The Project Gutenberg eBook of Modern shipbuilding and the men engaged in it
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Modern shipbuilding and the men engaged in it
Author: David Pollock
Release date: May 19, 2024 [eBook #73651]
Language: English
Original publication: London: E. & F. N. Spon, 1884
Credits: Peter Becker, John Campbell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MODERN SHIPBUILDING AND THE MEN ENGAGED IN IT ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=.
The fifteen ‘Portraits and Biographical Notes’ have been moved to the
end of the main text, in front of the Footnotes and book catalog.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of the book, after the Portraits.
All changes noted in the ERRATA have been applied to the etext.
A superscript is denoted by ^x, for example C^o or Nath^l.
A subscript is denoted by _{x}, for example B_{1} or D_{3}.
Basic fractions are displayed as ½ ⅓ ¼ etc; other fractions are shown
in the form a/b, for example 1/1000 or 5/16.
The tables in this book are best viewed using a monospace font.
Many minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
[Illustration: S.S. “CITY OF ROME”—ANCHOR LINE.
Macleod and Macdonald Engraver Glasgow]
MODERN SHIPBUILDING
AND
THE MEN ENGAGED IN IT:
A REVIEW OF RECENT PROGRESS IN STEAMSHIP DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION,
TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF NOTABLE
SHIPYARDS, AND STATISTICS OF WORK DONE IN
THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING DISTRICTS.
BY
DAVID POLLOCK,
NAVAL ARCHITECT.
With Portrait and Biographical Notes of Eminent Shipowners,
Shipbuilders, Engineers, and Naval Architects;
also, Views of Notable Ships.
LONDON: E. & F. N. SPON, 125 STRAND.
NEW YORK: 35 MURRAY STREET.
1884.
(_All rights reserved._)
PREFACE.
The great activity in shipbuilding and marine engineering during
recent years, and the substantial progress, both in science and
practice, which has marked the period, have often formed the subject
of articles in the technical and daily press, and of papers read
before professional institutions. So far as I am aware, however, no
single work dealing historically with modern shipbuilding in a way
at once trustworthy and popular, and in a form handy and accessible,
has yet been published. The present work aims at supplying this want.
In undertaking it originally, I felt encouraged by the acceptance
which various articles, contributed to the columns of the _Glasgow
Herald_, _The Engineer_, _The Steamship_, _Iron_, &c., had met with
from many whose good opinion I had reason to value highly. With the
kind permission of the proprietors of the above journals, I have made
use to some extent of the articles in question—but largely amplified
and corrected—in preparing the following pages.
The work is concerned exclusively with shipbuilding for the merchant
marine, and no attempt is made to trace the progress connected with
naval shipbuilding, although some of the many important influences
which the one exerts upon the other have been indicated. Even as
thus defined and restricted, the field of review is so vast that the
limits which I had determined should bound the work with respect to
price, and consequently with respect to size, have compelled me to
treat briefly and in a general way many matters which it might have
been of interest to enlarge upon. The list of authoritative papers
and lectures to which readers can at first hand refer—given at the
end of each chapter—may, it is hoped, compensate to some extent for
these deficiencies.
The book being mainly historical, originality in the strict sense
of the term cannot, of course, be urged for much of the contained
matter; but efforts have been made throughout to present trustworthy
statements of the very latest steps in advance. This is specially
true of the chapter on scientific progress. My object, however,
having been more to enlighten general readers than to seek to
interest or inform professional ones, it is perhaps wanting in the
scientific fulness needed to give it special value, viewed from the
standpoint of the trained naval architect.
While the biographies and portraits given throughout the book may
be considered fairly representative of those who as shipbuilders,
shipowners, naval architects, or marine engineers have made
their influence felt on the world’s mercantile marine during the
period of review, the collection by no means includes all who are
deserving of such notice. The subjects of portraiture are all in
life, and actively engaged in their respective spheres of labour.
The diffidence generally evinced by them in consenting that their
likenesses and the note of their professional career should be
given, has made my task one of difficulty. What may be called the
over-diffidence of a few, originally selected for portraiture, has to
some extent occasioned the incompleteness now commented upon.
As further accounting for the limitations of the present work, I
think it fitting to add that the preparation of the whole book,
including the task of seeing it through the press, has devolved
upon me at a time when the ordinary intervals of respite from daily
business have had to suffice for its accomplishment.
My best thanks are due to those firms and individuals to whom I had
to appeal for statistics and other particulars, for their generally
ready and courteous attention to my requests.
DAVID POLLOCK.
DUMBARTON, _November, 1884_.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
RECENT PROGRESS IN STEAMSHIP CONSTRUCTION.
PAGE
Growth in Dimensions of Steamships—America’s Place in Ocean Traffic—
Shipbuilding in America—Wood _versus_ Iron Shipbuilding—Introduction
of Mild Steel for Shipbuilding—Suitability of Mild Steel for
Shipbuilding—Economical Advantages of Steel Ships—Reduction in Cost
of Mild Steel—Pioneer Steel Steamships—Cellular Bottom Steamships—
Description of Cellular Bottom System—Adoption of Water Ballast—
Spread of Cellular Bottom System—Cellular Bottom Sailing Ships—Minor
Structural Modifications—Cast Steel Stern Frames, Rudders, &c.—
Advantages of Cast Steel Stern Frames, Rudders, &c.—Probable Future
of Steel Castings—List of Papers, &c., bearing on Ship Construction 1
CHAPTER II.
SPEED AND POWER OF MODERN STEAMSHIPS.
Early Atlantic Mail Steamers—Reduction of the Atlantic Passage-time—
Modern Transatlantic Steamships—Fast Atlantic Passages—The Future
of the Atlantic Service—Cape of Good Hope Mail Service—Employment of
Steamers on Long Voyages—Australian Direct Steam Service—New Zealand
Direct Steam Service—Increased Number of High-Speed Steamers—Economy
in Coal Consumption—Construction of Modern Marine Boilers—Improved
Boiler Fittings—Combustion by Forced Draught—Reduced Weight of
Machinery—Triple Expansion Engines—Designs for “Ships of the Future”—
The Future of Ship Propulsion—List of Papers bearing on Speed and
Power of Steamships 27
CHAPTER III.
SAFETY AND COMFORT OF MODERN STEAMSHIPS.
Water-tight Sub-division—Value of Proper Sub-division—Dangers of
Inefficient Sub-division—Merchant Steamers on Admiralty List—Safety
due to Double Bottoms—Safety due to Employment of Steel—Safety as
affected by Construction—Causes of Unseaworthiness—High Qualities of
Ship Construction—Safety due to Articles of Outfit—Improved Nautical
Instruments—Devices for Unsinkable Ships—Devices for Life-Saving—
Comfort on Board Modern Steamships—Comfort as affecting Ship Design—
Improved Saloon Accommodation—Electric Light on Board Ship—Electric
Ship Signal Lights—Ventilation on Board Ship—Improved Systems of
Ventilation—Hydraulic Appliances on Board Ship—The Bessemer Channel
Steamer—The Causes and Alleviation of Sea Sickness—Progress due to
Novelty in Design—List of Papers, &c., bearing on Safety and Comfort
of Ships 51
CHAPTER IV.
PROGRESS IN THE SCIENCE OF SHIPBUILDING.
The Lessons of Disaster—Sources of Scientific Knowledge—Government
Schools of Naval Architecture—Greenwich Royal Naval College—The
Transition from Sail to Steam and from Wood to Iron in Shipbuilding—
Labours of Russell, Rankine, and Froude—Institution of Naval
Architects—Recent Scientific Progress—Outlines of Fundamental
Principles—Shortened Methods of Ship Design—Metacentric Stability—
Atwood’s Stability Theorem—Improvements of Atwood’s Method—Stability
at Light-Draught—Stability Curves at Different Draughts—Cross-Curves
of Stability—Stability Curves by Experiment—Stowage as affecting
Stability—Speed and Power of Steamships—Approximating to Power
Required—Progressive Speed Trials—Curves of Speed and Power, &c.—
Speed Experiments with Models—Froude’s Law of Comparison—Relative
Efficiency of Hull, Engines, and Propellers—Investigations of
Strength of Iron Vessels—Reed’s and John’s Investigations—Strength
Investigations as Affecting Registry Rules—Agencies for Scientific
Education—University Chairs of Naval Architecture—List of Papers on
the Science of Shipbuilding 84
CHAPTER V.
PROGRESS IN METHODS OF SHIPYARD WORK.
Piece-work System in Shipyards—Increased Use of Machinery—Powerful
Punching Machines—Hydraulic Power Machines—Portable Hydraulic
Riveters—Machine Riveting of Shell Plating—Hydraulic Riveting of
Deck Work—Hydraulic Riveting of Beams and Frames—Hydraulic Riveting
of Cellular Bottom Work—Hydraulic Riveting of Keels—Improved
Wood-Working Machinery—Awards to Workmen for Improvements—Lifting
Appliances for Heavy Weights—Improved Means of Transport in
Shipyards—List of Papers bearing on Modern Shipyard Machine Tools,
Appliances, and Methods of Work 129
CHAPTER VI.
DESCRIPTIONS OF SOME NOTABLE SHIPYARDS.
Messrs J. Elder & Co.’s Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Works—
Messrs Denny & Bros.’ Shipbuilding Works—Messrs J. & G. Thomson’s
Shipbuilding and Engineering Works—Palmer Shipbuilding and Iron
Company’s Works—Sir W. G. Armstrong, Mitchell & Co.’s Works—Mr
Laing’s Deptford Shipbuilding Works—The Works of the Barrow
Shipbuilding Company—Relative Output of Tonnage by the largest
Firms 150
CHAPTER VII.
OUTPUT OF TONNAGE IN THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICTS.
Inaccuracy of Tonnage Statistics—Curves of Tonnage Output—Output
in the Clyde District—Output in the Tyne District—Output in the
Wear District—Relative Output in Principal Districts—Statistics
of Steel Tonnage 184
CHAPTER VIII.
THE PRODUCTION OF LARGE STEAMSHIPS.
List of Vessels over 4000 Tons Presently or at one time Afloat—
The Years in which the Production of Large Steamships have been
Greatest—The Individual Share of the several Districts in Producing
Large Steamships 198
APPENDIX.
CALCULATING INSTRUMENTS.
Fuller’s Spiral Slide rule—Amsler’s Polar Fixed-scale Planimeter—
Amsler’s Proportional or Variable-scale Planimeter—Amsler’s
Mechanical Integrator 207
PORTRAITS AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES.
JOHN BURNS, _facing Page_ 2
NATHANIEL DUNLOP, ” ” 12
THOMAS HENDERSON, ” ” 20
WILLIAM PEARCE, ” ” 30
JAMES ANDERSON, ” ” 36
ALEXANDER C. KIRK, ” ” 44
BENJAMIN MARTELL, ” ” 60
WILLIAM H. WHITE, ” ” 86
JOHN INGLIS, JUN., ” ” 106
SIR EDWARD J. REED, ” ” 108
PROF. FRANCIS ELGAR, ” ” 114
WILLIAM DENNY, ” ” 118
WILLIAM JOHN, ” ” 124
CHARLES MARK PALMER, ” ” 172
JAMES LAING, ” ” 178
VIEWS OF NOTABLE STEAMSHIPS.
S.S. “City of Rome,” Anchor Line, _Frontispiece_.
S.S. “Umbria,” Cunard Line, _facing Page_ 6
S.S. “Austral,” Anchor Line, ” ” 36
ERRATA.
PAGE 11.—Thirteenth line from top: for 1883 read 1884.
PAGE 81.—Fourth line from top: for “a single trial” read “one or
two trials.”
PAGE 163.—Fourth line from top: for 1884 read 1845.
PAGE 187.—Third line from top: for “fluctuations” read “fluctuation.”
PAGE 200.—Dimensions of “City of Rome”: for 546 by 52 by 58¾ read
546 by 52 by 38¾.
“Into a ship of the line man has put as much of his human patience,
common sense, forethought, experimental philosophy, self-control
habits of order and obedience, thoroughly wrought handwork,
defiance of brute elements, careless courage, careful patriotism,
and calm expectation of the judgment of God, as can well be put
into a space 300 feet long; by 80 feet broad.”—_Ruskin._
“If any body of men have just cause to feel pride in their calling,
and in the fruits of their labour, shipbuilders have. If we
look at the magnitude of the operations of building, launching,
engining, and completing a modern passenger ship of the first
rank, and regard the multiplicity of the arrangements and beauty
of finish now expected, and then think this structure has to brave
the elements, make regular passages, convey thousands of human
souls, and tens of thousands of tons of merchandise every year
across the ocean, in storm or calm, we cannot but feel that they
are occupied in useful human labour. But more than this, there
is a public sentiment surrounding ships that no other mechanical
structures can command. Beautiful churches, grand buildings, huge
structures of all kinds have a certain interest pertaining to them,
but it is different in kind from that which surrounds a ship.
The former are fixed, immovable, inert; the ship is here to-day
and gone to-morrow, building up a history from day to day with
a reputation as sensitive as a woman’s to calumny, and like her
consequently often a bone of contention as well as an object of
admiration.”—_William John._
MODERN SHIPBUILDING.
CHAPTER I.
RECENT PROGRESS IN STEAMSHIP CONSTRUCTION.
The achievements in shipbuilding and marine engineering within recent
years may be said to borrow lustre from one particular feat of past
times. The _Great Eastern_ undoubtedly furnished, in large measure,
the experience that has recently been causing so great a change in
the tonnage of our mercantile marine. Commercially, as is well known,
that huge vessel—“Brunel’s grand audacity,” she has been called—has
all along proved a lamentable failure. It has been stated on good
authority that between 1853—the year in which the contract for her
was entered into—and the year 1869, no less than one million sterling
had been lost upon her by the various proprietors attempting to
work her. Financially, indeed, she may be said to have proved the
“Devastation” of the mercantile marine. Although at various times in
her long life-time she has unquestionably done most useful service in
sub-marine cable-laying—service, indeed, which, but for her, could
not well have been accomplished—these times of usefulness have been
far outbalanced by her long periods of inactivity.
Apart from commercial considerations, however, this premier leviathan
still stands out as a wonder and pattern of naval construction.
In her admirably-conceived and splendidly-wrought structural
arrangements—due to the joint labours of the late Mr I. K. Brunel
and Mr J. Scott Russell—she possesses as successful an embodiment
of the dual quality of “strength-with-lightness” as can be found in
any subsequent ocean-going merchant ship. She was, if not the first,
certainly the greatest embodiment of the longitudinal system of
construction, and in virtue of this, as well as of her phenomenal
proportions, she represents, alone, more of the intrepidity and skill
essential to thorough progress, than are exhibited by combined hosts
of the “departures” of recent times.
Despite the far-reaching views of the eminent designer, those
changes which have since taken place in the essential conditions for
successful ocean navigation eluded his vision. Owing to the opening
of coal mines in almost all parts of the world, it is now no longer
necessary nor desirable that a steamer should be capable of carrying
coals for a return voyage, either from India or Australia—this being
the dominant and regulating condition in the _Great Eastern’s_
design. Further, the improvements in marine engineering, represented
by the greater possible economies in coal consumption and the
fuller utilization of steam, which have since been effected, have
rendered the great ship inefficient and obsolete. In short, Brunel
and his financial supporters were ahead of their time, and failed to
appreciate the law of progress, now better understood—“invention must
wait on experience.”
The urgent demands of our broader civilisation, improvements in
navigation, the spread of population in new colonies and over wider
continents, and, above all, the fresh accessions of experience and
invention, are forces which now impel shipowners to increase the
dimensions of their vessels, and shipbuilders to carry out the work.
Each year the contrasts as to dimensions between the first leviathan
and her later sister grow less and less. The completion within the
past few years of such monster merchant ships as the _Servia_, the
_City of Rome_, the _Alaska_, and the _Oregon_, and the forward state
of the _Etruria_ and _Umbria_, two remarkable steamships, building
on the Clyde for the Cunard Company, constitute an epoch in the
history of our mercantile marine, and give colourable justification
to the belief sometimes expressed, that the proportions of the _Great
Eastern_ will in time be surpassed.
The feasibility—in a scientific sense—of ships growing in proportions
commensurate with the growth of commerce and traffic, has often
been commented upon. The whole tendency of our time is towards the
aggregation of effort: the massing of capital and labour. A
vessel of five thousand tons can be built cheaper than five vessels
of one thousand tons. In the manning and working of ships there is
a still more striking economy, _e.g._, one captain instead of five,
and so on throughout the staff of officers, engineers, stewards, and
crew. Not only so, but long ships can be propelled at greater speeds
than short ones, the whole conditions of construction, engines, and
propellers being considered. Mr Robert Duncan, in his presidential
address before the Society of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Glasgow
in 1872, declared:—“Looking forward one generation, and measuring
the future by the past, I think it is not problematical that we
shall see steamers of eight hundred feet long the ferryboats of two
oceans, with America for their central station, and Europe and Asia
for their working termini.” Even since that was uttered, eleven years
ago, we have approached, in solid practice, the limit thus laid down,
by 150 feet at least. Three years previous to Mr Duncan’s address,
vessels exceeding four hundred feet were not afloat, with the notable
exception already referred to; now, there are few merchant fleets of
any pretensions engaged in ocean traffic which do not include vessels
over or approaching four hundred feet, and it is even no great boast
that vessels close on six hundred feet are afloat and in active
service.
As better illustrating the growth in dimensions of merchant
steamships, the Figs. on the following page may prove interesting.
They show, all to the same scale, a number of representative steam
vessels from the _Comet_ downwards.
[Illustration: “COMET,” 1812.
“ELIZABETH,” 1813.
“INDUSTRY,” 1814.
“CALEDONIA,” 1815.
“ROB ROY,” 1818.
“JAMES WATT,” 1822.
“SIRIUS,” 1837.
“GREAT BRITAIN,” 1843.
“CITY OF GLASGOW,” 1850.
“GREAT EASTERN,” 1857.
“SCOTIA,” 1861.
“COLUMBA,” 1878.
“ARIZONA,” 1876.
“SERVIA,” 1881.
“CITY OF ROME,” 1881.]
Along with the change or evolution in the sizes and types of merchant
vessels, important modifications in their structural arrangement have
of late years been effected, and it is to the constant progress being
made in these matters—to the skill and intrepidity which are brought
to bear on their execution, and to the readiness with which our
shipowners recognise their importance and value—that the maintenance
of our mercantile supremacy is largely owing. An American journal,
writing a few years ago on this subject—perhaps with more of taunt
for the conceit and self-sufficiency evinced by its own country than
of adulation for the ability and enterprise displayed by ours—said:—
“In the whole world there is no place whatever that can in any
degree compare with the Clyde for either extent or quality of
steamship building; and at this moment an indisputable verification
can be adduced, for between American and European ports there are
at the present time something like a score of steam navigation
companies, doing an immense passenger and carrying trade, with
vessels of great power and magnificence, and notwithstanding the
variety of trade nationalities, at least two-thirds of the vessels
employed were built and equipped on the Clyde; and more—unless
there has very recently been a change, there is not an American
steam company in the whole Atlantic trade. With a run of about
fifty years to try it, and after many unsuccessful attempts, the
Americans have utterly failed to sustain permanent competition.
All the British companies have prospered beyond any probable
anticipation clothed with reason. The Cunard Company, starting
with four vessels some forty years ago, have now twenty times that
number. What is this something which enables Europeans to so far
outstrip the Americans in a competitive traffic so as to exclude
them from the merest show in the largest steam trade in the world?
A baneful, overweening, and ignorantly selfish conceit invariably
leads to disastrous results, and a nation given over to the
fulmination of concentrated boast cannot fail to be suffocated with
foolery of its own making.”
This is doubtless the outcome of a vicious antipathy—natural in the
circumstances—to those stringent and over-reaching laws which forbid
that ships built away from America shall sail under the American
flag, or enjoy the pertaining privileges. American shipbuilders thus
secured from the encroaches of foreign competition, have enjoyed
their own pace, but at too great a sacrifice. Preferring to take
the material most at hand, the manipulation of which they well
understood, they have allowed their wood age to be dove-tailed thirty
years into our iron one, with the other result that America now
occupies as unimportant a place in the traffic of the sea, as the
above quotation indicates.
Evidences are not wanting, however, to show that America is at least
endeavouring, in some respects, to be abreast of the times, and that
she has brought herself to acknowledge and follow the lead of this
country. In this connection, the four new vessels presently being
constructed for the U.S. Navy may be shortly referred to. The vessels
comprise three cruisers and one despatch boat, all of which are being
built by Mr John Roach, of Chester, Pa., the material employed in
their construction being mild steel of American manufacture. Twin
screws will be employed for the propulsion of the largest vessel—the
_Chicago_—which is to be 315 feet long between perpendiculars, 48
feet beam, and 34 feet 9 inches moulded depth to spar deck. The other
vessels are the _Boston_ and the _Atalanta_, single screw cruisers of
270 feet length; and the _Dolphin_, single screw despatch boat, of
250 feet length and high speed.
In almost every feature except machinery these new American naval
vessels strongly resemble Government vessels of recent British build,
a circumstance for which there is little difficulty in accounting,
as it is well known the naval authorities in the States have within
recent times been recruited by young American naval architects
educated in our Naval College at Greenwich, and consequently steeped
in British naval practice. This and other facts, such as the visit
of a technical commissioner of the States’ navy, two years ago, to
our naval and mercantile shipyards—upon which he has since fully
reported—leave one in no doubt as to the source of coincidence in
design and structure.
[Illustration: S.S. UMBRIA.—CUNARD LINE.
LENGTH, 500 ft. 0 in.
BREADTH, 57 ft. 0 in.
DEPTH, 40 ft. 0 in.
TONNAGE (GROSS), 7,718 tons.
BUILT BY MESSRS ELDER & CO., 1884.]
The subject of America’s position as a shipbuilding and shipowning
country has involved reference to wood shipbuilding, but to revert
at any length to this topic in a work dealing with modern progress
in British shipbuilding, the bulk of which is written of and for
industrial and commercial centres where wood shipbuilding has been
long entirely tabooed, is quite unnecessary. Doubtless, however,
the amount of wood and composite building still carried on in the
minor seaports of the United Kingdom, and in several of the British
possessions, is of sufficient importance to demand some reference. As
the present position of affairs in this connection is briefly and
forcibly illustrated by statistics compiled and issued by the British
Iron Trade Association, two tables taken from this source may be
given, the subject thereafter being finally departed from:—
_Tonnage of Vessels constructed and registered in the United
Kingdom of Iron, Steel, and Wood respectively, in each of the years
1879 to 1883, with Percentage of Total Tonnage constructed in Iron
and Steel._
+-------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| | Gross Tonnage of Vessels built of |
| +-------------------+---------------+-------------------+
| Year. | Iron and Steel. | Wood. | Excess Tonnage in |
| | | | Iron and Steel. |
+-------+-------------------+---------------+-------------------+
| 1879 | 484,636 | 26,186 | 458,450 |
| 1880 | 525,568 | 19,938 | 505,630 |
| 1881 | 730,686 | 18,107 | 712,579 |
| 1882 | 913,519 | 14,850 | 898,669 |
| 1883 | 1,012,735 | 15,202 | 997,533 |
+-------+-------------------+---------------+-------------------+
|Totals,| 3,667,144 | 94,283 | 3,572,861 |
+-------+-------------------+---------------+-------------------+
_Tonnage of Wooden Vessels registered in the United Kingdom which
were Lost, Broken up, &c., during each of the years 1879 to 1883,
with Tonnage of Wooden Vessels built and registered in the United
Kingdom during the same period._
+-------+----------------------------+-------------------+
| | Tonnage of Wooden Vessels. | Excess of Vessels |
| Year. +-------------+--------------+ lost over those |
| | Lost. | Built. | built. |
+-------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+
| 1879 | 149,828 | 26,186 | 123,642 |
| 1880 | 173,065 | 19,938 | 153,127 |
| 1881 | 170,283 | 18,107 | 152,176 |
| 1882 | 166,809 | 14,850 | 151,959 |
| 1883 | 144,138 | 15,202 | 128,936 |
+-------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+
|Totals,| 804,123 | 94,283 | 709,840 |
+-------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+
Whence it appears that while 709,840 tons of the 1,779,112 tons
of ships removed from the register during the last five years
were wooden vessels, only 94,283 tons of the 3,667,144 tons built
and registered in the United Kingdom during the same period
were constructed of that material. In other words, wooden ships
represent 45 per cent. of the total losses, while they only
represent 2·5 per cent. of the total tonnage built and added to the
register during the five years in question.
Just as the introduction or general adoption of the compound
engine marked an epoch in the history of shipbuilding and marine
propulsion, so now the introduction of “mild steel” or “ingot
iron” as a material for shipbuilding, together with the more
extended adoption of water ballast, and the rapid development of the
continuous-cellular system of construction, may be said to constitute
a fresh starting point in the history of the industry.
Although the introduction of steel as a material for shipbuilding
dates at least as far back as 1860, its use has been but partial
or occasional until within very recent times. The uncertainty as
to quality, the frequent great disparity between pieces cut from
the same plate, and the special care needed in the manipulation,
prevented its general adoption. With the highly-improved “mild
steel,” however, first manufactured in France, and applied to
shipbuilding purposes there about nine years ago, and subsequently
introduced into this country, began the more extended adoption of
steel, which every day, or with every accession to experience, is
displacing iron.
The facts relating to the introduction into this country of mild
steel for shipbuilding purposes, may be briefly recounted. In the
latter end of 1874, Admiral Sir W. Houston Stewart, Controller of
the British Navy, and Mr N. Barnaby, Director of Naval Construction,
availed themselves of the opportunity to observe and study the use
of steel in the French dockyards of Lorient and Brest, where three
first-class armour-plated vessels were then being built of steel
throughout, supplied from the works at Creusot and Terrenoire. Mr
Barnaby, at the meetings of the Institution of Naval Architects in
March following, gave an account of his observations during this
visit, and pointed out clearly and precisely to the steel-makers of
Great Britain all the indispensable conditions which would have to be
met and satisfied by steel for shipbuilding, so that it could be used
with confidence in the construction of the largest vessels. Before
the end of 1875, the Landore-Siemens Company was enabled to fulfil
these conditions, and the Admiralty contracted with them to supply
the plates and angles necessary for the construction of two cruisers
of high speed—the _Iris_ and the _Mercury_. The material involved
in this contract was steel obtained by the Siemens-Martin process.
Shortly after this the Bolton Steel Company was in its turn able to
produce by the Bessemer process plates and angles, satisfying all
the requisite conditions. The Steel Company of Scotland, Butterly
Company, and other important works, also entered into the same
business, and operations are still going on in various parts of the
country connected with the formation of new works, and the perfecting
of other processes.
The steel furnished by these different works, subjected as it
has been to systematic and severe tests continually applied, is
now possessed of the qualities of ductility, malleability, and
homogeneity, which render its employment in shipbuilding not only
permissible but highly desirable. Its good and reliable qualities
have been admitted by the Constructors of the Navy, the Officers of
the Board of Trade, of Lloyd’s, and of the Liverpool Registries, as
well as by all the most competent authorities. The experience of all
who have practical dealings with the material in the shipyard is
that it entirely satisfies—even more than iron—all the requirements
of easy manipulation. The confidence with which it can be relied on,
as to its certain and uniform qualities, places it on a much higher
level than the steel formerly manufactured; and its superiority over
the best wrought-iron as regards strength and ductility renders it a
highly preferable material.
While doubt exists, however, as to the adoption of steel for
shipbuilding being commercially advantageous; there must be hesitancy
on the part of shipowners and others concerned. Although, since its
introduction, mild steel has been greatly reduced in price, the
first cost of a steel ship is still somewhat over that of an iron
one, even after the reduction in weight of material is made, which
the superiority of steel permits of. It has been shown that, about
two years ago, a spar-decked steamer, of 4,000 tons gross, built in
steel, as against a similar vessel built in iron, entailed an excess
in cost of £3,570. The advantages, however, which accrue from the
change, both immediate and in the long run, make the gain clear and
considerable. Steel ships have been built with scantlings reduced
one-fourth or one-third, and in some early cases even _one-half_,
from what would have been considered requisite had iron been
employed. Some authorities, not unnaturally, questioned the wisdom
of accrediting steel with all the qualities which make such sweeping
reductions justifiable. Except in vessels for river or passenger
service, however, this is much in advance of the reductions obtained
in ordinary modern practice.
The reductions allowed in vessels built to Lloyd’s requirements—and
it cannot be urged that this society is too reckless in concessions
of this nature—are 20 per cent. in scantling, and 18 per cent. in
weight. As it is impossible to adjust the scantlings of material
to take the full advantage of these reductions, and further, as
allowance has to be made for extra weight due to the continued use
of iron in vessels of steel—for purposes not essential to structural
character—the average weight-saving effected in practice is about
13 to 14 per cent. This represents, in the finished vessel, a clear
increase of at least 13 per cent. in dead-weight carrying power. The
gain obtained in general practice has been otherwise stated on good
authority as 7 to 7½ per cent. of the gross tonnage.
In trades where there is constancy of dead-weight cargoes, this
increase in dead-weight carrying power should speedily recoup
the owners for extra first cost, and in the life-time of vessels
generally, a clear pecuniary gain should result. In trades, however,
where the cargo consists of measurement goods, the advantages are not
so decided, for it may sometimes happen that before vessels have been
loaded to their maximum draught the limits of stowage will have been
reached. Even here, however, the steel vessel has the advantage of
her iron rival; her hull is 13 per cent. lighter, and consequently
may be propelled at a given speed with much less expenditure
of power, and has the further advantage—often a very important
one—of a shallower draught. This latter consideration alone, in a
service where every iota of such saving counts, has influenced many
shipowners to adopt the steel.
As the manufacture of mild steel progresses and extends, the
assimilation of the rival materials as to cost is sure to follow.
Already very great advances have been made towards this end, the
fact being abundantly evidenced by the greatly increased number of
steel ships on hand, and by the establishment of new works, and
transformation of old, for the better production of the new material.
In 1877 mild steel was about twice as costly as the iron in common
use. The sources of supply, however, were then comparatively few, and
the thorough and severe testing to which the new material had to be
subjected, necessarily increased the cost relatively to iron, which
has never been subjected to the same rigorous ordeal. In 1880, owing
to the increased sources of supply and the progress in manufacture,
the cost of steel had been reduced, relatively to iron, by about
50 per cent. At the time of writing (March, 1884), the price of
steel for a good-sized vessel is—overhead—about seven pounds, seven
shillings and sixpence per ton; while the corresponding figure for
iron is about five pounds, five shillings, or a difference of only
about twenty-nine per cent. in favour of the older material.
Doubts were at first expressed by not a few, regarding the durability
of steel ships compared with those of iron, such misgivings being
aggravated by the thinness of the steel plating. This fear is being
gradually lessened by the results of laboratory experiments and
_bona fide_ experience—the broad deduction from which is, that the
deterioration of steel, under the action of sea water, is no greater
than that of iron, and that, if the same care and constancy in
cleaning and painting, common to ships of the latter material, be
extended to ships of the former, their durability will be equal.
Several large shipowning companies were not slow to place faith in
the new material. In the early part of 1879, the “Allan Line” Company
entrusted to Messrs Denny & Brothers, of Dumbarton, the order for a
huge vessel, which the intrepid confidence of the principal partners
in both the owning and the building firms determined should be of
mild steel, be bound with steel rivets, and have her boilers of
the same material. This was the large steamer _Buenos Ayrean_, the
first transatlantic steamer built with the new material. She was
finished early in 1880, and had not been over nine months in the
water when the order for a second and still larger steel vessel—the
_Parisian_—had been given by the same owners to Clyde builders. The
Union Steamship Company of New Zealand, the Pacific Steam Navigation
Company, Messrs Donald Currie & Co., and several smaller companies,
ordered vessels of steel almost simultaneously, while yet the new
material was in the early stage of trial. Amongst the orders for
steel vessels which were subsequently given, the _Servia_ and
_Catalonia_, for the Cunard Company; the _Clyde_ and _Thames_ and
_Shannon_ for the Peninsular and Oriental Company; the _India_, for
the British India Company; the _Arabic_ and _Coptic_, for the Oceanic
Steam Navigation Company, and the four twin screw steamers of the
“Hill” Line, represent the principals. The companies who then adopted
the new material have mostly continued to have their new ships built
of steel, and to name the vessels since built and now building
in which this material is employed, would simply be to enumerate
three-fourths the fleet of high-class modern merchant ships. There
were 21,000 tons of steel shipping built throughout the United
Kingdom in 1879; 36,000 in 1880; 55,000 in 1881; 126,000 in 1882; and
over 244,000 in 1883. It is computed that at the present time the
amount of steel shipbuilding going on throughout the kingdom is not
less than 175,000 tons, or the largest amount on hand at any one time
since its introduction.
* * * * *
The modification in the structural arrangement of ocean trading
vessels, already spoken of as the continuous-cellular system,
although only within very recent times receiving extended adoption in
the mercantile marine, possesses in some of its essential features
the prestige of years. So long ago as 1854, Mr Scott Russell strongly
advocated the principle of longitudinal construction, and applied
it in practice to ships of the mercantile marine, to the success
of which, in a scientific sense, the _Great Eastern_ is surely
overwhelming testimony. The principle met with much scientific favour
from many besides Mr Russell, but it did not take root in solid
practice. Pecuniary and other kinds of considerations interposed
to prevent its general adoption. The urgency for increase in the
size of vessels was not such as to make longitudinal strength (the
special advantage claimed for the new principle) a great desideratum;
and there was perhaps reluctance on the part of shipbuilders to
relinquish time-tried and familiar methods. The system presently
under notice—although, as has already been said, the same, in its
main principles, as the system then advocated—by its descent through
the Admiralty Dockyards, by its application to merchant vessels—first
of East Coast, and then of Clyde build—and by its close association
with water ballast, has undergone many modifications which almost
constitute it a creation of recent times.
Sir Edward J. Reed, when Chief Constructor of the Navy, introduced
the bracket frame system of construction into iron-clad ships of war,
and, as already indicated, it is largely owing to the experience
of the system as applied and practised in such cases—conjointly,
of course, with its successful introduction in the case of the
_Great Eastern_—that in so short a time it has reached the present
structural perfection, and received such wide extension in merchant
steamships. That it has recently received such wide adoption in the
mercantile marine is due not so much to its structural advantages—and
these are great—as to the way in which it lends itself to the
economical working of steamships in actual service. This will be
more explicitly referred to after some description of the system as
applied in merchant ships has been given.
It is somewhat away from the field this work is concerned with, to
trace the system in its stages of development in ships of war, but it
may be said, shortly, that the impulse which the system has received
in the mercantile marine has in no sense been a transference of the
activity which at all times since its introduction has characterised
the application of the system to the vessels built in our naval yards.
In order to assist the non-technical reader in appreciating what
follows regarding the system in merchant ships, a general idea of
the cellular bottom principle of construction is afforded by Fig. 1.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.]
This shows in section the bottom part of a vessel amidships, fitted
with a double or inner skin, extending across the ship from bilge to
bilge, and there connected in a watertight manner to the outer bottom
plating. A series of longitudinal plates are worked, fore and aft;
set vertically between the outer skin of the vessel and the plating
of the inner bottom, and connected thereto by continuous angles.
Between these “longitudinals,” and at every alternate transverse
frame, deep plate floors, lightened with oval holes, are fitted,
connected to outer skin by the angle frame, and to inner bottom
plating by pieces of angles corresponding to the vessel’s “reverse
frames.” These floor plates are, in addition, connected by vertical
angles to the longitudinals. Intermediate between the deep plate
floors simple angle bar transverse frames and reverse frames are
fitted, to give support to the outer skin and to the inner bottom
respectively. Until recently, the deep floors consisted of “gusset”
or “bracket” plates, each division being fitted in four separate
pieces, the whole taking the form as shown in dotted outline. This
practice is still most largely followed, but in those yards which are
equipped with large hydraulic punching machines for piercing holes
such as are shown in Fig. 1, the solid floors have superseded the
bracket or four-piece floors, the change effecting a simplification
of work and decided structural advantages.
With the employment of water as a substitute for dry or rubble
ballast, the structural movement under notice may be said primarily
to have begun. This movement has resulted in the present approved
system, which, at the same time that it has regard to water-ballast
with all its attendant advantages, most happily combines the
important qualities of increased strength and security. The need
for ballast in vessels whose service generally comprises “light” as
well as “loaded” runs (as in the coal trade between Newcastle and
London), or in trades where the full complement can only be obtained
by shifting from port to port, is obviously great. It is doubtless to
needs such as these, more than to any demand for increased structural
strength, that the introduction and extended application of the
longitudinal and bracket-plate principle is owing.
The screw-steamer _Sentinel_, built in 1860 by Messrs Palmer of
Jarrow, Newcastle-on-Tyne, is mentioned by some authorities as
embodying some of the main features of the longitudinal and cellular
bottom system, and the screw-steamers _Scio_ and _Assyria_, of 1440
tons, built in 1874 by Messrs Westerman, near Genoa, have been
noticed in a similar connection. The next vessel, in point of time,
which contained features answering to the system now in vogue, and
from the date of whose production the movement has been almost
constantly progressive, was the screw-steamer _Fenton_, built by
Messrs Austin & Hunter, of Sunderland, in 1876.
Clyde builders were not slow to recognise the value of the system in
its application to water-ballast steamers, and almost immediately
some of the more intrepid of their number began to advocate its
adoption, but with some modifications, in vessels then being
contracted for. Mr John Inglis, jun., of Messrs A. & J. Inglis,
Pointhouse, Glasgow, submitted to Lloyd’s Registry in March, 1878,
the scantling section of some cellular bottom vessels, then in
project, which contained several of the improvements introduced in
subsequent practice. Messrs William Denny & Brothers, of Dumbarton,
at the same time took up the principle, and have since actively
applied it to steamers of every character in which water-ballast is
a desideratum. Adopting it, five years ago, in four sister vessels
for the British India Steam Navigation Coy., they subsequently raised
the important issue with the Board of Trade regarding the tonnage
measurement of these vessels. This august body insisted on computing
the register tonnage—the figure upon which the tonnage dues are
levied—not to the top of the inner bottom, but to an imaginary line
half-way down the cellular space—in fact, to where the line of floor
would have been if constructed in the ordinary fashion. Messrs Denny
maintained, in effect, that as the register tonnage was meant to be
a measure of the space available for cargo, the top of the ceiling
on the inner bottom was the only equitable line of measurement. The
principal reason for the Board seeking to pursue this course seems to
have lain in the supposition that owners would endeavour to use the
double bottom for cargo-carrying purposes. An ambiguity in the words
of the Merchant Shipping Act, or their inapplicability to present day
practice, were other possible elements in the case, but doubtless the
red-tapeism and self-sufficiency characteristic of the Board had much
to do with their action. This is borne out by the fact that although
the Messrs Denny succeeded in their plea with respect to vessels
having structural cellular bottoms, the absurd practice is still
followed in cases where the bottom is fitted for water ballast on the
girder principle, _i.e._—the inner bottom fitted upon fore and aft
runners or girders, erected on floors of the ordinary description, as
shown in Fig. 2.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.]
This formed, and still forms in many places, a very common
arrangement for water ballast steamers, although not so inherent a
feature of the vessel’s structure as the continuous-cellular bottom.
In most cases this system is fitted only for part of the length, and
not, like the cellular system, applied throughout the whole length of
the ship. If it was impossible for the Board of Trade to hold by the
contention that cargo might be carried in bottoms of the structural
cellular type, it is equally untenable in the case of bottoms such as
are now referred to. The difference between the two kinds of ballast
bottoms is one merely of construction, and if any one of the two
lends itself to cargo-carrying purposes, it is certainly the cellular
system. The anomaly is sufficiently striking to merit attention, and
in certain districts where the girder system is largely adopted for
medium-sized vessels, it is felt as nothing short of an injustice,
both by shipowners and builders.
The concession or victory won by Messrs Denny removed a serious
hindrance to the spread and general adoption of the water ballast
cellular system. Other Clyde firms at the same time—or at least soon
after the adoption of the system by the Messrs Denny—took the matter
up and independently did much towards the popularisation of the
cellular mode of construction. Speaking in the early part of 1880,
Mr William John, of Lloyd’s Registry, now General Manager with the
Barrow Shipbuilding Company, said:—“At the time Mr Martell read his
paper on water-ballast steamers before the autumn meeting of this
Institution (Naval Architects) at Glasgow, in 1877, there had been
only two or three small steamers built (since Mr Scott Russell’s
early ones) on the longitudinal principle. Now, it is within the
mark to say there are one hundred steamers, built and building,
whose bottoms are constructed on the longitudinal principle, or
what is better described as the cellular system, amounting probably
to 200,000 tons, and it is not outside the bounds of probability
that a very few years will see the majority of merchant steamers
constructed in this manner.” Mr John’s connection with Lloyd’s at
the time, entitled his statements and opinions with regard to the
prevalency and prospects of cellular construction to be accepted with
every assurance, for it is in such Societies as Lloyd’s where the
best consensus of information regarding the extent and tendencies of
particular types of vessels can be obtained. In point of fact, the
intervening period has witnessed, in great measure, a realisation of
Mr John’s forecast. The advantages of a cellular bottom as regards
safety, and for the purpose of ballasting and trimming vessels,
also as meeting the greater need for longitudinal strength caused
by the enormous growth in the size of vessels, have received that
appreciation from shipowners and shipbuilders which is their due.
The practice has accordingly spread, till now, it would not be rash
to say, quite as many of the ocean-trading steamers being built are
fitted with cellular bottoms as are without them.
The adaptation of water ballast to sailing vessels, as well as to
steamers, has received consideration at the hands of both Tyne and
Clyde builders. Previous to 1877, several small sailing ships were
built on the Tyne, in which provision was made for water ballast in
tanks entering into the structure of the bottom, but erected over
the ordinary plate floors. About 150 tons of water ballast were
carried by these vessels, the filling and discharge of the tanks
being effected by Downton’s pumps, worked by the crew. The trade
in which they were engaged—_i.e._—carrying coal from the Tyne to
Spanish ports, and back to this country with ore—was one in which
the introduction of water ballast proved commercially and otherwise
most advantageous. Two years subsequently Messrs A. M‘Millan & Son,
Dumbarton, introduced water ballast into one of the largest class of
sailing vessels then being built. Unlike previous sailing ships with
provision for water ballast, however, the vessel was constructed on
the structural cellular bottom principle, having bracket floors and
continuous girders, as so generally approved in steamships. Capacity
for water ballast, to the extent of over 300 tons was thus provided,
the filling and discharge being effected by a special donkey engine,
supplied with steam from a large donkey boiler. The boiler also
furnished the motive power for cargo winches, off which, by crank
gear, the manual labour pumps were also brought into requisition.
Facilities for the expeditious management of ballast—the want of
which, in sailing vessels, considerably hinders its adoption—were
thus, in this case, efficiently provided. Several other sailing
ships, built by Messrs A. M‘Millan & Son, and by other shipbuilding
firms on the Clyde, have been fitted with this system, and the result
of experience with these vessels in actual service, thoroughly
encourages its more general adoption.
* * * * *
Many minor, yet aggregately important, structural features which are
products of the progressive movement of recent years, or are simply
revivals of old devices which were “untimely born,” still call for
some notice. As a necessary consequence of the growth in dimensions
and the change in relative proportions of vessels, greater regard has
been paid to the systems of construction in which the longitudinal
principle is involved. This, of course, is evidenced by what has been
said of the cellular bottom system, but various minor structural
features associated with the cellular bottom are also noteworthy in
this connection. It is the practice, for instance, where large ships
are concerned, to fit side stringers in the holds, throughout the
entire length, made intercostal with regard to transverse plate or
web-frames occurring at intervals of 16 or 20 feet, which extend from
the bilge to the main deck. This arrangement—an outline of which may
be found to the right of the section shown as Fig. 1—possesses many
structural advantages, and finds additional favour with shipowners on
account of its leaving a clearer hold for stowage by obviating the
use of transverse hold beams.
Regard for transverse strength has increasingly evinced itself in
the fitting of various kinds of plate side stiffeners or partial
bulkheads. This is well exemplified in a very recent case—that of
the National Company’s steamship _America_, built by Messrs J. &
G. Thomson. This vessel, having been constructed independent of
any special Registry Rules, embodies structural features not common
amongst vessels in which such rules are undeviatingly conformed
to. The system referred to, of plate frames or partial bulkheads,
is one of the most conspicuous of these features. Throughout the
length of the vessel, at intervals of about 18 feet, transverse plate
stiffeners or frames, extending from the shell inwards about 4 feet,
take the place of the ordinary angle frames, and are continuous from
floors to upper deck, the stringers and other longitudinal features
being scored through them. The surplus transverse strength resulting
from this system is such as amply to compensate for uncommonly
large breaches made in the deck beams and plating for light and
air purposes in the saloons. This is a very special feature in the
interior arrangement of the _America_, and will be referred to
further on. The regard for transverse strength, again, conjointly
with the increased attention to minute watertight sub-division,
has led to the fitting of a greater number of complete watertight
transverse bulkheads, relatively to the lengths of vessels.
In vessels of extreme proportions the method of forming shells
two-ply, or of fitting all the shell plates edge to edge with outside
covering-strakes over the fore-and-aft joints, has been recently
revived and much improved. The system, although very expensive,
has been adopted in vessels for the Anchor Line by Messrs D. & W.
Henderson, Glasgow, and subsequently on even a more extensive scale
by the Barrow Shipbuilding Company.
* * * * *
Affecting the structural character of modern ships very materially,
but the result chiefly of an economy in labour, riveting by machine
power has received a wonderfully extended application within recent
years. Structurally, as well as commercially, the system has played a
large part in the progressive movement under review. By its means the
strength of united parts has been enhanced through the increase of
their frictional resistance, and through the rigidity of joints,
due to the more thorough filling of the rivet holes. The subject of
hydraulic or machine power riveting will, however, receive fuller
treatment in a subsequent chapter.
* * * * *
Within the past two or three years cast steel stems, stern-frames,
and rudders, have been taking the place of forged iron work in ship
construction. The practicability of manufacturing these of such
strength and homogeneity as would meet the needs of ship construction
even better than the ordinary forged work, had occurred some five
or six years ago to several engaged in the steel trade. Mr J. F.
Hall, of Messrs William Jessop & Sons, Limited, Sheffield, had the
subject under consideration about that period, and actually made
several small stern posts and rudders for steam yachts and launches.
The advantages of solid and uniform steel castings over iron
forgings—which, with their many weldings, so often prove inefficient
when subject to any sudden shock—were even then rightly enough
appreciated. It was only, however, after patents had been taken out
by Messrs Cooke & Mylchreest, of Liverpool, for various devices
connected with the actual fitting of such features to the ship’s
structure—amongst other things the hanging of rudders without pintles
or gudgeons—that the manufacture of cast steel stern-frames, rudders,
&c., was seriously proceeded with.
In July, 1882, the Steel Company of Scotland (Limited), who are the
manufacturers in Scotland of Messrs Cooke & Mylchreest’s patent form
of rudders and stern-frames, successfully cast a stern-frame—the
first of large size, it is believed, made for actual use in the
construction of a steamer. In April of the same year, however,
Messrs William Jessop & Sons (Limited), of Sheffield, had exhibited
a crucible cast steel stern-frame and rudder of their manufacture,
at the Naval and Sub-Marine Exhibition, held in London. These large
castings, along with others, were subjected to a series of tests in
the presence of Lloyd’s inspectors and other authorities, such as
the forged frames and rudders ordinarily fitted would not have come
through without severe damage, yet all of which the steel castings
withstood most thoroughly.
Testimony to the efficiency of these new features in ship
construction has already been furnished from the arena of actual
experience, by the recent grounding of two steamers in which these
features had been introduced. The screw-steamer _Euripides_, a
Liverpool-owned vessel of about 1780 tons gross, completed in May,
1883, by Messrs Caird & Purdie, of Barrow, some time ago ran upon a
reef of boulders, and remained thumping heavily for several hours.
At the time she was laden with a full cargo of grain, which was
afterwards delivered in perfect condition. The cast steel stem
and stern-frame, which were manufactured by the Steel Company of
Scotland, were practically without damage, notwithstanding that
serious indentations were made in them. The stem, although receiving
the full force of resistance, was not perceptibly altered in shape,
and competent judges who inspected the damage in dock were of opinion
that the stem, with its superior attachments, in all probability
saved the vessel from total loss. The rudder on the _Euripides_ is
of solid cast steel, in one piece, and hung without pintles, and
in a manner involving little or no riveting. In this, as in the
other features, the immunity from serious damage testifies to the
efficiency and durability of the steel castings. The second case of
grounding referred to is that of the screw-steamer _Strathnairn_,
of 400 tons, belonging to Messrs James Hay & Sons, of Glasgow;
one of two vessels built by Messrs Burrell & Son, of Dumbarton,
in which cast steel stern-frames and rudders were adopted. This
vessel got aground while off Harrington, on the north-west coast
of England, about the latter end of March of the present year. Her
stern-frame sustained very considerable shock: such, indeed, as
no ordinary forged work could possibly have undergone with like
result. Subsequent docking showed that it would only be necessary to
straighten the frame at the deflected portions in order to make it
again structurally efficient. This was done, and the vessel is again
actively engaged in service.
The weldless stern-frames, rudders, and stems, as patented by Messrs
Cooke & Mylchreest, Liverpool, and manufactured for them by the Steel
Company of Scotland, Messrs Jessop & Sons, Sheffield, and Messrs John
Spencer & Sons, Newcastle, have various advantageous features which
may be noticed somewhat fully. One of these is the casting of flanges
on the stern-posts, for attaching the shell plates to; by which
arrangement much of the difficult and costly work in the riveting and
fitting of the shell plates at these parts is done away with, while
a considerable increase of strength is obtained. The solid rudder
is a great improvement on the built rudder as usually fitted; the
entire absence of rivets being an important desideratum. The rivets
connecting the rudder-plates to the frame-forging are frequently a
source of trouble and annoyance, through their being loosened by the
constant vibration of the rudder, and the shocks it often receives.
The heads of the rivets not unfrequently drop off, and the rivets
themselves sometimes fall completely out. All this, of course, is
entirely obviated in the solid rudder. By Messrs Cooke & Mylchreest’s
improved method of fitting the rudder—a device which is only
applicable in a casting—pintles are wholly dispensed with, and in
their place a much stronger joint is substituted, with a considerably
increased wearing surface. The rudder is also jointed at the top of
the blade, by means of strong flanges bolted together; an obvious
advantage of this arrangement being that it can be readily unshipped,
even when afloat.
In addition to the stern-frames, stems, and rudders, there are, also
being supplied, keels, garboard strakes, and centre keelsons in long
lengths. It is claimed for these that as the keel, garboard strake,
keelson, and brackets for connecting the floors, are all made in one
piece, they are much stronger than as ordinarily constructed, and
that a considerable saving in both labour and rivets is effected. As
there are no angle irons to contend with, the limber-holes may be
made close to the bottom plating, and a much thinner layer of cement
will, consequently, be needed on the bottom; the saving in this
respect, according to the patentees’ calculation, being 50 tons in a
2,000-ton vessel.
As the prices of these frames and rudders do not exceed those charged
for frames of wrought-iron, and moreover, owing to the pieces which
are cast on to them forming attachments for keels, decks, &c.—thus
cheapening the work of construction in the shipyard—there appears
to be no question of their great superiority. The presence of
blow-holes, not unfrequently a source of misgiving in castings, is
found from experience to be a constantly diminishing fault in these
articles. The demand for them has steadily grown since their adoption
in a few actual cases. It would seem, indeed, that the demand is
only limited by the powers of production possessed at present by the
four or five steel-making firms who have undertaken this class of
work, and have satisfied the requirements of the registration and the
insurance societies.
In addition to the frames and rudders for ordinary screw vessels,
the Steel Company of Scotland have also supplied several sterns for
war vessels, with rams and torpedo openings, which have proved very
satisfactory. Other new adaptations are the casting of large brackets
for shafts of twin screw vessels, of large crank shafts themselves,
and of heavy anchors; the results of tests presently being made fully
warranting the anticipation that the material will very largely be
employed in the future for these important items in the outfit of
merchant vessels.
* * * * *
The more important features of growth or change in ship construction
which have made the past few years a noteworthy period in the
history of mercantile shipbuilding have now been reviewed. Speed,
and propulsive power of steamships, although absorbing very much
of the progress for which the period has been so remarkable, have
not been dealt with, but are reserved for the chapter following.
The subjects named will also necessarily receive some attention in
the chapter devoted to progress in the science of shipbuilding. In
anticipation, however, apologies should be offered for the paucity of
detailed references to the propulsive agents on board ship. Marine
engineering, in all its recent developments, would require for its
proper treatment considerably more space than can be devoted to it in
the present work.
To meet the exigencies of the progressive movement, both practical
skill, scientific knowledge, and commercial enterprise have been
needed on the part of our shipbuilders. These have not been by any
means wanting, as abundantly evidenced by the foregoing record
of what has been achieved. With a continuance of that readiness
displayed by shipbuilders and naval architects to modify, and even
revolutionize if need be, types and methods which the times have
outgrown, the lead in merchant shipbuilding will long be ours. With a
maintenance also of the enterprise shown by our shipowners, Britain
will still continue, as regards the number, size, and power of her
merchant ships, supreme among the nations.
List of Papers and Lectures bearing on recent improvements in
ship design and construction, to which readers desiring fuller
acquaintance with the _technique_ and details of the subjects are
referred:—
ON A NEW MODE OF CONSTRUCTING IRON AND COMPOSITE SHIPS, by Mr J. E.
Scott: Trans. Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xv., 1871-2.
ON THE STRENGTH OF IRON SHIPS, by Mr William John: Trans. Inst.
N.A., vol. xv., 1874.
ON TRANSVERSE AND OTHER STRAINS OF SHIPS, by Mr William John:
Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xviii., 1877.
ON A SYSTEM OF SHIPBUILDING COMBINING TRANSVERSE AND LONGITUDINAL
FRAMING, by Mr James Hamilton, Jun.: Trans. Inst. Engineers and
Shipbuilders, vol. xviii., 1877-88.
ON THE LONGITUDINAL BULKHEAD SYSTEM OF IRON SHIP CONSTRUCTION, by
Mr Edwin W. De Russet, Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xvii., 1876.
ON IRON AND STEEL FOR SHIPBUILDING, by Mr Nathaniel Barnaby: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xvi., 1875.
ON STEEL FOR SHIPBUILDING, by Mr Benjamin Martell: Trans. Inst.,
N.A., vol. xix., 1878.
ON THE USE OF MILD STEEL FOR SHIPBUILDING in the French Dockyards,
by M. Marc Berrier-Fontaine: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xxii., 1881.
ON STEEL IN THE SHIPBUILDING YARD, by Mr William Denny: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xxi., 1880.
ON THE ECONOMICAL ADVANTAGES OF STEEL SHIPBUILDING, by Mr Wm.
Denny: Journal (No. 1) Iron and Steel Institute, 1881.
ON IRON AND STEEL AS CONSTRUCTIVE MATERIALS FOR SHIPS, by Mr John
Price. Proceedings Inst. Mech. Engineers, 1881.
ON STEEL, by Mr James Riley; Lectures on Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering: Glasgow, William Collins & Sons, 1881.
ON WATER BALLAST, by Mr Benjamin Martell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xviii., 1877.
ON THE CELLULAR CONSTRUCTION OF MERCHANT SHIPS, by Mr William John:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxi., 1880.
ON THE INCREASED USE OF STEEL IN SHIPBUILDING AND MARINE
ENGINEERING, by Mr John R. Ravenhill: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xxii., 1881.
ON THE STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS AND PROPORTIONS OF H.M.S. “IRIS,” by
Mr W. H. White: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xx., 1879.
ON THE QUALITY OF MATERIALS USED IN SHIPBUILDING, by Mr H. H. West:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiii., 1882.
ON THE USE OF STEEL CASTINGS IN LIEU OF IRON AND STEEL FORGINGS FOR
SHIP AND MARINE ENGINE CONSTRUCTION, by Mr William Parker: Journal,
Iron and Steel Institute, 1883.
SOME CONSIDERATIONS RESPECTING THE RIVETTING OF IRON SHIPS, by Mr
Henry H. West: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IN IRON AND STEEL SHIPBUILDING, by Mr William
John: Iron and Steel Institute, 1884.
CHAPTER II.
SPEED AND POWER OF MODERN STEAMSHIPS.
In these days of feverish activity in every avenue of business, when
even leisure has come to be observed at a much more accelerated
_tempo_ than formerly, speed in locomotion would seem to be the
first desideratum, not only on shore but afloat as well. In no ocean
service is the truth of this so apparent as in the transatlantic mail
and passenger service, the oldest and most constantly progressive,
and where at the present time, certainly more than at any former
period, the contest for supremacy amongst rival steamship lines
has assumed the form of increased speed and enhanced passenger
accommodation.
The Atlantic service, for these reasons, as well as because it
exemplifies more of the fruits which have rewarded the joint labours
of the engineer and shipbuilder in improving marine propulsion, may
be selected for detailed review. In other ocean services, of course,
the achievements of engineering and shipbuilding skill have also
been made apparent, and in ways, perhaps, which the Atlantic service
does not exhibit. Reference to these will afterwards be made, but
attention will meantime be confined to the service stated, and to
such considerations of the general progress made in ocean navigation
as are necessarily involved in the particular subject.
It is needless, in view of the frequency with which the story of
ocean steam navigation is told, and especially, considering the
scope of the present review, to enter at any length into the details
of early service. The first practically successful transatlantic
steamers were the _Sirius_ and the _Great Western_, the first a
paddle-steamer 170 feet long, 270 horse-power originally constructed
to ply between London and Cork, and the latter, a paddle-steamer, 212
feet long and about 440 horse-power, designed and built expressly for
the transatlantic service. The _Sirius_ left Cork on the 4th April,
1838, and reached New York on the 22nd; the _Great Western_ left
Bristol on the 7th April, three days after the _Sirius_, reaching
New York on the 23rd—the time taken being thus 18 days and 15 days
respectively. The return voyages of these pioneer long-passage
steamers were made in 16 days and 14 days respectively, their
performances at once establishing the superiority of steamers,
commercially and otherwise, over the sailing ships which had
previously for so long been the recognised medium of transit in the
Atlantic passenger trade.
In 1840 a regular mail service by steamers was first introduced
on the Atlantic. The first of these mail steamers was the Cunard
paddle-steamer _Britannia_, 207 feet long, which sailed from
Liverpool on July 4, 1840, and arrived at Halifax in 12 days 10
hours, the return journey being performed in 10 days. The _Acadia_,
_Columbia_, and _Caledonia_ all of about the same dimensions as
the _Britannia_, at once followed. The success of the Cunard Line
was so marked that opposition was soon provoked, and in 1850 the
Collins Line of American steamers started to compete with the Cunard
liners. The same year also saw the commencement of the well-known
Inman Company, of Liverpool, their first vessel being the _City of
Glasgow_, an iron screw-steamer of 1680 tons and 350 horse-power. The
Allan and Anchor Lines were established in 1856, the Guion Line in
1863, and the White Star Line in 1870.
With the substitution of the screw propeller for the paddle wheel,
first carried out to any great purpose in the small steamer
_Archimedes_ in 1839, but introduced with even greater effect in the
Atlantic steamer _Great Britain_ in 1843, was laid the basis of that
progressive and magnificent success in propulsion which has since
attended ocean navigation. It was with screw-steamers Mr Inman boldly
assailed the Cunard Company in 1850, but notwithstanding this, it was
only in 1862 that the Government consented to sanction the use of
the screw in the mail steamers of the Cunard Company. The _Scotia_,
measuring 366 feet in length, by 47½ feet in breadth, and 30½ feet
depth, launched in 1861, was the last paddle-steamer built for this
company.
The other great improvements contributing to the success spoken of,
were the introduction of engines designed on the compound principle,
and a little later, the employment of the surface condenser, and
the use of circular multitubular boilers. In spite of the success
with which the compound system was attended in vessels built for
the Pacific Steam Navigation Company as early as 1856, and for some
other private owners soon after, the great steamship companies, and
shipowners generally, were very slow to adopt it. It was not until
about the year 1869 that the compound engine came into general use,
and it was only in 1872 that the Cunard Company seriously took it
into favour.
The early steamers of the Cunard Line possessed an average speed of
8½ knots, and took about 15 days for the voyage. Through the Collins
rivalry the speed was increased to an average of 12½ knots, and
the time for crossing the Atlantic was reduced to 12 days 9 hours
outwards, and 11 days 11 hours homewards. In 1856, the powerful
paddle-steamer _Persia_ (the first iron vessel built for the Cunard
Company) was placed on the service, and attained an average speed
of about 13 knots, consuming 150 tons of coal per day. She made the
distance between Queenstown and New York, on an average, in 10½ days.
In 1862 the _Scotia_, belonging to the same company, made the passage
in 9 days.
Coming down to more recent times, the White Star Line, with its
steamships _Britannic_ and _Germanic_, built in 1874 and 1875
respectively, held for a considerable period first place in the
matter of fast steamships. The vessels named were, however, in
time beaten by the newer ships _Gallia_, of the Cunard Line, and
_Arizona_, of the Guion Line. As illustrating the speed at which
the vessels named accomplished the transatlantic voyage—between
Queenstown and New York—the following brief list, compiled from
published records, of fast runs out and home during the period
1875-1881, may here be given:—
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| | Out. | Home. |
| +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Vessels. | Date. | Time. | Date. | Time. |
+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | | D. H. M.| | D. H. M.|
| Britannic, |Aug., 1877,| 7 10 50 | —— | —— |
| Britannic, |May, 1879, | 7 13 7 |May, 1880, | 7 19 22 |
| Germanic, |Oct., 1880,| 7 13 0 |Nov., 1881,| 7 17 34 |
| City of Berlin, |Oct., 1877,| 7 14 12 |Oct., 1875,| 7 15 48 |
| City of Berlin, |Oct., 1880,| 7 20 32 |Sep., 1879,| 7 19 23 |
| City of Richmond, |Oct., 1880,| 8 0 0 |July, 1879,| 8 3 52 |
| Gallia, |May, 1879, | 7 22 50 |May, 1881, | 7 18 50 |
| Arizona, |Sep., 1881,| 7 8 32 |Sep., 1881,| 7 7 48 |
+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
When the success of vessels of the size of the _Arizona_ and the
_Gallia_ was made apparent, it was decided by the Cunard Company to
build a larger and faster ship than previous ones. Accordingly, in
the autumn of 1880, specifications were issued to some of the leading
shipbuilding firms, asking them to tender for the construction of a
vessel of 500 feet in length, 50 feet beam, and 40 feet depth. At
the suggestion of Messrs J. & G. Thomson, who were successful in
securing the contract for this remarkable vessel, the dimensions were
increased to 530 feet by 52 feet by 44 feet 9 inches. With these
dimensions, and with mild steel as the constructive material, the new
vessel—the _Servia_—was thereafter proceeded with in Messrs Thomson’s
establishment.
The Guion line, not to be left behind, placed the order for a vessel
of the dimensions first proposed for the _Servia_, with Messrs John
Elder & Co., but, in order to be faster than the _Servia_, the
weight-carrying was considerably reduced, and the boiler power much
increased. The wisdom of this step has been justified by the now
generally received opinion that these fast steamers should not carry
such heavy cargoes as the slower ones. This new vessel for the Guion
line was the _Alaska_, now justly noted for her fast runs across the
Atlantic.
The Inman Company also decided not to lag behind, and as soon as
the conditions of the design of the _Servia_ had been fixed, they
placed the order for a ship—the _City of Rome_—with the Barrow
Shipbuilding Company, intended to be larger, finer, and faster.
Expectations as to speed and carrying powers were not in her
case fulfilled, and the result of the dissatisfaction which this
occasioned, was, that the _City of Rome_ changed ownership, Messrs
Henderson Brothers, of Anchor Line fame, coming into possession.
In the hands of its new owners, the _City of Rome_ was re-arranged
internally, and her boiler power was considerably augmented, while
her engines also were thoroughly revised. When first built, the
vessel was fitted with engines of 8500 horse-power. As revised, they
indicate 12,000 the acquisition being largely due to the fitting of
four additional boilers. The results which have accrued from the
extensive alterations made are such as to have firmly established the
vessel in a foremost place in the Atlantic service.
