Jane Morgan.
Figure 16: Conning tower cleared of netting
and rope in 2006 © Jane Morgan.
Figure 15: 10inch ventilator (left) and battery
vent pipe (right) with string wrapped around it ©
Jane Morgan.
Figure 17: Fuel filler cap visible underneath the
damaged casing © Andrew Askwith. (25cm
scale with 5cm coloured bands).
Figure 18: With the fishing gear cleared, a second exhaust pipe is visible in 2006 running aft to the
exhaust box © David Dooley.
25
Two of the NAS divers in 2006 were tasked to undertake a detailed survey of the lid or cover
of the exhaust box (Figure 19). This was because when the Holland No.1 boat was
recovered off Plymouth in 1982 no cover was present on the wreck. The measured survey
resulted in a comprehensive scale drawing of the exhaust box cover which was provided to
the Royal Navy Submarine Museum in Gosport.
Forward end
Aft end
Figure 19: Drawing and photo of a hinge of the exhaust box lid in 2006 (Courtesy of David Dooley and
Darren Gosling). Photograph © David Dooley (25cm scale with 5cm coloured bands).
During the NAS visit in August 2006,
NAS diver Charlotte Pham was asked
to photograph and measure the size of
the hole in the port side of the pressure
hull (Hole A). The circular hole was
measured as being 9.8cm tall by 8.5cm
wide.
Hole A
It is worth noting that compared to
2005, the surrounding brown rust area
has increased, especially going aft (to
the right). A smaller hole only 1.9cm in
diameter is now also visible (Hole B),
11cm to the right of Hole A
Hole B
Figure 20: Holes in the port side of the hull
in 2006 © Charlotte Pham.
26
9.3.3. The presence and nature of any man-made fishing materials on the site,
As already stated in Section 9.3 much of the man-made fishing materials like trawling gear
and ropes and cable were cut away in 2006 by the site licensee and visiting NAS divers. It
must be stressed that none of this material was actually recovered to the surface but was
allowed to fall to the seafloor around the wreck or to drift away from the wreck on the tide.
Not every bit of rope and netting was removed in 2006 as Figure 21 shows. This rope was
only left draped over the hull at the stern due to lack of time available to cut it away.
Figure 21: Rope and cable still present on the aft section of the wreck in August 2006 © Jane Morgan.
2006
This study has only been able to access a couple of photographs of the stern area of the
Holland No.5 submarine from the 2006 visits. It would appear that all the rope and netting
was removed from the stern in 2006, as one photograph from Jane Morgan shows no visible
ropes (Figure 22). It is also possible to see that the propeller boss recorded in 2005 by
Wessex Archaeology is still lying on the seabed on the starboard side of the main wreck
(Figure 23).
During the NAS visit with the licensee, two divers were tasked to record the fixings for the
propeller blades. These dives resulted in comprehensive scale drawings that demonstrate
that the same number and size of bolts were used on both the Holland No.1 (now at the
Royal Navy Submarine Museum, Gosport) and on the Holland No.5 (Figure 24).
27
Figure 22: View of the three propeller
blades with all the rope/net removed ©
Jane Morgan.
Figure 23: View of the propeller boss on the
seafloor © Jane Morgan.
Figure 24: Drawing (by NAS diver Chris Bartlett) of the Holland No.5 propeller bolts, compared to
those used on the Holland No.1 now in the Royal navy Submarine Museum. It was noticed that on the
Holland No.5 a split pin was used on the middle bolt (Drawings courtesy of Chris Bartlett).
It has only been possible to obtain a couple of images of the bow area of the Holland No.5
that were taken during visits in 2006. The clearest image (Figure 25) was taken again by
Jane Morgan and shows that the bow cap is still in place (and has become the home of an
edible crab). Unfortunately no pictures are available that show whether the bow cap is still
open, and if so whether it is still only open by 15mm, as recorded in 2005. Another image
taken by NAS diver Charlotte Pham shows that at the bottom (or underneath) the bow cap, it
was still possible to see the bow cap opening mechanism as seen on the Holland No.1
(Figure 26). NAS diver Sarah Ward also recorded that the mechanism was fitted to the hull
28
by six bolts, just like the Holland No.1. It should be noted that this mechanism is not
included in the general arrangement drawings of the Holland class submarines (Figure 11).
Figure 25: The upper part of the bow cap in 2006 © Jane Morgan.
Figure 26: The bow cap opening mechanism of the Holland No.5 (in 2006) appears to be just like that
seen on the Holland No.1. Image on right © Charlotte Pham.
29
In 2006 the Holland No.5 submarine was only visited for three days by the licensee and a
group of NAS divers. Much of the ropes and netting on the site in 2005 were cleared off the
hull and allowed to fall to the seabed on either side of the wreck. Once removed it became
easier for the licensee and NAS divers to record the features on the submarine. In his report
to English Heritage the licensee reported that once the ropes were removed “a major
discovery was the difference between the types of periscope housing” on the Holland No.5
and Holland No.1…...The Holland 5 design has a narrower aperture. Was this to prevent
leaks?” (McCartney 2006).
In 2006 the visiting NAS divers were able in only three days to contribute significant details
to the study of the Holland No.5 including the survey of the exhaust box lid, the propeller
blade fixings and the bow cap opening mechanism.
9.4.
Sources
Format
HMS/m Holland No.5. Designated Site Pdf document. Digital copy held by
Assessment Archaeological Report. Ref Archaeological Data Service and English
53111.03aaa October 2007
NAS
Video footage and photographs from Jpeg images and 3 MP4 videos converted
Wessex Archaeology visit in August 2007
from diver helmet camera. Digital copies held
by Wessex Archaeology and NAS
Video footage from NAS diver visit in DVD held by NAS
August 2007
Licensee email to English Heritage by Innes Microsoft Outlook digital file an hard copy
McCartney, dated Tue 06/11/2007
held by NAS
In July 2006, upon receiving consent from the MFA, English Heritage commissioned the
construction of a protected wreck buoy. The buoy was installed by Baker Trayte in August
2007, but was later reported missing by Dover Coastguard in November 2007. In 2007 the
Holland No.5 was visited by both the licensee Innes McCartney (with NAS divers) and by
Wessex Archaeology. Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by English Heritage to
undertake a Designated Site Assessment of the wreck. The assessment included locating
and recording an accurate position for a mooring block of a new marker buoy that was
planned to be placed on the designated wreck, as well as undertaking a condition survey of
the site.
The licensee and the NAS divers visited the Holland No.5 as part of an NAS training course
and project focusing on submarine wrecks. Other than a short video from one visiting NAS
diver, this assessment has not been able to acquire access to information gained during this
trip in August 2007 by the licensee and therefore has had to rely on information acquired by
Wessex Archaeology during their dives in August and September 2007.
“Wessex Archaeology diving operations took place in August-September 2007, four dives
were conducted, achieving a total dive time of 65 minutes. Diving investigations
concentrated on positioning the marker buoy mooring block in relation to the wreck and a
visual condition survey of the wreck, supported by a photographic and video survey. The
survey concentrated on relocating and re-recording monitoring points allocated during the
site assessment of 2005.
The marker buoy mooring block was found to be close enough to the HMS/m Holland No. 5
30
for the marker buoy’s chain to come into contact with and possibly damage the wreck”
(Wessex Archaeology 2007:i).
An analysis of the four Wessex Archaeology videos captured from diver helmets camera
showed that only three videos usefully illustrate the condition of the Holland No.5 submarine.
These three helmet camera videos amount to nearly 46 minutes of useful footage on the
site.
Wessex Archaeology
Total time of
useful footage
(hour/min/sec)
30/08/07 HollandV_2007_Dive_1023
Notes
Diver photographing
anchor chain close to
propellers. Photographs
of hole on port side,
exhaust box and
conning tower
00:17:48
Diver photographing
hole on port side.
Conning tower,
periscope socket,
steering position, filler
caps.
31/08/07 HollandV_2007_Dive_1022
01/09/07 HollandV_2007_Dive_1024
08/09/07 HollandV_2007_CuttingLine
Total
00:13:58
Photographic survey,
Exhaust box, Two
exhaust pipes, torpedo
00:14:06 loading hatch, bow cap
00:00:00 Not on submarine
00:45:52
The Wessex Archaeology report of their investigation in 2007 does not mention the sand bar
that cuts across the site (Wessex Archaeology 2007). The report does state that “A notable
scour lies along the starboard side of the wreck although it is not clear how much it
undercuts the vessel due to the rounded shape of the hull. In the scour small rounded
pebbles and rocks make up the seabed, with some shells including queenies (Aequipecten
Opercularis), scallops (Pecten Maximus) and oysters (Ostrea Edulis). The size and extent of
the scour may require monitoring to determine if it may present a risk of undercutting the
wreck and altering its current upright position on the seabed” (Wessex Archaeology 2007:4).
