The Project Gutenberg eBook of Steamships and their story
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: Steamships and their story
Author: E. Keble Chatterton
Release date: November 5, 2023 [eBook #72045]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Cassell and company, ltd, 1910
Credits: Peter Becker, Charlie Howard, 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 STEAMSHIPS AND THEIR STORY ***
STEAMSHIPS AND THEIR STORY
[Illustration: THE WHITE STAR LINER “OLYMPIC”
(_Drawn by Charles Dixon, R.I._)]
STEAMSHIPS
AND THEIR STORY
BY
E. KEBLE CHATTERTON
Author of “Sailing Ships and Their Story”
WITH 153 ILLUSTRATIONS
[Illustration]
CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD.
London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne
1910
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PREFACE
The exceptionally kind reception on the part of both Press and public
which greeted the appearance of my history of the sailing ship last
year, and the numerous expressions of appreciation that have reached
me from so many parts of the world, have encouraged me to attempt in a
similar manner to set out the story of the steamship from the earliest
times to the present day.
I am by no means unaware that between the sailing ship and the
steamship there is a wide difference, as well in character as in their
respective development. But that is no reason for supposing that the
steamship is less interesting in her history or less deserving of
admiration in her final presentation. Around the sailing ship there
hovers eternally a halo of romance; that is undeniable even by the
most modern enthusiast. But, on the other hand, the sailing ship in
the whole of her career has not done more for the good of humanity
than the steamship within a century or less. It requires but a moment
of thought to realise the truth of this statement; and for that reason
alone, the history of the steamship makes its appeal not to a special
class of reader, but to all who interest themselves in progress, in
the development of their own country and empire, in the welfare of
the world generally, and the evolution from stagnation to beneficial
activity and prosperity. There are but few civilised people nowadays
who have not been brought into contact with the steamship in one way
or another. Perhaps sometimes it has been unwillingly, though at
other times to their great gain. In some of those moments which have
seemed to drag on wearily during the enforced idleness of a voyage,
the inquiring mind has over and over again exhibited a desire to
know something of the nature of the fine creature which is carrying
him from one distant country to another. He has desired to know in
plain, non-technical language, how the steamship idea began; how it
developed; how its progress was modified, and what were the influences
at work that moulded its character as we know it to-day. Further, he
has felt the desire to show an intelligent interest in her various
characteristics and to obtain a fair grasp of the principles which
underlay the building and working of the steamship. As a normal being
himself, with mind and sympathy, he has wished to be able to enter into
the difficulties that have been overcome so splendidly by the skill
and enterprise of others, both past and present. If he talks to the
professional sailor or marine engineer, they may not, even if they have
the inclination to unbend, be able easily to separate their explanation
from the vesture of technicality, and the inquirer is scarcely less
satisfied than before. It is, then, with a view of supplying this want
that I have aimed to write such a book as will interest without, I
trust, wearying, the general reader.
The plan on which I have worked has been to give the historical
continuity of the steamship from the most reliable and authoritative
material obtainable, and to supplement and correct a number of false
statements by comparison with the latest researches. At the same
time, my object has been not merely to ensure absolute historical
accuracy, but to show how in a special manner and peculiar to itself
the steamship is every bit as romantic, and equally deserving of
our affectionate regard, as her predecessor the sailing ship, whose
sphere of utility she has succeeded so materially in limiting. After
having been brought safe and sound through gales of wind, across many
thousands of miles of ocean, past cruel coast, and through treacherous
channels, until at last the fairway and the harbour of safety have
been reached, no one who has any heart at all can step ashore without
feeling that he is parting from one of the noblest and best friends
that a man ever had. True, there are some people, as an officer on one
of the crack liners once remarked to me, who, as soon as ever the big
ship is tied up alongside the landing-stage, hurry ashore from her as
if she were a plague-ship. But such, let us hope, are the few rather
than representative of the majority who have been brought into intimate
relationship with the steamship.
Nor only to the history and the glamour of the great steam-driven
vessel have I confined myself. The sea is not merely a wide ocean, but
contains within its mighty bosom many smaller areas such as channels
and bays wherein the steamboat is able to ply as well for pleasure as
for profit; and besides the big, brave sisters with their enormous
displacement and their powerful engines, there are other children which
run across smaller sea-ways, and these, too, are not to be passed
over lightly. Then there are fleets of special steamships which in a
quiet, unostentatious manner do their noble work, and are none the less
efficient, even if they escape the limelight of general publicity. I
shall seek to show in the following pages not merely the conditions
which in the past have hindered or helped the ship-maker, but to
indicate the modern problems which have still to be faced and overcome.
The difficulty that awaits an author who writes on a technical
subject for the benefit of the non-technical, average reader, is
always to make himself intelligible without being allowed the full
use of the customary but technical terms. In order that, as far
as possible, the present volume may be both a full and accurate
account of the steamship, in all times and in all the phases of her
development, whilst yet being capable of appreciation by those to whom
technicalities do not usually appeal, I have endeavoured whensoever
possible to explain the terms employed.
The story of the steamship may at the first mention seem to be bereft
of any interest beyond that which appeals to an expert in marine
engineering. Pipes and boilers and engines, you are told, are not
suggestive of romance. To this one might reply that neither were sails
and spars during the first stages of their history; and I shall hope
that after he has been so kind as to read the following pages, the
reader may feel disposed to withdraw the suggestion that the steamship
is a mere inanimate mass of metal. On the contrary, she is as nearly
human as it is possible to made a steel shell, actuated by ingenious
machinery; and, after all, it is the human mind and hand which have
brought her into being, and under which she is kept continuously in
control. It would be surprising, therefore, since she has been and
continues to be related so closely to humanity, if she should not
exhibit some of the characteristics which a human possesses.
It is fitting that the history of the steamship should be written at
this time, for if final perfection has not yet arrived, it cannot be
very far distant. It is but three or four years since the _Lusitania_
and _Mauretania_ came into being, and only during the present year
have they shown themselves to possess such exceptional speed for
merchant ships. On the 20th of October, 1910, will be launched the
_Olympic_, whose size will dominate even the _Mauretania_. Much further
than a 45,000-ton ship, surely, it cannot be possible to go; and the
likelihood is that with the commercial steamship’s manifested ability
to steam at the rate of over thirty-one land miles per hour, we are
in sight of the limitations which encompass her. As to the future of
transport, changes happen so quickly, and possess so revolutionary a
character, that it is hardly safe to prophesy; but it is significant
that the week before this preface was written, an aeroplane succeeded
in flying, in perfect ease and safety, the 150 miles which separate
Albany from New York; and thus, just a century after Fulton had
convinced the incredulous by traversing the same course through water
in his steamship, the latest means of travelling from one place to
another has caused to look insignificant the wonderful record which
Fulton, in his _Clermont_, was the first to set up. If, then, as will
be seen from this volume, the steamship has done so much within a
hundred years, what, we may legitimately ask, will be accomplished by
the airship or aeroplane before another century has come to an end?
Those who have the temerity to give expression to their opinions,
suggest that the steamship will ultimately be made obsolete by the
flying craft. If that be a true forecast, it is perhaps as well that
the steamship’s story should be told here and now whilst yet she is at
her prime.
Of the matter contained within this volume, much has been obtained
at first hand, but much has also been derived from the labours of
others, and herewith I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness. I would
especially wish to mention in this connection: “A Chronological History
of the Origin and Development of Steam Navigation, 1543–1882,” by
Geo. Henry Preble, Rear-Admiral U.S.N. (1883); certain articles in
the “Dictionary of National Biography”; “Ancient and Modern Ships:
Part II., The Era of Steam, Iron and Steel,” by Sir George C. V.
Holmes, K.C.V.O., C.B. (1906); “The Clyde Passenger Steamer: Its Rise
and Progress,” by Captain James Williamson (1904); “The History of
American Steam Navigation,” by John H. Morrison (1903); “The History of
North Atlantic Steam Navigation,” by Henry Fry (1896); “The American
Merchant Marine,” by W. L. Martin (1902); “The Atlantic Ferry: Its
Ships, Men, and Working,” by Arthur J. Maginnis (London, 1893); “Ocean
Liners of the World,” by W. Bellows (1896); “Life of Robert Napier,”
by James Napier (1904); “Handbook on Marine Engines and Boilers,” by
Sir G. C. V. Holmes (1889); “The Royal Yacht Squadron,” by Montague
Guest and W. B. Boulton (1903); “The Rise and Progress of Steam
Navigation,” by W. J. Millar (1881); “Practical Shipbuilding,” by
A. Campbell Holms; “The Boy’s Book of Steamships,” by J. R. Howden
(1908); “The Steam Turbine,” by R. M. Neilson (1903); “Our Ocean
Railways, or Ocean Steam Navigation,” by A. Macdonald (1893); “Life
of R. Fulton and a History of Steam Navigation,” by T. Wallace Knox
(1887); “Life on the Mississippi,” by Mark Twain; “American Notes,” by
Charles Dickens; “The Orient Line Guide,” by W. J. Loftie (1901); “The
History of the Holyhead Railway Boat Service,” by Clement E. Stretton
(1901); the “Catalogue of the Naval and Marine Engineering Collection
in the Science Division of the Victoria and Albert Museum, South
Kensington” (1899); “Catalogue of the Mechanical Engineering Collection
in the Science Division” of the above (1907); “The Progress of German
Shipbuilding” (1909); “Leibnizens und Huygens Briefwechsel mit Papin,”
by G. W. Von Leibnitz (1881); “British Shipbuilding,” by A. L. Ayre
(1910); “Lloyd’s Calendar.” In addition to the above, I have laid
myself under obligation to a number of articles which have appeared
at one time and another in the newspapers and periodicals within the
last century, and especially to certain contributions in the _Century
Magazine_, the _Yachting Monthly_, the _Engineer_ and in _Engineering_.
For the rest, I have relied on material which I have myself collected,
as well as on much valuable matter which has been courteously supplied
to me by the various shipbuilding firms and steamship lines.
My thanks are also due for the courteous permission which has been
given to reproduce photographs of many of the steamships seen within
these pages. To the authorities at South Kensington I am indebted for
the privilege of reproducing a number of the exhibits in the Victoria
and Albert Museum. I wish also to thank the City of Dublin Steam
Packet Company for permission to reproduce the _Royal William_; Mr.
James Napier for the illustration of the _British Queen_; the Cunard
Steamship Company for the various photographs of many of their fleet;
also the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, the Peninsular and Oriental
Steam Navigation Company, Messrs. Ismay, Imrie and Co., Messrs.
Anderson, Anderson and Co., the American Line, the Norddeutscher Lloyd
Company, the Liverpool Steam Towing and Lighterage Company, Messrs.
L. Smit and Co., the Ymuiden Tug Company, Messrs. Lobnitz and Co.,
Renfrew, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, Liverpool, Sir W. G.
Armstrong, Whitworth and Co., Messrs. William Doxford and Sons, Sir
Raylton Dixon and Co., Messrs. Cochrane and Sons, Selby, the Fall
River Line, Messrs. A. and J. Inglis, Messrs. Thos. Rhodes and Co.,
the Caledon Shipbuilding and Engineering Co., Messrs. Camper and
Nicholson, Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Co., the Great Western Railway
Company, the London and North Western Railway Company, the London and
South Western Railway Company, the South Eastern and Chatham Railway
Company, Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and Messrs. C. A. Parsons and Co.
To the Right Hon. the Earl of Stanhope, to the New Jersey Historical
Society, and also to the proprietors of the _Century Magazine_ I wish
to return thanks for being allowed to reproduce certain illustrations
connected with Fulton’s early experiments in steam navigation, and to
the _Yachting Monthly_ for permission to reproduce the diagrams of
steam yachts and lifeboats.
Finally, I have to apologise if through any cause it should be found
that in spite of extreme carefulness errrors should have found their
way into this narrative. The nature of the subject is necessarily such
that to have erred herein would have been easy, but I have been at
great pains to prevent such a possibility occurring.
E. KEBLE CHATTERTON.
_June, 1910._
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. THE EVOLUTION OF MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED CRAFT 12
3. THE EARLY PASSENGER STEAMSHIPS 63
4. THE INAUGURATION OF THE LINER 104
5. THE LINER IN HER TRANSITION STATE 145
6. THE COMING OF THE TWIN-SCREW STEAMSHIP 165
7. THE MODERN MAMMOTH STEAMSHIP 183
8. SMALLER OCEAN CARRIERS AND CROSS-CHANNEL STEAMERS 215
9. STEAMSHIPS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES 233
10. THE STEAM YACHT 266
11. THE BUILDING OF THE STEAMSHIP 282
12. THE SAFETY AND LUXURY OF THE PASSENGER 297
13. SOME STEAMSHIP PROBLEMS 309
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
_Page_
The “Olympic” _Frontispiece_
Hero’s Steam Apparatus 18
Jonathan Hulls’ Steam Tug Boat 30
The Marquis de Jouffroy’s Steamboat 40
Patrick Miller’s Double-hulled Paddle-boat 42
Symington’s First Marine Engine 42
Outline of Fitch’s First Boat 45
The “Charlotte Dundas” 46
The “Clermont” in 1807 46
Fulton’s design for a Steamboat submitted to the Commission
appointed by Napoleon in 1803 51
Fulton’s First Plans for Steam Navigation 57
Fulton’s design of Original Apparatus for determining the
Resistance of Paddles for the propulsion of the “Clermont,”
dated 1806 64
The Reconstructed “Clermont” at the Hudson-Fulton Celebrations,
1909 70
Paddle-wheel of the Reconstructed “Clermont” 70
Fulton’s Preliminary Study for the Engine of the “Clermont” 75
Fulton’s plans of a later Steamboat than the “Clermont-North-
River,” showing application of the square side connecting
rod Engine 77
The “Comet” 78
Engine of the “Comet” 78
S.S. “Elizabeth” (1815) 84
Russian Passenger Steamer (1817) 84
The “Prinzessin Charlotte” (1816) 90
The “Savannah” (1819) 90
The “James Watt” (1821) 94
Side-Lever Engines of the “Ruby” (1836) 94
The “Sirius” (1838) 96
The “Royal William” (1838) 96
The “Great Western” (1838) 100
Paddle-wheel of the “Great Western” 100
The “British Queen” (1839) 102
The “Britannia,” the First Atlantic Liner (1840) 102
The “Teviot” and “Clyde” (1841) 110
Side-lever Engine 110
Launch of the “Forth” (1841) 112
The “William Fawcett” and H.M.S. “Queen” (1829) 112
Designs for Screw Propellers prior to 1850 118
The “Robert F. Stockton” (1838) 120
The “Archimedes” (1839) 120
Stern of the “Archimedes” 122
The “Novelty” (1839) 122
The “Great Britain” (1843) 126
Propeller of the “Great Britain” 126
Engines of the “Great Britain” 128
Engines of the “Helen McGregor” 128
The “Scotia” (1862) 130
The “Pacific” (1853) 130
Maudslay’s Oscillating Engine. 132
Engines of the “Candia” 132
The “Victoria” (1852) 134
The “Himalaya” (1853) 134
Coasting Cargo Steamer (1855) 134
The “Great Eastern” (1858) 138
Paddle Engines of the “Great Eastern” 140
Screw Engines of the “Great Eastern” 140
The “City of Paris” (1866) 148
The “Russia” (1867) 148
The “Oceanic” (1870) 152
The “Britannic” (1874) 154
The “Servia” (1881) 154
The “Umbria” (1884) 158
The “Orient” (1879) 158
The “Austral” (1881) 162
The “Victoria” (1887) 162
The “Majestic” (1889) 162
The “City of Paris” (1893) (now the “Philadelphia”) 166
The “Ophir” (1891) 166
The “Lucania” (1893) 170
The “Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse” (1897) 174
The “Oceanic” (1899) 176
The “Cedric” 176
The “Celtic” 178
The “Kaiser Wilhelm II.” 180
Giovanni Branca’s Steam Engine (1629) 184
The Blades of a Parsons Turbine 185
The Parsons Turbine 186
The “Carmania” (1905) 188
Lower half of the fixed portion of one of the “Carmania’s”
Turbines 188
A Study in Comparisons: the “Magnetic” and “Baltic” 192
The “Mauretania” when completing at Wallsend-on-Tyne 198
Stern of the “Mauretania” 200
The “Lusitania” 202
The “Adriatic” 206
The “George Washington” 208
The “Berlin” 208
The “Laurentic” on the Stocks 210
The “Mooltan” 216
The Starting Platform in the Engine Room of the “Mooltan” 218
The “Balmoral Castle” 220
The “Cambria” (1848) 222
Engines of the “Leinster” (1860) 222
The “Atalanta” (1841) 226
The “Lyons” (1856) 226
The “Empress” leaving Dover Harbour 226
The Ocean Tug “Blackcock” 234
The Passenger Tender “Sir Francis Drake” 234
The 7,000 ton Floating Dry-dock under tow by the “Roode Zee”
and “Zwarte Zee” 236
The Salvage Tug “Admiral de Ruyter” 238
The New York Harbour and River Tug Boat “Edmund Moran” 238
The Paddle-Tug “Dromedary” 240
The Bucket Dredger “Peluse” 240
The Suction Dredger “Leviathan” 242
The “Vigilant” 242
The Telegraph Steamer “Monarch” 244
Deck View of the Telegraph Ship “Faraday” 244
The “Silverlip” 246
Section of Modern Oil-tank Steamer 246
The Turret-ship “Inland” 248
Midship Section of a Turret-ship 248
Cantilever Framed Ship 250
The North Sea Trawler “Orontes” 252
The Steam Trawler “Notre Dame des Dunes” 252
Hydraulic Lifeboat 255
A Screw Lifeboat 257
The “Inez Clarke” 258
The “Natchez” and the “Eclipse” (1855) 258
The “Empire” 258
The “Commonwealth” 262
Beam Engine of an American River Steamer 262
The “City of Cleveland” 264
An American “Whale-back” Steamer 264
Typical Steam Yacht of about 1890 271
A Steam Yacht of To-day 275
The Russian Imperial Yacht “Livadia” 276
The Royal Yacht “Victoria and Albert” 278
The Royal Yacht “Alexandra” 278
The S.Y. “Sagitta” 280
The S.Y. “Triad” 280
“Flush-decked” Type 283
“Three Island” Type 283
“Top-gallant Forecastle” Type 284
“Top-gallant Forecastle” Type, with raised quarter-deck 284
Early “Well-deck” Type 284
“Well-deck” Type 285
“Spar-deck” Type 285
“Awning-deck” Type 286
“Shade-deck” Type 286
The Building of the “Mauretania” (showing floor and part of
frames) 286
The “George Washington” in course of Construction 288
Bows of the “Berlin” in course of Construction 290
The “Berlin” just before her Launch 290
Stern frame of the “Titanic,” February 9, 1910 292
The Shelter Deck of the “Orsova” in course of Construction 292_a_
One of the Decks of the “Lusitania” in course of Construction 292_a_
Launch of the “Araguaya” 294
Launch of a Turret-Ship 294
The “Suevic” ashore off the Lizard 296
The Stern Part of the “Suevic” awaiting the New Bow at
Southampton 296_a_
The New Bow of the “Suevic” at entrance to Dock 296_a_
Charles Dickens’s State-room on the “Britannia” 298
The Veranda Café of the “Lusitania” 300
First Class Dining Saloon of the “Adriatic” 300
Dining Saloon of the S.Y. “Liberty” 302
Gymnasium of the S.Y. “Liberty” 302
The Marconi Room on a Cunard Liner 306
STEAMSHIPS AND THEIR STORY
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In my previous book, “Sailing Ships and Their Story,” which, indeed,
this present volume is meant to follow as a complement of the story
of the development of the ocean carrier, I ventured to submit the
proposition that a nation exhibits its exact state of progress and
degree of refinement in three things: its art, its literature, and its
ships; so that the development of the ship goes on side by side, and at
the same rate, as the development of the State. And if this was found
to be true with regard to the vessel propelled by sails, it will be
seen that the same can be affirmed with no less truth in respect of the
steamship.
In setting out on our present intention to trace the story of the
steamship from its first beginnings to the coming of the mammoth,
four-funnelled, quadruple-screw, turbine liners of to-day, it is not
without importance to bear the above proposition in mind. For though
the period occupied by the whole story of the steamer is roughly only
about a hundred years, yet these hundred years represent an epoch
unequalled in history for wealth of invention, commercial progress, and
industrial activity. The extraordinary development during these years,
alone, not merely of our own country and colonies, but of certain other
nations--of, for instance, the United States of America, of Germany,
of Japan--has been as rapid as it has been thorough. Consequently, if
our proposition were correct, we should expect to find that the rate
of development in the ship had been commensurate. Nor have we any
cause for disappointment, for as soon as we commence to reckon up the
achievements made in art and literature during the nineteenth, and the
first decade of the twentieth centuries, and to compare the rate of
progress of the ship during this same period, it seems at first not a
little difficult to realise that so much should have been accomplished
in so short a time.