The performances of the vessels named have been the subject of
considerable interest to all concerned in shipping affairs, and
to the public generally. The following table of fast passages
accomplished during the past two years by these vessels has been
compiled from published records, and from information supplied by the
shipowning companies:—
+-----------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| | Out. | Home. |
| +------------+---------+-----------+---------+
|Names of Vessels.| Date. | Time. | Date. | Time. |
+-----------------+------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| | | D. H. M.| | D. H. M.|
| Alaska, |April, 1882,| 7 4 32 |June, 1882,| 6 22 0 |
| Do., | May, 1882,| 7 7 0 |Sep., 1882,| 6 21 48 |
| Do., | May, 1882,| 7 4 10 |Jan., 1883,| 6 23 42 |
| Servia, | Jan., 1882,| 7 8 13 | —— | —— |
| Do., | Aug., 1883,| 7 6 0 | —— | —— |
| City of Rome, | May, 1883,| 7 12 16 |June, 1883,| 7 7 4 |
| Do., | June, 1883,| 7 4 56 |July, 1883,| 7 2 19 |
| Do., | Aug., 1883,| 6 22 6 |Aug., 1883,| 6 21 4 |
| Do., | Sep., 1883,| 7 3 0 |Sep., 1883,| 6 23 24 |
+-----------------+------------+---------+-----------+---------+
An addition to the list of competitors was made in the _Aurania_,
built by Messrs Thomson in 1882, and tried in June, 1883, when she
attained a mean speed of 17¾ knots, and showed herself not unequal
to a maximum speed of 18½ knots under circumstances ordinarily
favourable. An untoward and serious accident to her machinery laid
the _Aurania_ aside just as her capabilities in actual service were
being shown. It is during the “passenger season” that the qualities
of these transatlantic steamers are best brought out, and it remains
with the season which has just begun, to demonstrate to the full the
_Aurania’s_ powers.
A similar remark applies to the _Oregon_, a still more recent
competitor from the same stocks as the _Alaska_, whose dimensions
correspond with those of the _Alaska_, except in respect to breadth,
the first-named vessel having 3-ft. 6-in. more beam than the latter,
the figures being—length over all, 520-ft.; breadth, 54-ft.; depth,
40-ft. 9-in. Extra power of engines to the extent of nearly 3000
horses indicated has been fitted in the _Oregon_. On the occasion
of her speed trial on the Clyde she ran the distance between Ailsa
Craig and Cumbrae Head—-29½ nautical miles—in 1 hour 20 minutes, or
about equal to 20 knots per hour. This was attained with the engines
indicating 12,382 horse-power and making 62 revolutions per minute,
the steam pressure being 110-lbs. per square inch. This result was
doubtless attained under conditions more favourable to speed than the
vessel is, as a rule, likely to meet with in actual service; and, as
has been indicated, it still remains with the future to determine
how far the aims of the owners and builders of the _Oregon_ are
realised.[1]
* * * * *
In the _America_, launched from the yard of Messrs J. & G. Thomson,
near the close of 1883, and presently being fitted for sea, the
National Steamship Company (Limited), of Liverpool, have embodied
the results of their careful study of the development and changes in
the mode of conducting the American trade. From such experiments—for
they can hardly be considered anything else—as the rapid passages
of the _Alaska_, the _City of Rome_, and other “greyhounds of the
Atlantic,” the company see it is no longer possible or profitable
to have “composite” vessels—_i.e._, those intended to carry a large
cargo as well as passengers,—but that practically one class of
vessels must be built for the passenger traffic and another for
the conveyance of cargo. The vessel represents an attempt to solve
the problem of producing a ship which shall have large passenger
accommodation and a high speed, with a comparatively small first cost
and a reasonable consumption of coal. She is built of steel, and
of the following dimensions:—Length, 440 feet; breadth, 51¼ feet;
depth of hold, 36 feet; gross tonnage, about 6,000 tons. Her engines
are of the inverted three-cylinder type, the high pressure cylinder
being 63-ins. diameter, the two low pressure cylinders being 91-ins.
each, while the piston stroke is 66-ins. Six double ended boilers
and one single ended, having in all 39 furnaces, are fitted. The
power expected to be developed is about 9,000 indicated. The speed
guaranteed by the builders of the _America_ is 18 knots an hour, and
confidence is entertained by all concerned as to this result being
attained.[2]
It is abundantly evident, notwithstanding what has already been
achieved, that the brisk competition among transatlantic companies
for the “fastest steamer afloat” has not yet exhausted itself. The
determination some time ago publicly expressed by Mr John Burns, the
able chairman of the Cunard Company, to maintain a leading position,
has since taken decidedly active shape in the contract entered into
and now being carried out by Messrs John Elder & Co.: that is, the
construction of the two huge and powerful steamers of unprecedented
speed, already referred to near the beginning of this work. They are
each of 8000 tons burthen, 500 feet in length, 57 feet broad, by 40
feet depth of hold. Engines of 13,000 horse-power will be provided,
which, it is computed, will drive the vessels at a speed of 19 knots
an hour. With the establishment of these remarkable steamships in
this most important service, the prospect is near of a transatlantic
passage lasting only six days, if not indeed considerably under that
period.
Communication with our South African colonies is another service in
which modern progress, as regards high speed, has been conspicuously
manifest. The steamers engaged in this service—belonging to the Union
Steamship Coy. and Messrs Donald Currie & Co.—had special attention
directed towards their powers as to fast steaming were exerted to
the utmost them during the Zulu War of 1879, at which juncture in
the transport of our soldiery. In the autumn of 1878 the _Pretoria_,
belonging to the Union Coy., made the outward passage to the Cape,
_via_ Maderia, in 18 days, 16 hours, including 4½ hours detention.
The passage home was made in the autumn of 1879 by the same vessel
in 18 days, 13¼ hours, including about 5¾ hours stoppages. These
passages are fairly representative of the best performances of the
vessels engaged in this service, and they have not since been much
excelled. In midsummer, 1880, the _Durban_, another of the Union Line
vessels, accomplished the homeward run _via_ Maderia in 18 days, 9
hours, including about 6½ hours stoppages. The _Drummond Castle_,
belonging to Messrs Donald Currie & Co.’s Castle Packet line, has
made the homeward run in 18 days, 18 hours, or, excluding detentions,
in 18 days, 13 hours. The _Hawarden Castle_, of the same line, has
made the fastest outward run on record. In the autumn of 1883 she
accomplished it in 18 days, 15 hours, including five hours detention
at Maderia, leaving the actual steaming time 18 days, 10 hours. The
distance traversed by vessels on this service is some 6,000 miles,
and the average speed attained is about 13 knots per hour. In the
case of one of the Union Coy.’s vessels, the average speed attained
has been as high as 13·8 knots per hour over the greater portion of
the voyage, the indicated horse-power developed being about 2,570,
and the consumpt of coal about 52½ tons per day. For a considerable
time recently the Companies have found it more remunerative to drive
their vessels at moderate speed, but in times of emergency, such
as the outbreak of hostilities in our colonies, their qualities as
transports traversing long distances at high speed are eminently
efficient.
* * * * *
The employment of steamships in long voyages and at high rates of
speed, for which, not so long ago, it was generally supposed sailing
ships were only adapted, has been eminently successful. By the
opening of the Suez Canal the passage to China was shortened from
about 13,500 miles to about 9800 miles, that to India from over
10,000 miles to 6000. Although steamers were running to China _via_
the Cape of Good Hope, before the opening of the Canal, and doing the
service most admirably, it is subsequent to that great change, and
indeed quite recently that the most noteworthy advances have been
made in shortening the time occupied on these important services.
The passage is now made by steamers under ordinary circumstances in
less than thirty days, which sailing ships under the most favourable
conditions took three and a half to four months to accomplish. The
average speed attained by the steamers prior to the short route never
exceeded ten knots; steamers now frequently average twelve knots over
the whole distance, except during their passage through the Canal.
The _Stirling Castle_, built in 1882 by Messrs Elder & Co., for
Messrs Skinner & Co.’s China fleet, attained a speed of 18·4 knots on
her official trial. During 1883 she proved herself to be the fleetest
vessel ever engaged in the China tea-carrying trade, arriving in the
Thames several days ahead of the China mails, although the latter
came part of the way overland. The run from Woosung to London was
made in 27 days 4 hours steaming time. Other vessels belonging to
this Company, and vessels of the other lines on this important
service, although not equalling the performances of the _Stirling
Castle_, are exemplifying almost daily the immense superiority of
steamers over sailing ships for regularity and despatch in long
passages.
As the distance to Australia—_i.e._, some 12,000 miles as ordinarily
taken—is only about 900 miles less _via_ the Suez Canal than by the
Cape of Good Hope, steamers are employed on both routes. On the 12th
May, 1875, the _St. Osyth_ left Plymouth for Melbourne _via_ the
Cape, called at St. Vincent for coal, and thence steamed continuously
to Melbourne, reaching her destination on the 27th June. Her full
steaming time was about 43½ days, the average speed attained being
over 11½ knots per hour. This passage, although considered most
remarkable at the time, has since been surpassed. The _Lusitania_,
of the Orient line, in 1877 made the passage to Melbourne in 40¼
days, including a detention of 1¼ days at St. Vincent while coaling.
Her actual steaming time was almost exactly 39 days, her average
speed being only a trifle under 13 knots. The _Cuzco_, of the same
line, during the summer of 1879, made the homeward passage from
Adelaide to Plymouth in 37 days 11 hours, including all detentions.
In the _Orient_, which was the first vessel specially designed
and constructed for the Australian direct steam service, a most
noteworthy step in advance was made. She was launched in September,
1879, from the yard of Messrs Elder & Co., and on her completion was
tried for speed, when she attained a maximum average speed of 17
knots per hour. She has made the passage from Plymouth to Adelaide,
_via_ Suez Canal, in 35 days 16 hours, and the same voyage _via_ Cape
of Good Hope in 34 days, 1 hour, steaming time.
[Illustration: S.S. AUSTRAL.—ANCHOR LINE.
LENGTH, 455 ft. 0 in.
BREADTH, 48 ft. 0 in.
DEPTH, 37 ft. 0 in.
TONNAGE (GROSS), 5,588 tons.
BUILT BY MESSRS ELDER & CO., 1881.]
The _Orient_ was followed in 1882 by the magnificent _Austral_, whose
high promise was suddenly blighted for a time by an unfortunate
accident. While coaling at her moorings in Sydney harbour by night,
the water was allowed to flow into the ship through her after coal
ports, carelessly left open and unwatched, and she thus gradually
filled, and sank to the bottom. She has since been raised, brought
home, and restored to her pristine splendour. She is presently
engaged in the express service of the Anchor Line between Liverpool
and New York, her performances being such as should gratify all
concerned. The _Austral_ on her trial attained a speed of 17·3 knots,
and has made the passage from Plymouth to Melbourne, _via_ the
Suez Canal, in the unprecedented time of 32 days, 14 hours steaming.
Until quite recently the only direct communication with New Zealand
has been by sailing vessels, but the New Zealand Shipping Company
(Limited) and the Shaw, Savill, & Albion Company (Limited) are at
the present moment in the thick of organising monthly services of
high-class modern steamships to the Antipodes. The former Company in
1883 despatched the _Ionic_, which they had chartered, with other
of the White Star steamships, for the purpose. This vessel made the
passage out to New Zealand in 43 days, and home in 45 days, including
stoppage for coaling. Passages of a similar character have been
made by this vessel and others of the Company’s own fleet, three of
which—the _Tongariro_, _Aorangi_, and _Ruapehu_—are splendid new
steel vessels from the stocks of the famous Fairfield yard. The
vessel last named has just made the passage home from Lyttelton, New
Zealand, to Plymouth, in the marvellously short period of 37 days,
20 hours, 40 minutes, steaming time; the time, with detentions,
being about 39 days. The other Company referred to are having
two magnificent steel vessels built by Messrs Denny & Bros., of
Dumbarton, to be named the _Arawa_ and _Tainui_, each of 5000 tons
gross. These vessels are to maintain a sea speed of 12½ knots, the
engines to be fitted representing a noteworthy advance in the line of
economical consumpt of fuel with prolonged terms of steaming.
* * * * *
Between 1875 and 1882 the number of steamers having ocean speeds of
13 knots and upwards, increased from twenty-five to sixty-five. Of
these there were only ten—previous to 1875—of 14 knots speed and
upwards, whereas at the beginning of 1882 there were twenty-five of
this character. During the years 1882 and 1883 alone the increase
in the number of such vessels has been almost double that for the
previous period named. The highest speed previous to 1875 did not
exceed 15 knots, now there are numerous vessels with speeds exceeding
17 knots, several even approaching 18 knots, while in one or two
cases the speed attained—under favourable circumstances probably—is
stated to have been considerably over 18 knots, the Guion Liner
_Oregon_, indeed, reaching the round figure of 20 knots.
Viewed purely from the point of view of the sea voyager, such results
are alike remarkable and gratifying, whilst considered in their
technical and commercial aspects they also call for admiration. It
is questioned, however, whether in most cases the attainment of
great speed has been accompanied with corresponding or proportionate
advance in other matters with which vital progress is concerned.
Commercially, it is of the utmost importance that increase of speed
and power should be achieved, with the least possible weight of
machinery, water, and fuel to be carried; with the least possible
expenditure of fuel; with safety and efficiency in working; with low
wear and tear, and cheapness of maintenance.
The efficiency of the ship and machinery in fulfilling the various
and often conflicting conditions of economical service is a matter
with which the naval architect and the marine engineer have jointly
to deal. Where the conditions cannot all be equally satisfied, it is
the province of these two to make that sort of compromise which gives
the best results in each special case. In cargo-carrying vessels,
for example, an economy in the consumption of fuel may often be the
dominant and regulating quality. An economy of one-fourth of a pound
per horse-power per hour gives, on a large transatlantic steamer, a
saving of about 100 tons of coal for a single voyage. To this saving
of cost is to be added the gain in wages and sustenance of the labour
required to handle that coal, and the gain by 100 tons of freight
carried in place of the coal. Again, it is estimated that every ton
of dead-weight capacity is worth on an average £10 per annum as
earning freight. Supposing, therefore, the weight of machinery and
water in any ordinary vessel to be 300 tons, and that by careful
design and judicious use of materials the engineer can reduce it
by 100 tons without increasing the cost of working, he makes the
vessel worth £1,000 per annum more to her owners. To these and other
such considerations, which often influence the naval architect and
engineer in their designs, and due regard to one or more of which not
infrequently prevents the attainment of all-round success, should be
added many others concerned with the after-management of vessels. For
example, the length of voyage to be performed, the seasons and the
markets in particular trades, the number of ports of call, and the
coaling facilities at each, are all matters which must be taken into
consideration when measuring, from one standpoint or from particular
instances, the degree of success attained in general.
The diminution in coal consumpt, coincident with the increase of
steam pressure and the acceleration in speed which has been attained
in recent years measures the principal element of progress. In many
of the “racers” of recent times, it is true, speed is attained at
what may appear a great sacrifice of fuel, but these are cases
in which the commercial considerations often used to measure the
efficiency of ordinary cargo-carrying steamers are not applicable.
Owners—of transatlantic steamships especially—realise from experience
that “speed pays,” and they find it of more advantage to ensure
certainty of arrival at the port of destination than to save a few
tons of coals on the voyage.
During the past sixteen years or so the advance made in respect to
the reduced ratio of fuel consumed to power developed has indeed
been considerable. Before the period stated a vessel of say 700 tons
carrying capability was not only much slower than the present-day
vessels but the coal supply amounted to about 16 tons per day of
24 hours, whereas vessels are now being built of like size which
attain an average speed of 9 knots, the consumpt of coal not being
more than 6 tons per day. In 1872 the consumption of coal in vessels
whose engines were worked at a pressure of from 45-lbs. to 65-lbs.
per inch (the latter being then the highest pressure recorded), did
not exceed 2½-lbs. per indicated horse-power per hour. This indicated
an improvement in the marine engine during the previous decade,
represented by a reduction in the consumpt of fuel by more than
one-half the amount previously thought indispensable. Since 1872,
there has been a further reduction in the average consumpt of fuel to
the extent of 15 or 16 per cent., or in the average from 2⅛-lbs. to
less than 1¾-lbs. per indicated horse-power per hour.
As in the case of the vessels themselves, mild steel is largely
taking the place of iron in the construction of marine boilers. The
change has reduced the weight of this important item of machinery
by about one-tenth, a great advantage in itself, as increasing
the dead-weight capability of the vessel. The questions as to
the reliable character of the boilers made of steel with respect
to strength under working, and as regards corrosion, are being
practically answered as time goes on; and, as in the case of ship
structure, in a way very satisfactory for the new material. There
is every probability that a further advance may soon be made in
connection with marine boilers, in the way of constructing the
shell in solid rings, thus doing away with the longitudinal seams.
The strength of boilers is of course governed by the strength of
the seam, and this is never above 75 per cent. of the solid plate.
Hence, if solid shells are employed, an increase in pressure of about
25 per cent., with the same thickness of shell, may be obtained.
Appliances are now being laid down in the Vulcan Steel and Forge
Coy., Barrow-in-Furness, for this purpose.
Improved appliances and modes of construction, no less than the
change of material employed, have played a large part in rendering
the boilers of modern steamships capable of being worked at the
higher pressures now common. It is not possible, however, with
the space at command, to treat of these; nor is it practicable to
consider or even enumerate all the various improved fittings which in
the aggregate so materially enhance the efficiency of boilers.
One such feature particularly noteworthy because of the success
with which it has been applied to the boilers of very many modern
high-class merchant ships may be shortly referred to. This is the
corrugated mild steel furnace, manufactured by the Leeds Forge
Company on Mr Samson Fox’s patent, an illustration of which is given
in Fig. 4. This shows a single corrugated furnace flue, flanged
at the end to meet the tube plate of the boiler. The strength of
these flues to resist collapse has been proved in the presence
of the officials of the Admiralty, Board of Trade, and Lloyd’s
Register, to be, on the average, four times greater than a plain
flue of the same dimensions. An immediate effect of this has been to
increase their average diameter from 3-ft. to 4-ft., the thickness
of plate-½-inch—remaining the same; a result as to diameter and
thickness quite impracticable with ordinary furnaces. Some have even
been made to carry 170-lbs. per square inch of steam pressure, 4-ft.
8-ins. outside diameter constructed of one single plate, with the
weld so arranged as to be below the fire bars in the furnace.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.
THE LEEDS FORGE C^o LTD]
By the corrugated, as against the plain tube, a greatly increased
heating surface is presented to the flame and the heated gases
of the furnace, thus yielding a greatly enhanced evaporative
power, equal to at least 50 per cent. more than in the ordinary
form. Better allowance is made by the corrugated surface for the
expansion and contraction caused by changes of temperature in
the furnace, without in any way impairing its efficiency as a
longitudinal stay for the boiler. Through the increased diameters
and the augmented surface possible by these corrugated tubes, their
adoption lessens the number of furnaces and stokers necessary for
the horse-power required. As a further consequence, the boiler space
may be diminished, and an increase effected in the cargo space or
freight-carrying capacity of the vessel.
The advantages of corrugated flues as compared with plain flues
cannot all be named, but the extraordinary extent to which they are
now employed in the best class of steamships is the best proof of
their superiority. It is stated that if the flues which have been
made by the Company since their introduction about the beginning
of 1878, and are now at work, were placed in one continuous line,
they would extend to a length of over twenty miles, representing, in
marine and other engines, nearly one million horse-power.
The number of separate types of boilers introduced into steamships
has been much increased of recent years—an evidence that engineers
are growingly conscious of the possibilities which may result from
improved efficiency in this agent of propulsion. One direction in
which their efforts at present are being largely put forth, is that
of securing the more complete combustion of fuel in the furnaces.
Considerable success has already attended the working of boilers
under forced draught, or the admission of air to the furnaces under
pressure. Combined with special types of boilers, it has been
affirmed that nearly 50 per cent. more power has been obtained by
this means. There is doubtless much to be expected from this system
in the future, especially as it may be associated with a change in
the form or type of boilers by which the number and weight of such
items will be reduced. The saving of space in the vessel, the economy
in consumption of coal, the reduction in dead-weight of machinery,
are possibilities of the movement now in progress which cannot fail
to effect materially the commercial character of our high-class mail
and passenger steamships, and merchant vessels generally.
Other directions in which advance has been made during the period
under review are, considerably higher steam pressures, less heating
surface, and smaller cylinders, for indicated horse-power developed.
The various improvements in design and construction which have
contributed to these results cannot be entered into with any degree
of fulness here. For detailed treatment of these matters, readers
are referred to the papers read by eminent engineering authorities,
before the various professional and scientific institutions, a list
of which papers follows the present chapter.[3]
Reduction in the weight of machinery per indicated horse-power
developed is, in general terms, the common line in which engineering
effort lies, and in which no little advance has lately been
made. Every possible opportunity of using steel, where it can be
introduced with safety and efficiency, has been taken advantage
of. Hollow crank steel shafts and propeller shafting in place of
solid shafting; propellers and pistons of cast steel in place of
iron; and boilers of mild steel plates, are a few of the directions
in which large weight-savings have been effected. That there is
still great room for improvement in this direction is shown by the
following statement, given by Mr F. C. Marshall, of Messrs R. & W.
Hawthorn, Newcastle-on-Tyne, in his valuable paper read before the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers in 1883. The figures given show
for various classes of vessels the average weight of machinery per
indicated horse-power, in steamships of the merchant marine—and for
comparison—of the Royal Navy:—
Lbs. per I.H.P.
Merchant Steamers, 480
Royal Navy, 360
Royal Navy, fast cruiser _Iris_, 280
Torpedo Ram, _Polyphemus_, 180
Torpedo vessels, 60
Ordinary marine boilers, including water, 196
Locomotive boilers, including water, 60
The figures given are for weights of machinery, including engines,
boilers, water, and all fittings ready for sea.
One of the most important of recent advances in marine
engineering—affording as it does the means of using higher steam
pressures than have hitherto been used with economy—is the
introduction of the triple expansion description of engines already
referred to. This important departure was begun in 1874, when Mr A.
C. Kirk, of Messrs R. Napier & Sons, designed and fitted on board the
screw-steamer _Propontis_, built for Mr W. H. Dixon, of Liverpool,
by Messrs Elder & Co.—with whom Mr Kirk at that time was engineering
manager—engines involving the principle of triple expansion and
abnormally high pressure of steam. In 1877 the principle received
further practical development on board the _Isa_, a pleasure yacht
fitted with triple expansion engines, designed in 1876 by Mr
Alexander Taylor, consulting engineer of Newcastle-on-Tyne, who has
subsequently designed several other engines of the same type for
larger merchant steamers.
As not infrequently happens in connection with inventions,
several minds were occupied, and independent ideas matured almost
simultaneously, in the matter of triple expansion engines. Mr
Kirk had secured the patent for engines involving this principle
subsequent to, but before he was made cognisant of, Mr Taylor’s work.
At the same time he learned that in quite another quarter the designs
for such a type of engine had already been perfected. Mr Kirk, on
hearing these facts, relinquished the patent rights he had secured.
Notwithstanding this, it is to the success of the engines designed
by Mr Kirk, and fitted by his firm on board the screw-steamer
_Aberdeen_, that the recent development of the system is largely due.
This vessel was built in 1881 for the Australian service of Messrs
G. Thomson & Co., London and Aberdeen, and measures 350 feet by 44
feet by 33 feet. Her engines work at a boiler pressure of 125 lbs.
per square inch. The three cylinders are respectively 30 inches, 45
inches, and 70 inches in diameter, and the stroke is 4 feet 6 inches.
The smallest is the high pressure cylinder, into which the steam is
first admitted; from thence it passes, after expansion, into the
second or intermediate cylinder; after still further expansion
it passes into the third or low pressure cylinder, from whence, after
the expansion is completed, it is discharged into the condenser.
When the _Aberdeen_ was completed, 2,000 tons of dead-weight were
put on board, and the consumption was tested on a four hours’ run
at 1,800 horse-power. The result was the consumption at the rate of
1.28-lbs. per indicated horse-power per hour, with Penrikyber Welsh
coal. From this the designer of the engine inferred a sea consumption
of good Welsh coal at the rate of 1·5 to 1·6-lbs. per indicated
horse-power. The maximum measured mile speed was 13·74 knots, with
2,631 indicated horse-power, and a consumption of 1 ton 17 cwt. per
hour. The vessel started from Plymouth on 1st April, 1881, upon her
first voyage to Melbourne, with 4000 tons of coals and cargo—weight
and measurement—on board. She arrived at Cape Town on the 23rd April,
having accomplished the distance—5,890 miles—in 22 days. After taking
in about 140 tons of coal, she left for Melbourne on the 24th, and
arrived there on the 14th May, in 20 days. The whole time occupied
in steaming from Plymouth to Melbourne was, therefore, 42 days. Her
average indicated horse-power on the voyage has been about 1,880, and
the consumption less than thirty-four tons per day, or at the rate
of about 1·69-lbs. per indicated horse-power over the whole voyage.
Since these results were obtained, Messrs Napier have fitted three
sets of 5000 H.P. triple expansion engines into vessels built for the
Compania Transatlantica Mexicana, and are completing a duplicate of
the _Aberdeen_.
The firm of Messrs Denny & Coy., Dumbarton, are at present making
engines of the triple expansion type for the new steamers of the
Shaw, Savill & Albion Company’s direct New Zealand service. There are
four cylinders and two cranks, the cylinders being arranged in pairs,
tandem fashion, the small on the top of the large. Expansion takes
place in three stages, the first small cylinder taking steam from the
boilers about five-eights of the stroke, and expanding into the valve
chest of the second small cylinder, where it is further expanded.
From thence it exhausts into the valve chest common to both the large
cylinders described. The steam to be supplied to these engines is to
have a pressure of 160-lbs. per square inch, the highest yet carried
in marine engines. These instances of actual advancement, taken in
conjunction with the favourable light in which the triple expansion
principle is regarded by our foremost marine engineers, augur well
for the future of steamship propulsion.
* * * * *
The activity characterising merchant ship construction, and
especially the enormous increase in their dimensions and speed within
recent years, have necessarily led to speculation with regard to what
form the ship of the future will take. There have not been wanting,
indeed, actual propositions and elaborately prepared designs of
what the ideal ship should be. A company was sometime ago formed in
Washington, U.S., to have three vessels built of a novel type, the
patented invention of Captain Lundborg, a Swedish engineer, intended
to make the Atlantic passage in five days. It was also announced that
the order for their construction had actually been given out, but
this is wanting in confirmation. Great expectations were entertained
in America regarding what was termed the dome-ship _Meteor_, built
on the Hudson in the early part of 1883 from the designs of Captain
Bleven. A company had been formed under the designation of the
“American Quick Transit Company,” the chief supporters being Boston
merchants, to build several large steamships on the proposed lines,
but the utter failure of the _Meteor_ to answer the promises of her
inventor has relegated the scheme to the vast limbo of unfulfilled
American projects. Three years ago or more, scientific journals gave
publicity to a scheme of “Ocean Palace” steamship, patented by Mr
Robert Wilcox, of Melbourne, Victoria, the claims for which ranked
themselves under the heads of speed, safety, and comfort. Double
hulls, as in the case of some Channel steamers, were employed, but
each of the hulls was divided into two cigar-shaped portions, thus
giving to the submerged whole, a quadruplicate character, and which,
with its palatial superstructure, was apt to remind one—shall it be
said?—of Rome and her seven hills, or Venice and her island base!
The design, nevertheless, was to give the least resistance with the
greatest buoyancy and stability. The method of propulsion proposed
by Mr Wilcox was also novel. He placed a couple of enormous drums
fore and aft (between the hulls), which were to be driven by the
engines as if they were paddle-wheels. Over these drums was placed
a continuous band of iron links, upon which, at suitable intervals,
paddles or blades were fixed. A comparatively low speed of engine was
to give a high speed of velocity to this band of blades; and as there
would be twenty-one paddles, all immersed at the same time, their
grip of the water was to be such that there should be little slip.
Whether on a serious application of the principles involved in this
invention to a ship for the Australian service the voyage would have
been made, as was claimed, in 26 days, equal to an increase in speed
of 75 per cent., has never of course been determined! Still another
scheme, and one which the inventor has been encouraged to prosecute
by the recommendations of eminent authorities on both sides of the
Atlantic, is that of Captain Coppin, noted for his success in salvage
operations, which consists of an “Ocean Ferry” partaking as to form
somewhat of the features above described for Mr Wilcox’s “Ocean
Palace.” The speed said to be possible by Captain Coppin’s vessel is
twenty knots an hour, and the terminal ports proposed are Milford
Haven and New York. It was announced some time ago that M. Raoul
Pictet, the eminent engineer of Geneva, was engaged upon the question
of ship design and propulsion, and was in hopes that by application
of his ideas he might yet send ships careering over the sea at the
rate of thirty-seven miles an hour!
Enough has been said to show that there is no lack of inventive
effort being put forth towards a realization of the ideal ships of
the future. In a service, however, like that of the Atlantic, where
competition is strong and keen, and where the monetary issues are
neatly adjusted between rival companies, there is little chance of
any of the various projects being tried. An impression exists among
shipowners—for which doubtless there are sufficient grounds—that
time and capital staked on novelties or “new departures” are simply
invitations to defeat in the race or to absolute ruin itself. This
commercial prudence and industrial caution has been startled in
several ways of recent years—_e.g._, by meteoric flashes such as
the _Livadia_ and _Meteor_—the ultimate effect of which has been to
illumine and make clearer the probable line of advancement.
By pretty general consent of those most competent to judge the
ships of the immediate future will possess the broad distinctions
of being either purely passenger or purely cargo-carrying mediums.
It is equally agreed that twin in place of single screw propellers
will be employed, and that for the express ships nothing less than
20 knots per hour will be considered satisfactory. On a subject,
however, concerned not with historical facts, but with theories and
scientific forecasts, it may be well not to enlarge, especially
as the future is evidently charged with possibilities of which
present-day designers can have but indefinite notions. The subject
of employing electrical energy as the propulsive power on board ship
is at the present time engaging serious attention, but the degree of
practical and commercial success attained does not, as yet, warrant
any anticipation of its immediate application to vessels beyond small
craft, such as launches and ferries. In the midst, however, of such
immense and marvellous works achieved by this great—and, in some
senses, modern—force, it would be both idle and unwise to keep out of
view the possibilities of its future as affecting ship propulsion.
List of Papers and Lectures bearing on the speed and propulsive power
of modern steamships, to which readers desiring fuller acquaintance
with the _technique_ and details of the subject are referred:—
ON THE BOILERS AND ENGINES OF OUR FUTURE FLEET, by Mr J. Scott
Russell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xviii., 1877.
ON THE COMPOUND MARINE STEAM ENGINE, by Mr Arthur Rigg: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xi., 1870.
ON COMPOUND ENGINES, by Mr Richard Sennett: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xvi., 1875.
ON THE PROGRESS EFFECTED IN THE ECONOMY OF FUEL IN STEAM
NAVIGATION, CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO COMPOUND CYLINDER ENGINES AND
HIGH PRESSURE STEAM, by Mr F. J. Bramwell; Proceedings Inst. Mech.
Engineers, 1872.
OUR COMMERCIAL MARINE STEAM FLEET IN 1877, by Mr J. R. Ravenhill:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xviii., 1877.
ON THE STEAM TRIALS OF H.M.S. _Iris_, by Mr J. Wright: Trans. Inst.
N.A., vol. xx., 1879.
ON THE STEAM TRIALS OF THE _Satallite_ AND _Conquerer_ UNDER FORCED
DRAUGHT, by Mr R. J. Butler: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiv., 1883.
ON COMBUSTION OF FUEL IN FURNACES OF STEAM BOILERS BY NATURAL
DRAUGHT, AND BY SUPPLY OF AIR UNDER PRESSURE, by Mr James Howden:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
PROPOSITIONS ON THE MOTION OF STEAM VESSELS, by Mr Robert Mansel:
Trans. Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xix., 1875-76.
ON STEAMSHIP EFFICIENCY, by Mr Robert Mansel: Trans. Inst.
Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xxii., 1878-79.
THE COMPARATIVE COMMERCIAL EFFICIENCY OF SOME STEAMSHIPS, by Mr
Jas. Hamilton Jun.: Trans. Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol.
xxv., 1881-82.
THE SPEED AND FORM OF STEAMSHIPS CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO LENGTH
OF VOYAGE, by Mr James Hamilton, Jun.: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xxiv., 1882.
ON THE COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY OF SINGLE AND TWIN SCREW PROPELLERS
IN DEEP DRAUGHT SHIPS, by Mr W. H. White: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xix., 1878.
ON TWIN SHIP PROPULSION by Mr G. C. Mackrow: Trans. Inst. N.A.,
vol. xx., 1879.
ON MARINE STEAM BOILERS: THEIR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND
WEAR, by Mr Charles H. Haswell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xviii.,
1877.
ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE COMPOUND ENGINE AND THE ECONOMICAL
ADVANTAGES OF HIGH PRESSURE STEAM, by Mr Fred. J. Rowan: Tran.
Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xxiii., 1879-80.
ON COMPOUND MARINE ENGINES WITH THREE CYLINDERS WORKING ON
TWO CRANKS, by Mr Robert Douglas: Trans. Inst. Engineers and
Shipbuilders, vol. xxv., 1881-82.
ON THE TRIPLE EXPANSIVE ENGINES OF THE S.S. _Aberdeen_, by Mr A. C.
Kirk: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiii., 1882.
ON THE EFFICIENCY OF COMPOUND ENGINES, by Mr W. Parker: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xxiii., 1882.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND EFFICIENCY OF MARINE BOILERS, by Mr Josiah
M‘Gregor: Trans. Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xxiii.,
1879-80.
ON THE STRENGTH OF BOILERS, by Mr J. Milton: Trans. Inst. N. A.,
vol. xviii., 1877.
ON THE USE OF STEEL FOR MARINE BOILERS AND SOME RECENT IMPROVEMENTS
IN THEIR CONSTRUCTION, by Mr W. Parker: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xix., 1878.
ON THE REACTION OF THE SCREW PROPELLER, by Mr James Howden: Trans.
Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xxii., 1878-79.
ON THE PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARINE ENGINE, by Mr F. C.
Marshall. Proceedings Inst. Mech. Engineers, 1881.
ON SOME RESULTS OF RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IN NAVAL ARCHITECTURE
AND MARINE ENGINEERING, by Mr William Pearce. Lectures on Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering: Glasgow, William Collins &
Sons, 1881.
THE SPEED AND CARRYING OF SCREW STEAMERS, by Mr William Denny.
Lecture delivered to the Greenock Philosophical Society, 20th
January, 1882, in honour of the birthday of James Watt (19th Jan.):
Greenock, Wm. Hutchison.
ON THE ADVANTAGES OF INCREASED PROPORTION OF BEAM TO LENGTH IN
STEAMSHIPS, by Mr J. H. Biles: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol xxiv., 1883.
CAST STEEL AS A MATERIAL FOR CRANK SHAFTS, by Mr J. F. Hall, Inst.
N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
CHAPTER III.
SAFETY AND COMFORT OF MODERN STEAMSHIPS.
Every advance—whether it be in dimensions or power of steamships,
or whether it consist of modifications in their structure or
appointment—toward that ideal period when sea-voyaging will have
attained its maximum of comfort and its minimum of risk, is deserving
of record. The qualities of safety and comfort, even more than
increase of speed and the consequent shortening of sea passages, are
first essentials in the realisation of this great end. The structural
modifications, and the great development in size of recent vessels,
affect the qualities named in ways which already may have been made
evident, but which call for more detailed treatment. The more minute
watertight sub-division of the hulls of vessels, for instance, and
especially the presence of an inner skin or cellular bottom, are
marked accessions to their safety.
The primary object and ruling principle of all proper watertight
sub-division, is so to limit the space to which water can find
access, that in a vessel with one, or even two, compartments open
to the sea, the accession of weight due to the filling of these
compartments would not exceed the surplus buoyancy she should
possess. Until within recent years this was not so fully regarded as
it ought, owing chiefly to the objections of shipowners to minute
sub-division, as impairing a vessel’s usefulness and capacity for
stowage of miscellaneous cargo. These objections have still doubtless
much weight for vessels in certain trades, but the tendency of
modern passenger traffic to estrange itself from cargo-carrying
mediums, makes them almost inapplicable to a large section of our
mercantile marine. There is now, indeed, more faith in well divided
ships generally as being in the long run no less efficient and more
economical than scantily divided ones.
[Illustration: FIG. 5.]
[Illustration: FIG. 6.]
The salutary influence exerted by the Admiralty, in stipulating for
increased sub-division of the hulls of all merchant vessels eligible
for state employment in times of war, worthy of special recognition.
A few years ago only thirty or forty large steamers in the merchant
navy were so constructed, as regards sub-division, that they would
have survived for a few minutes the effect of collision with other
vessels or of grounding on rocks. Within recent years—greatly owing
to the stipulations referred to, and to the desire f shipowners to
comply with them for the reasons given—there are few, if any, of the
many first-class mail steamers turned out, not so constructed.
[Illustration: FIG. 7.]
[Illustration: FIG. 8.]
Much valuable information on the subject was given in a paper on
“Bulkheads,” read before the Institution of Naval Architects in
March, 1883, by Mr James Dunn, of the Admiralty, whose experience in
matters relating to the qualification of merchant ships for State
employment eminently entitles him to be considered an authority.
From diagrams contained in the paper, the effects of good and of
inefficient sub-division of vessels are well illustrated. Figs. 5 to
8 in the present work represent some of these. They are concerned
with two vessels, in one of which—an actual case—the bulkheads were
well placed and cared for, and carried to a reasonable height as
shown in Fig. 5; the result of a collision proving that under such
conditions they were of immeasurable value, while in the other
vessel, although having the same number and a similar disposition
of bulkheads, their presence is rendered valueless by their being
stopped at or about the water-line, as indicated in Fig. 7. In the
first case, a steamer of nearly 5,000 tons, during a fog, ran into
the vessel represented by Fig. 5 and 6, striking her abreast of No. 3
bulkhead, and opening up two compartments to the sea. The bulkheads,
however, as has been said, were carried to a reasonable height,
and the water could not get beyond them—they stood the test—the
vessel did not sink, but kept afloat at the trim shown in Fig. 6,
and in this condition steamed 300 miles safely into port. The second
case—though a suppositionary one merely, yet representative of not
a few merchant steamers now afloat—would not be attended with like
results should such an accident happen as has been described. In
vessels so bulkheaded, the water not being confined to the two holds,
numbered 2 and 3, as it was in the previous actual case, would pour
over the top of the dwarf bulkhead into the foremost hold, and the
ship would soon assume the position indicated in Fig, 8: one not at
all favourable, as may be readily believed, for the completion of a
voyage to port.
These cases illustrate the value of minute and careful sub-division
of the hulls of vessels by watertight bulkheads. Unless, however, the
bulkheads are carried a few feet higher than the level of the water
outside—and it is to be regretted that this is still not infrequently
overlooked or neglected in merchant steamers—they are valueless, and,
indeed, had better not be in the ship at all. They will contribute to
the loss of the vessel by keeping the water at one end, and carrying
her bows under, whereas if they are not fitted, the same volume of
water will distribute itself throughout the bottom of the ship fore
and aft, preserve the even trim of the vessel, and allow more pumps
to cope with the inflow. Although her freeboard, or height of side
above water will be reduced, she will still be seaworthy, the boiler
fires may be kept burning, and the machinery going, sufficiently
long for her to reach a port of safety. Readers appreciating the
above considerations will readily see why it is that sailing vessels
are usually fitted with only one transverse bulkhead—that near the
bow—and understand how it is that the outcry sometimes made by
inexperienced people about the absence of other bulkheads in emigrant
sailing vessels is for most part unheeded by those on whom the
responsibility falls.
From statistics presented in the paper above referred to, it is shown
that during a period of six years, ending with December, 1882, the
average loss per annum of ships not qualified for the Admiralty
list was one in twenty-five; while of ships so qualified the annual
average loss was only one in eighty-six. The chances of loss from
any cause are thus seen to be nearly four times as great for a ship
not constructed to qualify for the Admiralty list as for a vessel
entered on that list. During the first four-and-a-half years of
the period referred to, not one ship of those entered on the list
was lost by collision although a considerable number had been in
collision, and escaped foundering by reason of the safety afforded
by their bulkheads. During 1882 six casualties happened to ships on
the list, one of which—a case of collision—proved fatal. This was a
case, however, such as no merchant steamer afloat at the time would
have been capable of surviving. The whole of the ship—a small one—was
flooded abaft the engine-room, the two after holds being open to
the sea. The whole of the losses from the Admiralty list during the
period referred to—eleven in number—have been from drifting on rocks,
or otherwise getting fixed on shore, with the solitary exception
above quoted. In the same period 76 ships have been lost which had
been offered for admission to the list, but had not been found
qualified; of these 17, or 22½ per cent., were lost by collision;
and 10, or 13¼ per cent., were lost by foundering; most of the rest
stranded or broke up on rocks. The risk of fatal collision, according
to Mr Dunn, is about 1 to 100, irrespective of the class of ship, and
the ships on the Admiralty list enjoy almost absolute immunity from
loss by this cause.
The foregoing indicates the way in which minute water-tight
sub-division has come to be widely regarded. Much requires yet to
be done to reach the end desirable, as there are many vessels built
prior to the movement sadly deficient in the qualities concerned. The
bulkhead near the bow—the “collision” bulkhead, as it is termed—has
done noble service in many cases of collision, and it is with reason
that its position and structural character in all vessels are subject
to special supervision and made a condition of classification in
the Registries. Recently it has been made imperative by Lloyd’s
Society that vessels over 330 feet long should have two additional
water-tight bulkheads extending to the upper deck, in the holds,
forward and aft of the machinery compartment. The requirements of
this Registry, it may be said, constitute at once an anticipation and
a reflex of the needs of merchant ship construction. In water-tight
sub-division, as in other matters, the Society and its large staff of
able surveyors are “powers which make for” sterling efficiency.
The extended adoption of double bottoms is specially contributory
to the safety of vessels in the event of their running over a reef
into deep water, or in going ashore. Numerous instances are on
record of steamships so constructed sustaining damage to the outer
skin, and yet—because of the inner bottom remaining intact and
perfectly water-tight—no serious damage resulting. The case of the
_Great Eastern_ is an early yet notable example. This great vessel
in 1860 ran over a reef of rocks and tore a hole 80 feet long and
10 feet wide in her outer skin, yet, because of this feature in her
construction, she was placed in no jeopardy.
In this connection it would seem that even the employment of
steel as the constructive material affords safety to a vessel in
circumstances which would almost prove fatal to a ship built of iron.
The remarkable experience which befell the first steel ocean-going
steamer—the _Rotomahana_, belonging to the Union Steamship Company of
New Zealand—may here be recounted. While steaming between Auckland
and the Great Barrier Island on New-Year’s-Day, 1880, this vessel
struck upon and ran over a sunken rock. She had a large party of
pleasure seekers on board, and but for the fact that she was built
of such a ductile material as mild steel, the commencement of the
year 1880 might have been clouded by a catastrophe which would have
spread gloom and sorrow throughout New Zealand, if not over a wider
circle. At the earliest possible moment the damaged vessel was docked
for examination. The results are effectively summarised in an extract
from a letter referring to the accident, written by the managing
director of the Company. He says:—“This experience has clearly shown
the immense superiority of steel over iron. There is no doubt that
had the _Rotomahana_ been of iron, such a rent would have been made
in her, that she would have filled in a few minutes.” The starboard
bilge for over 20 feet of its length was more or less indented, one
plate especially being greatly misshapen between two frames. This
plate was removed, hammered, rolled flat again, and replaced—after
the frames which had been bent inwards by the force of the grounding
had been straightened. No new material except rivets were required
for the execution of the repairs. The _Rotomahana_, as if to show her
ability to “laugh at all disasters,” has grounded twice subsequently
on the rocky and treacherous coast along which she plies, yet has
come out of the ordeal with immunity from positive danger. Her
remarkable experience may safely be taken as most convincing evidence
of the suitability of mild steel for shipbuilding. Other cases are
not wanting, however, in which the same thing is exemplified. One
which recently astonished everybody concerned with shipping was that
of the _Duke of Westminster_, a vessel 400 feet in length, built of
mild steel by the Barrow Shipbuilding Coy., which lay bumping for a
week on stony ground near the Isle of Wight, without making a drop
of water. The bottom plating of the _Duke of Westminster_, as she
appeared in dry dock, was corrugated between the frames for more
than half the length of the vessel, and yet not a single plate was
cracked, nor a rivet started. Another case of an equally striking
character is that of the British India Coy.’s steamer _India_, built
by Messrs Denny, of Dumbarton, which went ashore near the mouth of
the Thames in December, 1881, and was left high and dry at low water.
Her bottom, although forced up about 3 inches over a length of about
40 feet amidships, did not give way, and the vessel, during the
period she was aground, did not make a drop of water.
All these are instances of the enhanced safety of ships due to the
employment of steel, which ought certainly to be recognised by
underwriters in the way of reduced premiums for vessels constructed
of this material. One consideration which, it is both curious and
sad to say, militates against this result, and which, judging from
views entertained by shipowners themselves, stands in the way of the
employment of steel, is not its _inability_ but its very _efficiency_
to withstand the results of grounding or other catastrophe. It is
argued that while the effects of grounding are less _severe_ in the
case of steel, and do not result in fracture or through-piercing
because of its great ductility, yet the amount of _damage requiring
repair_ is invariably much greater than in the case of iron. This
view of the matter—which virtually places pounds, shillings, and
pence before the comfort, if not the very lives, of those on board
ship—the author feels bound to say, is not, so far as he knows,
shared by owners of ships engaged in mail and passenger service,
and it cannot surely be entertained by underwriters of any proper
discernment.
Safety in ocean steamships, in so far as affected by design, has
unquestionably received greater attention at the hands of designers
within recent years than formerly. The particular directions in
which this is evinced, as well as the causes at work in bringing it
about, will be dealt with in the chapter on scientific progress,
the object here being to indicate the extent to which the safety
of ships is affected by the qualities of their construction and
outfit. The general question of seaworthiness, affected as it is
by matters almost beyond the province of the marine architect, is
in great measure the care of others concerned. The underwriting
or insurance societies looking to their own interests, the Board
of Trade on behalf of the lieges, and shipowners on their own
and their customers’ and servants’ account, are parties on whom
responsibility devolves in this connection. The question whether
they are duly, and at all times alive to such responsibility, is one
very difficult to answer, and cannot be fully dealt with here. Apart
from the question of remissness by these bodies, in what are clearly
their special duties, there is great difficulty in apportioning
the duties and responsibility aright. The Board of Trade have not
infrequently received checks when with precautionary motives they
have interfered with departments and in matters but little affecting
a vessel’s seaworthiness. The conflict which has so long raged and
still rages between the Board and the shipowners of Britain regarding
the loading of vessels, illustrates, and is indeed the result of,
both difficulties. The Merchant Shipping Bill, introduced by Mr
Chamberlain, and in a modified form now before Parliament, will, it
is hoped, furnish a satisfactory solution of the matter. Shipowners
themselves have too often insisted on exercising functions and
dictating in matters which only may be determined with propriety and
safety by builders or by competent naval architects.
The amount of thorough supervision to which a vessel is subjected
while under construction, renders the fear of unseaworthiness, from
either defective construction or equipment, the least reasonable
of all the fears with which ocean navigation is regarded. It is in
later circumstances, and concerning matters of a more extraneous
character, that the most justifiable fears may be entertained
regarding a vessel’s safety. Overloading, improper stowage, bad
management, under-manning, insufficient repair, besides the numerous
inevitable and unforeseen circumstances incidental to sea-voyaging,
may be instanced as the causes to which the greatest losses are
attributable.[4] Few instances of loss from structural defects are
adduceable, and even in these, causes of a more or less extraneous
character are associated with the loss. On the other hand, instances
could be multiplied where vessels sustaining the casualties which
rough weather or rank carelessness make always imminent have come
out of the ordeal with credit to the constructors. One notable case
may be instanced. The _Arizona_, of the Guion Line, some time after
being put on the Atlantic service, while steaming at a speed of 14
knots, and almost in mid-Atlantic, ran into an iceberg of gigantic
dimensions, and notwithstanding that the force of the concussion
smashed her bows for a length of 20 feet into an unrecognisable mass,
she kept afloat, and reached a port of safety.
Where, as has already been indicated, there is such close oversight
and thorough supervision—where, indeed, the real interests of every
party honestly concerned lie so clearly in the high qualities of
construction—nothing short of such results as the foregoing should be
expected. The insurance companies, on whom the burden (monetary at
least) of loss at sea ultimately falls, see it their interest to know
that those registration societies, on whom they rely for guarantee
as to a vessel’s structural and general efficiency, are themselves
efficient and trustworthy authorities. These societies, known as
Lloyd’s, Liverpool Underwriters, and Bureau Veritas, Registries, in
spite of the dread as to business rivalry affecting injuriously their
standards of classification, have still a high criterion, and enjoy
the confidence of insurance societies and shipowners alike.
Shipowners themselves, notwithstanding some examples to the contrary,
are, and have always been, anxious and painstaking seekers after
thoroughness; not merely mercenary grubs, sacrificing considerations
of safety to features promising exemption from tonnage or other
registration dues, and perhaps the extinction of a rival. Some of the
best British vessels, notably those of the Cunard Line, are unclassed
at the registries, but have been built under private survey. The
well known boast of the Cunard Company that not a single life has
been lost by mishap at sea during their long and extensive service,
is eloquent testimony to the care exercised in the construction and
management of ships. It is the practice of some companies to effect
classification in two, sometimes three, separate registries, and
the number of inspectors employed to superintend the work of
construction, over and above the surveyors of the registries and
the overseers of the firms, is in some instances astonishing. The
crowning case of all is that of the building firms themselves—many
shipbuilders unquestionably being conscientious and thorough to a
degree which simply mocks this great array of supervision.
In the outfit of vessels correspondingly close attention is paid to
those features, fixed or portable, which contribute to the safety
of the ship and the welfare of passengers. The universal adoption
of steam winches for working cargo enables the pumps communicating
with the holds to be wrought by steam, through levers attached to
the barrel ends of the winches. Special donkey-engine pumps, in
addition, are now employed in all the higher class vessels, and
automatic means of registering the quantity of water in the holds are
beginning to be introduced. Provision against outbreaks of fire, no
less than against foundering, has been receiving greater attention
than formerly. Many of the first-class mail steamships are fitted
with fire-pipes leading to every compartment, and which convey at the
turning of a valve a charge of steam sufficient to extinguish the
most serious outbreak. Lowering and detaching gear for life-boats is
now a necessary part of every first-class steamer’s equipment. Over a
dozen different apparatuses for effecting this very important purpose
are at present in the market, some of which are admirably adapted for
safe and speedy working, even in the hurry and panic which too often
accompanies cases of shipwreck.
Important as these devices are for saving life and property in event
of casualty, the appliances which contribute to the prevention of
casualty at all, are perhaps more so. This is a gradually increasing
and improving element in ships’ outfit. Conspicuous among this class
of articles are navigational instruments, and of these perhaps the
most noteworthy are the instruments with which the name of Sir
William Thomson is associated, although many others, in use or
awaiting adoption, and designed for equally important purposes, might
be referred to, did space permit.
Within the period covered by this review, this eminent inventor has
introduced an instrument which enables soundings to be taken while
vessels are going at full speed, at depths of 100 fathoms and under.
The sounding line adopted is a fine steel wire, such as is used by
pianoforte makers, which passes through the water with very little
resistance, and can be sent to the bottom by a light weight or
sinker, even when the ship is going full speed. Fastened to a short
length of rope, near the sinker, there is a brass tube, in which is
placed a glass tube two feet long, closed at one end and open at the
other. This glass tube is coated inside with chromate of silver. As
the sinker goes down, the air in the tube becomes compressed, and
sea water rises up inside, the height to which it rises depending on
the depth, from the surface, to which the glass tube goes down. As
the sea water rises in the tube, the salt of the water acts on the
chromate of silver and changes the colour from red to white; thus a
mark is left on the glass tube showing the height to which the sea
water rises, from which the actual depth may be at once measured
by a prepared scale. By means of this sounding machine a ship can
feel her way round a coast in a fog without reducing speed. In later
instruments the inventor has devised another form of automatic gauge,
which obviates the use of glass tubes, and is a decided improvement
on the gauge here described.
The well-known Improved Mariner’s Compass introduced by Sir W.
Thomson enables the magnetism of the ship to be completely corrected
instead of only approximately. This is attained by the use of several
small needles instead of one or two large ones. The requisite
steadiness of the compass card is obtained by means of an aluminium
rim suspended round the edge of the card. The extreme lightness of
the card reduces greatly the wear of the needle point supporting the
compass. Along with the compass the inventor supplies an azimuth
mirror which greatly facilitates observations either on a point of
land or on a star, the whole invention proving from experience an
almost indispensable item of outfit for well-appointed vessels.
The care and ingenuity expended on the question of ship safety must
not, however, be measured simply by the amount of attention and skill
exercised in constructing and outfitting vessels of the common type.
The question has very naturally occasioned many distinct novelties
in ship design. Some of these have been directly designed to secure
safety, but the greater number have aimed at combining with safety
the other qualities of speed and comfort; as in the instances given
in the previous chapter. The success attained in practice, it need
scarcely be said, has hitherto been but partial.
The problem of rendering ships absolutely unsinkable has, from very
early times, received attention from many concerned in shipbuilding
and navigation. Propositions and trials have been made from time to
time, without as yet any very marked success attending any of them.
Various plans have been submitted for safety-ships, the general
principle of which consists in forming the ship into two or more
distinct and entire portions, and in the event of one sustaining
damage by collision or otherwise, those remaining to be disconnected
and sent adrift—presumably with all passengers on board.
Other life-saving devices, while interfering somewhat with the
original structure, have simply been intended to use or modify
existing features or material on board ship. Two of these which have
received attention from the Scientific Societies may be shortly
described as examples of the class of devices referred to. One was
the proposition of Mr Jolly, M.A., of the Royal Navy, laid before
the Institution of Naval Architects in 1874; the other being that
of Mr Gadd, submitted to the Manchester Mechanical Society in 1879.
Mr Jolly’s proposal was to construct what he felicitously termed
the “ark saloon,” an erection on the upper deck, and resembling
very closely an ordinary deck-house, but instead of being built
permanently on the vessel, it was to be an independent structure
capable of being readily disconnected, and “while answering all the
purposes of accommodation found in ordinary deck-houses, to have
within it hidden resources capable of converting it when afloat
into a perfectly navigable vessel.” Mr Gadd’s proposal was to form
the upper portion of the bulwarks of ships of loose sections 12-ft.
long, composed chiefly of hollow, thin metallic tubes. These sections
when immersed in the water would form so many pontoons, and would be
provided with cords and loops along their sides, and in the event
of the ship going down would be lifted out of their place by the
action of the water. Objections on economical grounds to Mr Jolly’s
scheme, fully pointed out by members of the Institute, apply almost
equally to the proposal of Mr Gadd. The expense involved in their
application would far outbalance in the eyes of the shipowner the
possible service they could render. No provision was made by Mr Jolly
for launching his ark saloon, thereby limiting its use to cases of
foundering; and even in event of this, the “ark” was only to be so
in name until the good ship should “go under,” and leave the saloon
serenely floating—presumably with all souls inside. The difficulty in
Mr Gadd’s proposal, of at once making the bulwarks easily floatable
and structurally efficient for the resistance of heavy seas,
seriously detracted from its feasibility.
It would be a somewhat heavy task to make adequate note of all
the varied proposals and patented inventions for the preservation
of life at sea. Some of these, as in the foregoing instances, are
proposals affecting structural features; but others, and by far the
most numerous, are simply adjuncts to the vessel. Ingenuity has
been specially directed of late towards bringing into efficient
requisition, in event of impending shipwreck, the commonest items of
a ship’s outfit. This has been abundantly evidenced in the several
naval exhibitions held within the past three years in various parts
of the country. Firms whose work lies in cork and Indiarubber
manufactures have there exhibited in great profusion various forms
of life-belts, life-buoys, life-saving mattresses and pillows, and
life-saving dresses. Others, availing themselves of larger items,
have shown life-saving adaptations of deck-seats, deck-houses, and
bulwarks made into the form of life-rafts. Not a few of these devices
have received adoption in our passenger-carrying steamships, and
their more general use—especially if accompanied by proper knowledge
of how they may best be taken advantage of—would materially help to
rob shipwreck of some of its terrors at least, if not of its dire
fatalities. It has been urged in this connection—and the plea is
eminently reasonable—that Parliament should invest the Board of Trade
with proper powers—if that Body is not already vested with all that
is requisite—to take the matter of life-saving appliances thoroughly
and practically in hand, and by means of experiments in all kinds of
weather to determine which are the best means of saving life under
different conditions. Having done this, also to draw up rules for
the proper stowage and use of such appliances on board ship, and to
see that such rules are strictly observed, and that no vessel be
permitted to go to sea which is not so equipped.
* * * * *
The development in the size of steamships not only affects the
quality of safety, but also in various ways the element of comfort at
sea. The greater length, for instance, is calculated to neutralise
the longitudinal oscillation, the effects of which are so often fatal
to the comfort of passengers. Again, the great length affords an
advantage in the way of allowing better state-room accommodation; all
the rooms, or a larger proportion of them, being next the vessel’s
side, and consequently more airy and better lighted. It is not,
however, in the increased length so much as in the development of all
three dimensions, and especially in the increased ratio of breadth
to length, that modern types of steamships are enhanced in the
qualities of safety and comfort. Mistaken or imperfect notions as to
the ratio most desirable for speed, have kept in perpetuity types of
steamers which the fuller light of modern scientific investigation
has shown to be undesirable. Great beam is now believed to be not
incompatible with great speed, and even apart from questions of speed
the advantages accruing from breadth are better appreciated.
As an illustration of this movement, one of the more recent of
the many transatlantic mail steamships may be instanced. In the
_Aurania_, of the Cunard Company, the proportions—although perhaps
only in the line along which modern professional ideas tend—are
certainly in advance of the general practice with regard to vessels
of her great size. The dimensions of the _Servia_, the _Alaska_,
and the _City of Rome_—three vessels comparable with the _Aurania_
as constituting the largest merchant vessels afloat—all give a
proportion of 10 beams to the length. The _Aurania’s_ dimensions—470
feet by 57 feet by 39 feet—show her to have only about 8¼ beams to
length. The success of the older type of vessel having proportions
somewhat similar to this “modern instance” has in no material
sense been eclipsed by the narrow types which subsequently for
so long prevailed. Availing themselves of that freedom which
independence of the registration societies yield—their vessels not
being “classed”—the Cunard Coy determined to adopt the old-time
proportions. The step has been justified, in so far as affected by
the matter of speed, the powerful vessel, at her trials on the Clyde,
having attained a mean speed of 17¾ knots, or 20½ statute miles, per
hour. The stable qualities due to the great breadth of the _Aurania_
has in actual service further confirmed the wisdom of the change. The
magnificent vessels presently building on the Clyde for the Cunard
Coy., though between 20 and 30 feet longer, are the same breadth as
the _Aurania_, _i.e._, 57 feet. This is accounted for by the fact
that the breadth of beam fixed for the _Aurania_ was the largest
amount permissible, having regard to the breadth of entrance of the
largest dock in New York. This _en passant_ is worthy of notice as
giving colourable justification to the complaints sometimes made that
civil engineers are urged to progress in dock accommodation only by
shipbuilders treading on their heels.
Coincident with the changes made in the dimensions and structure
of vessels, there are numerous features of enhanced comfort for
passengers and crew which are deserving of notice. Notably is
this manifest in the arrangement of saloons and state-rooms—their
appointment, lighting, and ventilation. The character of steamships
for the great ocean highways in this respect is above and beyond
anything which Board of Trade enactments seek to secure. The amount
of spirited competition itself on those services, acts as an
efficient promoter of excellence in design and equipment.
It is now the prevailing fashion to appropriate that part of a
steamer just before the engine and boiler hatchways for the principal
saloon and first-class berthing, and it has so many advantages over
the old plan of locating these apartments in the poop or after
extremity of the vessel that its adoption in large steamers of the
passenger-carrying trade has become all but general. Some of these
advantages may be briefly enumerated. They are:—ampler and airier
saloon space: the plumbness of the vessel’s sides permitting a
saloon completely athwartship, which is scarcely practicable in
the conventional situation aft, because of the curvature of sides;
increased facilities for ventilation; purer air; freedom from the
noise and vibration caused by propeller; comparative immunity from
the effects of “pitching” or longitudinal oscillation.
Nothing, perhaps, in connection with improved saloon accommodation
strikes one so much as the increased height between decks now
prevalent. While from six-and-a-half to seven-and-a-half feet
was considered sufficient some years ago, it is now the practice
in first-class steamers to make the height as much as from
eight-and-a-half to nine-and-a-half feet. The feeling of spaciousness
this change contributes to the saloons, as well as the scope it
yields for architectural treatment of the walls, are not the least
gratifying results of the improvement. How much the latter result
has been taken advantage of in our modern passenger steamships need
scarcely be told, as their architectural and decorative character is
often and eloquently enlarged upon by delighted voyagers.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.
LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF GRAND SALOON IN _S.S. America_, SHOWING
DOME-ROOF.]
A noteworthy feature in improved saloon accommodation is the
provision of music rooms or social halls, which are usually situated
above the dining saloons, and connected or made one therewith by
means of light and ventilation wells placed in the centre. The
size and ornamentation of these, and the light and air they are
the means of admitting, contribute in a very marked degree to the
spaciousness, beauty, and comfort of the main saloon. By recent
special modifications in the deck structure, several builders on the
Clyde—notably Messrs J. & G. Thomson—are rendering this feature of
greater value than ever. In the National Line Steamship _America_,
just finished by the firm named and to which attention has already
been directed, the Grand Saloon is a splendid apartment, extending
from side to side of the vessel, and measures over eighty feet in
length. Its size and height are augmented in a remarkable degree by
the fitting of a dome-roof extending in height through two tiers
of decks, and embracing about half the length of saloon. This
feature—some conception of which may be gathered from the sketches
shown by Figs. 9 and 10, is altogether free of athwartship beams,
and practically gives to the saloon a clear height of 18 feet. The
crown of the dome is formed of beautifully-executed stained glass,
finished round its base in a richly coloured frieze formed of panels
containing well-executed oil paintings. The whole feature, for
structure, ampleness, and ornamentation, is a noteworthy advance in
the way of rendering the saloons of steamships more comfortable—not
to say palatial—and reflects the utmost credit on the building firm.
[Illustration: FIG. 10.
CROSS SECTION OF GRAND SALOON IN _S.S. America_, SHOWING DOME-ROOF.]
In several vessels built within recent years on the Clyde there has
been adopted—in addition to the athwartship middle length saloon, a
curious and complete reversal of the traditional arrangement with
respect to accommodation for the crew. The plan, one would think,
must shock the orthodox sentiment of our seamen, whatever they may
think of its utility. A few strokes of the draughtsman’s pencil, and
_per saltum_ “Jack” and his “castle” are transported to the poop, and
the precincts so long sacred to his use are prostituted to the lounge
and the tobacco pipe of the pampered “land-lubber”—_i.e._, they form
a luxuriant smoking saloon for passengers.
Of the multifarious ways in which modern invention and skill are laid
under contribution to the end that voyagers shall have the maximum
of safety and comfort on board ship, the system of electric lighting
now so extensively adopted is not the least noteworthy. It is only
about three years ago since the application of the incandescent form
of electric lamp on board ship was first tried. The success of the
system and its rapid extension during the subsequent period has been
remarkable, and is a matter upon which electricians, shipowners, and
sea voyagers are alike to be congratulated. In every well-appointed
passenger ship for ocean service, the electric light has already
supplanted the former method of lighting the saloons, state-rooms,
and machinery spaces, by means of oil lamps, which has so often
proved a fruitful source of annoyance to passengers and crew, if not,
indeed, of positive danger to the vessel herself.
The advantages of the change are such as constitute the electric
light an invaluable acquisition on board every modern passenger
steamship. The light gives off very little heat, there is no smell,
no products of combustion to produce headaches and sickness. No
matches are required, and the danger from fire is absolutely reduced
to a minimum. The light requires little or no attention on the part
of stewards, for it is only requisite that a man be sent round once
a day to see whether any of the lamps require renewal, and the
renewal of a lamp is performed as simply as trimming the wick of an
oil lamp or placing a fresh candle into a candlestick. The danger,
annoyance and time, formerly spent in storing up and dealing out
large quantities of paraffin or other oils, are completely obviated.
The lamps are as easily subject to the control of the passenger as
ordinary gas jets. Instead of the flickering and somewhat clumsy oil
lamps, the electric system presents, encased in neat, tiny, glass
globes, a steady, mellow white light, the adaptability of which to
any conceivable position or design is one of its most beautiful
properties. The artistic grouping of the electric incandescent lamps,
and their combination with the architectural features of saloons,
are matters to which the forms adopted for the best known lamps—the
Edison & Swan types—specially lend themselves. A single Edison lamp
is shown by Fig. 11.