“The large scour on the starboard side of the wreck does seem to undercut it quite
substantially and any significant enlargement of it could be sufficient to make the wreck
move from its upright position on the seabed. The size of the scour and the degree to which
it undercuts the wreck should be monitored annually to determine the stability of the scour”
(Wessex Archaeology 2007:9)
The sand bar on the port side of the Holland No.5 is only very briefly visible during one dive
undertaken by Wessex Archaeology on the 30th August 2007 (Dive 1023 at 00:16:42 on
helmet time recorder) when the diver is returning to the shot line. The sand bar appears to
31
rise quite significantly up the port side hull, but it is not possible to quantify how large the
sand bar is at this time.
The size of the sand bar is visible in a multibeam sonar survey published in 2007 (Figure
27). It is believed to have been from an ADU survey in 2001 and then post processed and
published by Wessex Archaeology in 2007.
Anomaly off
the stern
Small sand bar
on starboard side
c.10m long
Port side sand
bar c.20m long
Figure 27: Multibeam sonar survey of the Holland No.5 by the ADU in 2001. Reprocessed by Wessex
Archaeology in 2007 © Wessex Archaeology
32
9.4.2. The condition of the upper parts of the submarines hull, including broken
pipes in 2007
As a result of the 2007 survey there appeared to be no significant differences to the upper
parts of the Holland No.5 submarine. With the ropes and netting now cleared from most of
the hull, the existence of a second damaged exhaust pipe still attached to the hull was
noticeable (Figure 28). This can be seen in the Wessex Archaeology diver video (Dive 1022
at 00:12:27 on helmet time recorder). Unfortunately only one of the digital photographs taken
by divers shows this clearly.
A
Pipe 1
A
Pipe 2
B
Pipe 3
B
Pipe 4
A
B
Figure 28: The two exhaust pipes still in place in 2007, captured from diver helmet video camera
(Dive 1022 at 12:23 and 12:27 on helmet timer), and compared to the general arrangement drawings
of the Holland class submarines (Courtesy of the Royal Navy Submarine Museum). Photograph of the
two exhaust pipes (top right) shows that it was exhaust pipe 1 and 3 that were in situ in 2007. WA File
Ref: WA2007_Dive410_IMG_0028.
In their 2007 visit the Wessex Archaeology team once again recorded the hole in the port
side of the hull that was previously recorded in 2005 and 2006. The report states that “the
hole for the hydroplane drive actuator in the port side of the vessel has enlarged slightly
since WA’s 2005 visit to the site. However, the exposed areas of hull around the hole seem
to show signs that marine growth is becoming re-established on them, suggesting the hole
may be near to stabilising” (Wessex Archaeology 2007:7). A number of photographs of the
hole were taken by the Wessex Archaeology divers (Figure 29) and although it is stated that
it has “enlarged slightly” no actual measurements were taken of the hole and photographic
scales were not used by the divers, so it is impossible to quantify if this is correct. In fact
comparison of the photographs taken in 2006 would suggest that the hole had probably not
enlarged over the 12 months period.
33
2006
2007
Figure 29: The hole in the port side hull photographed by Wessex Archaeology during their visit in
2007. WA file ref: Dive411_IMG_0009 © Wessex Archaeology. Inset top left is the hole photographed
in 2006 as shown in Figure 20.
Thanks to the survey undertaken by Wessex Archaeology in 2007 it is possible to see that
some fishing gear including rope and net is still present on the site. From the diver helmet
video it would appear that most of the rope lay just aft of the exhaust box over the top of the
hull as well as hanging down the port side all the way to the seabed (WA Dive 1022 helmet
camera footage). Two photographs taken in 2007 by Wessex Archaeology also show the
extent of the fishing gear impacting on the hull of the Holland No. 5 submarine (Figure 30).
Figure 30: Fishing gear just aft of the exhaust box in 2007. WA file ref: Dive411_IMG_0014 and
Dive410_IMG_0040 © Wessex Archaeology.
34
2007
At the time of the Wessex Archaeology visit in 2007 the wreck of the Holland No.5 has been
buoyed by a contractor (Baker Trayte) and during the visit it was concluded that the buoy
and especially the buoy chain was too close to the stern of the protected wreck (Figure 31).
The 2007 report stated that the mooring block for the buoy was found to be only 9.1m at a
bearing of 005 degrees from the propellers. The mooring block was moved further away
from the site later in 2007 by Baker Trayte (Wessex Archaeology 2007:5) before the buoy
was reported missing by Dover Coastguard in November 2007.
Figure 31: The protected wreck marker buoy above the water (left) and the mooring chain underwater
close to the propellers in September 2007. WA file ref: Dive410_IMG 0013 (top right) and
Dive410_IMG_0006 (bottom right) © Wessex Archaeology
Wessex Archaeology reported that “the three blades for the propeller remain intact and are
still in position. The top port side propeller blade may have received some slight damage
from the marker buoy chain, although there was light damage to the outer edge of this
propeller blade evident in 2005” (Wessex Archaeology 2007:8). It is clear from diver helmet
video footage that the propeller boss is still lying on the seabed to the starboard side and the
report goes on to say that “the detached propeller guard lying off the starboard side of the
stern of the wreck is still in position and is in good condition, although it is slightly more
buried than it was in 2005” (Wessex Archaeology 2007:8). The 2007 video footage also
shows the lobster pot previously seen in 2005 is still on the seabed next to the rudder (WA
Dive Video 1023).
The Wessex Archaeology dive team spent some time in 2007 recording the bow area of the
Holland No.5 submarine (Figure 32). The published report of their visit stated that “the bow
cap remains in a slightly open position and the bow cap opening mechanism remains intact”
35
(Wessex Archaeology 2007:6). The open bow cap is most clearly shown in the diver helmet
video No.1024 from 00:15:52 to 00:17:35 (WA file ref: HollandV_2007_Dive1024)
Figure 32: The bow cap of the Holland No.5 in 2007 as photographed by Wessex Archaeology. WA
file ref: Dive412_IMG_0019 (left) and Dive412_IMG_0029 (right) © Wessex Archaeology.
The open bow cap is also just visible in video footage from an NAS diver who visited the
wreck with the licensee, Innes McCartney in August 2007 (Figure 33).
Figure 33: Images of the open bow cap of the Holland No.5 in 2007, captured from video taken by
visiting NAS diver in 2007.
In 2007 the visit by Wessex Archaeology resulted in three useful dives on the site. The
archive of diver helmet video and digital photographs suggests that the site had changed
very little since 2006. The size and extent of the sand bar on the port side is not really visible
or discussed in the report published in 2007. Multibeam sonar survey from 2007 does
however show the sand bar and the scour around the hull of the Holland No.5. The author
has not been able to access any photographs or video from the licensee from 2007 to add to
this study.
36
9.5.
Sources
Format
HMS/m Holland No.5. Designated Site Pdf document. Digital copy held by
Assessment Archaeological Report. Ref Archaeological Data Service and English
53111.03qqq January 2009.
NAS
Video footage and photographs from 5 MP4 videos converted from diver helmet
Wessex Archaeology visit in September camera. Digital copies held by Wessex
Archaeology and NAS
2008
Licensee report to English Heritage by Mark Microsoft Word Document. Digital file and
Beattie-Edwards, dated 13/10/2008
hard copy held by NAS and English Heritage
In 2008 the Holland No.5 was visited by NAS divers (with the licensee Mark BeattieEdwards) and by Wessex Archaeology. Wessex Archaeology were commissioned by
English Heritage to undertake a Designated Site Assessment of the wreck. The assessment
included locating and recording an accurate position for the mooring block of a new marker
buoy for the wreck as well as undertaking a condition survey of the site.
Wessex Archaeology “diving operations took place in September 2008, six dives were
conducted, achieving a total dive time of 2 hours 13 minutes. Diving investigations
concentrated on locating the marker buoy mooring block in an attempt to take an accurate
position-fix. Visual observations of the condition of the wreck were also noted, supported by
video survey” (Wessex Archaeology 2009:i).
An analysis of the five Wessex Archaeology videos captured from diver helmets camera
showed that only one video usefully illustrates the condition of the Holland No.5 submarine.
This helmet camera video amounts to just over 13 minutes of footage on the protected wreck
in 2008. No digital photographs were taken by Wessex Archaeology of the Holland No.5 in
2008. There are no underwater photographs or video available from visits by NAS divers in
2008.