When the inhabitant of the Stone Age had succeeded in putting an edge
on his blunt stone implement, he had instantly “broken down a wall
that for untold ages had dammed up a stagnant, unprogressive past,
and through the breach were let loose all the potentialities of the
future civilisation of mankind.” It is by no means an unfitting simile
if I suggest that we liken the invention of steam to the discovery of
the potentialities of the edge. Until the coming of the former we may
well say that progress, as we now know it, remained stagnant, at any
rate in respect of _rapid_ movement. Omitting other uses for steam not
pertinent to our present subject, we may affirm that in annihilating
space, in quickly bridging over the trackless expanse of oceans,
steamships have succeeded in accelerating the development of the
countries of the world.
Ever since the time when primitive man first learned to harness the
wind in his navigation of the waters of the earth, there had always
been sailing vessels of some sort. For, at any rate, 8,000 years
there is a chain of evidence illustrating one kind of sailing craft
or another, and the work of later centuries was but to improve and
increase the capabilities of the sailing vessels handed down from
one generation to the other. But with the first experiments in
steamships it was quite different. Here was a case of experimenting,
with but few data on which to rely. For, granted that already some
knowledge had been collected concerning the capabilities of steam, and
notwithstanding the fact that a great deal more knowledge was extant
concerning the art of shipbuilding, yet the condition of relationship
between ships and steam was unknown, untried. How to generate the
maximum of steam power at the lowest cost; how to apply this power
in such a manner as to cause the hull to go through the water at a
fair pace; whether the propelling power should find its expression at
the side or the extremity of the ship--these and many other problems
could be solved, not by previous history, but simply and solely by
experimenting, as the primitive man had solved the problem of the mast
and sail in their relation to the wind.
And yet it was scarcely probable that the value of the sail, which
had been appreciated for so many thousands of years, should be
suddenly found worthless. Inventions are no sooner born than they
find themselves compelled in their weak infancy to fight for their
lives against the militant conservatism of established custom.
Seamen-descendants of ages and ages of seamen, themselves the most
conservative of any section of society, were not likely to believe so
readily that pipes and boilers were going to do as much for the ship
as spars and sails. Nor, in fact, did they all at once. But something
had to come as a greater propelling power than uncertain wind. For the
world in the early part of this hundred years was waking up again after
the dull Georgian period. It was perhaps rather a new birth--another
Renaissance. Soon it began to get busy, and speed, not repose, became
the general cry, whose noise is heard now louder and louder each
day on land as well as sea. Every known device of the architect and
builder was employed to coax additional knots out of the sailing ship:
all the improvements in sails and gear were utilised to this purpose.
As the result of these demands the magnificent clippers doing their
marvellous passages homewards evolved. But that was all too slow.
Passengers and freights were in a hurry to get from shore to shore,
and, later, perishable food supplies could not be entrusted to the
sailing ship. And so, when once the steamship had appeared, even though
not as a pronounced success, yet the spirit of the times was such that
she should be encouraged as being likely to satisfy the cravings of an
active, restless age.
In the history of human progress we find everywhere exemplified a
continuous effort through centuries and centuries of change to obtain
an end with the least expenditure of labour. It is one of the most
striking characteristics of our nature that we proceed along that
road offering the least resistance and requiring the smallest amount
of endeavour. Not more true is this assertion to-day than in the ages
which have sunk into oblivion, and but for this human instinct, or
failing, the progress of the world would have been impossible. The
prehistoric man found the action of paddling his dug-out so irksome and
wearying that he invented the sail as a means of harnessing the wind
to do his work, and, as a result, what does the world not owe to his
apparent laziness? How else would new countries have been discovered
and peopled, commerce extended to nations beyond the seas, untilled
areas made to yield their fruitful produce, and wealth amassed by
production and exchange of commodities? It was not until Europe had at
last begun to build her big caravels and caracks, and to learn how
to handle them with adequate seamanship, that the art of navigation
advanced so far as to enable Columbus to sail across the Atlantic,
and to lay the foundation of the prosperity of the New World. To have
attained such a feat by the means of physical propulsion would have
been impossible; it was only by the invention of the sail and the
perfection of the sailing ship after many centuries of experimenting
that this came about. For man’s endurance is hedged in by stern limits.
He can only work for part of the day, and he must eat and sleep. But by
yoking the wind to the sail the voyage could be continued without the
necessity for plying the oar, and most of the crew could be below at
their rest or their meals.
But the sailing ship, too, has her limitations. When the wind drops her
range of usefulness automatically ends. When the wind becomes contrary,
or rises in sufficient fierceness as to become a gale, the sailing ship
again loses some of her utility, whilst tides and currents in like
manner combine to impede her advance from one port to another. And so,
realising all these harassing circumstances, man has ever had a desire
to shake himself free from such irritating restrictions, to assert his
own independence of winds and seas and tides, and to steer his ships
where he liked, and as fast as he liked with the minimum effort.
And yet he has been a very long time indeed finding the means of
rising superior to the forces of Nature. He has had to fight very hard
against heavy odds, he has had to devise no end of ingenious methods,
most of which have been utterly useless, and many a man, overjoyed at
his discovery of a sure means of overcoming the problem of propelling
craft without sails or oars, has found at the last that in practice it
was unworkable or too costly. Some have died from sheer want through
sacrificing their all to this one end; others, rendered more sensitive
by the ridicule and scorn of their fellow-men, have, on witnessing
their own failure, died of a broken heart, and been reckoned by the
least discerning as among those who wasted their lives in pursuing
a shadow, frittered their time and money in seeking to attain the
unattainable, and left behind them no monument except a pile of
unworkable propositions and theories.
But no generation is at any time of its career independent. From its
first moments it is under a debt to those which have come and gone.
Literature is but a collection of data amassed by our predecessors
and handed down to the next age, which adds a little more to what is
already known. It is scarcely possible to point to one man and say
that he alone was the inventor of any new theory or device, although
in carelessness we actually so speak. His own conclusions have been
based on the accumulation of what his predecessors have left for him;
and it is the same with the invention of the steamship. Some writers of
different nationalities have patriotically upheld one man or another
as the father of the steamship with a zeal that does more credit to
their national loyalty than to their sense of historical fairness.
In point of fact, although in different epochs one man has been more
successful in practical experiment than another, we cannot, at any rate
in the history of the steamship, give to that man a place of honour to
the exclusion of all those who have gone before. Without their help
he would never have succeeded. Their failures, even if they left him
little to work on, at least showed him what to avoid. As an example
we might here cite the instance of using a propeller shaped after the
manner of a duck’s foot, which, being a close copy of the method
employed by a species of animal which has its being on the surface of
the water, appealed powerfully to more than one inventor as the likely
way to solve a great problem; just as the early days of aviation were
wasted in endeavouring to follow too closely the methods of locomotion
adopted by birds. The years of man are but threescore and ten, and he
cannot go on wasting his allotted time in trying and discarding all the
experiments possible; but from the disordered mass of accumulated data
he can extract just those which have any semblance of sound sense and
practicability, from which he can deduce his own new theory and put it
to actual test.
Because, then, of this mutual inter-dependence we shall give the palm
to no individual, but endeavour to show how, step by step, the ship
has shaken herself free of entire slavery to the wind, one age helping
her a little in her ambition, others sending her forward farther still
towards her goal. Chance plays so curious a game with progress. A
genius may spring up too early or too late to be appreciated. He may be
hailed as a dangerous lunatic or as a benefactor of mankind, according
to whether the time was ripe for his appearance.
Papin, as we shall see presently, was born out of due season. His
fellow-men did not want his steamer, so they smashed it to pieces.
Solomon de Caus, who showed that he knew more about the application
of steam than anyone who had ever lived, was shut up as a madman,
whereas Fulton, another man of rare genius and wonderful fertility of
invention, has recently had his centenary celebrated and fêtes in his
memory held, lest the recollection of his great gift to mankind should
be easily forgotten. But Fulton was just the kind of man to acknowledge
his dependence on the work of his predecessors, and, in fact, did
this in so many words when he was being denounced by a rival inventor.
Desblanc, a Frenchman, pretended that his was the prior invention,
but Fulton wisely replied that if the glory of having invented the
steamboat belonged to anyone, it belonged not to himself nor to
Desblanc, but to the Marquis de Jouffroy, who had obtained a success
with his steamer on the Saône twenty years before. And the designers
and builders of the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ to-day would be among
the first to admit that such achievements as these mammoth ships are
but the results of all that has gone before: in other words, it is
evolution rather than sudden invention.
Genius is the exclusive possession of no particular nation, still
less of any particular age: but it needs just that happy condition
of opportunity which means so little or may mean so much. And the
more we realise that this is so, and that it is even possible for
two men, separated by thousands of miles, to be working at the same
scientific problem and to arrive at similar solutions at about the
same date (as happens more than once in the story of the steamship),
so much more quickly shall we approach a fair and impartial verdict in
assessing praise to whom praise is due. All the mutual recriminations
and slanders, all the long years of law-suits, and the pain and grief
to both parties in several instances regarding their rival claims
for priority of invention of the essential characteristics of the
steamboat, might have been thus avoided. Coincidence is a recognisable
factor, and when men’s minds are at one particular time more keenly set
on bringing about a craft capable of moving without sails or oars, and
working with the same historical data before them, it is, in fact, more
probable than improbable that the same conclusions will be arrived at
by men who have never seen each other, nor availed themselves of each
other’s secrets.
There had always been a feeling that some means other than sails or
oars could be found for ship-propulsion, but it was not until the
possibilities of steam had begun to be appreciated that the idea of a
mechanically-propelled ship took on any practical form. Thus we might
divide our study into two separate sections. The first would consist of
all those vessels propelled by some mechanism moved by man or beast: in
other words, by physical strength employed to turn a paddle-wheel or
other arrangement. The other section would include all those efforts
to turn the machinery, not by physical, but by steam force. The first
dates from a time almost as old as the ship herself; the second in
actual success covers, as we have already said, a space of about a
hundred years only, but the first efforts date from the beginning of
the eighteenth century, when Papin performed his historic achievement.
For years and centuries man has longed to be able to navigate the air,
and to this end he has tried all shapes and kinds of balloons, yet
he is always more or less dependent on the currents of the sky. But
the recent jump from years of failure to marvellous success is due as
much to the collateral invention and development of the motor. It was
chance that caused the aeroplane and the motor industry to develop
simultaneously, and yet but for the latter the former could not have
advanced. It is much the same with the evolution of the steamship. It
was only after Solomon de Caus had, early in the seventeenth century,
published his treatise on the application of steam as a means for
elevating water, and the Marquis of Worcester, in 1663, had published
his description of “An admirable and most forcible way to drive up
water by fire,” that Papin was able to supply the key to the question
of the mechanical propulsion of ships. Even if it were possible to
prove that he had never acquainted himself with the theories of de Caus
and the Marquis of Worcester, that argument would avail but little,
for the solution was bound to come sooner or later; it was inevitable.
There must be, man reasoned, some means for propelling a ship along the
water other than by sails or oars. The Chinese had been working at the
idea, the Romans had at least attempted it; through the Middle Ages
there had been actually accredited instances, and so the eighteenth
century was not too soon for its accomplishment. Thus, when Papin
determined to apply steam power to vessels, he was just one of those
many benefactors of the world who have succeeded by means of Nature
to overcome Nature: by employing fire and water to overcome water and
space.
Let us, then, turn to the next chapter and see something more of the
different methods which were tried before the satisfaction of full
and undoubted success rewarded man in his struggle against the limits
to his freedom. As this is a history rather of steamships than of all
kinds of mechanically-propelled craft, we must examine not all the
ingenious theories and the wild conceptions which many minds in many
ages have conceived for propelling ships by mechanical means other
than steam (for with those alone we could fill this book), but having
shown something of the main principles which underlay these, we shall
pass on to tell, for the benefit of the general reader, something of
the vicissitudes through which has passed that swift and majestic
creature which carries him across vast oceans and broad turbulent
channels, as well as the peaceful waters of the land-locked lake
and river. For this reason, while not omitting anything that shall
contribute to the better understanding of the story, we shall omit
from our study such technical details and theories as came to nothing
practical and, notwithstanding their importance in fashioning the
future of the steamship, are of less interest to the average reader
than to the shipbuilder and engineer. Modern activity is now so rapid;
event follows event so quickly; the ship of yesterday is already made
obsolescent by a newer type, that we cannot fairly be accused of
living too near the period to obtain an accurate perspective. Whether
steamships will flourish much longer, or whether they will in turn
be surpassed, as they have ousted the sailing ship, is a debatable
proposition. At any rate, to anyone who has at heart one of the
greatest and most powerful forces in the spread of civilisation, the
story of steamship evolution, from comparative inutility to a state
of efficiency which is remarkable even in this wonder age, cannot but
appeal with an attractiveness commensurate with its importance.
CHAPTER II
THE EVOLUTION OF MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED CRAFT
When the prehistoric man was returning home from his day’s fishing or
hunting, and the evening breeze had died away to a flat calm so that
the primitive sail became for the time a hindrance rather than a saving
of labour, and the tired navigator was compelled reluctantly to resort
to his paddles once more--it was, no doubt, then that our ancestry was
first inoculated with the germ for desiring some mechanical form of
propulsion, and the fever went on developing until it broke out in full
infection when the possibilities of steam were beginning to be weighed.
The earliest records of the employment of some artificial means for
sending the ship along are not preserved to us, although it is certain
that repeated attempts were made in many ages to do without oars and
sails. When slave labour was cheap and plentiful, and this could easily
be turned into propelling power, perhaps it was hardly likely that
there would be much incentive for discovering or rediscovering such
forces as steam to do the work of physical energy. It seems to me to be
a curious and interesting fact that it was not until the freedom of the
individual from some sort of slavery and servitude--whether belonging
to ancient times or the Middle Ages--began to be asserted that there
was any real progress made in labour-saving devices. The dignity
of man, and his superiority as a being possessed of intelligence
and discernment, and, consequently, his right to be considered as
something more than a drawer of water, a hewer of wood, and the motive
force for any method of transport, had fully to be recognised and
appreciated before means were earnestly sought to save human labour.
The cry of the last few years and the tendency exhibited by many world
movements have been all for asserting the right of the individual.
The French Revolution, the American War of Independence, the rise
of Socialism of some sort or another in most civilised countries,
have happened collaterally with the progress of machinery, and the
development of power independent of physical force, necessitating less
and less the expenditure of human energy. Never in the history of the
world has so much been accomplished for obtaining mechanical energy
as within the last hundred and fifty years, and never perhaps has the
individual been able to possess himself of so much freedom.
But even in those days when slaves could be made to work to the limits
of their endurance, it is fairly evident that man believed that there
was a future for the mechanical propulsion of ships, and the usual form
which this took was of applying paddle-wheels to the side of the ship,
and revolving these by means of a capstan turned either by slaves or
by oxen. The Chinese, it is scarcely to be wondered at, adopted this
means, and so also did the Romans. In 264 B.C., when Appius Claudius
Caudex one dark night crossed the Straits of Messina to Sicily, he
transported the troops in boats propelled by paddle-wheels through
the medium of capstans revolved by oxen, and there is in existence an
ancient bas-relief which shows a galley with three wheels on either
side to be used for this purpose. Over and over again this same idea
was exploited, and even as recently as 1829 Charles Napier, a British
naval officer, when he was in command of the frigate _Galatea_, was by
special permission of the Admiralty allowed to fit her with paddles,
which were worked by winches on the main deck. He found that in a calm
he could thus get his ship along at three knots an hour, and tow a
line-o’-battle ship at one and a half knots. But it was noticed then,
what experimenters of this nature always found in every age, that,
firstly, this method of capstan-plus-paddle-wheels was good only for a
short distance; and, secondly, that so great an expenditure of physical
force could be more advantageously applied by using the old-fashioned
method of rowing.
Many a student and philosopher pictured in his mind some novel method
for doing away with sails and oars, among whom we might mention Roger
Bacon; but most of these theories seem not to have gone farther than
the walls of the study. In 1543 another attempt was made by one Blasco
de Garray, on June 17. Himself a native of Biscay, he proceeded to
Barcelona, and experimented first with a vessel of 109 tons, and later
with one of about twice the size. For many years it was commonly,
but erroneously, stated that this was the first steamship. Apart
altogether from the unlikeliness of this being the case at so early a
date, it has now been proved to be little better than a fable based
on insufficient evidence. Even to this present day this inaccuracy is
still repeated, and it is not out of place to emphasise the fact yet
again that de Garray’s was _not_ a steamship. Special research has been
undertaken in the Royal archives of Simancas by able and discriminating
students, and the result is that, while it was found that two separate
experiments were made with two different vessels, and that one ship had
a paddle-wheel on either side worked by twenty-five men, and the other
ship by forty men, and that a speed equal to three and a half English
miles per hour was obtained, yet there was discovered among these
manuscripts no mention whatsoever of the use of steam. The vessels were
found to steer well, but the same conclusion was again arrived at--viz.
that for a passage of any length it was far easier to use oars.
The idea, however, was not dead, and we find it coming up again in
the time of Elizabeth. During her reign there were numbers of little
books issued to make the seamen more efficient, and these, of course,
deal with the sailing ship. One of the most entertaining that I know
of is that entitled “Inventions or Devises Very necessary for all
Generalles and Captaines, or Leaders of men, as well by Sea as by Land:
Written by William Bourne.” It was published in London in 1578, and
is full of fascinating matter for preventing the enemy from boarding
ships, and useful tips for sinking him even when he is superior in
strength and size to the ship he is attacking. Bourne mentions the
following “devise” on page 15:--“And furthermore you may make a Boate
to goe without oares or Sayle, by the placing of certaine wheels on
the outside of the Boate, in that sort, that the armes of the wheeles
may goe into the water, and so turning the wheeles by some provision,
and so the wheeles shall make the Boate to goe.” And the next “devise”
refers to the fact that “also, they make a water Mill in a Boate, for
when that it rideth at an Anker, the tyde or streame will turne the
wheeles with great force, and these Milles are used in France.”
In another interesting sixteenth century book, full of curious and
wonderful machines, entitled “Theatrum Instrumentorum et Machinarum
Jacobi Bessoni, Mathematici ingeniosissimi,” published in 1582, there
are detailed illustrations and descriptions of a curious ship which
is in shape something like a heart, the bow being the apex, so to
speak; the stern has two ends, between which is fitted a species of
paddle-wheel of unusual kind. It consists of a cigar-shaped object of
wood, not unlike a modern torpedo, but broader. Through this is an axle
which allowed the wheel to revolve freely, and on the axle at either
end rests a vertical spar, which is fastened to another spar at the top
parallel with the wheel. From the centre of this spar an enormous kind
of mast or sprit rose high up into the air, which was worked by means
of a tackle and ropes leading down to a winch, turned by two men. Thus,
if the reader will imagine an object resembling one of those rollers
employed in the preservation of a cricket pitch, but made of wood
instead of metal, he will get something of the shape of this curious
machine. Besson evidently thought a great deal of this invention and
speaks of it as “inventum vix credibile,” but it was a clumsy method
and cannot really have had many virtues to commend it.
Seven years after Besson’s publication there appeared another book
which throws light on the prevailing passion for mechanical propulsion,
though it refers back to the time of the ancient galley. In “The
History of Many Memorable Things Lost, which were in use among the
Ancients ... written originally in Latin by Guido Pancirollus, and now
done into English Vol. i.,” published in London in 1715, but first
issued in 1589, the following statement is made on page 120:--“I saw
also the pictures of some ships, called Liburnæ which had three wheels
on both sides, without, touching the water, each consisting of eight
spokes, jetting out from the wheel about an hand’s breadth, and six
oxen within, which by turning an engine stirr’d the wheels, whose
Fellys [spokes], driving the water backwards, moved the Liburnians
with such force that no three-oar’d gally was able to resist them.”
This would seem to confirm the statement that the ancient inhabitants
of the Mediterranean certainly employed the paddle-wheel.