The work in electric lighting on board ship for the year 1883 shows
how firmly the electric system has become established as the only
system for first-class passenger vessels. The report of the Edison
& Swan United Companies embraces the work on thirty-one vessels,
including three Indian troopships (and four more on order), four
vessels for the Clan Line, one for the Peninsular and Oriental
Company, one for the Union Steamship Company, three for the Cunard
Company, three for the British India Steam Navigation Company, three
for the New Zealand Shipping Company, and so on. The list of Messrs
Siemens Brothers amounts to twenty high-class vessels, including the
_Arizona_, the _Servia_, the _Aurania_, the _City of Rome_, the _City
of Chicago_, the _Austral_, the _Germanic_, and the _Massilia_. These
two firms thus give fifty-one vessels, and adding those entrusted to
outsiders—four in all—affords a total of fifty-five, representing an
aggregate of not less than 11,000 incandescent lamps.
[Illustration: FIG. 11.
EDISON LAMP.]
The application of the electric light on board ship to the purposes
of signalling, as a substitute for the ordinary system of oil
lanterns, has been fully shown in theory and already partially
effected in practice, but its development in this direction is
necessarily retarded by considerations which do not affect its
use in the interior of vessels. Vessels traversing the ocean in
darkness are necessarily dependent one on the other for the means
of knowing their proximity, and as the electric light much exceeds
in power and brilliancy that of oil lanterns, it would have the
effect of eclipsing the latter even within a large radius. The
adoption of the electric light for this very important purpose
would, therefore, have to be pretty much a simultaneous and general
movement throughout the ships of the various companies, if not of
the various nations. Apart from such considerations, however, other
objections have been instanced to the appropriation of the electric
light for this purpose. Difficulty, it is said, has been experienced
in distinguishing the colours pertaining to the port and starboard
side-lights, and fears are entertained regarding the liability of
the light, or the machinery employed in generating the current, to
suddenly fail in its action. Few of the objections named, of course,
amount to very serious obstacles, and as the system is yet so much
in its infancy, it may well happen that a few years will witness all
that is here foreshadowed.
Short of this universal and complete appropriation of the electric
light for signalling, however, it has been introduced with gratifying
results in mercantile steamers for various important purposes—_e.g._,
for lighting up the decks and surrounding wharfage during the work
of loading or disembarking cargo; for projecting a flood of light
ahead of a vessel’s course where navigation is difficult, and when
danger in the shape of rocks or icebergs is imminent. The employment
of the light in the way last named has been specially extended in the
case of vessels intended for naval warfare. By its powerful aid the
position and tactics of the enemy, the configuration of forts about
to be assailed, or the nature of the land where it is proposed to
disembark, can all be revealed, with a minuteness almost as perfect
as that due to the light of day.
Another feature on board ship affecting most intimately the
well-being and comfort of passengers—too often, indeed, the safety of
the ship itself—is that of ventilation. The thorough and efficient
ventilation of ships is a feature which only during very recent times
has received from shipowners and shipbuilders the amount of attention
it deserves. The inadequacy of the methods of ventilation existing
in emigrant ships, and as applied to holds for the ventilation of
cargoes, engaged public attention very considerably a few years ago.
The explosion on board the _Doterel_, with other like casualties,
resulted in the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the
ventilation of ships. The prominence thus given to the subject and
the experience then gained, have been fruitful of increased regard
for efficiency in ship ventilation. In the absence for such a long
time, however, of any system capable of universal application and
having at once the merits of efficiency and cheapness, shipowners
have adhered to old-fashioned, unscientific, and ineffective methods
long after the invention of improved systems, one or other of which
would have well repaid adoption.
In ways and to an extent which may perhaps have been made evident
in the previous pages, the introduction of the electric light is
of itself greatly advantageous in this connection. One striking
peculiarity of the change perhaps requires more explicit statement.
This is the curious fact—patent enough to all who know anything of
the properties of the incandescent light—that what is the very life
of oil or other lights, is to it, certain death. The element thus
vitally concerned is, of course, oxygen; and it need not be more than
hinted that in existing so entirely without this element—at all times
a great desideratum in passenger ships—the electric light is a vast
benefactor to all who “go down to the sea in ships.”
Many highly-improved methods of ventilation are now open to the
shipowner; the number of patented systems in use or awaiting
adoption being adequate testimony to the widespread attention
bestowed upon the subject. These divide themselves into two general
classes:—firstly, systems which aim at providing an efficient
self-acting series of ventilating pipes in which the natural current
or that induced by the vessel’s own speed through the atmosphere, is
the only force utilised; and secondly, those in which machines driven
by steam power are employed to produce fresh currents or extract
vitiated atmosphere.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.]
[Illustration: FIG. 13.]
Various forms of ventilators, belonging to the first-named class,
have been introduced into many ocean-going passenger vessels within
recent years, the result being a considerable improvement in the
sanitary condition of the more confined portions of vessels. One of
the most approved of these, receiving specially extended adoption,
amounting as it does to a highly perfected system, may be noticed
a little in detail. This is the form of ventilator patented and
introduced by Messrs R. Boyle & Son, the well known ventilating
engineers of London and Glasgow, consisting of upcast and downcast
shafts fixed above deck, communicating with the interior of vessel by
a system of piping led to the various compartments. The upcast, or
“air pump” ventilator, as the patentees term it, consists of a fixed
head having an ingenious arrangement of louvre webs, whereby the wind
impinging upon it from any direction, creates a current and exhausts
the air from the cylinder of which the head is part, the foul air
from below immediately ascending to supply the place of the air
extracted. A continuous and powerful upward current is thus induced,
and the head is so devised as to effectually prevent down-draught
or the inlet of water. The elevation and plan of this ventilator
is shown by Figs. 12 and 13. In Fig. 13, 1 represents cylindrical
chamber communicating with shaft below; 2, deep lip to prevent the
possibility of water passing into cylinder and down the shaft; 3,
curved plates to deflect and compress the air over outlet openings or
slits; 4, creates an induced current and exhausts the air from the
cylinder; 5, radial plates to deflect air off centre of slits; 6,
curved baffle plate or guard, to concentrate the current, and prevent
the wind blowing through the slits opposite. The downcast ventilator,
though necessarily more simple, is arranged, by means of similar
louvered webs to prevent any water passing below, lodging it on the
open deck instead. By means of up and downcast ventilators of this
type, it is possible to have the ventilation going on between decks
without interruption when there is a storm blowing and seas sweeping
the deck, whereas under ordinary conditions, and in similar weather,
everything would be battened down and the ventilation _nil_. The
inventors, of course, are able to point to other advantages possessed
by these ventilators, but the above are the salient features,
which have won for their system marked recognition and pretty wide
adoption. As evidencing its efficiency, it may be stated that Messrs
Boyle’s system was awarded the “Burt” prize of £50, offered for
international competition by the Shipwrights’ Coy. of London in 1882
for the best system of ship ventilation.
Having regard to the great importance of first providing means
whereby foul air may be extracted from compartments rather than first
attempting to put fresh air in—at least by other than mechanical
means—it has become the practice with several steamship companies
to fit a series of pipes from the rooms throughout the ’tween decks
all leading into a common main, carrying this main into the boiler
funnel, and thus utilising the powerful draught existing there when
the vessel is under way. The efficiency of this method is all that
could be wished, but its action is necessarily impaired when the
vessel is in port and the boilers not in use. For steamships having
long runs its value is very considerable; but in steamers having
short passages and long port delays its merits are not so pronounced,
and it is, of course, of no account when sailing ships are concerned.
Two systems of ventilation much alike in principle and equally
applicable to the steamer and sailing ship may be shortly referred
to. One is the Norton Ventilator, in which the dipping motion of
vessels is utilised in effecting their own ventilation; the action
in ocean-going vessels, of course, being continuous and automatic.
Two cylinders, closed at the upper ends, are placed on each side of
the stern post at such a distance as not to interfere in any way with
the action of the rudder, and sufficiently close under the stern to
be well out of harm’s way. As the vessel rises the water drops in
these cylinders, which are partly submerged, and in its fall causes a
vacuum, to fill which the air is drawn from all parts of the ship.
The sinking motion of the vessel again fills the cylinders and forces
the foul air collected, through the discharge pipes. The ventilator
admits also of being actuated by steam or other power on board
steamships, the exhausting and forcing device in this case consisting
of a water bell or air chamber to which a vertical reciprocating
motion is imparted by a beam or other attachment operated upon by the
mechanical power adopted. The other method referred to is that now
being pretty extensively introduced by Messrs Mosses and Mitchell, of
London. It consists of two small cylinders, placed on either side of
a ship, in-board, and connected by a pipe. The cylinders are partly
filled with water, and, as the vessel rolls, the water rushes from
the elevated to the depressed side of the ship, from one cylinder
to the other, and, by creating a vacuum, draws up the foul air from
between decks, or out of the hold, by pipes leading below. The air
which is pumped up by this self-acting process goes out through a
discharge pipe over the side, and such is the force of its exit that
it serves to blow a foghorn when required. The cylinders can be
placed so as to be worked by the pitching as well as the rolling of
the vessel, and there is always a sufficient movement of the water to
keep these pumps in action.
Systems of the other class—those involving the aid of mechanical
power—are as much available as the automatic systems, but the greater
expense of fitting, maintaining, and working them are considerations,
apart from the question of their greater efficiency, which stand in
the way of their general adoption. In vessels chiefly intended for
passenger or emigrant carrying, artificial ventilation by mechanical
means has been provided, and the practice is greatly on the increase,
but systems in which natural agents are more largely brought into
requisition have advantages which appeal most effectually to ship
owners in general.
In several modern steamships engaged in cargo and passenger service,
hydraulic machinery designed to take the place of the usual deck
steam equipment has recently been introduced with great advantage.
This embraces machinery used for steering the vessel, loading and
discharging cargo, heaving anchors; for performing, indeed, all the
work on board excepting that of propulsion. From experience of the
well proved utility and durability of hydraulic power on shore, it
seems quite a natural consequence that it should take its place on
board ship. Indeed, the system has so many advantages both from
the point of view of the passenger and of the steamship owner,
the wonder is that its introduction has been so long delayed. Its
perfect noiselessness, as compared with the rattling, hissing, steam
machinery now in vogue, is an advantage which will appeal strongly
to the sea voyager. The great speed of the system, as well as the
absence of jar and noise, the reduction in wear and tear, and the
obviating of well-known disadvantages incidental to steam pipes, are
merits of the system which are bound to appeal to the steamship owner.
It has been well pointed out by Mr A. Betts Brown, of Edinburgh, the
patentee and manufacturer of this class of machinery, in a paper read
by him before a recent meeting of the Institution of Naval Architects
that—“With all the noise of steam engines at work on deck, running at
piston speeds of as much as 1000 feet per minute, the cargo is lifted
from the hold at a rate of only from one to two feet per second,
which cannot be considered as keeping pace with the general progress
made in other departments of steamship economy. In short, vast sums
are spent on fuel to gain half a knot extra speed on a passage,
while hours may be wasted in port in consequence of the primitive
nature of the present system of deck machinery for discharging
cargo.” Previous to 1880, Mr Brown had supplied and fitted hydraulic
machinery on board the paddle-steamer _Cosmos_, built by Messrs A.
& J. Inglis, of Glasgow, intended for South American river service,
but it was only in that year that he had an opportunity of fitting a
large ocean-trading steamship with the system. This was the _Quetta_,
built by Messrs Denny, Dumbarton, to whom, with the managers of
the British India Association Steam Navigation Company, who own
the vessel, Mr Brown ascribes credit for the opportunity afforded
him of fitting his firm’s system on a complete scale. The _Quetta_
is 380-ft. in length, 40-ft. breadth, depth of hold 29-ft., and
3,302 tons gross, and is fitted with a complete system of hydraulic
machinery performing the following functions:—Steering, heaving the
anchor, warping by capstans fore and aft, taking in and discharging
cargo, lowering the derricks to clear cargo over side, hoisting
ashes, reversing main engines, and shutting tunnel water-tight
door in engine-room. For detailed descriptions of these various
appliances, the reader is referred to the before-mentioned paper.
The most for which space is here available is a very general outline
of the principle on which they are supplied with motive power. The
prime mover consists of a pair of compound surface-condensing pumping
engines of 100 indicated horse-power, situated in the engine-room
of the vessel. These engines pump water (or in winter non-freezing
fluid) from a tank into a steam accumulator. The pumping engines are
started and stopped by the falling or rising of the steam piston in
the accumulator; and since the piston falls when the hydraulic power
is being utilised, and rises to its former level when the power is
not in use, it follows that the apparatus is perfectly automatic.
Once started, it does not require the supervision of an engineer,
and it maintains a steady pressure of 800-lbs. per square inch in
the hydraulic mains or pressure pipes. These are carried up from
the engine-room, and extend fore and aft the ship. Alongside the
pressure main a similar return main is laid, which discharges into
the tank. From the pressure mains branches are connected to the
various hydraulic machines. After having done its work, the water
is discharged into the return mains, being thus used over and over
again. The experience obtained in the working of the _Quetta_ shows
that a donkey boiler of the usual size, just sufficient for steam
winches, enables the cargo to be discharged in half the time: in
other words, does double the work on a given coal consumpt with
compound surface-condensing pumping engine, and the hydraulic system.
The advantages of hydraulic machinery have been thus summarised:—A
pair of engines in one place do, with no noise and half the
consumption of fuel, the work usually performed by perhaps a dozen
donkey engines, while about £30 or £40 a voyage is saved in wear and
tear. The increase of speed obtained in loading and discharging cargo
practically ensures a quicker voyage. The rapidly working machinery
necessitates double gangs of men in the hold; but though the hands
are more numerous they are paid for a shorter time, and the cost of
labour per ton of cargo is thus less than usual. The prime outlay
is considerably greater than under the ordinary system, but it is
calculated that in at least three years the extra expense will have
been saved.
Notwithstanding the considerable increase in cost (more than double
that of steam equipment) of the hydraulic system, the British India
Association have seen their way to fit the succeeding steamers
they have built, similarly to the _Quetta_, namely, the _Bulimba_,
_Waroonga_, and _Manora_, the two intervening ships having their
emigrant quarters ventilated by fans driven by hydraulic engines, as
well as the usual deck equipment. In addition to the above, there
have already been nine other steamers fitted successfully by Mr
Brown’s firm with hydraulic machinery—including the Union Steamship
Coy.’s _Tartar_, of 4340 tons—and there is every prospect now of its
taking the place of the noisy steam machinery in at least our most
important passenger lines.
* * * * *
The regard which is had to comfort and luxury in modern passenger
steamers has manifested itself—like the attention devoted to
swiftness and safety—in various propositions and designs of a more
or less novel kind. These, indeed, have very often consisted of
designs embracing the whole of the qualities named; comfort and
luxury being coincident with the more important properties of speed
and safety already noticed; but not a few propositions and actual
undertakings have consisted of vessels in which comfort has largely
been the dominant and regulating condition of design. This subject
receives happier illustration from the history of steam service
between England and France, than perhaps from any other service
that could be instanced. The thought and speech expended on “an
efficient Channel service” at the meetings of the various societies
concerned with shipbuilding and marine engineering, and the space
devoted to the subject in the technical journals, has been no more
than commensurate with the number and variety of projects for its
accomplishment, submitted from time to time. Many of the schemes
have not been quite of a marine character, and these, of course,
lie beyond the province of the present review; but so far as ships
are concerned, it is interesting to note to what extent comfort has
been the dominant and regulating condition in the designs. In the
_Castalia_ and the _Calais-Douvres_, employed in Channel service,
features of considerable novelty—notably the double hulls—were
adopted, and it was to the desire for increased comfort as much as
speed that their introduction was owing.
In the steamer _Bessemer_, however, built at Hull in 1875, this
subject finds happiest illustration. This steamer, which involved
some very interesting and novel problems in shipbuilding—in which
the matters of propulsion and steering were largely concerned—was
designed for the special purpose of practically testing an invention
of Mr Henry Bessemer’s, having as its object the alleviation of the
evils of sea-sickness. Mr (now Sir Henry) Bessemer’s invention, as
applied in this case, consisted of a saloon supported on longitudinal
pivots, which was to be made unsusceptible to transverse oscillation
by the application to it of machinery wrought by hydraulic power. It
was the intention of the eminent inventor to have applied this system
to the correction of longitudinal as well as transverse oscillation,
but on considering that the steamer was to be of large dimensions
and performing a service in comparatively small waves it was thought
desirable to limit its application to transverse motion, at the same
time having regard to the longitudinal motion by reducing the height
of the vessel for a distance of 50-ft. at each end, thereby inducing
depression at the extremities, through the vessel’s not rising to,
but being overswept by, the waves.
Although an influential company was formed to work the _Bessemer_
and other vessels embodying her novel features, which it was thought
might follow, she was virtually abandoned after one or two trials
across the Channel. Her failure was assumed without exhaustive and
conclusive trials being made of the many novelties embodied in
her construction, some of which were obviously of an experimental
character. This is the more to be regretted because of the beneficent
issues involved in the project, and also in some degree because of
the extent to which the faith of some intrepid and experienced men
was pledged to its success. Nevertheless, it was always a matter of
grave doubt, even when the fullest measure of mechanical success was
allowed for, whether the idea of the pivoted saloon was calculated to
secure that immunity from the effects of ship motion in a seaway, for
which the celebrated patentee felt induced to hope.
It is maintained by many who profess to have given the subject
attention, that sea-sickness in its most virulent forms, and in the
majority of instances, is less attributable to the transverse and
longitudinal oscillations—known respectively, as the “rolling” and
“pitching” motions—than to the vertical movement termed “dipping,”
which in its descent from the summit of one wave until upborne by the
wave next following, the vessel undergoes. Now, this is a condition
for which, in the Bessemer project, there was no provision, nor
indeed well can be under any circumstances, save in the simple but
costly expedient of adding to the dimensions or bulk of vessels,
irrespective of form. The Czar of Russia’s yacht _Livadia_, built
some years ago, exemplified in her extraordinary dimensions and great
bulk the truth of such reasoning. The actual rolling and pitching of
this remarkable vessel, as observed in the height of a gale in the
Bay of Biscay, and in the midst of very heavy seas, was exceeding
small. This never exceeded four degrees for the single roll, or seven
degrees for the double roll, nor beyond five degrees for the forward
pitch, or nine degrees for the double pitch, so to speak. This
horizontal steadiness appeared to experts, who were on board at the
time, most remarkable, and Sir E. J. Reed, in a communication to the
_Times_, commented amongst other things on the agreeableness of the
contrast the voyage on the _Livadia_ afforded, with his experience of
voyaging at sea in ordinary ships.
After all, it must be acknowledged that attempts hitherto made to
obviate the evils of sea-sickness by novelty in design fall very
far short of attaining the beneficent results sought after. The
_Bessemer_, the _Livadia_, the _Calais-Douvres_, and other _unique_
craft primarily conceived with regard to this end, are now, it
would seem, exemplifying in their latter fate the futility of the
endeavour. Such attempts, however ill-advised they may possibly
appear in the light of the knowledge their very failure or their
partial successes yield, have still their creditable and praiseworthy
aspects. The spirit which has prompted some of them is not wholly
one of money-making, and their histories enrich the general fund of
experience far more than libraries of untried theories. Shipowners
are too ready to shut their minds against everything which seeks
the _acme_ of comfort and safety by other means than those which
guarantee _economical_ success, or those which consist in increasing
the size and power, and enhancing the accommodation of conventional
types of vessels. These novelties and innovations, on the other hand,
represent more of the intrepidity essential to genuine advancement
than is forthcoming in a thousand merchant ships of the conventional
type.
Happily the need for such enterprise as is involved in at once
departing from tried types, has within recent years been largely, if
not altogether, obviated, through improved procedure in the work of
design. The more thoroughly analytic process of investigation and
experiment now in vogue, greatly curtails the number of novelties
introduced, or which reach the constructive stage. Many present-day
projects never get beyond the “paper stage,” which in times not so
far distant would have spelled out “failure” to the very last letter.
Since the system of model experiment has begun to be practised in
a reliable manner, and since theoretical prediction generally has
become better appreciated, over-sanguine inventors have been spared
the penalties of failure in actual practice, and ingenuity has been
reclaimed or warned away from channels that would inevitably have
proved chimerical.
List of Papers bearing on the safety and comfort of modern
steamships, to which readers desiring fuller acquaintance with the
_technique_ and details of the subjects are referred:—
ON THE NECESSITY OF FITTING PASSENGER SHIPS WITH SUFFICIENT
WATERTIGHT BULKHEADS, by Mr Lawrance Hill: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xiv., 1873.
ON WATER AND FIRE-TIGHT COMPARTMENTS IN SHIPS, by Mr Thomas May:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xiv., 1873.
ON CAUSES OF UNSEAWORTHINESS IN MERCHANT STEAMERS, by Mr Benjamin
Martell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxi., 1880.
ON MODERN MERCHANT STEAMERS, by Mr James Dunn: Trans. Inst. Naval
Architects, vol. xxiii, 1882.
ON BULKHEADS, by Mr James Dunn: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiv., 1883.
ON PUMPING AND VENTILATING ARRANGEMENTS, by Mr Thomas Morley:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xvii., 1876.
ON SIR WM. THOMSON’S NAVIGATIONAL SOUNDING MACHINE, by Mr P. M.
Swan: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xx., 1879.
ON STEAMSHIPS FOR THE CHANNEL SERVICE, by Mr John Grantham: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xiv., 1873.
ON CHANNEL STEAMERS, by Mr John Dudgeon: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xiv., 1873.
ON HIGH-SPEED CHANNEL STEAMERS, by Mr H. Bowlby Willson: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xv., 1874.
ON THE ARK SALOON, OR THE UTILISATION OF DECKHOUSES FOR SAVING LIFE
IN SHIPWRECK, by Rev. W. R. Jolley, R.N.: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xv., 1874.
ON THE BESSEMER STEAMSHIP, by Mr E. J. Reed: Trans. Inst. N.A.,
vol. xvi, 1875.
ON THE BESSEMER CHANNEL STEAMER: Naval Science, edited by Mr E. J.
Reed, 1873.
ON ELECTRIC LIGHTING FOR SHIPS AND MINES, by Mr Andw. Jamieson:
Trans. Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xxv., 1881-82.
ELECTRICITY ON THE STEAMSHIP (Series of Papers): the “Steamship,”
vol. I., 1883.
ON THE VENTILATION OF MERCHANT SHIPS, by Mr Jas. Webb: Trans. Inst.
N.A., vol, xxv., 1884.
ON THE COMPARATIVE SAFETY OF WELL-DECKED STEAMERS, by Mr Thos.
Phillips: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
ON THE APPLICATION OF HYDRAULIC MACHINERY TO THE LOADING,
DISCHARGING, STEERING, AND WORKING OF STEAMSHIPS, by Mr A. B.
Brown: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
CHAPTER IV.
PROGRESS IN THE SCIENCE OF SHIPBUILDING.
The appreciation and employment of scientific method and analysis in
designing and building ships have at no previous time been greater
than they are at present. This is already yielding benefits and
ensuring successes which only a few years ago would have remained
ungathered and unachieved, or at best would only have been attained
after wasteful expenditure of money, time, and skill, if not the
sacrifice of human life. Not so long ago endeavours were seldom made
to extract lessons of general value from particular occurrences,
there being a disposition prevalent to accept facts without
accounting for them—“to rejoice in a success and regard a failure as
irreparable”—the outcome, it may at once be said, of indifference,
false ideas of economy, and of a limited conception of the part
scientific methods should play in successful shipbuilding.
Particular occurrences within recent years have without doubt played
a large part in bringing about this more general and intelligent
appreciation of such matters. Some maintain, indeed, that it is
only under pressure of circumstances that anything like proper
regard for fundamental principles has obtained hold among mercantile
shipbuilders. This remissness, even admitting it to be true, is the
more natural and excusable in private commercial concerns, when it
is considered that the bulk of progress made, even in Admiralty
quarters—where ships take several years each to build, and there
is more time for scientific investigation and experiment than is
possible in mercantile work—is more attributable to the awakenings
which have followed upon great disasters than to the natural
improvement of ordinary practice. The terrible loss of the _Captain_
in September, 1870, for example, by which 500 lives were sacrificed,
led to a fuller recognition of the necessity for exact experiment
and calculation to determine thoroughly the conditions of stability
for war vessels; and many war-ships then under construction at the
dockyards—particularly those of the low freeboard type—were altered
in consequence, for the purpose of adding to their safety. The
capsizing of the _Eurydice_ off the Isle of Wight in March, 1878;
the mysterious and mournful loss of her sister ship the _Atalanta_
in 1880; the explosion on board the _Thunderer_ in 1876, by which 45
lives were lost, and the still more calamitous case of the _Doterel_
in April, 1881, by which the ship and 148 lives were destroyed,
are all instances of calamity, the causes of which have formed the
subject of official inquiry, all in their turn teaching important
lessons and yielding subsequent benefits not easily calculable.
Recent occurrences of a very calamitous nature in connection with
merchant ships—some of which will be more explicitly referred to
further on—have been attended with similarly mournful, but, it may
be added, with similarly beneficial results. These disasters and
the resulting inquiries have shown pretty conclusively that the
knowledge of a vessel’s stability and other vital qualities possessed
by ship’s officers is often meagre and erroneous; and that far too
little attention is usually paid to a vessel’s technical qualities
by shipowners or their advisers. They have also tended to prove that
exact knowledge of the principles of ship design, and observance of
scientific method in their construction, are not yet sufficiently
prevalent or thorough in mercantile shipyards.
* * * * *
Progress in the pure science of naval architecture, as distinguished
from the practical application of scientific rules and principles
to shipbuilding, is a great and complex subject, and one which it
would be impossible to do full justice to here. Before attempting
to treat upon these matters as concerned with the period covered by
this review, it may be instructive to trace briefly the progress
made in the past, and take note of the agencies through which such
progress has been effected. In this undertaking, concerned as it
is with matters relating to a period prior to that with which the
present work chiefly deals, the author has availed himself to some
extent of already published works traversing the same ground. As
having afforded the needful assistance in this connection, and as
being a source to which readers may turn for fuller information,
reference may here be made to an article in the _Westminster Review_
of January, 1881, on “The Progress of Shipbuilding in England.” This
article, though unsigned, is from the pen of Mr W. H. White, late
Chief Constructor of the Navy, and author of the well known “Manual
of Naval Architecture.” It furnishes an appreciative and concise
account of the literature and the educational agencies connected
with the theory of naval architecture, and sketches the influence of
science on practice, and _vice versa_ in the profession since the
beginning of the present century.
As has already been indicated, the period during which scientific
knowledge and methods have had any considerable place in merchant
shipbuilding, does not extend back over very many years. In
connection with the Royal Navy, however, the study of scientific
naval architecture has been fostered and promoted under Government
auspices almost from the commencement of the present century; not,
however—it must be added—without alternating periods of regard and
neglect, nor irrespective of pressure from extraneous sources.
Although progress in this matter has not been solely due to
Government agencies, it may be maintained that a large part of the
positive and accurate scientific knowledge which now exists has
grown out of the exigencies of the naval service, and has come from
sources more or less supported by or connected with Government
institutions. It will of course be understood that the science of
naval architecture is a field in which many besides shipbuilders,
and indeed many besides professional naval architects, have laboured
with signal success. The fund of knowledge has been enriched, and
the practice of shipbuilding improved, by men whose association
with the shipyard has been of an indirect and amateur kind, and—it
must be added—whose valuable labours the shipyard has often but
scantily recognised. Mathematicians—“mere theorists,” as they have
been called—have made original investigations and scientific analyses
which have upset many previously received practical notions, and
established principles, the appreciation of which alone, has led to
subsequent progress in actual practice. The part taken by merchant
shipbuilders has consisted in the experimental verification, and
sometimes the practical correction of principles thus evolved, but
even to this extent the service done has been largely incidental.
Those considerations which form the economic basis of every
commercial concern have naturally circumscribed such service, and
only a few notable firms have been able to break through the common
restrictions.
The systematic study of scientific naval architecture may be said
only to have begun in Britain in 1811, in which year, as the outcome
of recommendations made by a Government Commission appointed to
inquire into naval construction in 1806, the first School of Naval
Architecture was established at Portsmouth, under the direction of
Dr Inman, a distinguished member of the University of Cambridge. All
the great advances which had been made previously in the science
of naval architecture were chiefly due to foreigners, and any one
wishing to acquaint himself at first hand with all that was then
most advanced would have to consult the learned treatises of such
distinguished Frenchmen as Bouguer, Dupin, Euler, D’Alembert, and the
Abbé Bossut, of the distinguished Spaniard Don Juan d’Ulloa, and of
Chapman, the celebrated constructor of the Swedish Navy. One or two
English writers, between 1750 and 1800, had published translations
of some of these foreign treatises, but the only original work of
any importance was by Atwood, who contributed a “Disquisition on
the Stability of Ships” to the proceedings of the Royal Society
(1796-98). This contribution was both a criticism and an extension of
flotation and stability investigations by Bouguer, and as an example
of scientific method applied to exact calculations of the qualities
of ships it is still well worthy of study. In 1791 a “Society for the
Improvement of Naval Architecture” had been formed, the membership
being both numerous and influential, and in 1806 the growing sense of
need for improved scientific methods culminated in the appointment of
the Commission above mentioned, and in the establishment five years
later of the first School of Naval Architecture. This institution
existed for over twenty years, over forty students were trained, and
the science of naval architecture was greatly promoted through its
agency. Almost as a body the students of this school, with their
able teacher, deserve the honour of being regarded as the founders
of an English literature of naval architecture. Nevertheless, the
recognition of Dr Inman’s services, and his pupils’ capabilities as
designers, by the naval authorities was of a cold and disappointing
nature. Ultimately, however, many of them attained positions wherein
their talents found worthy exercise.
After the abolition of the School of Naval Architecture, under Dr
Inman, in 1832, no agency for higher education existed until 1848,
when the urgent necessity for a steam re-construction of the Navy
forced attention to the want of trained men, and resulted in the
establishment of a second school at Portsmouth. The principal of
this school was Dr Woolley, an eminent graduate of the University
of Cambridge. From 1848 on to the present time, Dr Woolley has
held a prominent place amongst the promoters of naval science, and
the pupils produced by the institution under his directorship have
given in various ways good practical evidence of his capability as a
teacher. After five or six years of useful work, this second school
was done away with, and a third was established in London in 1864,
after pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government of the
day by the Institution of Naval Architects—an association which was
founded in 1860, and which has since had so flourishing an existence.
The new school was placed for a time under the control of the
Science and Art Department at South Kensington, Dr Woolley being
Inspector-General, and the late Mr C. W. Merrifield, F.R.S.,
Principal. This school, unlike its predecessors, was not nominally a
mere Admiralty establishment, but offered admission to private naval
architects and engineers, and did not exclude foreigners. It remained
in operation at South Kensington until 1873, when the Admiralty
decided to establish the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, and to
train their students of naval architecture and marine engineering
there. Since 1873, therefore, what may be regarded as a continuation
of the third school has been at work at Greenwich, the Admiralty
granting facilities for the entry of private and foreign students,
much as was done at South Kensington.
The small extent to which this institution has been taken advantage
of by private students, or by those whose aim is to equip themselves
for service in merchant shipbuilding, notwithstanding the inducements
existing in the shape of substantial scholarships, has often been
subject of comment. Various reasons have been adduced for this state
of matters, but the true cause would seem to be largely concerned
with the character of the entrance examinations and with the course
of study provided. The subject is well worthy of consideration, and
fuller reference will be made to it further on when some educational
agencies which have been recently established are under consideration.
At such important junctures in the history of shipbuilding as the
introduction of steam power for propulsion in place of sails, and
the employment of iron in place of wood for the hulls, precedent
and experience lost much of their value under the new conditions.
The association of civil and mechanical engineers with shipbuilding
at these crises was of immense advantage. Such men as Fairbairn
and Brunel, who had previously gained high reputations in other
branches, were enabled by their scientific skill in designing bridges
and other structures in wrought-iron, to achieve much, and to take
the lead in ship design and construction. “To men of this class,”
says Mr W. H. White, in the article already alluded to, “careful
preliminary investigation and calculation naturally formed part
of the work of designing ships; ‘rule of thumb’ was not likely to
find favour, even if it had been applicable, which it was not, under
the circumstances. At first, much was done on imperfect methods,
comparatively in the dark; failures were not rare; yet progress was
made, and gradually greater precision was attained, in the attempt
to design steamers capable of proceeding at certain assigned speeds
when laden to a given draught. In fact, the construction of steamers
rendered imperative a careful study of the laws of fluid resistance,
and of the cognate investigation of the mechanical theory of
propulsion—both of which subjects lay practically outside the field
of the designers of sailing ships. The speed of a sailing ship is
obviously dependent upon the force and direction of the wind; her
designer, therefore, chooses forms and proportions which will enable
a good spread of canvas to be carried, on a handy stable vessel.
Questions of resistance to the progress of the ship were therefore
subordinated to sail-carrying power and handiness in sailing ships;
whereas in steamers designed for a certain speed the question of
resistance occupies a primary place, seeing that the engine power
must be proportioned to the resistance. Consequently, while keeping
in view stability, handiness, and structural strength, the designer
of a steamer has a more difficult task than the designer of a sailing
ship, and the difficulty can only be met if faced intelligently by
scientific analysis. Hence it happened, as was previously remarked,
that a more general appreciation of the value of scientific methods
accompanied the development of steam navigation and iron shipbuilding
in the British mercantile marine.”
Another name that must be linked with those already mentioned in
connection with the change from wood to iron in shipbuilding, and
with the new conditions imposed by the transition from sail to steam,
is that of the late Mr John Scott Russell, already referred to at the
beginning of this work. In the fields of inquiry so largely opened
up at the period referred to, Mr Russell was a most distinguished
worker. His advocacy and adoption in practice of special structural
principles, as illustrated not only in the _Great Eastern_ but in
other vessels, has influenced subsequent practice incalculably, and
by his persevering investigations upon the resistance of vessels,
and the “wave-line” theory he advanced, as well as by his inquiry
into the characteristics of wave motion, he laid designers of that
period and subsequent investigators under great indebtedness. His
contributions to the literature of the profession—notably his _magnum
opus_, entitled “Modern System of Naval Architecture”—and the large
share he subsequently took in the deliberations of the Institution of
Naval Architects, and of other societies concerned with shipbuilding
and engineering, enhance that indebtedness and remain as permanent
records of his skill and originality.
Approaching the period with which this review is more particularly
concerned, reference must now be made to the valuable labours of two
eminent men, whose loss the profession has had to mourn within recent
years. These are the late Professor Macquorn Rankine and the late Mr
William Froude, neither of whom was by profession a naval architect,
yet both of whom were led by love of the subject to give their
matured experience as civil engineers and mathematical experts to the
promotion of knowledge in this domain.
Rankine appears to have become specially interested in the problems
connected with ship design, after he became Professor of Civil
Engineering at Glasgow University in 1855. Conjointly with Mr Isaac
Watts, late Chief Constructor of the Navy, and formerly a student of
the first School of Naval Architecture; Mr F. K. Barnes, now Surveyor
of Dockyards, and Chief Constructor of the Navy, and a distinguished
student of the second school; and the late Mr J. R. Napier, a member
of the famous Clyde shipbuilding firm, Prof. Rankine produced in 1866
“Shipbuilding: Theoretical and Practical.” This valuable treatise was
edited, and for the most part written, by Prof. Rankine, and provides
a complete system of information on all branches of shipbuilding
and marine engineering, although subsequent progress in certain
departments of naval science has made a new edition desirable. The
work is also distinguished for its enunciation of several theories
connected with the resistance and propulsion of vessels by Prof.
Rankine, which have become the accepted basis of modern practice.
Of these the mechanical theory of the action of propellers, and
the stream-line theory of resistance, are the best known. His
investigations and writings on the latter subject were most ably
supplemented and confirmed by Mr Froude, whose beautifully-contrived
model experiments, coupled with his discovery of the law by which
such experiments can be made to afford reliable data for the
resistance of full-sized vessels, have laid the profession under even
a heavier load of indebtedness.
This, however, was not the only work of investigation and experiment
with which Mr Froude actively and inseparably identified himself.
Taking up a subject which many authorities before him had studied and
written upon with but little success—that of the phenomena of wave
motion and the oscillation of ships in a seaway—he propounded and
demonstrated at the Institution of Naval Architects in 1861, after
much careful thought and experiment, a theory with respect to it
which at that time was entirely new and striking, but which has since
been firmly established as the sound one.
At first, authorities in the science of naval architecture, like
Moseley and Dr Woolley, regarded the new theory with suspicion and
disapproval; Rankine, on the contrary, warmly supported it, and
helped to develop it and to answer various objections urged against
the hypothesis on which it was based. For nearly twenty years
Mr Froude steadily pursued the inquiry, adding one mathematical
investigation to another, carrying out numerous experiments, and
making voyages for the purpose of studying the behaviour of ships.
Broadly speaking, it may be said that whereas earlier investigations
gave to the naval architect the power of making estimates of the
buoyancy and stability of ships floating in smooth water, they gave
up as altogether hopeless the attempt to predict the behaviour of
ships at sea, or to determine the causes which produce heavy rolling.
On the other hand, thanks to Mr Froude, the designer of a ship now
knows what precautions to take in order to promote steadiness and
good behaviour at sea.
Although the propositions enunciated by Mr Froude were accepted
as laws in a wonderfully short time—considering their startling
nature—their influence on practice, and especially the practical
application of the methods of comparison by which they had been
established, have not even yet been brought to anything like their
full issue. The work is being continued upon the lines laid down
by Mr Froude, amongst others by men whose closer intimacy with the
actual affairs of the shipbuilding yard may be expected to yield
results which will be more immediately reflected in actual practice.
Passing allusion has already been made to the founding of the
Institution of Naval Architects, but an association which has
gathered into its membership so largely of all sections of men
concerned with shipbuilding and shipping, and absorbs so much of the
knowledge and talent in these domains, must have fuller reference
made to it. Regarding its foundation, in 1860, Mr White, in his
article in the _Westminster Review_, says:
“The scheme of the Institution was happily conceived and well
executed. Amongst its earliest members were found the trained naval
architects of the first and second Schools, the leading private
shipbuilders and marine engineers, the principal shipbuilding
officers of the Dockyards, men of science specially interested in
naval architecture, shipowners, merchants, and others connected
with shipping; while a considerable number of sailors from the
Royal Navy and Mercantile Marine showed their appreciation of the
value of naval science by becoming Associates. The list of names
is eminently representative. Sir John Pakington (afterwards Lord
Hampton), then only recently retired from the office of First
Lord of the Admiralty, was the first President. Many experienced
naval officers supported him. There were men like Watts, Read,
and Moorsom, who had been pupils of Dr Inman half a century
before; others, like Fairbairn, Laird, and Grantham, who had been
conversant with iron shipbuilding from its commencement; marine
engineering was worthily represented by veterans like Penn,
Maudslay, and Lloyd; mathematicians and men of science like Canon
Moseley, Dr Woolley, Professor Airy, and Mr Froude appear on the
list. Private shipbuilders and naval architects like Scott Russell,
Samuda, Napier, and White, joined in the movement, so did the
surveying staff of Lloyd’s Register. In fact, there was a general
appreciation of the endeavour to establish an association which
should enable all classes interested in shipping to interchange
ideas and experience with a view to general improvement. Mr Reed
was the first Secretary, retaining that post until he was appointed
Chief Constructor of the Navy, and in that position did much to aid
the progress of the Institution.”
While it is true that the membership list of the Institution in its
early days was of the representative character above indicated, it
should be pointed out that the actual proceedings of the Institution
were not shared in by anything like the variety of talent which the
list comprised, or which now distinguishes its annual meetings.
For many years it was almost the exclusive conference of Admiralty
authorities and members of those shipbuilding and engineering firms
who undertook Government work, and the transactions for a long time
were very largely confined to purely naval matters. The scientific
value of the earlier volumes of the transactions would certainly have
suffered considerably if the papers by Mr Froude and Prof. Rankine
had not formed contributions, and the prosperity and development
of the Institution would have been equally lessened had there not
been general infusion of “new blood” from the mercantile marine in
all parts of the country. This has been going on during the past
twelve years or more, and the scope and utility of the Institution’s
proceedings have increased with the change. Of the later development
of the Institution, the authority already quoted says:—
“Owing to the rapid advances constantly being made in both the
science and the practice of the profession, the ‘Transactions’ have
come to be the chief text-books available. Members and Associates
have joined from all the great maritime nations. Members of the
professional corps of naval architects and engineers of France,
Austria, Italy, Germany, the United States, Russia, Sweden, Norway,
Denmark, Holland, are proud to be numbered with their English
professional brethren, and not a few of these foreign members have
contributed valuable Papers. The meetings of the Institution afford
exceptional opportunities for the discussion of questions having
general interest, as well as others having more special value to
professional men. Different views of the same subject find capable
exponents, and lead to valuable discussions. The latest systems of
construction and most recent changes in _materiel_ are described by
competent authorities. Valuable _data_ are put on record relating
to the designs and performances of war-ships and merchant-ships.
Inventions of various kinds are described and examined. Abstruse
theoretical investigations are by no means rare; and, in many
cases, the contribution of one such Paper by an original thinker
has given a start to others and led to important extensions of
knowledge. In fact, the Institution of Naval Architects has
admirably fulfilled the intentions of its founders, acting as a
centre where valuable information could be collected, and whence
it could be distributed for the general benefit of the profession.
Before it was founded naval science had no home in England; its
treasures lay scattered far and wide in occasional Memoirs and
Papers; but now everything worth preservation naturally finds
its way to the ‘Transactions.’ Any movement affecting shipping
also leaves its record there in Papers and Discussions which will
hereafter have a high historical value.”
As evidencing the change which has latterly come over the Institution
with respect to its annual proceedings, it may be noted that whereas
in the early years there were at some meetings no papers—leaving out
of account those by Froude and Rankine—except by Admiralty members
and others concerned with Government work, there was not a single
paper by an Admiralty man during the meetings of the present year.
* * * * *
With the general reference already made to Mr Froude’s invaluable
labours in connection with the resistance of vessels the brief
statement of the agencies through which progress has been made during
the present century may be considered as brought down to the period
coming within the scope of the term “Modern,” as used in this work.
The more difficult task of chronicling the progress made during the
period in question, both in the science of naval architecture purely,
and in the application of science to practice, must now be attempted.
The plan upon which it is proposed to accomplish this is to show
wherein and to what extent scientific methods in designing and
observing the behaviour of ships have been regarded, and indicating
generally where still further improvement may be looked for. To
accomplish this in such a way as to take appreciative account of the
most salient features, and yet to avoid difficult technical terms
and unnecessary elaboration, may involve some omissions and slight
inaccuracies, important enough from a strictly scientific point of
view, yet which do not materially affect the faithfulness of the
record.[5]
As preparing the way for references to those more special points in
connection with which scientific progress has taken place during
recent years, the following general and elementary outlines of the
principal scientific problems in ship design and construction may be
helpful to many readers:—
DISPLACEMENT AND CARRYING CAPABILITY.
A vessel floating at rest displaces a volume of water whose weight
equals her own total weight.
For vessels floating in sea water the number of cubic feet of water
displaced per ton of weight is, as nearly as possible, thirty-five.
For vessels in fresh water—_i.e._, lakes or rivers—the cubic feet
per ton of weight is thirty-six.
By calculating the volume of under-water portion of the vessel’s
hull, the number of cubic feet displaced by the vessel when
floating at any given draught is obtained. This result, divided by
35 or 36, according as the water is salt or fresh, gives the number
of tons weight displaced, and consequently the total weight of the
vessel.
Calculations being made of the volume of the vessel’s hull to
intermediate distances between the keel and the maximum load line,
it is thus possible to construct a “curve of displacement” from
which the actual amount of displacement at any intermediate draught
can be obtained.
From this curve a set of scales—usually set up alongside a
vertical scale of feet and inches, representing the vessel’s
draught-marks—are constructed, showing—1st, the tons “displacement”
at any draught; 2nd, the tons of “dead-weight” capability—_i.e._,
the tons displacement due to the weight of cargo, coal, ballast,
stores, fresh water, spare gear, &c.—at any draught above the
vessel’s light-draught: “light-draught” being that at which the
vessel floats with holds clean-swept, bilges dry, water in boilers,
and with such spare gear on board as is required by Board of Trade;
and 3rd, the amount of “freeboard”—_i.e._, the distance in feet
and inches from any particular draught line to the top of the deck
amidships.
BUOYANCY AND STABILITY.
A ship floating upright and at rest in still water must fulfil two
conditions—1st, as stated above, she must displace, a weight of
water equal to her own weight; 2nd, her centre of gravity must lie
in the same vertical line with the centre of gravity of the volume
of displacement or “centre of buoyancy.”
The whole weight of the ship may be supposed to be concentrated at
her centre of gravity, and to act vertically downwards, and the
resultant vertical pressure of the surrounding water in the same
way to act upwards through the centre of buoyancy.
When the ship has been inclined from the upright position, by any
force, the downward and the upward forces—weight and buoyancy
respectively—act through two separate but parallel vertical
lines, and form what is technically known as a “couple.” The
perpendicular distance between the vertical lines usually varies
with the inclination, and is called the “arm” of the couple. This
arm measures the leverage with which the weight and buoyancy of the
ship tend either to force her back into the upright position, or
to incline her still further, and, it may be, to capsize her. The
former effect would be the result of what is known as a “righting
couple,” the latter the result of an “upsetting couple.”
[Illustration: FIG. 14. FIG. 15.]
This may be made clearer by illustration. On Figs. 14 and 15,
which show in outline a vessel’s midship section, the vessel being
inclined to a small angle, =G= represents the centre of gravity
of vessel, and =B= the centre of buoyancy. The water line =W.L.=
corresponding to the upright position, in the inclined position
becomes =W_{1}.L_{1}.=, and the centre of buoyancy =B= shifts out
on the immersed side of the vessel to =B_{1}=. Assuming in the case
of Fig. 14 that some external force not involving any shifting of
the centre of gravity has produced the inclination, then the weight
of the vessel acts downwards through =G=, and the buoyancy of her
displacement acts upwards through =B_{1}=, as indicated by the
arrows passing through these points. The combined effect of these
forces, in this case, is to rotate the vessel towards the upright,
_i.e._, it forms a “righting couple.” Fig. 15 illustrates a case
of the opposite kind. The angle of inclination may be supposed to
be greater than in Fig. 14, and the centre of gravity =G= is much
higher in the vessel. The vertical through =B_{1}= is to the left
instead of to the right of the vertical through =G=. The effect of
the forces in this case is to rotate the vessel in the direction
of inclining her still further, and to capsize her—_i.e._, it
forms an “upsetting couple.” A line at =G=, therefore (Fig. 14),
taken at right angles to the new vertical line, gives the distance
which corresponds to the righting arm (=G= =Z=). A similar line at
=G= (Fig. 15) represents the upsetting arm. The lengths of these
arms when multiplied into the displacement, gives the “moments” at
the respective degrees of inclination. The “curve of stability”
for a vessel is simply a graphic representation of these arms or
moments. When calculated for the various degrees of inclination,
they are set off as ordinates along a base line—the righting arms
or moments above, and the upsetting arms or moments below, the
line—at distances corresponding to the number of degrees in the
respective inclinations. A curve drawn through the extremities of
these ordinates is the curve of stability.
The two points above named whose relative positions are vitally
concerned with this subject—_i.e._, centre of buoyancy and
centre of gravity—are determined by shipbuilders for many of
their vessels, although the stability may not be calculated
to its full extent. The position of the centre of buoyancy is
easily ascertained from, and in fact usually forms part of, the
displacement calculation. While the position of centre of gravity
may be found by means of calculation alone, _i.e._—by the process
of estimating the position of the centre of gravity of each of
the component parts, and from this deducing the common centre of
gravity of the whole ship—the work is so laborious, complex, and so
liable to error, that it is scarcely ever adopted at the present
day by mercantile shipbuilders. The position can be ascertained
with comparative ease and greater accuracy by means of “inclining”
experiments with the finished vessel, or closely estimated
before-hand by means of data obtained in the manner alluded to from
previous vessels of similar type.[6]
Another point concerned with stability is that termed the
“metacentre,” which is found by calculation from the lines of
the vessel. Referring to Fig. 14, a vertical line drawn through
the centre of buoyancy =B_{1}= cuts the original vertical line
at =M=. The intersection =M=, when the vessel is inclined to an
indefinitely small angle, is the “metacentre.” It is approximately
the same in all ordinary vessels for inclinations less than say
10°, but varies with greater inclinations. The corresponding
intersections of the consecutive vertical lines for all degrees
of inclination are embraced in the term “metacentrique.” These
features in stability investigations were originated by Bouguer, to
whom reference has already been made. The manner in which they are
concerned with stability will be indicated further on. (See also
footnote on preceding page.)
RESISTANCE POWER AND SPEED.
A ship, in moving through the water, experiences resistance due to
a combination of causes, which combination, according to modern
accepted theory, is made up of three principal elements.
1st—“Frictional” or “skin friction” resistance, due to the
particles of water rubbing against the ship’s hull;
2nd—“Eddy-making” resistance, due to local disturbances or eddies
amongst the particles of water—almost wholly at stern of ship;
3rd—Surface disturbance of the water by the passage of the ship,
resulting in the creation and maintenance of waves: known as
“wave-making” resistance.
The conditions which govern each of these elements, and their
relative importance, may be generally indicated.
Surface-friction resistance, especially for vessels moving at
moderate or slow speeds, is much greater than the resistance due
to other causes—that is if the hull is ordinarily well formed. Its
amount depends upon the area of the immersed surface, upon its
length, upon its degree of roughness, and upon the velocity with
which the water glides over it—_i.e._, upon the speed of the vessel.
Eddy-making resistance only acquires importance in exceptional
cases, _e.g._, in ships having unusually full sterns. In ordinary
well-formed ships it is of small amount, and is caused mainly by
blunt projections such as shaft tubes, propeller brackets, and
stern-posts.
Wave-making resistance is much more variable than surface-friction
resistance. Its amount depends on the form and proportions of
vessels, and on the speed at which they move: being greatest, of
course, in ships of full form and in those moving at high speeds.
The sum of these three main elements of resistance constitutes the
total resistance experienced by a vessel if “towed” through the
water, that is, the resistance considered apart from the action or
influence of the propelling instrument. In the case of a steamship,
however, propelled by a screw or paddle-wheels, the resistance
is augmented, more or less considerably, according to the form,
surface, and disposition of the propelling instrument.
By the employment of various formulæ deduced by scientific
authorities from theory and experiment, an approximation can be
made before-hand to the total resistance of a proposed vessel,
and from this an estimate of the power required to drive her at a
certain speed. Moreover, through the law of comparison propounded
by Mr Froude, the resistance of a ship can at all times be deduced
with fair accuracy from the resistance of her model, certain
corrections well determined by experiment having to be made.
The power of marine engines is expressed either in “nominal” or
“indicated” horse-power. Nominal horse-power is a term practically
obsolete so far as being a measure of the efficiency of engines,
and only exists as a conventional method of commercially measuring
the sizes of engines. Indicated horse-power measures the work
done by the steam in the cylinders during a unit of time, and
33,000 units of work per minute, or 550 units of work per second,
constitute one horse-power. The effective mean pressure of
the steam is ascertained from diagrams drawn by means of the
instrument known as the “Steam Engine Indicator,” and hence the
term “indicated” horse-power.
The development by a vessel’s engines of the power requisite to
drive her at a certain speed is always very considerably more
than the power required simply to overcome her total resistance
at that speed. This excess of power developed over power usefully
employed in overcoming resistance is known as “waste work.” It
amounts in many cases to as much as from 50 to 60 per cent. of the
gross indicated power, and it is absorbed mainly as follows:—In
overcoming frictional and other resistances of the engines and
shafting, working air pumps, &c., and in overcoming the frictional
and edgeways resistance of the propeller. The residue of power
usefully employed is known as the ‘effective’ horse-power. The
respective causes of ‘waste’ and their relative amounts are
problems constantly demanding solution. Progressive speed trials
with actual vessels and experiments with small scale models are
daily contributing to their solution, and to some extent to their
reduction.
STRUCTURAL STRENGTH.
Considering a ship as floating in a state of rest in still water,
the volume of displacement represents a weight of water equal to
the weight of the ship. This equality, however, does not exist
evenly throughout the length of the vessel, or for individual
portions: thus, amidships the weight of water displaced by a
given length—in other words, the buoyancy—is usually considerably
in excess of the weight of that portion of the vessel and her
contents. Similarly at the extremities the ‘weight’ of a certain
length exceeds the ‘buoyancy.’ Between the part or parts of the
vessel in which there is excess of buoyancy over weight, and the
part or parts in which the weight exceeds the buoyancy, there must
obviously be sections of the ship at which the two are equal, and
these are termed “water borne” sections. A ship circumstanced as
described is in a condition similar to that of a beam supported
at the middle and loaded at each end. Such a beam tends to become
curved, the ends dropping relatively to the middle, and the ends of
the ship tend to drop similarly, the change of form being called
“hogging.” On the other hand, if the excess of buoyancy occurred
at the extremities and that of weight amidship, the ship would
resemble a beam supported at the ends and loaded at the middle. In
such a condition the middle would tend to drop relatively to the
ends: a change of form called “sagging.”
These general principles are much more readily and safely
applicable to ships while floating in ‘still water’ than to ships
when at sea—the strains experienced then being necessarily the
results of far more complex and severe influences. The existence of
waves and their rapid motions relatively to that of the vessel, and
the pitching, heaving, and other movements thus caused, increase
the inequality of distribution of weight and buoyancy and affect
more materially the strains brought upon vessels. Consideration of
the problem, therefore, involves a study of waves, both as to their
formation and action, and necessarily leads to a mode of treatment
which cannot have accurate regard for particular cases. Variable
influences of immense importance are also constituted by the state
of loading in vessels for merchant service. For a uniform basis of
comparison in these calculations such vessels are usually assumed
as loaded with homogeneous cargo—_i.e._, cargoes of equal density
throughout.
This fundamental element of relative ‘weight’ and ‘buoyancy’ having
been indicated, the chief strains to which a ship is subjected may
now be stated. This may be done with sufficient regard to general
accuracy, under four heads:—[7]
(1) Strains tending to produce longitudinal bending—“hogging” or
“sagging”—in the structure considered as a whole.
(2) Strains tending to alter the transverse form of a ship,
_i.e._, to change the form of athwartship sections.
(3) Strains incidental to propulsion by steam or sails.
(4) Strains affecting particular parts of a ship, or “local
strains”—tending to produce local damage or change of form
independently of changes in the structure considered as a whole.
To these might be added various other strains, which, however,
are of less practical importance, and are not felt in any
great degree—except in very special cases and under unusual
circumstances—apart from the strains which affect the structure
considered as a whole. The provisions made for the latter are,
under ordinary circumstances, sufficient to cover the demands of
the former, but particular cases may have to be provided for on
their merits, apart from the treatment generally applicable.
The manner of ascertaining the strength of a ship to resist
strains tending to produce longitudinal bending, is to compute
the effective sectional area of all the longitudinal items in the
structure which are brought under compressive or tensile strain,
and from this to calculate the strength in the same manner as for
a girder having an aggregate sectional area and a disposition of
material equivalent to that of the ship.
To ascertain the accurate maximum strains tending to produce
longitudinal bending, or, in excessive cases, to break the ship
across at the transverse section where the strains reach their
maximum, involves a careful and most laborious consideration of
the relative weight and buoyancy of individual sections throughout
the length, and is a task not generally undertaken in mercantile
shipyards.[8]
References to the nature of the transverse and other strains above
enumerated and the extent to which they have been investigated will
be made further on.
With regard to such fundamental properties of vessels as
displacement, weight, and carrying capability, nothing new has
for a long period been added to the fund of scientific knowledge.
One of the conditions now most commonly laid down by the owners
of a proposed ship is that which provides for a certain carrying
capability on a given draught of water and at a certain speed,
the principal dimensions of the vessel also being stipulated. The
problem of determining what total displacement will be required,
involves consideration and an estimate of—1st, The total weight of
hull having regard to structural strength; 2nd, the total weight of
machinery having regard to speed required. By using “co-efficients”
deduced from the weights of vessels of similar type already built,[9]
these are determined; and adding them to the carrying capability
or dead-weight stipulated, the required displacement can be closely
approximated to. For vessels of abnormal proportions or of very
unusual construction careful and detailed calculations of the weight
of materials are undertaken previous to tendering for them. In some
yards, indeed, a like degree of care is observed in ordinary cases:
methods of approximation involving the use of co-efficients such as
that based on cubic capacity being distrusted.
The further problem of determining what form of hull will give the
required displacement is the essential and all-embracing feature of
the work of design, as it involves consideration of almost all other
properties. The methods of designing ships are various, and a very
common method, at one time more followed than it now is, consists
in shaping a block model direct, and from it taking the necessary
measurements for displacement, and for full-size delineation in
the moulding loft. The disadvantages pertaining to this somewhat
antiquated method are becoming more recognised as shortened and exact
methods of linear or “draught plan” design are put forward.
Unless the plan of lines of a similar vessel of nearly the same
dimensions is at hand, the design of a new vessel is in many
instances done without previous calculation being made to ensure at
once obtaining the desired displacement. Special methods of quickly
arriving at this result are, however, not uncommon in mercantile
shipyards, and generally speaking the chief draughtsmen in the employ
of large firms doing a varied class of work have rules derived
from long experience, though not perhaps definitely systematised,
by which they are guided.[10] Irrespective of all such special
methods, however, the work of designing is now greatly shortened and
simplified by means of Amsler’s “planimeter,” an ingenious instrument
for measuring areas now becoming well known.[11] By employing the
instrument in question, the draughtsman need not too laboriously
strive after the exact displacement at first, as the time occupied
in ascertaining what displacement any set of lines gives, and in the
consequent fining or filling out, is very considerably less than by
the ordinary methods.
* * * * *
The question of stability, which has next to be considered, is one
of great difficulty and intricacy, and it was not till the middle of
last century that some of the principles upon which it depends began
to be understood. Bouguer showed in 1746 that the position of the
“metacentre” limits the height to which the centre of gravity of a
floating body may be raised without making it unstable, and that the
righting moments at small angles of inclination from a position of
stable equilibrium are proportional to the height of the metacentre
above the centre of gravity. As the position of the metacentre for
any given draught of water is easily determinable when once the
volume of displacement and the centre of buoyancy at that draught
have been ascertained, it has been the practice for a very long time
to construct a curve representing the height of the metacentre at
all draughts, and to use it for showing the limits above which the
centre of gravity cannot be raised with due regard to the stability
required for the practical working of vessels and for purposes of
safety: By the method of “inclining” vessels, already described (see
outline of fundamental principles, page 98), the determination of the
precise position of the centre of gravity is rendered comparatively
simple.[12]
While the vertical distance between the centre of gravity and the
metacentre—commonly termed the “metacentric height”—forms a measure
of the “initial stability,” or the stability at very small angles of
inclination, it is imperfect by itself, and may be very misleading
as regards the stability at larger angles. This was conclusively
demonstrated by Atwood in his papers read before the Royal Society
in 1796 and 1798, while other grounds for discrediting the standard
of stability furnished by mere metacentric height were discovered
subsequently, and have been signally emphasised, with additional
reasons, by recent occurrences. Atwood, in the papers referred to,
laid down a general theorem for determining the righting moments
at any required angles of inclination possessed by a ship having a
given draught of water and a fixed height of centre of gravity, the
principle of which involved the use of the moments of the volumes
of the “Wedges,” _i.e._, those parts of a vessel (see =W O W_{1}=,
=L_{1} O L=, fig. 15), which become immersed and emerged as she
is inclined. Several methods of simplifying Atwood’s calculations had
been devised previous to 1861,[13] but in that year Mr F. K. Barnes,
in a paper read before the Institution of Naval Architects, described
a method of accomplishing this which until within recent years has
been the one ordinarily adopted in computing the stability of a
vessel at various angles of inclination.[14]
Owing to questions having arisen at the Admiralty in 1867 respecting
the stability of some low freeboard monitors at very large angles
of inclination, Sir E. J. Reed, then Chief Constructor, directed
the matter to be investigated. The work was placed in the hands of
Mr William John, who embodied for the first time the results of the
calculations in the form of a curve of stability, which exhibited
the variations of righting moments with angles of inclination up to
the particular angle at which stability vanished. The entire range
of a vessel’s stability was thus made evident, and in such a form
as enabled the general problem to be far more comprehensively and
accurately treated than before. The results of Mr John’s labours were
described in a paper read by Sir E. J. Reed before the Institution of
Naval Architects in 1868, and a further paper, containing an improved
method of applying Atwood’s theorem to the calculation of stability
upon this extended scale, was read before the same Institution by
Messrs John and W. H. White in 1871. The loss of H.M.S. _Captain_,
in 1870, as already pointed out near the beginning of this chapter,
occasioned an immediate and serious regard for the stability of war
vessels. This disaster, with other losses at sea from instability,
also forcibly directed the attention of mercantile naval architects
to the subject, and investigations on the same complete scale as
those undertaken in the Admiralty have for some years been adopted in
a few leading mercantile shipyards.
In this way the peculiar dangers attaching to low freeboard,
especially when associated with a high centre of gravity, have been
pretty fully made known, but the character of the stability which
is often to be found associated with very light draught appears to
have escaped the attention it demands. Light draught is often as
unfavourable to stability as low freeboard, and in some cases more so.
These truths were forced into prominence at the inquiry held by Sir
E. J. Reed on behalf of the Government into the disaster which befell
the _Daphne_, a screw-steamer of 460 tons gross register, which
capsized in the middle of the Clyde immediately on being launched
from the yard of the builders, Messrs Alexander Stephen & Sons,
Linthouse, on July 3rd, 1883. Sir E. J. Reed, in his exhaustive
report, published in August, 1883, emphasised the lessons adduced at
the inquiry as to the peculiar dangers attaching to light-draught
stability; and Mr Francis Elgar, (now Professor of Naval Architecture
in Glasgow University), who was employed to make investigations
respecting the stability possessed by the _Daphne_ at the time of the
disaster, did much to guide consideration of the subject into this
channel. In a letter to the _Times_ on 1st September, 1883, Mr Elgar,
by way of explaining portions of his evidence at the inquiry, called
attention to the relation which exists between the righting moments
at deep and light draughts in certain elementary forms of floating
bodies, his communication throwing further light on the subject of
light-draught stability. It appears that the fundamental proposition
which underlies the variations in the stability of a floating
body with draught of water had never before been demonstrated or
enunciated.
It will be readily understood that a curve of stability for a
given draught of water and position of centre of gravity ceases to be
applicable if changes are made in the weight and consequent draught
of water of a ship or the position of the centre of gravity, or in
both. Now in mercantile steamers, from the extremely light condition
in which they are launched to the uncertain loaded condition of their
daily service as cargo-carriers, the variation of draught is very
considerable, and imports into the subject considerations which do
not obtain to any great extent in war ships.
To complete the representation of stability as it should be known
for merchant ships, it is now recognised that curves showing the
stability at every possible draught of water and for different
positions of centre of gravity should be constructed. By means of
“cross-curves” of stability, or curves representing the variation
of righting moment, with draught of water at fixed angles of
inclination, this comprehensive want can be met with something like
the necessary expedition. From such curves it is a simple operation,
involving no calculation save measurement, to construct curves of
the ordinary description, showing the righting moment at all angles
for any fixed draught of water and position of centre of gravity.
Professor Elgar was the first to publicly direct attention to this
valuable development of stability investigation of merchant ships,
doing so in an able paper “On the Variation of Stability with Draught
of Water in Ships,” read before the Royal Society on March 13th of
the present year. Simultaneously with Prof. Elgar’s employment of
such curves in actual practice their use had been independently
instituted by Mr William Denny in his firm’s drawing office, and the
mode in which they were worked out in this case was communicated in
a paper read by Mr Denny in April of the present year before the
Institution of Naval Architects.[15] Several important improvements
with respect to simplifying and shortening calculation distinguish
the method employed by Mr Denny, and that gentleman, in the paper
referred to, accords individual credit to members of the scientific
staff in his firm’s employ, who, on being entrusted with the work
of calculation, brought considerable originality to bear upon their
labours. The cross-curves described by Prof. Elgar were constructed
from a series of curves of stability calculated in the ordinary way.