Wessex Archaeology
Total time of
useful footage
(hour/min/sec)
18/09/08 HollandV_2008_Dive_415
20/09/08 HollandV_2008_Dive_416
20/09/08 HollandV_2008_Dive_417
00:12:58
00:00:00
00:00:00
21/09/08 HollandV_2008_Dive_418
00:01:15
HollandV_2008_Dive_419Unknown 420
Total
00:00:00
00:13:13
Notes
Visibility poor. Stern to
bow video inspection.
Mention of the sand bar
on port side and new
hole in pressure hull at
stern. Looking for the
missing mooring block
Wreck not visible
Wreck not visible
Very briefly on the
stern. Dive actually
spent looking for the
missing mooring block.
Not of Holland
No.5_actually from
10/05/2011
37
The only evidence of the size of the sand bar in 2008 comes from the diver commentary by
Mr Graham Scott from Dive 415 on the 18th September 2008. The audio of the video
commentary comes during his journey from the stern to the bow, along the port side of the
wreck. He states that “moving along port side………some evidence of fishing
net………..visibility about 1m…….seabed slopes quite steeply away from the submarine on
this (port side)……no actual scour around the edge on the port side………..bit more fishing
net…….…bit more burial here….…by the conning tower” (Graham Scott diver commentary
18/09/08 from WA file ref: HollandV_2008_Dive_415).
A side scan sonar survey published by Wessex Archaeology as part of their assessment visit
in 2008 (Figure 34) appears to show that the sand bar still runs in a NE-SW direction and
appears to be most prominent on the port side of the wreck (Wessex Archaeology 2009).
Figure 34: Side scan sonar survey of the Holland No.5 in 2008 ( © Wessex Archaeology 2009:9)
38
9.5.2. The condition of the upper parts of the submarines hull, including broken
pipes in 2008
The main diver observations on the status of the upper parts of the wreck, by Wessex
Archaeology during their visits in 2008 were as follows:
• The exhaust box was seen to be still in place;
• The torpedo loading hatch is still in place;
• The conning tower appeared to be in similar condition to that observed in 2007. The
top deadlight is still intact, and the periscope and ball mounts remain in situ (Wessex
The main diver observations on the status of holes in the pressure hull, by Wessex
Archaeology in 2008 were as follows:
• A small, slightly irregular hole is located in the hull approximately 10cm in diameter
on the port side within 0.3m of edge of hull about half way up side of vessel (Wessex
This is the same hole that appears in all the surveys since 2005. The hole is not measured
by Wessex Archaeology in 2008 and so its size remains only an approximation. Interestingly
it is possible to see a new hole in the top of the pressure hull at the stern, between the
exhaust box and the propellers. This small hole has not been mentioned in any previous
reports. Images of this new hole can be seen in Figure 35 captured from diver helmet
camera (WA file ref: HollandV_2008_Dive_415).
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
Figure 35: Three video captures of new small hole (A) in the pressure hull of the Holland No.5 just
forward of the propellers (B). WA file ref: HollandV_2008_Dive_415 © Wessex Archaeology.
The main diver observations on the nature of man-made fishing materials on the site, by
Wessex Archaeology in 2008 were as follows:
• The Submarine appears to be in a similar condition to that observed in 2007,
although there is less fishing gear rope on the hull. However, some netting and a
large amount of rope lie on the seabed around wreck. A wire cable also lies on the
seabed though it is most of it is partially buried. Some appears to be relatively
recently deposited (Wessex Archaeology 2009:5).
2008
The main diver observations on the condition of the stern, by Wessex Archaeology in 2008
were as follows:
39
• The propeller blades are still present and intact, however the nose cone of the
propeller is missing;
• There is possible hydroplane/rudder debris on seabed below the stern section
(Wessex Archaeology 2009:5)
The main diver observations on the condition of the bow, by Wessex Archaeology in 2008
were as follows:
• The bow cap is still in situ (Wessex Archaeology 2009:5)
In 2008 the visit by Wessex Archaeology resulted in one useful dive on the site. The archive
of diver helmet video from this dive suggests that the site had changed very little since 2007.
The size and extent of the sand bar on the port side is not really visible or discussed in the
report published in 2008, but it is clearly visible on a side scan sonar survey undertaken by
Wessex Archaeology. One new hole in the pressure hull appears to have formed since 2007
but is not measured or photographed. This hole is located on the upper part of the pressure
hull just forward of the propellers. The new licensee of the wreck, Mark Beattie-Edwards,
from the Nautical Archaeology Society did not dive the site in 2008 but during his only visit in
April 2008, visiting NAS divers reported “no new rope or fishing gear” (NAS 2008).
9.6.
Sources
Video footage and photographs from NAS
visits in June and September 2010
Licensee report to English Heritage by Mark
Licensee report to English Heritage by
Jamie Smith, dated 26/10/2010
Format
1 MP4 video and 67 digital photographs.
Microsoft Word Document. Digital file and
In 2010 the only licenced visitors to the Holland No.5 submarine were the NAS (under
licence held by Mark Beattie-Edwards) and Tunbridge Wells Sub-Aqua Club (under licence
held by Jamie Smith). The NAS visited the protected wreck in June, August and September
2010, whilst Tunbridge Wells Sub-Aqua Club visited the site twice in October 2010.
The size and nature of the sand bar that cuts across the site is not recorded in 2010 by
either the NAS or by members of Tunbridge Wells Sub-Aqua Club.
pipes in 2010
In 2010 the licensee, Mark Beattie-Edwards was joined by a professional photographer
(Martin Davies, In Depth Photography) and videographer (Mark Callaghan, Nautilus
Images). As a result, despite poor conditions, an excellent collection of images and video of
the Holland No.5 are held in the NAS archive for 2010. A selection of these images are
included in Figure 36 to illustrate the condition of the upper parts of the hull of the submarine
in 2010.
40
Bow Cap
Opening
Mechanism
NAS file ref:
Torpedo hatch
leaver
bar_broken.jpg
© Jamie Smith
Torpedo Loading hatch
NAS file ref:
Holland V 2.6.2010 001 D1
© Martin Davies
Conning Tower
NAS file ref: Holland V
2.6.2010 005 D1
© Martin Davies
Damage to exhaust box
NAS file ref:
Holland V 2.6.2010 021 D1
© Martin Davies
Casing damage
NAS file ref: Holland V
2.6.2010 009 D1
© Martin Davies
Damage to exhaust pipe
NAS file ref:
Holland V 2.6.2010 012 D1
© Martin Davies
Exhaust pipe missing
NAS file ref:
Holland5_27092010_IMG 8457
© Doug McElvouge
Figure 36: The condition of the upper parts of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2010 exhibit damage
consistent with an impact from commercial fishing activity or commercial salvage.
41
From the photographic and video archive it is clear that at some point between visits in
September 2008 and visits in June 2010 the wreck of the Holland No.5 submarine was
involved in another impact by fishing activity or commercial salvage. This is evidenced by not
only fishing net (as discussed in Section 9.6.4), the loss of the bow cap (as discussed in
Section 9.6.6), but also by the removal of the two exhaust pipes, the bent back upper casing
and the removal of concretion and marine growth at several locations.
The loss of the exhaust pipes which had been partly in situ in 2008 is clearly witnessed in
photographs taken by Martin Davies as well as removal of concretion consistent with a
physical impact (Figure 37).
Damage to exhaust pipe
NAS file ref: Holland V 2.6.2010 012 D1
© Martin Davies.
Damage to exhaust box
NAS file ref: Holland V 2.6.2010 021 D1
© Martin Davies.
Figure 37: Impact damage evident on the exhaust box in the top of the hull of the Holland No. 5
submarine in 2010 © Martin Davies.
One severe area of damage witnessed in 2010, compared to 2008 is the bending back of the
upper casing, just forward of the exhaust box. This is the area which includes the 10 inch
main ventilator and the battery vent which was photographed in 2006 (see Section 9.3.1).
A
B
B
A
Casing damage
Above image: NAS file ref: Holland
V 2.6.2010 010 D1 © Martin Davies
Figure 38: The damaged upper casing (A) and vent pipe (B) bent back in 2010
42
As this upper area of the casing is so close to the missing exhaust pipes it is quite likely that
both were damaged at the same time during the same impact event.
As part of the NAS investigation in 2010, NAS divers were asked to record the size of the
hole in the pressure hull situated on the port side and recorded in 2005 and 2008. The hole
was recorded as being 15cm in diameter and from the photographic archive it is clear to see
that not only has the hole expanded in size but there are also two large areas where the
protective concretion and marine growth had been removed from the hull (Figure 39). Area A
of exposed steel is not linked to the hole but is approximately 30cm forward of the hole very
near to the area of fishing gear draping over the port side. Area B is directly linked to the
main hole in the hull and runs aft and upwards towards the propellers.