But a year before Pancirolli published his book there appeared
another interesting work, which shows yet again that the employment
of paddle-wheeled craft was far from non-existent. There is a scarce
book in the British Museum, published in 1588, entitled “Le Diverse
et Artificiose Machine del Capitano Agostino Ramelli,” which is
illustrated with some highly informative plates. Fig. CLII. shows a
kind of pontoon, to be employed by the enemy in attacking a town from
the other side of a stream or river. A horse brings a rectangular
shaped construction down to the water’s edge, where it is launched and
floats. Everywhere this kind of built-up dray is covered in, but in the
bows a man is seen firing his harquebus from his protected shelter,
while on either side of this craft a paddle-wheel is seen revolving
with its six blades, that are not straight, as in the modern wheels,
but curved inwards like a scythe. The illustration shows these wheels
being turned by a man standing up inside; the wheels are quite open,
without paddle-boxes. An oar projecting at the stern enables the craft
to be steered.
We see, then, that that earliest form of ship propulsion by mechanical
means, the paddle-wheel, was thoroughly grafted into man’s mind long
before he had brought about the steamboat. We cannot give here every
theory and suggestion which the seventeenth century put forward, but
we can state that during this period various patents were being taken
out for making boats to go against wind and tide, some of which were
conspicuously distinguished by their display of ingenuity to overcome
the forces of Nature. We come across all sorts of ideas for “to make
boats, shippes, and barges to go against strong wind and tide,” “to
draw or haul ships, boates, etc., up river against the stream,” “to
make boates for the carryage of burthens and passengers upon the water
as swifte in calms and more saft [_sic_] in stormes than boates full
sayled in greater wynes.” The Marquis of Worcester, in 1663, published
a little book entitled “A Century of the Names and Scantlings of
Inventions,” and he himself patented an invention for sending a boat
against the stream by using the actual force of the wind and stream
in a reverse manner. But the fact to be borne in mind for our present
purpose is that from all these ingenious propositions nothing practical
ever evolved that was found to be of any service to man, or the
transportation of his commerce. At any rate, there is no record of this.
[Illustration: HERO’S STEAM APPARATUS.
_From the Exhibit in the Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington._]
Now that we have traced in outline the vain attempts at physical
propulsion, let us turn to take a view of the evolution of that
other invention whose advent alone delayed the practical utility of
the paddle-wheel to boats. Who shall say how it was that steam came
first to be regarded as a means of giving power? In certain parts
of the world, where geysers and boiling springs existed, man must
naturally have been struck by the elastic force which steam possessed.
An intellect which had any leaning to the side of practical economy
must have reasoned that here was a valuable force running to waste,
which might have been employed in the service of mankind, just as the
swift-running rivers could be made to turn the water-wheels. But,
as we said just now, steam was not wanted yet, for human labour was
too cheap to bother about it; and we might remark incidentally
that it was owing to this same cheapness that the galley, or rowing
craft, was encouraged for many centuries in the Mediterranean, to the
partial exclusion and great discouragement of the big sailing ship.
Indeed, slavery, or abundance of cheap, compulsory labour, has been the
means of holding back the progress of the world. Had the big sailing
ships come at an earlier date the far-off countries would have been
discovered much sooner, and the study of the properties of steam--or
some other means as the equivalent of physical power--would have been
regarded with a greater enthusiasm. Perhaps it would be more accurate
to speak of the re-discovery of steam than of its invention: for as
early as 130 B.C. Hero, of Alexandria, had written a treatise on
“Pneumatics,” and described a light ball supported by a jet of steam
which came out of a pipe into a cup, much as one sees in the rural
fairs of to-day the same idea used when the force of water raises a
light ball for the bucolic rifleman to shoot at. Hero also referred to
the “aeolipile,” which was a hollow ball mounted on its axis between
two pivots, one of which was hollow and acted as a steam pipe. Two
nozzles formed part of the ball and were fitted at right angles to the
pivots on which the ball revolved, and owing to the reaction caused by
the escape of the steam from the jets touching the ball the latter was
made to revolve. This is well illustrated in the plate facing page 18.
From the time of Hero to the seventeenth century ensues a wide
hiatus, although in the meantime there were not wanting some who now
and again added slightly to the body of knowledge which the world
possessed on the subject. Of these we might mention such names as
Archimedes in the second century B.C., and Mathesius in the sixteenth
century A.D. But Solomon de Caus, or Carrs, in the first half of
the seventeenth century showed that the steam given off by boiling
water could be used for raising water, and Giovanni Branca, about
the same time, brought about what is really the progenitor of the
modern turbine. In this seventeenth century, also, another ingenious
Italian, Evangelista Torricelli, proved that the atmosphere in which
we live possessed weight, and to-day everyone is aware that this is
so, and that the pressure of the air is 15 lb. per square inch. The
working of the mercurial barometer is the simplest proof of this. We
shall see presently how an isolated fact unearthed in one age becomes
the foundation of the mighty success of a later inventor, and thus
the assertion which we made on an earlier page, that the credit of
inventing the steamboat belongs neither to one man nor to one age, is
not devoid of truth.
Otto von Guericke, about the middle of the same century, showed the
practical utility of producing a vacuum, of which the syringe and the
common suction pump are such excellent examples. But we are not writing
a history of inventions, nor of steam, but of the steamship, and we
shall pass on presently to see how each of these separate important
discoveries eventually blended to form the subject of our present
study. In 1663 Edward Somerset, the second Marquis of Worcester, to
whom we have already referred, also published his description of “An
Admirable and most Forcible Way to drive up Water by Fire,” and in
this year he obtained protection by Act of Parliament for his “water
commanding engine.” When he had interested himself so much in the
problem of sending a craft against a current, and simultaneously was
obtaining success in the development of steam power, it certainly seems
a little strange that the Marquis did not advance just that one step
farther which was necessary to complete the syllogism, and apply steam
for the purpose of solving the problem of going against the tide or
stream. That, however, was reserved for another inventor, and of a
different nationality.
And so we come to one whose name is deserving of especial mention in
the history of the steamship, for it was he who was the first to do
what myriads of others have since done. Many writers have asserted
wrongly that this man or the other was the first to succeed: they
have gone back as far as de Garray and as short a distance as Fulton.
Some have stated timidly and with reserve that Denis Papin is said to
have been associated with this honour. But there can be no manner of
doubt that to Papin certainly belongs the high distinction of having
caused the steamboat to be an actual fact and not merely a figment
of imagination. Papin was a French engineer, who, being a Calvinist
was, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, obliged to go into
exile. For that reason, therefore, he betook himself to the Court of
the Landgrave of Hesse, where he found refuge. In 1690 he published
a suggestion for obtaining power by means of steam. His idea was to
have a cylinder made of thin metal; water was to be placed therein
and heated. In the cylinder were to be also a piston and rod on which
was a latch, and when the water had been heated sufficiently so that
enough steam had been generated, the piston would be moved upwards
and be kept there by means of the latch. Thereupon the fire was to be
taken away, and, the steam then condensing, as soon as the latch was
loosed the piston was bound to drop to the bottom of the cylinder; and
if a rope and pulley were attached to the rod, then the descent of the
piston would be able to raise a weight at the end of the rope. This
was practically what was afterwards known as the atmospherical engine,
and Papin was of the opinion that it could be employed for draining
rivers, throwing bombs and other purposes. But it is especially notable
for our purpose that he firmly believed that it could be employed for
rowing a craft against the wind, and indeed would be preferable to
the working of galley slaves for getting quickly over the sea; for
men, he explained, occupied too much space, consumed too much food,
and his tubes and pumps would make a far less cumbersome arrangement.
It is worth while noting that the idea of these early inventors of
the steamboat was not so much to _propel_ the ship as to _row_ her
mechanically by oars or paddles. We still call them paddle-wheels
rather than propelling wheels, and the early wheels used for the
steamboat were practically paddles placed crosswise, with a blade at
the end of each spar. When fitted to an axle, of course, they moved in
a circular fashion. The French “roue à aubes,” which is the expression
that these French inventors made use of in describing their creations,
conveys precisely the same idea.
Papin, casting about for some method of bringing about the steamboat,
suggests the use of these rotatory oars, and mentions having seen them
fixed to an axle in a boat belonging to Prince Robert of Hesse. This
latter was one more of those attempts to propel a craft by physical
means, for these revolving oars were turned by horses. Papin, in
considering the matter, thought that instead of horses the wheels
might be made to go round by steam force, and in 1707 he actually
constructed the first steamboat, which he successfully navigated on
the River Fulda, in Hanover. He even did so well that he set off in
her to steam down to the sea and cross to London; but, of course, the
old, conservative prejudice of the local boatmen was bound to make its
appearance as soon as so historical a craft had shown her ability. And
so, arriving at Münden, the watermen, either through fear that this
new self-propelling craft would take away their livelihood through
inaugurating a fresh era, or, being envious of a success which no man
had ever before obtained, they attacked this steamboat, smashed it to
pieces, and Papin himself barely escaped with his life. Thus, a craft
and its engines, which to-day would be welcomed by any museum in the
world, was annihilated by the men who had the privilege of witnessing
the first steamship. Papin never got over the grief caused by so
cruel a reception of his brilliant labours, and it is deplorable to
think that such scant encouragement was possible. Besides being the
successful originator of the steamboat, he was also the inventor of the
safety valve.
The publication of Papin’s correspondence with Leibnitz puts the case
beyond all possibility of doubt, and the reader who cares to pursue the
subject will find the facts he requires in “Leibnizens und Huygens’
Briefwechsel mit Papin,” by Dr. Ernst Gerland. From this we see that
Papin had already published a treatise dealing with the application
of heat and water. In a letter, dated March 13, 1704, he wrote to
Leibnitz of his intention to build a boat which could carry about four
thousand pounds in weight, and expressed the opinion that two men would
be able to make this craft easily and quickly to ascend the current
of a river by means of a wheel which he had adjusted for utilising
the oars. That Papin made no aimless plunge, but went into the matter
scientifically, is quite clear. He studied carefully the important
fact of the resistance which is offered to a vessel passing through
the water, and thus found what he believed to be the correct lines on
which his ship was to be built. He shows that he had been hard at work
expanding his theories, and was longing to have the opportunity to put
them to a practical test. On July 7, 1707, he writes to say that he has
many enemies at Cassel (where he was then sojourning) and contemplates
going to England; and in asking permission so to do he brings forward
the plea that it is important that the new type of ship should have a
chance of proving its worth in a seaport such as London. He does not
conceal the great faith which he reposes in this novel craft: “_qui,
par le moien du feu, rendra un ou deux hommes capables de faire plus
d’effect que plusieurs centaines des rameurs_.” Then, writing again
to Leibnitz, also from Cassel, under date of September 15 of the same
year, relating the result of his experiment of this first steamboat,
he remarks: “_Je Vous diray que l’experience de mon batteau a êté
faitte et qu’elle a reussi de la manière que Je l’esperois: la force du
courant de la riviere ètoit si peu de chose en comparaison de la force
de mes rames qu’on avoit de la peine à reconnoitre qu’il allât plus
vite en dêcendant qu’en montant._”
With such statements as these before us, we can no longer be in any
doubt as to the first author of the steamboat.
Papin had discovered a method of producing a vacuum by the condensation
of steam, but Thomas Savery is one of the many instances of the case
where two men in different countries were working separately and
unknown to each other at a common problem. The latter had patented
an apparatus for raising water by the impellent force of fire so far
back as the year 1698, or nine years before Papin’s steamboat made
her appearance; but he had also independently discovered a method of
producing a vacuum by the condensation of steam just as had Papin.
And this same Savery had shown that the same problem which Papin had
succeeded in solving was also interesting himself: for he had gone so
far as to ask for a patent for an invention for moving a paddle-wheel
on either side of a ship by means of a capstan, which capstan was to be
revolved by men. Eventually it occurred to him, as it had not occurred
to the Marquis of Worcester, that steam might be employed as helpful to
ships. Nevertheless, Savery did not carry this idea to any practical
test.
We come now to Thomas Newcomen, who, notwithstanding the fact that his
home was at Dartmouth, where in the Elizabethan years so much had been
done in connection with ship-building and the sending forth of so many
naval expeditions across the seas, does not seem ever to have done
anything directly for the development of the steamboat. But indirectly
Newcomen did much, and the machine which he introduced, and with
which his name is inseparably connected, was practically an English
equivalent of Papin’s atmospheric engine, to which we have already
referred. Newcomen’s engine is important to us, inasmuch as it embodied
in a practical manner the main characteristics of what eventually
became the familiar reciprocating steam engine; and had it not been for
this, Watt might not have evolved his historic engine, and consequently
Fulton not succeeded as he did. I shall endeavour not to weary the
non-technical reader, but I must pause a moment here to give some idea
of the nature of Newcomen’s engine, because of the close relation which
it bears to the subsequent development of the steam engine as fitted
in ships and boats. It consisted, then, of a vertical cylinder, which,
unlike our modern cylinders, was open at the top. It was provided with
a piston to which were attached chains that connected with one end
of a beam, the centre of the beam being so fixed as to allow it to
oscillate. Steam was generated in a boiler, on the top of which was a
primitive cylinder, and by opening a valve, steam was admitted into the
cylinder and so pushed up the piston. When the piston had reached the
top of the cylinder the valve was closed so that the steam was shut
off. Then cold water from a cistern was allowed to enter the bottom of
the cylinder, and by this means the steam was condensed, so causing
a vacuum; by the pressure of the air--which, as already mentioned,
is 15 pounds to the square inch--the piston was forced down again.
We get here, then, the essential features of that steam engine which
is so familiar to all who travel by land or by sea. But these early
atmospheric engines were not invented for the purpose of transport:
it was for the pumping of water from mines that they were principally
contrived, and in the case of the Newcomen engine, the other end of
the beam opposite to that which was worked upwards by steam pressure
(and downwards by atmospheric pressure) was attached to pump-rods that
worked in connection with the buckets for pumping out the water. Thus,
like the movement of the see-saw, when the piston-rod was down at the
bottom of the cylinder the pump-rods were correspondingly elevated,
and vice versa. As soon as the piston descended to the base of the
cylinder through the cessation of the vacuum the spray of cold water
was stopped, and steam was again admitted into the cylinder to cause
another upward stroke. At the same time it was necessary to discharge
the hot water which had accumulated at the bottom of the cylinder, and
this was done through a pipe fitted with a valve which would not allow
of its return; any air admitted with the steam and the cooling water
was blown out through a snifting valve (so-called because of the noise
it makes) as the powerful steam came in. But, the reader may ask, what
about the open top of the cylinder? How can it be any good to use an
uncovered cylinder in conjunction with steam? The answer is, that since
the top of the piston was always kept flooded with water, all air was
excluded.
We have thus seen the steam engine in its most elementary form; how
that it employs boiling water until it becomes steam which is then
admitted to a cylinder and by its own force moves a tight-fitting disc
or piston up and down. We have also seen that by attaching a rod to
this disc, and, further, by connecting this rod to a beam, we can make
the latter go up (by means of the steam pressure) or come down (through
the pressure of the air). In order to effect the latter we have
remarked the fact that a vacuum had to be made by condensing the steam
through spraying cold water.
With this explanation in the mind of the general reader, to whom
engineering matters do not usually appeal, we may proceed with the
progress of our story, and pass on to the year 1730, when a method
differing entirely from any that we have yet mentioned was brought
forward. Strictly speaking it had nothing to do with steam, but, as we
shall see when we come to consider the subject of steam lifeboats, it
embodied an idea which could only be satisfactorily employed by the
adoption of steam. In the year mentioned there was published a little
book under the title “Specimina Ichnographica: or a Brief Narrative of
several New Inventions and Experiments: particularly, The Navigating
a Ship in a Calm, etc.,” by John Allen, M.D. The author’s idea was
to propel a ship by forcing water, or some other fluid, through the
stern by means of a proper engine. To this end he experimented with a
tin boat 11 inches long, 5 inches broad and 6 inches deep. Placing
this little ship into stagnant water, he loaded it until it sank in
the water to a depth of 3¾ inches. Into the boat he also placed a
cylindrical-shaped object 6 inches high and about 3 inches in diameter
and filled it with water. At the bottom of the cylinder was a small
pipe, a quarter of an inch square, and this led through the stern of
the craft at a distance of an inch and a half below the surface of
the water in which the boat was floating. As soon as Allen removed
his finger from the outlet of the pipe in the stern the water, of
course, ran out from the cylinder, and this action caused the boat
to travel, the speed being reckoned, in the case of the model, at
about one-fifth of a mile per hour. Although nothing actually came of
this theory at the time, it is none the less perfectly workable, with
some adaptations, and some of the steam lifeboats, in order to avoid
using propellers, which are liable to get foul of wreckage when going
alongside a ship in distress, have an elaboration of this principle.
They are propelled by engines which work a pump that drives a stream of
water through pipes placed below the water-line in much the same manner
as in Allen’s model. Allen at first contemplated working the pumps by
men, and then causing them to be driven by an atmospheric steam engine.
A similar device was employed in Virginia, U.S.A., by James Rumsey in
1787. In his boat water was sucked in at the bow and ejected at the
stern. It was found that as long as the vessel travelled at all she
went at the rate of four miles an hour, but as she only covered less
than a mile and then stopped, it cannot be said that this experiment
was conclusive. In 1788, the following year, however, another boat was
made actually to go a distance of four miles in one hour, and the
device was patented in that country during the year 1791, but Allen had
already patented his invention in England thirty years earlier.
It is when we come to Jonathan Hulls or Hull that we encounter the
first Englishman to apply steam to ships. Hulls was a native of
Gloucestershire, who, in 1736, patented a method of propelling vessels
by steam, and in the following year issued a booklet on the subject of
his invention which was subsequently reprinted. The title reads thus:
“A Description and Draught of a New-Invented Machine for Carrying
Vessels or ships out of or into any harbour, port or river, against
wind and tide or in a calm ... by Jonathan Hulls.” His idea was to
provide a steam tug so that it should be able to render beneficial
service to those sailing ships accepting it. His preference for placing
the “machine,” or engines, into a separate ship, and thus using her
as a tug-boat, instead of installing the engines on board each vessel
was because he believed the “machine” might be thought cumbersome and
take up too much room in a vessel laden with cargo. But besides the
advantage of having a tow-boat always in readiness in any port, he
suggested that an old ship which was not able to go far abroad could
well be adapted for receiving this “machine.”
“In some convenient part of the Tow-Boat,” he explains, “there is
placed a Vessel about two-thirds full of Water, with the Top close
shut. This Vessel being kept boiling, rarefies the Water into a Steam:
this Steam being convey’d thro’ a large Pipe into a Cylindrical Vessel
and there condens’d, makes a Vacuum, which causes the weight of the
Atmosphere to press on this Vessel, and so presses down a Piston that
is fitted into this Cylindrical Vessel in the same manner as in Mr.
Newcomen’s Engine, with which he raises Water by Fire.”
It will thus be seen that Hulls was an adapter of Newcomen’s
atmospherical engine to marine purposes rather than an actual inventor
of something new and unheard of. But Hulls seems to have anticipated
this criticism, for he adds: “if it should be said that this is not a
New Invention, because I make use of the same Power to drive my Machine
that others have made use of to Drive theirs for other Purposes, I
Answer, The Application of this Power is no more than the Application
of any common and known Instrument used in Mechanism for new-invented
Purposes.”
[Illustration: JONATHAN HULLS’ STEAM TUG-BOAT.
_After the Drawing attached to his Specification for the Patent._]
We have already noticed that the most which Newcomen could get out of
his engine was an up-and-down movement, which was all very well for
the purpose for which it was intended, namely, pumping up water, but
before it was applicable for propelling a ship the power had to be
adapted to give a rotary motion. The accompanying illustration, which
is taken from Hulls’ specification for his patent, and reproduced in
the booklet mentioned above, will afford some idea of his proposal. In
the lower half of the picture the “tow-boat” is seen in imagination
hauling an eighteenth century full-rigged ship, a performance which
in actual truth she never achieved. There is, in fact, some doubt as
to whether Hulls ever did put the idea to a practical test. Admiral
Preble, a distinguished American Naval officer, in his “Chronological
History of the Origin and Development of Steam Navigation,” published
in Philadelphia in 1883, a volume which contains a vast amount of
interesting detail up to that date, says that Hulls did not produce a
satisfactory experiment. Scott Russell, one of the greatest authorities
on such matters in the nineteenth century, affirmed that Hulls did
carry out his theory in definite shape, and the recent “Dictionary of
National Biography” also states that at any rate he experimented with
a vessel on the River Avon in the neighbourhood of Evesham in 1737.
One thing is certain, that whatever merits the proposition might have
had in certain respects, it was, commercially, a complete failure. On
the other hand, in enunciating a method of converting the rectilineal
motion of the piston-rod into a rotary movement Hulls undoubtedly
showed the direction in which others were to follow.