This, however (as pointed out in an after-note to that gentleman’s
Royal Society paper), is less simple and very much less expeditious
than the method carried out under Mr Denny, which consists in
calculating the cross-curves directly by applying Amsler’s mechanical
integrator[16] to the under-water portion of the ship instead of to
the wedges of immersion and emersion, thus determining at once the
positions of the vertical lines through the centres of buoyancy at
the required angles of inclination. As thus carried out a complete
set of cross-curves can be produced with about one-third the labour
involved in employing the older method. The ease and rapidity with
which ordinary curves for separate draughts can be taken from
cross-curves has already been commented upon.
Many other investigators besides those already mentioned have
recently been working at the subject of stability, and a
considerable number have read papers, dealing with the extension and
simplification of stability calculations, before one or other of the
scientific societies concerned with naval architecture, most of the
methods put forward being well worthy of study.[17] To very many
shipbuilders, however, and to others besides them responsible for
the stability of ships, processes of arithmetical calculation—even
allowing for all the simplification which mathematical skill has
recently effected—appear still to be too intricate, or to absorb too
much time for their being entirely followed. As a simple means of
readily, although approximately, arriving at the results attained
more elaborately and reliably by calculation, attention has recently
been directed to an experimental process by which a complete curve
of stability may be constructed almost without the use of a single
figure! The method was first brought forward in 1873 by Capt. H. A.
Blom, chief constructor of the Norwegian Navy, formerly a student of
the South Kensington School of Naval Architecture, who described it
to the United Service Institution. The method has been employed by
shipbuilding firms on the Tyne and Clyde when a curve of stability
had to be produced in a very limited time, and when extreme accuracy
was not a desideratum. As practised by the firms in question, the
_modus operandi_ differs in some slight respects from that described
by Captain Blom, but the changes in no way affect the principles as
first laid down by him. The modern mode of procedure may be briefly
described:—
From the body plan of the ship, _i.e._, that portion of the draught
plan representing the vessel’s form by a series of equidistant
transverse sections—any convenient number of sections lip to the
load water-line are pricked upon and then cut out of a sheet of
drawing paper of uniform thickness. These sections are then gummed
together in their correct relative positions, care being taken
to spread the gum thinly and evenly. This paper model—greatly
foreshortened, of course—represents the immersed portion of the
ship (in other words, the displacement) when she is floating
upright. By suspending this model from two different points, and
taking the intersection of two vertical lines through the points of
suspension—or better still, by balancing it horizontally on a pin
and fixing the point when the model is in equilibrium—the centre
of gravity of the model, or in other words, the actual centre of
buoyancy is obtained.
Water lines at various angles of inclination are then drawn on
the body plan, all intersecting the water line for the upright
condition at the centre line of ship. The displacement represented
by the inclined water lines thus drawn, generally not being equal
to that for the upright position, a correcting layer has to be
added or subtracted for each inclination, in order to obtain this
end. By employing the planimeter the necessary thickness of this
layer can be most readily ascertained. Where a planimeter is not
available the actual floating line may be obtained, after the model
has been made, by cutting off layers, allowance having been made
for this purpose. The same number of sections as before are then
cut out to each of the inclined corrected water-lines, the paper
model prepared and the centre of buoyancy obtained as already
described.
Through this new centre of buoyancy a line is drawn perpendicular
to the inclined water line, and the distance between this line
and the centre of gravity of the ship, already obtained, is the
righting arm. If this process is repeated for each angle of
inclination, it is thus seen a complete curve of stability may be
approximately obtained.
[Illustration: FIG. 16. MODEL IN UPRIGHT POSITION ]
[Illustration: FIG. 17. MODEL IN INCLINED POSITION]
A further method of arriving at results by experiment, involving
principles not unlike those of the “paper section” method just
described, has recently come under the author’s notice, and through
the courtesy of its inventor—Mr John H. Heck, of Lloyd’s surveying
staff at Newcastle—the following general description of the apparatus
and fundamental principles is made public for the first time:—
By means of a “stability balance,” roughly illustrated by Figs 16
and 17, in conjunction with either an outside or inside model of
the vessel, the moments of stability can be practically determined.
In practice, an inside model has been found the most convenient to
employ. This consists of a number of rectangular pieces of yellow
pine of any uniform thickness, out of which a portion has been cut,
respectively to the form of the vessel at equidistant intervals of
say 15 feet. These pieces, together with two end pieces, are kept
together by four or six bolts, thus forming a contracted model, the
inside of which is of a similar form to that of the vessel. If
this model is filled with water to a height corresponding to any
draught, it will represent a volume of water having the same form,
and proportional to the displacement of the vessel at that draught.
The stability balance consists of a frame =A= attached to a steel
bar =Z=, having knife edges working upon the support =C=; a table
=D= attached to a spindle working freely in the bearings =E=, and
capable of being turned through any angle; a sliding weight =F= to
balance the weight of the model when empty; a sliding weight =H=
to balance and measure the weight of the water contained in inside
or displaced by outside models; a sliding balance weight =K= which
by adjustment will locate the centre of gravity of the combined
weights of the table =D=, the model and the weight =K= in the axis
of the table =D=, so that the model will remain when empty in any
inclined position, and be balanced by the weight =F=.
In order to determine the moments of stability, the model is first
fixed on the table =D=, and the weights =F= and =K= so adjusted
that =F= will balance the model at all inclinations. The table is
then brought into the upright position, and water is poured into
the model to the height corresponding to the desired draught of
water, and the weight =H= shifted until the whole is balanced.
The weight of water in the model will evidently be = weight =H= ×
its distance from the fulcrum ÷ distance centre of model is from
fulcrum.
If the table with the model is now turned through any angle, the
distance the centre of gravity of the water has moved from the axis
=E= of the table can easily be determined by shifting the weight
=H= until the whole is balanced, then evidently from the principles
of the lever, =H= × by its distance from fulcrum = weight of water
in model × by the distance the centre of gravity of the water in
the model is from fulcrum. Since the weight of =H= × its distance
from fulcrum ÷ the weight of water in model is known, the distance
that the centre of gravity of the water has shifted from centre
line is easily ascertained and the righting lever determined.
From a lengthened series of experiments, conducted by Mr
Heck—latterly in Messrs Denny’s Works where an apparatus from a
special design by Mr Heck has been constructed for the firm’s use—the
method gives promise of taking a firm place as an extremely simple
and approximately accurate means of arriving at the stability of
vessels.[18]
While a vessel’s qualities with respect to stability may be
determined with great precision by the naval architect, his
investigations are only directly applicable to the ship while empty
or when in certain assumed conditions of loading which may or may
not often occur in actual service. He cannot for obvious reasons
estimate, far less control, the amounts and positions of centre
of gravity of the various items of weight that may make up the
loading.[19] This aspect of the subject has received attention at the
hands of naval architects for a considerable time, but the forcible
way in which it has been brought under view by recent experience
has resulted in special efforts being made to practically meet the
necessities of the case. In 1877 Mr William John read a paper before
the Institution of Naval Architects, in which he dealt with the
effect of stowage on the stability of vessels, and since that time
such authorities as Martell, White, and Denny have given valuable
papers or made suggestive comments bearing on this important matter.
Much has also been done by several builders in the way of devising
diagrams useful for regulating stowage and manipulating ballast with
regard to initial stability. At the last meeting of the Institution,
Professor Elgar read a paper on “The Use of Stability Calculations
in Regulating the Loading of Steamers,” distinguished by its
eminently practical character, and forming an important contribution
to the solution of this problem. The author disapproved of curves
of stability being supplied with vessels, as had been advised and
was then becoming the practice. General notes, giving in a simple
form easily applied in daily practice, particulars respecting the
character of a ship’s stability in different conditions, are what
the author recommended and had found through actual experience to
meet the case most effectually. In the discussion which followed
it was intimated by Mr William Denny that his firm had already
resolved to furnish every new steamer produced by them with a volume
containing general and special notes and diagrams dealing not only
with stability but with several other important technical properties
(see footnote, page 59). After consultation with Professor Elgar,
however, he had abandoned his intention of supplying stability curves.
An arrangement designed to readily find the position of the centre
of gravity experimentally by inclining, and to indicate at once the
stability of loaded vessels as represented by metacentric height, has
been devised and introduced on board several ships by Mr Alexander
Taylor, of Newcastle—already referred to in connection with the
triple expansion principle in marine engines. The instrument and
apparatus, which he appropriately names the “Stability Indicator,”
was described in a paper read by him before the Institution of Naval
Architects at its last meeting. When once an inclining operation
has been made, the degree of inclination is read from a glass gauge
and the position of centre of gravity and corresponding metacentric
height from a previously prepared scale set up alongside the gauge,
or from tabulated figures.
* * * * *
The advance made within recent years in connection with steam
propulsion comprises many matters necessarily left unconsidered in
the chapter on speed and power of modern steamships. Scientific
methods have undoubtedly contributed in no small degree to the
realization of the remarkable results therein outlined. The
achievement of one triumph after another as demonstrated in the
actual performances of new vessels, and especially the confidence
with which pledges of certain results are given and received long
before actual trials are entered upon—and that sometimes with regard
to ships embodying very novel features—are evidences of the truth of
this.
The oldest method of approximating to the horse-power required
to propel a proposed vessel at a given speed is to compare the
new ship with ships already built by the use of formulæ known
as “co-efficients of performance” deduced from the results of
their speed trials. Two such co-efficients have been deduced from
Admiralty practice, the one involving displacement, the other area of
mid-section, with speed as the variable in both cases. Another method
which has been largely used, consists in first determining the ratio
of the indicated horse-power to the amount of “wetted surface,” or
immersed portion of the vessel’s skin, in the exemplar ship, and then
estimating from this ratio the probable value of the corresponding
ratio for the proposed ship at her assigned speed. Inasmuch as these
methods of procedure do not take account of the _forms_ of the hulls,
and consequently of that factor in the total resistance due to
_wave-making_, they cannot be used with any degree of confidence, or
without large corrections, except in connection with vessels whose
speeds are moderate in proportion to their dimensions: those in fact
in which the resistance varies nearly as the square of the speed. A
further method, somewhat resembling the one based upon the relation
between indicated horse-power and the “wetted surface,” was proposed
by the late Prof. Rankine, but has never been extensively employed.
Apart from the unreliable nature of the results which an application
of it gives—except for certain speeds—it is open to several serious
objections in practice.
A method of analysis and prediction, meeting with considerable
acceptance from shipbuilders on the Clyde and elsewhere, has been
introduced within recent years by Mr A. C. Kirk, of Messrs R. Napier
& Sons.[20] The method consists in reducing all vessels to a definite
and simple form, such as readily admits of comparison being made
between their immersed surface, length of entrance and angle of
entrance and their indicated horse-power, and from this judging of
the form and proportions best suited to a given speed or power in
proposed vessels. The form in question consists of a block model,
having a rectangular midship section, parallel middle body, and
wedge-shaped ends; its length being proportioned to that of the ship,
its depth to the mean draught of water, its girth of mid-section
to the girth of immersed mid-section of the ship, and the surface
of its sides, bottom and ends, to the immersed surface of the ship.
By finding from one or more exemplar ships—the selection of which
is obviously governed by the conditions of analysis—the rate of
indicated horse-power required per unit of wetted surface at the
speed assigned for the proposed vessel, the appropriate rate for the
latter may easily be determined.
The data afforded by the modern system of progressive speed trials,
especially when taken in conjunction with that of experiment with
models as systematised by Mr Froude, supplies in a reliable way
much of what is most lacking in the older methods of comparison and
prediction. Progressive speed trials on the measured mile were first
systematically instituted by Mr William Denny about nine years ago,
since which it has been the practice of his firm to make such trials
with all their vessels. The practice has been followed by other firms
on the Clyde and elsewhere, and there is every probability it will
be still more widely adopted in the future. The system consists in
trying the vessel at various speeds, ranging from the highest to
about the lowest of which she is capable. The several speeds are the
mean of two runs—one run with the tide and one against, the object
being to eliminate the tide’s influence from the results.[21]
Essentially noteworthy in connection with the system is the manner
in which the data obtained from the trials is recorded for future
use. This consists of a series of curves, representing the chief
properties of ship, engines, and propeller—_e.g._, “speed and power,”
“revolutions” and “slip”—which show to the eye, more easily and
clearly than bare figures, the whole course and value of a steamer’s
performances. For that of speed and power the various speeds made at
the trials are set off to convenient scale as horizontal distances,
and the indicated horse-power corresponding to those speeds are set
off to scale as vertical distances. The intersection of the offsets
so made, give spots for the curve. The other curves alluded to are
similarly constructed, the requisite data being the direct or deduced
results of the measured mile trials.
From the accumulation of trial results thus graphically recorded
the designer of new ships can proceed to estimate with greater
assurance of attaining satisfactory results than by employing the
older methods. If, for example, a ship is to be built of virtually
similar dimensions and form to one for which such information is
available, but of less speed, the task is simply one of measurement
from the curves, with some allowance for probable differences in
the constant friction of the engines. If the speed is to be greater
than that of the exemplar ship, but still within the limits when
wave-making resistance assumes relative importance, the case is also
one of simple reading from the curves, with slight corrections.
When both the speed and size are different, but the form is
approximately the same, the case is more difficult, but it can be
dealt with approximately by employing the “law of comparison” or of
“corresponding speeds” enunciated by Mr Froude. Formulæ based upon
this law—which will be more fully referred to presently—have been
devised by one or two designers, and applied by them to problems of
the latter class as they occurred in the course of their professional
work. Mr John Inglis, junr., described a method of analysis he had
adopted, involving the use of Mr Froude’s law, in a paper read before
the Institution of Naval Architects in 1877.
When unusual speeds are aimed at, or when novel types of vessels have
to be dealt with, the only available method of making a trustworthy
estimate of the power required lies in the use of direct or
deduced results from model experiments. Mr Froude began the work
of speed experiments with ships’ models on behalf of the Admiralty
at the Experimental Tank in Torquay about 1872, carrying it on
uninterruptedly until his death in May, 1879. Since that lamented
event the work has been continued with most gratifying results by his
son, Mr R. E. Froude. Experiments had, of course, been made by many
other investigators previous to Mr Froude, but none before or since
have made model experiments so practically useful and reliable. Since
the value of the work carried on at Torquay has become appreciated,
several experimental establishments of a similar character have been
instituted. The Dutch Government, in 1874, formed one at Amsterdam,
which, up till his death in 1883, was under the superintendence of
Dr Tideman, whose labours in this direction were second only to
those of the late Mr Froude. It is now superintended by Mr A. J. H.
Beeloo, Chief Constructor, and under him by Mr H. Cop. It was here,
it may be remembered, that experiments were made with a model of the
Czar of Russia’s yacht _Livadia_, previous to the construction of
that extraordinary vessel being begun by Messrs Elder & Co. On the
strength of the data so obtained, together with the results of the
trials made on Loch Lomond with a miniature of the actual vessel,
those responsible for her stipulated speed were satisfied that it
could be attained. The actual results as to the speed of the novel
vessel amply justified the reliance put upon such experiments. In
1877 the French naval authorities established an experimental tank
in the dockyard at Brest, and the Italian Government have formed
one in the naval dockyard at Castellamare. The only experimental
tank hitherto established by a private mercantile firm is that in
the shipyard of Messrs Denny, Dumbarton. This establishment is on a
scale of completeness not surpassed elsewhere, and is fitted with
every appliance which the latest experience in such experiments shows
to be advantageous. A special staff of experimentalists, forming
a branch of the general scientific body, are engaged conducting
experiments and accumulating data, which, besides being of service in
their present daily practice, must ultimately yield fruit of a very
special kind to this enterprising firm.[22]
From mathematical reasoning, and by means of an extended series of
experiments with models and actual ships, Mr Froude determined that
for two vessels of similar form—for instance a ship and her model—the
“corresponding speeds” of ship and model are to one another as the
square roots of the similar dimensions, and at corresponding speeds
the resistance of ship and of model are to one another as the cubes
of the similar dimensions—subject to a correction concerned with skin
friction necessitated by the difference in the lengths of ship and
model.[23] Having obtained the resistance of a model, and from it,
by an application of the above law, deduced the resistance of the
full-sized vessel, the effective horse-power is found by multiplying
the resistance by the speed of the vessel in feet per minute, and
dividing by 33,000. From the effective horse-power an estimate of the
indicated horse-power required can be made by using ratios which the
one bore to the other in former ships, as obtained from a comparison
of their model experiments with their measured mile trial results.
The value of progressive speed trials and of experiments with models
as affording convenient means whereby analysis may be made of the
several sources of expenditure of power in propelling vessels can
scarcely be over-estimated.
From a study of the graphic records of progressive trials, and from
model experiment results, Mr Froude discovered a method whereby the
power expended in overcoming the frictional resistance of the engines
could be determined, and estimates made of the amount of power
absorbed by other elements. The method in question was communicated
in full in a paper read before the Institution of Naval Architects
in 1876, and has since been extensively used. Methods of analysis
resulting from a simultaneous study of this subject, were also
proposed by Mr Robert Mansel, a prominent Clyde shipbuilder and noted
investigator, but they failed in meeting with the acceptance which
was at once accorded to Mr Froude’s propositions.[24]
Although the results obtained by an application of Mr Froude’s
analysis to the trials of a large number of merchant vessels have
undoubtedly thrown considerable light on the relative efficiency of
hull and engines, and of various types of engines, still, for several
reasons adduced by extended experience—most of which, indeed, were
foreseen and perfectly appreciated by Mr Froude himself—the need has
been felt for some means of directly measuring the power actually
delivered to the propellers by the engines when working at different
speeds. One of Mr Froude’s latest inventions, the perfecting of
which was not accomplished until after his death, consisted of a
dynamometric apparatus designed to accomplish this important end.[25]
The construction of the instrument was undertaken for the Admiralty,
and trials were made with it on H.M.S. _Conquest_ in the early part
of 1880. The results of these experiments have not yet in any form
been recorded, but there can be no question as to the benefit that
would accrue to the profession if the Admiralty could be induced to
publish these, as well as the results of other experiments with this
instrument.
Experiments with actual vessels to determine directly the relative
efficiency of hull, engines, and propellers have on several occasions
been undertaken. A series of trials of this nature were made in 1874
by Chief-Engineer Isherwood, U.S. Navy on a steam launch, the results
of which may be found detailed in the Report of the Secretary of U.S.
Navy for 1875. Similar trials have been made recently on the United
States steamer _Albatros_, an interesting account of which appeared
in _Engineering_ of October 17 of the present year. These experiments
are referred to as notable examples of what might be carried out
with great advantage on other and larger vessels, although they are
such, perhaps, as few single firms can well be expected to follow
extensively.
The economies which may be obtained by changes in the propellers
fitted to ships, and the great value of progressive speed trials
as a means of measuring the effects of such changes, received most
remarkable illustration in the results of the trials of H.M.S.
_Iris_, carried out for the Admiralty in 1880. These showed that
by simply varying the propellers—all other conditions remaining
practically unchanged—the speed of the ship was increased from 16½
to 18½ knots per hour. Scarcely less striking improvements in the
performances of vessels due to changed propellers might be found from
the records of trials made with merchant vessels within recent years.
Inasmuch as measured mile trials are usually carried out when vessels
are in the light or partially loaded condition, the results are far
from being so valuable as they might be made; alike for the purposes
of the naval architect, the shipowner, and ships’ officers; if they
were undertaken with vessels in the completely laden condition. The
information obtained from the trials of incompletely laden vessels
does not yield that knowledge of a vessel’s qualities under the
conditions necessarily imposed by actual service, which, if possessed
by naval architects, would doubtless prove of immense value, nor
does it furnish that standard of comparison for performances at sea
which owners and captains should possess. In the interests of all
concerned, it is to be hoped the practice of trying loaded vessels
may become more common.
Amongst the earliest and most notable investigations involving the
application of principle to the calculation of the longitudinal
strength of iron vessels were those by Sir William Fairbairn,
who contributed an elaborate statement of his views and methods
to the first meeting of the Institute of Naval Architects in
1860. Investigation up till about this period, almost wholly
concerned itself with vessels considered as girders, and in assumed
conditions of fixed support, such as being pivoted on rocks. Later
investigations have shown these conditions to be altogether too
extreme and severe when compared with the known and estimated strains
which vessels are called upon to bear in ordinary service. In 1861
Mr J. G. Lawrie, of Glasgow, in an able paper on Lloyd’s rules,
read before the Scottish Shipbuilders’ Association,[26] reasoning
from wave phenomenon and the probable effects attending motion
in a seaway, endeavoured to deduce limits or absolute values for
the extreme strains experienced by a vessel in the circumstances,
the results obtained by Mr Lawrie bearing very closely on those
deduced by later investigations. The late Professor Rankine made
investigations involving consideration of strains in a seaway, and
formulated several valuable rules which to some extent are still
accepted, although giving results which are not likely to be exceeded
in any case of ordinary service.[27]
For the most recent advances made in this important branch of the
science of naval architecture, the profession lies under indebtedness
chiefly to one or two naval architects of eminent ability, whose
professional province for a time has lain more especially in the way
of a full consideration of the subject. Sir E. J. Reed, while Chief
Constructor of the Navy, and under him several Government-trained
naval architects subsequently acquiring high positions, achieved
much in accurate investigation of iron-clad vessels of war. In
1870 the authority named read an elaborate paper before the Royal
Society dealing at length with such work.[28] In 1874 Mr William
John, formerly under Sir E. J. Reed, but at that time Assistant
Chief Surveyor to Lloyd’s Register, read a valuable paper before
the Institution of Naval Architects, in which he gave the results
of investigations of specific cases, and of long and careful study
of the general problem as concerned with merchant vessels. In this
paper, Mr John advanced the proposition that the maximum bending
moment likely to be experienced on a wave crest may be taken
approximately as one thirty-fifth of the product of the weight of the
ship into her length. Proceeding on this assumption Mr John’s paper
further gave valuable results of calculations made into the strength
of a series of vessels representing large numbers of mercantile
steamers then afloat.[29] Of this paper and the conclusions it
pointed to, Mr John, in a later paper on “Transverse and other
Strains of Ships,” said:—
“The investigations showed unmistakably that as ships increased in
size a marked diminution occurred in their longitudinal strength,
and the results caused some surprise at the time, although they
might perhaps have been easily inferred from the writings of
others published at an earlier period. Those results, in spite of
their approximate character, impressed two conclusions strongly
on my mind: firstly, that there was cause for anxiety as to the
longitudinal strength of some very large iron steamers then
afloat, and that the longitudinal strength of large ships needed on
all hands the most careful vigilance and attention; and secondly,
that in small vessels, and even vessels of moderate dimensions, the
longitudinal strength need cause but little anxiety, because it is
amply provided for by the scantlings found necessary to fulfil the
other requirements of a sea-going trade.”
Using the formula as to the maximum bending moment advanced by
Mr John many investigations have been made subsequently into the
longitudinal strength of vessels, and this increased interest in the
subject has not been without its effect on subsequent structural
practice.
Mr John followed up his investigations on the longitudinal strength
of merchant vessels viewed as girders by an inquiry into the
transverse and other strains of ships, and in 1877 gave a valuable
paper on the subject, from which a quotation has already been made,
before the Institution of Naval Architects. The results of Mr
John’s inquiry were such as demonstrated the need for systematic
and thorough investigation of the subtle and intricate questions
involved. This subject has been matter of study at Lloyd’s Register
for several years, and in March, 1882, the results of inquiries
conducted by Mr T. C. Bead and Mr P. Jenkins, members of the staff in
London, and former students of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich,
were communicated in an able paper by these gentlemen, read to the
Institution of Naval Architects.
It will of course be understood that many investigations of strength
are instituted not necessarily out of fear that maximum strains
may not be adequately allowed for, but because the dual quality
of strength-with-lightness may possibly be better attained by
modifications in the arrangements of material or sufficiently met by
reduced scantling. The functions and influence of the Registration
Societies, already commented upon (see footnote, page 103), are such
as to obviate the need for strength investigations generally, or
at least are such as to discourage shipbuilders from independently
instituting them. Nevertheless, some well-known shipbuilders, who
are also notable investigators, amongst whom may be named Inglis,
Mansel, Denny, and Wigham Richardson, have done much valuable work
in this connection. Mr Denny, in particular, has vigorously devoted
himself to strength analysis on the basis of Lloyd’s methods of
fixing scantling, and read several papers on the subject, in which
strong exception is taken to present practice. The healthy criticism
which such labours have enabled those making them to offer regarding
the Registry systems of scantlings has not doubtless failed in
influencing the legislation of the Registries.
* * * * *
Reverting to the subject of agencies for education in naval
architecture, a few remarks are due relative to Government
institutions as having hitherto failed in being of immediate service
to the mercantile marine. The training given to naval architects and
marine engineers at the Admiralty Schools is admirably adapted for
creating a staff of war-ship designers and expert mathematicians,
such as are employed in the various departments of the Admiralty
service. The course of instruction has been framed expressly with
a view to this, and a very high standard of mathematical knowledge
is necessary before students can enter upon it. The principle of
requiring one to become a first-class mathematician before attempting
to teach him much of the science of naval architecture and its
application in practice, is of questionable merit: at any rate it
cannot be carried out in the mercantile marine. Again; economy
of time and of cost of production are conditions which largely
govern the methods followed in mercantile practice. Short methods
of calculation, or of tentative approximation, for the purpose of
enabling tenders to be made for proposed vessels, and of quickly
proceeding with the work when secured, form no inconsiderable feature
in the training required by mercantile naval architects. These,
however, do not as a rule enter to any extent into Admiralty modes of
procedure.
The want of satisfactory means for obtaining a sound scientific and
practical training in mercantile naval architecture has for some time
been felt to be very pressing. The evening classes conducted in most
of the shipbuilding centres under the auspices of the Science and Art
Department, South Kensington, are fitted to supply a part of this
want so far as elementary teaching is concerned. Until recently the
antiquated character of the questions set for examination was subject
of general complaint, both on the part of students and teachers.
In August, 1881, Mr William Denny read a paper on “Local Education
in Naval Architecture” before the Institution of Naval Architects,
in which adequate expression was given to these complaints, and
at the same time proposed amendments offered. As a consequence of
this paper, and of the steps taken by the Institution in appointing
a deputation to wait upon the Government, the questions have been
considerably improved, and are now so framed as to form a fairly
crucial test of a young student’s knowledge of the science and
practice of modern shipbuilding.
During the past three years efforts have been made by the Council
of the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland[30]
to supply more adequate means of advanced education. In 1880,
the Council had before them a project, promoted, for most part
independently, by Mr Robert Duncan and others, to establish a
Lectureship of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. It was
proposed to collect funds sufficient to endow the lectureship under
the auspices of the University, and promises of substantial aid were
obtained from several members. Mr J. G. Lawrie volunteered to give
the first course of lectures and did so, according to arrangement,
during the winter months of 1881-82 before a considerable number of
students, the lectures being delivered in the University of Glasgow
during the day, and repeated in the Institution rooms in the evening.
These praiseworthy efforts were still being carried on when, in
November, 1883, the gratifying announcement was made of a gift of
£12,500 by Mrs John Elder, widow of the late eminent engineer, for
the endowment of a Chair of Naval Architecture in the University. The
founding of this chair, and the subsequent election by the University
Court of Mr Francis Elgar to the Professorship, have thus doubtless
obviated the need for further efforts to found the lectureship, but
there are many commendable objects connected with the University
Chair to which the continued efforts of the gentlemen who supported
the lecture project might fittingly be directed. Many students who
can afford it will doubtless study the higher branches of naval
architecture at Glasgow University, and if a few small University
scholarships were established, for which all classes of workers
in the shipyards and drawing offices might compete, the highest
professional training would then be within the reach of the poorest
of lads.
Evidences have recently been given of a strong desire on the part
of many engaged in the shipbuilding and engineering industries of
the Tyne and Wear for the founding of a Chair of Naval Architecture
in some educational institution in that district. Along with this
movement a desire has been shown for the establishment of an
Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders such as has been so long
carried on successfully in the Clyde district. Definite steps are
about to be taken for the realisation of these important objects, and
doubtless no great time will elapse before they are accomplished.
List of papers and lectures dealing with scientific problems in
shipbuilding, to which readers desiring fuller acquaintance with the
_technique_ and details of the subjects are referred:—
THE PROGRESS OF SHIPBUILDING IN ENGLAND: _Westminster Review_,
January, 1881.
HISTORY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE. Lecture delivered by Mr Wm. John at
Barrow-in-Furness: _Iron_, Dec. 8th, 1882.
DISPLACEMENT AND CARRYING CAPABILITY.
ON A METHOD OF OBTAINING THE DESIRED DISPLACEMENT IN DESIGNING
SHIPS, by Mr R. Zimmerman: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiv, 1883.
ON FREEBOARD, by Mr Benjamin Martell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xv.,
1874.
ON THE LOAD DRAUGHT OF STEAMERS, by Mr W. W. Rundell: Trans. Inst.
N.A., vol. xv., 1873: vol. xv., 1874; and vol. xvi., 1875.
ON THE LOAD LINE OF STEAMERS, by Mr John Wigham Richardson: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xix., 1878.
ON THE BASIS FOR FIXING SUITABLE LOAD LINES FOR MERCHANT STEAMERS
AND SAILING SHIPS, by Mr Benjamin Martell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xxiii., 1882.
ON THE ASSESSMENT OF DECK ERECTIONS IN RELATION TO FREEBOARD, by Mr
H. H. West, vol. xxiv., 1883.
TONNAGE MEASUREMENT, MOULDED DEPTH, AND THE OFFICIAL REGISTER IN
RELATION TO THE FREEBOARD OF IRON VESSELS, by Mr W. W. Rundell:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiv., 1883.
STABILITY.
ON THE CALCULATION OF THE STABILITY OF SHIPS AND SOME MATTERS OF
INTEREST CONNECTED THEREWITH, by Mr W. H. White and Mr W. John:
Trans. Inst. vol. xii., 1871.
ON THE RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF BREADTH OF BEAM AND HEIGHT OF
FREEBOARD IN LENGTHENING OUT THE CURVES OF STABILITY, by Mr
Nathaniel Barnaby: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xii., 1871.
ON THE LIMITS OF SAFETY OF SHIPS AS REGARDS CAPSIZING, by Mr C. W.
Merrifield: _The Annual_ of the Royal School of Naval Architecture
and Marine Engineering, No. 1, 1871; London, H. Sotheran & Co.
ON CURVES OF BUOYANCY AND METACENTRES FOR VERTICAL DISPLACEMENTS,
by Mr George Stanbury: _The Annual_ of the Royal School of Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering, No. 2, 1872, London, H.
Sotheran & Co.
THE GEOMETRICAL THEORY OF STABILITY FOR SHIPS AND OTHER FLOATING
BODIES: _Naval Science_, vol. iii., 1874, and vol. iv., 1875 (Three
Articles).
ON THE METACENTRE AND METACENTRIC CURVES: _Naval Science_, vol.
iii., 1874.
ON POLAR DIAGRAMS OF STABILITY, by Mr J. MacFarlane Gray: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xvi., 1875.
ON THE STABILITY OF SHIPS, by Mr Wm. John: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xviii., 1877.
ON THE GEOMETRY OF METACENTRIC DIAGRAMS, by Mr W. H. White: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xix., 1878.
ON THE STABILITY OF CERTAIN MERCHANT SHIPS, by Mr W. H. White:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxii., 1881.
ON CURVES OF STABILITY OF SOME MAIL STEAMERS, by Mr J. H. Biles:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiii., 1882.
ON THE REDUCTION OF TRANSVERSE AND LONGITUDINAL METACENTRIC CURVES
TO RATIO CURVES, by Mr Wm. Denny: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiii.,
1882.
ON THE ADVANTAGES OF INCREASED PROPORTION OF BEAM TO LENGTH IN
STEAMSHIPS, by Mr J. H. Biles: Trans. Inst. N.A. vol. xxiv., 1883.
ON THE STABILITY OF SHIPS AT LAUNCHING, by Mr J. H. Biles: Trans.
Inst. Eng. and Ship., vol. xxvii., 1883-84.
ON APPROXIMATION TO CURVES OF STABILITY FROM DATA FOR KNOWN SHIPS,
by Mr F. P. Purvis & Mr B. Kindermann: Trans. Inst. E. and S., vol.
xxvii., 1883-84.
ON CROSS-CURVES OF STABILITY, THEIR USES, AND A METHOD OF
CONSTRUCTING THEM, OBVIATING THE NECESSITY FOR THE USUAL CORRECTION
FOR THE DIFFERENCES OF THE WEDGES OF IMMERSION AND EMERSION, by Mr
William Denny: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
ON A NEW METHOD OF CALCULATING AND SOME NEW CURVES FOR MEASURING
THE STABILITY OF SHIPS AT ALL ANGLES OF INCLINATION, by M. V.
Daymard: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
THE USES OF STABILITY CALCULATIONS IN REGULATING THE LOADING OF
STEAMERS, by Professor F. Elgar: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xxv.,
1884.
ON SOME POINTS OF INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF
METACENTRIC DIAGRAMS AND THE INITIAL STABILITY OF VESSELS, by Mr P.
Jenkins: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
ON THE USES OF J. AMSLER’S INTEGRATOR IN NAVAL ARCHITECTURE, by Dr
A. Amsler: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF STABILITY, by Mr L.
Benjamin: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
THE GRAPHIC CALCULATION OF THE DATA DEPENDING ON THE FORM OF SHIPS
REQUIRED FOR DETERMINING THEIR STABILITY, by Mr J. C. Spence:
Trans. Inst., N.A., vol xxv., 1884.
DESCRIPTION OF ALEXANDER TAYLOR’S STABILITY INDICATOR FOR SHOWING
THE INITIAL STABILITY AND STOWAGE OF SHIPS AT ANY DISPLACEMENT, by
Mr Alex. Taylor: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.
ROLLING.
CONSIDERATIONS RESPECTING THE EFFECTIVE WAVE SLOPE IN THE ROLLING
OF SHIPS AT SEA, by Mr William Froude: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol.
xiv., 1873.
ON AN INSTRUMENT FOR AUTOMATICALLY RECORDING THE ROLLING OF SHIPS,
by Mr Wm. Froude: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xiv., 1873.
ON THE GRAPHIC INTEGRATION ON THE EQUATION OF A SHIP’S ROLLING, by
Mr Wm. Froude: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xv., 1874.
ON THE ROLLING OF SAILING SHIPS, by Mr W. H. White: Trans. Inst.
N.A., vol. xxii., 1881.
ON A METHOD OF REDUCING THE ROLLING OF SHIPS AT SEA, by Mr P.
Watts: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiv., 1883.
RESISTANCE, SPEED, AND POWER.
ON STREAM LINE SURFACES, by Prof. W. J. Macquorn Rankine: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xi., 1870.
ON EXPERIMENTS WITH H.M.S. GREYHOUND, by Mr William Froude: Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xv., 1874.
ON THE DIFFICULTIES OF SPEED CALCULATION, by Mr Wm. Denny: Trans.
Inst. Eng. and Ship. in Scotland, vol. xvii., 1874-75.
ON THE RATIO OF INDICATED TO EFFECTIVE HORSE POWER AS ELUCIDATED BY
MR DENNY’S MEASURED MILE TRIALS AT VARIED SPEEDS, by Mr Wm. Froude:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xvii., 1876.
ON THE COMPARATIVE RESISTANCES OF LONG SHIPS OF SEVERAL TYPES, by
Mr Wm. Froude: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xvii., 1876.
ON EXPERIMENTS UPON THE EFFECT PRODUCED ON THE WAVE-MAKING
RESISTANCE OF SHIPS BY LENGTH OF PARALLEL MIDDLE BODY, by Mr Wm.
Froude: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xviii., 1877.
ON STEAMSHIP EFFICIENCY, by Mr Robert Mansel: Trans. Inst. Eng. and
Ship. in Scotland, vol. xxii., 1878-79.
ON THE TRUE NATURE OF THE WAVE OF TRANSLATION AND THE PART IT
PLAYS IN REMOVING THE WATER OUT OF THE WAY OF A SHIP WITH LEAST
RESISTANCE, by Mr J. Scott Russell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xx.,
1879.
ON THE LEADING PHENOMENA OF THE WAVE-MAKING RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, by
Mr R. E. Froude: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol xxii., 1881.
MR FROUDE’S EXPERIMENTS ON RESISTANCE AND ROLLING: _Naval Science_,
vol. i., 1872, and vol. iv., 1875.
MR FROUDE’S RESISTANCE EXPERIMENTS ON H.M.S. GREYHOUND: _Naval
Science_, vol. iii., 1874.
ON A METHOD OF RECORDING AND COMPARING THE PERFORMANCES OF
STEAMSHIPS, by Mr John Inglis, jun.: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xviii., 1877.
ON A METHOD OF ANALYSING THE FORMS OF SHIPS AND DETERMINING THE
MEAN ANGLE OF ENTRANCE, by Mr Alex. C. Kirk: Trans. Inst. N.A.,
vol. xxi., 1880.
ON SOME RESULTS DEDUCED FROM CURVES OF RESISTANCE AND PROGRESSIVE M
M SPEED CURVES, by Mr J. H. Biles: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxii.,
1881.
ON PROGRESSIVE SPEED TRIALS, by Mr J. H. Biles: Trans. Inst. N.A.,
vol. xxiii., 1882.
STRUCTURAL STRENGTH.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEIGHT AND BUOYANCY IN SHIPS: _Naval Science_,
vol. i., 1872.
THE STRAINS OF SHIPS IN STILL WATER: _Naval Science_, vol. i., 1872.
THE STRAINS OF SHIPS IN EXCEPTIONAL POSITIONS ON SHORE: _Naval
Science_, vol. ii., 1873.
THE STRAINS OF SHIPS AT SEA: _Naval Science_, vol. ii., 1873.
ON THE STRENGTH AND STRAINS OF IRON SHIPS: _Naval Science_, vol.
iii., 1874.
ON THE STRENGTH OF IRON SHIPS, by Mr William John: Trans. Inst.
N.A., vol. xv., 1874.
ON USEFUL DISPLACEMENT AS LIMITED BY WEIGHT OF STRUCTURE AND OF
PROPULSIVE POWER, by Mr Wm. Froude: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xv.,
1874.
ON THE MODULUS FOR STRENGTH OF SHIPS, by Mr J. MacFarlane Gray:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xvi., 1875.
ON THE STRAINS AND STRENGTH OF SHIPS, by Mr John Wigham Richardson:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xvi., 1875.
ON TRANSVERSE AND OTHER STRAINS OF SHIPS, by Mr William John:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xviii., 1877.
ON THE STRAINS OF IRON SHIPS, by Mr William John: Trans. Inst.
N.A., vol. xviii., 1877.
ON LLOYD’S NUMERALS, by Mr William Denny: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
1877.
ON LIGHTENED SCANTLINGS, by Mr Wm. Denny: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xix., 1878.
ON THE EFFECT OF DEPTH UPON THE STRENGTH OF A GIRDER TO RESIST
BENDING STRAINS, by Mr Frank P. Purvis: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.
xix., 1878.
ON AN APPLICATION OF THE DECIMAL SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT IN PRACTICAL
SHIPBUILDING, by Mr Henry H. West: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xix.,
1878.
ON LONGITUDINAL SEA STRAINS IN VESSELS AS INDICATED BY LLOYD’S
EXPERIENCE, by Mr Robert Mansel: Trans. Inst. Eng. and Ship, in
Scotland, vol. xxi., 1877-78.
ON THE STRENGTH OF IRON VESSELS, by Mr Geo. Arnison, jun.: Trans.
Inst. Eng. and Ship., vol. xxii., 1878-79.
FREEBOARD AND DISPLACEMENT IN RELATION TO STRAINS IN SHIPS AMONG
WAVES, by Mr W. W. Rundell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxii., 1881.
ON THE TRANSVERSE STRAINS OF IRON MERCHANT VESSELS, by Mr P.
Jenkins and T. C. Read: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiii., 1882.
ON HOGGING AND SAGGING STRAINS IN A SEAWAY AS INFLUENCED BY WAVE
STRUCTURE, by Mr W. E. Smith: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol xxiv., 1883.
EDUCATION IN NAVAL ARCHITECTURE.
ON THE COURSE OF STUDY IN THE ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH, by Mr
W. H. White: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xviii., 1877.
ON THE ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE AND THE MERCANTILE MARINE, by Mr Wm.
John: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xix., 1878.
ON LOCAL EDUCATION IN NAVAL ARCHITECTURE, by Mr William Denny:
Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxii., 1881.
CHAPTER V.
PROGRESS IN METHODS OF SHIPYARD WORK.
Since the early days of iron shipbuilding, when hand labour entered
largely into almost all the operations of the shipyard, the field
of its application has been gradually narrowed by the employment
of machinery. The past few years have been uncommonly fruitful of
changes in this direction, and many things point to the likelihood of
manual work being still more largely superseded by machine power in
the immediate future. Such changes, however, have not, as might be
assumed, had any very sensible effect in diminishing the number of
operatives generally employed. The influence has rather been absorbed
in the greatly increased rate of production, and the elaboration and
enhanced refinement of detail demanded by the much more exacting
standard of modern times. The need for skilled handicraftsmen may
not now be so general, but the skill which is still indispensable is
of a higher character, and has called into existence several almost
entirely new classes of shipyard operatives.
The extended employment of machinery has given impetus to, and
received impetus from, the system of “piece-work” now so much in
vogue in shipyards. In several of the operations, such as riveting
and smithing, the nature of the work peculiarly lends itself to the
system, and piece-work has consequently been in force, as regards
these operations, for many years. In several other departments,
however, such as plate and bar fitting, joinery, and carpentry,
piece-work is only contemporaneous with and largely the consequence
of improved modern machinery. Reference to “piece-work” here is not
made with the intention of discussing its effects on the labour
question—concerned as this is with such large issues—but simply
of showing what effect the system has had on the character of
shipyard workmanship. It was a favourite argument some years ago,
when piece-work was being rapidly extended, that the system was bad
because it would lead to and foster scamp-work and bad workmanship.
The results of the past dozen years’ experience disprove this
completely, and for reasons which, as early as 1877, were pointed out
by Mr William Denny—to whose spirited advocacy and adoption of the
system its present degree of acceptance with workmen is in no small
measure owing. In his admirably written pamphlet on “The Worth of
Wages,” published in the year named, Mr Denny says:—
“As to piece-work leading to bad workmanship, this would certainly
be the result were no special arrangements made to prevent it.
These special arrangements include a rigid system of inspecting
the work, and the rejection, at the workman’s cost, of all bad
and inferior work. There is no difficulty in carrying out such
a system, for foremen, freed from the necessity of watching the
quantity of the work—which is looked after by a special clerk—and
of checking the laziness of their men, can give their whole
attention to the matter of quality. In fact, piece-work compels
so thorough an inspection, that we find the work done under it in
our iron department much superior to what used to be done some
years ago on time. It is very curious that trades’ unionists never
have been very anxious as to the quality of their work till they
had piece-work to contend with, and I have never known workmen
produce such good work, as after a few experiences of having their
workmanship condemned for its bad quality, and the cost taken
out of their pockets. Under the old time wages no such effective
stimulus urged a man on to make his piece of work up to a proper
standard.”
What was true of the system as exemplified in Messrs Denny’s
experience previous to 1877, holds equally good for all the yards in
which piece-work is now the rule. Under it work is done quicker and
better than by the old system, and so popular is it amongst workmen
that a deep-rooted dislike for “time-work” prevails where piece-work
has once been instituted and efficiently managed.
The machines in use at the present day for preparing the separate and
multitudinous pieces of material which go to form the hull structure
of iron and steel vessels are both numerous and highly efficient.
This work of preparing material, it may be shortly stated, mainly
consists of shearing and planing the edges of plates and bars—these
as supplied by the manufacturers being, of course, only approximately
near the final form and dimensions—rolling and flattening or giving
uniform curvature to plates; bending angle or other bars, such as
are used for deck beams; and punching the holes through plates and
bars for the reception of rivets. In this list regard is not had
to the operations concerned with material in the heated state, the
features requiring to be thus manipulated being mainly the frames of
the vessel; the work being effected without the aid of any special
machine tools. A small proportion of the plating also requires to
be operated upon in this state, and for this purpose machine tools
are sometimes brought into requisition, some notice of which will be
taken further on.
While most of the machines have been introduced for a period
exceeding that with which our review is more directly concerned,
improved types have been made, and entirely new machines brought
into requisition during recent times. The universal adoption of
piece-work in almost all the departments of construction has demanded
a more economical type of machine than formerly. In this way punching
machines, which play so important a part in shipyards, have risen
from a working speed of about fourteen rivet holes per minute to
thirty and even—in the case of frame punching—to as high as forty per
minute. Other machines have had a corresponding increase in speed; in
several of the best appointed yards the general increase being about
sixty per cent.
The introduction of the double bottom for water ballast in ships,
brought about a great increase in the amount of necessary punching
caused by the numerous man-holes required through the floors and
longitudinals. These man-holes, oval in shape as shown by Fig.
1—of say 18-ins. by 12-ins.—had to be punched all round by the
rivet-punch, and the edges afterwards dressed by hand with a chisel.
To economise work in this connection, need was felt for a machine
which would be capable of punching a man-hole of the ordinary size
out of the thickest plate at one operation. In 1879, at the request
of one of the prominent Clyde firms, Messrs Craig & Donald, the
well-known machine-tool makers of Johnstone, introduced a man-hole
punching machine which cut holes 18-ins. by 12-ins. at the rate of
seven per minute, in such a way that no after-dressing with chisels
was required. This machine, an ordinary eccentric motion one driven
by its own engine, although tested and found capable of cutting an
18-in. by 12-in. hole through a plate 1-in. thick, was superseded
in the yard for which it was made, by another, designed to meet the
requirements of the heaviest type of vessels built on the cellular
principle. This machine—also made by Messrs Craig & Donald, and
five or six of which are now at work in yards on the Clyde and at
Barrow—was capable of piercing a hole 30-ins. by 21-ins. through a
plate ¾-ins. thick, at one operation, and was actuated by hydraulic
power. The ordinary eccentric machine, driven by engine attached, is
still in favour for lighter work, and machines of this type are at
work in several of the East Coast yards capable of punching holes up
to 21-ins. by 15-ins. through plates ¾-ins. thick.
Reverting to the subject of the proportion of material requiring to
be heated before manipulation, it is noteworthy that the employment
of mild steel is a source of economy in this connection as well as
in the many others already noticed. The superior homogeneity and
great ductility of the material favours cold-bending when such an
operation would be fatal to iron. Not only does an economy in labour
result, but incidentally there is a further advantage. Cold-bending
distresses steel less than hot-bending, and the special precautions
so often taken, in the way of annealing, to toughen steel which has
been operated upon when hot, are thus obviated.
A certain proportion of the bottom plates in a ship—_e.g._, those
adjoining the keel—and a few at the stern and elsewhere, have quick
bends and twists which are much more difficult to treat than the
easy and generally uniform curvatures on the plates of the bilge.
The latter are effected in great measure by the “bending rolls”
with the plates perfectly cold, but the former have to be made with
the plate in the heated state. Hydraulic presses have been used
for this purpose for some years, a certain proportion of the work
done being the manipulation of plates while cold. With steel as the
material to be operated upon, these machines are being more and more
utilised in this direction, and their presence in the shipyard, as
in boiler works, is sure to become more and more prevalent. The
operations of the shipyard, in short, have been gaining in exactitude
every year, and have borrowed both in the matters of methods and of
appliances from the marine boiler works, where machine tools are more
conspicuously a feature. Machine tools for riveting, now playing so
important a part in shipyards, first had their utility approved in
boiler shops, and the introduction of improved types of drilling
machines is largely the reflected successes attending them there.
From the foregoing imperfect sketch of the principal directions in
which machine tools used in _preparing material_ for the constructive
stage have been improved or recently introduced, it will be gathered
that hydraulic power in lieu of steam has taken a prominent place in
shipyards. That this is so to a remarkable extent will sufficiently
appear from what follows regarding the appliances used in the work of
_binding the structure_ of vessels. It may, however, be premised that
in several establishments hydraulic pressure has now displaced steam
power in almost all the machine-tools used in the iron departments.
This is so in the case of the Naval Dockyards of Toulon and Brest,
in France, and of the Spanish naval establishments at Ferrol, Cadiz,
&c.; the machinery in the former of which was fully described in
June, 1878, before the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, by M.
Marc Berrier-Fontaine, of the French Navy. The plant and machinery
are by Mr Ralph H. Tweddell, C.E., of Delahay Street, London, whose
numerous inventions and great experience in this special branch of
engineering are well worthy of recognition. The machines comprise
those for punching, shearing, angle cutting, plate bending, and
riveting, and the author referred to is high in his praise of
the superior efficiency and economy of the hydraulic system, as
exemplified in practice. One or two of the leading advantages of
the system may be here summarised. Hydraulic machines do not consume
any power at all during the interval between employment, and the
power can be applied at any moment without preparatory consumption,
and stopped equally quick. No shafting or belting is required, and
the wear and tear of continuous motion, as in steam machines, is
thus obviated. The power exerted is much more gradual than that of
steam, performing the work more thoroughly, and with less liability
to strain or otherwise damage the material operated upon, or the tool
itself.
* * * * *
Although hydraulic machinery was successfully introduced by Sir
William Armstrong so long ago as 1836, and has since been applied
by him and others in almost every direction the application of
hydraulic power to machines for constructive purposes is of
comparatively modern date. Its early employment as the motive power
for machine-tools was in the case of machines which were “stationary”
or “fixed” in position when in use. Machines for riveting purposes
in boiler shops and locomotive works were the first tools of any
note to which hydraulic power transmitted from a distance was
applied, but even this dates back only to about 1865. In that year
Mr R. H. Tweddell, already referred to, designed hydraulic plant,
consisting of pumps, an accumulator, and a riveting machine, which
were first used by Messrs Thompson, Boyd & Co., Newcastle-on-Tyne,
with satisfactory results. The work was done perfectly, and at about
one-seventh of the cost of hand work, and the same power was utilized
in actuating hydraulic presses for such purposes as setting or
“joggling” angle or tee irons. Excellence and economy of work were
thus secured; and in a comparatively short time above 100 machines
were at work in various dockyards and large works.
Although patent designs for portable hydraulic riveters existed
before 1871, it was not till that year that any form of portable
riveters was applied in practice with any degree of success. Previous
to that year the frames of ships had been riveted by Mr Tweddell’s
stationary hydraulic machines, but a portable riveter invented
by that gentleman in 1871 was then tried, when it was thoroughly
demonstrated that during a working day of 10 hours the machine was
capable of closing 1,000 rivets. Not much encouragement, however,
was received from shipbuilders at the time, owing chiefly to the
fact that the wages for riveting labour was not then a very urgent
question. On a modification of the general plan of working, these
machines being proposed by their inventor in 1876, they received
more cordial recognition from shipbuilders thereafter. It is only,
however, within the past five years or so that portable riveters have
been so extensively introduced into shipbuilding yards. The success
which has attended them during the period leaves no reasonable doubt
as to their ultimate place in every well-appointed shipbuilding
establishment. Already the majority of Clyde shipyards—including all
the larger ones—and most of the yards in the Tyne and Wear districts,
are furnished with hydraulic riveting machines and plant, overtaking
work constantly, efficiently, and with greatly reduced expense, that
is matter of envy in yards not similarly favoured. In most of the
larger Clyde yards the Tweddell machinery and plant are employed; but
in some cases machines introduced by Mr William Arrol, Dalmarnock
Ironworks, Glasgow—chiefly for riveting the frames, beams, &c.—are
used. The Arrol machines work on a similar principle to those of Mr
Tweddell, whose system is practically the only one in use on the Tyne
and the Wear, and at Barrow.
The prime cost of furnishing a complete hydraulic plant is of course
considerable, and such as might perhaps appear an outlay not speedily
enough recouped. In view, however, of the uncertain and oftentimes
harassing conditions—not to speak of the pecuniary loss—under
which the riveting department of shipbuilding work is conducted in
the ordinary way, shipbuilders are constrained to acknowledge the
economic advantages of the hydraulic system. Neither expense nor
trouble have been spared in several yards to extend the hydraulic
system into every feature where hydraulic work is practicable. The
only feature now for which the machines presently in use are not
available is the shell plating, and perhaps the decks, where such
are entirely laid with plates. Indeed, it may fairly be said that
hydraulic riveters have virtually supplanted manual riveting in
nine-tenths of the structural features of a vessel. The percentage of
rivets closed by machinery to the total number of rivets employed in
a vessel’s structure has been computed to be about fifty per cent.
In one of the yards fitted with the Tweddell system the following
comprise the list of structural features for which the hydraulic
riveters are daily employed:—Double bottom, including the thousands
of detached pieces of plates and angles of which the bracket floor
style of bottom is composed; side bars attaching frames to double
bottom, frames and reverse frames, beams, stiffening bars, gunwale
bars, keelsons, and keels.
The shell plating, as has already been said, is about the only
feature for which inventors and manufacturers of hydraulic riveters
have now any serious difficulty in making provision. But many minds
are exercised with the problem, and doubtless at no very distant
date the present obstacles will be surmounted. One aspect of the
question—and one which certain classes are apt to overlook—is that
which regards the _mutual_ adaptation of means to the end desired.
Shipbuilders have often under consideration the practicability of so
modifying structural features and methods of work as that inventors
of mechanical riveters will be met half-way in supplying the
much-felt desideratum. Referring to this subject, Mr Henry H. West,
chief surveyor to the Underwriters Registry for Iron Vessels, in a
paper on “Riveting of Iron Ships,” read before the Institution of
Naval Architects at its last meeting, said:—
“May I urge upon shipbuilders the importance of endeavouring to
extend the application of power riveting to the shell plating of
iron vessels. By this means we shall both increase the frictional
resistance, and also, by more completely filling the rivet
holes, vastly improve the rigidity of the riveted joints. The
difficulty of completely and exactly filling the counter-sink of
a counter-sunk hole with a machine-closed rivet suggested to my
friend Mr Kirk the idea of entering the rivet from the outside,
both the rivet and the counter-sink being made to gauge, and then
closing up with a machine snap-point on the inside of the ship.
What progress he has made in this direction I do not know, but the
difficulty does not appear to be an insuperable one. If however,
we are prepared to sacrifice a fair appearance to utilitarian
simplicity, there seems no sufficient reason why, above water, all
the rivets should not be closed up with snap heads and points,
both inside and outside. In whatever way it is accomplished, I
look to the use of machine riveting as one very great step in
advance in the future improvement of the riveted joints of iron
ships; and if the weight of iron vessels is to be reduced in any
important degree, or if the dimensions and proportions of large
merchant steamers are to increase in the future as they have done
in the past, I feel sure that one of the first steps must be the
reconsideration of our butt fastenings.”
The increased engine power now demanded in steamships undoubtedly
points to the further adoption of mechanical riveting—if vessels
are to successfully withstand the enormous strain and vibrations to
which they are thereby subject. While several have already shown
drawings of the shell difficulty having been met, Mr Tweddell, whose
experience in common with that of his manufacturers and co-patentees,
Messrs Fielding & Platt, of Gloucester, may justly be considered
greatest in this branch of engineering, has never illustrated this.
It may be mentioned, however, that excellent flush riveting is
constantly done by the Tweddell hydraulic riveters, and that the
same plan suggested by Mr Kirk of entering rivets with prepared
counter-sunk heads from one side, and snap pointing them by machine
on the other has been long in use by Messrs Fielding & Platt. In
conjunction with Mr Tweddell, this firm have also designed several
efficient arrangements to ensure the machine being kept in position
until the unfinished head of the rivet is formed. Judging from
these facts, there seems good reason to hope that the production of
riveting machines required to overtake the remaining features will
not be very long delayed.
To show that where the exigencies of the times necessitate them,
expedients involving inventive skill and industrial intrepidity are
never quite wanting, it may be related that several years ago, during
a prolonged strike of riveters, the principal of the firm of Messrs
A. M‘Millan & Son, Dumbarton, introduced a portable riveting machine
for the shells of ships. The machine, although improvised, as it
were, to meet an emergency, fulfilled all that was expected of it,
and won the approval of Lloyd’s Surveyors for the Clyde district, as
well as of a special deputation selected by the Committee of Lloyd’s
in London from among the chief surveyors of the United Kingdom. Their
verdict on the performances of the machine after due inspection was
that it “thoroughly fills the holes and countersinks, and produces
a smoother and better clench than can usually be obtained by hand
labour.” From this it will be seen that in the yard of Messrs
M‘Millan the matter of machine riveting has received early and
earnest consideration. Indeed, the extent to which hydraulic riveting
is presently employed by this firm so well represents the development
and progress made in this direction throughout other yards that the
system adopted in their establishment may be described somewhat in
detail.
The hydraulic plant and numerous different classes of portable
riveters are on the Tweddell system. The hydraulic power required to
work the various machines is furnished by a pair of vertical steam
engines, geared to a set of two-throw pumps, which force the water
at a pressure of 1,500-lb. per square inch into an accumulator. This
latter feature, as is well known, serves to store up the power in a
considerable amount ready to meet the sudden demands of one or more
of the riveters without calling on the pumps. As is the case in all
machinery on this system, the accumulator is loaded to a pressure of
1,500-lb. per square inch. The means employed for the transmission
of the water-power, from the service of main pipes laid as required
throughout the yard, are flexible copper pipes, admitting of being
led almost in any direction, however irregular, without being
impaired or rendered inefficient. When the plant was laid down about
four years ago, Messrs M‘Millan determined to err if anything on
the side of prudence, and they laid all their mains of double the
required size, so that they could, if the high pressure was found
objectionable, return to the lower pressures sometimes employed; they
have, however, never found it advisable to do so.
In this yard can be seen portable riveters suspended over a vessel’s
deck between 40 and 50 feet above ground, capable of reaching and
clenching rivets in stringers at a distance of 4 feet 6 inches from
edge of plate. The power brought into play in closing some of these
rivets is very great—from 20 to 30 tons—and yet this is conveyed by a
small tube of only half-inch outside diameter in some cases through
a distance of many hundred feet. The portable riveter here indicated
is suspended on a light and handy carriage, which can travel the
upper deck from stem to stern, being made purposely low so as to
clear poop and bridge deck beams if such should be fitted. With
this machine Messrs M‘Millan have closed from 400 to 450 rivets per
day of nine hours in stringers 3 feet 6 inches wide. They have also
effected some very heavy work in attaching the sheer strake to the
gunwale bar, the rate of progress being correspondingly satisfactory.
The same features in the _Alaska_, built by Messrs John Elder & Co.,
were similarly operated upon by another of Mr Tweddell’s riveters,
whose complete system has been adopted in this large establishment
also. By an elongation of the suspending arm Messrs M‘Millan hope to
execute, besides the stringers, most of the deck work, such as ties,
diagonals, hatch coamings, &c., in one traverse of the carriage.
Moreover, a second carriage with riveter may be doing simultaneously
the same work on the other side of the vessel. Indeed, it only
requires a further development of such work to make the riveting of
complete iron decks practicable, and—with the rate of wages, for hand
riveted work, usually prevailing—profitable also.
[Illustration: FIG. 22.
TWEDDELL PORTABLE FRAME AND BEAM RIVETER.]
The riveting of the frames and beams is the simplest of all the work
overtaken by the hydraulic riveters, and it is here the system is
seen to most advantage. In any yard furnished with these machines
rivets are closed at a greatly accelerated rate compared with work
done by hand. Tweddell machines have been known to close, in beams,
1,800 to 1,900 rivets per machine per day of 9½ hours. In frames the
average rate at which rivets are closed is about 1,400 per day. The
cost for this section of riveted work has been computed to be about
one-half of that by hand, and the quality of the work is everywhere
acknowledged to be better. With the same number of men the work is
accomplished in something like one-third of the time. The _modus
operandi_ in overtaking this feature of the work may be briefly
described. For the riveting of the frames, in almost every case, two
cranes of any convenient construction are fixed at the head of the
berth in which the vessel is to be built; the frames are laid across
the keel as in hand work, and rest on trestles, where the portable
riveter, carried on the before-mentioned cranes, rivets them up. As
the riveting in each frame is completed it is drawn down the keel
by steam or hand power, and set up in place. The riveting of the
beams is a still more simple operation, the beam to be riveted being
placed under a gantry somewhat longer than the beam itself, and upon
which the portable riveter travels. The suspending gear in this and
other of the Tweddell machines combines the functions of hydraulic
lifts for raising or lowering the riveter, and of conveying the
necessary hydraulic pressure to the riveter. The beam is supported on
trestles, and the riveter, having the facilities for travel and exact
adjustment just described, accomplishes the surprising work before
mentioned.
The conditions under which the riveting in cellular and bracket
bottoms is accomplished are less favourable to expeditious work. This
system of ship’s bottom is greatly more complex in its constructive
features than the ordinary bottom. The separate plates and angles
which go to form the bracket floor system are to be numbered—in
vessels of the average size—by thousands. The frames in such vessels
are formed of three parts; one part stretches across the bottom and
abuts against the plates forming the sides of the cellular bottom;
the other two parts form the sides of the vessel, but are not erected
until the bottom portions of the frames have been laid and all the
bracket and longitudinal girders are erected and fitted upon them. On
the bottom, as thus described, the portable riveters are required to
operate, in many instances having to reach the rivets at a distance
of 4 feet 6 inches from the edge of the plates, and in confined
spaces of 24 inches. When the frames and beams are completely riveted
and beginning to be erected, a travelling-crane (in Messrs M‘Millan’s
two travelling cranes are employed working from separate ends of the
vessel) carrying a large portable riveter, is placed on the top of
the floors, with short lengths of planking laid to act as tramways.
The perfect control thus obtained is somewhat extraordinary. The
crane jib has sufficient rake to command the whole floor of the
ship, and every rivet can be closed in the confined spaces already
described. Some 800 rivets per day can be put in, many of them at a
distance of 4 feet 6 ins. from the edge of the plate. The quality of
the work is all that could be desired; in some parts, indeed, the
use of the felt-packing necessary in hand work has been found to be
unnecessary owing to the tight work obtained by hydraulic riveting.
One crane with its riveting machine can, in a vessel of moderate
size, say 3,000 to 4,000 tons, fully keep pace with the up-ending
of the frames, provided it has something of a start. As it advances
the lower deck beams are put in place behind it, and the other
work follows in order. In ships of the more ordinary construction,
longitudinal keelsons are fitted, which are readily reached by
special portable riveters, suspended by means of neat devices, some
of them the ideas or suggestions of workmen in Messrs M‘Millan’s
service.
The only machine of the series of portable riveters employed by
Messrs M‘Millan which remains to be noticed is that which overtakes
the riveting of keels. This machine is perhaps one of the most
perfect of the series, performing its functions satisfactorily,
viewed from whatever standpoint. The riveting required on the keel of
large vessels is very heavy, especially if the through-keelson and
side-bar system is adopted, when five thicknesses of plate have to be
connected, the rivets employed being 1⅛-inch or 1¼-inch in diameter.
The situation is not favourable for getting at the work to be done,
the head-room available not often exceeding 2½ or 3 feet. These
conditions render great compactness, together with portableness,
necessary in the machine. The keel itself was utilised for the
attachment of the Tweddell riveter as first tried, then again a sort
of light trestle was employed, the riveter being at one end of a
lever racking on this. These plans were abandoned, however, in favour
of the machine as now used in various yards throughout the country,
an illustration of which is given by Fig. 23. A low carriage is
travelled down alongside the keel. This carriage supports a balanced
lever, carrying at one end the riveter, capable of exerting about 50
tons on the rivet head, and at the other a balance weight. This lever
can in its turn revolve horizontally about a short pillar fixed on a
turn-table, thus affording unlimited control over the riveter by the
man in charge; enabling him, indeed, to adjust the riveter to every
irregularity of position or direction of the rivets in keel. As many
as 420 1¼-inch rivets per day have been put in by this machine, an
amount which is fully equal to the work of two squads of riveters,
and in one yard 70 rivets have been closed in as many consecutive
minutes.
[Illustration: FIG. 23.
TWEDDELL HYDRAULIC KEEL RIVETER.]
It may be stated generally that the several hydraulic riveters
require two men to work them, and the rivets are heated in portable
furnaces and dealt out in any quantities required, by a boy in
attendance. The quality of the work done is superior to hand
work, chiefly in that when rivets are well heated the pressure is
equalised, and affects the rivets throughout their entire length,
filling the holes to their utmost. This advantage tells more in the
case of keel riveting, and that it is so is evidenced by the fact, as
communicated by a foreman having great experience, that rivets ¼-inch
longer than rivets closed by hand have even less superfluous surface
material when closed by the machine.
From the facts above detailed, taken in conjunction with the opinions
of such authorities as Mr West, it can fairly be claimed for Mr
Tweddell as the inventor of the earliest of the hydraulic riveters
now so extensively employed in shipyards, that he has greatly
improved the character of work in ship construction. Not only so, but
he has relieved the shipyard artizan from a species of work which
requires little or no skill in its execution—work, indeed, which may
properly be relegated to, as it certainly in course of time will be
included in, that vast domain in which water, steam, electricity, and
the other natural powers are so wondrously made to play their part.