A
B
Figure 39: The hole on the port side as seen in 2005 and 2008 as well as new large areas of exposed
steel. NAS file ref: Holland V 2.6.2010 023 D1 © Martin Davies.
In Figure 39 (above) it can be seen that the marine growth has been removed from the hull
above the red line, compared to a heavy covering of marine growth, visible below the red
line. It is likely that this marine growth will have been removed by something either being
dragged or rubbed along the hull at this point. Whilst this could be from fishing gear, it is
possible that this damage occurred as the result of a diver access shot line or chain being
deployed too close to the wreck and then rubbing up against the hull and removing the
marine growth.
During 2010 photographs were taken of other holes in the hull of the Holland No.5
submarine. The small hole recorded for the first time in 2008 (Section 9.5.3) is also recorded
very near to the propellers at the stern of the hull (Figure 40).
43
Figure 40: An NAS diver recording the small hole in the port aft section of the Holland No.5 very close
to the propellers. NAS file ref: Holland V 2.6.2010 016 D1 © Martin Davies.
A number of the photographs taken in 2010 as well as some of the underwater video
illustrate the presence of netting on the wreck of the Holland No.5. Whilst most of the images
are of netting that was already know to be on the site in 2008, around the exhaust box and
draped over the port side hull there is some evidence of new netting on the wreck in 2010
(Figure 41).
Figure 41:
New netting on
the conning
tower of the
Holland No.5
seen in June
2010 by NAS
divers.
NAS file ref:
Holland V
2.6.2010 036
D1 © Martin
Davies.
44
2010
Except for a couple of uninformative photographs, the stern of the Holland No.5 submarine
was not recorded in any detail in 2010.
The most significant and disturbing change on the protected wreck of the Holland No.5
between 2008 and 2010 was the loss of the bow cap. This was first discovered by NAS
divers during a visit on the 2nd June 2010 and reported to English Heritage immediately.
English Heritage subsequently reported the loss of the bow cap to the police. As a result of
the bow cap being removed from the wreck it became possible to view down the torpedo
tube for the first time. It was hoped that the bow cap would be found in the seabed scour
underneath the bow of the wreck or at least around the bow area. Unfortunately, despite
several diver searches in 2010 the bow cap could not be found.
Jamie Smith from the Tunbridge Wells Sub-Aqua Club who held a licence from English
Heritage to dive the wreck reported that “The hinge pin, which I believe was brass, has gone
with the hatch. The rod that lifted and closed the hatch was, in my opinion, broken off, not
cut. I do not know whether this has any significance to the loss of the hatch or not. The
torpedo hatch locking bolt had lost its locking end; this may have been lost in the past as the
hatch has been slightly open for some time” (Smith 2010).
With the bow cap missing it became easier to study the seal around the door of the torpedo
tube which from its grey colour, compared to the brown steel appears to be made of lead
(Figure 42), however it is not certain whether this door seal is actually made of lead.
Grey colour possibly from a
lead seal door seal
Figure 42: The bow of the Holland No.5 in June 2010 (left) and September 2010 (right) with missing
bow cap. Left © Martin Davies, NAS file ref: Holland V 2.6.2010 044 D1. Right © Doug McElvogue.
NAS file ref: Holland5_27092010_IMG_8474.
45
From diver surveys undertaken in 2010 using digital still and video cameras there is an
excellent amount of information about how the wreck of the Holland No.5 had changed from
September 2008 until June 2010. A large amount of damage has occurred on the site over
this time, including the loss of two sections of exhaust pipes from the top of the hull, damage
to the upper casing and battery vent pipe as well as the loss of the bow cap.
The exact cause of this damage is unknown and can only be surmised as either being from
illegal commercial trawl or net fishing or from illegal commercial salvage. It is possible that
some minor damage could have occurred from diver access shot lines and chains being
accidentally deployed too close to the hull of the wreck.
In his annual report to English Heritage the licensee of the protected wreck, recommended
that “a more extensive diver survey should be commissioned to undertake a comprehensive
search of the seabed around the bow to look for evidence of trawling gear or any removed
parts of the wreck that have now been deposited on the seabed”. It was also recommended
that “English heritage reconsider the need for a buoy on the site which would act to inform
fishermen of its protected status and would also act as a deterrent to trawling activity”.
Finally it was also “recommended that, as a result of the new damage and removal of parts
of the submarine, English Heritage considers adding the Holland 5 submarine to the
Heritage at Risk register” (NAS 2010). Only the latter of these recommendations was ever
taken up.
9.7.
Sources
Video footage and photographs from NAS
visits in May, June and July 2011
Format
9 WMV videos and 33 digital photographs.
Digital copies held by the NAS
hard copy held by the NAS and English
Heritage
The licensee, with NAS divers, visited the protected wreck of the Holland No.5 in May, June
and July 2011. No other dives or geophysical surveys were recorded as taking place on the
wreck during 2011.
The size and nature of the sand bar was not recorded in 2011.
pipes in 2011
During visits in 2011 many photographs of upper works of the submarine were taken,
however no new damage was recorded compared to that seen in 2010 (NAS 2011).
In 2011 the holes in the pressure hull that had previously recorded were not measured by
visiting divers. However there are several photographs and video clips which show the
largest of these holes on the port side that has been present since 2005 (Figure 43).
Interestingly along the starboard side it is also possible to see a large strip of exposed steel
which had not been seen or recorded before 2011 (Figure 44).
46
A
B
C
Stern
Figure 43: The hole in the port side along with three areas of exposed steel in July 2011. The smaller
hole as seen in previous years is on the very edge of the shot on the right. NAS file ref: DSCF5193 ©
Sylvia Pryer. As in 2010 it is possible to see where the marine growth has come off the hull above the
red line.
Bow
Figure 44: This strip of exposed steel, along with two circular patches slightly lower down the hull is
on the starboard side, near to the bow. This was first seen in July 2011. NAS file ref: DSCF5184 ©
Sylvia Pryer. It is not known how this phenomenon was created or developed.
47
In his licensee report for 2011, Mark Beattie-Edwards reported that “no observations were
made of significant new netting on the wreck. There is still a large amount of netting on the
seabed around the port and starboard stern of the wreck. Some of this is most probably the
remains of the netting that was cut away by the NAS team and Innes McCartney in 2006 and
2007” (NAS 2011). The netting on and around the wreck does appear in several
photographs and videos from 2011 (Figures 43 and 44).
2011
During visits in 2011 many photographs of stern of the site were taken, however no changes
were noted compared to that seen in 2010 (NAS 2011).
In his licensee report for 2011, Mark Beattie-Edwards reported that “our dives in 2011 have
showed that the missing bow cap is not present in the immediate area underneath the bow
or on the seabed around the bow (NAS 2011). A number of impressive photographs were
taken of the bow of the submarine in 2011 by both Sylvia Pryer and Stuart Philpot which
illustrate the size of the seabed scour underneath the bow (Figure 45).
Figure 45: The bow of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2011. Images top row and bottom left. NAS file
ref: DSCF5204, DSCF5200, DSCF5202 all © Sylvia Pryer. Bottom right image © Stuart Philpot.
48
Following three visits to the protected wreck in 2011 the licensee “recommended that a more
extensive diver survey should be commissioned to undertake a comprehensive search of the
seabed around the bow to look for evidence of trawling gear or any removed parts of the
wreck that have now been deposited on the seabed”. It was also recommended that “English
heritage reconsider the need for a buoy on the site which would act to inform fishermen of its
protected status and would also act as a deterrent to trawling activity”. Finally the licensee
recommended that “English Heritage commission a long term study of the corrosion potential
of the Holland 5 submarine as such a study would significantly aid English Heritage in their
long term management of the wreck” (NAS 2011). It is pleasing to note that this final
recommendation was taken up by English Heritage who commissioned Wessex Archaeology
to undertake such a study in 2012 (Wessex Archaeology 2012).
The only significant points of interest from the 2011 visit was the unusual amount of exposed
steel and brown rust patches on the hull compared to previous years (Section 9.7.3).
9.8.
Sources
Wessex Archaeology 2012, Ultrasonic
Thickness Measurement Methodology
Development and Testing - Holland No. 5
and HMS/m A1 (Ref: 83800.23)
Video footage from Wessex Archaeology
visit in May 2012
Video, digital photographs and dive logs
from NAS visits in May, August and
September 2012
Video and photographs from Tunbridge
Wells Sub-Aqua Club’s visit in August 2012
Format
Pdf report held by English Heritage and NAS
1 MP4 video. Digital copy held by NAS and
Wessex Archaeology.