In the upper half of the illustration of Hulls’ drawing, beginning at
the bottom right-hand corner, we see the details of his “machine.” _P_
is the pipe which comes from the furnace and brings the steam to _Q_,
the cylinder in which the steam was also condensed. (This last remark
is important to bear in mind, as we shall see later to what extent this
feature was modified.) The point marked _R_ is the valve which enables
the steam to be cut off from entering the cylinder whilst that amount
of steam which has already been allowed to go in is being condensed.
The other small pipe _S_ conveys the cooling water which condenses the
steam in the cylinder, and _T_ is the cock which lets in the condensing
water after the cylinder is full of steam and the valve is shut. _U_
is the rope which is fixed to the piston that slides up and down the
cylinder, and this is the same rope that goes round the wheel _D_ in
the machine shown in the larger illustration.
In this latter picture, too, wherein the tow-boat is seen steaming
along, _A_ denotes, of course, the chimney “coming from the furnace,”
while _B_ is the tow-boat and _CC_ are the two pieces of timber which
are framed to support the machine. It will be noticed that inboard are
three wheels marked respectively _Da_, _D_, and _Db_. These are on
one axis and receive the ropes as shown. _Ha_ and _Hb_ are two wheels
also on the same axis projecting beyond the stern, and the six fans or
paddles are marked _I_, which move alternately in such a manner that
when the wheels _Da_, _D_, and _Db_ move backwards or forwards they
keep the fans or paddles in a direct motion. When these three wheels
_Da_, _D_, and _Db_ move forward then the rope _Fb_ must move the
wheel _Hb_ forward, and so cause the paddles to revolve in the same
direction. So also the rope _Fa_ connects the wheel _Ha_ to _Da_, and
when the latter and its two sister wheels revolve the wheel _Da_, then
the wheel _Ha_ draws the rope _F_ and raises the weight _G_ (barely
decipherable in the sketch to the left of _Da_), at the same time as
the wheel _Hb_ brings the paddles forward.
Furthermore, when the weight _G_ is raised while the wheels _Da_, _D_
and _Db_ are moving backwards, the rope _Fa_ gives way and the power
of the weight _G_ brings the wheel _Ha_ forward and the paddles with
it: so that the latter always keep going forward, notwithstanding that
the three wheels _Da_, _D_, and _Db_ move backwards and forwards as the
piston moves up and down in the cylinder. _LL_--scarcely recognisable
owing to the reduction of the sketch--indicate the teeth for a catch
to drop in from the axis, and are so contrived that they catch in an
alternate manner to cause the paddles to move always forward, for the
wheel _Ha_, by the power of the weight _G_, is performing its work
while the other wheel _Hb_ goes back in order to fetch another stroke.
Hulls explains that the weight _G_ must contain but half the weight of
the pillar of air pressure on the piston, because the weight _G_ is
raised at the same time as the wheel _Hb_ is doing its duty, so that in
effect there are really two machines acting alternately by the weight
of one pillar of air of such a diameter as is the diameter of the
cylinder.
Hulls expressed another crude idea for when the ship was navigating “up
in-land Rivers” and the bottom could be reached. The paddles were then
to be removed and “cranks placed at the hindmost Axis to strike a Shaft
to the bottom of the River, which will drive the Vessel forward with
greater Force.”
Daniel Bernoulli, in the year 1753, proved on paper that it was
mathematically possible to use a steam engine for propelling ships,
the medium being also wheels with vanes attached. There were not
wanting other theories and experiments also in the eighteenth century
which attained little or no success, their defects arising sometimes
through lack of sufficient power to go against a stream, or through
some erroneous principle. Of these we might mention especially the
experiment made in France by Périer, who, after devoting careful
consideration to the problem of the amount of power required, and,
after reckoning the necessary force likely to be essential, by the
number of horses which were required for drawing along a boat from the
towing-path, set to work in his own manner. It happened that in the
year 1775, to which we are now referring, there was on view in Paris
a unique engine which the now famous and ever memorable James Watt
had made. This aroused so much interest that it was decided to hire a
boat on the Seine and place therein a Watt machine of one horse-power.
Périer carried out his experiment, though owing to the force of the
current of the Seine, and the too limited horse-power which the engine
was capable of producing, the result was a failure. But one of Périer’s
associates, the Marquis de Jouffroy, had also been excited by the
advent of this English engine which was an improvement on anything
that the world had yet seen, and he resolved to try for himself to
find some means of making a ship to go against swift-running rivers
independent of horse-towage. In spite of the prejudice which was likely
to be aroused in case he should prove successful (for the owners of the
monopoly of the more primitive form of inland water transport would
not quietly consent to see their living taken away from them), he set
forth with considerable courage and an heroic determination. Since
it is doubtful whether these interesting experiments would ever have
been made had it not been for the happy coincidence of Watt’s engine
becoming known when it did, it is only right that we should first see
something of the circumstances which combined to bring the Englishman’s
work into such prominence, and then return to follow de Jouffroy in his
efforts.
To James Watt, notwithstanding that his work and ingenuity were
expended for the purpose of land engines, belongs the honour of having
removed the most harassing obstacles which were delaying the full
and entire possibility of the marine steam engine. In the chain of
discoveries which leads back into early times, without whose cumulative
effect he himself would not have done what he did, James Watt comes
immediately next to Thomas Newcomen. Despised in his weak, delicate
boyhood by his companions, his is another instance of the stone which
the builders rejected becoming the head corner-stone. Or, to put the
proposition in another way, Watt absorbed all the existing good that
there was in the latest engineering knowledge, and advanced that
several steps further until it reached the goal of practicability.
In the Newcomen engine there were several notable defects which marred
its usefulness, and it was not until these could be improved upon
that there could possibly be a future for the steamboat. This type
of “machine” was not closely enough related to the work which it was
called upon to perform. Its pre-eminent fault lay in the fact that the
condensation took place in the cylinder. This meant a considerable
waste, for after the latter had been made cool by the admission of
the cold water for condensing the steam, the cylinder had to be
heated again before every upward stroke. Heat, in fact, was literally
thrown away. It was in the year 1764 that Watt, while endeavouring
to repair a model of one of these Newcomen engines and to remedy its
poor performance, was struck by the inadequacy of its mechanism and
realised that some means should be found to ensure a greater economy
of steam. From his ingenious brain, therefore, came an improvement. He
provided for the condensation to take place not in the cylinder but in
a separate condenser, in which a jet of water was to spray, and finally
the condensed steam, the injected water, and the air which had also
found its way in, were to be drawn off by means of an air-pump. After a
delay of several years Watt was introduced to Matthew Boulton, founder
of the Soho Engineering Works, near Birmingham, and in 1769 Watt’s
invention, embodying the principle of the separate condenser, was
patented. Although he had worked out his idea as far back as the year
1765, it was not till four years after that he had the means to secure
its protection. In the specification for his patent Watt enunciated
what is appreciated as an essential doctrine to-day, that the walls of
the cylinder should be maintained at the same heat as the steam which
was about to enter into the cylinder. And he proposed to bring about
this improvement by adding an external casing to the cylinder, leaving
a space between the casing and the outside of the cylinder itself and
keeping always in this space steam so as to preserve a high temperature.
But, as was mentioned on a previous page, the steam engine at this date
was not developed with a view to transport, but for the convenience
of pumping up water from mines. As a result of Watt’s success a
considerable demand arose among Cornish mine-owners for these engines
made by Boulton and Watt, who were now working in partnership together.
For the work of pumping, these machines continued to serve admirably,
so long as a vertical up-and-down motion was required. At length
Watt turned his mind to some method of obtaining rotary movement
from his engine, but in a manner different from that in which Hulls
had attempted to attain his end. Watt had covered in the top of his
cylinder to keep out the cooling effect of the air, and his well-known
beam pumping engine was an improvement on Newcomen’s, owing to the
simple fact that in economising steam it halved the cost of fuel, and
not even to-day are these old-fashioned engines in disuse. As we shall
see later on, the beam engine is very much in evidence in some of the
river steamships of the United States, apart altogether from those beam
engines which are still worked for pumping in some parts of our own
country.
With such satisfactory results to encourage him it was inevitable
that sooner or later so brilliant a schemer would think out some
means for rotary movement, and Watt’s first intention was to cause
the beam (which was pushed up by the rod joining the piston) to drive
a fly-wheel by introducing a crank in something of the same manner
in which nowadays the crank of a bicycle drives round the cog-wheel,
the cyclist’s leg being, so to speak, the connecting rod which joins
the beam. But before Watt had a chance of getting legal protection
for this method his secret was stolen by one of his workmen, named
Pickard, who revealed it to a Bristol man of the name of Wasbrough,
who was also in search of some method of obtaining rotary motion. The
latter, therefore, having in 1780 obtained his patent by stealth, Watt
was compelled to cast about for some other means of attaining the same
end: but his fertile mind soon gave forth what was required, and in
the following year he patented what is known as the “sun-and-planet”
gear, which converted the vertical movement into a rotary. Put in a few
words, the working of the engine was as follows: At the top was the
straight beam of wood; from one side of this there hung vertically a
rod which connected with the piston in the cylinder, and was thus made
to go up and down as in the Newcomen engine. It will be remembered that
in Newcomen’s machine, at the opposite end of the beam was the other
rod for pumping the water. Now in Watt’s rotary engine the piston-rod
was moved up and down as before, but the opposite rod, at the other
end of the beam, was connected with a spur-wheel having cogs in it.
There was also a large fly-wheel which had a similar cog-wheel on its
shaft, and thus, as the piston rod pushed up its end of the beam the
opposite end of the beam was lowered and its rod also. But through
the arrangement of the two cog-wheels the connecting rod caused the
fly-wheel to revolve, and at twice the rate at which it would have gone
round had Watt’s original rod and crank idea been employed, for the
“planet” cog-wheel goes round in a circle but does not revolve on its
own axis. Some of his engines of this type were so arranged that the
speed of the fly-wheel shaft was not so much greater than in the case
where a crank was employed.
Thus, in this important adaptation of the vertical to the rotary
movement, we get the nucleus of the future steamboat engine, which
was to turn the paddle-wheels round. But Watt did not stop there. We
have seen that whilst it was the steam which pushed the piston and
its rod upwards, it was yet the pressure of the air and the weight of
the parts which caused the piston and rod to descend. Now, as we have
seen, Watt had already resolved to cover in the top of the cylinder
in order to keep out the air from cooling the latter. It was, then,
but a natural transition to utilise the steam not merely for pushing
the piston upwards, but also for sending the same down after its
ascent had been made. We thus get what is the well-known double-action
of the modern reciprocating engine, in which steam is employed from
either side of the piston alternatively, so that each stroke becomes
a working stroke and the power of the engine is doubled. It was Watt
who, as early as the year 1782, discovered the advantages which were
possessed by the expanditure of steam, but as this does not enter into
practical application just yet, we can postpone the subject to a later
chapter. We need only emphasise the fact that the fly-wheel which is
so familiar to all of us was the invention of Watt, and it is perhaps
scarcely necessary to explain that the reason for the existence of this
wheel is in order that it may, at the beginning of the stroke, when the
engine is at its strongest, store up the surplus energy and give it
back towards the end of the stroke. It thus maintains an equal motion
throughout the whole stroke given forth by the piston and its rod.
The earliest marine steam engines were very much on these lines, then,
and were really a slightly modified form of land engine. But, as we
shall soon come to refer to the more complicated type of engine, and
to make use of other terms, it may not be out of place here to deal at
once with the expression “horse-power,” which is used for the purpose
of indicating the force which an engine is capable of developing. The
origin of this expression is not without interest, and Sir Frederick
Bramwell, Bart., F.R.S., D.C.L., in his entertaining article on the
life of Watt in the “Dictionary of National Biography,” points out
that Savery, to whom we have referred, was accustomed to calculate
that where any machinery had to be driven by means of a single horse,
it would entail a stock of three of these animals being kept, so that
one should be able always to be at work. Thus supposing that the power
exerted by six horses was necessary to drive a pump, and Savery made
an engine capable of doing the same work by mechanical means, he would
call it not a six horse-power engine, but an eighteen horse-power.
Watt, however, did not credit his engine with the idle horses. He
satisfied himself that an average horse could continue working for
several hours when exerting himself so as to raise one hundredweight
to a height of 196 feet in one minute, which is about equal to lifting
22,000 pounds one foot high in the same time, as the reader will find
by simple arithmetic. But in order that no purchaser of his engines
should have any ground for complaint, Watt went one step better, and
determined that each horse-power of his engine should be capable of
raising to a height of one foot, in one minute, not 22,000 pounds, but
33,000 pounds, or half as much again. And so to-day when we speak of
an engine possessing such and such horse-power we still mean that it
is equivalent to such a power as would raise 33,000 foot-pounds per
minute. I make no apology for dwelling to such an extent on this point,
but since at least one writer on steamships has seen fit to refer to
this assessment of horse-power as being entirely arbitrary, and to
admit in the same paragraph that he was altogether ignorant as to what
power a horse was actually capable of producing, I have thought it not
inappropriate to make the point clear in the mind of the reader.
[Illustration: THE MARQUIS DE JOUFFROY’S STEAMBOAT.
_From Mr. R. Prosser’s Pen-and-Ink Sketch in the Victoria and Albert
Museum, South Kensington._]
Let us now cross the Channel again to France, and remembering that Watt
had patented his engine in 1769 and that Périer, after seeing one of
the Englishman’s engines, had installed one in his boat on the Seine
in 1775, and failed in his experiment, let us see the attempts at
steamboat navigation continued by the Marquis de Jouffroy. Here again
writers have cast some doubt on the achievements accomplished by this
distinguished Frenchman, but if we turn to an interesting little book
entitled “Une Découverte en Franche-Comté au XVIIIe siècle. Application
de la vapeur à la navigation,” by Le Mis. Sylvestre de Jouffroy
D’Abbans (Besançon, 1881), we shall find the facts verified. Briefly,
the story is that in 1776 the Marquis, undismayed by Périer’s failure,
obtained a Watt engine suitable for his boat, which was only 13 metres
long, and in width 1 metre 91 centimetres, so that she was quite a
small craft. She was propelled by steam, the revolving blades being 2
metres 60 centimetres in length and suspended on each side of the ship
near the bows. The engine was placed in the middle of the boat and
worked the revolving blades by means of chains. This experiment took
place at Baume-les-Dames, though it does not appear to have contributed
much to the ultimate success of steam navigation. But in 1781 this
same François Dorothée, Comte de Jouffroy D’Abbans, made a much bolder
essay and built a far larger steamboat, which measured 46 metres long,
5 metres wide, and had a draught of 1 metre. This steamship was
tried at Lyons on the Saône on July 15, 1783, not 1781 nor 1782, as
some writers have asserted. Her success was undoubted, for she went
against the stream from Lyons to the Isle of Barbe several times, not
in any secret manner, but in the presence of 10,000 witnesses. There
is no possible doubt, for the interesting event was duly attested and,
I believe, this declaration exists still in Paris. The illustration
here given has been photographed from the pen-and-ink sketch which was
copied in the year 1830 by Mr. R. Prosser from a French print that
was published in 1816, and was alleged to represent this steamboat to
which we are referring. But this illustration, from the fact that it
was issued so many years after the occurrence, and also that it differs
in some details as given by French writers, should be regarded with
caution. It shows a boat whose paddle-wheels are turned by a single
horizontal steam cylinder, the piston-rod engaging the shaft of the
paddle-wheels by means of a ratchet arrangement which will be easily
recognised. But it is also affirmed that Jouffroy’s vessel of 1783 had
two cylinders, that the piston of each of these was connected with
an iron flexible chain, and that these revolved the paddle-wheels.
The latter were 14 feet in diameter and the paddle-boards themselves
were 6 feet wide. The two cylinders were placed behind each other
and communicated with each other by means of a wide tube. The French
Revolution followed, in 1789, when the Marquis de Jouffroy, in order to
save his life, had to go into exile for some time, and on his return,
ere he was able to obtain a patent for his achievement, someone else
had stepped in and forestalled him.
In the meantime, in England, something more practicable than Hulls’
efforts had brought about was to be witnessed. If the reader will
examine the illustration facing this page he will see a model
of a curious double-hulled ship, which was one of eight or more
paddle-propelled vessels that were employed in the experiments carried
out by Patrick Miller, a wealthy Edinburgh banker. This particular
vessel was built at Leith in 1787, and it is amusing to see in her that
old idea of physical propulsion brought forward once more. Between
the two hulls sufficient space was left for the insertion of five
paddle-wheels, 7 feet in diameter, immediately behind each other,
which were driven by thirty men, heaving away at the capstan placed
on deck. We find pretty much the same speed to be obtained as in the
experiments which we have mentioned in connection with other craft
thus propelled, for the best effort when all these hands were working
to get her through the water appears to have been under 4½ knots per
hour. In our illustration she is seen with masts and sails which she
used when the paddle-wheels were lifted out of the water and placed on
deck. It will be noticed that she was steered by a couple of rudders;
her displacement was 255 tons. This probably represents the final
development of Miller’s design using muscular power, but an earlier
and smaller ship belonging to the previous year carried only two
paddle-wheels, 6 feet in diameter and 4 feet wide, which were placed
on each side of the middle hull, for this ship was not double- but
triple-hulled.
[Illustration: PATRICK MILLER’S DOUBLE-HULLED PADDLE-BOAT.
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: SYMINGTON’S FIRST MARINE ENGINE.
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
After spending some time in making these experiments and realising the
enormous amount of muscular power which was needed, it was suggested
to Miller by James Taylor, who was tutor to his children and a
personal friend of William Symington, of Wanlockhead, that it would
be far preferable to employ steam power to drive the paddle-wheels;
and the upshot was that Symington was commissioned to design a
suitable engine, which in October of 1788 was placed on one deck of a
double-hulled pleasure craft 25 feet long and 7 feet wide, whilst the
boiler was placed on the other deck. Thus fitted, the strange little
ship was tried on Dalswinton Loch, Dumfriesshire, when she exhibited a
speed of five knots per hour, and afterwards seven knots. At the first
attempt the boards of the paddle-wheels were broken by concussion.
Symington’s engine, however, was really of the atmospheric pattern,
with the addition of a separate condenser, and was an infringement of
Watt’s patent. After but a few trials the experiments accordingly had
to be abandoned, although Miller afterwards got into communication with
Boulton and Watt, whom he endeavoured to interest in steam navigation,
but they declined.
Miller next bought one of the boats used on the Forth and Clyde Canal,
and gave an order to the Carron Iron Works to make a steam engine in
accordance with Symington’s plan. On December 26, 1789, this vessel
towed a heavy load seven miles an hour, but was afterwards dismantled.
Symington’s first engine is shown in the illustration facing page
42, which is taken from a model in the South Kensington Museum, the
original being in the Andersonian Museum, Glasgow, and it will be
useful for reference in case our description of Newcomen’s engine was
lacking in clearness. As will be noticed, there are two cylinders, each
being open at the top, and a piston working up and down inside. It will
be seen, too, that there are two paddle-wheels; these were placed in
the ship fore and aft between the two hulls, and not on either side
as in our modern paddle-wheel steamers. There were eight floats in
each wheel, which were not feathering, but fixed. Each piston was
connected with a drum by means of chains, the latter turning the drums
alternately in opposite directions, and power was obtained both from
the upward and downward strokes. By means of a ratchet arrangement,
alternately engaging with pawls, the paddle-wheel was made always to
revolve in one direction. The engine was fitted with air pumps for the
purpose of which we have already dealt. In many ways it will be seen
that Symington’s engine and gear resembled the method proposed by Hulls.
But the same subject that was beginning to interest both Frenchmen
and Englishmen was also being studied with zest in North America. In
November of 1784, at Richmond, Virginia, James Rumsey had succeeded
in making some interesting experiments with a model boat propelled
by steam power, which boat was seen by George Washington. Rumsey
afterwards came over to England, and it is not without interest to
remark at this stage that one of the most frequent visitors to him in
his new home was that famous Robert Fulton, of whom we shall speak
presently. Mr. John H. Morrison, in his “History of American Steam
Navigation” (New York, 1903), alludes to John Fitch as the pioneer of
American steam navigation, but Fitch is known to have been very jealous
of Rumsey, and accused him of “coming pottering around” his Virginian
work-bench.
[Illustration: OUTLINE OF FITCH’S FIRST BOAT.]
Fitch was the first man in America who successfully made a paddle
steamboat to go ahead. The date of this was July 27, 1786, and the
incident happened on the River Delaware. According to Fitch’s own
description of his ship, which was written in the same year as the
vessel’s trial, she was just a small skiff with paddles placed at the
sides and revolved by cranks worked by a steam engine. This latter
machine was similar to the recent improved European steam engines--that
is to say, Watt’s--but the American engine was to some extent modified.