* * * * *
While the extended use of improved machinery has brought about
changes in the iron-working departments of shipyards that are
structurally of the greatest importance, it is nevertheless true that
the largest acquisition to shipyard machinery of late has been made
in the wood-working departments. It is here, beyond question, where
the equipment of modern shipyards is seen to be so much an advance
on the former order of things, when handicraft was indispensable
and paramount; and it is also here, probably, where the greatest
labour-saving advances have been made. The artistic perfection which
is evinced in the palatial saloons and state-rooms of many modern
steamships would not have been possible—commercially so, at least—to
the shipbuilders of twenty years ago, whose appliances, regarded
from present-day standpoints, seem to have been woefully crude and
meagre. Still, it is not by any means to be understood that all the
shipyards of to-day are alike commentaries on the former state of
things, because even now there are not wanting yards in which the
necessary wood-work for ships is accomplished with singularly few
machines. The need for accessions in this direction, however, is
being more keenly felt every day, and in many yards quite recently
the entire joinery department has been thoroughly re-organised and
equipped. The chapter which follows will be devoted to descriptions
of some representative establishments in the several districts, and
as special references may therein be made to the machinery equipment
of the wood-working departments, the present remarks will only be of
a general nature.
The conversion of wood from the absolutely rough state into finished
and finely-surfaced material, ready for immediate use in the interior
of vessels, forms at the present time not an uncommon portion of
the daily work in shipyards well equipped with modern machinery.
This is not only concerned with the commoner woods employed in large
quantities for structural purposes, but also to a considerable
extent with those various ornamental hardwoods entering into the
decorative features. The change of which this is indicative is one
of increased self-dependence and economy formerly not dreamed of
in shipyards, and of improvements at every stage in the machinery
for wood conversion, which are simply wonderful. In circular and
straight saws, planing, moulding, and shaping machines, band and
fret-saw machines, mortising, tenoning, and dove-tailing machines,
and in machines for scraping, sand-papering, and miscellaneous
purposes, not a few modern shipyards reflect the fullest engineering
progress as concerned with wood-working machinery. In planing
machines especially are the labour-saving advantages made apparent.
As illustrating this it may be explained that machines of this
kind in daily use are able to plane a greatly increased breadth of
surface, to work several sides of the wood at one operation, and
at a marvellously accelerated speed as compared with hand work.
Similarly, as regards the formation of mouldings, it may be stated
that a moulding which would take a competent workman some hours to
produce can be completed on a good machine in less than _one minute_.
Many patterns of mouldings and other decorative items now largely
used are thus only possible—commercially if not otherwise—through the
extended employment of machinery. The degree of “finish” now put
upon the plainest features—rendered pecuniarly possible by the use
of machinery—is nowhere so striking as in the scraping of panels and
the sand-papering of large surfaces. In one shipyard the author has
witnessed the scraping of hardwood panels as broad as 30-ins., the
shaving taken off being of marvellous thinness and perfectly uniform
and entire throughout the length and breadth of panel. The surface
left on the panel is beautifully smooth, rendering any after-dressing
with sand paper superfluous, and the shavings have all the appearance
and much of the flexibility of fine paper. In many other ways
that might be instanced, the improvement in machinery is not less
striking, but what has already been given may sufficiently illustrate
the general advance.
The sources from which modern wood-working machinery is obtained are
various. Notable firms of machinists throughout this country, in
America, and on the Continent, are drawn upon, each of whom, although
not furnishing complete installations of wood-working machinery, are
distinguished for some “special make” of one or other of the machines
necessary. In the plentitude of firms whose names suggest themselves
in this connection, it may be invidious to single out any for special
mention, yet, of firms in this country, Messrs M‘Dowall & Sons, of
Johnstone, and Messrs T. Robinson & Son, Rochdale; and of firms in
America, Messrs J. A. Fay & Co., of Cincinnati, may be noticed as
having furnished many machines which are highly valued in shipyards.
Notwithstanding the recent advancement in this direction, there is
still scope for improved wood-working machinery, and for machines to
overtake additional work in shipyards. A single, though perhaps not
particularly striking, instance may be given. While attempts have
been made to supply it, there is not yet, so far as the author knows,
a machine for planing decks after the planking has been laid, and
the seams caulked and payed. Those acquaint with the laborious and
unskilled nature of the work to be done, will readily concede the
fitness of applying, if possible, mechanical means to achieve it.
Attention may here be directed to the subject of improvements in
shipyard machines and methods of work, directly due to the careful
study of results from every-day practice. Workmen themselves have too
seldom been instrumental in effecting such improvements, although in
many respects the most fitting mediums through which improvements
could come. A lingering antipathy to new machinery on the score of
its supplanting hand work, and perhaps the want of proper knowledge
of scientific principles, have prevented many from taking part
in this way. To encourage the exercise of the inventive faculty
amongst workmen, as well as to reap personal advantage, Messrs Denny
& Brothers instituted in 1880 a scheme of rewards for invention
in their establishment, which has been attended with gratifying
success, and has since been copied in other quarters. Particulars
of this scheme will be given in the following chapter, thus making
detailed reference here unnecessary. It may be said briefly, however,
that awards ranging from £12 to £3 are paid to workmen who submit
inventions, and when any one has been successful in obtaining five
awards he receives a premium of £20, and when he has obtained ten
awards he is paid a further premium of £25—the premiums increasing
by £5 for every additional five awards received. During the time it
has been in vogue as many as 200 claims have been entered, over 110
of which have received awards, representing in all the disbursement
by the firm of about £500. The majority of the awards made have been
concerned with improvements in the joinery departments. Some of the
machines there have been modified or altered so as to do twice the
quantity of work previously possible, some to do a new class of work,
and others to do the same work with greater safety, and with less
wear and tear.
* * * * *
In several other sections of shipyard work, progress is strikingly
evinced. Of these it may suffice to instance the work of transport
between one shop and another, and between workshops and building
berths, also that of lifting heavy weights either by stationery or
locomotive cranes. Means of effecting such work are now employed in
many yards, which, viewed in the light of former things, are truly
prodigious.
The increasing propulsive power with which steamships are being
fitted necessitates ponderous weights in connection with the engines
and boilers. The means available for lifting such weights have not
until within recent years been possessed by private shipbuilders,
but have been the property of public bodies, such as Harbour Trusts.
The majority of shipbuilders have still to depend on such outside
aid, but within the past few years several large firms—particularly
on the Clyde—who have the necessary dock accommodation, have erected
in connection with their works enormous “sheer-legs;” the modern
equivalent for cranes, which are now somewhat out of fashion for
ponderous work. Some of these are amongst the most powerful ever
erected, being capable of lifting 80, 100, and even 120 tons weight.
Such enormous appliances, it may readily be understood, enables the
firm possessing them to be independent of extraneous assistance, and
to complete in every respect within their own establishments vessels
of the largest class.
The means of transporting material in shipyards by systems of
railways laid alongside the principal workshops, and traversing the
yard in all directions, have been amplified and improved in many
yards within recent times. Connection is made in most instances with
sidings from main lines of railway, whereby materials and goods can
be at once brought into the yards from whatever part of the kingdom;
and in the largest yards special locomotives are constantly employed
doing this work. In well arranged establishments the railway first
enters a store-yard, and the material is lifted from the trucks by
travelling-crane or other means, and deposited on either side of the
railway, plates being set on edge in special racks, from which they
can be easily removed by the workmen. Leaving this, the lines of
railway traverse the building yard throughout, and are designed to
permit of the material being conveyed without retrocession, but with
the necessary stoppages for its being put through the various courses
of manipulation, to the vessel in which it is to be used. A recent
and very serviceable amplification of the system of railway transport
has been fitted in one of the largest Clyde yards which enables
material to be conveyed with greatly increased ease and despatch in
directions and to situations wholly inaccessible to the main lines
of rails. This is the narrow gauge portable system, patented by M.
Decauville, of Petit-Bourg, Paris, which consists of short lengths of
very light steel rails, permanently riveted to cross sleepers, and
with end connections so formed as to make joint while being pressed
into contact. Each section, of 4, 6, 8, 12, or 16 feet long, being
complete in itself, the tramway can be laid down in any new situation
very rapidly. Where divergences of route take place, curves,
crossings, and light turntables are supplied, sufficiently strong
to carry working loads, and at the same time light enough to be
easily handled. Special waggons and trollies are also supplied by the
makers, which, combined with the system of portable rails described,
not only worthily take the place of, but far excel in handiness and
efficiency, the ordinary wheel-barrows of the shipyard.
List of Papers, &c., bearing on modern shipyard machine-tools,
appliances, and methods of work, to which readers desiring fuller
acquaintance with the _technique_ and details of the subject are
referred:—
ON THE HYDRAULIC DEPARTMENT IN THE IRON SHIPBUILDING DEPARTMENT
OF THE NAVAL DOCKYARD AT TOULON, by M. Marc Berrier-Fontaine:
Proceedings Inst. Mech. Engineers, 1878.
ON THE APPLICATION OF HYDRAULIC PRESSURE TO MACHINE TOOLS, by Mr
Ralph Hart Tweddell: Trans. Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol.
xxiv., 1880-81.
ON MACHINE-TOOLS AND OTHER LABOUR-SAVING APPLIANCES WORKED BY
HYDRAULIC PRESSURE, by R. H. Tweddell: Proceedings Inst. Civil
Engineers, vol. lxxiii., 1882-83.
WOOD-WORKING MACHINERY, ITS RISE, PROGRESS, AND CONSTRUCTION, by M.
Powis Bale: London, Crosby, Lockwood & Co., 1880.
ON STAMPING AND WELDING UNDER THE STEAM HAMMER, by Alex. M‘Donnell:
Proceedings Inst. Civil Engineers, vol. lxxiii., 1882-83.
ON THE DECAUVILLE PORTABLE RAILWAY, by M. Decauville: Proceedings
Inst. Mech. Engineers, 1884.
CHAPTER VI.
DESCRIPTIONS OF SOME NOTABLE SHIPYARDS.
Although in the preceding chapter the main directions in which
progress with respect to shipyard appliances and methods of work
have been outlined, the record necessarily fails to cover many
minor matters which are still essential to an appreciative view
of modern shipbuilding. This want cannot better be supplied than
by giving detailed descriptions of some representative shipyards
and engineering works throughout the principal centres. The
establishments which will be selected for notice are amongst the
largest in the several districts, and on the whole represent almost
all that is advanced in the shipbuilding industry, while to most of
them a special interest attaches through the many high-class vessels
produced from their stocks for the better-known shipping lines. On
such grounds it is hoped the intelligent reader will find the choice
of yards—where there was no alternative but to choose—justified and
fitting. Three Clyde shipyards, two on the Tyne, one on the Wear, and
one at Barrow-in-Furness, will be described. The accounts are written
from authoritative information specially supplied, aided and verified
by personal knowledge of the works dealt with, and are chiefly
concerned with the capability and arrangement of the several yards.
Other matters of a more technical nature, such as the comparison of
methods of work in the several districts,[31] are not dealt with.
To some extent this still differs in individual yards, but modern
practice is being more assimilated throughout the districts as time
goes on. The first establishment dealt with will be:—
MESSRS JOHN ELDER & CO.’S
SHIPBUILDING AND MARINE ENGINEERING WORKS,
FAIRFIELD, GOVAN, NEAR GLASGOW.
The progress of shipbuilding and marine engineering on the Clyde
may be said to include several more or less well-defined periods
or stages, and the student of industrial progress must feel
bound to connect with these the name of the late John Elder, a
distinguished leader in these important industries, and an engineer
whose improvements in the marine engine deserve to rank alongside
those improvements which James Watt effected in his day. In 1852 Mr
Elder joined his friend, Mr Randolph, in an established business,
and shortly afterwards made preparations to add marine engineering
to the mill-wright and other businesses of the firm. The new firm
speedily established itself through a series of improvements,
having for their object the reduction of fuel consumption on board
steam vessels. In 1860 the firm commenced to build ships, and as
shipbuilders and marine engineers they laboured successfully for
sixteen years, building during that period 106 vessels, with an
aggregate tonnage of 81,326 tons, and constructing 111 sets of
marine engines, showing a nominal power of 20,145 horses. At this
time the co-partnery contract expired, and Mr John Elder took
over the entire works, carrying them on with great success until
his death, which occurred in London in September, 1869, when at
the early age of 45 years. After his death the business of the
firm was taken up by Mr John F. Ure, Mr J. L. K. Jamieson, and Mr
William Pearce, all of whom had previously achieved distinction in
shipbuilding and engineering, and the efforts of these gentlemen
far exceeded the success of Mr John Elder’s first firm. In 16
years, as above stated, the latter launched 106 vessels of an
aggregate tonnage of 81,326 tons, and constructed 111 sets of
marine engines of 20,145 nominal horse-power, whereas the new
firm launched in nine years 97 vessels of an aggregate tonnage
of 192,355 tons, and constructed 90 sets of marine engines of
31,193 nominal horse-power. About six years ago Mr Ure and Mr
Jamieson retired from the firm, leaving Mr Pearce sole partner,
and during these six years the activity and enterprise formerly
characterising the firm have been worthily sustained, and the firm
has kept in the very front rank. In maintaining this position, and
achieving unprecedented results in the matter of swift steamships,
not a little credit is due to Mr A. D. Bryce-Douglas, an engineer
of well-attested skill, who wields the sceptre of authority in the
engineering section.
The works, which are situated on the south bank of the Clyde at
Fairfield, near Govan, occupy an area of about 70 acres, and
comprise shipyard, boiler shop, engine works, and tidal basin.
The disposition of the various workshops is admirable, and as
these are connected with each other by a broad gauge line of
rails communicating with all parts of the yard and the terminus
of the Govan railway, the conveyance of raw material in the first
instance, its location in whatever section of the works it may
be specially designed for, and its transmission in the form of
finished items of structure or outfit to the vessels of which it is
to form part, are all accomplished with ease.
Entering by the south-east gate, the visitor proceeds in the
direction of the business offices, his first impression probably
being one of wonder at the immense quantities of iron and steel in
plates and bars covering every available piece of ground, as well
as the great quantity of timber of all dimensions stacked and in
racks, maturing for after use. Arriving at the offices of the firm,
the visitor is probably first ushered into the draughtsmen’s rooms,
which, as well as a large reception-room, contain an extensive
collection of models of the vessels that have been constructed by
the firm. In these apartments a large staff of draughtsmen are
employed in the work of designing new vessels, and making working
drawings of ships already contracted for.
Following the routine of practical operations the visitor is
conducted to the moulding loft, which is 320 feet long by 50 feet
wide. Here the drawings of the vessels are put down full size.
The term “laying off” is applied to the operation of transferring
to the mould loft-floor those designs and general proportions of
a ship which have been drawn on paper, and from which all the
preliminary calculations have been made and the form decided. The
lines of the ship and exact representations of many of the parts
of which it is composed are delineated here to their actual or
real dimensions, in order that moulds or skeleton outlines may be
made from them for the guidance of the workmen. These lines, when
completed and carefully verified, are afterwards transferred to
scrieve boards, from which the frames, floors, &c., are bent. In
connection with the moulding loft is a pattern shop, in which the
various moulds required in “laying off” are made.
Descending to the iron-work machine shop, which measures about
1000 feet long by 150 feet wide, a scene of great activity meets
the eye. Proceeding to that section where the bending blocks are
situated, the operation of forming the frames of a vessel may
be noticed. The bending blocks are massive iron plates weighing
several tons, on which the form of the frame is marked from the
scrieve boards. All over the blocks are round holes, closely spaced
and equidistant, in which iron pins are placed to give the form of
the frame to be bent. Long bars of angle-iron, properly heated in
adjacent furnaces, are brought by the workmen to the blocks, and
there the bars are bent round the pins to the form required. The
half frame of a ship is thus fashioned to the proper form in little
more time than it takes to describe the process. It is now allowed
to cool, and it is then returned to the scrieve boards to be set
or adjusted with the reverse frame, which with the floor plate go
to make the frame in its finished form. While this is going on,
the keel blocks are being laid in the usual manner on the building
slip, and the keel, stem, and stern-posts are being forged and
drilled. The keel is laid, and the frames are then set up in their
places, and are kept in position by shores and ribbon pieces. The
stem and stern-posts are then set up, and the work now becomes
general all over the vessel. The beams previously made are put
up, the bulkheads, stringer plates, and keelsons are added in due
succession, and the outside shell is being fitted and riveted. Thus
the full and perfect form of the vessel is gradually developed,
and exhibits one of the most interesting and useful productions
of man’s labour. In the bending shop alluded to are several large
Gorman furnaces, 25 smithy fires for heating angle irons, several
sets of plate-bending rolls, five stands of vertical drilling
machines with several spindles each, a huge punching machine
capable of producing ten rivet holes at each operation, squeezers,
boring, planing, counter-sinking, plate-bending, plate planing,
numerous punching and shearing machines, and other appliances.
The motive power of this section is supplied by a powerful set of
engines lately erected by the firm.
Immediately to the front of this building are the slips, which
extend 1,200 feet along the Clyde, and admit of 12 to 14 vessels
being proceeded with at one time. While proceeding among the slips
hydraulic riveters may be observed at work on several structural
features. The attention given to such machines in the preceding
chapter makes further notice here unnecessary.
When a steamship leaves the ways she is towed into the firm’s tidal
dock to receive the boilers and machinery. With the assistance of a
pair of 80-ton sheer-legs, Messrs Elder & Co. are able to complete
this part of the construction of a vessel with wonderful despatch.
In connection with this section is a smithy and small mechanics’
shop, which are alongside of the wharf. Space will not permit a
description of the smiths’ shop, the paint shop, riggers’ loft,
plumbers’ shop, belt-makers’ shop, boat-builders’ shop, block and
pattern-makers’ shop, pattern store, general store, &c., about each
of which much of interest might be written.
The wood-working department, though stocked with the most approved
labour-saving appliances, still affords employment to several
hundreds of hands. In the saw mill, which is about 100 feet square,
there are several sets of steam saw frames, circular saws, planing
machines for operating on deck planks, and other tools, the
producing capacity of which is very large. Adjacent to this is the
spar shed, where all the spars required on board the vessels are
made.
In the joiners’ shops are numerous wood-working machines, which
are placed advantageously all through this department, comprising
planing, morticing, and moulding machines, circular and fret saws,
surface planing and jointing machines, general joiners, lathes,
and a variety of other tools from the most noted makers of this
class of mechanism. The cabinetmaker’s shop is a spacious one, and
here the finer class of interior fittings are seen in all stages
of progress. Nothing in this section seems omitted in the way of
mechanical appliances to afford the utmost facility for rapid
production and excellence of workmanship.
The marine engineering department of the business is conducted
in an imposing pile of buildings about 300 feet square. This
immense shop is 50 feet high, and is divided into four bays, or
compartments, by three spacious galleries of two floors, each
30 feet wide, and extending the entire length of the building.
These galleries serve the double purpose of supporting powerful
travelling cranes (two of which are capable of lifting loads
of 40 tons, and the other two lesser weights), and providing
convenient retreats where boilermaking, copperwork, and other
operations are conducted. It is doubtful if a similar collection
of ponderous tools is to be found anywhere else in Great Britain.
Notable among the heavy tools seen here in operation is one of
enormous proportions for planing and trimming armour plates, being
capable of smoothing a surface 20 feet by 6 feet. There are three
self-acting screw-cutting lathes, two slotting machines of great
power, a universal radial drilling machine, with a radius of 18
feet, capable of boring a hole 4 inches in diameter, through a 9
inch plate in half-an-hour; a turning lathe having a 10-ft. spindle
with a diameter of 20-ins.; a planing machine which cuts either
horizontally or vertically, and has a traverse of 15 feet by 12
feet; two vertical boring machines, each with a travel of 5 feet;
a turning lathe 8½ feet in diameter, with a 34 feet shaft; and a
terrible and mysterious-looking machine, with a metallic disc 18
feet in diameter, armed with powerful steel cutters fixed round its
circumference, which takes a shaving of 2½ inches off the mass of
iron upon which it is operating. This machine was the invention of
the late Mr Elder’s father, and is one of the most wonderful tools
in existence. Adjoining this engine shop is the forge, which, with
its 50 fires, 16 steam hammers, and all the necessary appurtenances
to produce forgings with despatch, is an exceedingly busy section
of the works. It is 300 feet long and 100 feet wide; and being
lofty, excellent ventilation is obtained.
There are three smithies of large dimensions—one being retained
for heavy work, and the others for light work. In connection
with the engine shop is a pattern shop which, like all the other
wood-working departments of the premises, is fully provided with
tools having the most modern improvements. The brass foundry is
well appointed, and is arranged in two sections—one for light, and
the other for heavy work. Manganese bronze propellers, of which the
firm make a speciality, are made here in great numbers; the monthly
output of this department amounts to 45 tons, all of which is used
up in the yard, with the exception of a number of propellers which
the firm supply to other shipbuilders.
The capabilities of the Fairfield establishment, it may readily
be believed, are of the highest order. Scarcely anything need
be said in substantiation of this, as the past few years have
witnessed the continuous production from its stocks of very many
steamships of the highest class, whose names have already become
“household words.” Of these it may be sufficient to instance the
_Arizona_, the _Alaska_, the _Austral_, the _Stirling Castle_, and
the _Oregon_. Apart from these, and perhaps no less worthy examples
of Fairfield work, vessels of war have been turned out to a goodly
extent, as well as vessels for a great variety of trades, but it is
for the fast mail and passenger steamships that the establishment
is chiefly famed. Its reputation in this respect bids fair to be
augmented by the production of the two powerful Cunard steamers
already referred to in this work, and which are now nearing
completion.
The following tabulated form shows the amount of tonnage built, and
the horse-power of engines fitted, by Messrs Elder & Co. during the
past fourteen years:—
+--------+----------+----------++--------+----------+----------+
| Years. | Tonnage. | H.P. || Years. | Tonnage. | H.P. |
| | Gross. |Indicated.|| | Gross. |Indicated.|
+--------+----------+----------++--------+----------+----------+
| 1870 | 22,795 | 18,139 || 1877 | 7,704 | 9,550 |
| 1871 | 31,889 | 29,000 || 1878 | 18,247 | 11,750 |
| 1872 | 24,510 | 22,450 || 1879 | 16,895 | 15,510 |
| 1873 | 24,829 | 18,300 || 1880 | 32,775 | 38,024 |
| 1874 | 31,016 | 16,110 || 1881 | 26,575 | 43,728 |
| 1875 | 17,818 | 12,040 || 1882 | 31,686 | 41,192 |
| 1876 | 13,533 | 16,550 || 1883 | 40,115 | 56,995 |
+--------+----------+----------++--------+----------+----------+
During ordinarily busy periods the number of operatives employed
by Messrs Elder & Co. reaches six thousand. The united earnings of
this great army of workmen amount to over £33,000 per month. As
a further indication of the stupendousness of the works, it may
be mentioned that on board a single vessel—the _Umbria_—as many
as 1,200 workmen have been employed at one time. The supervision
of affairs in this great establishment is, as may readily be
understood, a matter necessitating numerous “heads,” “sub-heads,”
and departments. The general manager in the shipyard is Mr J. W.
Shepherd, a naval architect of well-approved ability.
The second of the three Clyde establishments selected for notice, and
one in many ways specially noteworthy is:—
MESSRS WILLIAM DENNY & BROTHERS’ LEVEN SHIPYARD, DUMBARTON.
The firm of William Denny & Brothers, Dumbarton, began the business
of iron shipbuilding in the year 1844, in a small yard situated
on the east bank of the river Leven. To this they subsequently
added the “Woodyard” on the opposite side of the river, which
had been occupied for a considerable period by William Denny the
elder, builder of the “Marjory,” “Rob Roy,” and many other notable
craft, during the infancy of steam navigation. The composition
of the firm at the outset comprised William, Alexander, and
Peter, sons of the builder of the “Marjory,” but it was augmented
after a time by the assumption of two other brothers, James and
Archibald. The co-partnery some time after again underwent change
when the two brothers Alexander and Archibald seceded, and formed
small yards of their own. In 1854 the firm sustained an almost
irreparable loss in the death of William, the original promoter
of the concern, to whose energy and surpassing skill most of the
success then attained was due. His decease was deeply lamented, not
only as an irreparable family bereavement, but as a public loss.
When he first devoted his energies to the formation of an iron
shipbuilding concern, it was at a time of great industrial gloom in
the community. With its successful establishment began a brighter
era in the industrial and social history of the burgh—one which has
never once been seriously interrupted, and seems only now to be
approaching the “high noon” of its prosperity. Sometime subsequent
to the decease of William, the co-partnery was further reduced
through the death of James. For a considerable time thereafter the
business was carried on by Peter alone, until in 1868 he was joined
by his eldest son William, and 1871 by Mr Walter Brock—co-partner
in the firm of Denny & Coy.: a distinct marine engineering business
established by Peter Denny and others in 1851. Within the past
three years farther accessions to the firm have been made in Mr
James Denny, son of James of the original firm, and in Messrs Peter
Denny, John M. Denny, and Archibald Denny, sons of Peter, and
younger brothers of William, who for some time has been managing
partner of the shipbuilding firm, as Mr Brock is of the engine
works.
In 1867 the firm transferred their establishment to the present
site on the east bank of the river Leven near its confluence
with the Clyde, and under the shadow of the Castle-rock, which
figures largely, alike in the scenic renown and the historic annals
of Scotland. Through a most elaborate series of extensions and
improvements carried out within the past two-and-a-half years,
the works have been enlarged to more than double their previous
dimensions, and correspondingly increased in working capability.
They occupy a total area of forty-three acres, over five acres of
which are taken up with wet dock accommodation, and as much as
seven-and-a-half acres with workshops, sheds, and roofed spaces
of various kinds. The yard has a most advantageous and extensive
frontage to the Leven, which, under the provisions of a recently
obtained Harbour Act, is being greatly improved as regards width
and deepening. The principal launching berths, eight in number,
are ranged about the centre portion of the yard’s length, and
their projections into the river Leven, favoured by a bend at this
part, are almost in the direct line of its course. Through the
recent improvements, these berths are capable of receiving vessels
of dimensions and tonnage such as the present race for big ships
has not even approached. The arrangement permits of eight vessels
being built of lengths ranging gradually from a maximum of 750 feet
downwards. Besides these principal berths, there are spaces near
the south end of the yard, where light-draught paddle-steamers and
the smaller class of screw vessels are constructed and launched, or
taken to pieces and shipped abroad. All the work of construction,
fitting out, and putting machinery on board ship, is accomplished
within the yard gates. Contributing to this result are two tidal
docks, one newly formed, of over four acres in extent, and another
of over an acre. The bottom of the new dock is 26 feet below the
level of the yard and wharfage, affording at high tide 20 feet of
water. In connection with the dock, powerful sheer-legs are being
erected by Messrs Day & Summers, of Southampton, capable of lifting
the enormous weight of one hundred tons. Alongside of the smaller
dock are a pair of sheer-legs, capable of lifting 50 tons, with
two subsidiary cranes of 10 tons each. For all purposes, either
of construction or outfit of the largest vessel, these and the
other enlarged resources place the firm in a position of entire
independence with regard to extraneous accommodation or appliances.
The engines and boilers for Messrs Denny Brothers’ vessels are
invariably supplied by Messrs Denny & Company, whose large works,
greatly extended within recent years, are situated further up the
Leven. Along the eastern boundary of the Leven Shipyard, for over
1000 feet of its length, the joiners’ shops, blacksmiths’ shops,
machine sheds, outfit stores, &c., are ranged. The joiners’ shops
are most admirable for the completeness of their appointment. They
occupy the ground floor and first flat of a three-storey building,
250 feet by 65 feet, forming part of the range spoken of. The
machines contained in these apartments are of the newest and most
approved description of both British and American make, and embrace
moulding, planing, mortising, tenoning, dove-tailing, nibbling,
scraping, and sand-papering machines; circular, band, and cross-cut
saws; also machines for decorative carving and incising, &c., the
whole being driven by a special engine of considerable power,
located near the building. A large sawmill and shed, containing
various wood-working machines, are situate close to the Leven, near
the south end of the yard, and all the wood employed in the yard
is here cut from the rough. The blacksmiths’ and angle smiths’
shops and the machine sheds are correspondingly well furnished
with the most modern appliances. The former of these contain
over fifty fires, and ten steam hammers, as well as verticals,
lathes, &c., conveniently situated. The latter are splendidly
equipped, containing several large plate rolls, planing machines,
beam-bending machines, and an assortment of multiple drills and
counter-sinking machines of the most modern type; also a large
number of punching and shearing machines, including two man-hole
punches capable of piercing 30 by 20-in. holes in plates ¾-inch
thick. The plate and frame furnace, bending block, and scrive board
accommodation throughout the yard, is of extent commensurate with
the other features above described, all of which being of recent
formation, are of the most approved and modern description.
The system of railways throughout the shipyard is of an unusually
complete description. Connection is made with the main line of the
North British Railway, and enters the yard on its north side, where
a store-yard of about two acres affords ample storage accommodation
for material in steel and iron. Leaving this and traversing the
building yard throughout, the lines of railway are designed to
permit of material being conveyed without retrocession to the
vessel of which they are to form part, but with the stoppages
necessary for their being put through the various courses of
manipulation. In addition, the yard is traversed in directions
and to situations inaccessible to the main lines of rails, by the
narrow gauge portable system, patented by M. Decauville, which is
of great service.
A special department in the establishment of Messrs Denny, and an
entirely novel feature in a private shipyard, is the experimental
tank, already referred to in the Chapter on scientific progress.
This notable section of Messrs Denny’s works may be described as
consisting of a basin 300 feet long, 22 feet wide, and containing
9 feet of water over the principal portion of its length. Around
this basin are the shops and appliances for the work which has
to be done—constructive, experimental, and analytical. This work
on the constructive side consists of making paraffine models,
which represent on an appropriate scale the ships to which the
experiments have reference; the paraffine is melted, cast in a
rough mould to the approximate shape, and afterwards faired off
by a specially-constructed and very ingenious cutting machine.
When finished the model is passed on to the second stage—the
experimental. A stationary engine draws a carriage along a railway
suspended above the water space, the carriage is accompanied by
the model, with an attachment which allows the model to move
freely, and at the same time to depend entirely for its propelling
force upon a spring carried by the carriage. The extensions of
this spring are measured and recorded automatically, so too are
the speeds, the record being made by electric pens in the form of
diagrams, on a revolving cylinder which is part of the apparatus
of the carriage. The analytical work consists of obtaining from
the diagrams the items of speed and propelling force, the relation
between which, at all speeds for which the experiments have been
made, is thus obtained. The facilities which are offered by the
tank for investigating to the utmost the laws of hydrodynamics
in so far as they affect, practically, the resistance of ships,
is thus obvious. On the facade of the tank, fronting the public
street, Messrs Denny have placed an admirably-sculptured medallion
portrait of the late Mr William Froude, of Torquay, the noted
experimentalist. Underneath is the following inscription:—“This
facade of the Leven Shipyard Experimental Tank is erected in
memory of the late William Froude, F.R.S., L.L.D., the greatest
of experimenters and investigators of hydrodynamics. Born 29th
November, 1811. Died 14th May, 1879.”
Telephonic communication having previously been established with
advantage between Leven Shipyard and the Engine Works of Messrs
Denny & Co., towards the close of 1883 a telephone exchange
system was established in the shipyard, by which means twenty-six
separate places are in communication with one another. These are
the residences of the principal members of the firm, the manager’s
house, the Levenbank Foundry, the Dennystown Forge, four stations
at the Engine Works, and seventeen stations within the shipyard,
representing in all from six to seven miles of line wire. The
electric light has already been partially introduced into the
shipyard, but steps have been taken by the firm for further
extending it to the various offices, the experimental tank, the
joiners’ shop, and the upholstery and decorators’ rooms, as well as
providing arc lamps of great power to light up the area of the yard
itself.
Besides the introduction of the electric light into their yard,
Messrs Denny have formed an electrical department in connection
with their works, which will not only be employed in arranging
and maintaining the yard installation, but will also undertake
the fitting of the electric light installations on board vessels
built in the yard. To supervise and manage this important
department—which, it may be remarked, is entirely novel as a branch
of shipyard work—the firm have engaged the services of a skilled
electrician, under whom a staff of operative electricians are
employed.
On account of the increased employment it brings to their
townspeople, and also doubtless on grounds of increased economy and
efficiency, Messrs Denny seek to overtake, as much as possible,
the entire work connected with a ship’s construction and outfit
in their own establishment. Towards the close of 1881 they began
the introduction of a department for the designing, decoration,
and furnishing of the saloons of their vessels. This department
is now of established importance in the yard, and embraces four
more or less distinct branches. Firstly, the architectural and
decorative designs of the various saloons are determined upon by
what may be called the architectural branch, under the immediate
supervision of a professionally-trained architect. The work of
practically carrying out these designs is at present entrusted to
three sections of workers. (1) The decorative department, proper,
which overtakes the painting of the various ornamental panels,
dados, friezes, &c., of the saloons, and the staining of the
coloured glass used in saloon windows, skylights, doors, &c. (2)
The carving department, in which the carved work fitted on the bow
and stern of vessels, also the numerous small pieces of carved work
introduced into the architectural arrangement of the saloons, are
overtaken. (3) The upholstery department, in which all the work
connected with upholstering the saloons and state-rooms—usually,
in other yards, made the subject of sub-contract—is overtaken
from first to last. In this branch female labour is employed to a
considerable extent, while much of the decorative painting referred
to above is also done by females. Under the guidance of a lady
artist, the employés in this branch have evinced much aptitude and
taste for the work.
Successive enlargements and increased appliances have now rendered
the Leven Shipyard capable of turning out from 40,000 to 60,000
tons of shipping per annum. The work hitherto achieved has been
almost exclusively that of steamship building, but inside of that
general limitation it has been of a varied and comprehensive
description. Steamships for many of the largest ocean and
coast-trading companies, gun-boats and transport ships for foreign
Governments, and light-draught paddle-steamers for the rivers
Volga, Danube, Ganges, and Irrawaddy, have all been furnished from
the stocks of Leven Shipyard. The accompanying list, which is of
work done during the period of the firm’s existence, viz., since
1844, affords at once an adequate conception of the large amount of
important work done for the better-known shipping companies:—
No. of Vessels. Tonnage.
British India Steam Navigation Co., 50 107,060
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., 15 39,171
Austrian Lloyd’s Steam Navigation Co., 16 27,191
J. & A. Allan, Glasgow, Allan Line, 11 24,530
J. & G. Burns, Glasgow, 20 21,101
Union Steamship Co., New Zealand, 19 19,700
A. Lopez & Co., Cadiz, 7 19,178
British and Burmese Steam Navigation Co., 12 18,837
River’s Steam Navigation Co., 18 10,678
Union Steamship Co., Southampton, 2 6,227
Irrawaddy Flotilla Co., 14 6,006
Adding to this record the work finished since the close of 1883
and presently on hand, the total for the British India Company
is increased to 115,960 tons; that for the Union Company of New
Zealand to 21,260, and en addition is made to the list in the
two large steamers _Arawa_ and _Tainui_, for the Shaw, Savill,
& Albion Company, which together make about 10,000 tons. The
following exhibits in tabular form the number and tonnage of
vessels built by the firm from their beginning the business of iron
shipbuilding in 1845 up to and including 1883:—
+------+--------+--------++------+--------+--------+
|Year. | No. of |Tonnage.||Year. | No. of |Tonnage.|
| |Vessels.| || |Vessels.| |
+------+--------+--------++------+--------+--------+
| 1845 | 3 | 365 || 1865 | 6 | 4,543 |
| 1846 | 3 | 252 || 1866 | 8 | 10,867 |
| 1847 | 6 | 1,007 || 1867 | 4 | 9,154 |
| 1848 | 3 | 618 || 1868 | 8 | 9,855 |
| 1849 | 6 | 2,173 || 1869 | 12 | 13,227 |
| 1850 | 5 | 1,577 || 1870 | 4 | 8,852 |
| 1851 | 5 | 1,460 || 1871 | 7 | 14,922 |
| 1852 | 5 | 6,622 || 1872 | 6 | 14,056 |
| 1853 | 7 | 5,163 || 1873 | 7 | 18,415 |
| 1854 | 5 | 4,380 || 1874 | 9 | 18,475 |
| 1855 | 6 | 5,443 || 1875 | 9 | 17,191 |
| 1856 | 7 | 7,436 || 1876 | 5 | 4,394 |
| 1857 | 5 | 2,822 || 1877 | 10 | 10,533 |
| 1858 | 3 | 5,293 || 1878 | 18 | 22,054 |
| 1859 | 5 | 5,903 || 1879 | 13 | 16,138 |
| 1860 | 2 | 1,897 || 1880 | 12 | 18,114 |
| 1861 | 4 | 8,463 || 1881 | 8 | 17,455 |
| 1862 | 5 | 4,271 || 1882 | 13 | 22,010 |
| 1863 | 9 | 9,745 || 1883 | 10 | 22,240 |
| 1864 | 13 | 11,239 || | | |
+------+--------+--------++------+--------+--------+
The firm, it may be stated, is now engaged in the construction of
their 300th vessel. Notwithstanding the work of re-arrangement and
enlargement which has been under progress for two years or more,
the work turned out during that period has been in no way behind as
compared with other periods—a fact which eloquently testifies to
the administrative ability of those in authority, and to the skill
and energy of Mr John Ward, the general manager of Messrs Denny’s
large works.
In August, 1880, the firm issued a notice to their workmen
stating that, having observed during the previous two years many
improvements in methods of work and appliances introduced by them
into the yard, they very readily recognised the advantage accruing
to their business from these efforts of their workmen’s skill, and
were desirous that they should not pass unrewarded. The notice
further stated that to carry out this desire an Awards Committee
had been appointed, which would consider any claims made by the
workmen, and grant an award in proportion to the worth of the
improvement made, the amount in no case to be more than £10, or
less than £2. The committee then appointed, and which still holds
office, was composed of well-known local gentlemen, in every way
competent to adjudicate. Fully a year later the firm announced that
in the case of an invention thought worthy of a greater award than
£10, they had empowered the Committee to grant such an award, or
were willing, in addition to giving an award of £10, to take out
at their own expense provisional protection at the Patent Office
on behalf of the inventor, so that he might either dispose of his
invention or complete the patent, provided always they had free use
of the thing patented in their own establishment. From the reports
which have yearly been issued by the committee, it is apparent
that considerable success has attended the scheme. The number of
claims made since its institution has been as follows:—In 1880, 12;
in 1881, 32; in 1882, 27; in 1883, 20; in 1884 (till July only),
91; total, 182. Awards have been granted as follows:—In 1880, 5;
in 1881, 22; in 1882, 21; in 1883, 18; in 1884 (till July only),
27; total, 93. It is worthy of note that about one-half of the
awards have been gained by workmen in the joiner’s department.
Some of their machines have been modified or altered so as to
do twice the quantity of work previously possible, some to do a
new class of work, and others to do the same work with greater
ease and safety. Four inventions have gained the maximum award
of £10, viz., (1) an improvement made on ships’ water-closet and
urinal; (2) the invention of a machine to cut mouldings imitative
of wicker work; (3) an improved arrangement for disengaging steam
and hand-steering gear on board ship; (4) an improved method of
laying the Decauville railway across the main line. In connection
with this latter invention, the patentee of the Decauville railway
system, supplemented the committee’s grant to the extent of £10. In
a note to last year’s report, the firm state that they have decided
to increase the maximum grant from £10 to £12, and the minimum from
£2 to £3; and that in the case of two men being engaged at the same
invention, should it be found worthy of an award, each will receive
at least the minimum award of £3. A still more recent announcement
states that “whenever any workman has received as many as _five_
awards from the committee, reckoning from the time the scheme came
in force, he shall be paid a premium of £20, when he has received
as many as _ten_ awards he shall be paid a further premium of
£25—the premiums always increasing by £5 for every additional five
awards received.” Already, it may be stated, four separate workmen
have received _five_ awards, and become the recipients of the £20
premium.
With regard to the employment of females in Messrs Denny’s yard,
it may be interesting to state further that the total number
generally employed throughout the works amounts to between 80
and 100. In addition to the numbers employed in the decorative
and upholstery departments, already noticed, a large contingent
are engaged in the polishing rooms, and a further number in the
drawing offices as tracers. The employment of females as tracers
in shipyard drawing offices, it may be stated, is of recent date.
The system had previously been in operation at the locomotive
works of Messrs Dübs & Co., and Messrs Neilson & Co., of Glasgow.
Having proved a success there, it has been gradually adopted by
shipbuilding and engineering firms on the Clyde, and more recently
on the Tyne. The staff in Leven Shipyard consists of 20 members,
four of whom are employed in the experimental tank department. All
the girls are selected by written competitive examination, the
subjects of examination being arithmetic, writing to dictation, and
block-letter printing. At first it was intended the girls should
simply be trained as tracers, but they displayed such aptitude that
to tracing was added the inking-in of finished drawings and the
reduction of plans from a greater to a less scale. This they do
with a very fair degree of accuracy and neatness. The experienced
members of the staff are now employed making displacement
calculations, including plotting the results to scale, centre of
buoyancy, and metacentre calculations; calculations of ships’
surface, working up and plotting of speed trial results, stability
calculations. Most of these calculations are made out on prepared
printed schedules, and the whole of the work is superintended by
a member of the male staff. In the work of calculation the girls,
it may be stated, make large use of such instruments as the slide
rule, Amsler’s planimeter and integrator. To secure clearness and
uniformity in the work of writing titles, data, scantling, &c., on
the various drawings and tracings, it was found advisable to train
the females in the art of lettering these features in a uniform
style of lettering in place of writing them. In this work they
display considerable proficiency and expertness, the results being
uniformly legible and well arranged.
Before passing from the subject of female employment in Messrs
Denny’s establishment, attention should be drawn to one fact, of
which assurances have been given by those well informed in the
matter. In no instance has the employment of females led to the
displacement of men as yard operatives. Those departments into
which females have recently been introduced are now numerically
as large as before the innovation. In some cases, indeed, the
numbers are greater than before; new avenues of labour, and
greater elaboration of the old, being the grounds of need for the
accessions.
The other establishment selected for notice from the Clyde district
is:—
MESSRS J. & G. THOMSON’S
SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING WORKS,
CLYDEBANK.
The business of this firm was founded in 1846, by Messrs James
& George Thomson, father and uncle respectively of the present
members of the firm. Originally the firm were engineers, but in
1851, shipbuilding operations were commenced, the yard being
then situated in the upper reaches of the Clyde. Twenty years
later the increase of the firm’s business and the demand for
better accommodation for shipping made it necessary for the firm
to take new ground. The present site at Clydebank was therefore
chosen for their shipyard, and since its formation many wonderful
transformations have been effected. It is fully twelve years
since ground was first broken. At that time there was neither
house nor railway accommodation, and the difficulties were not
easily surmountable, and it must have been determined courage and
energy that in such a short time not only formed such a large
establishment, but created a town, and introduced a railway. From
Clydebank yard, it may be needless to state, many of the most
famous vessels of the Cunard, Peninsular, and Oriental and Union
Lines have been launched. From its stocks have emanated such
well-known vessels as the _Bothnia_, _Gallia_, _Thames_, _Moor_,
_Hammonia_, and the great Cunard liner, _Servia_, while within a
very recent period another vessel—the _America_—seemingly destined
to eclipse the fame of all these other notable craft, has been
built and sent to sea.
Until about two years ago, the engineering section of Messrs
Thomson’s business was conducted at Clydebank Foundry, Finnieston,
Glasgow. It was then resolved, however, to centralise the
works, and thus save the great expense of fitting out vessels
away from the yard, as well as secure the increased facilities
offered in the management and controlling of large bodies of
workmen. This important undertaking has now been accomplished,
and the establishment, as now arranged, is equal in extent and
working capability to any other private shipbuilding concern.
The entire premises occupy about thirty-five acres of land, and
comprise building yard, tidal basin, yard workshops, and engine
and boiler works. When in full operation the establishment gives
employment to over 4,000 workmen. The yard possesses eight
building slips, laid out for the largest class of vessels, and
owing to their situation—facing the river Cart, which here joins
the Clyde—excellent facilities for the launching of vessels are
afforded.
Proceeding to describe the works more in detail, as in the case
of a personal visit, the first feature that may be noticed is
a handsome block of buildings which stands some distance from
the main entrance to the shipyard. These buildings comprise the
clerical, managerial, and naval architects’ offices; also a
spacious apartment in which are located splendidly-executed models,
and sections of the hulls, of the vessels which have been built
by the firm. Passing through the yard large quantities of the raw
material of the modern shipbuilder are observed on railway waggons,
and in sheds—including iron and steel plates, bar, T, H, Z, angle,
flat, channel, tubular, and other forms of wrought-iron. This
material is brought into the yard by railway, which forms a siding
of the North British system about a quarter of a mile distant.
The iron and steel plates are first manipulated in a large shed
open at the sides and ends, and measuring some 500 feet by 150.
Here are situated a large number of powerful machine-tools—bending
and straightening machines, punching and shearing machines,
drilling machines, hydraulic riveting machines and the like. Some
are of the largest sizes made, one punching machine being a 33-inch
gap tool. Several other machine-tools in this large shed have
special features worthy of notice, and one in particular, a flat
keel plate bending machine, must be referred to with some detail.
The machine in question was made by the Messrs Thomson themselves,
and constitutes perhaps the latest application of machinery to
shipbuilding purposes. It is supplied by hydraulic power from the
accumulator that works the riveting plant—which is on the Tweddell
system—and is composed of a number of arms resting on a horizontal
bar. The arms are raised or lowered to suit the different shapes
required, by means of a hydraulic ram placed at each end and
pressing upon the horizontal bars.
Leaving the machine-tool shed, which, by the way, is amply
provided, as indeed are the works generally, with travelling and
fixed lifting appliances, and while _en route_ for the smiths’
shop, are observed several isolated punching and shearing and other
machine-tools for special purposes, and driven by self-contained
engines or hydraulic power. The smiths’ shop is a well-arranged
workshop, 600 feet long by 60 feet wide, and contains 108 smiths’
fires, besides three furnaces at each end for heating frames
and plates, for bending and other manipulative purposes. This
department is well supplied with the mechanical contrivances of the
forge, including steam hammers of various capacities graduating
from 12 cwt. up to over one ton. There are 16 small jobbing hammers
in this shop; a massive 70-cwt. hammer of Messrs Thomson’s own
make, is used in the production of stern-posts, rudders, and heavy
forgings. The smiths’ shop is built upon excellent and somewhat
unusual principles, the roof being so constructed as to readily
admit of the egress of the smoke from the fires, thus securing good
ventilation.
An engineering and machine shop, well equipped with lathes, drills,
and other appliances, limited to the operations connected with the
production of water-tight doors, steering gears, and the like,
is next passed. In close proximity is the riggers loft, where a
large staff of workmen, with the aid of mechanical contrivances,
manipulate the rigging for the vessels nearing completion in the
dock. The firm’s well-appointed saw mills are provided with a full
complement of sawing machinery, much of it of a special and very
cleverly contrived character. One machine, for instance, is capable
of cross-cutting and ripping a log into the required sizes right
away, without the usual intermediate manipulation. The arrangements
for conveying the timber into position, and for removing it
when cut, are very complete, and eminently calculated to ensure
rapidity of production. In convenient proximity to the saw mills
are the “saw-doctor’s” quarters. The old-fashioned practice of
sharpening the teeth of the saws by hand-filing is discarded here
in favour of a more rapid and effective method of obtaining the
requisite amount of sharpness and “set.” Emery-wheels are employed
and accomplish the process with a great saving of time and labour.
Amongst the other departments with regard to which no details need
be given, yet all of which are admirably appointed, are the brass
foundry and finishing shops, where the brass castings and fittings
are prepared. The joiners’, carpenters’, and cabinetmakers’ shops
are an important and extensive branch of the Clydebank premises.
The building in which they are located measures 220 feet in
length, by 156 feet in width. Here the ordinary ship-joinery work
is undertaken, and the tasteful and magnificent furnishings, used
in the luxurious equipment of the vessels built in the yard, are
produced in great numbers. The joiners’ and cabinetmakers’ shops
are provided with a vast number of ingenious sawing, wood-working,
as well as the more ordinary joinery appliances, manufactured
for the greater part by Messrs J. M‘Dowall & Sons, Johnstone,
near Glasgow, and Fay & Son, the well-known American house. It
is noteworthy that the belting for driving the multiplicity
of machines located in this department is all conducted below
the floor: in this way a welcome freedom from obstruction, and
comparative immunity from danger, is effected.
A word may be added with regard to the engines and boilers used by
the firm for driving their machinery. During the day the most of
the machinery is driven from these main engines, the chief of which
is a 200 horse-power motor, by Messrs Tangye, of Birmingham; and
at night the principal machine tools and several of the workshops
derive their requisite motive power from the small self-contained
engines, which are attached, or are in close proximity, to them.
The engineering and boilermaking section of the works occupies
in all a space of about 12,000 square yards. The boiler shop is
a large and lofty galleried workshop, occupying an area of 4,000
square yards. It is splendidly equipped with all the most modern
appliances for accurate and heavy work. Attention may specially be
drawn to an enormous hydraulic riveter, erected by Messrs Brown
Brothers, of Edinburgh. This riveter, which is just undergoing
completion, is designed with a 6½ feet gap, and can close with
ease rivets up to 1¾ inch diameter. It is rendered necessary owing
to the tendency to greatly increase pressure since the introduction
of the triple expansion engine. An engine of 100 H.P., having a
steam accumulator, gives the necessary power for working this, and
advantage has been taken of the extra power to actuate a system of
hydraulic hoists, winches and capstans, which are being substituted
for the coal-devouring and often dangerous donkey boilers and steam
winches, usually in use for this purpose. The hoists will also be
applied to the larger latches in order to save manual labour.
When ready to be placed on board ship, the boilers are run down
to the dock by means of a tramway, in the foundations of which as
many as 600 tons of slag have been packed. The boilers are then
lifted on board and lowered to their proper place by means of
massive shear-legs, constructed by Taylor, of Birkenhead, which are
capable of lifting the enormous weight of 120 tons, and which have
a foundation composed of some 700 tons of cement.
The new engine works comprise erecting, turning, and tool shops,
smithy, brass foundry, and depot for laying castings and other
goods, also large stores. The whole cover an area of about 8,000
square yards, making, with the 4000 square yards occupied by the
boiler shop, a total area of 12,000 square yards. Machinery by
the well-known makers, Messrs Shanks, Heatherington, Harvey, and
others, of the most modern and powerful description, has been laid
down, also overhead travelling cranes, by Taylor, to lift 30 and
40 tons respectively. Railways have been introduced throughout
the shops, and a 6-ton crane locomotive lifts and deposits
castings where required. In fact, everything that the most modern
engineering skill could suggest has been introduced in order to
fit the place for turning out not only the largest class of marine
engines, but also for the saving of manual labour, and it is
expected that 50,000 I.H.P. can be turned out per annum. The entire
premises, it should be stated, are illuminated by the electric
light, partly on the “Brush” and partly on the “Swan” systems.
The vessels on the slips and in the dock are also illuminated by
electric light applied in a portable form.
Since having commenced shipbuilding operations, Messrs J. &
G. Thomson have placed as many as 200 vessels in the water,
representing an aggregate of 300,000 tons, and a gross capital
value of about £7,500,000. The position, therefore, that Clydebank
yard takes amongst the shipbuilding establishments of the United
Kingdom is certainly in the very front rank. The general manager
of the extensive works is Mr J. P. Wilson, a gentleman of extended
experience, who has before held similar posts, but none more
onerous and exacting. Amongst other of the responsible officials at
Clydebank of whom mention should be made Mr J. H. Biles, the firm’s
naval designer, occupies an important position and shares in the
credit attaching to successful work.
The three yards selected from the Clyde district have now been
described, and their distinctive features enlarged upon. In passing
to the notices of the yards from other districts, it may be stated
that efforts will be made to avoid repetition in details that are
essentially similar. The notices will be of a still more general
character than those preceding, the only portions where anything
like fullness may occur being those concerned with features which
are not embraced in any of the Clyde yards. The most stupendous and
comprehensive of the works to be noticed are those of:—
PALMERS SHIPBUILDING AND IRON COMPANY, LIMITED, JARROW-ON-TYNE.
Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company, Limited, have their works at
Jarrow-on-Tyne, about four miles from the sea. The works embrace
both banks of the river Tyne, cover nearly 100 acres of land, and
employ about 7,000 persons. They were first commenced in 1851
by Mr Charles Mark Palmer, the present M.P. for North Durham,
distinguished for the active part he has taken and continues to
take in merchant shipping legislation. In 1865 the works were made
into a limited company, Mr Palmer becoming chairman. It is a saying
in Jarrow, with reference to these gigantic works, that the raw
ironstone is taken in at the one end and launched from the other
in the form of iron steamships, fitted complete with all their
machinery, to carry on a large share of the world’s commerce.
However much this may appear the exaggerated utterance of native
pride, it must be declared to be a literal truth. The works include
within themselves the entire range of operations, from the raising
and smelting of the ironstone to the complete equipment of iron,
steam and sailing vessels of all sizes. The ore itself, raised at
the rate of 1,000 tons per day, is brought round by sea from the
Company’s own mines at Port Mulgrave, near Whitby, in Yorkshire,
and is lifted from the river wharf at the works up to the railway
level, along an inclined plane worked by a stationary engine. Coke
and coal come into the works from Marley Hill and other collieries
in Durham and Northumberland, by the Pontop and Jarrow Railway. The
coke is discharged into a hopper capable of holding about 1,500
tons, from the bottom of which the blast furnace barrows are filled
through sliding doors, dispensing with manual labour. The four
blast furnaces are 85 feet high, 24 feet diameter at the boshes,
and 10 feet in the hearth. They are capable of producing over 2,000
tons of pig per week, of which more than one-half is used in the
Company’s works. The blast is heated to about 1,500° Fahr. in eight
“Whitewell” hot air fire-brick stoves of the newest pattern, and
there are eighteen kilns for calcining the Cleveland ironstone. The
rolling mill forge comprises eighty puddling furnaces, producing
over 1,000 tons of puddled bars weekly; which, again, are rolled
into plates and angle bars of the largest and smallest sizes used
in the trade. There are two forge engines with 36-inch cylinders,
one of 4 feet and the other of 5 feet stroke, each driving a roll
train and four pairs of 22-inch rolls. There are two plate mills
and ten mill furnaces, producing about 1,200 tons of finished
boiler and ship plates weekly. Each mill has two pairs of 24-in.
rolls, reversed by clutch and crabs; a bar mill with two pairs of
rolls, driven by a 24-inch cylinder, produces 120 tons per week;
a fourth mill, with four pairs of rolls, driven by two 30-inch
cylinders, with 4 feet stroke, produces about 300 tons per week of
plates; also a large angle and bar mill, driven by a single engine,
having 36-inch cylinder and 4 feet stroke, capable of rolling the
very largest angles used in the trade. There is also a sheet mill
in the forge. Attached to the rolling mills are shears, circular
saws, punching, and straightening presses, all of the newest
patterns.
The adjoining department is that of the engine works, which is on
the same gigantic scale, and is capable of finishing about forty
pairs of marine engines with their boilers, annually, besides a
proportionate share of replace boilers and repairs. The department
produces its own iron and brass castings and forgings. In the
boiler shop of this department vertical rolls for rolling long
boiler shell plates were first used, and may be seen in operation.
In the year 1882-83, June to June, thirty-six pairs of
engines, of 7,300 nominal and 39,240 indicated horse-power, were
turned out.
The next department, occupying the east end of the Company’s works,
is that of shipbuilding. The shops of this department are fitted
up with all the newest machines for quick and efficient production
of work. It contains the largest graving dock on the coast, also
a very fine patent slip, fitted with hydraulic hauling gear. The
building slips are suitable for every kind of vessel up to 500 feet
in length, and are capable, with those in the Howdon branch of the
works on the opposite side of the river, of launching 70,000 tons
of shipping annually. There are nine building slips at Jarrow,
and six at Howdon. In the year 1882-83, June to June, 35 vessels
of the aggregate tonnage of 68,000 tons were built and delivered
to their owners. For transporting material throughout the works,
three steam travelling cranes and eleven locomotive engines are
employed. For discharging ore, two fixed and two travelling steam
cranes, also two hydraulic cranes, are in use. At the engine works
are sheer-legs 100 feet high, capable of lifting 100 tons—used for
lifting engines and boilers, and for masting the vessels.
The output of tonnage by Palmers’ Company for 1882 and that for
1883 were severally about double the amount turned out by any other
one firm in existence for these years. The following statement
of the yearly amount of tonnage turned out by the firm since the
commencement of iron shipbuilding on the Tyne in 1852, will be
interesting, as showing the gradual strides by which the firm have
risen from 920 tons thirty years ago to the wonderful return of
61,113 tons in 1883:—
+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Year. Ton.| Year. Ton.| Year. Ton.| Year. Ton.|
+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| 1852, 920 | 1860, 4,653 | 1868, 15,842 | 1876, 8,635 |
| 1853, 3,539 | 1861, 4,751 | 1869, 11,900 | 1877, 16,235 |
| 1854, 7,469 | 1862, 21,493 | 1870, 26,129 | 1878, 23,470 |
| 1855, 5,169 | 1863, 17,096 | 1871, 19,267 | 1879, 36,080 |
| 1856, 7,531 | 1864, 22,896 | 1872, 12,810 | 1880, 38,117 |
| 1857, 6,816 | 1865, 31,111 | 1873, 21,017 | 1881, 50,192 |
| 1858, 7,625 | 1866, 18,973 | 1874, 25,057 | 1882, 60,379 |
| 1859, 11,804 | 1867, 16,555 | 1875, 15,819 | 1883, 61,113 |
+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
The first screw-steamer built by the firm, namely, the “John
Bowes,” well known as the pioneer of water ballast steam colliers,
is still in existence, has recently had her engines renewed for the
third time, and is now busily employed in her customary service,
carrying coals from Newcastle to London.
The general manager of the gigantic works is Mr John Price,
formerly one of the surveyors and a leading spirit in the
Underwriter’s Registry for Iron Vessels. The following are the
other responsible officials:—Assistant general manager and manager
of rolling mills, Mr F. W. Stoker; secretary, Mr Hew Steele;
shipyard manager, Mr A. Adamson; engine works manager, Mr J. P.
Hall; blast furnaces manager, Mr P. A. Berkeley; blast furnaces
assistant manager, Mr H. T. Allison; mining engineer, Mr A. S.
Palmer.
SIR WM. ARMSTRONG, MITCHELL & CO.’S SHIPBUILDING WORKS,
LOW WALKER AND ELSWICK-ON-TYNE.
The Low Walker yard of this firm was commenced upwards of thirty
years ago by Messrs C. Mitchell & Co., who up to 1883 (when they
amalgamated with Sir W. G. Armstrong & Co., the notable firm of
engineers and artillerists), had built as many as 450 vessels, or
an average of 15 vessels per annum, the average tonnage produced
during the last ten years being 23,000 tons. The yard is situated
about four miles down the Tyne from Newcastle. It consists of
about fifteen acres of ground, and has nine launching berths, but
their arrangement is such that at times there have been as many as
fourteen vessels on the stocks. The establishment is laid out in a
most modern manner. The space occupied by the building slips has a
uniform gradient, and, being perfectly flat laterally, gives the
greatest facility in the movement of bogies. The yard is served by
two complete systems of railways, respectively on the 4 feet 8-in.
and 2 feet 3-in. gauge. The former is in connection with a siding
from the North Eastern Railway, whereby materials and goods can
be brought from all parts of the kingdom, and two locomotives are
constantly employed working the trucks into the yard, one of them
being of very special construction, on Brown’s patent principle,
manufactured by Messrs R. & W. Hawthorn, Newcastle. This locomotive
is combined with a steam crane, the jib of which acts as a lever
with fulcrum, thus dispensing with chains, and which readily swings
right round, depositing the plates on edge into racks arranged on
either side of the railway, from which they can be taken with great
facility by the workmen at the appropriate time.
The yard is divided in two by a building 250 feet long by 50 feet
wide, placed at right angles to the river, and which contains plate
furnaces, bolt-maker’s shop, plumber’s shop, rivet store, tool
stores, large bending rolls, straightening machine, and man-hole
punch, on the ground floor; and on the upper storey rigging loft,
sail loft, pattern stores, &c. Along the head of the building
berths in one half of the yard there is a line of machine shops
400 feet long by 70 feet wide, in one end of which are installed
frame furnaces, bending blocks, &c., as also a number of powerful
punching machines, planing machines, special machines for angle
cutting, and there has recently been added a powerful radial drill,
having four moveable arms arranged to drill holes in any part of
plate 16 feet by 4 feet without moving it. At the back of this
machine shop, and parallel with it, is a smith’s shop 180 feet
long by 50 feet wide, fitted up complete with steam hammers, &c.
For the other half of the yard there is a large building 200 feet
long, and of an average width of about 150 feet, which contains
furnace, with bending blocks, &c., several heavy punching machines,
planing machines, drilling and other machines; one portion about 80
feet by 60 feet being used as a fitting shop, containing powerful
lathes, radial, and other drilling machines on the ground floor,
and on the upper floor a lighter class of shaping, drilling, and
other machines. In this building are also constructed two drying
stoves, wherein the exhaust steam from the engine is used for
drying timber. At the upper end of this machine shop is another
blacksmiths’ shop 130 feet long by 50 feet wide, containing steam
hammer and drilling machines for special work. A separate building,
80 feet long by 50 feet, is used for the bending and welding of
beams, and is so placed that the beams can be lifted direct from
barges alongside quay, and laid in position, ready for use.
The smiths’, fitters’, and other similar shops are all conveniently
situated; and as the vessels lie alongside the quay to be finished
off after launching, the minimum of expense in this respect is
incurred. There are numerous steam cranes of 10 tons and under on
the quays for landing such portion of the material as comes by
water, and also to lift articles on board the vessels fitting out.
The sawmills, joiners’ shops, mould loft, &c., are situated at
the lower end of the yard, and the appliances for handling and
converting timber are most complete. The wood-cutting machinery
is very extensive, and embraces most of the newest labour-saving
machines. The establishment in full work employs 2,500 men, and has
turned out as much as 30,000 tons gross register of shipping in
a year, including almost every type of vessel for mercantile and
war purposes, which latter branch of work will now have a further
development since the amalgamation with the eminent gun-making firm
of Sir W. G. Armstrong & Co. For this purpose a new yard has been
laid out at Elswick, adjoining the Ordnance Works, which will be of
the most complete character.
The site of this new yard comprises about 20 acres, and at first
only half-a-dozen building berths will be laid out, but as the
frontage is about 2,000 feet, the number of these can be augmented
as required. The buildings already erected or in progress embrace
a brick built shop, 265 feet long by 60 feet wide, standing at the
western portion of the ground, and at right angles to the river.
This building is in three storeys, the lower portion being intended
for general stores, tool and rivet stores, fitting shop, &c.; the
second floor will be entirely used as a joiners’ shop, and fitted
up in the most complete manner with wood-working machinery of every
description. The upper floor will be used as a draughting loft and
model-room. Parallel to this building, and a little distance from
it, will be a blacksmith’s shop, 150 feet by 50 feet. Adjoining the
larger building above described, and at right angles to it, is the
office block, 120 feet by 45 feet. Along the head of the launching
berths stands a tool shed 420 feet long by 40 feet wide, containing
the ordinary punching, planing, drilling, and other shipbuilding
machines, all of the newest and most powerful type. Near the centre
of the site is a large shed 220 feet long, consisting of four
bays, each 50 feet wide, the whole carried on cast-iron columns,
which will comprise the plate and angle furnaces, bending blocks,
beam shop, angle smiths’ shop, plate rolls, large and small, also
keel plate bending machine, &c. The yard is served by a complete
system of railways, having a siding from the North Eastern Railway
Company’s system. Material can therefore be brought from all parts
of the kingdom and deposited in any part of the premises.
It is almost unnecessary further to give the particulars of
this establishment, suffice it to say that it is being laid out
on the experience gained up to date in existing shipyards, and
will therefore embrace the newest and most important tools in
all branches of work. The intention is that it shall be capable
of turning out every description of vessel up to the largest
iron-clad, and the construction of war vessels of all kinds will
be made a speciality, seeing that the Company can send them to sea
completely armed and equipped ready for service. Looking to the
magnitude of the establishment, it can be regarded as nothing less
than an arsenal, which in time of war would be invaluable to the
country. The present and prospective importance of this development
of the combined firms’ business may be inferred simply from the
fact of the services of so high an authority as Mr W. H. White,
late Chief Constructor of the Navy, having been secured as naval
adviser and manager.