4 MP4 videos. 67 photographs. © Martin
Davies and © John Liddiard
20 digital photographs held by NAS. DVD
held by NAS © Jamie Smith
Pdf document. Digital file and hard copy held
by NAS and English Heritage
Both Wessex Archaeology and the NAS, with the licensee, Mark Beattie-Edwards visited the
protected wreck of the Holland N0.5 in 2012, the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the
submarine. Wessex Archaeology were commissioned by English Heritage to develop a
methodology for testing metal hull thickness using a Cygnus DIVE Ultrasonic Thickness
gauge as part of the contract for archaeological services in relation to the Protection of
Wrecks Act (1973). A secondary objective of their work was to undertake a swim over survey
of the Holland No.5 (Wessex Archaeology 2012).
The NAS visited the site in May and September 2012 with visiting divers from the NAS
providing an opportunity to dive on the protected wreck. The NAS also visited the wreck in
August 2012 (along with Tunbridge Wells Sub-Aqua Club) as part of a Time Team episode
and for a television news production on the 8th August 2012 to mark the centenary of the
sinking of the Holland No.5.
As a result of these visits a large collection of photographs and video were collected in 2012.
In 2012 the NAS also worked with Mike Postons from 3deep Media Ltd to develop an online
visualisation of the wreck as a dissemination product to engage both divers and non-divers
in underwater cultural heritage and England’s protected wrecks.
49
Analysis of video footage from 2012, provided by all parties and obtained by this study show
that nearly 50 minutes of useful video covering the whole site was filmed.
Wessex Archaeology
Total time of
useful footage
(hour/min/sec)
Notes
Ultrasonic thickness
meter survey. Poor
quality video. All mostly
close up of hull and
00:19:48 Cygnus meter
00:19:48
29/05/12 HollandV_2012_Dive_422
Total
Date of dive NAS Archive File Name
Holland 5_180812b_Martin
05/08/12 Davies
Holland 5_180812_Martin
05/08/12 Davies
Total time of
useful footage
(hour/min/sec)
00:05:20
00:04:10
Holland 5_Aug2012_conning
05/08/12 tower_Martin Davies
00:02:30
Holland 5_Aug 2012_loading
05/08/12 hatch_Martin Davies
00:01:15
Holland
5_Aug2012_stern_Martin
05/08/12 Davies
00:00:58
Holland 5_Aug
05/08/12 2012_bow_Martin Davies
Total
00:00:37
00:14:50
Tunbridge Wells Sub-Aqua
Date of dive Club (Jamie Smith)
Notes
Great visibility.
Excellent wreck survey
Great visibility.
Excellent wreck survey
Great visibility. Also
includes torpedo
loading hatch. No rope
on conning tower
except around hinge.
Great visibility.
Appears to be a
covering of sand just
forward of the hatch.
Great visibility. Debris
on seabed. No lobster
pot. Ropes over the
hull just aft of exhaust
box
Great visibility. Area of
exposed steel (rust
patch) on the starboard
side.
Total time of
useful footage
(hour/min/sec)
05/08/12 DVD Holland 5 05-08-12
Total
Notes
DVD. Slightly green
water. Bow to stern
along top. Around the
stern and down port
side. Port side sand
bank visible at
00:04:27 and 00:05:00.
Bow exposed steel
00:14:00 00:08:00 until 00:08:20
00:14:00
50
The sand bar on the port side of the hull of the Holland No.5 was captured on video filmed
by Jamie Smith from Tunbridge Wells Sub-Aqua Club during his visit on the 8th August 2012.
The height of the sand bar was not measured but appears to rise up against the port side
hull by at least a meter or two (Figure 46).
Steel hull
Steel hull
Sand bar and netting
Sand bar and netting
Figure 46: The sand bar on the port side of the Holland No.5 from video captured in 2012. The red
line indicates the rise of the sand bar up against the hull © Jamie Smith.
pipes in 2012
From the video and photographic archive from 2012 there appear to be no changes to the
upper parts of the submarine’s hull.
The holes in the pressure hull recorded in previous years were captured on video in 2012
(Figure 47) by both John Liddiard and Jamie Smith.
C
B
A
A
Figure 47: The hole in the pressure hull in 2012 (A) was measured as being 14.5cm by 11cm. The
rust patch (C) to the left of hole (A) can also be seen in the same condition as it was in 2010. NAS file
ref: Holland5-100_12_08_08_3986 © John Liddiard. Hole (B) in the top of the hull at the stern in 2012
was measured as being 18cm long by 7.5cm wide. NAS file ref: Holland5-100_12_08_08_3988 ©
John Liddiard.
51
In 2012 no observations were made of significant new netting on the wreck. There is still a
large amount of netting on the seabed around the port side (Figure 48) and also on the
starboard stern of the wreck (Figure 49). “Some of this is most probably the remains of the
netting that was cut away by the NAS team and Innes McCartney. Some new netting was
see on the exhaust box during visits in September 2012” (Figure 49) draped over the
starboard side of the hull, “but this also may be the remains of the netting that was cut away
by the NAS team and Innes McCartney in 2006 and 2007” (NAS 2012).
A
Figure 48: Rope hanging over the
port side of the hull at the stern in
2012. Rope was also recorded on
the seabed surrounding the site.
NAS
file
ref:
Holland5100_12_08_08_4025
©
John
Liddiard.
Figure 49: Rope hanging over the starboard side of the
hull at the stern (A) in 2012. Rope was also recorded on
the seabed surrounding the site. NAS file ref:
Holland5_181812b_Martin Davies © Martin Davies.
2012
During visits in 2012 the stern of the site was videoed, however no changes were noted
compared to that seen in 2011. It is clear that the lobster pot seen in 2005 (Section 9.2.5.) is
no longer on the site, or at least nowhere near the stern (Figure 50). In 2012 the starboard
side fin (B) and the hydroplane (D) both lying on the seabed appear to be more prominent
than in previous years and maybe the result of increasing scour taking place at the stern at
this time.
A photographic survey of the starboard side fin of the Holland No.1 submarine in the Royal
Navy Submarine Museum in 2013 clearly shows the same shape and design (Figure 51).
52
A – Propeller boss lying to the seabed on
the starboard side
B – Starboard side fin on seabed
C – Lower portion of rudder assembly
D – Propeller blades
E – Starboard side hydroplane on seabed
A
B
D
C
B
C
E
A
A
D
Figure 50: The stern of the Holland No.5 in 2012. The starboard side fin (B) lying on the seabed
appeared more apparent than in previous years. NAS file ref: Holland 5_Aug2012_stern_Martin
Davies © Martin Davies.
Figure 51: The starboard side fin (from above) of the Holland No.1 in the Royal Navy Submarine
Museum (RNSM) © NAS. Although a replica fin, it is based on the original fin that was present on the
Holland No.1 (inset) when it was recovered in 1982 (Inset image courtesy of the RNSM).
53
As part of the filming for an episode of Time Team in 2012, the NAS undertook a video
survey of the inside of the torpedo tube (Figure 52). The purpose of this investigation was to
determine if the inner door of the tube was open or closed. This video survey was
undertaken using a GoPro Hero2 HD video camera on a 5.5m long pole and indicated that
the inner door is closed. The footage also showed that a conger eel uses the torpedo tube
as a home (NAS 2012).
Figure 52: The inside of the torpedo tube of the Holland No.5 submarine (left) and the Holland No. 1
submarine (right). Both tubes clearly have seams that run down the length of the tube. © NAS.
The overall condition of the Holland No.5 in 2012 was presented visually through an online
visualisation produced by 3deep Media Ltd using the general arrangement drawings, the
multibeam sonar data as well as underwater video and photographs from the 2012
investigations.
Figure 53: A screen grab of the online interactive visualisation of the Holland No.5 produced in 2012
by 3deep Media Ltd presented on the NAS website pages dedicated to the Holland No.5 submarine.
In his annual licensee report to English Heritage (dated 19th November 2012) Mark
Beattie-Edwards stated that “as a result of the dives carried out this year we have been
54
able to observe that the Holland 5 does not appear to have been subjected to any
substantial damage in the last 12 months. Our dives in 2012 have shown us that the
practise of placing diver shot lines on the wreck site for visits and inspections still
presents a risk to damage to the structure of the Holland 5. It is therefore recommended
that English Heritage reconsider the need for a buoy on the site which would act as a
permanent line to the site for visiting groups. It would also serve to inform fishermen of
its protected status and would also act as a deterrent to trawling activity” (NAS 2012).