It consisted of a horizontal cylinder, in which the steam worked with
equal force at either end. Each vibration of the piston gave the
axis forty revolutions, and each revolution of the axis caused the
twelve oars or paddles to move _perpendicularly_, whose movements,
to quote Fitch’s own words, “are represented by the stroke of the
paddle of the canoe. As six of the paddles [_i.e._, three on each
side], are raised from the water six more are entered.” In 1788, Fitch
had another boat ready which was 60 feet long and 8 feet wide, her
paddles being placed at the stern and driven by an engine which had a
12-inch cylinder. It was this vessel which steamed from Philadelphia
to Burlington, a distance of twenty miles. He also had another craft
built in the following year which was first tried in December of 1789
at Philadelphia. This was something more than a mere experiment, for
the boat showed a speed of eight miles an hour; she afterwards ran
regularly on the Delaware, and during the summer of 1790 covered an
aggregate of two or three thousand miles. It is not to be wondered
that Fitch was mightily disappointed at the lack of faith which his
shareholders exhibited by retiring one by one, and finally he ended
his days by suicide. It would seem, indeed, that in giving praise to
Fulton, John Fitch has not always been credited with his full deserts.
Of his predecessors it may be said generally that they had succeeded
not so much as a whole, but in regard to overcoming certain obstacles,
and continuous actions were being fought out in the American Courts
for some years which engaged Fulton until the time of his death. It
was not until the Supreme Court of the United States in 1824 decided
adversely to Fulton’s associates on the question of exclusive right to
steamboat navigation on the Hudson that this new industry received its
impetus and a large number of steamships began to be built. But we are
anticipating and must return to the thread of our story.
[Illustration: THE “CHARLOTTE DUNDAS.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE “CLERMONT” IN 1807.
_From a Contemporary Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
In Scotland, which has been not inaccurately called the cradle of the
world’s steamship enterprise, another interesting experiment was to be
witnessed early in 1802, where a vessel named the _Charlotte Dundas_
(of which an interesting model, now in the South Kensington Museum,
is here illustrated) was to cause some pleasant surprise. This vessel
was 56 feet long and 18 feet wide; she had a depth of 8 feet. As will
be seen from the illustration, she was fitted with a paddle-wheel
placed inside the hull, but at the stern. Her horizontal engine was
also by Symington, and since most of the mechanism was placed on
deck, we are able to see from the model a good deal of its working.
It will be noticed that the cylinder is placed abaft of the mast and
that the piston-rod moved on guides which can be just discerned in the
photograph. Attached to this is the connecting rod, which terminates
at the crank on the paddle shaft, an entirely different means of
obtaining rotary motion as compared with the “sun-and-planet” method
which we saw adopted by Watt. As the steam entered the cylinder from
the boiler it pushed the piston and its rod horizontally; and the
connecting rod, being attached thereto at one end, and to the crank
at the other, the paddle-wheel was made to revolve. Below the deck
were the boiler, the condenser and the air-pump. The two rudders were
controlled by means of the capstan-like wheel seen in the bows. As
here seen the paddle-wheel is open in order to show its character,
but as considerable spray would be cast up on deck when the wheel was
revolving it was covered over by the semi-circular box, which is seen
on the ground at the left of the picture. This engine which Symington
supplied to the _Charlotte Dundas_ was of a kind different from that
which he had previously fitted to Miller’s double-hulled ship. For by
his own patent Symington superseded the old beam engine, and obtained
his rotary motion by coupling the piston-rod, by means of a connecting
rod, with the crank.
This little craft is deserving of more than momentary interest, for
she marked an important advance and considerably moulded the ideas
of subsequent steamship inventors or adapters. Hers was the first
horizontal direct-acting engine which was ever made, at any rate in
this country, and in her simple mechanism may be easily recognised the
nucleus of the engines in the modern paddle-wheel excursion steamer.
She was built for Lord Dundas in 1801 as a steam tug-boat to ply on
the Forth and Clyde Canal. The year after she was completed she towed
for nearly twenty miles at a rate of 3¼ miles per hour two 70-ton
vessels loaded, but just as bad luck had followed the efforts of Papin,
de Jouffroy and other steamboat pioneers, so it was to be with the
_Charlotte Dundas_. Although she had so splendidly demonstrated her
usefulness, yet the wash from her paddle-wheel was such that the owners
of the canal feared for the serious amount of injury which might be
done to the canal-banks, and so the _Charlotte Dundas_ was laid up in
a creek of the canal, and rotted out her years until one day she was
removed and buried in Grangemouth Harbour. But we may look upon her
with great respect as being one of the parents of those two notable
steamboats which were to follow and set the seal of success finally on
the steamship proposition. I refer, of course, to the _Clermont_ and
the _Comet_.
And so we come to the name of Robert Fulton, whose praises have
recently been sung so loudly by his appreciative fellow-countrymen.
Born in the year 1765 at Little Britain, Pennsylvania, of Irish
descent, he left America in 1786 and came to England, whence in 1797[A]
he crossed over to France, where he devoted himself assiduously to the
production of various inventions, which included, amongst others, a
submarine craft called a “plunging boat.” Fulton’s “good fairy” was
a fellow-countryman whom duties of office had also sent to settle in
Paris. This Robert R. Livingston was born in New York City in the
year 1746, and died in 1813. A distinguished American politician and
statesman, he was appointed in 1801 as the United States Minister to
France. It happened that in his private capacity Chancellor Livingston
was keenly interested in mechanical matters, and the experiments
of Fitch and Rumsey had attracted his attention to the question of
steamboats. By an Act passed in 1798, Livingston had been granted the
exclusive right of navigating all kinds of boats that were propelled
by the force of fire or steam on all waters within the territory or
jurisdiction of the State of New York, for a term of twenty years,
on condition that within the ensuing twelve months he should produce
such a boat as would go at a pace of not less than four miles per
hour. Thereupon Livingston immediately had a 30-tonner built, but
her performance was disappointing, for she failed to come up to the
four-mile standard. It was soon after this that he crossed to France
and there came into contact with young Fulton. To quote Livingston’s
own words, which he used in describing the account of their business
partnership, “they formed that friendship and connexion with each
other, to which a similarity of pursuits generally gives birth.”
[A] Mr. G. Raymond Fulton, the inventor’s great grandson,
however, gives the date as 1796.
The American Minister pointed out to Fulton the importance which
steamboats might one day occupy, informed him of what had so far been
accomplished in America, and advised him to turn his mind to the
subject. As a result a legal form of agreement was drawn up between
them, signed on October 10, 1802, and forthwith they embarked on their
enterprise, Fulton being allowed a fairly free hand in the preliminary
experiments which “would enable them to determine how far, in spite of
former failures, the object was attainable.” Fulton had a considerable
knowledge of mechanics, both theoretical and practical, and after
trying various experiments on models of his own invention he believed
that he had evolved the right principles on which the steamboat should
be built. Some of these experiments were carried on in the house of
another fellow-countryman, Joel Barlow, then sojourning in Paris.
A model 4 feet long and 1 foot wide was used to ascertain the best
method to be employed: whether by paddles, sculls, endless chains
or water-wheels, the power being obtained temporarily by means of
clockwork. Finally, he decided on having one wheel at either side,
but in order to convince themselves that what was true of a small
model might also be demonstrated in bigger craft, the two partners
decided to build a boat 70 French feet long, 8 French feet wide, and
3 French feet deep. Fulton states that they hired from M. Périer a
steam engine “of about 8 horses power.” There were two brothers of
this name, and one of them had already made an essay in the sphere
of steam navigation, as we have noted. Whether or not this borrowed
engine was of the Watt type I am not able to say, but since Périer had
already possessed one, and Fulton during the same summer in which his
experiment on the Seine took place got into communication with Messrs.
Boulton and Watt with a view of purchasing one of their engines, it
is by no means improbable that this was of English make. On either
side of the craft was placed a paddle-or, as Fulton described it, a
“water-” wheel, having a diameter of about 12 feet. In an interesting
article in _The Century Magazine_ for September and October of 1909,
Mrs. Sutcliffe, a great-granddaughter of Fulton, gathered together a
number of facts which have hitherto remained hidden away from the eyes
of the public, and published for the first time a complete description
of her ancestor’s trial boat, taken from a document prepared by Fulton
eight years after the vessel was ready for her experiment. In this
statement Fulton strangely enough remarks that the power from the
engine was communicated to the water-wheels “by mechanical combinations
which I do not recollect,” but the drawing shown on page 51 will clear
up this point. The arrangement of the boiler, the cylinder, and the
working parts sufficiently shows those “mechanical combinations” which
had slipped from Fulton’s memory during the following eventful and
industrious years. This boat which was used on the Seine was 70 feet
long, 8 feet wide, and drew very little water.
[Illustration: FULTON’S DESIGN FOR A STEAMBOAT SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMISSION APPOINTED BY NAPOLEON IN 1803.
_From the Original Drawing in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers,
Paris._]
In January of 1803 Fulton, who had already been attracting some
attention in his adopted country by his submarine experiments, decided
to offer his steamboat to the French Government and a Commission was
appointed to inquire into its merits. The illustration on this page is
taken from Fulton’s own drawing of his projected steamboat submitted
to this Commission appointed by Napoleon, the original of which is now
preserved in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, in Paris. In his
letter to the Commissioners, Fulton observes that his original object
in making this experiment was rather with a view to the employment of
steam tow-boats for use upon the rivers of America, “where there are
no roads suitable for hauling,” and “the cost of navigation by the aid
of steam would be put in comparison with the labour of men and not
with that of horses as in France.” In fact, he suggests that if his
experiment should prove successful, it would be infinitely less useful
to France than to his native country, for he doubts very much if a
steamboat, however perfect it might be, would be able to gain anything
over horses for merchandise, “but for passengers it is possible to
gain something because of the speed.” Ultimately Napoleon’s advisers
counselled against the adoption of Fulton’s proposition.
However, by the spring of 1803, the boat was completed and lying on the
Seine in readiness for her trial trip. Fulton spent a restless night,
and we can well picture the feelings of the man who had wrestled with
calculations, worked out theories, made little models, watched their
behaviour in still water, spent hours and days discussing the subject
with his friend Livingston, thought out every conceivable aspect,
allowed for obstacles, and now, at length, after watching the child
of his brain gradually take a concrete shape, waiting sleeplessly for
the morrow in which he was to have the chance of living the great day
of his life. Those of us who remember ever to have looked forward with
zest and suppressed excitement to some new event in our lives likely to
alter the trend of future years can well sympathise with the emotions
of this clever young inventor, when, whilst eating his breakfast, a
messenger burst in and dramatically exclaimed to his horror: “Please,
sir, the boat has broken in two and gone to the bottom!”
It was suggested in our introduction that it is usually the case that
an invention is no sooner born than it is compelled, while yet frail
and infantile, to fight for its very existence: and it is curious that
this should seem to be demanded not merely as against the opposition
of human obstinacy but against sheer bad luck, which comes as a test
of a man’s sincerity and of his faith in his own ideas. In the end,
historically, this calamity had no ill-effects, for it only spurred the
enthusiast to greater and more perfect accomplishment. But physically
it cut short Fulton’s life of usefulness. As soon as the heart-breaking
news was delivered to him, he rushed off to the Seine and found that
the intelligence was all too true. For the next twenty-four hours he
laboured assiduously, not stopping for food or rest, ignoring the
chilly waters of the river, until his precious craft was raised from
its watery bed. Fulton never recovered entirely from these physical
trials following so suddenly on his years of mental work and worry, and
his lungs were permanently affected for the rest of his life. But what
he did recover--and that no doubt was to him more precious than his
very life--were the machinery and main fragments of the hull. The gale
of the night before had done more than wreck his ship: it had taught
him to allow for one difficulty which he had overlooked, and it was
well that it had happened thus instead of later on, when loss of life
might have prejudiced the coming of the steamboat even longer still.
For Fulton soon realised that he had made his hull insufficiently
strong for the weight of the machinery. This is the truth of the
incident, and not that jealous enemies had maliciously sunk her, nor
that Fulton had himself sent her to the bottom through the lack of
appreciation which Napoleon’s Commissioners were exhibiting. This is
confirmed by an eyewitness of the event, named Edward Church. But
Fulton soon set to work to get his ship built more strongly, and by
July of the same year she was ready for her trials. A contemporary
account, in describing the strange sight which was witnessed on August
9, 1803, says that at six o’clock in the evening, “aided by only
three persons,” the boat was set in motion, “with two other boats
attached behind it, and for an hour and a half he [Fulton] produced
the curious spectacle of a boat moved by wheels, like a chariot, these
wheels being provided with paddles or flat plates, and being moved
by a fire-engine.” The same account prophesies great things for the
invention and that it will confer great benefits on French internal
navigation: for, by this means, whereas it then required four months
for barges to be towed from Nantes to Paris, the new method would
cause them to do the distance in ten or fifteen days. Very quaintly
this account speaks of the existence behind the paddle-wheels of “a
kind of large stove with a pipe, as if there were some kind of a small
fire-engine intended to operate the wheels of the boat!”
These experiments were made in the vicinity of the Chaillot Quay in
the presence of many people, including Périer and some of the leading
Parisian _savants_, and the boat was found to steam at a rate of 3¼
miles per hour. It is therefore both inaccurate and unjust to dismiss,
as at least one writer has done, Fulton’s achievements on the Seine in
one line by referring to them as unsuccessful and merely experimental.
True, this vessel did not show that amount of speed which Fulton had
hoped to get out of her, but she was very far from being a failure.
Fulton had left nothing to chance, and the misfortune of the weakness
of his first hull and the error in the speed actually obtained were the
results rather of inexperience than of carelessness. It is difficult
to-day, when we are in possession of so much valuable knowledge
connected with naval architecture and marine propulsion, to realise
that these early experimenters were feeling in the dark for an object
they had never seen. At one time Fulton had estimated that a steamboat
could be driven at a rate of sixteen to twenty-four miles an hour, but
he found that so much power was lost in getting a purchase on the water
that he altered his opinion and put forward the speed of five or six
miles as the utmost limit which could be obtained by any boat using the
best engines then in existence.
Fulton had advanced with almost meticulous caution. He had first
collected together all the details that could be got about contemporary
experiments; he had sifted the theories of others and made use of the
residue. He had often talked with Rumsey while in England, and he had
even accompanied Henry Bell to call on Symington, seen a trial trip
of the _Charlotte Dundas_, and incidentally obtained some valuable
information. Finally, after seeing what was good and what was bad
he had proceeded independently, and, after a stroke of ill-luck,
succeeded. He had knowledge of what others had attempted in America,
in England and in France, and emphatically he was not the kind of
man to deny his indebtedness to what others had done before him. The
ship which he evolved was certainly in shape, proportions and general
appearance not unlike the model of that earlier craft whose exploits
on the Saône we considered on another page. The Marquis de Jouffroy
had sent this model to Paris as far back as 1783, the year of his
successful enterprise at Lyons, or twenty years before Fulton made his
achievement, and it is most improbable that Fulton, who endeavoured to
see everything which bore on his pet subject, living several years in
Paris, should not have carefully studied this. Furthermore, Fulton’s
boat was constructed in the workshop and under the very eyes of that
Périer who had been associated with the Marquis in navigating the Seine
by steamboat, and from this same Périer, as already stated, the engine
was borrowed for Fulton’s boat. Fulton also personally considered
the patent which Desblanc, forestalling Jouffroy, had obtained, and
the American had described his impressions of Desblanc’s idea in no
praiseworthy terms, for he saw that at least two-thirds of the latter’s
steam power would be lost. Fulton worked his plans out to the minutest
details: Desblanc had left his theory too scantily clothed with
facts. He had not found the proportion which his paddles should bear
to the bow of his boat, nor the velocity at which they should run in
proportion to the velocity at which the boat was intended to go. Very
scathing is the American’s denunciation of this haphazard method. “For
this invention to be rendered useful,” wrote Fulton, “does not consist
in putting oars, paddles, wheels or resisting chains in motion by a
steam engine--but it consists in showing in a clear and distinct manner
that it is desired to drive a boat precisely any given number of miles
an hour--what must be the size of the cylinder and velocity of the
piston? All these things being governed by the laws of Nature, the real
Invention is to find them.”
Fulton believed that previous failures were due not so much to a
defective steam engine, as to the wrong methods employed in applying
the steam power thus generated. He criticised Rumsey’s method of
propelling a ship by forcing water through the stern (in a manner
similar to that which John Allen and Fitch had suggested) as the worst
method of all. Ten years before his Seine success Fulton had been in
communication with the Earl of Stanhope, who in 1790 had patented a
means of propelling a ship in a strange way. This consisted in using a
gigantic arrangement resembling a duck’s foot, placed on either side.
These feet opened and shut like umbrellas and could send the ship along
at three miles an hour. Fulton, then staying at Torquay, wrote to Lord
Stanhope and proposed the use of paddle-wheels, but the noble earl
would not listen to the suggestion. A similar freak idea was also put
into practice in North America in 1792 by one Elijah Ormsbee.
[Illustration: FULTON’S FIRST PLANS FOR STEAM NAVIGATION
_From the Drawings in possession of the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Stanhope._]
The illustrations on this page represent Fulton’s first plans for
steam navigation. They were sent by him to Lord Stanhope in the year
1793 and are here reproduced from a copy, by kind permission of the
present earl. In his letter descriptive of these ideas Fulton shows
the upper part of this illustration, marked No. 1, to be an attempt
to imitate the spring in the tail of a salmon. Amidships will be
noticed an object resembling a bow such as one usually associates
with arrows. This bow was to be wound up by the steam engine, and the
collected force attached to the end of the paddle, shown in the stern
of the boat, would urge the ship ahead. But the sketch of a ship in
the lower part of the picture marked No. 2 represents the model at
which he was then working. It will be noticed that she has something
of the characteristic stern which was so marked a feature of the
sailing ships of this period and had been inherited from the Dutch of
the seventeenth century, and is still traceable in the design of the
modern royal steam yachts in England, as will be seen by a comparison
with the illustration of the _Alexandra_. In referring to this No. 2,
Fulton points out that he had found that three or six paddles answered
better than any other number, since they do not counteract each other.
By being hung a little above the water there is allowed a short space
from the delivery of one paddle to the entrance of the other, and,
also, the paddle enters the water more perpendicularly; the dotted
lines show its situation when it enters and when it is covered. In the
smaller illustration, No. 3, he emphasises the importance of arranging
the paddle-blades still further. Thus the paddles _A_, _B_, _C_, and
_D_ strike the water almost flat and rise in the same situation, whilst
that paddle marked _E_ is the only one that pulls, the others acting
against it. Whilst _E_ is sending the ship ahead, “_B.A._ is pressing
her into the water and _C.D._ is pulling her out, but remove all
the paddles except _E_ and she moves on in a direct line.” Finally,
he concludes his letter with an explanation that the perpendicular
triangular paddles are supposed to be placed in a cast-iron wheel
“which should ever hang above the water” and would answer as a “fly and
brace to the perpendicular oars”; and with regard to the design of the
steamship, he says: “I have been of opinion that they should be long,
narrow and flat at bottom, with a broad keel as a flat Vessel will not
occupy so much space in the water: it consequently has not so much
resistance.”
Desblanc had, like the Earl of Stanhope and Elijah Ormsbee,
experimented with the duck’s foot idea, but had also met with failure.
Fulton carefully went into the consideration of its merits before
trying his Seine boat, but deemed it to be unsuitable. Whatever
advantages this method might have possessed, the action of the duck’s
foot caused far too great resistance, since after making the propelling
stroke it returned through the water before being ready for the
following stroke; whereas in the case of the revolving paddles or oars
on wheels their return is made through air. Thus the resistance is
considerably less.
But all this time Fulton had his native country in mind and not so
much the advantages that might accrue to the land in which he had made
his experiments. It was the Hudson, not the Seine, which he longed to
conquer by steam, and the title-page of his note-book, dated more than
a year prior to the events on the Seine, in which he drew a prophetical
sketch of a steamboat travelling from New York to Albany in twelve
hours, eminently confirms this. Therefore, we find him immediately
writing to Messrs. Boulton and Watt from Paris, asking them to make for
him “a cylinder of 24 horse-power double effect, the piston making
a four-foot stroke”; also he wants them to manufacture a piston and
piston-rod, valves, condenser, air-pump, and so on. It is perfectly
clear that Fulton had but limited knowledge of the amount of power
which an engine could develop. His ability consisted rather in knowing
how best to apply that power. Thus he asks in his letter: “What must
be the size of the boiler for such an engine? How much space for water
and how much for the steam? How many pounds of coal will such an
engine require per hour?” and so on. At first Boulton and Watt had to
decline the order, since they were unable to obtain permission to get
the engine into America. Finally, after paying £548 in purchase, it
was not until March of 1805, or most of two years after receiving the
order, that Boulton and Watt received permission to ship the engine
to America. Fulton had crossed from France to England in 1803, and
in the autumn of 1806 left by a Falmouth packet for his native land.