DEPTFORD SHIPBUILDING YARD AND REPAIRING DOCKS, SUNDERLAND.
These works, established so far back as 1793, but greatly
transformed and extended to suit modern requirements, are owned
and presided over by Mr James Laing, son of Mr Philip Laing, their
founder. The yard consists of two general sections, situated one
on each side of the main road leading to the river Wear. One of
these, commonly termed the “Woodyard,” is where wood shipbuilding
was conducted in the early days, but which now of course, in common
with the other section, is used exclusively for iron shipbuilding.
The entire works, including offices, docks, brass foundry, and
other premises, cover an area of about thirty acres.
The yard embraces the various shops and sheds usually pertaining to
building operations in iron, such as iron-working sheds, smiths’
shop, joiners’ shop, upholsterers’ shop, bookmakers’ shop, &c.,
all well equipped with machine-tools and appliances, needful in
producing vessels for the most important shipping companies. The
two general sections of the yard are each worked by one compound
surface condensing engine, all machines being driven by belting
from main lines of shafting, no independent engines being fitted.
Scrive-boards, frame furnace, bending blocks, garboard bender,
and other machinery are fitted in each section. Gorman’s gas
furnaces are used for heating the material, and these, though
rather troublesome when first fitted, about twelve years ago, after
some alterations in the details, now give complete satisfaction,
and surpass in efficiency ordinary coal furnaces. The joiners’
shop is situated in the wood-yard, and the smith’s shop in the
other section. In the smith’s shop a separate engine is provided
to drive the blast, so that if it is desired the wood-yard can be
kept completely going without having the main engine in the other
section at work.
The berths of Deptford yard, have been occupied since the
commencement of iron shipbuilding there, over thirty years ago,
with vessels for home and foreign shipowners, amongst others for
such well known companies as the Peninsular and Oriental Company,
the Union Company, the Royal Mail Company, the West India and
Pacific Company, the Royal Netherlands Company, and the Hamburg
and South American Company. In 1882 the _Mexican_, of 4670 tons
gross measurement, the largest passenger vessel ever built on the
North-East Coast, and one of the finest of the Union Company’s
fleet of South African mail steamers, was launched from the stocks
of Deptford yard. Including the _Mexican_, the following is the
list of vessels launched by Mr Laing in the year named:—
Name. Material. Owners. Gross Tons.
S.S. Friary Iron, British, 2307
S.S. Mount Tabor do., do., 2302
S.S. Mexican do., do., 4669
S.S. Rhosina do., do., 2707
S.S. Govina do., do., 2221
S.S. Lero do., do., 2224
S.S. Dolcoath do., do., 1824
S.S. Ville de Strasbourg do., Foreign, 2372
S.S. Ville de Metz do., do., 2375
------
Total 23,004
At present Mr Laing is building his 301st iron vessel, which
represents the 460th vessel produced within the Deptford yard
since its commencement in 1793. The work presently on hand chiefly
consists of average size steam vessels, combining cargo-carrying
powers with high-class accommodation for passengers, several being
lighted throughout by electricity, and one being constructed of
steel, and having engines on the triple expansion principle.
Connected with the shipbuilding yard there are two graving docks
of 300 feet and 400 feet in length, one on each side of the river.
One of these is situated at the west side of the iron yard parallel
to the building berths, and therefore conveniently placed for
all kinds of alterations and repairs to vessels. This dock is
kept dry by means of pumps which act as circulating pumps for the
condensers of the yard engines. The pumps used for emptying
this dock, as well as the one on the other side of the river, after
a vessel has come in, are of the “Pulsometer” type of large size.
The capacity of these docks is such that in one year alone the
amount of shipping operated upon, either in the way of repairs,
alterations, or simple docking, has reached nearly 60,000 tons. A
large number of vessels have undergone the important process of
lengthening in these docks—a special and very important branch
of shipwork in which Mr Laing has been conspicuously successful.
The largest undertaking of this kind was the lengthening of the
Peninsular and Oriental Company’s screw-steamer _Poonah_ in 1874
from a length of 315 feet to that of 395, or an increase of 80
feet. The work was satisfactorily completed, and the results of
the vessel’s after-behaviour at sea were communicated, along with
an account of the work of lengthening, to the Institution of Naval
Architects by Mr Edwin De Russett, of the Peninsular and Oriental
Company, in 1877.
Adjacent to the shipyard are extensive brass and copper works,
employing about 300 hands, which, besides supplying all the brass
and plumber work required for vessels in the shipyard, undertake
similar work for other shipbuilders, also work for the Navy, such
as cast gun-metal rams and stern-posts for men-of-war, and brackets
for outer-bearings in twin-screws. All sorts of steam and other
fittings—Manchester goods—are also here manufactured and dispersed
to all parts of the world. Within the same premises are situated
the requisite machinery for effecting repairs to the engines and
boilers of vessels overhauled in the docks.
At present a large range of new Commercial and Drawing Offices
are being erected near the principal entrance to the yard. A
new joiner’s shop and sawmill will shortly be erected, and
other alterations in the internal economy of the shipyard are
contemplated. The new range of offices referred to, have a frontage
of about 300 feet, and comprise strong room for the preservation
of the firm’s books, drawings, &c.; model-room, 40 feet in length;
foremen’s room, 40 feet by 30 feet; general office, 42 feet by
41 feet; private offices for Mr Laing & Sons; drawing office, 45
feet by 40 feet; moulding loft, 78 feet by 40 feet; model-making
room, &c. An additional and somewhat noteworthy feature in the
new buildings will be a large dining hall for the use of those
workmen who have their meals brought to them at the yard. Also, a
commodious gymnasium for the benefit of the youth in the employ.
These are, in addition to the large “British Workman” already in
existence, built by Mr Laing for the use of his employés, and
for others who care to subscribe. This institution, comprising
dining room, game rooms, smoking room and library, is managed by a
committee of the employés, and is self-supporting, a contribution
of only one half-penny per week being the qualification for
membership, admitting subscriber to all the benefits of the
institution.
THE WORKS OF THE BARROW SHIPBUILDING COMPANY (LIMITED).
The Barrow Shipbuilding Company, Limited, was promoted in 1876 by
several gentlemen in Barrow connected with the Furness Railway,
the Docks, and Steel Works, chief among whom was Mr Ramsden (now
Sir James Ramsden) then managing director of the Furness Railway,
Mayor of Barrow, and leading spirit in its development generally.
The Duke of Devonshire, the largest proprietor in the district and
in the other public works mentioned, became the largest shareholder
and the chairman of the new shipbuilding company, which was then
formally constituted, with Mr Robert Duncan, shipbuilder of
Port-Glasgow, as managing director. Mr Duncan designed the whole
arrangement of the works as they now stand, and continued to act as
managing director till 1875, when he resigned, and was succeeded
by Sir James Ramsden, with Mr James Humphreys as manager, which
position the latter held till 1880, when he was succeeded by Mr
William John, of Lloyd’s Register, to whose talent as a naval
architect some tribute has been elsewhere passed in this work.
The total area of the plot of land on which these works stand
is 58 acres, with two water frontages, each 1050 feet long, one
towards Walney Channel, into which the ships are launched, the
other towards the docks where the ships are fitted out. The
Walney Channel is sufficiently wide to allow of the launching of
the largest vessels without risk, and the site is altogether an
exceptionably favourable one. The shipbuilding is carried on in
that part of the yard adjoining the Walney Channel, being divided
from the engine works by a road, under which is a sub-way, which
affords the required communication between the two departments.
Entering the shipbuilding department by the main gate-way in
this dividing road the visitor finds himself in a large square,
formed by substantial buildings; to the left hand on entering,
are the offices, and to the right some of the smaller shops. The
opposite side of the square is occupied by the machine shed and
smiths’ shops, whilst on the right-hand side of the square are
the frame-bending shed, and on the left the joiners’ shop and the
sawmill. Passing through the offices upstairs, the visitor enters
a very fine drawing office and model-room, 100 feet by 50 feet, in
which an efficient staff of designers are engaged. On the ground
floor are the counting-house, officials’ rooms, &c., and beyond
these the stores for the supply of everything required in building
and outfitting ships and machinery. From the stores, or by the
outside square, the moulding loft, 250 feet by 50 feet, is reached,
of which the joiners’ shop is a continuation. This department is
300 feet long by 60 feet wide, and is fitted with every modern
appliance in the way of tools to facilitate work. At the back of
this shop is an immense room, 600 ft. by 60 ft., occupied by a
sawmill, and used also for spar-making, boat-building, and rigging.
Above these rooms, in continuation of the drawing office and
model-room, from which it may be entered, is the cabinet-making
department, which necessarily requires a large amount of space in
an establishment where passenger and emigrant ships of the largest
types are equipped ready for sea. The iron-working machine shed,
360 ft. by 100 ft., and the frame-bending shed, 300 ft. by 180
ft., follow in order, occupying the whole of one, and most of the
other side of the square above described. Both of these sections
are fully equipped with the machinery necessary for the rapid
manipulation of material. The smiths’ shop, 200 ft. by 120 ft.,
contains one hundred fires and seven steam hammers, the former
being blown by a Schiele fan. Attached to the smiths’ shop are
shops for fitting smith-work and for galvanizing. All these shops
and sheds occupy less than one-third of the ground devoted to the
shipbuilding department.
Beyond the machine shop are the slip-ways, twelve in number, where
vessels of an aggregate tonnage of 40,000 tons have frequently
been seen at one time in various stages of construction. On these
slip-ways have been built the well-known mail steamer _City of
Rome_ and the steamship _Normandie_, the largest vessel of the
French mail service. Here also were built for the Anchor Line the
_Anchoria_, the _Devonia_, the _Circassia_, and the _Furnessia_;
for the Ducal Line, the _Duke of Devonshire_, the _Duke of
Buccleuch_, the _Duke of Lancaster_, the _Duke of Buckingham_, and
the _Duke of Westminster_. From these slip-ways also emanated the
_Ganges_ and the _Sutlej_ for the Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Company as well as the _Eden_ and the _Esk_ for the
Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. For the Isle of Man Steam Packet
Company, the _Ben my Chree_, the _Fenella_, and the _Peveril_.
For the Société Anonyme de Navigation Belge Américaine, the
s.s. _Belgenland_ and _Rhyhland_. For the Castle Line, the s.s.
_Pembroke Castle_, and for the Société Générale de Transports
Maritimes à Vapeur of Marseilles, the s.s. _Navarre_ and _Bearn_.
Here were also produced the _Kow Shing_ for the Indo-China Steam
Navigation Company, and the _Takapuna_ for the Union Steamship
Company of New Zealand, besides many other vessels well known
to the mercantile world. For the Admiralty this yard has turned
out seven gun-boats, namely, the _Foxhound_, the _Forward_, the
_Grappler_, the _Wrangler_, the _Wasp_, the _Banterer_, and the
_Espoir_, as well as four torpedo mooring ships.
Leaving the shipbuilding department, the visitor passes through
the afore-mentioned sub-way to the engine works, which occupies an
area of ground equal to that of the shipyard proper. To the left
may be noticed the coppersmith’s shop, the brass foundry, and the
engineer’s smithy. The Foundry has seven ordinary pot furnaces, and
one large reverberatory air furnace for castings of the heaviest
class. The smithy is well fitted up with hammers suitable for the
work. On the opposite side of the ground are two buildings, the
one to the left containing the iron foundry and boiler shop. The
foundry, 250 ft. by 150 ft., provided with overhead travellers,
is capable of turning out the largest castings required for the
monster marine engines of the present day. The boiler shop is
the same size, and possesses the most modern contrivances for
the skilful and economical execution of work, and it contains a
complete equipment of hydraulic riveting machines, both fixed and
portable, the largest having a gap of 10 feet and a pressure of
90-lbs.
In the space between the boiler shop and the machine shop there
are situated a well-arranged furnace for heating, and the vertical
rolls for bending the large plates forming the shells of the marine
boilers. In the furnace just mentioned the plates are heated
while standing on their edge, and as the top of the furnace is
level with the ground, they are readily lifted out by a portable
crane and deposited on the bed-plate adjoining the vertical
rolls. In this vacant space is also situated the water tower for
the accumulator for the 100-ton crane, constructed by Sir Wm. G.
Armstrong and erected at the side of the Devonshire Dock, where the
machinery is placed on board and fixed for new ships.
The engine shop, although 420 ft. long by 100 ft. wide, is scarcely
large enough for the pressure of work oftentimes concentrated
there. This shop is unsurpassed in the completeness of its fittings
and the perfection of its tools. It, like most of the other shops
in the establishment, is fitted up with the electric light.
* * * * *
The foregoing descriptive notes of individual yards may fittingly
be supplemented by the following table, which shows the number and
relative positions of firms throughout all the districts whose total
output of tonnage during the year 1883 exceeded 20,000 tons:—
+------------------------------+-------------+-----------+---------+
| Firm’s Name. | District. | Number of | Gross |
| | | Vessels. | Tonnage.|
+------------------------------+-------------+-----------+---------+
| 1. Palmer Shipbuilding Co. | Tyne | 36 | 61,113 |
| 2. John Elder & Co. | Clyde | 13 | 40,115 |
| 3. Wm. Gray & Co. | Hartlepool | 21 | 37,597 |
| 4. Oswald, Mordaunt & Co. | Southampton | 15 | 33,981 |
| 5. Raylton, Dixon & Co. | Tees | 17 | 31,017 |
| 6. Harland & Wolff | Belfast | 13 | 30,714 |
| 7. Russell & Co. | Clyde | 28 | 30,610 |
| 8. Jos. L. Thomson & Sons | Wear | 16 | 30,520 |
| 9. Short Bros. | Wear | 14 | 25,531 |
| 10. R. Napier & Sons | Clyde | 6 | 23,877 |
| 11. Armstrong, Mitchell & Co.| Tyne | 17 | 23,584 |
| 12. A. Stephen & Sons | Clyde | 11 | 23,020 |
| 13. James Laing | Wear | 9 | 22,877 |
| 14. Pearse & Co. | Tees | 9 | 22,671 |
| 15. Wm. Denny & Bros. | Clyde | 10 | 22,240 |
| 16. Richardson, Duck & Co. | Tees | 12 | 21,413 |
| 17. Edward Withy & Co. | Hartlepool | 12 | 21,197 |
| 18. Swan & Hunter | Tyne | 15 | 20,080 |
+------------------------------+-------------+-----------+---------+
CHAPTER VII.
OUTPUT OF TONNAGE IN THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICTS.
With the change from wood to iron shipbuilding, and with the
development of propulsion by steam instead of sails, the shipbuilding
industry has become localised and concentrated in those districts
which, besides possessing the _sine qua non_ of ready outlet to
the vast ocean, are specially favoured in being the repositories
of immense natural wealth in the form of coal and ores. What may
now fairly be considered the great centres of shipbuilding are the
valleys of the Clyde, Tyne, Wear, and Tees, and also the Thames and
Mersey, although these latter rivers have for a considerable number
of years been overshadowed as building centres by the immensity of
their shipping. In several other districts, of course, shipbuilding
is carried on to a considerable extent, and some of these may
yet attain much greater importance than they at present possess.
Barrow-in-Furness, notwithstanding the remarkable progress of recent
years, is still advancing. Belfast occupies a prominent position, not
alone because of the large annual output of tonnage, but by reason
of the number of high-class ocean steamships which have been, and
continue to be, built there. Dundee, Leith, Hull, Southampton, and
other places throughout the United Kingdom, are not without claims to
recognition on account of the shipbuilding carried on.
The supremacy of one shipbuilding centre over another in the matter
of work accomplished, both with regard to its character and its
quantity, not infrequently forms the subject of comment in the
columns of journals circulating in the districts concerned. The
publication, by these journals, at the close of each year, of the
returns of new tonnage produced by the various firms, affords an
opportunity for vaunting on such matters, and it is, as a rule, taken
advantage of by the compilers of the statements, who are usually
members of the staff on the journals in question. These statements,
through the interesting nature of the statistics they contain, are
widely read, and the labour attaching to their preparation must
indeed be considerable. The figures are, as a rule, supplied by
the shipbuilders themselves, and from a summation of these the
compiler draws his conclusions. The accuracy of the returns and the
fairness of the comments based upon them, if not always completely
satisfactory, are thus seen to be matters for which the compiler is
not wholly responsible.
Frequent exception has been taken by correspondents to discrepancies
in the tonnages of individual vessels given in these reports, as
compared with the tonnages measured by the Board of Trade officials,
and entered in their records. Attention was called to this matter
at the close of 1883 by a correspondent in _Engineering_, whose
assertions were afterwards corroborated in other journals. From
a careful checking of the returns made by the Glasgow press of
the shipbuilding on the Clyde for the three previous years this
correspondent maintained that the aggregate tonnage was overstated
to the extent of about 11,000 per year, or over 34,100 tons for the
period named. One very gross instance of the misstatement complained
of was given by a second correspondent writing to the _Glasgow
Herald_, who drew attention, along with the returns of other firms,
to that of a firm building the smaller class of vessels, who were
stated in the _Herald’s_ account to have produced 8,300 tons, when
by a careful comparison with the actual tonnages of the vessels as
recorded in Lloyd’s Register, their total output was found to fall
short of the figure given by as much as 2,172 tons, equivalent to 35
per cent. of the actual output. In commenting on these discrepancies
several obvious considerations suggested themselves to the critics:
such as possible misapprehension, caused by the existence of several
kinds of “tonnages,” and the difficulty of stating accurately the
tonnages of vessels recently launched. It was questioned, however,
after all such allowances were made, whether those furnishing the
figures could be exonerated from the sin of carelessness, or indeed,
of pure falsification with the view of figuring prominently in the
list. The accuracy of these criticisms has not in any way been
disproved, nor has any satisfactory explanation been offered.
While no attempt will here be made to solve the matter, it has been
felt that, in justice to the subject, these charges could not be
ignored when presenting statistics which are derived mainly from the
sources thus challenged. Indeed, in comparing for the present work
the statistics given by various journals—even in journals confined
to the same district—innumerable disparities have been met with, and
the agreement has only been _en grosse_. Such being the case, it may
be asked, could not other and more reliable sources be consulted?
The obvious alternative of using the authoritative returns of the
Board of Trade, or of Lloyd’s Register, at once suggests itself, but
objections to this are even more serious than to using the press
statistics. The returns issued annually by the Board of Trade only
relate to “Merchant Shipping” registered as such, whereas it is well
known that in the returns furnished by the shipbuilders all sorts
of vessels built by them are included, and that a very considerable
tonnage in war vessels and small vessels for military purposes, also
in light-draught river craft, both for our own and other countries,
is annually turned out from merchant shipyards. The same objections
apply to Lloyd’s Register Summary, although, strangely enough, the
figures there more nearly correspond with the builders’ than with the
Board of Trade returns, the information given in both cases being the
gross tonnage of merchant shipping built and registered in the United
Kingdom. Everything considered, the statistics compiled from press
returns more accurately represent the work accomplished throughout
the districts than those afforded by any of the sources named. In
the statistics which follow, therefore, the press returns have been
adopted, but to simplify matters for purposes of comparison—the
degree of unreliability warranting it—the terminal figures in large
quantities have been reduced or increased to hundredths, according
as they have chanced to be under or above fifty.
The fluctuation from year to year in the shipbuilding industry of
the principal districts over an extended period is exhibited in an
interesting manner by the diagram facing page 188, consisting of
curves set up on equidistant ordinates representing years, to the
scale shown on the right of the diagram. The figures from which
the curves have been constructed will be found to the left of the
diagram.[32]
It is matter of considerable regret to the author that his utmost
efforts to obtain statistics for the Tyne over a period corresponding
to that for which the Clyde figures are available have not been
rewarded with success. Many likely sources have been consulted, and
several gentlemen connected with the river and its industries have
been appealed to, but without any satisfactory result. No systematic
record of shipbuilding output has been kept by anyone officially
concerned with the river, although in every other respect its
progress has been abundantly and accurately chronicled. It is only so
recently as 1878 that the _Newcastle Chronicle_ begun the practice
of giving, in the systematic and complete manner for which it is now
justly noted, the returns of shipbuilding throughout the Kingdom. To
this journal the author is indebted for the figures of work done on
the Tyne during the years subsequent to 1878. The figures for the
Wear have been taken from an article descriptive of that district
appearing in the _Shipping World_ for June of the present year.
With regard to the Clyde, it is interesting to observe how in the
curve the periods of greatest activity, and consequent output, are
recurrent every tenth year. Thus at 1864, 1874, and, at all events,
1883, the curve forms decided crests as compared with the general
undulations over the intervening years.
During the seven years from 1846 to 1852 inclusive the number of
steam vessels built on the Clyde amounted to 14 with wood hulls,
233 with iron hulls—total, 247, of which 141 were paddle-steamers
and 106 screw-steamers. The tonnage of the wooden steamers amounted
to 18,330, and of the iron vessels to 129,270 tons; the horse-power
of the engines in the wooden hulls being 6,740, and in the iron
hulls 31,590. In 1851, or nearly a decade earlier than the year
at which the curve begins, the number of ships produced was 41,
with an aggregate tonnage of 25,320. In 1861, a decade later, 81
steamers were built, the tonnage of which amounted to 60,185, and the
horse-power of the engines, 12,493. The tonnage for both steamers
and ships, however, during that year was 66,800, as shown by the
diagram. During the seven years immediately prior to 1862 the extent
and progress of shipbuilding on the river were such that 636 vessels,
having an aggregate tonnage of 377,000 tons, were launched from the
yards of Glasgow, Greenock, and Dumbarton.
[Illustration: TONNAGE DIAGRAM.
CURVES SHOWING THE ANNUAL AGGREGATE TONNAGE OF NEW SHIPPING PRODUCED
IN THE PRINCIPAL SHIPBUILDING DISTRICTS SINCE 1860.]
+-------------------------------------+
| TABLE OF YEARLY TONNAGE |
+-------+---------+---------+---------+
| YEARS | CLYDE | TYNE | WEAR |
| | TON’AGE | TON’AGE | TON’AGE |
+-------+---------+---------+---------+
| 1860 | 47,800 | | 40,200 |
| 1861 | 66,800 | | 46,800 |
| 1862 | 69,900 | | 56,900 |
| 1863 | 123,300 | | 70,000 |
| 1864 | 178,500 | | 72,000 |
| 1865 | 154,000 | | 73,100 |
| 1866 | 124,500 | | 62,700 |
| 1867 | 108,000 | | 52,200 |
| 1868 | 169,600 | | 70,300 |
| 1869 | 192,300 | | 72,400 |
| 1870 | 180,400 | | 70,100 |
| 1871 | 196,300 | | 81,900 |
| 1872 | 230,300 | | 131,800 |
| 1873 | 232,900 | | 99,400 |
| 1874 | 262,400 | | 88,000 |
| 1875 | 211,800 | | 79,900 |
| 1876 | 174,800 | | 54,100 |
| 1877 | 169,700 | | 87,600 |
| 1878 | 222,300 | 126,300 | 109,900 |
| 1879 | 174,800 | 139,800 | 92,200 |
| 1880 | 248,700 | 149,100 | 116,200 |
| 1881 | 341,000 | 177,200 | 148,000 |
| 1882 | 391,900 | 208,400 | 212,500 |
| 1883 | 419,600 | 216,600 | 212,300 |
+-------+---------+---------+---------+
With the year just spoken of a first and very considerable rise in
the tonnage output set in and continued till the year 1864, in which
year it amounted to 178,500 tons. Various causes of an exceptional
nature, or at least, causes apart from the natural progress due
to the growth of shipping, were at work in bringing about this
increase in the output. The most prominent of these was the necessity
which arose for filling up the gaps produced by the withdrawal of
many swift steamers from the river and coasting trade to meet the
requirements of individuals interested in running the blockade of
the ports of the Southern States of America. Between Aprils 1862-3
alone, as many as 30 vessels actively connected in some way with
the Clyde and coasting service, were sold for that purpose, and the
replacement of these vessels went a considerable way in occasioning
the briskness. Another and more abiding cause, however, was the
demand for vessels for the cotton-carrying trade. This arose chiefly
from the blockade of the American ports, causing cotton to come right
from the East Indies and China; and in consequence of the longer
voyage many more ships were necessary to carry on the trade. The fact
that more than an average number of wrecks had occurred during the
two previous winters, together with an increase of the trade between
Britain and France as the result of Mr Cobden’s commercial treaty,
were elements lending impetus to the briskness in the shipbuilding of
the time.
In 1865 the output of tonnage was lessened considerably through
what appears to have been but the natural course of commerce in
its reactionary stage. This lessened activity was much aggravated
when 1866 was reached, and in that year a serious interruption to
the trade was caused by a lock-out of the workmen consequent on a
partial strike made to enforce what the employers considered an
unreasonable demand on the part of the men. In 1867 the output was
as low as 108,000 tons, but thereafter it took an upward tendency,
its rise to the previous level being sudden, but thereafter very
gradual, and spread over a number of years. The output kept steadily
improving each year, outreaching former totals, until in 1874 the
curve, or, as it may be called, the output wave, formed a crest of
exceptional altitude. For that year the aggregate output reached
the unprecedented figure of 262,430 tons, a result which made
natural all subsequent references to 1874 as the “big year.” The
year 1875, although showing an increase in the number of vessels
built, yet fell considerably short of 1874 in the matter of tonnage,
thus giving to the output curve a decided downward turn. Matters
continued to grow worse during 1876, and many of the Clyde firms
had painful experiences of “bare poles” until about the beginning
of the year 1877, when a slightly improved state of matters set in.
Then there was a general desire amongst the workmen for an advance
in wages, which ultimately resulted in the great shipwright strike
of midsummer, 1877. This strike, it may be remembered, lasted
twenty-four weeks, and was one of the most determined struggles which
ever took place in this country, both parties having evidently made
up their minds to hold out to the last. The strike culminated in the
general lock-out of workmen in the autumn of the same year, which,
when withdrawn in favour of arbitration as regards the shipwrights,
settled down into a keen fight with the ironworkers. The shipwrights’
claim was settled by arbitration, the umpire (Lord Moncrieff)
deciding in favour of the employers, and the men accordingly resumed
work. The ironworkers’ dispute was likewise a difficult matter to
decide, but ultimately the men resumed work on the understanding that
their claim for an advance upon their wages of 10 per cent. would be
considered six months subsequently. The struggles were exceedingly
costly alike to masters and workmen, one of the results being seen
pretty distinctly in the diminished output of tonnage during 1877.
About the spring of 1878 matters had not improved in any very
material sense; and the ironworkers insisting on a settlement of
their former claim for an advance, were met by the employers with a
proposal to increase the working hours from 51 per week, as arranged
in 1872, to 54 hours per week, or to reduce the then rate of wages.
The men were not unnaturally averse to the increase of working hours,
and signified their opposition. Subsequently a reduction in wages
of 7½ per cent. was enforced, with the result that the ironworkers
came out on strike for a time. Ultimately in the spring of 1879 a
return to the 54 hours was made. The prevailing great depression
continued well on into the autumn of 1879. In October of that year
the shipbuilding industry experienced an unexpected but very welcome
revival, and an unusually large amount of work came to the Clyde.
The output which in 1879 had fallen to 174,800 tons, now took a
sudden and remarkable jump, the figure for 1880 amounting to no
less than 248,650 tons, affording ample grounds for the belief that
the impetus at the close of 1879 was no mere temporary spurt, but a
solid revival. Subsequent experience has more than justified this
belief. In 1881 the output reached the aggregate of 341,000 tons,
in 1882 it overstepped even this, and the output curve continued
in the ascendant until for the year 1883 the stupendous aggregate
of 419,600 tons was reached. Following the course which accepted
theories regarding industrial activity and depression suggest, and
which actual experience in the past exemplifies, the curve of output
ought still to be in the ascendant, reaching its maximum in 1884, and
thereafter declining. Although the close of the year is still some
distance off, there is already ample reason to believe that this will
not hold good for 1884. This result is after all only very natural
when the most exceptional activity of the past four years, coupled
with the present very unhealthy state of the shipping trade, are
taken into consideration.
* * * * *
The history of iron shipbuilding on the North-East Coast district
does not commence until the year 1840. In March of that year the
_John Garrow_, of Liverpool, a vessel of 800 tons burthen, the first
iron ship seen in the North-East Coast rivers, arrived at Shields,
and caused considerable excitement. A shipbuilding firm at Walker
commenced to use the new material almost immediately, and on the 23rd
of September, 1842, the iron steamer _Prince Albert_ glided from
Walker Slipway into the waters of the Tyne.
During the next eight or ten years very little progress was made, the
vessels mostly in demand being colliers, in the construction of which
no one thought of applying iron. About the year 1850, the carriage of
coal by railway began seriously to affect the sale of north country
coal in the London market, and it became essential, in the interest
of the coal-owners and others, to devise some means of conveying the
staple produce of the North Country to London in an expeditious,
regular, and, at the same time, economical manner. To accomplish this
object, Mr C. M. Palmer caused an iron screw-steamer to be designed
in such a manner as to secure the greatest possible capacity, with
engines only sufficiently powerful to ensure her making her voyages
with regularity. This vessel (the _John Bowes_), the first screw
collier, was built to carry 650 tons, and to steam about nine
miles an hour. On her first voyage, she was laden with 650 tons of
coals in four hours; in forty-eight hours she arrived in London;
in twenty-four hours she discharged her cargo; and in forty-eight
hours more she was again in the Tyne; so that, in five days, she
performed successfully an amount of work that would have taken two
average-sized sailing colliers upwards of a month to accomplish. To
the success of this experiment may be attributed, in great measure,
the subsequent and rapid development of iron shipbuilding in the
Tyne and East Coast district. The district has maintained by far the
largest share—almost amounting to a monopoly—in the production of the
heavy-carrying, slow-speed type of cargo steamers, of which the _John
Bowes_ may be said to have been the prototype.
Statistics for the Tyne, as already explained, are not available to
any extent until within recent years,[33] but from a paper on “The
Construction of Iron Ships and the Progress of Iron Shipbuilding on
the Tyne, Wear, and Tees,” written by Mr C. M. Palmer, and forming
part of the work, “The Industrial Resources of the Tyne, Wear, and
Tees,” published in connection with the British Association’s visit
to Newcastle in 1863, it appears that the tonnage of iron ships
launched from the Tyne during 1862 amounted to 32,175 tons, and
during 1863, to 51,236 tons. Comparing this with the output for
1883—twenty years later—it is found that the figures are more than
quadrupled, for in that year the output of the Tyne reached as much
as 216,600 tons.
In the year following the launch of the _John Bowes_, namely,
in 1853, the first iron vessel built on the Wear, was released
from its blocks. The Tees followed the example with great energy
and considerable success, and on both these rivers trade in iron
shipbuilding has been correspondingly developed.
What may be described, however, as the opening of the age of iron
on the Wear did not begin till the year 1863. During that year
17,720 tons of iron shipping were launched, and from that time the
declension of wood shipbuilding, which had long made the Wear a
distinguished shipbuilding port in the United Kingdom, proceeded
apace. The causes of fluctuation in the trade throughout the
subsequent years cannot be traced with any circumstantiality, but
the general progress made can be readily gathered from the subjoined
tabular record of the number of ships built yearly, with their
aggregate and average tonnage. Wood vessels, it may be stated, formed
part of the aggregate till the year 1878, when wood dropped out of
the arena altogether:—
+-------+--------+-------------+---------+
| | No. | | |
| Year. | of | Gross Tons. | Average |
| | Ships. | | Tons. |
+-------+--------+-------------+---------+
| 1860 | 112 | 40,200 | 359 |
| 1861 | 126 | 46,778 | 371 |
| 1862 | 160 | 56,920 | 356 |
| 1863 | 171 | 70,040 | 410 |
| 1864 | 153 | 71,987 | 470 |
| 1865 | 172 | 73,134 | 425 |
| 1866 | 145 | 62,719 | 432 |
| 1867 | 128 | 52,249 | 408 |
| 1868 | 138 | 70,302 | 510 |
| 1869 | 122 | 72,420 | 594 |
| 1870 | 103 | 70,084 | 681 |
| 1871 | 97 | 81,903 | 844 |
| 1872 | 122 | 131,825 | 1081 |
| 1873 | 95 | 99,371 | 1046 |
| 1874 | 88 | 88,022 | 1000 |
| 1875 | 91 | 79,904 | 878 |
| 1876 | 60 | 54,041 | 901 |
| 1877 | 75 | 87,578 | 1168 |
| 1878 | 85 | 109,900 | 1293 |
| 1879 | 65 | 92,200 | 1418 |
| 1880 | 77 | 116,200 | 1509 |
| 1881 | 88 | 148,000 | 1681 |
| 1882 | 123 | 212,500 | 1727 |
| 1883 | 126 | 212,300 | 1685 |
+-------+--------+-------------+---------+
During the years 1871, 1872, and 1873 the output from the Clyde yards
averaged 50 per cent. of the total shipping produced throughout the
United Kingdom. That high proportion fell for the years 1874, 1875,
and 1876 to as low as 37½ per cent. In 1882 the Clyde’s contribution
to the grand total did not exceed 32½ per cent., so that in one
decade the premier shipbuilding centre has fallen from the proud
position of producing half the total shipping built within the United
Kingdom to that of turning out less than one-third. Mr William
Denny, dealing with this subject in a paper on the “Industries of
Scotland,” read before the Philosophical Society of Dumbarton, in
December, 1878, attributed the then condition of affairs with regard
to the tonnage output of the Clyde to the keen competition of the
builders on the North-East Coast of England, who managed to produce
their favourite type of heavy-carrying, slow-speed steamers at very
much less cost than could be done on the Clyde. Their success in this
he attributed to four causes—1st, to the enterprise of the small
shipowners and the general public on the North-East Coast of England
in supplying capital for steamers of this kind; 2nd, to the great
cheapness of iron in that district; 3rd, to the long hours worked,
enabling the shipbuilding plant to be more profitably employed, and
to the great development of piece-work; 4th, to the fact that all
the builders being engaged upon work of the same class, the price of
which could be measured per ton of dead-weight carried, or per ton
gross, and per nominal horse-power, they were able easily to compare
the efficiency of each other’s yard in point of production, and by
that means a keen competition was produced amongst each other. On the
Clyde the great variety and frequent speciality of the work prevented
any such common measure of prices existing. This way of accounting
for the altered relative positions of the chief shipbuilding centres
was doubtless at that time the correct one, and to a large extent it
still holds true. The productiveness of the North-East Coast ports
has in no way declined since, notwithstanding that a larger number
of the higher class passenger ships which have long been so much a
Clyde speciality are now being constructed there. But the number of
yards everywhere have increased in a higher ratio than on the Clyde,
and consequently the aggregate of new shipping produced annually
in the United Kingdom is made up of a greater number of separate
contributions. That this is mainly the reason of the present position
of the Clyde relatively to the whole United Kingdom is proved by the
figures contained in the accompanying table, which show, amongst
other things, that the ratio of tonnage produced by each of the
principal districts to the total produced by the whole of them, has
not very much altered during the past six years, or since Mr Denny
spoke on the subject. If anything, indeed, the Clyde shows in this
respect an advance over its northern rivals: although the advance of
the Wear during the past two years is equally marked.
_Table giving the Number and Tonnage of Vessels Built on the Clyde,
Tyne, Wear, and Tees, during the Years 1878-83 inclusive; also
showing the Average Tonnage of the Vessels and the Ratio which the
Tonnage produced in each District bears to the Total Tonnage_:
+----------+----------------------------++----------------------------+
| | 1878. || 1879. |
| +----+--------+-------+------++----+--------+-------+------+
|Districts.| | |Av’rage|Ratio || | |Av’rage|Ratio |
| | No.| Tons. |Ton’ge.| to || No.| Tons. |Ton’ge.| to |
| | | | |Total.|| | | |Total.|
+----------+----+--------+-------+------++----+--------+-------+------+
|Clyde | 254| 222,300| 875 | 43·5 || 191| 174,800| 915 | 39·8|
|Tyne | 115| 126,300| 1096 | 24·7 || 130| 139,800| 1075 | 32·0|
|Wear | 85| 109,900| 1293 | 21·5 || 65| 92,200| 1418 | 21·0|
|Tees | 37| 52,500| 1419 | 10·3 || 25| 31,800| 1272 | 7·2|
| +----+--------+ +------++----+--------+ +------+
|Totals | 491| 511,000| |100·0 || 411| 438,600| | 100·0|
+----------+----+--------+-------+------++----+--------+-------+------+
|Districts.| 1880. || 1881. |
+----------+----+--------+-------+------++----+--------+-------+------+
|Clyde | 209| 248,700| 1189 | 44·2 || 261| 341,000| 1306 | 47·0|
|Tyne | 109| 149,100| 1367 | 26·5 || 123| 177,200| 1440 | 24·5|
|Wear | 77| 116,200| 1509 | 20·6 || 88| 148,000| 1681 | 20·4|
|Tees | 38| 48,500| 1279 | 8·7 || 34| 58,600| 1723 | 8·1|
| +----+--------+ +------++----+--------+ +------+
|Totals | 433| 562,500| |100·0 || 506| 724,800| | 100·0|
+----------+----+--------+-------+------++----+--------+-------+------+
|Districts.| 1882. || 1883. |
+----------+----+--------+-------+------++----+--------+-------+------+
|Clyde | 297| 391,900| 1319 | 44·6 || 329| 419,700| 1276 | 45·1|
|Tyne | 132| 208,400| 1578 | 23·8 || 159| 216,600| 1362 | 23·3|
|Wear | 123| 212,500| 1727 | 24·2 || 126| 212,300| 1685 | 23·0|
|Tees | 40| 65,000| 1625 | 7·4 || 44| 81,800| 1859 | 8·6|
+----------+----+--------+ +------++----+--------+ +------+
|Totals | 592| 877,800| |100·0 || 658| 930,400| | 100·0|
+----------+----+--------+-------+------++----+--------+-------+------+
With respect to the progress of shipbuilding in steel, little
requires to be added to the general account given in Chapter I.
The tonnage annually produced in steel is a constantly-increasing
quantity. Hitherto the Clyde has contributed quite three-fourths of
the tonnage of steel vessels, owing chiefly to the vigorous way in
which certain of the shipbuilders there have adopted the practice,
and also to the openness of the local field for the extensive
manufacture of the new material. The North-East Coast, however, bids
fair, in the immediate future, to become as productive in steel
tonnage as the Clyde district. Recently-discovered processes by
which the vast stores of Cleveland ironstone may be made profitably
available in steel manufacture are working great changes in the way
of modifying old and causing the erection of new works.
The extraordinary growth of steel shipbuilding since its commencement
in 1878 is well illustrated by the accompanying tables, which are
taken from a paper by Mr W. John, on “Recent Improvements in Iron
and Steel Shipbuilding,” read at the meetings of the Iron and Steel
Institute in May of the present year. The figures relating to steel
may be taken, where any divergence occurs, as more authoritative
than those occurring in the general account of work in steel in
Chapter I. The tables, however, partake of the imperfections already
fully alluded to in the present chapter. With regard to them, Mr
John says:—“Unfortunately, neither of these tables show the actual
amount of shipping, either steel or iron, built in this country,
because there would have to be a small percentage, perhaps between
ten and twenty, to be added to those classed at Lloyds on Table I.
for unclassed ships, and there would be a certain proportion, which
I am unable to ascertain, to be added to the figures on Table II.
for ships built for foreign owners in this country, and not entered
upon the British register. However, the figures in themselves are
sufficiently significant of the enormous growth of steel shipbuilding
within the last six years, and it will be seen at once, as I
have said before, that steel as a material for shipbuilding has
passed entirely out of the experimental stage, and must be judged
henceforth by the results of its working in the shipyards, and by
the results of the performances of the ships already afloat, both
as profit-earning machines for their owners, by their general wear
and tear, for their safety against strains at sea, and in cases of
collision and stranding.”
_Table I.—Statement showing the Number and Tonnage of Steel and Iron
Vessels Classed by Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping
during the Years 1878 to 1883, both inclusive._
+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| | Steel. | Iron. |
| +------------+-----------+------------+------------+
|Year.| Steam. | Sailing. | Steam. | Sailing. |
| +---+--------+---+-------+---+--------+---+--------+
| |No.|Tonnage.|No.|Ton’ge.|No.|Tonnage.|No.|Tonnage.|
+-----+---+--------+---+-------+---+--------+---+--------+
|1878 | 7| 4,470| | |329| 406,196|106| 111,496|
|1879 | 8| 14,300| 1| 1,700|318| 436,339| 30| 34,630|
|1880 | 21| 34,031| 2| 1,342|324| 422,622| 31| 37,372|
|1881 | 20| 39,240| 3| 3,167|401| 622,440| 51| 74,284|
|1882 | 55| 113,364| 8| 12,477|457| 742,244| 68| 108,831|
|1883 | 94| 150,725| 15| 15,703|576| 817,584| 68| 116,190|
+-----+---+--------+---+-------+---+--------+---+--------+
+-----+-------------------------+---------------------------+
| | Total. | Percentage. |
| +------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
|Year.| Steel. | Iron. | Steel. | Iron. |
| +---+--------+---+--------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
| |No.|Tonnage.|No.|Tonnage.| No. |Ton’ge.| No. |Ton’ge.|
+-----+---+--------+---+--------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
|1878 | 7| 4,470|435| 517,692| 1·6 | 0·85 |98·4 | 99·15 |
|1879 | 9| 16,000|348| 470,969| 2·52| 3·28 |97·48| 96·72 |
|1880 | 23| 35,373|355| 459,994| 6·1 | 7·14 |93·9 | 92·86 |
|1881 | 23| 42,407|452| 696,724| 4·8 | 5·74 |95·2 | 94·26 |
|1882 | 63| 125,841|525| 851,075|10·7 | 12·9 |89·3 | 87·1 |
|1883 |109| 166,428|644| 933,774|14·47| 15·12 |85·53| 84·88 |
+-----+---+--------+---+--------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
_Table II.—Statement showing the Number and Tonnage of Steel and Iron
Vessels Built in the United Kingdom and Registered therein during the
Years 1879 to 1883, both inclusive._
+-----+------------------------+-------------------------+
| | Steel. | Iron. |
| +------------+-----------+------------+------------+
|Year.| Steam. | Sailing. | Steam. | Sailing. |
| +---+--------+---+-------+---+--------+---+--------+
| |No.|Tonnage.|No.|Ton’ge.|No.|Tonnage.|No.|Tonnage.|
+-----+---+--------+---+-------+---+--------+---+--------+
|1879 | 22| 19,522| 1| 1,700|337| 428,082| 33| 35,332|
|1880 | 26| 36,493| 4| 1,671|362| 447,389| 39| 40,015|
|1881 | 34| 68,366| 3| 3,167|411| 590,503| 50| 68,650|
|1882 | 65| 115,449| 8| 12,478|446| 672,740| 83| 112,852|
|1883 | 92| 141,552| 11| 14,193|548| 742,292| 72| 114,698|
+-----+---+--------+---+-------+---+--------+---+--------+
+-----+-------------------------+---------------------------+
| | Total. | Percentage. |
| +------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
|Year.| Steel. | Iron. | Steel. | Iron. |
| +---+--------+---+--------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
| |No.|Tonnage |No.|Tonnage.| No. |Ton’ge.| No. |Ton’ge.|
+-----+---+--------+---+--------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
|1879 | 23| 21,222|370| 463,414| 5·83| 4·38|94·15| 95·62 |
|1880 | 30| 38,164|401| 487,404| 6·96| 7·26|93·04| 92·74 |
|1881 | 37| 71,533|461| 659,153| 7·43| 9·79|92·57| 90·21 |
|1882 | 73| 127,927|529| 785,592|12·14| 14·0 |87·86| 86·0 |
|1883 |103| 155,745|620| 856,990|14·24| 15·37|85·76| 84·63 |
+-----+---+--------+---+--------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
CHAPTER VIII.
THE PRODUCTION OF LARGE STEAMSHIPS.
Apart from the enormous aggregates, no feature of the annual output
of new tonnage during recent years has been more remarkable than the
great number of full-powered and capacious steamships built for the
various ocean-trading companies. The very general interest with which
what has been termed “the race for big ships” was regarded two or
three years ago has now settled down into the complacent indifference
with which matter-of-fact, every-day things are treated. The number
of vessels above 4000 tons gross register built during the year 1881
alone was over two-thirds of the whole number produced during the
ten years immediately preceding, and was exactly double the number
built during the previous five years. From these general facts it
may be understood why the constant additions made to the “leviathans
of the deep” excite comparatively so little interest, except where
matters of dimension or mere bulk are supplemented by questions of
exceptional speed or novel construction.
The subjoined table of steamships above 4000 tons gross register
presently afloat or being constructed affords information interesting
from several such standpoints; and shows in what years the product of
big ships has been greatest, as well as what proportion of individual
credit falls to the various centres engaged in their production.
The vessels are arranged in the order of their tonnages, which in
every case available is the gross register tonnage. While most of
the information conveyed in the table is such as may be gathered
separately from the registries, the form in which it has been
compiled, and the fact of the moulded in place of the registered
dimensions being given, makes it valuable for reference. Except in a
few instances, where it was impossible to obtain them, the dimensions
of the vessels have been supplied by the respective builders.
Before presenting the table, several of the most noteworthy features
of the information it conveys may be pointed to. The list comprises
no fewer than 138 vessels, 50 of which are constructed of steel. The
year 1881 occurs twenty-six times in the subjoined table, that number
of vessels over 4000 tons having been turned out within the year. As
already stated, this number is over two-thirds the total number for
the ten years immediately preceding 1881, and is exactly double the
number for the preceding five years. The year 1882 occurs twenty-four
times, the year 1883 fifteen times, and the present year—although, of
course, subject to possible additions—twenty-one times.
The following summary gives the number of vessels of the “leviathan”
order launched in each year since 1858—the year which witnessed the
production of the _Great Eastern_—an achievement as regards size
which has not hitherto been equalled:—
1858 1 | 1865 6 | 1872 3 | 1879 4
1859 0 | 1866 0 | 1873 9 | 1880 3
1860 0 | 1867 2 | 1874 9 | 1881 26
1861 0 | 1868 0 | 1875 3 | 1882 24
1862 1 | 1869 0 | 1876 0 | 1883 15
1863 3 | 1870 2 | 1877 1 | 1884 21
1864 2 | 1871 1 | 1878 2 |
The column giving the districts in which the vessels have been built,
shows—what doubtless is already well recognised—that the Clyde is
supreme in this quantitative aspect of steamship production. That
river occurs seventy-nine times in the table, a number equivalent
to 57 per cent. of the total of all the centres put together.
Barrow follows next in order, but with the relatively insignificant
contribution of twelve—although it is worthy of note that this
contribution is entirely made up by the vessels of one firm: _i.e._,
the Barrow Shipbuilding Company—the Mersey contributes eleven, the
Tyne ten, and the other districts correspondingly lower numbers.
_List of Steamships above 4000 Tons Gross Register presently Afloat
(or at one time in existence) or Under Construction, arranged in
the order of their tonnage, and showing Builders’ Dimensions,
Material employed in Construction, Names of Owners and of Builders,
Date of Building, and Where Built._
PART 1 of 3
+---+-------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| | | Gross | Builders’ |Material |
|No.| Name of Vessel. |Tonnage.| Dimensions. |Employ’d.|
| | | | | |
+---+-------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| 1|Great Eastern, | 18,915 |680 by 82½ by 58 | Iron |
| 2|City of Rome, | 8,141 |546 by 52 by 38¾ | Iron |
| 3|Etruria, | 7,718 |500 by 57 by 40 | Steel |
| 4|Umbria, | 7,718 |500 by 57 by 40 | Steel |
| 5|Servia, | 7,392 |515 by 52 by 40¾ | Steel |
| 6|Oregon, | 7,375 |500 by 54 by 39¾ | Steel |
| 7|Aurania, | 7,269 |470 by 57 by 39 | Steel |
| 8|Alaska, | 6,932 |500 by 50 by 39′7″ | Iron |
| 9|America, | 6,500 |432 by 51 by 37½ | Steel |
| 10|Normandie, | 6,062 |460 by 50 by 37½ | Iron |
| 11|Westernland, | 5,736 |440 by 47 by 35 | Steel |
| 12|Vancouver, | 5,600 |430 by 45 by 33½ | Iron |
| 13|City of Chicago, | 5,600 |430 by 45 by 33½ | Iron |
| 14|Austral, | 5,588 |455 by 48 by 37 | Steel |
| 15|Pavonia, | 5,588 |430 by 46 by 36 | Iron |
| 16|Cephalonia, | 5,517 |430 by 46 by 36 | Iron |
| 17|Furnessia, | 5,495 |448 by 44½ by 36¼ | Iron |
| 18|City of Berlin, | 5,491 |488 by 44 by 36¼ | Iron |
| 19|Orient, | 5,386 |445 by 46 by 36′10″ | Iron |
| 20|Parisian, | 5,359 |440 by 46 by 36′2″ | Steel |
| 21|Kansas, | 5,275 |435 by 43½ by 35½ | Steel |
| 22|Noordland, | 5,212 |400 by 47 by 35 | Steel |
| 28|Arizona, | 5,147 |450 by 45′2″ by 37½ | Iron |
| 24|Missouri, | 5,146 |435 by 43½ by 35½ | Iron |
| 25|Eider, | 5,129 |430 by 46′10″ by 36¼| Iron |
| 26|Ems, | 5,129 |430 by 46′10″ by 36¼| Iron |
| 27|Fulda, | 5,109 |430 by 45¾ by 36½ | Steel |
| 28|Werra, | 5,109 |430 by 45½ by 36½ | Steel |
| 29|Bitterne, | 5,085 |395 by 44½ by 33¼ | Iron |
| 30|City of Pekin, | 5,079 |420 by 47 by 38½ | Iron |
| 31|City of Tokio, | 5,079 |420 by 47 by 38½ | Iron |
| 32|City of Yeddo, | 5,079 |420 by 47 by 38½ | Iron |
| 33|Arawa, | 5,026 |420 by 46 by 32 | Steel |
| 34|Tainui, | 5,026 |420 by 46 by 32 | Steel |
| 35|Rome, | 5,013 |430 by 44 by 36 | Iron |
| 36|Carthage, | 5,013 |430 by 44 by 36 | Iron |
| 37|Germanic, | 5,008 |455 by 46 by 34 | Iron |
| 38|Britannic, | 5,004 |455 by 46 by 34 | Iron |
| 39|Belgravia, | 4,976 |400 by 44½ by 34¾ | Iron |
| 40|Silvertown, | 4,935 |340 by 55 by 36 | Iron |
| 41|Valetta, | 4,911 |420 by 45 by 37 | Steel |
| 42|Massilia, | 4,911 |420 by 45 by 37 | Steel |
| 43|Faraday, | 4,908 |360 by 52¼ by 36 | Iron |
| 44|England, | 4,898 |362 by 42 by 37½ | Iron |
| 45|Elbe, | 4,897 |420 by 44¾ by 36½ | Iron |
| 46|Catalonia, | 4,841 |430 by 43 by 35 | Steel |
| 47|Gallia, | 4,809 |430 by 44 by 36 | Iron |
| 48|City of Richmond, | 4,780 |427 by 43 by 36 | Iron |
| 49|City of Chester, | 4,770 |430 by 44 by 37 | Iron |
| 50|Paramatta, | 4,759 |420 by 43 by 37 | Steel |
| 51|Ionic, | 4,753 |430 by 45 by 34 | Steel |
| 52|Ballarat, | 4,752 |420 by 43 by 37 | Steel |
| 53|Waesland, | 4,752 |440 by 42½ by 31½ | Iron |
| 54|Doric, | 4,744 |430 by 45 by 34 | Steel |
| 55|Borderer, | 4,740 |400 by 44 by 34½ | Iron |
| 56|Iberia, | 4,671 |420 by 44¼ by 37¼ | Iron |
| 57|Egypt, | 4,670 |440 by 45 by 38 | Iron |
| 58|Mexican, | 4,669 |380 by 47 by 34 | Iron |
| 59|Scotia, | 4,667 |366 by 47¼ by 42 | Iron |
| 60|Liguria, | 4,666 |420 by 44½ by 37¼ | Iron |
| 61|France, | 4,648 |395 by 44 by 38 | Iron |
| 62|Labrador, | 4,612 |395 by 44 by 38 | Iron |
| 63|Helvetia, | 4,588 |420 by 43 by 37½ | Iron |
| 64|Amerique, | 4,584 |400 by 44 by 38 | Iron |
| 65|Erin, | 4,577 |420 by 43 by 37½ | Iron |
| 66|Scythia, | 4,557 |420 by 42 by 36 | Iron |
| 67|Raffaele Rubattino,| 4,538 |400 by 42½ by 32½ | Iron |
| 68|Bothnia, | 4,535 |420 by 42 by 36 | Iron |
| 69|Spain, | 4,512 |426 by 43 by 36 | Iron |
| 70|China, | 4,499 |412 by 44 by 32½ | Iron |
| 71|City of Montreal, | 4,496 |406 by 43½ by 35¾ | Iron |
| 72|Roman, | 4,491 |403 by 43½ by 35 | Iron |
| 73|Tasmania, | 4,488 |400 by 45 by 34½ | Steel |
| 74|Chusan, | 4,488 |400 by 45 by 31½ | Steel |
| 75|St. Ronans, | 4,484 |402 by 42¾ by 35½ | Iron |
| 76|Kaikoura, | 4,474 |420 by 45¾ by 35′4″ | Steel |
| 77|Kimutaka, | 4,474 |420 by 44¾ by 33′4″ | Steel |
| 78|The Queen, | 4,457 |382 by 42½ by 37 | Iron |
| 79|Coptic, | 4,448 |430 by 43 by 33 | Steel |
| 80|Stirling Castle, | 4,423 |420 by 49¾ by 32¾ | Iron |
| 81|Norseman, | 4,386 |391 by 43½ by 35 | Iron |
| 82|Sardinian, | 4,376 |400 by 43 by 36 | Iron |
| 83|Arabic, | 4,368 |430 by 43 by 33 | Steel |
| 84|Grecian Monarch | 4,364 |380 by 42½ by 36 | Iron |
| 85|Tartar, | 4,339 |392 by 47 by 35½ | Iron |
| 86|Iowa, | 4,329 |380 by 45 by 35 | Iron |
| 87|Greece, | 4,310 |392 by 43 by 37 | Iron |
| 88|France, | 4,281 |386 by 43 by 38 | Iron |
| 89|Roslin Castle, | 4,280 |380 by 48 by 33 | Iron |
| 90|Canada, | 4,276 |392 by 43 by 37 | Iron |
| 91|Circassia, | 4,272 |400 by 42 by 34½ | Iron |
| 92|Devonia, | 4,270 |400 by 42 by 34½ | Iron |
| 93|Isla de Luzen, | 4,252 |393 by 44½ by 32 | Iron |
| 94|Hammonia, | 4,247 |375 by 45 by 34′2″ | Steel |
| 95|Hawarden Castle, | 4,241 |380 by 48 by 32′10″ | Iron |
| 96|Norham Castle, | 4,241 |380 by 48 by 32′10″ | Iron |
| 97|Richmond Hill, | 4,225 |420 by 47 by 28 | Steel |
| 98|Potosi, | 4,219 |411 by 43 by 35¼ | Iron |
| 99|Ganges, | 4,196 |390 by 42 by 34¼ | Steel |
|100|Sutlej, | 4,194 |390 by 42 by 34¼ | Steel |
|101|Shannon, | 4,189 |400 by 43 by 34¼ | Steel |
|102|Chateau Margaux, | 4,176 |385 by 42 by 33 | Iron |
|103|Chateau Yquan, | 4,176 |385 by 42 by 33 | Iron |
|104|Italy, | 4,169 |389 by 42 by 38’2″ | Iron |
|105|Anchoria, | 4,168 |408 by 40 by 35½ | Iron |
|106|Sydney, | 4,166 |420 by 43 by 34 | Iron |
|107|Tongariro, | 4,163 |380 by 45¾ by 33′4″ | Steel |
|108|Aorangi, | 4,163 |380 by 45¾ by 33′4″ | Steel |
|109|Ruapehu, | 4,163 |380 by 45¾ by 33′4″ | Steel |
|110|Ludgate Hill, | 4,162 |420 by 45 by 28 | Steel |
|111|John Elder, | 4,152 |370 by 41 by 36¾ | Iron |
|112|Isla de Mindanao, | 4,141 |376 by 42 by 35¼ | Iron |
|113|Navarre, | 4,137 |400 by 40 by 33¼ | Iron |
|114|Venetian, | 4,136 |423 by 41 by 31′10″ | Iron |
|115|Bearn, | 4,134 |400 by 40 by 33¼ | Iron |
|116|Mexico, | 4,133 |400 by 43½ by 32½ | Steel |
|118|Oaxaca, | 4,133 |400 by 43½ by 32½ | Steel |
|119|Brittania, | 4,129 |399 by 43 by 34 | Iron |
|120|Clyde, | 4,124 |390 by 42 by 34 | Steel |
|121|Aconcagua, | 4,112 |391 by 41 by 36¾ | Iron |
|122|Goorkha, | 4,104 |390 by 42 by 31 | Steel |
|123|Thames, | 4,101 |390 by 42 by 35 | Steel |
|124|Werneth Hall, | 4,100 |400 by 43 by 31 | Steel |
|125|Virginian, | 4,081 |422 by 41 by 31′10″ | Iron |
|126|India, | 4,065 |390 by 42 by 21 | Steel |
|127|Sorato, | 4,059 |390 by 42½ by 35¾ | Iron |
|128|Canada, | 4,054 |350 by 43 by 36 | Iron |
|129|Bolivia, | 4,050 |400 by 40 by 33 | Iron |
|130|Merton Hall, | 4,043 |400 by 42 by 30 | Steel |
|131|Lake Huron, | 4,040 |385 by 42½ by 31½ | Iron |
|132|Cotopasi, | 4,028 |390 by 42½ by 35¾ | Iron |
|133|Kaiser-i-Hind, | 4,023 |400 by 42 by 34 | Iron |
|134|Illimania, | 4,022 |390 by 42½ by 35¾ | Iron |
|135|Tower Hill, | 4,021 |420 by 45 by 28 | Steel |
|136|Rewa, | 4,017 |390 by 43 by 29 | Steel |
|137|Buenos Ayrean, | 4,005 |385 by 42 by 34¼ | Steel |
|138|Ethiopia, | 4,005 |400 by 40 by 33 | Iron |
+---+-------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
PART 2 of 3
+---+-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| | | |
|No.| Owners or Managing Companies. | Builders. |
| | | |
+---+-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 1|Great Eastern Steamship Coy. |J. Scott Russell & Coy. |
| 2|Barrow Steamship Coy. |Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
| 3|Cunard Steamship Coy. |John Elder & Co. |
| 4|Cunard Steamship Coy. |John Elder & Co. |
| 5|Cunard Steamship Coy. |J. & G. Thomson |
| 6|S.B. Guion & Coy., Guion Line |John Elder & Co. |
| 7|Cunard Steamship Coy. |J. & G. Thomson |
| 8|Guion & Co., Guion Line |John Elder & Co. |
| 9|National Steamship Coy. |J. & G. Thomson |
| 10|Compagnie General Transatlantique |Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
| 11|Soc. Anon. de. Nav. Belg. Amer. |Laird Brothers |
| 12|Mississippi and Dominion Coy. |Chas. Connell & Coy. |
| 13|Inman Steamship Coy. |Charles Connell & Co. |
| 14|Orient Steam Navigation Coy. |John Elder & Co. |
| 15|Cunard Steamship Coy. |J. & G. Thomson |
| 16|Cunard Steamship Coy. |Laird Brothers |
| 17|Barrow Steamship Coy. |Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
| 18|Inman Steamship Coy. |Caird & Co. |
| 19|Orient Steam Navigation Coy. |John Elder & Co. |
| 20|J. & A. Allan, Allan Line |R. Napier & Sons |
| 21|George Warren & Coy. |Charles Connell & Co. |
| 22|Soc. Anon. de Nav. Belge. Amer. |Laird Brothers |
| 28|Guion & Co., Guion Line |John Elder & Co. |
| 24|George Warren & Coy. |Charles Connell & Co. |
| 25|North German Lloyds |John Elder & Coy. |
| 26|North German Lloyds |John Elder & Coy. |
| 27|North German Lloyds |John Elder & Co. |
| 28|North German Lloyds |John Elder & Co. |
| 29|T. R. Oswald |Oswald, Mordaunt & Coy. |
| 30|Pacific Mail Steamship Coy. |John Roach & Son |
| 31|Pacific Mail Steamship Coy. |John Roach & Son |
| 32|Pacific Mail Steamship Coy. |John Roach & Son |
| 33|Shaw, Saville & Albion Coy. |Wm. Denny & Brothers |
| 34|Shaw, Saville & Albion Coy. |Wm. Denny & Brothers |
| 35|Peninsular & Oriental S.N. Coy. |Caird & Coy. |
| 36|Peninsular & Oriental S.N. Coy. |Caird & Coy. |
| 37|Oceanic Steam Navigation Coy. |Harland & Wolff |
| 38|Oceanic Steam Navigation Coy. |Harland & Wolff |
| 39|Henderson Brothers—Anchor Line |D. & W. Henderson |
| 40|Ind. Rub. & Telegraph Works Coy. |C. Mitchell & Coy. |
| 41|Peninsular and Oriental S.N. Coy. |Caird & Coy. |
| 42|Peninsular and Oriental S.N. Coy. |Caird & Coy. |
| 43|Siemens Brothers |Chas. Mitchell & Coy. |
| 44|National Steam Navigation Coy. |Palmer Shipbuilding Coy. |
| 45|North German Lloyd’s |John Elder & Coy. |
| 46|Cunard Steamship Coy. |J. & G. Thomson |
| 47|Cunard Steamship Coy. |J. & G. Thomson |
| 48|Inman Steamship Coy. |Tod & M‘Gregor |
| 49|Inman Steamship Coy. |Caird & Coy. |
| 50|Peninsular and Oriental S.N. Coy. |Caird & Coy. |
| 51|Oceanic Steam Navigation Coy. |Harland & Wolff |
| 52|Peninsular and Oriental S.N. Coy. |Caird & Coy. |
| 53|Soc. Anon. de Navig. Belg. Amer. |J. & G. Thomson |
| 54|Oceanic Steam Navigation Coy. |Harland & Wolff |
| 55|John Glynn & Sons |Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
| 56|Pacific Steam Navigation Coy. |J. Elder & Coy. |
| 57|National Steam Navigation Coy. |Liverpool Shipbuilding Coy. |
| 58|Union Steamship Coy. |James Laing |
| 59|Telegraph Conveyance & Main. Coy. |R. Napier & Sons |
| 60|Pacific Steam Navigation Coy. |J. Elder & Coy. |
| 61|Compagnie General Transatlantique |Cie. Gen. Transatlantique |
| 62|Compagnie General Transatlantique |Scott & Coy. |
| 63|National Steam Navigation Coy. |Palmer Brothers & Coy. |
| 64|Compagnie General Transatlantique |Scott & Coy. |
| 65|National Steam Navigation Coy. |Palmer Brothers & Coy. |
| 66|Cunard Steamship Coy. |J. & G. Thomson |
| 67|Messageries Gen. Italiana |Palmer & Coy. |
| 68|Cunard Steamship Coy. |J. & G. Thomson |
| 69|National Steam Navigation Coy. |Laird Brothers |
| 70|Messageries Gen. Italiana |Palmer & Coy. |
| 71|Inman Steamship Coy. |Tod & M‘Gregor |
| 72|British and North Atlantic Coy. |Laird Brothers |
| 73|Peninsular and Oriental S.N. Coy. |Caird & Coy. |
| 74|Peninsular and Oriental S.N. Coy. |Caird & Coy. |
| 75|Rankin, Gilmour & Coy. |Earles’ Ship. & Eng. Coy. |
| 76|New Zealand Shipping Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
| 77|New Zealand Shipping Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
| 78|National Steam Navigation Coy. |Laird Brothers |
| 79|Oceanic Steam Navigation Coy. |Harland & Wolff. |
| 80|Thomas Skinner & Coy. |J. Elder & Coy. |
| 81|British & North Atlantic S.N. Coy. |Laird Brothers |
| 82|J. & A. Allan |Steele & Coy. |
| 83|Oceanic Steam Navigation Coy. |Harland & Wolff |
| 84|Royal Exchange Shipping Coy. |Earles Ship. & Eng. Coy. |
| 85|Union Steamship Coy. |Aitken & Mansel |
| 86|George Warren & Coy. |R. & J. Evans & Coy. |
| 87|National Steam Navigation Coy. |Palmer Brothers & Coy. |
| 88|National Steam Navigation Coy. |T. Royden & Sons |
| 89|Donald Currie & Coy. |Barclay, Curle, & Coy. |
| 90|National Steam Navigation Coy. |Palmer Brothers & Coy. |
| 91|Barrow Steamship Coy. |Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
| 92|Barrow Steamship Coy. |Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
| 93|Cie. Gen. de Tobacas de Filipinas |Oswald, Mordaunt & Co. |
| 94|Hamburg American S.P. Coy. |J. & G. Thomson |
| 95|Donald Currie & Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
| 96|Donald Currie & Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
| 97|W. H. Nott & Coy. |H. Murray & Coy. |
| 98|Pacific Steam Navigation Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
| 99|Peninsular and Oriental S.N. Coy. |Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
|100|Peninsular and Oriental S.N. Coy. |Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
|101|Peninsular and Oriental S.N. Coy. |Harland & Wolff |
|102|Cie. Bordelaise de Nav. à Vap. |Chant. de la Gironde |
|103|Cie. Bordelaise de Nav. à Vap. |Chant. de la Gironde |
|104|National Steam Navigation Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
|105|Barrow Steamship Coy. |Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
|106|Messageries Maritimes |Messageries Maritimes. |
|107|New Zealand Steam Shipping Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
|108|New Zealand Steam Shipping Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
|109|New Zealand Steam Shipping Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
|110|W. H. Nott & Coy. |Dobie & Coy. |
|111|Pacific Steam Navigation Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
|112|Cie. Gen. de Tobacas de Filipinas |Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
|113|Soc. Gen. de Trans. Marit. à Vapeur|Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
|114|Fred. Leyland & Coy. |Palmer & Coy. |
|115|Soc. Gen. de Trans. Marit. à Vapeur|Barrow Shipbuilding Coy. |
|116|Campania Transatlantica Mexicana R.|Napier & Sons |
|118|Campania Transatlantica Mexicana R.|Napier & Sons |
|119|Pacific Steam Navigation Coy. |Laird Brothers |
|120|Peninsular and Oriental S. N. Coy. |Wm. Denny & Brothers |
|121|Pacific Steam Navigation Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
|122|British India Steam Navigation Coy.|Wm. Denny & Brothers |
|123|Peninsular and Oriental S.N. Coy. |J. & G. Thomson |
|124|Sun Shipping Coy. |Charles Connell & Coy. |
|125|Fred. Leyland & Coy. |Palmer & Coy. |
|126|British India Steam Navigation Coy.|Wm. Denny & Brothers |
|127|Pacific Steam Navigation Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
|128|Compagnie General Transatlantique |Cie. Gen. Transatlantique |
|129|Barrow Steamship Coy. |Robert Duncan & Coy. |
|130|Sun Shipping Coy. |Gourlay Brothers & Coy. |
|131|Canada Shipping Coy. |Lon. & Glas. E. & I. Ship. Coy.|
|132|Pacific Steam Navigation Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
|133|Peninsular and Oriental S. N. Coy. |Caird & Coy. |
|134|Pacific Steam Navigation Coy. |Dobie & Coy. |
|135|W. H. Nott & Coy. |John Elder & Coy. |
|136|British India Association |A. & J. Inglis |
|137|J. & A. Allan |Wm. Denny & Brothers |
|138|Barrow Steamship Coy. |A. Stephen & Son |
+---+-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
PART 3 of 3
+---+-------------------+---------+------+
| | | Where | Date |
|No.| Name of Vessel. | Built. | of |
| | | |Build.|
+---+-------------------+---------+------+
| 1|Great Eastern, |Thames | 1858 |
| 2|City of Rome, |Barrow | 1881 |
| 3|Etruria, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 4|Umbria, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 5|Servia, |Clyde | 1881 |
| 6|Oregon, |Clyde | 1883 |
| 7|Aurania, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 8|Alaska, |Clyde | 1881 |
| 9|America, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 10|Normandie, |Barrow | 1882 |
| 11|Westernland, |Mersey | 1883 |
| 12|Vancouver, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 13|City of Chicago, |Clyde | 1883 |
| 14|Austral, |Clyde | 1881 |
| 15|Pavonia, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 16|Cephalonia, |Mersey | 1882 |
| 17|Furnessia, |Barrow | 1880 |
| 18|City of Berlin, |Clyde | 1875 |
| 19|Orient, |Clyde | 1879 |
| 20|Parisian, |Clyde | 1881 |
| 21|Kansas, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 22|Noordland, |Mersey | 1884 |
| 28|Arizona, |Clyde | 1879 |
| 24|Missouri, |Clyde | 1881 |
| 25|Eider, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 26|Ems, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 27|Fulda, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 28|Werra, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 29|Bitterne, |S’ampt’n | 1883 |
| 30|City of Pekin, |U. States| 1874 |
| 31|City of Tokio, |U. States| 1874 |
| 32|City of Yeddo, |U. States| 1874 |
| 33|Arawa, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 34|Tainui, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 35|Rome, |Clyde | 1881 |
| 36|Carthage, |Clyde | 1881 |
| 37|Germanic, |Belfast | 1874 |
| 38|Britannic, |Belfast | 1874 |
| 39|Belgravia, |Clyde | 1873 |
| 40|Silvertown, |Tyne | 1884 |
| 41|Valetta, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 42|Massilia, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 43|Faraday, |Tyne | 1874 |
| 44|England, |Tyne | 1865 |
| 45|Elbe, |Clyde | 1881 |
| 46|Catalonia, |Clyde | 1880 |
| 47|Gallia, |Clyde | 1879 |
| 48|City of Richmond, |Clyde | 1873 |
| 49|City of Chester, |Clyde | 1873 |
| 50|Paramatta, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 51|Ionic, |Belfast | 1883 |
| 52|Ballarat, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 53|Waesland, |Clyde | 1867 |
| 54|Doric, |Belfast | 1883 |
| 55|Borderer, |Barrow | 1884 |
| 56|Iberia, |Clyde | 1863 |
| 57|Egypt, |Mersey | 1871 |
| 58|Mexican, |Wear | 1882 |
| 59|Scotia, |Clyde | 1862 |
| 60|Liguria, |Clyde | 1874 |
| 61|France, |S.Nazaire| 1865 |
| 62|Labrador, |S.Nazaire| 1865 |
| 63|Helvetia, |Tyne | 1864 |
| 64|Amerique, |S.Nazaire| 1865 |
| 65|Erin, |Tyne | 1864 |
| 66|Scythia, |Clyde | 1875 |
| 67|Raffaele Rubattino,|Tyne | 1882 |
| 68|Bothnia, |Clyde | 1874 |
| 69|Spain, |Mersey | 1881 |
| 70|China, |Tyne | 1882 |
| 71|City of Montreal, |Clyde | 1872 |
| 72|Roman, |Mersey | 1884 |
| 73|Tasmania, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 74|Chusan, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 75|St. Ronans, |Hull | 1884 |
| 76|Kaikoura, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 77|Kimutaka, |Clyde | 1884 |
| 78|The Queen, |Mersey | 1865 |
| 79|Coptic, |Belfast | 1881 |
| 80|Stirling Castle, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 81|Norseman, |Mersey | 1882 |
| 82|Sardinian, |Clyde | 1874 |
| 83|Arabic, |Belfast | 1881 |
| 84|Grecian Monarch |Hull | 1882 |
| 85|Tartar, |Clyde | 1883 |
| 86|Iowa, |Mersey | 1879 |
| 87|Greece, |Tyne | 1863 |
| 88|France, |Mersey | 1867 |
| 89|Roslin Castle, |Clyde | 1883 |
| 90|Canada, |Tyne | 1863 |
| 91|Circassia, |Barrow | 1878 |
| 92|Devonia, |Barrow | 1877 |
| 93|Isla de Luzen, |S’amptn | 1882 |
| 94|Hammonia, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 95|Hawarden Castle, |Clyde | 1883 |
| 96|Norham Castle, |Clyde | 1883 |
| 97|Richmond Hill, |Clyde | 1882 |
| 98|Potosi, |Clyde | 1873 |
| 99|Ganges, |Barrow | 1881 |
|100|Sutlej, |Barrow | 1881 |
|101|Shannon, |Belfast | 1881 |
|102|Chateau Margaux, |Bordeaux | 1884 |
|103|Chateau Yquan, |Bordeaux | 1884 |
|104|Italy, |Clyde | 1870 |
|105|Anchoria, |Barrow | 1875 |
|106|Sydney, |La Ciotat| 1882 |
|107|Tongariro, |Clyde | 1883 |
|108|Aorangi, |Clyde | 1883 |
|109|Ruapehu, |Clyde | 1883 |
|110|Ludgate Hill, |Clyde | 1881 |
|111|John Elder, |Clyde | 1870 |
|112|Isla de Mindanao, |Barrow | 1881 |
|113|Navarre, |Barrow | 1881 |
|114|Venetian, |Tyne | 1882 |
|115|Bearn, |Barrow | 1881 |
|116|Mexico, |Clyde | 1883 |
|118|Oaxaca, |Clyde | 1883 |
|119|Brittania, |Mersey | 1873 |
|120|Clyde, |Clyde | 1881 |
|121|Aconcagua, |Clyde | 1872 |
|122|Goorkha, |Clyde | 1882 |
|123|Thames, |Clyde | 1881 |
|124|Werneth Hall, |Clyde | 1882 |
|125|Virginian, |Tyne | 1881 |
|126|India, |Clyde | 1881 |
|127|Sorato, |Clyde | 1872 |
|128|Canada, |S.Nazaire| 1865 |
|129|Bolivia, |Clyde | 1873 |
|130|Merton Hall, |Dundee | 1881 |
|131|Lake Huron, |Clyde | 1881 |
|132|Cotopasi, |Clyde | 1873 |
|133|Kaiser-i-Hind, |Clyde | 1878 |
|134|Illimania, |Clyde | 1881 |
|135|Tower Hill, |Clyde | 1873 |
|136|Rewa, |Clyde | 1882 |
|137|Buenos Ayrean, |Clyde | 1880 |
|138|Ethiopia, |Clyde | 1873 |
+---+-------------------+---------+------+
APPENDIX.