It was also stated that “the new visualisations by 3deep Media Ltd will present a new
exciting way for people to experience (if only virtually) the wreck of the Holland 5
submarine. It is recommended that other designated wreck sites that are intact and
upstanding could be presented in this way. It is also recommended that this new
visualisation technique could be used on the Holland 5 and other sites to illustrate how
they change over time as a method of presenting condition assessments” (NAS 2012).
In 2012 the starboard side fin and hydroplane were recorded as clearly visible on the seabed
at the stern and appear to be more prominent than witnessed in previous years. It is possible
that this is the result of increasing seabed scour taking place at the stern at this time.
The visit by Wessex Archaeology resulted in a “cursory inspection of the bow area” in 2012.
The report goes on to say that “A brass ring which is visible in this location on Holland No.1
was not visible on Holland No.5 and could not easily be located, as might be expected. It is
unclear as to whether this brass ring has also been removed. Large amounts of fishing net
were reported in the stern area of the wreck, on the port side” (Wessex Archaeology
2012:15). The author is unclear about the “brass ring” reference in the report.
9.9.
Sources
Format
Video footage, photographs and dive logs Digital copies held by the NAS.
from NAS visit in July 2013
from NAS visit in August 2013
from NAS visit in September 2013
As outlined in Section 2 of this report, this study planned to analyse previous video and
photographic surveys of the Holland No.5, held by the NAS, WA, English Heritage and other
licence holders, as well as annual licensee reports submitted to English Heritage and
presents an assessment of the deterioration. This desk based assessment was to be used
to inform a condition assessment visit to the site in 2013.
The NAS made four visits to the Holland No. 5 submarine, in June, July, August and
September 2013. The last three visits were part of the condition assessment exercise, whilst
the June visit was an NAS member’s trip to explore a protected wreck. The condition
assessment survey carried out by the NAS dive team of archaeologists and a professional
photographer/videographer.
The NAS condition assessment dive team were:
• Mark Beattie-Edwards, NAS staff, diver, dive supervisor, Licensee of Holland No.5.
• Sara Hasan, NAS staff, diver and dive supervisor
• Daniel Pascoe, Freelance archaeologist, diver
55
•
Martin Davies, Freelance photographer, diver
The condition assessment survey was principally carried out using a Nikon D7000 digital
camera taking still images and digital video, as well as a GoPro Hero2 and GoPro Hero3 HD
video cameras. A number of divers also undertook measured drawings using writing boards
and folding rulers.
The 2013 condition assessment recorded the port side sand bar and the scour around the
perimeter of the hull of the Holland No.5. This was carried out by photography, video and
with empirical depth measurements taken with a dive computer. Similar depth readings were
also taken on the starboard side of the wreck (Figures 56 and 59).
Illustrating the size and position of the sand bar on the port side of the hull was achieved via
two photomosaics of the port side of the submarine undertaken during visits in August and
September 2013 (Figures 54 and 55).
Both mosaics show just how much the sand bar rises up the side of the hull, underneath the
torpedo loading hatch. It also shows that the rope on the seabed is either being aggregated
into the sand bar or is potentially causing the sand bar to be formed.
Bow
scour
Sand bar
Torpedo
loading
hatch
Rope over
the hull
Conning Tower
Close up of the rope and netting on the
port side seabed around the sand bar in
August and September 2013
Stern
scour
Propeller
Close up of the rope and netting on the
port side seabed around the sand bar in
August and September 2013
Figure 54: A photomosaic of the port side of the Holland No. 5 submarine in August and September
2013. Taken with a GoPro Hero2 and GoPro Hero3. © NAS. An enlarged version of this photomosaic
is included in Appendix 1.
56
Figure 55: A photomosaic of the port side of the Holland No. 5 submarine in August and September
2013. Taken with a Nikon D7000. © NAS. An enlarged version of this photomosaic is included in
Appendix 2.
A number of other digital photographs and video captures also show the size and location of
the port side sand bar and seabed scour at the bow of the Holland No.5 in 2013 (Figure 56)
which when combined with depth measurements taken by NAS diver Sara Hasan (Figure
57) demonstrates that on the 26th September 2013 the sand bar rose up 2.9 metres. A
number of divers who visited the wreck of the Holland No.5 comments in 2013 reported that
they did not recall ever seeing the sand bar as “impressive” or as “big” before (NAS dive
team pers comm).
29.0m depth
31.9m depth
Figure 56: The sand bar on the port side of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2013 © Martin Davies.
57
Figure 57: Elevation of the port side of the Holland No.5 submarine during the Low Water slack on the
26th September 2013. © NAS. The depth readings were all taken (using a Suunto dive computer)
during one period of slack water (no tide) so are accurate relative to one another.
As well as creating a photomosaic of the port side the NAS dive team were able to record
the starboard side of the wreck in September 2013, using a Nikon D7000 SLR camera
(Figure 58). It was also possible to use a dive computer to record relative seabed depths at
different point along the starboard side (Figure 59).
Figure 58: Photomosaic elevation of the starboard side of the Holland No.5 using a Nikon D7000 in
September 2013. © NAS.
Figure 59: Elevation of the starboard side of the Holland No.5 submarine during the Low Water slack
on the 26th September 2013. © NAS. The depth readings were all taken (using a Suunto dive
computer) during one period of slack water (no tide) so are accurate relative to one another.
58
pipes in 2013
The condition assessment of the upper parts of the Holland No.5 carried out in 2013 showed
there to be no change since 2012. Illustrating the condition of the upper parts of the hull,
including the exhaust box, conning tower, periscope mount, torpedo loading hatch and other
smaller components) was achieved via two photomosaics of the plan view of the submarine
undertaken during visits in August and September 2013. One photomosaic was created in
August 2013 from digital images screen captured from a GoPro Hero2 HD video camera
with no artificial lighting (Figure 60). The second plan view photomosaic was captured in
August 2013 from video filmed on a Nikon D7000 SLR camera (Figure 61).
Figure 60: A photomosaic of the plan view of the Holland No. 5 submarine in August 2013. Taken with
a GoPro Hero2 HD video camera. © NAS. An enlarged version of this photomosaic is included in
Appendix 3.
Figure 61: A photomosaic of the plan view of the Holland No. 5 submarine in August 2013. Taken with
a Nikon D7000 in video mode. © NAS. An enlarged version of this photomosaic is included in
Appendix 4.
The visits by the NAS dive team in 2013 were fortunate to have exceptional visibility
underwater, perhaps the best seen since 2005 (Mark Beattie-Edwards, pers comm). As a
result several photographs of each feature on the upper parts of the hull were taken to
provide an illustration of their condition in 2013. These photographs augmented by diver
drawings and observations provide a comprehensive assessment of the protected wreck
(Figure 62).
59
Bow cap opening
mechanism
NAS file ref: MED_8697
© Sylvia Pryer
Torpedo Loading Hatch
NAS file ref: P1050260
© Allen Murrey
Conning Tower
© Allen Murrey
Conning Tower Hinge
NAS file ref: Holland V-20
© Andy Botten
Exhaust Pipes
NAS file ref: Holland
5_23072013 © Martin
Davies
10 inch ventilator
© Allen Murrey
Exhaust Box
© Allen Murrey
Figure 62: The upper works of the Holland No.5 submarine in 2013.
60
The 2013 condition assessment conducted by the NAS, recorded every hole and every area
of exposed steel hull on both the port side and starboard side of the Holland No.5
submarine. This was carried out by photography, video and with empirical measurements of
holes are rust areas being measured with a 1m folding ruler.
On the starboard side of the wreck there were eight main areas or patches of exposed steel
in 2013, as well as an area around the torpedo tube opening (Section 9.9.6). These eight
areas are shown in Figure 63 below.
8
Patch 1
Patch 8
3
6
4
5
2
1
Patch 2
7
Patch 6
Patch 3 and 4
Patch 7
Patch 5
Figure 63: Areas of exposed steel hull on the starboard side of the Holland No.5 in 2013. All
photographs © Sylvia Pryer.
61
On the port side of the wreck there were four main areas of exposed steel in 2013, as well
as an area around the torpedo tube opening (Section 9.9.6). These four areas are shown in
Figure 64 below.
Port Side Hole A and Patch 2 (NAS file ref:
Holland 5_23072013 © Martin Davies
Port Side Patch 3 and Hole B (NAS file ref:
IMG_0133 © Daniel Pascoe
1
4
Port Side Patch 1 (50cm scale with 10cm graduations)
© Sylvia Pryer
2 (Hole A)
3 (Hole B)
Port Side Patch 4 (NAS file ref: Holland V-51
© Andy Botten
Figure 64: Holes and areas of exposed steel hull on the port side of the Holland No.5 in 2013.