Writing to-day, when the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ are still making
their wonderful records for fast voyages between the two countries,
little more than a hundred years after Fulton had given the inspiration
to marine engineering, it is no small contrast that the ship which
carried him from England to America took no less than two months on
the way. But the same winter he set to work immediately after his
return to build that ever-famous _Clermont_, so called as a courteous
acknowledgment of the hospitality he had enjoyed at Livingston’s
country place of that name on the banks of the Hudson. From an
agreement which had already been made in Paris, dated October 10, 1802,
between Livingston and himself, Fulton had jointly contracted to make
an attempt to build such a steamboat as would be able to navigate the
Hudson between New York and Albany. She was to be of a length not
exceeding 120 feet, width 8 feet, and was not to draw more than 15
inches of water. “Such a boat shall be calculated on the experiments
already made, with a view to run 8 miles an hour in stagnate water
and carry at least 60 passengers allowing 200 pounds weight to each
passenger.” After the engine had at last arrived in New York it
remained for six months at the New York Custom House, waiting, it is
said, until Fulton was able to raise enough money to pay the duties.
But as Mrs. Sutcliffe has pointed out in her article on Fulton to
which reference has already been made, and to which also I am indebted
for many interesting facts then for the first time made public, it is
possible that the delay arose because the boat was not yet ready to
receive her machinery. Fulton had rich friends who were interested in
his work, so that I think the latter is the more probable reason for
the delay.
And here, as we step from out of the realm of theories and suggestions
into a realm of almost uninterrupted success, we may bring this chapter
to a close. But before doing so let us not lose sight of that important
fact on which I have already insisted--viz. that when steamboat success
did eventually come, it was the happy fortune of no single individual,
but an achievement in which many men, long since dead and gone, took
part. It was the work of centuries and not of a year or two to bring
about this marvellous means of transport. Hero, the ancient Romans,
Blasco de Garray, Besson, Solomon de Caus, the Marquis of Worcester,
Papin, Savery, Hulls, Watt, Périer, de Jouffroy, Miller, Symington,
Taylor, Fitch, Stanhope, Desblanc, Livingston, Rumsey and others had
all assisted in bringing this about, sometimes by their success,
sometimes also by their failures. When next we step aboard even the
most ill-found excursion steamer or the grimiest and most antiquated
tug-boat, still more when we lie peacefully in the safety and luxury of
a great modern liner, let us not forget that none of this would have
been possible but for centuries of work and discovery, years of patient
experiment and costly efforts, much disappointment, and considerable
anxiety and abuse.
CHAPTER III
THE EARLY PASSENGER STEAMSHIPS
Robert Fulton was not the first to attempt steam navigation on the
Hudson, and we have already given instances of the experiments made
in the New World; but between the time of his success in Paris and
his return to America, although others had failed before, experiments
still went on. Thus, in the year 1804, John Stevens, whose interest
in the steam propulsion of ships had been aroused by watching Fitch’s
endeavours, decided to see what he could do. So by the month of May
he had constructed a steamboat which succeeded in crossing the Hudson
from Hoboken to New York, being propelled by a wheel placed at the
stern, driven by a rotary engine. In the same month also Robert L.
Stevens crossed from the Battery, New York, to Hoboken in a steamboat
fitted with tubular boilers, which were the first of their kind ever
to be made. The machinery was designed by Stevens himself in his own
workshop, and it is important to add that this vessel was propelled not
by a paddle-wheel but by a double screw, five feet in diameter, with
four blades set at an angle of 35°.
Thus it was that three years before Fulton’s _Clermont_ came on to the
scene with her paddle-wheels, Stevens had already shown the way with
screws. But this success was rather momentary than permanent: a mere
flash, though startling in its brilliancy. Immediately after his return
to America, Fulton had set to work to build the _Clermont_, having
to endure in the meanwhile the scoffings and even threats of the
incredulous, which necessitated the ship being protected night and day
before she was quite ready for service. In addition to the main parts
of the engines which had arrived from Boulton and Watt, there was much
to be done before the combination of hull and parts could produce a
steamboat. In the meantime funds had been drained somewhat extensively,
and an offer was made to John Stevens, to whom we have just referred,
to come in as a partner. The latter happened to be a brother-in-law of
Livingston, Fulton’s patron, but the suggestion was declined. In the
end the money, amounting to a thousand dollars, was found elsewhere,
and the _Clermont_ was completed. We know on Fulton’s own authority
that she measured 150 feet in length, was 13 feet wide, and drew 2 feet
of water, so that the original dimensions, as given in the agreement
which we mentioned as having been made between Livingston and Fulton,
were exceeded. She displaced 100 tons of water, her bottom being built
of yellow pine 1½ inches thick, tongued and grooved, and set together
with white lead. The floors at either end were of oak.
[Illustration: FULTON’S DESIGN OF ORIGINAL APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING
THE RESISTANCE OF PADDLES FOR THE PROPULSION OF THE _CLERMONT_, DATED
1806.
_From the Original in the possession of the New Jersey Historical
Society._]
Before leaving England in 1806, Fulton had already made a set of
drawings embodying his ideas with regard to the forthcoming _Clermont_.
And so zealous was he for their safety, that before leaving by the
October Falmouth packet he had these carefully placed in a tin
cylinder, sealed and left in the care of a General Lyman, with
instructions that it was not to be opened unless he went down during
the crossing of the Atlantic. But if he reached America safely these
were to be sent across to him in one of the vessels leaving about
the following April, “when the risk will be inconsiderable.” The
illustration on page 64 represents “Plate the First,” giving Fulton’s
design of an apparatus for finding the resistance of paddles for the
propulsion of the _Clermont_. In this he demonstrated the impropriety
of making small paddles for a large boat. Briefly we may explain it
by remarking that Fulton was proving that the paddles in the water
should present, if possible, more surface than the bow of the boat,
and that careful calculation must be reckoned so as to avoid wastage
of power by not making due allowance for the resistance of the ship
as she goes through the water. In Fulton’s time the relation of the
water to the moving ship had not been accurately defined, and for that
matter has not been finally settled to-day, although, thanks to the
patient and valuable experiments of the late Scott Russell, W. Froude
and of his son, Dr. Robert Edmund Froude, we have now considerable
knowledge on the subject, which has borne practical fruit in the design
of the hulls of modern ships. To-day experiments are still going on
in specially-fitted tanks in different parts of England, America and
Germany. At the moment of writing a special launch is being built
at Marblehead, U.S.A., for purely experimental purposes under the
direction of Professor Peabody, since the conditions which prevail in
tanks using small models are not thought to be wholly trustworthy. The
problems to be considered will embrace the number of propellers which
give the best speed; they will be tried in all sorts of positions, and
an endeavour will be made to ascertain the relation of the resistance
of the boat to the force generated by the engines inside, and the
effectiveness which the combination of hull and boat produce. Every
motor-boat owner to-day knows very well that there is a good deal of
difference sometimes between the calculations of the theorist in regard
to the propeller and the knowledge which comes by actual use.
Many of the readers of this volume will no doubt have often been struck
by the enormous rate of speed which a porpoise exhibits as he goes
through the water. Those who spend their time crossing the ocean are
familiar with the sight of these creatures saucily playing about the
bows of a fast liner as she goes tearing through the water. It has
been calculated that it would require no less than 15 horse-power to
obtain the twenty miles an hour at which these animals can travel for
long periods at a time. The explanation is that in their skins there
is a wonderful system of glands, which exude oil and so minimise the
influence of skin-friction. Remembering this, mechanical attempts have
even been made quite recently to obtain a steel plate which would allow
the oil to exude under pressure from the inside of the vessel’s bows.
Possibly, nowadays, every engineer has his own formula for determining
the amount of horse-power essential for a given speed. All sorts of
sliding scales and devices have been invented for this purpose, and the
ideal shape of the modern propeller has still to be ascertained. It is
a well-known fact that when a vessel moves through the sea she sets the
water itself in motion, so that some of it actually travels with the
ship; but Naval Constructor D. W. Taylor, of the United States Navy,
found by experiment in 1908 that when a ship progresses the flow of the
water is down forward, and then it passes under the ship, coming up
again aft. Practically we can sum up the resistance which a ship has to
encounter under three heads. First of all, there is the skin resistance
already mentioned, which, of course, varies with the amount of wetted
surface. Then after the ship has passed through the water there ensues
an impeding eddy at the stern, as the reader must often have observed.
Finally, there is the resistance caused by wave-making, which for
vessels propelled at high speeds is an important consideration, but
varies according to the design of the ship and her pace.
We have digressed somewhat from our immediate historical continuity,
because not merely is it essential to appreciate some of the
difficulties which the ship-man of to-day has to encounter, but in
order to show that, though Fulton was very far from comprehending
all the details of the relations between resistance and hull which
recent experiments alone are determining, yet he was working on right
lines, and with a certainty of aim that was positively unique for
the beginning of the nineteenth century. Reverting, then, to the
illustration on page 64, he explains in his footnote that a nice
calculation must be made on the velocities of the wheels which drive
the paddle-wheels, whilst the same regard must also be had for the rate
at which the paddle-wheels and the boat herself are to move. Thus, he
says, supposing a boat is calculated to run at the rate of four miles
an hour, the paddles and bow presenting equal surfaces in the water,
then the circumference of the wheel must run eight miles an hour, of
which four strike water back equal to the water divided by the boat,
the other four miles, so to speak, _overtaking_ the boat. But, he adds,
if the paddles were made twice as large the engine would stand still.
In the illustration, much of which has necessarily suffered through
having to be reduced, we see an arrangement of pulleys and lines, and a
weight. To the left of the diagram, _A_ represents the boat which is to
be propelled through the water, while _B_, shown at the extreme right
of the illustration, is the paddle which is to send the ship along.
Both present a flat front of four feet to the water. By the known
resistance, Fulton argued, each would require twelve pounds to draw
each one mile per hour, so that if the pulley and weight marked _C_
weighed 24 pounds, and descended to where it is marked “No. 1,” then
the boat _A_ would be drawn to the point marked 2 (seen just to the
right of it) and the paddle would be drawn to that spot marked 3, each
moving through equal spaces in equal times, twelve of the 24 pounds
being consumed by the boat and twelve by the paddles. Thus half of the
power is actually consumed by the paddles. Next, he says, suppose that
the flat front of the paddle is reduced to one foot while the boat
still remains four. “The paddle being one-fourth the size of the boat
must move 2 miles an hour to create a resistance for the boat to move
one mile in the same time.” Finally, as we said, he concludes that the
paddles acting in the water should, if possible, present more surface
than the bow of the boat, and power will thus be saved.
Practically no part of the _Clermont_ was an invention of Fulton: it
was the manner of employing these parts scientifically that brought
him his success. He was able, too, to distribute his weights so well
that not only was the wooden hull able to sustain them, but the vessel
floated on an even keel and was not inflicted with a list either one
side or the other. To have done this in those early days of steamship
building was rather more important an achievement than the average
reader may imagine, but any naval architect and shipbuilder will
readily grant it. The _Clermont’s_ boiler was set in masonry, while
her condenser stood in a large cold-water cistern. Fulton threw the
whole of his enthusiasm into his work, and when, in the early part of
the year 1807, he was invited by the President of the United States to
examine the ground and report on the possibility of making a canal to
join the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain, the inventor, writing on
the 20th of March, had to decline the invitation for, says he, “I have
now Ship Builders, Blacksmiths and Carpenters occupied at New York in
building and executing the machinery of my Steam Boat.”
[Illustration: THE RECONSTRUCTED “CLERMONT” AT THE HUDSON-FULTON
CELEBRATIONS, 1909.]
[Illustration:
_Photographs: Topical._
PADDLE-WHEEL OF THE RECONSTRUCTED “CLERMONT.”]
In May, 1909, four folios containing Fulton’s original drawings for his
first _Clermont_--she was afterwards much altered--were discovered,
and a well-known American naval architect was able to draw out the
plans from which the replica of the _Clermont_ was built for the
Hudson-Fulton commemoration, which took place from September 25 to
October 3, 1909. On August 9, 1807, exactly four years to the day
since that memorable sight was witnessed on the Seine, the _Clermont_
was first tried, and Fulton found that his ship was able to “beat all
the sloops that were endeavouring to stem tide with the slight breeze
which they had.” Eight days later she began her memorable voyage on
the Hudson, one of the most historic incidents in the history of the
steamship. At first the _Clermont_ went ahead for a short distance and
then stopped, but as soon as Fulton had been below and examined the
machinery, and put right some slight maladjustment, she went ahead
slowly. The illustration facing page 46 is from a contemporary drawing
in the South Kensington Museum, and should be compared with that here
facing, which is from a photograph taken in the autumn of 1909 of the
reconstructed _Clermont_, built for the Hudson-Fulton celebrations. If
we have the last-mentioned picture in our minds we can easily imagine
that memorable day when, with about forty guests on board, she set
forth. The realistic photograph here given shows about fifty or sixty
people aboard, so that we can gain some idea as to what amount of deck
space was available with so many persons crowding on her. But few
believed that she would succeed in achieving what she did. The crews of
passing vessels, as she went gaily up this gloriously fascinating river
between its hilly banks, could not understand the monster belching
forth sparks from its pine-wood fuel, advancing steadily without sails
in spite of wind or tide. Some abandoned their ships and fled to the
woods in terror, others knelt down and said their prayers that they
might be delivered from so unholy a creature. As we look down on her
decks we can see her under the charge of a paid skipper, with Fulton,
handsome, but anxious both as to his success and the lives of his
guests, on board. Some prophesied that she would blow up, and none
thought she would ever reach her destination. Those who are familiar
with the characteristics of the crews of the modern steamship will
learn with a smile that, of course, her chief engineer was a Scotsman,
the first of that long line of serious-faced men whom Kipling and
others have commemorated in “McAndrew’s Hymn” and the like. Leaving
New York on Monday at one o’clock, the ship arrived at Clermont,
Livingston’s seat, exactly twenty-four hours later, having travelled
110 miles, which is about the distance that an ordinary sailing coaster
nowadays covers in the same time on the sea. Among those on board was
an Englishman, the then Dean of Ripon, though the sentimental may
find perhaps a fitting sequel to the first stage of the voyage, when,
before the ship had yet anchored off Clermont, an announcement was made
that Fulton had become betrothed to another passenger, Miss Harriet
Livingston, niece of that other Livingston with whom Fulton had been
so closely associated in his first steamboat efforts. It was, in fact,
this same statesman who, in making the announcement, also prophesied
that before the close of the nineteenth century vessels having no
other motive power than steam might be able even to make the voyage
to Europe. The ensuing chapters of this book will show how speedily
and with what quickly succeeding changes this possibility was to be
realised.
We need not weary the reader with the details of this first voyage.
It is sufficient to state that the _Clermont_ proceeded to Albany,
covering the remaining forty miles in eight hours, having made the
whole trip of 150 miles in thirty-two hours, at an average of nearly
five miles an hour. The return journey to New York was made in two
hours less. If we look at these two pictures of the _Clermont_, old and
modern, we shall see that she was an odd, clumsy craft. Her machinery
creaked and groaned as if protesting against the new service to which
it was being subjected. She was fitted with a yard and square-sail on
the fore-, and a spanker on her main-mast, but during the journey to
Albany and back the wind was contrary. “I had a light breeze against
me,” wrote Fulton, “the whole way, both going and coming, and the
voyage has been performed wholly by the power of steam. I overtook many
sloops and schooners, beating to the windward, and parted with them as
if they had been at anchor. The power of propelling boats by steam is
now fully proved.” The sails, however, were retained for use on future
occasions when a favourable wind might accelerate the _Clermont’s_
speed.
If the reader will look at the illustration facing page 70, he will
be able to obtain an excellent idea of the vessel’s paddle-wheels.
Here is shown the port side of the replica of the _Clermont_. It will
be noticed that the fly-wheels were hung outside the ship and just
in front of the “water-wheels.” These “water-wheels” were always
getting smashed, and on one occasion, when both of them had been
carried away, the engineer made use of the fly-wheels by attaching
small paddle-boards to the rims, and so the voyage was completed
without much loss of time. Local skippers treated the _Clermont_ in
pretty much the same spirit as Papin’s poor ship had been welcomed by
the local watermen, and the Hudson sailing-masters took a malicious
delight in running foul of her whenever they thought they had the law
on their side. It is not, therefore, surprising to find that Fulton, in
writing to Captain Brink, whom he put in charge of her, commands him
“run no risques of any kind when you meet or overtake vessels beating
or crossing your way, always run under their stern if there be the
least doubt that you cannot clear their head by 50 yards or more.” But
it was no exceptional occurrence for the _Clermont_ to come limping
home with only one of her paddle-wheels working. The circumference
of these was in each case an iron rim of about four inches, and
a contemporary says they ran just clear of the water, as will be
seen from the illustration, the wheels being supported, it will be
noticed, by the shaft coming out through the hull. The boat was decked
forward, and the stern was roughly fitted up for the accommodation of
passengers, the entrance to which was from aft, just in front of the
steersman, who worked a tiller. This was afterwards supplanted by a
wheel, placed near the main-mast, which connected with the rudder by
means of ropes. Steam hissed from every valve and crevice; there was no
steam-whistle, but warning of the boat’s arrival at a wharf was given
by sounding a horn. After her first voyage, when it was decided to put
her into commission as a regular passenger craft, she was somewhat
modified. Thus, her “boiler works,” which had been open, were decked
over, each cabin was fitted with twelve berths, and many parts of the
ship were strengthened with iron work. There was clearly a future for
the steamboat commercially, not merely “because of the certainty and
agreeable movements” of Fulton’s ship, but whereas the average passage
of the sailing packet to Albany took forty-eight hours, the _Clermont_
had done the distance in eighteen hours less. She ran so successfully
that at the end of her first season she cleared 5 per cent. on the
capital which had been expended on her.
It will be seen from the illustrations of the boat that the _Clermont_
had no bowsprit, and, also, that in one her paddle-boxes are shown,
whereas in the other two they do not appear. The explanation is that
originally the wheels were uncovered, but as it was found that the
wheels were likely to become entangled with ropes, and also to annoy
passengers by splashing water on deck, they were covered in. It will
also be noticed from the older illustration that Fulton had guards put
round the paddles as a protection against the inimical sailing ships,
and also to prevent damage when coming alongside a wharf. Steps from
the stern end of these guards were added for convenience in discharging
and embarking passengers from rowing boats. There is also existent a
record by Fulton in which he even mentions that he had so placed the
masts that the awning seen in the earlier illustration could be spread
for the comfort of the passengers. He also claims that he was “the
first who has so arranged the rudder of his Steamboat as that the pilot
may stand near the centre of the boat and near the engineer to give him
orders when to stop or put the engine in motion.”
With regard to the engines of the _Clermont_, Fulton claimed to have
been the first to use triangular beams in the body of his boat “to
communicate the power from the piston rod to the Water wheels,” and
work his air-pump. But if the reader will turn back to the illustration
on page 51, he will find that the triangular beam was also employed in
the engines of his first steamboat on the Seine. During the winter of
1807–8 the _Clermont_ was altered very considerably, so that her name
was changed to that of the _North River_. Writing to Livingston on
November 20th, Fulton suggests that a new hull be built so as to become
nearly twice as stiff as she was originally, that she should carry much
more sail, have a new boiler installed, additional knees and timbers,
new cabins and other improvements. Under her new name this re-built
craft ran regularly to Albany and back at a single fare of seven
dollars a head. On her forestay she carried a fore-sail, and besides
her other courses on her fore-mast she even had stun’s’ls at times,
a mizen with a gaff main-sail being stepped as before. There was a
ladies’ cabin containing six upper and four lower berths. The engine
was one of Boulton and Watt’s, having a cylinder whose piston was 2
feet in diameter. On the top of the piston was a cross-head made of
iron which was slid up and down between guides on the “gallows-frames,”
that reached from the bottom of the vessel to 12 feet above the
deck. This will be clearly seen in the second illustration of the
reconstructed _Clermont_ facing page 70. The “gallows-frames” are just
to the left of the funnel, and the cross-head can be discerned sliding
up and down the iron guides. By comparing this with the below diagram,
a very fair idea will be obtainable of the working of this portion of
her mechanism.