CALCULATING INSTRUMENTS.
The instruments to which references are made in Chapter IV. as
having come into use in some of our leading mercantile shipyards by
which the calculations undertaken there are rendered greatly more
simple, and are more expeditiously made, seem not to be generally
known amongst shipbuilders, and as they undoubtedly save much
of the labour and time of calculation, without any sacrifice of
accuracy, illustrations of them are here given, together with brief
notes of their construction and use. For anything, however, like a
satisfactory account of the mathematical principles on which these
several instruments are based, readers must consult the authoritative
sources to which references will be made.
Assuming that the reader appreciates the advantages of shortened
calculation, due to the slide rule, or the use of logarithms, the
first instrument that may be noticed is one embodying an application
of the principle of the slide rule in a remarkably handy and compact
form. This is the calculating slide rule invented by Professor
Fuller, of Queen’s College, Belfast, equivalent to a straight slide
rule 83 feet 4 inches long, or a circular rule 13 feet 3 inches in
diameter. From the illustration given it may be seen that the rule
consists of a cylinder which can be moved up and down upon, and
turned round, an axis, which is held by a handle. Upon this cylinder
is wound spirally a single logarithmic scale. Fixed to the handle of
the instrument is an index. Two other indices, whose distance apart
is the axial length of the complete spiral, are fixed to an inner
cylinder, which slides in like a telescope tube, and thus enables the
operator to place these indices in any required position relative to
the outer cylinder containing the logarithmic scale. Two stops—one
on the fixed and the other on the outer or movable cylinder—are so
placed that when they are brought in contact the index points to the
commencement of the scale.
[Illustration: FIG. 24.
FULLER’S RULE.]
Regarding the manner of using the instrument a few general notes
may be given. As in the ordinary slide rule the operations of
multiplication and division are performed by the addition or
subtraction of the parts of the scale that represent in length the
logarithm of the numbers involved in the operations.
For example, suppose the following calculation is to be worked out
(6248 × 5936 × 4217)/(7963 × 4851) = 4049
To do this in the ordinary way would keep the smartest arithmetician
busy for a considerable time, whereas by means of the instrument
under notice the result is attained in little over one minute’s time.
The motions in the operation are as follows:—Hold the rule by the
handle in one hand and move the scale cylinder by the other until the
number 6248 is opposite the index attached to the handle portion.
Now, move the inner cylinder (by the top) until one or other of the
indices (according to the distance of the number from the bottom of
the instrument) on the index arm is opposite the number 7963. The
scale cylinder is again moved till the number 5936 is opposite one
of the indices just referred to, and the inner cylinder carrying the
index arm is then moved till one or other of the indices is opposite
4851. Finally, the scale cylinder is moved till the number 4217 is
opposite one of the indices on the arm; and the result of the whole
operation—4049—is found opposite the index first-mentioned, _i.e._,
that attached to the handle portion of the instrument.
It may be further explained that the sliding of the scale cylinder
until the new number is opposite the index point really involves two
operations: one sliding it till the end of the scale is opposite
the index point—which subtracts the logarithm of the divisor; and
the other sliding it till the next multiplier is opposite the index
point—which adds its logarithm to the previous result. Hence, when
the operations end with division the scale cylinder must be moved
till the end of the scale is opposite the index point.
The second scientific instrument to be noticed is the Polar
Planimeter, invented by M. J. Amsler-Laffon, Schaffhausen,
Switzerland, the object of which is to find the area of any figure by
simply tracing the outline with a pointer, the instrument—of which
the pointer is a part—doing all the rest; the results read off from
it having to undergo only a very simple and elementary calculation to
attain the desired result.
[Illustration: FIG. 25.
AMSLER’S POLAR PLANIMETER—(FIXED SCALE).]
Planimeters are made of several forms, the two kinds illustrated by
Figs. 25 and 26 being the most usual.[34] The planimeter shown by
Fig. 25 represents the instrument as made to one scale only, for
square inches of actual measurement. By its means the areas of, say,
cross sections of ship’s hull can be ascertained in an extremely
short time and with almost perfect accuracy, the readings taken
from the instrument having simply to be multiplied by a multiplier
consisting of the square of the number of units to the inch,
corresponding to the scale on which the sections are drawn, as 4 for
½-inch scale, 16 for ¼-inch, 64 for ⅛-inch, etc.
[Illustration: FIG. 26.
AMSLER’S PLANIMETER—(VARIOUS SCALES).]
The Planimeter shown by Fig. 26 is the instrument in a form adaptable
to various scales, but does not possess any very marked advantages
over the simpler form for the purposes of the naval architect or
marine engineer, so that notice of it must be brief. In this form
of the instrument the unit can be changed by altering the length of
the arm which carries the tracer to any of the scales for which the
instrument may be made available, and which are found divided upon
the variable arm. The scales which are usually provided for are as
follows:—
10 sq. in. = 10 square inches }
0·1 sq. f. = 0·1 square foot }
1 sq. dcm. = one square decimetre } Every total
0·5 sq. dcm. = 0·5 square decimetre } rotation of
2000 sq. m. } = 2000 square metres on a } the roller.
1 : 500 } scale 1 : 500 }
1000 sq. m. } = 1000 square metres }
1 : 500 } scale 1 : 500 }
Describing the simple planimeter more in detail, and referring to
Fig. 25, it may be said the outline of the figure to be dealt with is
travelled round by a pointer attached to a bar moving on a vertical
axis carried by another bar, which latter turns on a needle point
slightly pressed into the drawing surface. The bar with the pointer
is provided with a revolving drum having a graduated circumference
and a disc counting its revolutions. The drum is divided into 100
parts, reading into a vernier, which gives the reading of the drum’s
revolution to the 1/1000 part of its circumference. Upon the same
axis as the drum an endless screw is cut, working into a worm wheel
of ten teeth connected with the counting disc, which records the
revolutions of the drum.
To use the planimeter, place the instrument upon the paper so that
the tracing point, roller, and needle point, all touch the surface
at any convenient position. Press the needle point down gently, so
that it just enters the paper, and place the small weight supplied
with the instrument over it. Make a mark at any part of the outline
of the figure to be computed, and set the tracing point to it. Before
commencing read off the counting wheel and the index roller. Suppose
the counting wheel marks 2, the roller index 91, and the vernier 5,
then, the unit in this case being 10 sq. ins., write this down 29·15
(for the proportional or variable-scale planimeter this reading
would be 2·915.) Follow with the tracing point exactly the outline
of the figure to be measured in the direction of the movement of the
hands of a watch, until you arrive at the starting point; now read
the instrument. Suppose this reading to be 47·67, then by deducting
the first reading (29·15) the remainder (18·52) indicates that the
measured area contains 18·52 units—i.e., square inches—which is the
final result, so far as the instrument is concerned. To obtain the
actual area in feet, however, this result must be multiplied by the
number before explained corresponding to the scale on which the
figure that has been measured is drawn.[35] Assuming the scale to
have been ¼-inch per foot, then 18·52 inches multiplied by 16—the
appropriate multiplier for that scale—gives 296·32 square feet, the
exact area.
Several important points remain to be noticed in connection with
the use of the instrument. As a rule, the areas to be measured in
connection with ship designing are on a small scale, and the fixed or
needle point about which the instrument moves can always be placed
_outside_ the figure measured, in which case the process remains as
above stated. It should be mentioned, however, that by placing the
needle point _inside_ the figure, in such a position as to enable the
operator to follow its contour a larger figure can be measured at one
operation—the reading, however, being less than the true area by a
constant number which varies slightly with the construction of each
instrument, and which is found engraved on the small weight already
referred to (on the top of the bar in the proportional planimeter).
Adding this constant number to any reading taken by the instrument
placed as described, gives the true area.
The counting disc may go through more than one revolution forwards
or backwards. If the needle point be _outside_ the figure traversed
the counting disc can only move _forwards_ (as 9, 0, 1, 2, &c.): that
is, provided the figure has been traced in the manner directed—in
the direction of the hands of a watch. Then as many times as the
zero mark passes the index line add 10·000 to the _second_ reading.
If the needle point be _inside_ the figure, the disc can move either
forwards or backwards. If moving backwards, as 2, 1, 0, 9, &c., then
add 10·000 to the _first_ reading.
Before passing from the subject of the planimeter it may be both
interesting and useful to give an example of a calculation involving
its use. Subjoined is a specimen displacement and longitudinal centre
of buoyancy calculation, and any one familiar with the prodigious
array of columns and figures pertaining to a “displacement sheet”
of the ordinary kind cannot fail to appreciate the advantages of
the specimen, both with respect to simplicity of arrangement and
curtailment of the amount of calculation ordinarily involved:—
EXAMPLE OF SHIP DISPLACEMENT, WORKED OUT BY PLANIMETER.
+--------+----------------------+------+---------+-------+---------+
| No. of |Area of Half Sections.| | |Multi- | |
|Sections+----------------------+ Simpson’s |pliers | Moments |
| for |Successive |Difference| Multipliers. | for | for |
| Disp- |Readings of| between | | |Centre | Centre |
| lace- |Planimeter.| Readings | Functions.| of | of |
| ment. | | = Area in| | | Buoy- |Buoyancy.|
| | | sq. ins.| | | ancy. | |
+--------+-----------+----------+------+---------+-------+---------+
| | 52·73 | | | | | |
| 1 | 52·73 | 0·0 | 1 | 0·0 | 0 | 0·00 |
| 2 | 54·55 | 1·82 | 4 | 7·28 | 1 | 7·28 |
| 3 | 58·98 | 4·43 | 2 | 8·86 | 2 | 17·72 |
| 4 | 64·61 | 5·63 | 4 | 22·25 | 3 | 67·56 |
| 5 | 70·73 | 6·12 | 2 | 12·24 | 4 | 48·96 |
| 6 | 77·05 | 6·32 | 4 | 25·28 | 5 | 126·40 |
| 7 | 83·37 | 6·32 | 2 | 12·64 | 6 | 75·84 |
| 8 | 89·64 | 6·27 | 4 | 25·08 | 7 | 175·56 |
| 9 | 95·75 | 6·11 | 2 | 12·22 | 8 | 97·76 |
| 10 | 01·45 | 5·7 | 4 | 22·8 | 9 | 205·20 |
| 11 | 06·09 | 4·64 | 2 | 9·28 | 10 | 92·80 |
| 12 | 08·57 | 2·48 | 4 | 9·92 | 11 | 109·12 |
| 13 | 08·57 | 0·0 | 1 | 0·0 | 12 | 0·00 |
+--------+-----------+----------+------+---------+-------+---------+
| (mult. for) } |
| (Com. int.) (¼th scale) (both sides) } 168·12 168·12) 1024·20 |
| 28·6 × 16 × 2 } = 8·716 ) ------- |
| ------------------------------------ } ------ 6·09*|
| (Simpson’s Mult.) (cub. ft. to ton.) } 100872 |
| 3 × 35 16812 |
| 117684 |
| *6·09 × 28·6 (Com. Int.) 134496 |
| = 174·2 Centre of Buoy. --------- |
| forward of No. 1 Ordinate. 1465·33392 tons m’l’d dis’p’t.|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
The integrator, another and still more ingenious instrument, by
M. J. Amsler-Laffon, was invented theoretically shortly after
the planimeter just described (in the year 1855), but was first
constructed for practical use in the year 1867, the first instrument
made being exhibited in the Paris International Exhibition in
the year named. It was not introduced into England till the year
1878, and although adapted for other uses than those involved in
scientific calculations connected with shipbuilding it was in this
connection that attention was first seriously directed towards it.
In 1880 the late Mr C. W. Merrifield described the instrument, and
traced the mathematical principles upon which it is based, before
the Institution of Naval Architects, and in 1882, before the same
body, Mr J. H. Biles, naval architect for the firm of Messrs J. &
G. Thomson, called attention to the usefulness of the instrument in
stability investigations, showing by specimen calculations and other
particulars its great adaptability to this class of work, even in the
hands of youthful and untrained operators. A still more recent and
exhaustive paper devoted to the claims of the integrator upon naval
architects was read before the same Institution by Dr A. Amsler, the
son of the inventor, at its last meeting. This paper was chiefly
concerned with demonstrating the advantages of the integrator in
respect of time saved, as well as in respect of its great accuracy.
[Illustration: FIG. 27.
AMSLER’S MECHANICAL INTEGRATOR.]
The object of the integrator is to find at one operation the area,
the statical moment, and the moment of inertia of any closed curve
or figure by simply tracing out the curve with a pointer, the
results being read off directly from the instrument, as in the
case of the planimeter, and with a correspondingly small amount
of after calculation. As shown by Fig. 25, the essential parts of
the integrator are a rail =L=, having groove with which to guide
the wheels _p_ and _q_ of a carriage provided with rollers =D_{1}=
=D_{2}= =D_{3}= moving on the surface of the drawing. The contour
of the figure to be dealt with is traced—in the direction of the
movement of the hands of a watch—by the pointer =F=, this pointer
being attached to an arm moving on the vertical centre of the
instrument while the whole mechanism runs to and fro on the rail =L=.
Under these conditions the rollers =D_{1}= =D_{2}= =D_{3}= execute
movements partly rolling, partly sliding, and by readings taken from
the divisions engraved upon their circumferences at the beginning
and the end of the whole movement, together with simple arithmetical
processes, the nature of which may be inferred from the explanations
given of the planimeter readings, the three quantities sought are
arrived at.
In a valuable appendix to the paper read by Dr Amsler, before the
Institution of Naval Architects, specimen sheets are given of several
calculations, of a vessel of about 4000 tons, the forms in which the
figures are entered being so arranged as to avoid all unnecessary
trouble in measuring and calculating, and to contain at the same
time a check on the results. The accuracy and the speed of working
depend, of course, to a considerable extent on the person using the
integrator, but as showing what can be obtained with the instrument
after some practice, the specimens given in the paper referred to are
certainly remarkable. For the calculations of the data necessary for
the construction of the curves of displacement and vertical position
of centre of buoyancy, the complete integrator and arithmetical
work took only two hours; for the data requisite for the curve of
displacement per inch immersion, and transverse metacentre one hour
was taken; and for the complete calculation, affording data to
construct a stability curve, the time taken was only eight hours.
A similar calculation done in the ordinary arithmetical method,
and giving results far less reliable, would have taken as many
days. All the work, it should be added, was done without the aid
of an assistant. Amongst other calculations besides displacement
and stability in connection with which the integrator is greatly
advantageous, are those concerned with the strength of vessels and
with the longitudinal strains to which they are subject at sea
through unequal distributions of weight and buoyancy, already fully
referred to in the chapter on scientific progress.
BENNETT & THOMSON, PRINTERS.
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
JOHN BURNS.
JOHN BURNS, F.R.A.S., F.R.G.S.
CHAIRMAN OF THE CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
Born at Glasgow and educated at the University in that city. At an
early age became a partner in the firm of G. & J. Burns, which was
founded in 1824 by George Burns (his father) and James (his uncle),
also in the Cunard Steamship Company, of which gigantic concern, as
is well known, his father, with Samuel Cunard and David M‘Iver, were
the founders in 1839. From the first Mr BURNS earnestly addressed
himself to the responsibilities of his important position, and
finding able coadjutors in his other partners in the Cunard Company,
has carried on the concerns of that great Steamship Line so as to
enhance its reputation and maintain first place in the Atlantic Mail
Service. In 1880, forty years after its formation, the Company was
transformed into a public corporation, with Mr BURNS as chairman. The
fleet now consists of 37 steamers, representing over 110,000 tons,
or a money equivalent of nearly £3,000,000, and giving employment
to an enormous number of persons. While everything is done on board
to ensure speed and comfort, the main consideration, to which all
others are made subservient, is _safety_. First-class vessels,
unstinted equipment, carefully-selected officers and men, combined
with close personal supervision, are the means used to attain this
end, and that it is attained marvellously is matter of world-wide
fame. Apart from his able management of the Cunard fleet, Mr BURNS
has not allowed the affairs of his Home Services between this
country and Ireland and elsewhere, to suffer in any particular, but
in his hands these concerns have flourished and the trade greatly
increased. The services are conducted by a splendid fleet of mail
steamers, now belonging exclusively to Mr BURNS, quite irrespective
of the Cunard fleet, and which, for speed, safety, and unfailing
regularity of departure and arrival, are probably unsurpassed. As
representing the Cunard Company, and also as a private shipowner,
Mr BURNS has taken frequent and conspicuous part in the discussion
of those great matters which concern the maritime interests of
this country. Has often been called upon to give evidence before
Select Committees of the House of Commons on shipping affairs. Was
amongst the first to recommend to Government the desirability of
fitting merchant steamships so as to be available in times of war.
Is Deputy-Lieutenant of Lanarkshire, and Magistrate for the counties
of Lanark and Renfrew. Evinces unbounded interest in the commercial
and social well-being of his native city, numerous benevolent
institutions in great measure owing their existence to his hearty
munificence. His residence of Castle Wemyss, on the Clyde, is
frequently the abode of the famous of this and other countries.
[Illustration: John Burns (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
NATHANIEL DUNLOP.
NATHANIEL DUNLOP.
MEMBER OF THE GLASGOW PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY; MEMBER OF THE CLYDE
NAVIGATION TRUST; AND TRUSTEE OF ANDERSON’S UNIVERSITY, GLASGOW.
Born at Campbeltown, Argyleshire, in 1830, and educated at the
Grammar School of that town. In 1845 removed to Glasgow, and in
1847 entered the counting-house of Mr George Gillespie, where he
was chiefly employed in connection with the Allan Line service
of clipper ships between Glasgow and Canada, for which trade Mr
Gillespie was then agent. In 1853 transferred his services to the
Allan Line firm, where, for several years, was principal clerk and
cashier, subsequently becoming partner. During the year 1853 the
Messrs Allan resolved to add a fleet of steamers to their already
well-known line of clipper ships, and contracted for the building of
four screw vessels, the first of which—the _Canadian_—was launched in
July, 1854. The growth of the business may be inferred from the fact
that the Allan fleet at the present time consists of twenty-eight
steamers, of 87,078 tons, and fifteen sailing vessels, of 21,225
tons. Mr DUNLOP, since joining the firm, has taken an active part,
along with Mr Alexander Allan, its senior member, in the building
arrangements of the Allan Line. When mild steel was beginning to
take the place of iron in the construction of steamers, and before
any of the Atlantic companies had ventured on its use, Mr DUNLOP and
his partners evinced ready confidence in the new material, their
adoption of it being elsewhere referred to in this work. From an
early period Mr DUNLOP has taken an active interest in shipping
legislation. In 1874 gave evidence before the Select Committee of
the House of Commons upon the Measurement of Tonnage Bill, and again
in 1882 before the Royal Commission on the same subject. During the
Plimsoll agitation, and the consideration of the proposed legislation
resulting from it, was a witness before the Select Committee of the
House. In 1879 was deputed by the Shipowners Association of Glasgow
to give evidence before the Select Committee upon the Merchant Seamen
Bill then before the House. In connection with Mr Chamberlain’s
recent efforts at legislation on Merchant Shipping, issued a pamphlet
which very fully discussed the questions raised, and exhibited an
analysis of the losses of life in merchant shipping. Gave evidence
during the present year before the Load Line Committee, on which
body Mr DUNLOP had been invited to serve; business duties, however,
preventing him accepting.
[Illustration: Yours faithfully Nath^l Dunlop (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
THOMAS HENDERSON.
THOMAS HENDERSON,
CHAIRMAN OF THE GLASGOW SHIPOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION; OF THE LOCAL MARINE
BOARD OF THE PORT OF GLASGOW AND OF THE CLYDE LIGHTHOUSE TRUST;
DIRECTOR OF THE GLASGOW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND OF THE CHAMBER OF
SHIPPING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
Mr Thomas Henderson, senior member of the firm of Henderson Bros.,
managing owners of the Anchor Line of Steamships, is a native of
Fifeshire, but was educated in Glasgow. He entered, at an early
age, the mercantile marine service as an apprentice, and rapidly
rose through the different grades of the profession to the command
of various sailing ships and steamers belonging to the port of
Glasgow. In 1853 he was admitted a partner in the shipping firm
of Handyside, & Co., which, five years afterwards, was changed to
Handyside & Henderson. Some years later, on the retirement of the
Messrs Handyside and the assumption of Mr John Henderson and other
partners into the business, the firm became Henderson Brothers, under
which designation the greater part of the steam shipping business
now carried on by the Anchor Line steamships has been developed
and extended. The fleet as now constituted consists of forty-five
steamships of an aggregate measurement of over 124,000 tons, with
an engine power of above 25,000 horses nominal. These vessels are
employed severally in the Transatlantic, Indian, and Mediterranean
services, in all of which they are well known and appreciated by
the public as in all respects first-class, and second to no other
competing line for safety, speed, comfort to passengers, and careful
delivery of goods carried. One branch of the extensive services of
the Anchor steamships, specially noteworthy as forming one of the
modern “express” lines which have given such impetus to ocean travel,
is the express service between Liverpool and New York, in which the
magnificent steamships _City of Rome_ and _Austral_ are engaged. In
connection with their head office in Glasgow, Messrs Henderson Bros.
have established branch offices of their own in London, Liverpool,
Manchester, Barrow-in-Furness, Queenstown, Londonderry, Dundee,
New York, Boston, Chicago, Paris, Marseilles, and Palermo, at all
of which the agency business of the several lines of steamers is
attended to by their own employees. In addition to his responsible
share in the concerns of the Anchor Line, Mr HENDERSON is a partner
in the extensive shipbuilding and engineering works of D. & W.
Henderson & Co., at Meadowside, Partick, and Finnieston Quay,
Glasgow. The estimation in which Mr HENDERSON is held as a shipping
and commercial authority may be inferred from the enumeration of
important offices at the head of this note; most of which he has
worthily occupied for many years.
[Illustration: Very truly yours Thomas Henderson (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
WILLIAM PEARCE.
WILLIAM PEARCE,
MEMBER OF COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS; MEMBER OF
THE IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, AND OF THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AND
SHIPBUILDERS IN SCOTLAND.
Born at Brompton, in Kent, in the year 1835. Learned practical
shipbuilding in Her Majesty’s Dockyard at Chatham, and was at
the same time engaged in the office of the master shipwright
there, the late celebrated Mr Oliver Lang. When the Government in
1861 determined upon the construction of iron ships in the Royal
Dockyards, was the first officer selected to carry on that work,
and superintended the building of H.M. _Achilles_ in the dockyard
at Chatham. In 1863 left the Government service to become a
Surveyor to Lloyd’s Registry in the Clyde district, and in 1864 was
appointed General Manager in Messrs R. Napier & Sons’ shipbuilding
establishment, where, in 1865, his ability as a naval architect
was first brought into prominence through the designing of the
_Pereire_ and _Ville De Paris_, built for the Compagnie General
Transatlantique, which vessels maintained for several years a
foremost place amongst the fast ships on the Atlantic. After the
death of Mr John Elder, in 1869, joined by request the late Messrs
John Ure and J. L. K. Jamieson in carrying on and extending the
gigantic shipbuilding and engineering business at Fairfield, under
the title of John Elder & Co. In 1878 Mr Ure and Mr Jamieson retired
from the firm, and Mr PEARCE became sole partner, which position he
has occupied up to the present time. Has constructed many steamships
that are amongst the most celebrated in existence, of which it may
suffice simply to name the _Arizona_, _Alaska_, and _Oregon_; the
_Orient_, _Austral_, and _Stirling Castle_; also the _Umbria_ and
_Etruria_, just being completed for the Cunard Steamship Company.
Another vessel built by Mr PEARCE, the construction of which excited,
perhaps, a greater amount of interest than any of the above named,
was the yacht _Livadia_, for the late Emperor of Russia. The design,
which was a fantastic one, was by Admiral Popoff. Mr PEARCE’S
enterprize has not been confined to shipbuilding and engineering,
having projected or become largely interested in several lines of
steamers, amongst which are, the Pacific Mail Steamship Co.; the
New Zealand Shipping Company; the Guion Line; and the China Line of
the Scottish Oriental Steamship Company. In 1880 Mr PEARCE gave the
opening lecture in the course delivered in connection with the Marine
Exhibition held in the Corporation Buildings, Glasgow. In 1881 was
appointed a member of the Royal Commission on Tonnage, and in October
of the present year was appointed a member of the Royal Commission on
Merchant Shipping.
[Illustration: Yours faithfully W. Pearce (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
JAMES ANDERSON.
JAMES ANDERSON, F.R.G.S.
CHAIRMAN OF THE ORIENT STEAM NAVIGATION COY., LIMITED; CHAIRMAN OF
THE LONDON BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SCOTTISH PROVINCIAL INSURANCE
COY.; DIRECTOR OF THE HOME AND COLONIAL INSURANCE COY., DIRECTOR OF
THE BANK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ETC.
Born at Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, on 17th May, 1811, his family then
being—and having been since 1780—extensively engaged in shipowning
and shipbuilding there. Removed to London in 1831, and entered the
counting-house of Mr James Thomson, a considerable shipowner, whose
vessels were principally engaged in the West Indian trade. Assumed
partnership with Mr Thomson in 1847, carrying on business as James
Thomson & Co., a connection which, unfortunately, was soon thereafter
broken, in the removal by death of Mr Thomson. In 1849 the business
was extended to the Australian trade, by the commencement of a
line of sailing vessels to Adelaide, which soon became well-known
and favourite traders. Some time after Mr Thomson’s death, the
name of the firm was changed to Anderson, Thomson & Co., and in
1869 it underwent a second change to Anderson, Anderson & Co., its
present designation. In 1876 the feasibility of running a direct
line of steamships to Australia occurred to Mr ANDERSON and his
partners, and was practically tested at their sole risk in that year.
Notwithstanding the predictions that severe loss would result, the
experiments encouraged Messrs Anderson, Anderson & Co. to promote
the formation of a company to work such a service. Early in 1877,
Messrs F. Green & Co. joined Messrs Anderson, Anderson & Co. in the
enterprize, and on the 7th March, 1878, the steamer _Garonne_ left
England for Australia, flying the flag of the ORIENT STEAM NAVIGATION
CO., LIMITED, the designation “Orient” having been adopted through
the high reputation of the clipper ship of that name belonging
to Messrs Anderson, Anderson & Co. Anticipations were at first
confined to the hope that sufficient trade might be found to justify
monthly sailings, but almost at once it was seen that a fortnightly
service was requisite. At the outset four steamers—the _Chimborazo_,
_Lusitania_, _Cuzco_, and _Garonne_—were purchased by the Company,
and one—the _Orient_—built. In January, 1880, the Pacific Steam
Navigation Company entered, as it were, into partnership, by
supplying, in ready and admirable working order, the additional
vessels required. The further additions to the fleet, and the nature
of the service done, are referred to elsewhere in this work.
[Illustration: James Anderson (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
ALEXANDER C. KIRK.
ALEXANDER C. KIRK, M.I.C.E.
MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS; OF THE INSTITUTION
OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, AND OF THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AND
SHIPBUILDERS IN SCOTLAND.
Born in the year 1830, at the Manse of Barry, Forfarshire, of which
parish his father was minister. Received his education at the Burgh
School of Arbroath, and subsequently at the University of Edinburgh.
After serving the customary term of apprenticeship, as an engineer,
with Mr Robert Napier of the Vulcan Foundry, Glasgow, was for several
years in the drawing office of Messrs Maudsley Sons & Field, London.
Removed from London to Bathgate as manager of Young’s Parafin Oil
Works, first at Bathgate and then at West Calder, during which period
he introduced many improvements in the apparatus employed, notably in
shale breaking and cooling machinery. About 1870 became manager of
the Engineering Department in the works of Messrs John Elder & Co.,
Glasgow, a post which he held till 1877, when, along with his present
partners, he purchased the celebrated Shipbuilding & Engineering
Works, Govan, established and so long carried on by the Napier
family, and still conducted under the old designation of Robert
Napier & Sons. While with Messrs Elder & Co., Mr KIRK introduced the
principle of triple expansion in marine engines, a departure which
has since been followed with notable success in several of the larger
vessels turned out by Messrs R. Napier & Sons, fuller reference to
which is made in the body of this work.
[Illustration: Alexander C. Kirk (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
BENJAMIN MARTELL.
BENJAMIN MARTELL.
CHIEF SURVEYOR, LLOYDS’ REGISTER OF BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHIPPING;
MEMBER OF THE IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, AND MEMBER OF COUNCIL OF THE
INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS.
Mr Martell served the term of apprenticeship and was educated as
a Naval Architect in the Royal Dockyard, Portsmouth, during a
portion of which time he was engaged under Mr John Fincham, Master
Shipwright, in preparing designs of war ships for the Royal Navy.
Subsequently he became manager for a private shipbuilding firm, and
in 1856 was appointed a surveyor to Lloyds’ Register of British and
Foreign Shipping, for which important Society he has been Chief
Surveyor during the last twelve years. Is a Member of Council of the
Institution of Naval Architects, and takes an active part in the
annual proceedings of that Institution, being the author of several
papers on important professional subjects read before its members.
Is the author of Rules and Tables for determining the Freeboard
of Merchant Steamers and Sailing Vessels, which, issued under the
authority of Lloyds’ Register, have met with pretty wide acceptance
amongst shipowners. Was deputed by the Committee of Lloyds’ Register
to represent them on the Government Departmental Committee appointed
to enquire into the Load Line of Vessels.
[Illustration: B. Martell (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
WILLIAM H. WHITE.
WILLIAM HENRY WHITE.
FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SCHOOL OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE; MEMBER OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS; MEMBER OF THE
INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS; AND OF THE ROYAL UNITED SERVICE
INSTITUTION; LATE CHIEF CONSTRUCTOR OF THE ROYAL NAVY.
Born at Devonport in 1845. Entered the Royal Dockyard, Devonport,
in 1859. Appointed to an Admiralty Scholarship in the Mathematical
School there in 1863, and received a preliminary training in
shipbuilding, ship-drawing, and applied mathematics. In 1864
appointed an Admiralty student in the Royal School of Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering, South Kensington, standing
first in the competitive entrance examination, and maintaining
the first place throughout the course of training. Received his
diploma of Fellowship (first class) of the Royal School of Naval
Architecture in 1867, and was at once appointed to the Constructive
Department of the Admiralty. From 1867 to 1883 continued in the
Royal Navy Service, and attached to the Admiralty Department, rising
to be Secretary to the Council of Construction in 1873, Assistant
Constructor in 1875, and Chief Constructor in 1881. Was appointed
Professor of Naval Architecture at the Royal School of Naval
Architecture in 1870, and continued to hold that position at South
Kensington, and at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, until 1881,
concurrently with his appointment at the Admiralty. Resigned his
position in the public service in March, 1883, in order to assume
the office of Naval Constructor to the firm of Sir W. G. Armstrong,
Mitchell & Co. (Limited), Newcastle-on-Tyne. Is the author of “A
Manual of Naval Architecture,” well known and highly valued by all
classes in the profession, and of numerous papers on professional
subjects separately published, or read before the Institution of
Naval Architects, the Royal United Service Institution, and kindred
Societies.
[Illustration: Yours truly W. H. White (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
JOHN INGLIS, Jun.
JOHN INGLIS, JUN.,
MEMBER OF COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS; MEMBER OF
THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AND SHIPBUILDERS IN SCOTLAND, ETC.
Born in Glasgow in 1842, where his father, Mr Anthony Inglis, and
Mr John Inglis, his uncle, were marine engineers, subsequently also
becoming iron shipbuilders. Under the designation of A. & J. Inglis
the combined businesses—the engineering works at Warroch Street, and
the shipyard at Pointhouse—have been conducted with marked success.
Having for some years attended the Glasgow Academy, Mr INGLIS,
at the age of fifteen, entered the University, where for several
sessions he studied under such teachers as the late Professors
Ramsay, Blackburn, and Rankine, and also under Sir William Thomson.
Of Professor Blackburn’s mathematical and Professor Rankine’s
engineering classes Mr INGLIS was a distinguished student; in the
former—although the youngest on the roll—carrying off several prizes,
and in the latter acquiring a sound knowledge of applied mathematics
as concerned with engineering and naval architecture. This experience
was afterwards supplemented by a term’s apprenticeship in the
practical work of the engine shop. The art of naval construction,
however, had always irresistible attraction for Mr INGLIS, and in
1867 he seriously applied himself to the concerns of the shipyard,
taking an active share in its management ever since. Mr INGLIS’
career, though uneventful, has been one of assiduous devotion to
the profession of Naval Architecture, especially as directed to
scientific investigation and analysis. The fruits of this are
reflected in many noteworthy and specialized steam vessels produced
by his firm. Was the first shipbuilder on the Clyde to follow the
practice of inclining vessels to ascertain their stability, and was
one of the earliest on the Clyde to apply the correct method of
estimating longitudinal strains to the hulls of steamers. His firm
have been noted for the careful and elaborate trials of steamers on
the measured mile, and the digesting of such data. Is the author of
several papers read before the societies with which he is connected,
one of which fully described the system of speed trial and analysis
above referred to. The designing and sailing of yachts are favourite
pursuits of Mr INGLIS; and the system of yacht ballasting by means
of a lead keel forming portion of the hull structure was first
instituted by him in one of the many yachts built for his own use.
Under the title of “A Yachtsman’s Holidays,” he published, some years
ago, a volume giving a racy account of yachting experiences in the
West Hebrides. He wields a forcible pen, and it is not unfrequently
employed anonymously in the interests of shipbuilding and naval
science.
[Illustration: Yours faithfully John Inglis Junr (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
SIR EDWARD J. REED.
SIR EDWARD J. REED, K.C.B., F.R.S., M.P.
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS; MEMBER OF
COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND MEMBER OF THE
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS.
Born at Sheerness, September 20th, 1830. Educated at the School of
Mathematics and Naval Construction, Portsmouth, and served in the
Royal Dockyard, Sheerness. Leaving the Government service, he became
the editor of the “Mechanics’ Magazine,” in which position he first
became known as an authority on Naval Architecture. Was one of the
originators of the Institution of Naval Architects in 1860, and for a
number of years acted as Secretary to that body. Submitted proposals
to the Admiralty concerning the construction of iron-clad ships,
which were adopted in practice, and were so highly approved by the
Board of Admiralty that their author was appointed Chief Constructor
of the Royal Navy in 1863. During the time he held that office,
designed iron-clad ships and vessels of war of every class for the
British Navy, and also—with the consent of the Government—some
iron-clad frigates for the Turkish Navy. In consequence of his
objections to rigged sea-going turret ships with low freeboard, of
the “Captain” class, and of the favour that type of ship found with
the Board of Admiralty, resigned his office in July, 1870—a step
rendered remarkably significant by the lamentable capsizing of the
“Captain” two months later. Since his resignation, has designed
iron-clad vessels and other classes of war ships for various Foreign
Powers; numerous steam yachts, and smaller vessels. Has recently
devised and patented a method of construction for war ships which
will reduce to a minimum the destructive effect of marine torpedoes,
and which promises to revolutionise present structural systems.
Is the author of “Shipbuilding in Iron and Steel,” “Our Iron-clad
Ships,” “Our Naval Coast Defences,” “Japan: Its History, Traditions,
and Religions,” as well as of several papers contributed to the
Institutions with which he is connected. Since his retirement from
the Admiralty has received numerous recognitions of his professional
skill and ability, including various decorations from Foreign Powers.
Was created a Knight Commander of the Bath, in 1880. In 1874 was
returned to Parliament in the Liberal interest as Member for the
Pembroke Boroughs, which he represented till 1880, when he was
elected for the important constituency of Cardiff. During the summer
of 1883 was deputed by the Government to investigate and report
upon the “Daphne” catastrophe on the Clyde, the results of which
are elsewhere referred to in this work. In February of the present
year was entrusted with the Presidency of the Committee appointed to
enquire into the subject of the Load Line of vessels.
[Illustration: Yours truly E. J. Reed (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
PROF. FRANCIS ELGAR.
PROF. FRANCIS ELGAR,
FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SCHOOL OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND MARINE
ENGINEERING; MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTION OF NAVAL
ARCHITECTS; MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS; AND
PROFESSOR OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
Born at Portsmouth in 1845. Received a preliminary training in
practical shipbuilding, and in the drawing office, at the Royal
Dockyard, Portsmouth, and studied in the Mathematical School there.
Was appointed an admiralty student in the Royal School of Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering, South Kensington, in 1864. In
1867 was a draughtsman and assistant surveyor, in the Admiralty
Service, and in 1870 was foreman of the Royal Dockyard, Portsmouth.
Left the Admiralty Service at the end of 1871 to become the principal
assistant of Sir E. J. Reed, K.C.B., M.P., in the designing and
surveying of war-ships, building for various Governments. In 1874
was general manager of Earle’s Shipbuilding & Engineering Company at
Hull. From 1876 to 1879 practised as a naval architect in London;
and in 1879 went to Japan, by request of the Imperial Japanese
Government, to advise upon matters relating to their navy. In
1880 visited the principal arsenals and workshops of China, and
returned to this country in 1881. Since then has practised in London
as a Consulting Naval Architect and Engineer, and designed and
superintended the construction of numerous vessels. At the request
of the builders and owners respectively, investigated the causes
of the disasters which befell the “Daphne” and “Austral,” and gave
evidence respecting the same at the official inquiries, held in
1883. Immediately upon the “John Elder” Chair of Naval Architecture
being founded in Glasgow University, through the munificence of Mrs
Elder, the University Court unanimously elected Mr ELGAR as the first
Professor. In 1884 was nominated by the Council of the Institution of
Naval Architects as their representative upon the Board of Trade Load
Line Committee. Is the author of an illustrated work upon “The Ships
of the Royal Navy,” and of papers read before the Royal Society and
Institution of Naval Architects; and was formerly sub-editor of the
Quarterly Magazine “Naval Science.”
[Illustration: Francis Elgar (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
WILLIAM DENNY.
WILLIAM DENNY, F.R.S.E.,
MEMBER OF COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS, MEMBER OF
THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL
ENGINEERS, OF THE IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, AND OF THE INSTITUTION OF
ENGINEERS AND SHIPBUILDERS IN SCOTLAND.
Eldest son of Mr Peter Denny, head of the old-established firm of
William Denny & Bros., Leven Shipyard, Dumbarton. Mr DENNY was
born at Dumbarton in 1847, and was educated at the High School
of Edinburgh, under the late Mr John Carmichael, one of its most
distinguished teachers. In his seventeenth year, he left the
High School, and entered on a course of practical training as a
shipbuilder in Leven Shipyard, serving for stated terms in the
various departments. Since 1870 he has been a partner, and of late
the managing partner, in the shipbuilding firm, and he has also
shared in the partnership of the separate engineering business
of Messrs Denny & Company. In addition to discharging the many
arduous duties pertaining to his business position, Mr DENNY is
enabled to take a prominent part in the proceedings of several of
the professional societies with which he is connected. His whole
theoretical training has been acquired in business, his previous
education having been of a purely classical nature. In Mr DENNY
this experience has been eminently fruitful of results, evidence of
which may be seen in the part he has taken—both personally and as
representing his firm—in various important movements dealt with in
the present work. Early in the present year, on a Committee being
formed by the Board of Trade to enquire into the subject of the Load
Line of Vessels, Mr DENNY was appointed a member.
[Illustration: Wm. Denny (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
WILLIAM JOHN.
WILLIAM JOHN,
FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SCHOOL OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND MARINE
ENGINEERING; MEMBER OF COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTION OF NAVAL
ARCHITECTS; MEMBER OF THE IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE.
Born at Narberth, Pembrokeshire, in July, 1845. Was educated in the
Mathematical School at the Royal Dockyard, Pembroke, and received a
practical training in shipbuilding in that dockyard. Was appointed
an Admiralty student in the Royal School of Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering, South Kensington, in 1864, and passed out in
1867 with the diploma of Fellow of the First Class. In 1867 was
appointed a draughtsman in the department of the Controller of the
Navy at the Admiralty, and served in that capacity till 1872, when he
left the Admiralty service for that of Lloyd’s Register of British
and Foreign Shipping, in which Society he was shortly afterwards
appointed Assistant Chief Surveyor. In 1881 he left Lloyd’s Register
to become general manager to the Barrow Shipbuilding and Engineering
Co. (Limited), at Barrow-in-Furness, which position he now occupies.
While at the Admiralty, distinguished himself in original scientific
work in naval architecture—notably in 1868, by constructing the first
curve of stability which was ever produced; in 1870, by investigating
the stability of H.M.S. “Captain,” and pointing out, only a few
days before she was lost, the dangers to which she was liable; also
by his calculations relating to the strength of war-ships, and
constructing for them the first curves of hogging and sagging and
sheering strains. Since leaving the Admiralty, has enhanced his high
reputation for scientific skill through his investigations into the
stability and strength of mercantile ships, and the numerous valuable
papers upon these and other subjects, which he has read before the
Institution of Naval Architects, and other scientific bodies. Has
devoted himself largely and very successfully to the consideration
of the principal causes of loss of ships at sea—both of sailing
vessels and steamers; and has given most instructive evidence in
some of the principal cases which have been enquired into in recent
years. Several years ago, when sailing ships were being frequently
dismasted, made a very lengthy and complete investigation of the
circumstances in which these casualties happened, and of their
causes; and the same is embodied in an elaborate report upon the
subject to the Committee of Lloyd’s Register. Was selected by the
Committee appointed to enquire into the loss of H.M.S. Atalanta to
investigate the stability of that vessel as an independent check upon
the official Admiralty calculations, and his report and evidence
showed conclusively that she was capsizable, and probably did capsize
at sea.
[Illustration: Wm. John (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
CHARLES M. PALMER.
CHARLES MARK PALMER, M.P.,
CHAIRMAN OF THE PALMER SHIPBUILDING AND IRON COMPANY; MEMBER OF THE
IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, ETC.
Born at South Shields, on the Tyne, in 1822. Son of Mr George
Palmer, who was in early life engaged in Greenland whaling, and was
subsequently a merchant and shipowner at Newcastle-on-Tyne. Was
trained for a mercantile life, and having completed his education in
France, became, at an early age, partner with his father in the firm
of Palmer, Beckwith & Co., export merchants, timber merchants, and
sawmill owners: a firm since styled Palmer, Hall & Co., and of which
he is now the senior. In 1845 assumed partnership with Mr John Bowes,
the late Sir William Hutt, and the late Mr Nicholas Wood, in the
Marley Hill colliery and coke manufacture, and subsequently acquiring
the collieries of Lord Ravensworth & Partners, and of others, the
concern known as John Bowes, Esq. & Partners, has become, under Mr
Palmer’s sole management, one of the largest colliery concerns in the
north of England. In 1852, in partnership at first with his elder
brother George, commenced iron shipbuilding at Jarrow, in which year
they launched the _John Bowes_, notable as the first screw collier.
Through gradual extension the works at Jarrow have become the great
establishment described in the body of this work. Many vessels of war
have been built by Mr PALMER’S firm, and it was in the construction
of the iron-clad _Terror_, in their works, at the time of the Crimean
war, that rolled in place of forged armour plates were first used,
the superiority of the change—since universally recognised—being then
experimentally demonstrated at considerable cost by Mr PALMER’S firm.
Among other enterprises which owe their existence wholly or partially
to Mr PALMER may be mentioned the General Iron Screw Collier Company,
the Tyne Steam Shipping Company, several of the great lines of
Atlantic and Mediterranean steamers, the Bede Metal Company, the Tyne
Plate Glass Company, and Insurance Clubs for Steamers. In politics Mr
PALMER is a Liberal, and after unsuccessfully contesting his native
town in 1868 he was, in 1874, elected M.P. for the northern division
of Durham, a seat which he continues to hold. His country residence
is at Grinkle Park, in Cleveland, but Parliamentary and other duties
necessitate his being much in London, where he has a town house. The
interest he has taken in behalf of the English shipowners has lately
resulted in his appointment as one of the new English directors of
the Suez Canal.
[Illustration: Yours faithfully Chas. M. Palmer (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
PORTRAIT
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
JAMES LAING.
JAMES LAING,
EX-PRESIDENT OF THE CHAMBER OF SHIPPING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM;
MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS; OF THE IRON AND STEEL
INSTITUTE; AND MEMBER OF COMMITTEE OF LLOYD’S REGISTER.
MR LAING was born at Deptford House, Sunderland, on 11th January,
1823, and is the only son of Mr Philip Laing, who, as early as
1793, in partnership with his brother John, commenced the business
of shipbuilding which, nearly a century later, is still carried
on, under greatly transformed conditions, by his son. Mr LAING’S
earliest impressions and associations were connected with what was
afterwards to become his life’s vocation, his boyhood having been
spent in a home contiguous to his father’s yard. While a youth, he
served as an ordinary workman in the shipyard, and in 1843, his
father, on launching the “Cressy,” signalised the jubilee of a
singularly successful career by handing over to him the care and
titles of the business. Mr LAING continued to build wooden vessels
until 1853, in which year the “Amity,” his first iron ship, was
launched. In 1866 he entirely ceased building in wood, and since then
has built a very large number of iron vessels for various owners,
amongst others for such well-known companies as the Peninsular and
Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the Royal Mail Company, the Union
Steamship Company of Southampton, etc. In 1883, he built for the
last-mentioned company the Mail Steamer “Mexican,” of 4669 tons.
Besides the shipyard, he is the owner of graving docks connected
therewith, as well as extensive copper and brass works, and is
principal proprietor of the Ayres Quay Bottle Works, which are
capable of turning out 33,000 bottles per day. For upwards of thirty
years Mr LAING has served as a member of the River Wear Commission,
and as chairman since 1868. For years he has taken a leading position
among shipbuilders and shipowners, not only in his own district,
but throughout the country. In 1883 he was chosen President of
the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, and as official
representative of that interest has performed signal service, both
with reference to the Shipping Bill introduced to Parliament by Mr
Chamberlain and the recent agreement come to between the shipowners
and the Suez Canal Company, of which company he has since been
appointed a Director. For twenty years Mr LAING has acted as a member
of the Board of Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, and at present is
Vice-President of the Load Line Committee, appointed by the Board of
Trade for the settlement of a most important and intricate question.
In the shipbuilding and other cognate businesses Mr LAING is now ably
assisted by his three sons, Philip, Arthur, and James.
[Illustration: James Laing (signature)
INK-PHOTO, SPRAGUE & C^o. LONDON.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Since the above was written, the _Aurania_ and the _Oregon_ have
resumed their services on the Atlantic, the results in the case of
the latter vessel being extraordinarily successful. On Saturday,
the 5th April, she arrived at Queenstown, having left New York on
Saturday, the 29th March, making the trip in 7 days, 2 hours, 18
minutes, her daily runs being:—45, 407, 396, 400, 302, 410, 384, 412,
and 60; total, 2816 knots. Leaving Queenstown on Sunday, the 13th
April, she arrived at New York on Saturday, the 19th April, in the
unprecedentedly short period of 6 days, 9 hours, 22 minutes.
[2] While these sheets were passing through the press, the _America_
was tried unofficially on the Clyde, and attained a speed of 17
knots, with about 6,500 indicated horse-power. On her passage from
the Clyde to the Mersey she maintained, it is stated, 18¼ knots over
the whole distance.
[3] This list with those which follow other chapters, have been
compiled at considerable trouble in the hope that they may be of
use to technical readers in directing them at once to accurate and
detailed information. In this connection also, the excellent work by
Mr A. S. Seaton, “Manual of Marine Engineering,” and that by Mr W. H.
White, “Manual of Naval Architecture,” may be referred to with every
satisfaction.
[4] For full and excellent treatment of this subject, see the paper
on “Causes of Unseaworthiness in Merchant Steamers,” by Mr Benjamin
Martell, Chief Surveyor to Lloyd’s Register, with the ensuing
discussion: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xxi., 1880.
Several of the causes above named it is doubtless the province of the
scientific shipbuilder, and the duty of the shipowner, to obviate
by furnishing the captain and officers—especially in the case of
entirely new vessels—with particulars and data of the vessel’s
technical character, such as are now left to be found out by slow
and sometimes bitter experience. Of these it may be sufficient
to instance:—Stability, steadiness, trim, carrying capability,
and steaming powers. Mr William Denny, of Dumbarton, has recently
publicly declared his firm’s intention of supplying such particulars
to the vessels built by them. It is to be hoped this worthy example
may be extensively followed.
[5] In this, as in other matters dealt with, the full appreciation of
which involves careful technical study, readers are referred to the
papers enumerated at the end of chapter, as well as to the “Manuals”
already referred to in this work.
[6] The principle which underlies the experiment is this:—If any
one body forming part of a system of heavy bodies be moved from one
position in the system to another, the weight of the body moved
multiplied into the distance through which it is moved, is precisely
equal to the weight of the whole system of bodies multiplied into
the distance through which the common centre of gravity of the whole
has moved. If in a ship, therefore, a movable weight of known amount
is moved across the deck through a given known distance, the centre
of gravity of the ship itself, with all on board, has been moved
in a line parallel to that through which the small weight has been
transferred, and through a distance inversely proportioned to the
weight of the whole ship to the weight moved. If, for instance, a
weight of five tons should be moved through a distance of twenty
feet, then multiplying this weight into this distance and dividing by
the total weight of the ship, the distance through which the ship’s
centre of gravity has travelled parallel to the deck is obtained. If,
at the same time, an exact measure of the angle through which the
ship has been inclined by moving the five tons through the distance
named has been taken, and the position of the ship’s metacentre has
been obtained, then the elements of a triangle are known—namely, the
degrees in each of its angles, and the length of one of the sides—and
from these the length of the remaining sides of the triangle is
easily deduced. One of these sides will be the distance between the
metacentre of the ship and its centre of gravity, and, consequently,
the metacentre being known from calculation, the position of the
centre of gravity becomes known also.
[7] The classification of strains here given is as contained in
White’s “Manual of Naval Architecture.” To this authoritative source
readers must turn who wish a full exposition of the several problems
go shortly dealt with in these pages.
[8] This will be more fully referred to further on, but it may be
stated here that the need for independent calculation is largely
obviated, owing to the existence of “co-efficients,” deduced from
investigations made by experts. Further, the existence and influence
of the Registration Societies are such that the codes of scantling
and the structural supervision instituted by them together constitute
the only guarantee of structural strength generally desiderated.
[9] Suppose the dimensions of a proposed vessel to be 320 × 36 × 26½
feet, then, according to a method of approximation largely in use,
the sum of these dimensions divided by 100 gives what is known as the
“cubic number”—(320 × 36 × 26½ ÷ 100) = 3052 cubic number. Suppose
that for a vessel already built, similar in type and dimensions,
or of similar proportions, to the one proposed, the cubic number,
when divided into the ship’s actual weight (_i.e._, the displacement
_minus_ the weight of machinery and the dead-weight carried),
gives say ·53, then this figure represents the “co-efficient” of
ship’s weight, and applying it in the case supposed gives:—3052 ×
·53 = 1620, the weight of hull for proposed vessel. This example
illustrates the manner in which the weight of machinery is estimated,
and indicates the nature and use of the general term “co-efficient:”
frequently employed in this chapter.
[10] One such method, devised and followed by Mr C. Zimmermann in
his daily practice as chief draughtsman to the Barrow Shipbuilding
Company, and described by him before the Institution of Naval
Architects in 1883, gives with very little preliminary calculation,
and at once, a close approximation to the correct displacement.
Another system, originated and used in practice by Mr Chas. H.
Johnson, chief designer to Messrs Wm. Denny & Brothers, consists of
an analysis of the lines of vessels of various degrees of fineness
and fulness previously built, formulated for daily use in a series of
curves of areas, giving, for sections at certain fixed distances from
midships—in terms of percentage to the midship area—the particular
area specially suited to afford the required displacement; and at
the same time to maintain the general form of hull which in actual
practice has proved satisfactory with respect to speed. In his later
practice, Mr Johnson has found it preferable to use the block form of
analysis of Mr A. C. Kirk (considered further on in matters relating
to speed), using the three sides of that form as a basis upon which
to group the water-lines.
[11] For illustrated descriptions of this and other improved
calculating instruments referred to in this chapter, see Appendix.
[12] This experimental method, it may be explained, has long been
practised in connection with ships built for the Royal Navy, and for
a considerable number of years it has been systematically followed in
some leading merchant shipyards. Messrs A. & J. Inglis, Pointhouse,
Glasgow, and Messrs Wm. Denny & Bros., Dumbarton, were amongst the
earliest firms to systematically adopt the practice. With the former
it has been customary to incline every vessel of distinctive type
built by them since 1871, and with the latter the practice has been
constantly followed from a date somewhat subsequent. For some years
past other firms on the Clyde and elsewhere have adopted the method,
the data so accumulated being found an admirable basis from which to
estimate the height of the centre of gravity in proposed vessels.
Tables giving the results of inclining experiments made on various
types of merchant steamships and sailing vessels will be found in
“White’s Manual of Naval Architecture,” pages 82-87.
[13] From the first volume (1860) of the Transactions of the
Institution of Naval Architects, it is seen that Dr Inman, Samuel
Read, and Dr Woolley had each already found different methods of
simplifying Atwood’s calculations.
[14] Various other methods of simplifying the calculations based on
Atwood’s theorem were subsequently proposed, and one or two different
methods also brought forward—notably one in 1876 by the late Mr
Charles W. Merrifield, afterwards improved by the late Professor
Rankine, and one by Mr J. Macfarlane Gray, of the Board of Trade,
described by that gentleman in 1875, but since considerably improved.
Most of them were laid before the Institution of Naval Architects in
papers which will be found enumerated in the list at end of chapter.
While such propositions did not contribute directly to bring the
problem of stability to its presently accepted form, they deserve to
be remembered as tokens of the great labour and skill which have been
expended in founding and developing this branch of scientific naval
architecture.
[15] “On Cross-Curves of Stability; their Uses, and a Method of
Constructing Them, Obviating the Necessity for the Usual Correction
for the Differences of the Wedges of Immersion and Emersion.”
[16] A detailed description of this valuable instrument will be found
in Appendix.
[17] Space forbids any detailed reference to these, but the names of
the papers and their respective authors will be found enumerated in
the list at end of chapter.
[18] An obvious means of dealing approximately with stability, to
which limits of space will not permit more than simple reference,
consists in so manipulating the data obtained by calculation for
known ships that it may be made available, either in the form of
curves or of tables, for determining the stability of proposed
vessels. Methods of accomplishing this may of course vary to suit
the ideas and convenience of designers. A well-arranged system was
brought forward, jointly by Mr F. P. Purvis, head of Messrs W. Denny
& Brothers’ scientific staff, and Mr B. Kindermann, one of his
assistants, in a paper (see list at end of chapter) read before the
Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in April last. While the
results exhibited in the paper are immediately applicable to ships of
one particular form, whatever the length, breadth, depth, or draught
may be, this method still requires much development to make it at all
universally applicable.
[19] It is the usual practice to assume vessels to be laden with
homogeneous cargo of such a density as to fill the holds, and for
this condition to estimate the position of centre of gravity to be
used in calculation.