62
The largest hole on the port side that has been seen since 2005 was photographed and
measured in 2013 as part of the condition assessment. The hole was measured at 17cm by
14cm. The comparative size of this hole compared with other years is in Section 10 of this
report. The surrounding area where the protected marine growth has been removed
measured a maximum of 38cm by 20cm on the 24th July 2013 (Figure 65).
38cm
20cm
17cm
14cm
Figure 65: The main hole (Hole A) on the port side on the 24th July 2013 © Martin Davies
Interestingly in the process of reviewing the 2013 photographic archive from 2013 it was
noticed that the brown area around the hole had changed in September 2013, when it
appears to have expanded (Figure 66). It is quite dramatic that this has grown so much in
only 2 months, as well as a new brown patch (Patch 4) appearing which was not visible in
July 2013.
New area of exposed hull in September 2013
Expanded area of exposed hull in
September 2013 compared to that
seen in July 2013 (Figure 65)
Figure 66: The area around the port side hull on the 26th September 2013 © Andy Botten.
63
In 2013 the NAS dive team to the opportunity to look inside the Holland No.5 submarine
through both holes in the port side. Both holes were just large enough to place a GoPro
Hero2 HD camera and HID light through to allow a glimpse of what might still be inside the
wreck which sank in August 1912, whilst under tow to be used as a gunnery target. It is not
known how much of the internal fixtures and fittings might still be inside the Holland No.5
(Bob Mealings (curator of the Holland No. 1 submarine), pers comm 2013).
The results of this exercise are not really understood at this stage, but captured images
certainly confirm that some part of the steering gear and diving gear controls are still in place
(Figure 67) through hole A and that the propeller shaft tunnel is visible through hole B. It is
also apparent that the inside of the hull in filled with seabed silt/sand up to the level just
below the height of hole A.
Diving gear ?
Steering gear ?
Propeller shaft tunnel visible through
the small hole B at the stern of the
submarine
Figure 67: The inside of the Holland No.5 in 2013 potentially showing the steering gear and diving
gear (top images) and the propeller shaft tunnel (bottom) in July 2013. NAS file ref: GOPR1220 ©
NAS.
64
From the video and photographic archive from the condition assessment visits in 2013 there
appear to be no new areas of man-made fishing gear on the protected wreck of the Holland
No.5. The excellent underwater visibility encountered in 2013 has meant that some of the
best photographs and video footage ever captured of the man-made fishing materials were
acquired during the condition assessment in 2013 (Figure 68).
Port side bow
Seabed forward of bow
Port side middle
Port side stern
Starboard side stern
Figure 68: Man-made fishing materials on the wreck of the Holland No. 5 in 2013. Clock wise from
left: NAS file ref: MED_8728 © Martin Davies, GOPRO1693 © NAS, Bow Debris 1_Aug 2013 © NAS,
DSCF9363 © Sylvia Pryer, H5 stern capture3_D7000 © Martin Davies.
65
2013
stern area of the submarine. The excellent underwater visibility encountered in 2013 has
meant that some of the best footage and images ever captured of the stern were acquired
during the condition assessment in 2013 (Figure 69).
C
B
A
D
C
C
A
A – Starboard side fin lying on seabed
B – Propeller boss lying to the
starboard side
C – Lower portion of rudder assembly
D – Starboard side hydroplane on the
seabed or the lower portion of rudder
assembly
C
D
A
B
Figure 69: The stern area of the Holland No.5 protected wreck in 2013. NAS file ref: MED_8201
(left), MED_8206 (top right), MED_8188 (middle right), H5 stern capture2_D7000_Aug13 (bottom
right). All © Martin Davies.
66
bow area of the submarine, expect for some possible rust patches on the hull around the
opening of the bow cap (Figure 70). The excellent underwater visibility encountered in 2013
has meant that some of the best images ever captured of the stern were acquired during the
condition assessment in 2013 (Figure 70).
Areas of exposed steel
Figure 70: The bow area of the Holland No.5 protected wreck in 2013. NAS file ref: MED_8216
(left), MED_8212 (top right), MED_8219 (bottom right). All images © Martin Davies.
In 2013 the NAS (with the licensee) undertook three visits to the Holland No.5 submarine to
undertake a condition assessment survey of the wreck. This survey followed a desk based
assessment of all available information on the protected wreck that could be obtained. The
underwater visibility for all three visits was good enough to allow a comprehensive and
detailed record of the protected wreck to be produced. The NAS team included a
professional photographer and used High Definition (HD) video cameras, which has meant
that the quality of films and images compared to those from earlier surveys is exceptional.
Whilst the condition of the wreck in 2013 was not that dissimilar to that witnessed in 2012
there were a couple of differences.
The first difference noted was the size of the sand bar on the port side of the wreck (Section
9.9.1) which appeared to be considerable bigger than in previous years, based both on diver
comments and the video archive from previous visits. For the first time the actual height of
the sand bar was measured using a diver’s simple depth gauge. The height between the
deepest point of the scour at the bow of the wreck, and the highest point of the sand bar was
measured as being 2.9 metres.
67
The second difference noted in 2013, compared to previous years, was the number of rusty
brown patches where the concreted surface of the steel hull appears to be either coming
away from the hull, or is being knocked off as a result of impacts with other objects (Section
9.9.3). It is not certain what has caused the concretion to be removed from the hull, but it is
most likely be the result of man-made impacts such as scuba diver access shot weights and
lines being deployed on the site or from commercial fishing activity over the protected wreck.
It is believed to that the visiting divers themselves are unlikely to cause such damage.
Finally, the condition assessment survey undertaken by the NAS in 2013 provided the
opportunity to look inside the hull of the Holland No.5 submarine, using a small digital high
definition video camera. From analysis of the video footage it appears that many fixtures and
fittings may be well preserved inside as they are covered with seabed material that has halffilled the inner hull of the submarine.
10. Summary of the main hole in the hull of the Holland No.5 submarine
It was thought useful to provide a summary of how the main hole in the port side stern of the
Holland No.5 submarine since it was first recorded in 2005 up to 2013. As detailed in Section
9.2.3 the hole was recorded by Wessex Archaeology as being 10cm in diameter in 2005. As
detailed in Section 9.3.2 the hole was measured as being 9.8cm tall by 8.5cm wide in 2006.
In Section 9.4.3 it was stated that the hole had “enlarged slightly” in 2007, but no actual
measurements were taken of the hole and photographic scales were not used by the divers,
so it is impossible to quantify if this is correct. In 2008 (Section 9.5.3) the diver observations
on the status of holes in the pressure hull, by Wessex Archaeology in was “a small, slightly
irregular hole is located in the hull approximately 10cm in diameter on the port side” (Wessex
Archaeology 2009:5). The hole is not measured by Wessex Archaeology in 2008 and so its
size remains only an approximation.
As part of the NAS investigation in 2010, NAS divers were asked to record the size of the
hole. It was recorded as being 15cm in diameter (Section 9.6.3), meaning that since the last
time it was actually measured back in 2006, the hole had increased in size from 9.8cm to
15cm. In 2011 the holes in the pressure hull that had previously recorded were not
measured by visiting divers (Section 9.7.3).
In 2012 the hole in the pressure hull was measured by NAS divers as being 14.5cm by 11cm
(Section 9.8.3). The hole was also photographed and measured in 2013 as part of the
condition assessment (Figure 65). The hole was measured at 17cm by 14cm. The
surrounding area where the protected marine growth has been removed measured a
maximum of 38cm by 20cm on the 24th July 2013 (Section 9.9.3). It is evident that the hole
has nearly doubled in size over the 8 years, from it smallest, 9.8cm in 2006 to 17cm in 2013.
It is not possible to definitively conclude that this rate of enlargement would necessarily
continue in the future as not enough is understood about the environmental, physical or
chemical factors that impact on the corrosion of the hull of the Holland No.5 submarine.
11. Future monitoring of the Holland No.5 submarine
As outlined in Section 4 the research aim of the project was to undertake a condition
assessment of the Holland No.5 submarine, to catalogue changes to the site since 2005 so
that suggestions can be made regarding future monitoring and future management decisions
about the wreck.
The objectives of the project were:
• To review video and photographic surveys of the site since 2005;
• To determine how the condition of the site has changed since 2005;
68
•
•
•
•
To suggest why the condition of the site has changed since 2005;
To determine which areas of the site are most likely to deteriorate in the future;
To suggest areas of the site which must in future years be monitored for their
condition;
To suggest how the site may be managed in future years.
Both the desk-based assessment of information from 2000 to 2012 and the new data
acquired during the condition assessment visits in 2013 have proved that changes, some of
them small, such as newly exposed steel areas on the hull; and some of them dramatic,
such as the loss of the bow cap, occur every year. The protected wreck of the Holland No.5
submarine is located in a dynamic hostile location and as such its condition is naturally
influenced by both physical and chemical changes in its surrounding environment.