[Illustration: FULTON’S PRELIMINARY STUDY FOR THE ENGINE OF THE
_CLERMONT_
_From the Original in the possession of the New Jersey Historical
Society._]
The optimists had prophesied correctly: the steamboat had come to
stay. So soon as Fulton had shown the way, and during the eight years
which ensued between the completion of the _Clermont_ in 1807 and
Fulton’s death in 1815, no fewer than seventeen craft of various kinds
were built by him, including the first steam frigate, and the first
steam ferry-boats. Among the number of this fleet were the _The Car of
Neptune_, launched in 1808, the _Paragon_ in 1811, the _Fire Fly_ of
1812, and the _Richmond_ of 1814. Fulton had, from the first, as we saw
when he wrote to Napoleon’s Commissioners, the idea of opening up the
Mississippi and other North American rivers by means of steamships,
and no sooner had he got the _Clermont_ to work satisfactorily than
he wrote: “Whatever may be the fate of steamboats for the Hudson,
everything is completely proved for the Mississippi, and the object
is immense.” When one considers that it was Fulton who introduced
practical steam navigation, not only to the Hudson but to the other
great rivers of North America, and that the _Clermont_ was the historic
embodiment of his thoughts, it seems a pity that no one has been able
to trace the whereabouts of this epoch-making craft. She has vanished;
and was either broken up or disguised beyond recognition.
We mentioned at an earlier stage the names of John and R. L. Stevens,
who had interested themselves in steamboat experiments. Just about the
time that the _Clermont_ was ready for her life’s work these two men
had built another steamship, called the _Phœnix_. Originally intended
for the Hudson River, since now the _Clermont’s_ success had obtained
for Livingston and Fulton the monopoly of the steam navigation thereon,
the two Stevenses decided to send their craft to the Delaware River.
They therefore took her round to Philadelphia by sea in June, 1809,
one of the owners being in command. She arrived quite safely, and for
several years plied profitably on the Delaware. This is important as
being the first occasion in history when the steamship took to the sea,
for it was not until the _James Watt_ achieved her distinction in 1811
that a British ship had shown her full confidence in steam. Impelled
by the impetus which had been given by Fulton and Stevens, the North
American continent, with its vast extent of waterways, quickly realised
the possibilities of the steamboat, so that in the next decade this
novel type of craft became familiar in many parts.
[Illustration: FULTON’S PLANS OF A LATER STEAMBOAT THAN THE
_CLERMONT-NORTH RIVER_, SHOWING APPLICATION OF THE SQUARE
SIDE-CONNECTING-ROD ENGINE.
_From the Original in the possession of the New Jersey Historical
Society._]
[Illustration: THE “COMET.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: ENGINE OF THE “COMET.”
_In the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
No apology is needed to the reader for having taken up so much of his
attention in witnessing the growth of the steamship both on the Seine
and the Hudson, for the importance of these rivers in the history of
our subject is anything but insignificant. But let us turn now to see
what was being done in Great Britain, where a kind of slump, or rather
inertia, had been prevalent in regard to the steamship ever since the
_Charlotte Dundas_ had been laid aside. We must cast our eyes in the
direction of the Clyde, where Henry Bell had interested himself in the
steamboat problem. Like others before him, he had begun his experiments
at first with hand-driven paddle-wheels, but it was not long before
the inevitable conclusion was thrust on him that the power ought to be
derived not from human force, but from steam. It was he who had talked
the matter over with Fulton, and had actually accompanied the latter
when a visit was paid to Symington and the two men witnessed a trial
trip of the _Charlotte Dundas_. Bell was a simple, uneducated man, the
proprietor of an hotel at Helensburgh, on the Clyde, where he also
conducted a bathing establishment, and at one time possessed an engine
which was in use at his hotel for pumping up sea-water for the baths.
His enterprising mind argued that it would be for the advantage of his
hotel if he could inaugurate a steamboat service between Helensburgh
and Glasgow, and so he had the _Comet_ built in 1811, by Messrs.
John Wood and Co., of Glasgow. Some interesting details have been
collected of this early British boat by Captain James Williamson in
his book on “The Clyde Passenger Steamer: its Rise and Progress during
the Nineteenth Century” (Glasgow, 1904), and in Mr. James Napier’s
“Life of Robert Napier” (Edinburgh, 1904). The illustration opposite
this page, which represents a model of the _Comet_ now in the South
Kensington Museum, will afford a good idea as to her appearance. As
will be seen, she was a paddle-boat, and originally had two wheels
on either side, but one pair was removed later, as the arrangement was
found to be of too complicated a nature to work satisfactorily. She
was far less of a ship than the _Clermont_, and much more of a river
boat. She did not carry even a single mast, but, as will be noticed in
the model, she utilised her thin, lofty smoke stack for this purpose
and set a yard across it, as the _Clermont_ had done on her fore-mast.
On this yard she set the usual square-sail, while from the end of the
stumpy bowsprit she also set a triangular jib. This model may be taken
as authentic in its details, and it was to David Napier that Henry Bell
entrusted the task of making the boiler and castings. The boat was of
about twenty-five tons burthen, 42 feet long, 11 feet wide, and 5 feet
6 inches deep; was driven by a condensing steam engine developing four
horse-power, and her greatest speed through the water was five miles
an hour. Her cylinder was vertical, the piston-rod driving a pair
of side levers. The crank shaft, on which was fixed a large, heavy
fly-wheel, was worked from the levers by a connecting rod. A reference
to the illustration--which is from a photograph of the identical engine
used in this vessel, and presented to the museum by Messrs. R. and J.
Napier--will reveal these details. Whereas the _Clermont_ had employed
the triangular beam or bell-crank for conveying the power from the
piston-rod to the paddle-wheels, as we saw just now, the _Comet_ had
what was known as the “grasshopper” or half-beam type. The steam was
generated from a boiler set in brickwork, and placed on one side of
the engine. When originally she had her four paddle-wheels--two on
either side--these were driven by means of an intermediate wheel, which
engaged them both by means of spur gearing. The paddles were then, as
will be noticed in the illustration, simply placed on detached arms,
but when the alteration was made complete wheels were given to her.
She was fitted with a fo’c’sle and after-cabin, of which the hatches
will easily be recognised in the model. The engine-room took up the
intervening space amidships.
Writing now in the year when everyone has been interested in the
coming of Halley’s Comet, it is interesting to observe that Henry
Bell’s ship was so called from the fact that a meteor had appeared in
the heavens about that time. In August, 1812, she was advertised as
being ready to ply up and down the Clyde “to sail by the power of air,
wind, and steam,” the announcement also stating that “the elegance,
safety, comfort, and speed of this vessel require only to be seen to
meet the approbation of the public, and the proprietor is determined
to do everything in his power to merit general support.” Apparently,
however, the “general support” was not forthcoming, for commercially
the _Comet_ proved a failure. Historically she was a success, for her
influence was undoubtedly for good, and Napier made some interesting
observations, from which he was able to deduce important conclusions.
Those who are familiar with the history of the sailing ship will be
aware that at the beginning of the nineteenth century both the large
ocean-going ships and the small coasters were distinguished by their
remarkably heavy and clumsy proportions. Especially was the bow still
made bluff and full, since the idea in the minds of the ship-designers
was that their vessels should rather _breast_ the waves than, cut clean
through them, as the clipper-ships afterwards taught should be the
manner. It was the still surviving Dutch influence of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries which had caused this fashion in naval
architecture to prevail for so long. In a sailing boat, where it was
desired to carry sail well forward near the bows--as was essentially
a Dutch custom--and where it was desired to keep the ship as dry as
possible, there was some reason for the high, blunt bow. But with the
advent of steam these conditions disappeared. It is obvious to every
landsman that whatever seaworthy qualities the forward end of a boat
thus designed may possess, the smashing blows which her obstinate
form exchanges with the waves must be a great hindrance to progress
over the water in comparison with the clean, knife-like movement of
the more scientifically designed craft. And so, long before ever the
clipper-ships appeared, the same idea struck David Napier. He spent
some time in making passages from Scotland to Ireland in the Belfast
sailing packets of that time, and came to the conclusion that the
full bow was not suitable for easy propulsion. He followed up these
observations by making further experiments with a model in a tank, and
continually modified the former until he was satisfied. As long as
ever she showed an increase of speed he kept on fining away her bow
and thus diminishing her resistance to the water. What he had in mind,
after seeing the achievements of the _Comet_, was the inauguration of
a steam cross-channel service between Scotland and Ireland to compete
with the sailing packets. At length, having brought his model to what
he deemed was a state of perfection, he had a full-sized ship built
after her by William Denny, the founder of the well-known shipbuilding
firm. The result was the _Rob Roy_, a vessel of about ninety tons and
thirty nominal horse-power. In 1818 she began running between Greenock
and Belfast, after which she was bought by the French Government and
kept up communication between Calais and Dover, though the first time
the English Channel was crossed, from Brighton to Havre, by a steamship
was in the year 1816 by the _Majestic_. Thus, the _Comet_, if not
remunerative to her owner, was anything but a creation of no account.
Bell’s ship did not belie her name, for her life was literally
meteoric. She had been taken “outside,” and on December 13th, 1820,
whilst near Crinan, on the West Coast of Scotland, was unable to
wrestle with the strong easterly wind and nasty tide-race and was
wrecked, Bell himself being on board; happily no lives were lost.
In the following year, _Comet_ the second was built, but she also
foundered in 1825, through collision. In the first days of the
_Comet_, when engineers were working with insufficient data, it was
generally believed that it would be impossible to make a steamship’s
machinery of sufficient strength to withstand the shock of crashing
into a heavy sea, and for some time no steamer went far outside.
There is an interesting anecdote that James Watt, who, though largely
responsible for the successful inauguration of the steamship in the
hands of Fulton, was none the less never directly connected with the
new industry, in his old age visited his native town of Greenock. This
was in the year 1816, or four years after the _Comet_ had commenced
running. On this occasion he took a trip in one of these steam vessels
to Rothesay and back, during which he entered into conversation with
the engineer and pointed out to him the method of “backing” the
engine, and endeavoured with a foot-rule to demonstrate his point. The
engineer, however, was unable to grasp the inventor’s meaning, but
eventually, throwing off his coat and putting his hand to the engine,
Watt explained the idea of using a back-stroke; for, previously to
this the back-stroke of the steamboat engine was not adopted, and the
practice was to stop the engines some considerable time before coming
up to moorings in order to allow of the diminution of the speed. The
incident is related in Williamson’s “Memorials of James Watt,” and
quoted in Chambers’s “The Book of Days.”
Not merely, then, in North America, but in Northern Europe the
steamship had become a practical and interesting success. On the
Clyde the impetus given by the _Comet_ had caused the development of
the steamboat to be more rapid. Vessels larger than Bell’s boat were
being built and put into actual service, and in 1815 one of them was
sent round to the Mersey and thus began the important river steamboat
service which is now so significant a feature of the port of Liverpool.
The River Thames, in like manner, was to yield to the coming of the
steamboat. Although the London newspapers of 1801 refer to the fact
that on July 1 of that year an experiment took place on the Thames for
the purpose of working a barge or any other heavy craft against the
tide “by means of a steam-engine of a very simple construction,” and
go on to state that “the moment the engine was set to work, the barge
was brought about, answering her helm quickly,” and that she made way
against a strong current, at the rate of two miles and a half an hour,
yet this was one more of those isolated incidents which came and went
without leaving in their wake any practical result. At a later date a
steamer which had been running between Bath and Bristol was brought to
the London river by means of canal, and history repeated itself once
more. Just as Papin and Fulton had suffered by the unwelcome attentions
of the local watermen, so it was in this case. The men who earned their
living on the waters of the Thames showed so strenuous an opposition
that the boat had to be taken away.
However, in 1815, a steamboat called the _Marjory_, one of the products
of the Clyde, came round to the Thames and commenced running daily
between Wapping Stairs, near the present Tower Bridge, and Gravesend;
and another boat, the _Argyle_, came from the Clyde also. Both vessels
were, of course, of wood, and both were propelled by paddle-wheels. The
latter was afterwards re-named the _Thames_, and was the inaugurator of
those voyages now so dear to the Cockney between London and Margate.
After an exciting voyage from the Clyde, she steamed up the Thames from
Margate to Limehouse, a distance of seventy miles, at an average of ten
miles an hour. Both of these vessels were of about seventy tons burthen.
We mentioned just now that James Watt always refrained from interesting
himself financially in the steamboat, although it was his own improved
form of engines which made the steamboat a success. But “like father”
is not always “like son” in the race of progress, and in 1816 we find
James Watt, Jun., purchasing a steamboat called the _Caledonia_, which
had also come round from the Clyde to the Thames. After fitting her
with new engines he took her from Margate to Rotterdam and so on to
Coblenz: she was eventually sold to the King of Denmark. Other vessels
of about eighty or ninety feet in length, sometimes with engines by
Boulton and Watt of about twenty horse-power (nominal), were also
presently witnessed on the pea-green waters of the Thames estuary. And
before the second decade of the nineteenth century was ended steamer
communication for cross-Channel services between England and France,
and England and Ireland had already been instituted. But as I shall
deal with this branch of steamship enterprise in a separate chapter, I
need not make any further remark upon that subject now.
[Illustration: SS. “ELIZABETH” (1815).]
[Illustration: RUSSIAN PASSENGER STEAMER (1817).
_From Drawings in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
In the history of the sailing ship the flow of progress was from
east to west, from Babylon to North America, and then it ebbed back
again, bearing in its stream improvements which newer nations had been
able to effect to the sail-propelled ship. To an extent, something
of the same kind happened in the case of the steamship. The latter’s
physically-driven, paddle-wheel prototype began, if not in China, at
least in the Mediterranean, and the first efforts of steam propulsion
were made not many hundred miles north of this. Then, after the Fulda,
the Saône, and the Seine, the movement was to the Hudson, and so back
to Europe through Great Britain and on to Germany and Russia. Of the
progress in steam navigation made in the two latter countries about
this time the illustrations facing page 84 are interesting instances,
and we shall deal with them presently. But before we proceed to discuss
them let us turn back for a moment to Robert Fulton. After he had at
length established the steamboat as a thoroughly sound concern in
America we find him not unnaturally sighing for other countries to
conquer. Accordingly he set his mind on introducing the steamboat not
merely on the chief rivers of North America, but even on the Ganges
and the Neva. The year in which Bell’s _Comet_ had come into service
Fulton had actually entered into a contract with one Thomas Lane to
introduce steamboats into India, and on April 12th of that year he
wrote to a Russian gentleman, who was then staying in London, with
reference to obtaining an exclusive contract for twenty years, for
establishing a steamboat service between St. Petersburg and Cronstadt
within three years after obtaining the grant. It is evident from
Fulton’s correspondence that Imperial permission for this was obtained.
Fulton, however, died in the year 1815, and at the time of his death
the steamboat _The Emperor of Russia_ was in course of construction
previous to being transferred to Russian waters. This enterprise was
postponed and subsequently taken up by other contractors. But the
same year (1815) we find Charles Baird engaged in doing what Fulton
would have carried out had he lived. The upper illustration, then,
which faces page 84 represents a drawing of the steamboat _Elizabeth_.
Originally a barge, she was rebuilt and engined by Baird in 1815 at
St. Petersburg for service on the Neva. The steering arrangement
is not dissimilar to that of some of the Thames sailing barges of
to-day, with the use of the tackle leading from the rudder through the
ship’s quarter to the helm. The reader will doubtless be not a little
amused to notice the brick chimney which stands up in the boat as if
rising from a factory. The engine is hidden away underneath the deck,
but it was of the side-lever type, of which we have already spoken,
with a single cylinder and air-pump. The boiler will be seen placed
aft. The weight of the paddle-wheels was partly supported by the
rectangular frame-work which will be seen stretched across the hull.
The paddle-wheels had each four floats, which were kept level by means
of bevel gear. The other illustration facing page 84 shows another
steamer, which Baird built two years later for passenger traffic
between St. Petersburg and Cronstadt. It will be noticed that, as in
all these early steamboats, the paddle-wheels were placed far forward
towards the bows. In this ship both paddle-wheels were fitted with six
floats, which were driven at fifty revolutions per minute by means of
a side-lever engine that had a large fly-wheel. The arrangement of
this ship’s engines was similar rather to those of the _Comet_ than of
the _Clermont_. Looking at the lower drawing in this illustration we
can easily see how she was propelled. Amidships is the boiler, from
which steam is conveyed to the cylinder, through which appears the
piston-rod, which in turn connects with the side-lever, that is placed
as low as it can be in the boat. The connecting rod comes up from the
forward end of the side-lever to the crank, which is attached to the
shaft, and the latter, revolving, of course turns the paddle-wheels.
And here it may not be out of place to say something concerning the
survival of the beam engine. I have already referred on an earlier
page to its introduction and traced its development from Newcomen’s
atmospheric engine. When, in the early days of the steam engine, its
use had been limited to pumping out water from mines, one connecting
rod was employed in pumping and the other was driven up by the steam
in the cylinder. Then, when the engine was made, not for pumping,
but for giving rotatory motion, the connecting rod which had been
in use for pumping was used to give a rotatory motion, by means of
either the sun-and-planet movement (as in Watt’s patent) or by means
of a crank (as in the patent which his workman stole from him). In
America Watt’s beam engines were imitated very closely, and to-day,
as every visitor to New York is aware, the curious sight is seen of
enormous ferry-boats, towering high above the water, with the beam and
connecting rods showing up through the top of the ship. Now this idea
is all very well where the steamer is concerned only with navigation
on rivers and peaceful waters, but for ocean steaming, where the deck
needs to be covered in from the attacks of the mighty seas, it is
out of the question. Therefore, since it was advisable to retain the
beam in some form, and it could not be allowed to protrude through
the deck, the obvious expedient was adopted of placing it below, but
as far down in the ship as possible. As a general statement we shall
not get far wrong if we state that thus placed, at the bottom, with
the rods working upwards instead of downwards, it was really a case
of turning the engine upside down. Thus arranged it became known as
the side-lever engine, and now, if the reader will look again at the
bottom illustration facing page 84, he will see our meaning. By turning
the illustration round, so that the beam or side-lever is at the top,
this resemblance to the old-fashioned beam engine becomes still more
apparent. Later on we shall be able to show a more complicated form of
the side-lever engine, but for the present this may suffice for the
interest of the non-technical reader. For many years the side-lever
was the recognised form of marine engine, and its advantages included
that of being remarkably steady in its working because its parts were
so nicely balanced. Moreover, it was easy to drive from the beam the
various auxiliary parts, such as the air-pump. It was also very strong,
though both heavy and costly, as it became in the course of time more
complicated.
Although it is true that in Fulton’s _Clermont_ the beam was placed
below the piston-rod, yet that was entirely owing to English influence,
as represented in Boulton and Watt, who had manufactured this engine,
or at any rate a good many of its parts. It is now that the dividing
line comes between the two types, English and American. “From this
primitive form,” says Admiral Preble, in his volume already quoted,
“the two nations diverged in opposite directions--the Americans
navigating rivers, with speed the principal object, kept the cylinder
upon deck and lengthened the stroke of the piston: the English, on the
other hand, having the deep navigation of stormy seas as their more
important object, shortened the cylinder in order that the piston-rod
might work entirely under deck, while Fulton’s working (walking) beam
was retained.” From the engine, in fact, which Boulton and Watt had
constructed at Soho for Fulton, by far the majority of the engines for
the earliest steamboats took their pattern. And if to the Americans
belongs the credit of having so thoroughly and so quickly developed
the steamboat navigation of large rivers, it is the British, as we
shall see shortly, who have been the pioneers of ocean navigation in
steamships.
The upper illustration facing page 90, which has been taken from a
contemporary engraving, is worthy of notice as being the first steamer
actually built in Germany. She represents rather a retrogression than
an advance in the story of the steamship, for she was following still
on those lines which had been in mind when Miller’s double-hulled ship
and the _Charlotte Dundas_ were launched. This vessel, the _Prinzessin
Charlotte_, was built by John Rubie at Pichelsdorf in 1816, for service
on the Elbe, Havel and Spree. As will be seen from the illustration,
her paddle-wheel was placed amidships and covered in. She was driven
by an engine possessing 14 horse-power and made by J. B. Humphreys.
Her long, lanky smoke-stack is supported by numerous stays, while
her double-rudders, though still preserving the helms as used in
contemporary sailing ships, are moved by means of a steering wheel.