[20] See paper by Mr Kirk “On a Method of Analysing the Forms of
Ships and Determining the Lengths and Angles of Entrance.”—Trans.
Inst. N.A., vol. xii., 1880.
[21] With the view of effecting an economy in time, and to enable
the trials at progressive speeds to be carried out while vessels are
in a lengthened run out to sea, a method has been proposed by Mr J.
H. Biles, naval architect to Messrs J. & G. Thomson, and adopted on
board the vessels tried by that firm, and also experimented with on
some of the vessels turned out by Messrs W. Denny & Bros., by which
the necessity for running with and against the tide on the measured
mile is entirely obviated. The principle of the method is to measure
the time that a certain part of the length of the ship takes to pass
an object thrown from the bows of the vessel well clear of the side.
For full particulars, both of the apparatus employed and of the
results of actual trials by this method compared with trials made on
the measured mile, see paper on “Progressive Speed Trials,” by Mr
Biles, in the Transactions: Institution of Naval Architects, vol.
xxiii., 1882.
[22] A general outline of the operations conducted in Messrs Denny’s
tank will be found in the description of their large works in Chap.
VI. For a detailed account of the _modus operandi_ in the same
establishment, see abstract of a paper delivered in Dumbarton by Mr
E. R. Mumford, of Messrs Denny’s Experimental Staff, printed in the
_Engineer_ for 15th February and the _Steamship_ for 15th February of
the present year.
[23] From experimental data obtained by Mr Froude, this correction
can be made with certainty. The reasons for it may be explained as
follows:—If an extremely thin short plane is drawn through the water
it meets a certain resistance due entirely to surface-friction; that
is, supposing the plane to be thin enough to eliminate wave-making
and eddy-making. If the length of the plane is doubled while the
depth is kept the same, the resistance at the same speed is not, as
might at first appear to be the case, doubled accordingly. Owing to
the friction of (say) the first half of the plane, the water is made
to partake of the motion of the plane, so that the second half of
the length, rubbing not against stationary water, but against water
partially moving in its own direction, does not experience so much
resistance from it. Adding a third equal length, it would have less
surface friction than the second, and so on to infinity.
[24] See papers by Mr Mansel, enumerated in list at end of chapter.
[25] For description of apparatus, see Trans. Inst. Mechanical
Engineers, 1877.
[26] A body which shortly afterwards joined with a kindred society in
forming the “Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland,”
hereafter noticed.
[27] Following the methods laid down in the Treatise on Shipbuilding,
edited by Prof. Rankine, Mr John Inglis, Pointhouse, instituted
calculations in 1873 of the longitudinal strains of two steamers
built by his firm, the form of the waves being assumed trochoidal.
The result of these calculations—which, under Mr Inglis’ directions,
were got out by Mr G. L. Watson, subsequently distinguished as a
yacht designer, and then in the employ of Messrs Inglis—appeared in
the form of curves of hogging moments in _Engineering_ for 1st May,
1874. Mr Inglis found that entering upon the work of calculation had
a very decided effect in giving him clearer ideas of how distribution
of weight and buoyancy affected the structure of a vessel.
[28] The substance of this paper is contained in a series of three
articles on the Strength and Strains of Ships given in “Naval
Science” (vol. i. and ii., 1872-3), a high-class journal ably edited
by Sir E. J. Reed, but unfortunately abandoned after the fourth year
of publication.
[29] It should be stated that under certain circumstances of lading
and support the value assigned by Mr John for the maximum bending
moment may be exceeded in merchant vessels, and that in some special
classes of ships—particularly light-draught vessels in certain
circumstances of lading and support—the sagging moment may prove of
most consequence. Instances are indeed on record of light-draught
vessels giving way completely under the excessive sagging strain
brought upon them at sea.
[30] The Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland was
formed in 1865 through the amalgamation of two separate bodies—“The
Institution of Engineers in Scotland” and “The Scottish Shipbuilders’
Association.” The former of these was founded in 1857 and the
latter in 1860, the same year in which “The Institution of Naval
Architects” was established. The membership of the Institution at the
present time numbers nearly seven hundred, and comprises honorary
members, members, associates, and graduates: the latter being a
special section of the Institution, designed to embrace students or
apprentices in the profession, and fulfilling a very useful end.
The various offices have long been filled by gentlemen more or less
actively engaged in the practice of shipbuilding or of engineering
on the Clyde, and the proceedings have assumed, on this account
alone, a richer practical interest. Scientific subjects have also
received their share of attention, and of the members taking the
lead in this connection the names of Mr J. G. Lawrie and Mr Robert
Mansel are worthy of special mention. Along with Mr Robert Duncan
and Mr Lawrance Hill, these gentlemen have, from the foundation of
the Institution, taken a specially warm interest in its prosperity,
and have contributed not a little thereto by the numerous valuable
papers they have brought before its meetings. The secretary of the
Institution is Mr W. J. Millar, C.E., himself the author of numerous
papers, and the editor of the Transactions.
[31] For interesting and reliable information on this head, as well
as on other matters dealt with in this and the preceding chapter,
see Sir E. J. Reed’s excellent treatise on “Shipbuilding in Iron and
Steel.”
[32] This method of graphically representing tonnage output was
applied for the first time by the author to the Clyde district from
the figures supplied by the _Glasgow Herald_ for each of the years
since 1860, and appeared, with much of the descriptive matter now
given, in the issue of that journal for March 4th of the present year.
[33] The following fragmentary returns have, through the kindness
of a friend engaged in shipbuilding on the Tyne, been forwarded
while those sheets were in the press. They have been gathered from
occasional records in the local press, supplemented by personal
knowledge, but may only be taken as approximate:—
Year. | No. of Vessels. | Tons.
| |
1864 | 97 | 49,820
1865 | 123 | 77,500
1866 | 110 | 51,800
1867 | 81 | 34,080
1868 | 86 | 45,390
1869 | — | ——
1870 | 95 | 86,420
1871 | — | ——
[34] These instruments, and the others here noticed, are supplied in
this country by Mr W. F. Stanley, the noted scientific instrument
maker of Great Turnstile, Holborn, London. They are described in
his treatise on “Mathematical Drawing Instruments,” from which
work, it should be stated, some of the present notes concerning
them are derived. A source of accurate information on the theory of
planimeter, to which Mr Stanley himself expresses indebtedness, is
the paper by Mr —now Sir—F. J. Bramwell, read before the British
Association in 1872, and contained in the Association Reports for
that year.
[35] The following is a list of the multipliers for converting the
planimeter readings to square feet for any required scale:—
1/16-in. scale = 256
⅛-in. do. = 64
3/16-in. do. = 28·44
¼-in. do. = 16
5/16-in. scale = 10·24
⅜-in. do. = 7·11
½-in. do. = 4·00
¾-in. do. = 1·77
1-in. scale = 1·00
1½-in. do. = ·44
3-in. do. = ·111
BOOKS RELATING
TO
APPLIED SCIENCE
PUBLISHED BY
E. & F. N. SPON,
LONDON: 125, STRAND.
NEW YORK: 35, MURRAY STREET.
_A Pocket-Book for Chemists, Chemical Manufacturers, Metallurgists,
Dyers, Distillers, Brewers, Sugar Refiners, Photographers, Students,
etc., etc._ By THOMAS BAYLEY, Assoc. R.C. Sc. Ireland, Analytical and
Consulting Chemist and Assayer. Third edition, with additions, 437
pp., royal 32mo, roan, gilt edges, 5_s._
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS:
Atomic Weights and Factors—Useful Data—Chemical Calculations—Rules
for Indirect Analysis—Weights and Measures—Thermometers and
Barometers—Chemical Physics—Boiling Points, etc.—Solubility of
Substances—Methods of Obtaining Specific Gravity—Conversion
of Hydrometers—Strength of Solutions by Specific
Gravity—Analysis—Gas Analysis—Water Analysis—Qualitative Analysis
and Reactions—Volumetric Analysis—Manipulation—Mineralogy—
Assaying—Alcohol—Beer—Sugar—Miscellaneous Technological matter
relating to Potash, Soda, Sulphuric Acid, Chlorine, Tar Products,
Petroleum, Milk, Tallow, Photography, Prices, Wages, Appendix,
etc., etc.
_The Mechanician_: A Treatise on the Construction and Manipulation of
Tools, for the use and instruction of Young Engineers and Scientific
Amateurs, comprising the Arts of Blacksmithing and Forging; the
Construction and Manufacture of Hand Tools, and the various Methods
of Using and Grinding them; the Construction of Machine Tools, and
how to work them; Machine Fitting and Erection; description of
Hand and Machine Processes; Turning and Screw Cutting; principles
of Constructing and details of Making and Erecting Steam Engines,
and the various details of setting out work, etc., etc. By CAMERON
KNIGHT, Engineer. _Containing 1147 illustrations_, and 397 pages of
letter-press. Third edition, 4to, cloth, 18_s._
_On Designing Belt Gearing._ By E. J. COWLING WELCH, Mem. Inst. Mech.
Engineers, Author of ‘Designing Valve Gearing.’ Fcap. 8vo, sewed,
6_d._
_A Handbook of Formulæ, Tables, and Memoranda, for Architectural
Surveyors and others engaged in Building._ By J. T. HURST, C.E.
Thirteenth edition, royal 32mo, roan, 5_s._
“It is no disparagement to the many excellent publications we
refer to, to say that in our opinion this little pocket-book of
Hurst’s is the very best of them all, without any exception. It
would be useless to attempt a recapitulation of the contents, for
it appears to contain almost _everything_ that anyone connected
with building could require, and, best of all, made up in a compact
form for carrying in the pocket, measuring only 5 in. by 3 in.,
and about ¾ in. thick, in a limp cover. We congratulate the author
on the success of his laborious and practically compiled little
book, which has received unqualified and deserved praise from every
professional person to whom we have shown it.”—_The Dublin Builder._
_Tabulated Weights of Angle, Tee, Bulb, Round, Square, and Flat Iron
and Steel_, and other information for the use of Naval Architects and
Shipbuilders. By C. H. JORDAN, M.I.N.A. Fourth edition, 32mo, cloth,
2_s._ 6_d._
_Quantity Surveying._ By J. LEANING. With 42 illustrations, crown
8vo, cloth, 9_s._
CONTENTS:
A complete Explanation of the London Practice.
General Instructions.
Order of Taking Off.
Modes of Measurement of the various Trades.
Use and Waste.
Ventilation and Warming.
Credits, with various Examples of Treatment.
Abbreviations.
Squaring the Dimensions.
Abstracting, with Examples in illustration of each Trade.
Billing.
Examples of Preambles to each Trade.
Form for a Bill of Quantities.
Do. Bill of Credits.
Do. Bill for Alternative Estimate.
Restorations and Repairs, and Form of Bill.
Variations before Acceptance of Tender.
Errors in a Builder’s Estimate.
Schedule of Prices.
Form of Schedule of Prices.
Analysis of Schedule of Prices.
Adjustment of Accounts.
Form of a Bill of Variations.
Remarks on Specifications.
Prices and Valuation of Work, with Examples and Remarks upon each Trade.
The Law as it affects Quantity Surveyors, with Law Reports.
Taking Off after the Old Method.
Northern Practice.
The General Statement of the Methods recommended by the Manchester
Society of Architects for taking Quantities.
Examples of Collections.
Examples of “Taking Off” in each Trade.
Remarks on the Past and Present Methods of Estimating.
_A Practical Treatise on Heat, as applied to the Useful Arts_;
for the Use of Engineers, Architects, &c. By THOMAS BOX. _With 14
plates._ Third edition, crown 8vo, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_A Descriptive Treatise on Mathematical Drawing Instruments_:
their construction, uses, qualities, selection, preservation,
and suggestions for improvements, with hints upon Drawing and
Colouring. By W. F. STANLEY, M.R.I. Fifth edition, _with numerous
illustrations_, crown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._
_Spons’ Architects’ and Builders’ Pocket-Book of Prices and
Memoranda._ Edited by W. YOUNG, Architect. Royal 32mo, roan, 4_s._
6_d._; or cloth, red edges, 3_s._ 6_d._ _Published annually._
Eleventh edition. _Now ready._
_Long-Span Railway Bridges_, comprising Investigations of the
Comparative Theoretical and Practical Advantages of the various
adopted or proposed Type Systems of Construction, with numerous
Formulæ and Tables giving the weight of Iron or Steel required in
Bridges from 300 feet to the limiting Spans; to which are added
similar Investigations and Tables relating to Short-span Railway
Bridges. Second and revised edition. By B. BAKER, Assoc. Inst. C.E.
_Plates_, crown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._
_Elementary Theory and Calculation of Iron Bridges and Roofs._
By AUGUST RITTER, Ph.D., Professor at the Polytechnic School at
Aix-la-Chapelle. Translated from the third German edition, by H. R.
SANKEY, Capt. R.E. With 500 _illustrations_, 8vo, cloth, 15_s._
_The Builders Clerk_: a Guide to the Management of a Builder’s
Business. By THOMAS BALES. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 1_s._ 6_d._
_The Elementary Principles of Carpentry._ By THOMAS TREDGOLD. Revised
from the original edition, and partly re-written, by JOHN THOMAS
HURST. Contained in 517 pages of letter-press, and _illustrated with
48 plates and 150 wood engravings_. Third edition, crown 8vo, cloth,
18_s._
Section I. On the Equality and Distribution of Forces—Section II.
Resistance of Timber—Section III. Construction of Floors—Section
IV. Construction of Roofs—Section V. Construction of Domes and
Cupolas—Section VI. Construction of Partitions—Section VII.
Scaffolds, Staging, and Gantries—Section VIII. Construction
of Centres for Bridges—Section IX. Coffer-dams, Shoring, and
Strutting—Section X. Wooden Bridges and Viaducts—Section XI.
Joints, Straps, and other Fastenings—Section XII. Timber.
_Our Factories, Workshops, and Warehouses_: their Sanitary and
Fire-Resisting Arrangements. By B. H. THWAITE, Assoc. Mem. Inst. C.E.
_With 183 wood engravings_, crown 8vo, cloth, 9_s._
_Gold_: Its Occurrence and Extraction, embracing the Geographical
and Geological Distribution and the Mineralogical Characters of
Gold-bearing rocks; the peculiar features and modes of working
Shallow Placers, Rivers, and Deep Leads; Hydraulicing; the Reduction
and Separation of Auriferous Quartz; the treatment of complex
Auriferous ores containing other metals; a Bibliography of the
subject and a Glossary of Technical and Foreign Terms. By ALFRED G.
LOCK, F.R.G.S. _With numerous illustrations and maps_, 1250 pp.,
super-royal 8vo, cloth, 2_l._ 12_s._ 6_d._
_A Practical Treatise on Coal Mining._ By GEORGE G. ANDRÉ, F.G.S.,
Assoc. Inst. C.E., Member of the Society of Engineers. _With 82
lithographic plates._ 2 vols., royal 4to, cloth, 3_l._ 12_s._
_Iron Roofs_: Examples of Design, Description. _Illustrated with 64
Working Drawings of Executed Roofs._ By ARTHUR T. WALMISLEY, Assoc.
Mem. Inst. C.E. Imp. 4to, half-morocco, £2 12_s._ 6_d._
_A History of Electric Telegraphy_, to the Year 1837. Chiefly
compiled from Original Sources, and hitherto Unpublished Documents,
by J. J. FAHIE, Mem. Soc. of Tel. Engineers, and of the International
Society of Electricians, Paris. Crown 8vo, cloth, 9_s._
_Spons’ Information for Colonial Engineers._ Edited by J. T. HURST.
Demy 8vo, sewed.
No. 1, Ceylon. By ABRAHAM DEANE, C.E. 2_s._ 6_d._
CONTENTS:
Introductory Remarks—Natural Productions—Architecture and
Engineering—Topography, Trade, and Natural History—Principal
Stations—Weights and Measures, etc., etc.
No. 2. Southern Africa, including the Cape Colony, Natal, and
the Dutch Republics. By HENRY HALL, F.R.G.S., F.R.C.I. With Map.
3_s._ 6_d._
CONTENTS:
General Description of South Africa—Physical Geography with
reference to Engineering Operations—Notes on Labour and Material
in Cape Colony—Geological Notes on Rock Formation in South
Africa—Engineering Instruments for Use in South Africa—Principal
Public Works in Cape Colony: Railways, Mountain Roads and Passes,
Harbour Works, Bridges, Gas Works, Irrigation and Water Supply,
Lighthouses, Drainage and Sanitary Engineering, Public Buildings,
Mines—Table of Woods in South Africa—Animals used for Draught
Purposes—Statistical Notes—Table of Distances—Rates of Carriage,
etc.
No. 3. India. By F. C. DANVERS, Assoc. Inst. C.E. With Map. 4_s._
6_d._
CONTENTS:
Physical Geography of India—Building
Materials—Roads—Railways—Bridges—Irrigation—River
Works—Harbours—Lighthouse Buildings—Native Labour—The Principal
Trees of India—Money—Weights and Measures—Glossary of Indian
Terms, etc.
_A Practical Treatise on Casting and Founding_, including
descriptions of the modern machinery employed in the art. By N. E.
SPRETSON, Engineer. Third edition, with 82 _plates_ drawn to scale,
412 pp., demy 8vo, cloth, 18_s._
_Steam Heating for Buildings_; or, Hints to Steam Fitters, being a
description of Steam Heating Apparatus for Warming and Ventilating
Private Houses and Large Buildings, with remarks on Steam, Water,
and Air in their relation to Heating. By W. J. BALDWIN. _With many
illustrations._ Fourth edition, crown 8vo, cloth 10_s._ 6_d._
_The Depreciation of Factories and their Valuation._ By EWING
MATHESON, M. Inst. C.E. 8vo, cloth, 6_s._
_A Handbook of Electrical Testing._ By H. R. KEMPE, M.S.T.E. Third
edition, revised and enlarged, crown 8vo, cloth, 15_s._
_Gas Works_: their Arrangement, Construction, Plant, and Machinery.
By F. COLYER, M. Inst. C.E. _With 31 folding plates_, 8vo, cloth,
24_s._
_The Clerk of Works_: a Vade-Mecum for all engaged in the
Superintendence of Building Operations. By G. G. HOSKINS, F.R.I.B.A.
Third edition, fcap. 8vo, cloth, 1_s._ 6_d._
_American Foundry Practice_: Treating of Loam, Dry Sand, and
Green Sand Moulding, and containing a Practical Treatise upon the
Management of Cupolas, and the Melting of Iron. By T. D. WEST,
Practical Iron Moulder and Foundry Foreman. Second edition, _with
numerous illustrations_, crown 8vo, cloth, 10_s._ 6_d._
_The Maintenance of Macadamised Roads._ By T. CODRINGTON, M.I.C.E,
F.G.S., General Superintendent of County Roads for South Wales. 8vo,
cloth, 6_s._
_Hydraulic Steam and Hand Power Lifting and Pressing Machinery._ By
FREDERICK COLYER, M. Inst. C.E., M. Inst. M.E. _With 73 plates_, 8vo,
cloth, 18_s._
_Pumps and Pumping Machinery._ By F. COLYER, M.I.C.E., M.I.M.E. _With
23 folding plates_, 8vo, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_The Municipal and Sanitary Engineer’s Handbook._ By H. PERCY
BOULNOIS, Mem. Inst. C.E., Borough Engineer, Portsmouth. _With
numerous illustrations_, demy 8vo, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
CONTENTS:
The Appointment and Duties of the Town Surveyor—Traffic—Macadamised
Roadways—Steam Rolling—Road Metal and Breaking—Pitched
Pavements—Asphalte—Wood Pavements—Footpaths—Kerbs
and Gutters—Street Naming and Numbering—Street
Lighting—Sewerage—Ventilation of Sewers—Disposal of Sewage—House
Drainage—Disinfection—Gas and Water Companies, &c., Breaking up
Streets—Improvement of Private Streets—Borrowing Powers—Artizans’
and Labourers’ Dwellings—Public Conveniences—Scavenging,
including Street Cleansing—Watering and the Removing of
Snow—Planting Street Trees—Deposit of Plans—Dangerous
Buildings—Hoardings—Obstructions—Improving Street Lines—Cellar
Openings—Public Pleasure Grounds—Cemeteries—Mortuaries—Cattle and
Ordinary Markets—Public Slaughter-houses, etc.—Giving numerous
Forms of Notices, Specifications, and General Information upon
these and other subjects of great importance to Municipal Engineers
and others engaged in Sanitary Work.
_Tables of the Principal Speeds occurring in Mechanical Engineering_,
expressed in metres in a second. By P. KEERAYEFF, Chief Mechanic of
the Obouchoff Steel Works, St. Petersburg; translated by SERGIUS
KERN, M.E. Fcap. 8vo, sewed, 6_d._
_A Treatise on the Origin, Progress, Prevention, and Cure of Dry
Rot in Timber_; with Remarks on the Means of Preserving Wood from
Destruction by Sea-Worms, Beetles, Ants, etc. By THOMAS ALLEN
BRITTON, late Surveyor to the Metropolitan Board of Works, etc., etc.
_With 10 plates_, crown 8vo, cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._
_Metrical Tables._ By G. L. MOLESWORTH, M.I.C.E. 32mo, cloth, 1_s._
6_d._
CONTENTS:
General—Linear Measures—Square Measures—Cubic Measures—Measures of
Capacity—Weights—Combinations—Thermometers.
_Elements of Construction for Electro-Magnets._ By Count TH. DU
MONCEL, Mem. de l’Institut de France. Translated from the French by
C. J. WHARTON. Crown 8vo, cloth, 4_s._ 6_d._
_Electro-Telegraphy._ By FREDERICK S. BEECHEY, Telegraph Engineer. A
Book for Beginners. _Illustrated._ Fcap. 8vo, sewed, 6_d._
_Handrailing: by the Square Cut._ By JOHN JONES, Staircase Builder.
Fourth edition, _with seven plates_, 8vo, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._
_Handrailing: by the Square Cut._ By JOHN JONES, Staircase Builder.
Part Second, _with eight plates_, 8vo, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._
_Practical Electrical Units Popularly Explained_, with _numerous
illustrations_ and Remarks. By JAMES SWINBURNE, late of J. W. Swan
and Co., Paris, late of Brush-Swan Electric Light Company U.S.A.
18mo, cloth, 1_s._ 6_d._
_Philipp Reis, Inventor of the Telephone_: A Biographical Sketch.
With Documentary Testimony, Translations of the Original Papers of
the Inventor, &c. By SILVANUS P. THOMPSON, B.A., Dr.Sc., Professor
of Experimental Physics in University College, Bristol. _With
illustrations_, 8vo, cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._
_A Treatise on the Use of Belting for the Transmission of Power._ By
J. H. COOPER. Second edition, _illustrated_, 8vo, cloth, 15_s._
_A Pocket-Book of Useful Formulæ and Memoranda for Civil and
Mechanical Engineers._ By GUILFORD L. MOLESWORTH, Mem. Inst. C.E.,
Consulting Engineer to the Government of India for State Railways.
_With numerous illustrations_, 744 pp. Twenty-first edition, revised
and enlarged, 32mo, roan, 6_s._
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS:
Surveying, Levelling, etc.—Strength and Weight of
Materials—Earthwork, Brickwork, Masonry, Arches, etc.—Struts,
Columns, Beams, and Trusses—Flooring, Roofing, and Roof
Trusses—Girders, Bridges, etc.—Railways and Roads—Hydraulic
Formulæ—Canals, Sewers, Waterworks, Docks—Irrigation and
Breakwaters—Gas, Ventilation, and Warming—Heat, Light, Colour,
and Sound—Gravity: Centres, Forces, and Powers—Millwork, Teeth of
Wheels, Shafting, etc.—Workshop Recipes—Sundry Machinery—Animal
Power—Steam and the Steam Engine—Water-power, Water-wheels,
Turbines, etc.—Wind and Windmills—Steam Navigation, Ship
Building, Tonnage, etc.—Gunnery, Projectiles, etc.—Weights,
Measures, and Money—Trigonometry, Conic Sections, and
Curves—Telegraphy—Mensuration—Tables of Areas and Circumference,
and Arcs of Circles—Logarithms, Square and Cube Roots,
Powers—Reciprocals, etc.—Useful Numbers—Differential and Integral
Calculus—Algebraic Signs—Telegraphic Construction and Formulæ.
_Spons’ Tables and Memoranda for Engineers_; selected and arranged
by J. T. HURST, C.E., Author of ‘Architectural Surveyors’ Handbook,’
‘Hurst’s Tredgold’s Carpentry,’ etc. Fifth edition, 64mo, roan, gilt
edges, 1_s._; or in cloth case, 1_s._ 6_d._
This work is printed in a pearl type, and is so small, measuring
only 2½ in. by 1¾ in. by ¼ in. thick, that it may be easily carried
in the waistcoat pocket.
“It is certainly an extremely rare thing for a reviewer to be
called upon to notice a volume measuring but 2½ in. by 1¾ in.,
yet these dimensions faithfully represent the size of the handy
little book before us. The volume—which contains 118 printed
pages, besides a few blank pages for memoranda—is, in fact, a true
pocket-book, adapted for being carried in the waistcoat pocket,
and containing a far greater amount and variety of information
than most people would imagine could be compressed into so small
a space.... The little volume has been compiled with considerable
care and judgment, and we can cordially recommend it to our readers
as a useful little pocket companion.”—_Engineering._
_A Practical Treatise on Natural and Artificial Concrete, its
Varieties and Constructive Adaptations._ By HENRY REID, Author of the
‘Science and Art of the Manufacture of Portland Cement.’ New Edition,
_with 59 woodcuts and 5 plates_, 8vo, cloth, 15_s._
_Hydrodynamics_: Treatise relative to the Testing of Water-Wheels and
Machinery, with various other matters pertaining to Hydrodynamics. By
JAMES EMERSON. _With numerous illustrations_, 360 pp. Third edition,
crown 8vo, cloth, 4_s._ 6_d._
_Electricity as a Motive Power._ By Count TH. DU MONCEL, Membre de
L’Institut de France, and FRANK GERALDY, Ingénieur des Ponts et
Chaussées. Translated and Edited, with Additions, by C. J. WHARTON,
Assoc. Soc. Tel. Eng. and Elec. _With 113 engravings and diagrams_,
crown 8vo, cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._
_Hints on Architectural Draughtsmanship._ By G. W. TUXFORD HALLATT.
Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 1_s._ 6_d._
_Treatise on Valve-Gears_, with special consideration of the
Link-Motions of Locomotive Engines. By Dr GUSTAV ZEUNER, Professor
of Applied Mechanics at the Confederated Polytechnikum of Zurich.
Translated from the Fourth German Edition, by Professor J. F. KLEIN,
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa. _Illustrated_, 8vo, cloth, 12_s._
6_d._
_The French-Polisher’s Manual._ By a French-Polisher; containing
Timber Staining, Washing, Matching, Improving, Painting, Imitations,
Directions for Staining, Sizing, Embodying, Smoothing, Spirit
Varnishing, French-Polishing, Directions for Re-polishing. Third
edition, royal 32mo, sewed, 6_d._
_Hops, their Cultivation, Commerce, and Uses in various Countries._
By P. L. SIMMONDS. Crown 8vo, cloth, 4_s._ 6_d._
_A Practical Treatise on the Manufacture and Distribution of Coal
Gas._ By WILLIAM RICHARDS. Demy 4to, with _numerous wood engravings
and 29 plates_, cloth, 28_s._
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS:
Introduction—History of Gas Lighting—Chemistry of Gas
Manufacture, by Lewis Thompson, Esq., M.R.C.S.—Coal,
with Analyses, by J. Paterson, Lewis Thompson, and
G. R. Hislop, Esqrs.—Retorts, Iron and Clay—Retort
Setting—Hydraulic Main—Condensers—Exhausters—Washers
and Scrubbers—Purifiers—Purification—History of Gas
Holder—Tanks, Brick and Stone, Composite, Concrete,
Cast-iron, Compound Annular Wrought-iron—Specifications—Gas
Holders—Station Meter—Governor—Distribution—Mains—Gas
Mathematics, or Formulæ for the Distribution of
Gas, by Lewis Thompson, Esq.—Services—Consumers’
Meters—Regulators—Burners—Fittings—Photometer—Carburization of
Gas—Air Gas and Water Gas—Composition of Coal Gas, by Lewis
Thompson, Esq.—Analyses of Gas—Influence of Atmospheric Pressure
and Temperature on Gas—Residual Products—Appendix—Description of
Retort Settings, Buildings, etc., etc.
_Practical Geometry, Perspective, and Engineering Drawing_; a
Course of Descriptive Geometry adapted to the Requirements of the
Engineering Draughtsman, including the determination of cast shadows
and Isometric Projection, each chapter being followed by numerous
examples; to which are added rules for Shading, Shade-lining, etc.,
together with practical instructions as to the Lining, Colouring,
Printing, and general treatment of Engineering Drawings, with a
chapter on drawing Instruments. By GEORGE S. CLARKE, Capt. R.E.
Second edition, _with 21 plates_. 2 vols., cloth, 10_s._ 6_d._
_The Elements of Graphic Statics._ By Professor KARL VON OTT,
translated from the German by G. S. CLARKE, Capt. R.E., Instructor
in Mechanical Drawing, Royal Indian Engineering College. _With 93
illustrations_, crown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._
_The Principles of Graphic Statics._ By GEORGE SYDENHAM CLARKE, Capt.
Royal Engineers. _With 112 illustrations_. 4to, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_Dynamo-Electric Machinery_: A Manual for Students of
Electro-technics. By SILVANUS P. THOMPSON, B.A., D.Sc., Professor
of Experimental Physics in University College, Bristol, etc., etc.
_Illustrated_, 8vo, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_The New Formula for Mean Velocity of Discharge of Rivers and
Canals._ By W. R. KUTTER. Translated from articles in the
‘Cultur-Ingénieur,’ by LOWIS D’A. JACKSON, Assoc. Inst. C.E. 8vo,
cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_Practical Hydraulics_; a Series of Rules and Tables for the use
of Engineers, etc., etc. By THOMAS BOX. Fifth edition, _numerous
plates_, post 8vo, cloth, 5_s._
_A Practical Treatise on the Construction of Horizontal and Vertical
Waterwheels_, specially designed for the use of operative mechanics.
By WILLIAM CULLEN, Millwright and Engineer. _With 11 plates_. Second
edition, revised and enlarged, small 4to, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_Tin_: Describing the Chief Methods of Mining, Dressing and Smelting
it abroad; with Notes upon Arsenic, Bismuth and Wolfram. By ARTHUR G.
CHARLETON, Mem. American Inst. of Mining Engineers. _With plates_,
8vo, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_Perspective, Explained and Illustrated._ By G. S. CLARKE, Capt. R.E.
_With illustrations_, 8vo, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._
_The Essential Elements of Practical Mechanics; based on the
Principle of Work_, designed for Engineering Students. By OLIVER
BYRNE, formerly Professor of Mathematics, College for Civil
Engineers. Third edition, _with 148 wood engravings_, post 8vo,
cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._
CONTENTS:
Chap. 1. How Work is Measured by a Unit, both with and without
reference to a Unit of Time—Chap. 2. The Work of Living Agents, the
Influence of Friction, and introduces one of the most beautiful
Laws of Motion—Chap. 3. The principles expounded in the first
and second chapters are applied to the Motion of Bodies—Chap.
4. The Transmission of Work by simple Machines—Chap. 5. Useful
Propositions and Rules.
_The Practical Millwright and Engineer’s Ready Reckoner_; or Tables
for finding the diameter and power of cog-wheels, diameter, weight,
and power of shafts, diameter and strength of bolts, etc. By THOMAS
DIXON. Fourth edition, 12mo, cloth, 3_s._
_Breweries and Maltings_: their Arrangement, Construction, Machinery,
and Plant. By G. SCAMELL, F.R.I.B.A. Second edition, revised,
enlarged, and partly rewritten. By F. COLYER, M.I.C.E., M.I.M.E.
_With 20 plates_, 8vo, cloth, 18_s._
_A Practical Treatise on the Manufacture of Starch, Glucose,
Starch-Sugar, and Dextrine_, based on the German of L. Von Wagner,
Professor in the Royal Technical School, Buda Pesth, and other
authorities. By JULIUS FRANKEL; edited by ROBERT HUTTER, proprietor
of the Philadelphia Starch Works. _With 58 illustrations_, 344 pp.,
8vo, cloth, 18_s._
_A Practical Treatise on Mill-gearing, Wheels, Shafts, Riggers,
etc._; for the use of Engineers. By THOMAS BOX. Third edition, _with
11 plates_. Crown 8vo, cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._
_Mining Machinery_: a Descriptive Treatise on the Machinery, Tools,
and other Appliances used in Mining. By G. G. ANDRÉ, F.G.S., Assoc.
Inst. C.E., Mem. of the Society of Engineers. Royal 4to, uniform
with the Author’s Treatise on Coal Mining, containing 182 _plates_,
accurately drawn to scale, with descriptive text, in 2 vols., cloth,
3_l._ 12_s._
CONTENTS:
Machinery for Prospecting, Excavating, Hauling, and
Hoisting—Ventilation—Pumping—Treatment of Mineral Products,
including Gold and Silver, Copper, Tin, and Lead, Iron, Coal,
Sulphur, China Clay, Brick Earth, etc.
_Tables for Setting out Curves for Railways, Canals, Roads, etc._,
varying from a radius of five chains to three miles. By A. KENNEDY
and R. W. HACKWOOD. _Illustrated_, 32mo, cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._
_The Science and Art of the Manufacture of Portland Cement_, with
observations on some of its constructive applications. _With 66
illustrations._ By HENRY REID, C.E., Author of ‘A Practical Treatise
on Concrete,’ etc., etc. 8vo, cloth, 18_s._
_The Draughtsman’s Handbook of Plan and Map Drawing_; including
instructions for the preparation of Engineering, Architectural, and
Mechanical Drawings. _With numerous illustrations in the text, and 33
plates (15 printed in colours)._ By G. G. ANDRÉ, F.G.S., Assoc. Inst.
C.E. 4to, cloth, 9_s._
CONTENTS:
The Drawing Office and its Furnishings—Geometrical Problems—Lines,
Dots, and their Combinations—Colours, Shading, Lettering,
Bordering, and North Points—Scales—Plotting—Civil Engineers’
and Surveyors’ Plans—Map Drawing—Mechanical and Architectural
Drawing—Copying and Reducing Trigonometrical Formulæ etc., etc.
_The Boiler-maker’s and Iron Ship-builder’s Companion_, comprising
a series of original and carefully calculated tables, of the utmost
utility to persons interested in the iron trades. By JAMES FODEN,
author of ‘Mechanical Tables,’ etc. Second edition revised, _with
illustrations_, crown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._
_Rock Blasting_: a Practical Treatise on the means employed in
Blasting Rocks for Industrial Purposes. By G. G. ANDRÉ, F.G.S.,
Assoc. Inst. C.E. _With 56 illustrations and 12 plates_, 8vo, cloth,
10_s._ 6_d._
_Painting and Painters’ Manual_: a Book of Facts for Painters and
those who Use or Deal in Paint Materials. By C. L. CONDIT and J.
SCHELLER. _Illustrated_, 8vo, cloth, 10_s._ 6_d._
_A Treatise on Ropemaking as practised in public and private
Rope-yards_, with a Description of the Manufacture, Rules, Tables
of Weights, etc., adapted to the Trade, Shipping, Mining, Railways,
Builders, etc. By R. CHAPMAN, formerly foreman to Messrs Huddart and
Co., Limehouse, and late Master Ropemaker to H.M. Dockyard, Deptford.
Second edition, 12mo, cloth, 3_s._
_Laxton’s Builders’ and Contractors’ Tables_; for the use of
Engineers, Architects, Surveyors, Builders, Land Agents, and others.
Bricklayer, containing 22 tables, with nearly 30,000 calculations.
4to, cloth, 5_s._
_Laxton’s Builders’ and Contractors’ Tables_. Excavator, Earth,
Land, Water, and Gas, containing 53 tables, with nearly 24,000
calculations. 4to, cloth, 5_s._
_Sanitary Engineering_: a Guide to the Construction of Works of
Sewerage and House Drainage, with Tables for facilitating the
calculations of the Engineer. By BALDWIN LATHAM, C.E., M. Inst. C.E.,
F.G.S., F.M.S., Past-President of the Society of Engineers. Second
edition, _with numerous plates and woodcuts_, 8vo, cloth, 1_l._ 10_s._
_Screw Cutting Tables for Engineers and Machinists_, giving the
values of the different trains of Wheels required to produce Screws
of any pitch, calculated by Lord Lindsay, M.P., F.R.S., F.R.A.S.,
etc. Cloth, oblong, 2_s._
_Screw Cutting Tables_, for the use of Mechanical Engineers, showing
the proper arrangement of Wheels for cutting the Threads of Screws of
any required pitch, with a Table for making the Universal Gas-pipe
Threads and Taps. By W. A. MARTIN, Engineer. Second edition, oblong,
cloth, 1_s._, or sewed, 6_d._
_A Treatise on a Practical Method of Designing Slide-Valve Gears
by Simple Geometrical Construction_, based upon the principles
enunciated in Euclid’s Elements, and comprising the various forms of
Plain Slide-Valve and Expansion Gearing; together with Stephenson’s,
Gooch’s, and Allan’s Link-Motions, as applied either to reversing or
to variable expansion combinations. By EDWARD J. COWLING WELCH, Memb.
Inst. Mechanical Engineers. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6_s._
_Cleaning and Scouring_: a Manual for Dyers, Laundresses, and for
Domestic Use. By S. CHRISTOPHER. 18mo, sewed, 6_d._
_A Handbook of House Sanitation_; for the use of all persons seeking
a Healthy Home. A reprint of those portions of Mr Bailey-Denton’s
Lectures on Sanitary Engineering, given before the School of Military
Engineering, which related to the “Dwelling,” enlarged and revised by
his Son, E. F. BAILEY-DENTON, C.E., B.A. _With 140 illustrations_,
8vo, cloth, 8_s._ 6_d._
_A Glossary of Terms used in Coal Mining._ By WILLIAM STUKELEY
GRESLEY, Assoc. Mem. Inst. C.E., F.G.S., Member of the North of
England Institute of Mining Engineers. _Illustrated with numerous
woodcuts and diagrams_, crown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._
_A Pocket-Book for Boiler Makers and Steam Users_, comprising a
variety of useful information for Employer and Workman, Government
Inspectors, Board of Trade Surveyors, Engineers in charge of Works
and Slips, Foremen of Manufactories, and the general Steam-using
Public. By MAURICE JOHN SEXTON. Second edition, royal 32mo, roan,
gilt edges, 5_s._
_The Strains upon Bridge Girders and Roof Trusses_, including the
Warren, Lattice, Trellis, Bowstring, and other Forms of Girders,
the Curved Roof, and Simple and Compound Trusses. By THOS. CARGILL,
C.E.B.A.T., C.D., Assoc. Inst. C.E., Member of the Society of
Engineers. _With 64 illustrations, drawn and worked out to scale_,
8vo, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_A Practical Treatise on the Steam Engine_, containing Plans and
Arrangements of Details for Fixed Steam Engines, with Essays on the
Principles involved in Design and Construction. By ARTHUR RIGG,
Engineer, Member of the Society of Engineers and of the Royal
Institution of Great Britain. Demy 4to, _copiously illustrated with
woodcuts and 96 plates_, in one Volume, half-bound morocco, 2_l._
2_s._; or cheaper edition, cloth, 25_s._
This work is not, in any sense, an elementary treatise, or history
of the steam engine, but is intended to describe examples of Fixed
Steam Engines without entering into the wide domain of locomotive
or marine practice. To this end illustrations will be given of the
most recent arrangements of Horizontal, Vertical, Beam, Pumping,
Winding, Portable, Semi-portable, Corliss, Allen, Compound, and
other similar Engines, by the most eminent Firms in Great Britain
and America. The laws relating to the action and precautions to
be observed in the construction of the various details, such as
Cylinders, Pistons, Piston-rods, Connecting-rods, Cross-heads,
Motion-blocks, Eccentrics, Simple, Expansion, Balanced, and
Equilibrium Slide-valves, and Valve-gearing will be minutely dealt
with. In this connection will be found articles upon the Velocity
of Reciprocating Parts and the Mode of Applying the Indicator, Heat
and Expansion of Steam Governors, and the like. It is the writer’s
desire to draw illustrations from every possible source, and give
only those rules that present practice deems correct.
_Barlow’s Tables of Squares, Cubes, Square Roots, Cube Roots,
Reciprocals of all Integer Numbers up to 10,000._ Post 8vo, cloth,
6_s._
_Camus (M.) Treatise on the Teeth of Wheels_, demonstrating the best
forms which can be given to them for the purposes of Machinery, such
as Mill-work and Clock-work, and the art of finding their numbers.
Translated from the French, with details of the present practice of
Millwrights, Engine Makers, and other Machinists, by ISAAC HAWKINS.
Third edition, _with 18 plates_, 8vo, cloth, 5_s._
_A Practical Treatise on the Science of Land and Engineering
Surveying, Levelling, Estimating Quantities, etc._, with a general
description of the several Instruments required for Surveying,
Levelling, Plotting, etc. By H. S. MERRETT. Third edition, _41 plates
with illustrations and tables_, royal 8vo, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
PRINCIPAL CONTENTS:
Part 1. Introduction and the Principles of Geometry. Part
2. Land Surveying: comprising General Observations—The
Chain—Offsets Surveying by the Chain only—Surveying Hilly
Ground—To Survey an Estate or Parish by the Chain only—Surveying
with the Theodolite—Mining and Town Surveying—Railroad
Surveying—Mapping—Division and Laying out of Land—Observations
on Enclosures—Plane Trigonometry. Part 3. Levelling—Simple
and Compound Levelling—The Level Book—Parliamentary Plan
and Section—Levelling with a Theodolite—Gradients—Wooden
Curves—To Lay out a Railway Curve—Setting out Widths. Part
4. Calculating Quantities generally for Estimates—Cuttings
and Embankments—Tunnels—Brickwork—Ironwork—Timber
Measuring. Part 5. Description and Use of Instruments in
Surveying and Plotting—The Improved Dumpy Level—Troughton’s
Level—The Prismatic Compass—Proportional Compass—Box
Sextant—Vernier—Pantagraph—Merrett’s Improved Quadrant—Improved
Computation Scale—The Diagonal Scale—Straight Edge and Sector. Part
6. Logarithms of Numbers—Logarithmic Sines and Co-Sines, Tangents
and Co-Tangents—Natural Sines and Co-Sines—Tables for Earthwork,
for Setting out Curves, and for various Calculations, etc., etc.,
etc.
_Saws: the History, Development, Action, Classification, and
Comparison of Saws of all kinds._ By ROBERT GRIMSHAW. _With 220
illustrations_, 4to, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_A Supplement to the above_; containing additional practical
matter, more especially relating to the forms of Saw Teeth for
special material and conditions, and to the behaviour of Saws under
particular conditions. _With 120 illustrations_, cloth, 9_s._
_A Guide for the Electric Testing of Telegraph Cables._ By Capt.
V. HOSKIÆR, Royal Danish Engineers. _With illustrations_, second
edition, crown 8vo, cloth, 4_s._ 6_d._
_Laying and Repairing Electric Telegraph Cables._ By Capt. V.
HOSKIÆR, Royal Danish Engineers. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._
_A Pocket-Book of Practical Rules for the Proportions of Modern
Engines and Boilers for Land and Marine purposes._ By N. P. BURGH.
Seventh edition, royal 32mo, roan, 4_s._ 6_d._
_The Assayers Manual_: an Abridged Treatise on the Docimastic
Examination of Ores and Furnace and other Artificial Products. By
BRUNO KERL. Translated by W. T. BRANNT. _With 65 illustrations_, 8vo,
cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_The Steam Engine considered as a Heat Engine_: a Treatise on the
Theory of the Steam Engine, illustrated by Diagrams, Tables, and
Examples from Practice. By JAS. H. COTTERILL, M.A., F.R.S., Professor
of Applied Mechanics in the Royal Naval College. 8vo, cloth, 12_s._
6_d._
_Electricity_: its Theory, Sources, and Applications. By J. T.
SPRAGUE, M.S.T.E. Second edition, revised and enlarged, _with
numerous illustrations_, crown 8vo, cloth, 15_s._
_The Practice of Hand Turning in Wood, Ivory, Shell, etc._, with
Instructions for Turning such Work in Metal as may be required in
the Practice of Turning in Wood, Ivory, etc.; also an Appendix on
Ornamental Turning. (A book for beginners.) By FRANCIS CAMPIN. Third
edition, _with wood engravings_, crown 8vo, cloth, 6_s._
CONTENTS:
On Lathes—Turning Tools—Turning Wood—Drilling—Screw
Cutting—Miscellaneous Apparatus and Processes—Turning Particular
Forms—Staining—Polishing—Spinning Metals—Materials—Ornamental
Turning, etc.
_Health and Comfort in House Building, or Ventilation with Warm Air
by Self-Acting Suction Power_, with Review of the mode of Calculating
the Draught in Hot-Air Flues, and with some actual Experiments. By
J. DRYSDALE, M.D., and J. W. HAYWARD, M.D. Second edition, with
Supplement, _with plates_, demy 8vo, cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._
_Treatise on Watchwork, Past and Present._ By the Rev. H. L.
NELTHROPP, M.A., F.S.A. _With 32 illustrations_, crown 8vo, cloth,
6_s._ 6_d._
CONTENTS:
Definitions of Words and Terms used in
Watchwork—Tools—Time—Historical Summary—On Calculations of
the Numbers for Wheels and Pinions; their Proportional Sizes,
Trains, etc.—Of Dial Wheels, or Motion Work—Length of Time of
Going without Winding up—The Verge—The Horizontal—The Duplex—The
Lever—The Chronometer—Repeating Watches—Keyless Watches—The
Pendulum, or Spiral Spring—Compensation—Jewelling of Pivot
Holes—Clerkenwell—Fallacies of the Trade—Incapacity of Workmen—How
to Choose and Use a Watch, etc.
_Notes in Mechanical Engineering._ Compiled principally for the use
of the Students attending the Classes on this subject at the City of
London College. By HENRY ADAMS, Mem. Inst. M.E., Mem. Inst. C.E.,
Mem. Soc. of Engineers. Crown 8vo, cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._
_Algebra Self-Taught._ By W. P. HIGGS, M.A., D.Sc., LL.D., Assoc.
Inst. C.E., Author of ‘A Handbook of the Differential Calculus,’ etc.
Second edition, crown 8vo, cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._
CONTENTS:
Symbols and the Signs of Operation—The Equation
and the Unknown Quantity—Positive and Negative
Quantities—Multiplication—Involution—Exponents—Negative
Exponents—Roots, and the Use of Exponents as
Logarithms—Logarithms—Tables of Logarithms and Proportionate
Parts—Transformation of System of Logarithms—Common Uses of
Common Logarithms—Compound Multiplication and the Binomial
Theorem—Division, Fractions, and Ratio—Continued Proportion—The
Series and the Summation of the Series—Limit of Series—Square and
Cube Roots—Equations—List of Formulæ, etc.
_Spons’ Dictionary of Engineering, Civil, Mechanical, Military, and
Naval_; with technical terms in French, German, Italian, and Spanish,
3100 pp., and _nearly 8000 engravings_, in super-royal 8vo, in 8
divisions, 5_l._ 8_s._ Complete in 3 vols., cloth, 5_l._ 5_s._ Bound
in a superior manner, half-morocco, top edge gilt, 3 vols., 6_l._
12_s._
In super-royal 8vo, 1168 pp., _with 2400 illustrations_, in 3
Divisions, cloth, price 13_s._ 6_d._ each; or 1 vol., cloth, 2_l._;
or half-morocco, 2_l._ 8_s._
A SUPPLEMENT
TO
SPONS’ DICTIONARY OF ENGINEERING.
EDITED BY ERNEST SPON, MEMB. SOC. ENGINEERS.
Abacus, Counters, Speed Indicators, and Slide Rule.
Agricultural Implements and Machinery.
Air Compressors.
Animal Charcoal Machinery.
Antimony.
Axles and Axle-boxes.
Barn Machinery.
Belts and Belting.
Blasting.
Boilers.
Brakes.
Brick Machinery.
Bridges.
Cages for Mines.
Calculus, Differential and Integral.
Canals.
Carpentry.
Cast Iron.
Cement, Concrete, Limes, and Mortar.
Chimney Shafts.
Coal Cleansing and Washing.
Coal Mining.
Coal Cutting Machines.
Coke Ovens.
Copper.
Docks.
Drainage.
Dredging Machinery.
Dynamo-Electric and Magneto-Electric Machines.
Dynamometers.
Electrical Engineering, Telegraphy, Electric Lighting and its
practical details, Telephones.
Engines, Varieties of.
Explosives.
Fans.
Founding, Moulding and the practical work of the Foundry.
Gas, Manufacture of.
Hammers, Steam and other Power.
Heat. Horse Power.
Hydraulics.
Hydro-geology.
Indicators. Iron.
Lifts, Hoists, and Elevators.
Lighthouses, Buoys, and Beacons.
Machine Tools.
Materials of Construction.
Meters.
Ores, Machinery and Processes employed to Dress.
Piers.
Pile Driving.
Pneumatic Transmission.
Pumps.
Pyrometers.
Road Locomotives.
Rock Drills.
Rolling Stock.
Sanitary Engineering.
Shafting.
Steel.
Steam Navvy.
Stone Machinery.
Tramways.
Well Sinking.
NOW COMPLETE.
_With nearly 1500 illustrations_, in super-royal 8vo, in 5 Divisions,
cloth. Divisions 1 to 4, 13_s._ 6_d._ each; Division 5, 17_s._ 6_d._;
or 2 vols., cloth, £3 10_s._
SPONS’ ENCYCLOPÆDIA
OF THE
INDUSTRIAL ARTS, MANUFACTURES, AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS.
EDITED BY C. G. WARNFORD LOCK, F.L.S.
Among the more important of the subjects treated of, are the
following:—
Acids, 207 pp. 220 figs.
Alcohol, 23 pp. 16 figs.
Alcoholic Liquors, 13 pp.
Alkalies, 89 pp. 78 figs.
Alloys. Alum.
Asphalt. Assaying.
Beverages, 89 pp. 29 figs.
Blacks.
Bleaching Powder, 15 pp.
Bleaching, 51 pp. 48 figs.
Candles, 18 pp. 9 figs.
Carbon Bisulphide.
Celluloid, 9 pp.
Cements. Clay.
Coal-tar Products, 44 pp. 14 figs.
Cocoa, 8 pp.
Coffee, 32 pp. 13 figs.
Cork, 8 pp. 17 figs.
Cotton Manufactures, 62 pp. 57 figs.
Drugs, 38 pp.
Dyeing and Calico Printing, 28 pp. 9 figs.
Dyestuffs, 16 pp.
Electro-Metallurgy, 13 pp.
Explosives, 22 pp. 33 figs.
Feathers.
Fibrous Substances, 92 pp. 79 figs.
Floor-cloth, 16 pp. 21 figs.
Food Preservation, 8 pp.
Fruit, 8 pp.
Fur, 5 pp.
Gas, Coal, 8 pp.
Gems.
Glass, 45 pp. 77 figs.
Graphite, 7 pp.
Hair, 7 pp.
Hair Manufactures.
Hats, 26 pp. 26 figs.
Honey. Hops.
Horn.
Ice, 10 pp. 14 figs.
Indiarubber Manufactures, 23 pp. 17 figs.
Ink, 17 pp.
Ivory.
Jute Manufactures, 11 pp., 11 figs.
Knitted Fabrics—Hosiery, 15 pp. 13 figs.
Lace, 13 pp. 9 figs.
Leather, 28 pp. 31 figs.
Linen Manufactures, 16 pp. 6 figs.
Manures, 21 pp. 30 figs.
Matches, 17 pp. 38 figs.
Mordants, 13 pp.
Narcotics, 47 pp.
Nuts, 10 pp.
Oils and Fatty Substances, 125 pp.
Paint.
Paper, 26 pp. 23 figs.
Paraffin, 8 pp. 6 figs.
Pearl and Coral, 8 pp.
Perfumes, 10 pp.
Photography, 13 pp. 20 figs.
Pigments, 9 pp. 6 figs.
Pottery, 46 pp. 57 figs.
Printing and Engraving, 20 pp. 8 figs.
Rags.
Resinous and Gummy Substances, 75 pp. 16 figs.
Rope, 16 pp. 17 figs.
Salt, 31 pp. 23 figs.
Silk, 8 pp.
Silk Manufactures, 9 pp. 11 figs.
Skins, 5 pp.
Small Wares, 4 pp.
Soap and Glycerine, 39 pp. 45 figs.
Spices, 16 pp.
Sponge, 5 pp.
Starch, 9 pp. 10 figs.
Sugar, 155 pp. 134 figs.
Sulphur.
Tannin, 18 pp.
Tea, 12 pp.
Timber, 13 pp.
Varnish, 15 pp.
Vinegar, 5 pp.
Wax, 5 pp.
Wool, 2 pp.
Woollen Manufactures 58 pp. 39 figs.
Crown 8vo, cloth, with illustrations, 5_s._
WORKSHOP RECEIPTS,
FIRST SERIES.
BY ERNEST SPON.
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.
Bookbinding.
Bronzes and Bronzing.
Candles.
Cement.
Cleaning.
Colourwashing.
Concretes.
Dipping Acids.
Drawing Office Details.
Drying Oils.
Dynamite.
Electro-Metallurgy—(Cleaning, Dipping, Scratch-brushing, Batteries,
Baths, and Deposits of every description).
Enamels.
Engraving on Wood, Copper, Gold, Silver, Steel, and Stone.
Etching and Aqua Tint.
Firework Making—(Rockets, Stars, Rains, Gerbes, Jets, Tourbillons,
Candles, Fires, Lances, Lights, Wheels, Fire-balloons, and minor
Fireworks).
Fluxes.
Foundry Mixtures.
Freezing.
Fulminates.
Furniture Creams, Oils, Polishes, Lacquers, and Pastes.
Gilding.
Glass Cutting, Cleaning, Frosting, Drilling, Darkening, Bending,
Staining, and Painting.
Glass Making.
Glues.
Gold.
Graining.
Gums.
Gun Cotton.
Gunpowder.
Horn Working.
Indiarubber.
Japans, Japanning, and kindred processes.
Lacquers.
Lathing.
Lubricants.
Marble Working.
Matches.
Mortars.
Nitro-Glycerine.
Oils.
Paper.
Paper Hanging.
Painting in Oils, in Water Colours, as well as Fresco, House,
Transparency, Sign, and Carriage Painting.
Photography.
Plastering.
Polishes.
Pottery—(Clays, Bodies, Glazes, Colours, Oils, Stains, Fluxes,
Enamels, and Lustres).
Scouring.
Silvering.
Soap.
Solders.
Tanning.
Taxidermy.
Tempering Metals.
Treating Horn, Mother-o’-Pearl, and like substances.
Varnishes, Manufacture and Use of.
Veneering.
Washing.
Waterproofing.
Welding.
Besides Receipts relating to the lesser Technological matters and
processes, such as the manufacture and use of Stencil Plates,
Blacking, Crayons, Paste, Putty, Wax, Size, Alloys, Catgut, Tunbridge
Ware, Picture Frame and Architectural Mouldings, Compos, Cameos, and
others too numerous to mention.
Crown 8vo, cloth, 485 pages, with illustrations, 5_s._
WORKSHOP RECEIPTS,
SECOND SERIES.
BY ROBERT HALDANE.
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.
Acidimetry and Alkalimetry.
Albumen.
Alcohol.
Alkaloids.
Baking-powders.
Bitters.
Bleaching.
Boiler Incrustations.
Cements and Lutes.
Cleansing.
Confectionery.
Copying.
Disinfectants.
Dyeing, Staining, and Colouring.
Essences.
Extracts.
Fireproofing.
Gelatine, Glue, and Size.
Glycerine.
Gut.
Hydrogen peroxide.
Ink.
Iodine.
Iodoform.
Isinglass.
Ivory substitutes.
Leather.
Luminous bodies.
Magnesia.
Matches.
Paper.
Parchment.
Perchloric acid.
Potassium oxalate.
Preserving.
=Pigments, Paint, and Painting=: embracing the preparation of
_Pigments_, including alumina lakes, blacks (animal, bone, Frankfort,
ivory, lamp, sight, soot), blues (antimony, Antwerp, cobalt,
cœruleum, Egyptian, manganate, Paris, Péligot, Prussian, smalt,
ultramarine), browns (bistre, hinau, sepia, sienna, umber, Vandyke),
greens (baryta, Brighton, Brunswick, chrome, cobalt, Douglas,
emerald, manganese, mitis, mountain, Prussian, sap, Scheele’s,
Schweinfurth, titanium, verdigris, zinc), reds (Brazilwood lake,
carminated lake, carmine, Cassius purple, cobalt pink, cochineal
lake, colcothar, Indian red, madder lake, red chalk, red lead,
vermilion), whites (alum, baryta, Chinese, lead sulphate, white
lead—by American, Dutch, French, German, Kremnitz, and Pattinson
processes, precautions in making, and composition of commercial
samples—whiting, Wilkinson’s white, zinc white), yellows (chrome,
gamboge, Naples, orpiment, realgar, yellow lakes); _Paint_ (vehicles,
testing oils, driers, grinding, storing, applying, priming, drying,
filling, coats, brushes, surface, water-colours, removing smell,
discoloration; miscellaneous paints—cement paint for carton-pierre,
copper paint, gold paint, iron paint, lime paints, silicated
paints, steatite paint, transparent paints, tungsten paints, window
paint, zinc paints); _Painting_ (general instructions, proportions
of ingredients, measuring paint work; carriage painting—priming
paint, best putty, finishing colour, cause of cracking, mixing the
paints, oils, driers, and colours, varnishing, importance of washing
vehicles, re-varnishing, how to dry paint; woodwork painting).
JUST PUBLISHED.
Crown 8vo, cloth, 480 pages, with 183 illustrations, 5_s._
WORKSHOP RECEIPTS,
THIRD SERIES.
BY C. G. WARNFORD LOCK.
Uniform with the First and Second Series.
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.
Alloys.
Aluminium.
Antimony.
Barium.
Beryllium.
Bismuth.
Cadmium.
Cæsium.
Calcium.
Cerium.
Chromium.
Cobalt.
Copper.
Didymium.
Electrics.
Enamels and Glazes.
Erbium.
Gallium.
Glass.
Gold.
Indium.
Iridium.
Iron and Steel.
Lacquers and Lacquering.
Lanthanum.
Lead.
Lithium.
Lubricants.
Magnesium.
Manganese.
Mercury.
Mica.
Molybdenum.
Nickel.
Niobium.
Osmium.
Palladium.
Platinum.
Potassium.
Rhodium.
Rubidium.
Ruthenium.
Selenium.
Silver.
Slag.
Sodium.
Strontium.
Tantalum.
Terbium.
Thallium.
Thorium.
Tin.
Titanium.
Tungsten.
Uranium.
Vanadium.
Yttrium.
Zinc.
Zirconium.
Aluminium.
JUST PUBLISHED.
In demy 8vo, cloth, 600 pages, and 1420 Illustrations, 6_s._
SPONS’
MECHANIC’S OWN BOOK;
A MANUAL FOR HANDICRAFTSMEN AND AMATEURS.
CONTENTS.
Mechanical Drawing—Casting and Founding in Iron, Brass, Bronze, and
other Alloys—Forging and Finishing Iron—Sheetmetal Working—Soldering,
Brazing, and Burning—Carpentry and Joinery, embracing descriptions
of some 400 Woods, over 200 Illustrations of Tools and their
uses, Explanations (with Diagrams) of 116 joints and hinges, and
Details of Construction of Workshop appliances, rough furniture,
Garden and Yard Erections, and House Building—Cabinet-Making
and Veneering—Carving and Fretcutting—Upholstery—Painting,
Graining, and Marbling—Staining Furniture, Woods, Floors, and
Fittings—Gilding, dead and bright, on various grounds—Polishing
Marble, Metals, and Wood—Varnishing—Mechanical movements,
illustrating contrivances for transmitting motion—Turning in Wood
and Metals—Masonry, embracing Stonework, Brickwork, Terracotta,
and Concrete—Roofing with Thatch, Tiles, Slates, Felt, Zinc,
&c.—Glazing with and without putty, and lead glazing—Plastering and
Whitewashing—Paper-hanging—Gas-fitting—Bell-hanging, ordinary and
electric Systems—Lighting—Warming—Ventilating—Roads, Pavements, and
Bridges—Hedges, Ditches, and Drains—Water Supply and Sanitation—Hints
on House Construction suited to new countries.
London: E. & F. N. SPON, 125, Strand.
New York: 35, Murray Street.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
For consistency the titles Mr. Mrs. Dr. and Messrs. have been changed
to Mr Mrs Dr and Messrs throughout the book.
Eight occurrences of ‘Robert Mansell’ have been replaced by
‘Robert Mansel’.
Fig 3 and Figures 18-21 are missing, but were missing also from the
original book.
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
Pg v: ‘SAFETY AND COMPORT’ replaced by ‘SAFETY AND COMFORT’.
Pg v: ‘The Bessmer Channel’ replaced by ‘The Bessemer Channel’.
Pg 1: ‘stuctural arrangements’ replaced by ‘structural arrangements’.
Pg 9: ‘not only permissable’ replaced by ‘not only permissible’.
Pg 9: ‘ducility renders it’ replaced by ‘ductility renders it’.
Pg 16: ‘for cargo-carrrying’ replaced by ‘for cargo-carrying’.
Pg 18: ‘the best concensus’ replaced by ‘the best consensus’.
Pg 20: ‘other longtitudinal’ replaced by ‘other longitudinal’.
Pg 20, 21, 22, 23: ‘rivetting’ replaced by ‘riveting’.
Pg 25: ‘a maintainence also’ replaced by ‘a maintenence also’.
Pg 26: ‘Marc Berrier-Eontaine’ replaced by ‘Marc Berrier-Fontaine’.
Pg 33 Footnote 2: ‘tried inofficially’ replaced by ‘tried unofficially’.
Pg 42: ‘comsumption of coal’ replaced by ‘consumption of coal’.
Pg 49: ‘with Three Cylnders’ replaced by ‘with Three Cylinders’.
Pg 51: ‘marked accesions to’ replaced by ‘marked accessions to’.
Pg 57: ‘by Messsrs Denny’ replaced by ‘by Messrs Denny’.
Pg 58: ‘its great ducility’ replaced by ‘its great ductility’.
Pg 63: ‘with original structure’ replaced by ‘with the original
structure’.
Pg 64: ‘deek-houses’ replaced by ‘deck-houses’.
Pg 66: ‘amount permissable’ replaced by ‘amount permissible’.
Pg 69: ‘of the traditionary’ replaced by ‘of the traditional’.
Pg 118: ‘similiarly constructed’ replaced by ‘similarly constructed’.
Pg 121: ‘determine dircetly’ replaced by ‘determine directly’.
Pg 128A: ‘On the Assesment’ replaced by ‘On the Assessment’.
Pg 128A: duplicate ‘N.A.,’ removed.
Pg 129: ‘and carpentery’ replaced by ‘and carpentry’.
Pg 132: ‘superior homogeniety’ replaced by ‘superior homogeneity’.
Pg 134, 135: ‘portable rivetters’ replaced by ‘portable riveters’.
Pg 135: ‘oftentimes harrassing’ replaced by ‘oftentimes harassing’.
Pg 136: ‘made to guage’ replaced by ‘made to gauge’.
Pg 137: ‘necesitate them replaced by ‘necessitate them’.
Pg 182: ‘Société Anomyne’ replaced by ‘Société Anonyme’.
Pg 195: ‘109| I49,100|’ replaced by ‘109| 149,100|’.
Pg 200: This very wide table has been split into three parts.
Pg 200: ‘Eastern Steampship’ replaced by ‘Eastern Steamship’.
Pg 200: ‘Barrow Steampship’ replaced by ‘Barrow Steamship’.
Pg 200: ‘Mississipi and’ replaced by ‘Mississippi and’.
Pg 213: ‘the plainimeter just’ replaced by ‘the planimeter just’.
Biographies:
of Pierce: ‘in existance, of’ replaced by ‘in existence, of’.
of Martell: ‘professonal subjects’ replaced by ‘professional subjects’.
of White: ‘the Royal Docykard’ replaced by ‘the Royal Dockyard’.
of Palmer: ‘the colleries of’ replaced by ‘the collieries of’.
of Palmer: ‘since universelly’ replaced by ‘since universally’.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MODERN SHIPBUILDING AND THE MEN ENGAGED IN IT ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