11.1 Recommendations
It is recommended that all future monitoring studies of the Holland No.5 submarine build on
the areas that have been reviewed as part of this condition assessment. Those areas are:
1. The size and position of the sand bar on the port side of the hull, both by geophysics
and by diver survey;
2. The condition of the upper features of the submarines hull;
3. The location and size of all holes and areas of exposed steel on the pressure hull;
4. The presence and nature of any man-made fishing materials on the site;
5. The condition of the stern of the site including material lying on the seafloor;
6. The condition of the bow of the site, including the scour underneath the bow.
By continuing with these specific areas of the site, all future monitoring assessments can use
the information in this report as a benchmark against which to compare their own
observations. Other areas of the Holland No.5 that should be monitored in the future are:
7. A study of the scour around the starboard side of the hull to evaluate any chance of
the seabed undercutting the hull and causing the submarine to fall over on to its
starboard side;
8. The recording of the thickness of the pressure hull at the location analysed during the
Wessex Archaeology “Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement Methodology Development
and Testing” study that was carried out in 2012. To not continue this study at regular
intervals would make the 2012 project meaningless. It is recommended that this exercise
be carried out at five yearly intervals, with the next study due in 2017.
12. Future management of the Holland No.5 submarine
It is expected that the information provided by this study will be used by English Heritage to
inform the management of this designated site and any others of a similar type such as the
HMSm/A1 submarine located in the eastern Solent. Any future management strategies to
reduce the deterioration of the wreck’s condition should use the information contained within
this report and the recommendations for future monitoring of the wreck that have been made
in Section 11.
69
12.1 Recommendations
It is recommended that the future management strategies for the Holland No.5 submarine
should include:
1. Undertaking a new multibeam geophysical survey of the site and its surrounding
environment. The last multibeam survey was undertaken in 2001 by the ADU
(although reprocessed by Wessex Archaeology in 2007). Evidence gathered by this
study demonstrates that the sand bar on the port side was bigger in 2013 than seen
since at least 2005. The wreck of the Holland No.5 clearly influences the seabed
around it. It is feasible that the size and weight of the sand bar on the port side could
at some point in the future push the submarine over on to its starboard side. There
has been a scour on the starboard side of the wreck since at least 2005 and if this
scour continues to undercut the starboard side then this could increase the risk of the
submarine destabilizing and falling over on to its starboard side.
2. Undertaking an annual programme of diver investigations. These annual
investigations should concentrate on the port side sand bar and on the starboard side
seabed scour, to gain annual empirical data about both phenomenon.
3. Buoying the site. As the report makes clear the site was buoyed in 2007, but it was
later removed from the site by unknown agents by November 2007. The current
location of this buoy is unknown to the author. Based on evidence from the surveys
carried out since 2005 the largest amount of damage that has been inflicted on the
Holland No. 5 submarine over the years has come from commercial fishing activity.
There has been a large amount of fishing gear (in the form of rope, cable, nets and
even ball floats) on and around the wreck since at least 2005. It is the author’s belief
that the presence of a buoy on the site would serve to highlight to fishermen that the
site is a protected wreck that legally must be avoided. Naturally fishermen do not
wish to lose their very expensive gear on the seabed and would not intentionally drag
their gear over the site, yet clearly this has happened accidentally at least once, and
maybe more than once. The presence of a surface buoy would help to deter these
accidents happening again.
Buoying the site would also serve to reduce the risk of potential damage caused by
visiting diver shot weights and lines impacting on the wreck or the seabed around the
wreck. If a wreck site like the Holland No.5 submarine (which lies in over thirty metres
of water) is not buoyed then every visiting dive boat (whether carrying recreational
divers or archaeologists) will need to deposit a large weight on the seabed near to
the wreck. This weight is attached to a rope (or even a chain) to facilitate diver
access directly to the wreck, rather than to a position on the seabed hopefully near to
the wreck.
Every time this procedure is carried out there is a risk that the weight (weighing
possibly up to 20KG or even more) will impact directly on top of the hull of the
Holland No.5. Whilst the current licensee does not have any evidence of this
happening on recent visits, he has witnessed a diver descent rope and chain rubbing
against the hull, until it was moved further away from the hull by a diver.
70
If the Holland No.5 were a protected monument on land this action would not be
acceptable or legally allowed and there would be an outcry by interested members of
the public as well as the heritage community. Yet when a monument that is protected
for its archaeological and historical importance is at sea, it is deemed an acceptable
risk to damaging it just by visiting it. This report does not advocate barring access to
the wreck of the Holland No.5 as this would make monitoring the submarine’s
condition impossible unless carried out by a Remotely Operated Vehicle. However it
is recommend that only boats with experience of finding and placing shot weights on
the site should be allowed to visit the wreck. This would help reduce the risk, until
such time that the protected wreck is buoyed.
4. Investigating the inside of the Holland No.5. In 2012 and 2013 the NAS has taken
advantage of the holes in the hull of the Holland No.5 to look inside. For the curator
of the Holland No.1 submarine in the Royal Navy Submarine Museum, Bob Mealings,
one of the most interesting things about having another Holland class submarine is
finding out what is inside it. This is because many internal fittings of the Holland No.1
were either stripped out before it sank or did not survive the subsequent recovery
and conservation. It is therefore recommended that the largest hole that already
exists on the port side of the hull of the Holland No.5 be left alone to allow camera
access to the inside of the submarine (Figure 66).
5. Testing the use of epoxy resin on the smaller holes in the pressure hull. Having
looked through the small hole in the top of the pressure hull at the stern of the
Holland No.5 it is shown to only reveal a small space with the propeller shaft tunnel
inside. Due to a bulkhead there is no direct access in to the main chamber of the
submarine. It is therefore suggested that this smaller hole be used to test if epoxy
resin could successfully seal up small holes on the wreck. If successful then this
method could be applied on other small holes that may appear on the pressure hull in
the future. It is expected that additional holes in the pressure hull will develop over
time and this method might usefully slow down or even prevent the holes from
growing. Further research would need to be done looking at the viability of this
recommendation.
71
13. Bibliography
Archaeological Diving Unit. 2001, Report No. 01/10 - HM Submarine Holland No.5
Dooley, D. 2005, Notes on HMSTB NO. 5. Pdf report held by the NAS
Harwood, D. 2010, An Investigation Into Corrosion On The Holland 5 Submarine. Offshore
and Ocean Technology MSc Thesis, Cranfield University
McCartney, I. 2005, Holland 5 Preliminary Site Report. Pending Approval of Application to be
licensee
McCartney, I. 2006, Licensee report, Holland 5 submarine
NAS and McCartney, I. 2005, Report on visit and survey of Holland 5 submarine, October
2005
NAS 2006, Report on visit and survey of Holland 5 submarine in 2006, October 2006
NAS 2008, Holland 5 Licensee Annual Report November 2008
NAS 2010, Holland 5 Licensee Annual Report October 2010
Smith, J, 2010. Holland 5 Licence Report October 2010
Wessex Archaeology 2006,
(Ref:53111.03ii)
HMS/m
Holland
No.5.
Designated
Site
Assessment
Wessex Archaeology 2007, HMS/m Holland No.5. Designated Site Assessment.
(Ref:53111.03aaa)
Wessex Archaeology
(Ref:57456.02)
2008,
HMS/m
Holland
No.5.
Designated
Site
Assessment
Wessex Archaeology 2008b, Marine Aggregates and the Historic Environment Wrecks
Ecology 2007-08 Final Report (Ref: 57456.02)
Wessex Archaeology 2009,
(Ref:53111.03qqq)
HMS/m
Holland
No.5.
Designated
Site
Assessment
Wessex Archaeology 2012, Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement Methodology Development
and Testing - Holland No. 5 and HMS/m A1 (Ref: 83800.23)
72
Appendix 1:
73
Appendix 2:
74
Appendix 3:
75
Appendix 4:
A photomosaic of the plan
view of the Holland No. 5
submarine in August 2013.
Taken with a Nikon D7000
in video mode © NAS.
76

Condition assessment of the Holland No.5 submarine NATIONAL

Transcription

Similar documents

August 16 Sale Bill

Sharon Holland Flyer2.pptx

neil cowley trio - Christopher Holland`s Cosmic Harmony

6-01-2014webbulletin

QUICK INSTALL GUIDE

Keeping Up With the Joneses

Submarine

NEWSLETTER - Goodwin Kenny

Snapshot EFB – Enterprise File Backup Rack 8b