Clumsy and beamy, she is inferior in design to the _Comet_, and would
no doubt have needed all the help of her twin-rudders to get her round
some of the narrow reaches of the river. In the adoption and employment
of the steering wheel neither the _Prinzessin Charlotte_ nor the
_Clermont_ was the pioneer of this more modern method, its evolution
having come about on this wise: as the tillers became heavier when the
size of ships increased and the pull on them became greater, some
sort of lanyard was first attached to them so as to get a purchase
and divide the strain; otherwise the steersman would not have been
able to control the ship. We see this as far back as the times of the
Egyptian sailing ships. In medieval times and even in the seventeenth
century the big, full-rigged ships were still steered by a helm in
the stern, the pilot shouting down his orders to the steersmen placed
under the poop. Then, in order to counteract the wild capers which
some of these vessels had a tendency to perform in a breeze, it was an
obvious expedient to fit up an arrangement of blocks and tackles to
the tiller. From this came the transition to the employment of these
in connection with a winch, such as had been used for hoisting up the
anchor. This winch was driven by means of “hand-spikes,” a method
that was not conducive to rapid alteration of the ship’s course. But
in the eighteenth century, when ships were better designed, and many
improvements were being introduced, the handspikes were discarded and
the spoked wheel was connected with the barrel of the winch, placed not
’thwart-ship, but fore-and-aft, so that not merely could the direction
of the ship’s head be altered more quickly, but a steadier helm could
be kept, because it was less difficult to meet the swervings of the
vessel from her proper course. As everyone knows, this steering-wheel
has been improved by many minor alterations, and ropes have given way
to chains and steel wire: but though steam-steering gear is now so
prominent a feature of the modern steamship, the wheel itself is not
yet superseded.
[Illustration: THE “PRINZESSIN CHARLOTTE” (1816).
_From a Contemporary Print._]
[Illustration: THE “SAVANNAH” (1819).]
Already, then, the steamboat had shown herself capable of doing her
work on inland waters, and even for short voyages across Channel,
as well as for coasting within sight of land. Independent of calms,
currents and tides, she was a being of a different kind as compared
with the sailing ship and was carving out for herself an entirely novel
career of usefulness. But the pessimists believed that here her sphere
ended; the long ocean voyages could never be undertaken except in the
sail-carrying ships. However, in the year 1819, the first attempt was
made to conquer the North Atlantic by means of a ship fitted with a
steam engine. In the lower illustration facing page 90 will be seen
the _Savannah_, a full-rigged ship of 350 tons burthen which was
built in New York in 1818 as a sailing vessel pure and simple. That,
it will be remembered, was eleven years after the launching of the
_Clermont_, and during these eventful years there had been plenty of
opportunity for those who wished to obtain proof of what steam could do
for a ship. Whilst the _Savannah_ was still on the stocks, one Moses
Rogers, who had followed the efforts of both Stevens and Fulton, and
had even commanded some of the early steamboats, suggested to Messrs.
Scarborough and Isaacs, of Savannah, that they should purchase this
ship; which eventually they did. Therefore, after being fitted with
her engine, a steam trial trip was made in March, 1819, round New York
Harbour, and a few days later she left for Savannah under sail. During
this voyage of 207 hours she was practically nothing but a sailing
ship, for her engine was only running for four and a half hours. On
the 22nd of May she set forth from Charleston and steamed outside.
It will be noticed on referring to the illustration that there were
no paddle-boxes to cover her wheels, and a remarkable feature of the
_Savannah_ was her ability suddenly to transform her character as a
steamship to a sailing vessel, and vice versa. Within twenty minutes
she could take off her paddle-wheels, and away she could go without any
hindrance to her speed.
So it was, then, after she had brought up outside Charleston.
Unshipping her wheels she got under weigh early in the morning of May
24th, and arrived off the coast of Ireland at noon of June 17th, and
three days later was off the bar at Liverpool. But this voyage proved
little or nothing of the capabilities of the ocean steamship; for of
the twenty-one days during which she was at sea the _Savannah_ only
used steam for eighty hours, and by the time she had arrived off Cork
she had used up all her fuel. However, having now taken on board what
she needed, she was able to steam up the Mersey with the aid of her
engines alone. From Liverpool she went to the Baltic, using her engine
for about a third of the passage. Thence she returned to America,
having unshipped her paddle-wheels off Cronstadt, but, after crossing
the Atlantic and arriving off the Savannah river, she adjusted her
wheels once more and steamed home. Shortly afterwards her engines were
taken out of her, and she ended her days as a sailing packet. Although
her voyages did nothing to help forward the ocean steamer, yet she
caused some amazement to the revenue cruiser _Kite_, which espied her
off the coast of Ireland. Seeing volumes of smoke pouring out from this
“three-sticker,” the _Kite’s_ commander took her for a ship on fire and
chased her for a whole day. The illustration gives a fairly accurate
idea of the ship, though the bow has not been quite correctly given,
and should show the old-fashioned and much modified beak which survived
as a relic of medieval times. It will be noticed that the distance
which separates the main and fore-mast was sufficiently great to allow
of plenty of room for the engine and boiler.
In the meantime the steamship was slowly but surely coming into
prominence and recognition, and the year 1821 was far from unimportant
as showing the practical results which had been obtained. As proof of
the faith which was now placed in steam, the first steamship company
that was ever formed had already been inaugurated the year before, and
in 1821 began running its trading steamers. This was the now well-known
General Steam Navigation Company, Ltd., whose first steamer, the _City
of Edinburgh_, was built on the Thames by Messrs. Wigram and Green,
whose names will ever be associated with the fine clippers which in
later years they were destined to turn out from their Blackwall yard.
The steamship _City of Edinburgh_ was launched in March, 1821, for the
Edinburgh trade, and created so much attention that the future William
IV. and Queen Adelaide paid her a visit, and expressed surprise at the
magnificence of the passenger accommodation. The machinery (which was
only of 100 horsepower) was described by the contemporary press as
“extremely powerful.” In June of that year was also launched the _James
Watt_, of which an illustration is given from an old water-colour.
This vessel was built by Messrs. Wood and Co., of Port Glasgow, and
was referred to by the newspapers of that time as “the largest vessel
ever seen in Great Britain propelled by steam.” The _James Watt_, it
will be seen, was rigged as a three-masted schooner, with the typical
bow and square stern of the period. She was of 420 tons, and measured
141 feet 9 inches in length, 25½ feet wide, and 16½ feet deep. She
had a paddle-wheel, 18 feet in diameter, on either side of the hull.
These were driven by engines of the same horsepower as those of the
_City of Edinburgh_, which had been made by Boulton and Watt. It was in
this year also that the _Lightning_, a vessel of about 200 tons and 80
horse-power, gained further confidence for the newer type of vessel,
for she was the first steamship ever used to carry mails.
Before the third decade of the nineteenth century was closed, a little
vessel named the _Falcon_, of 176 tons, had made a voyage to India--of
course, via the Cape--and the _Enterprise_, a somewhat larger craft
of 470 tons, had also done the passage from England to Calcutta; but
like the _Savannah’s_ performance, these voyages were made partly under
steam and partly under sail, so that these vessels may be regarded
rather as auxiliary-engined than as steamships proper. At the same
time, the _Enterprise_ was singularly loyal to her name, for out of the
113 days which were taken on the voyage, she steamed for 103.
[Illustration: THE “JAMES WATT” (1821).
_From a Water-Colour Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: SIDE-LEVER ENGINES OF THE “RUBY” (1836).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Let us now pause for a moment to witness some of the changes which were
going on in regard to the machinery for steamships. In the engines
which were installed in the Russian ship shown opposite page 84 we saw
how the beam had become the side-lever, and why it had been placed in
this position in the steamboat. This had become the customary type
for steamships which were still propelled by paddle-wheels, and the
perfected development had been due to Boulton and Watt, dating from
about 1820. Until about 1860 this type was used most generally, until
ocean-going steamers discarded the paddle-wheel for the screw. It is,
therefore, essential that before proceeding farther we should get
well-acquainted with it, and we shall find that following the lead
which had been given them, especially by the famous Robert Napier,
marine engineers began to build these types, as well for deep-sea
ships as for river-going craft. The illustration here facing, which
has been taken from a model in the South Kensington Museum, represents
the regular side-lever type, the full-sized engines having been made
by a Poplar firm in 1836 for the _Ruby_, which plied between London
and Gravesend, a vessel of 170 tons, and the fastest Thames steamer
of that time. On referring to our illustration, the side-lever will be
immediately recognised in the fore-ground at the bottom. To the left of
this are the two cylinders, side by side. The side-lever is seen to be
pivoted at its centre, whilst at the reader’s left hand the end of this
is joined by a connecting rod. Thus, as the piston-rod is moved upwards
or downwards, so the left-hand half of the side-lever will move. At
the opposite, right-hand, side of the latter the connecting rod will
be observed to be attached to the side-lever, whilst the other end of
the connecting rod drives the crank; the latter, in turn, driving the
shaft on either end of which will be placed a paddle-wheel. In this
engine before us there are two cranks, of which one is seen prominently
at the very top of the picture. Each connecting rod is attached to
two side-levers, one on either side of the cylinder, by means of a
cross-head. Similarly at the piston-rod there is also a cross-head,
with a connecting rod on either side, of which one only is visible.
Later on a modified form of this type of engine was introduced in order
to economise space, for one of the great drawbacks of the side-lever
engine was that it took up an enormous amount of room, which could
ill be spared from that to be devoted to the carrying of cargo or the
accommodation of the passengers. In this modification the cylinders,
instead of being placed side by side, or athwartships, were fore and
aft, the one behind the other.
In 1831, there was built in Quebec, to run between there and Halifax, a
steamer called the _Royal William_ (not to be confused with a vessel of
the same name to which we shall refer presently). The engines were made
by Boulton and Watt, and dispatched across the Atlantic to Montreal,
where they were installed. In 1833, after taking on board over three
hundred tons of coal at Pictou, Nova Scotia, she started on her journey
to the South of England, and arrived off Cowes, Isle of Wight, after
seventeen days, having covered a distance of 2,500 miles. There is some
doubt as to whether she steamed the whole way, or whether she used her
sails for part of the time. At any rate, she measured 176 feet long,
43 feet 10 inches wide (including her paddle-boxes), and after calling
at Portsmouth, proceeded to Gravesend, and was afterwards sold to the
Spanish Government.
[Illustration: THE “SIRIUS” (1838).
_From a Contemporary Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE “ROYAL WILLIAM” (1838).
_By permission of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Co._]
We now come to the year 1838, in which a handful of steamers made
history, and showed how uncalled-for had been the ridicule which the
pessimists had cast at the steamship. With this year we reach the
turning-point of the steamship, and from that date we may trace all
those wonderful achievements which are still being added to year by
year. Hitherto no vessel had crossed the Atlantic under steam power
solely. Because of the large amount of fuel consumption which was a
necessary failing of the early steamships, in proportion to the amount
of steam developed, it was denied that it would ever be financially
possible for steamers to run across oceans as the sailing packets
were doing, even if they were capable of carrying sufficient fuel
together with their passengers and cargo. But deeds were more eloquent
than the expounding of theories, and the first surprise was quickly
followed by another, far from inferior. The first of these epoch-making
steamers was the _Sirius_. She was rigged as a brig, like many of the
contemporary sailing ships which then carried mails, passengers, and
cargo between the Old World and the New, whose unsavoury characters
had earned for them the nickname of “coffin-brigs.” This _Sirius_
was a comparatively small ship of 703 tons, and quite small enough to
cross the Atlantic in the weather which is to be found thereon. She
measured only 178 feet along the keel, was 25½ feet wide, her hold was
18¼ feet deep, and her engines developed 320 horsepower. Built for the
service between London and Cork, she was specially chartered for this
transatlantic trip by the British Queen Steam Navigation Company, whose
own vessel, the _British Queen_ (shown opposite page 102), was not yet
ready, owing to the fact that one of her contractors had gone bankrupt.
With ninety-four passengers on board, the _Sirius_ steamed away from
London and called at Queenstown, where she coaled. After clearing
from the Irish port, she encountered head winds, and it was only with
difficulty that her commander, Lieut. R. Roberts, R.N., was able to
quell a mutiny among the crew, who had made up their minds that to
try and get across the North Atlantic in such a craft was pure folly.
Having been seventeen days out, the _Sirius_ arrived off New York on
April 22nd, and before the end of her journey had not merely consumed
all her coal, at a daily average of 24 tons, but had even to burn some
of her spars, so that she had got across just by the skin of her teeth.
But it was her engines which had got her there and not her sails; the
former were of the side-lever type to which we have just referred.
The next day came in the _Great Western_, a much larger craft, that
had come out of Bristol three days after the _Sirius_ had started;
and in her we see the prototype of those enormous liners which go
backwards and forwards across the Atlantic to-day with a regularity
that is remarkable. Unlike the little _Sirius_, the _Great Western_ had
been specially designed for the Atlantic by that engineering genius,
Brunel, who, like his ships and his other works of wonder, was one of
the most remarkable products of the last century. She was built with
the intention of becoming practically an extension of the Great Western
Railway across the Atlantic, and in order to be able to withstand the
terrible battering of the seas, which she would have to encounter, she
was specially strengthened. Here was a vessel of 1,321 tons (gross),
with a length of 236 feet over all, with about half her space taken up
with her boilers and engines. Now the strain of so much dead-weight
in so long a ship whose beam was only 35 feet 4 inches, or about
one-seventh of her length, had to be thought out and guarded against
with the greatest care. And let us not forget that at this time vessels
were still built of wood, and that, except in a few instances, iron had
not yet been introduced. She was given strong oak ribs, placed close
together, while iron was also used to some extent in fastening them.
The advantage of making an ocean-going vessel long is that she is less
likely to pitch in a sea, and will not dip twice in the same hollow;
and if she is proportionately narrow in comparison with her length, she
will also roll less than a more beamy craft. But the difficulty, so
long as wood was employed, was to get sufficient longitudinal strength
to endure the strains of so long a span. We shall be able to get some
idea of this when we consider the behaviour of a vessel in a sea. Waves
consist, so to speak, of mountains and valleys. If the waves are short
and the vessel is long, then she may stretch right over some of them;
but if the contrary is the condition, then, while her ’midship portion
is supported by the water, her fore and aft ends are inclined to droop,
so that in a very extreme case she would break in two. At any rate,
the tendency is for the centre of the ship to bend upwards and the
unsupported ends to droop. This is technically called “hogging.” In the
reverse circumstance, when the ends are supported on the tops of two
mountains of waves, whilst the centre of the ship spans, unsupported,
the intervening valley, the tendency is to “sag.” Now this has to be
allowed for in the construction of the ship, and, as already pointed
out in my “Sailing Ships and Their Story,” this was understood as far
back as the times of the Egyptians, who counteracted such strains as
these by means of a longitudinal cable stretched tightly from one end
of the ship to the other. But with the coming of steamships there was
another problem to be taken into consideration. Engines, boilers, fresh
water for the boilers, coal and so on are serious weights to be placed
in one part of the ship. (In the case of the _Great Western_, the first
three alone weighed 480 tons, although the gross tonnage of the whole
ship was only 1,321.)
Throughout the length of the ship, then, she is subjected not merely
to irregular strains by the peaks and valleys of the waves, but by the
distribution of weights. Her structure has to undergo the severest
possible stresses, and these are different when the ship is loaded and
when she is “light.” If you divide a ship into sections transversely,
as is actually done by the designer, you will find that some parts
are less buoyant than others, no matter whether your ship is made of
wood, iron, or steel. Those sections, for instance, which contain a
steamer’s machinery will have much inferior buoyancy, and, indeed,
were you to sever them from the ship and seal them up so as to be
perfectly water-tight, they would in many cases sink. Therefore, this
irregularity of buoyancy has to be met by making the more-buoyant
sections help to support the less-buoyant. In actual shipbuilding
practice it is customary to regard the greatest stress to a ship as
occurring when she is poised on the crest of a wave, and it is usual
to suppose, in order to safeguard her manner of construction, that she
is poised upon the crest of a wave whose length from trough to trough
is equal to the length of the ship, and the height of the wave from
trough to crest to be one-twentieth of its length when 300 feet long
and below, and one twenty-fifth when exceeding that length.
We have digressed a little from our immediate subject in order to put
into the mind of the general reader some conception of the difficulties
which Brunel had to encounter when he set to work to produce such a
vessel as the _Great Western_. That she was built on sound lines is
proved by the service which she rendered to her owners before she was
finally broken up in 1847. On her first return voyage from New York she
took fifteen days, and the _Sirius_ seventeen. The _Great Western_ had
no such trouble with her “coal-endurance” on her maiden voyage as the
_Sirius_ had suffered, for she had reached New York with one quarter
of her coals still unconsumed, and the obvious conclusion which came
to any reasoning mind was that it certainly paid to build a vessel big
enough to carry plenty of fuel. But the _Great Western_ “paid” in more
senses than this; and at the end of her first year, her directors were
able to announce a dividend of 9 per cent. Thirty-five guineas was the
fare in those days, and the largest number of passengers carried on any
one of her journeys was 152.
[Illustration: THE “GREAT WESTERN” (1838).
_By permission of Messrs. Henry Castle & Sons._]
[Illustration: PADDLE-WHEEL OF THE “GREAT WESTERN.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Like her contemporaries, the _Great Western_ was fitted with side-lever
engines, built by Maudslay. Steam was generated from four boilers,
and conducted into two cylinders, her daily consumption of coal being
about 33 tons. A model of one of her paddle-wheels, which were 28 feet
9 inches in diameter, is here illustrated. This type is known as the
“cycloidal” wheel, in which each float, instead of being made of one
solid piece of material, is composed of several horizontal widths
arranged after the manner of steps in a cycloidal curve, as will be
seen by looking at the right-hand of the wheel. It will be noticed that
through the space left between each “step” the water could penetrate
when the wheel was in the sea, but when revolving out of it, the
resistance to the air was diminished because the latter was allowed to
get through. As the paddle came in contact with the sea, the concussion
was lessened, and thus there was not so much strain on the engines. The
_Great Western_ employed the type introduced by Joshua Field in 1833,
but this form was brought in again by Elijah Galloway two years later.
So far we have seen steamers running from London and from Bristol
to New York. Now we shall see the first steam-vessel crossing from
Liverpool to New York. Facing page 96 is the other _Royal William_,
which was built in 1838 for the Irish passenger trade between Liverpool
and Kingstown, and owned by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company,
by whose courtesy this picture is now reproduced. The _Royal William_
was 3 feet shorter than the _Sirius_, but 2 feet wider, and with a
hold just 6 inches shallower. In July of that same memorable year,
the _Royal William_ made her maiden trip from Liverpool to New York,
having been built and engined at the former port. In was no doubt a
great temptation to emulate what the _Sirius_ had been the first to
perform, especially as the two ships were so similar in many respects.
Outward bound, the _Royal William_ did the trip in about the same time
as the _Sirius_, though her return journey occupied about a day and a
half less than that of the other vessel. But these vessels were not
big enough, nor seaworthy enough, for the toil of the Atlantic, and
both were soon taken off from this route. The illustration reproduced
is from an engraving after a sketch made of the _Royal William_, as
seen in the Atlantic on July 14th, 1838, when in latitude 47.30 N.,
longitude 30.0 W., on her first voyage to New York, and the landsman
in looking at the waves which the artist has depicted may find some
assistance in reading our previous remarks on “hogging” and “sagging”
in this connection.
[Illustration: THE “BRITISH QUEEN” (1839).
_By permission of James Napier, Esq._]
[Illustration: THE “BRITANNIA,” THE FIRST ATLANTIC LINER (1840).
_From a Model. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
Finally, we come to the _British Queen_, which was yet another vessel
to steam across the broad Atlantic, and to show once more that it
was neither good fortune nor the powers of any single vessel that
had conquered the ocean, but the building of the right kind of ship,
engined with suitable machinery. Built in London, and installed with
engines by Robert Napier (by the courtesy of whose kinsman, Mr. James
Napier, the illustration is here given), the _British Queen_ was
considered a wonder in her day, and even exceeded the dimensions of the
famous _Great Western_, costing as much as £60,000 to build. As will be
seen, she is neither brig- nor ship-rigged, but is a barque. In spite
of the hideous old stern of those times and the old-fashioned square
ports, and the medieval custom of stowing one of her anchors abreast of
the fore-mast--a practice which survived until well into the nineteenth
century--her appearance shows that she was an advance on what had gone
before. She had about seven beams to her length, and her bow gives
evidence that the old Dutch influence was at last being forsaken: it
is, in fact, the transition stage before the clippers modified it still
more. The same long space which we noted in an earlier ship, extending
between the fore- and main-mast to afford room for the engines, will
here be recognised, and the paddle-wheels, unlike those of the early
river craft, are placed about amidships. In designing her with about
40 feet greater length than the _Great Western_ had possessed, the aim
was no doubt to attain not merely sufficient space for passengers,
cargo, engines and ample fuel, but also to be able to wrestle with the
long Atlantic waves, whose average length has been computed at about
200 feet. Seventy years ago this _British Queen_ was designed to be 275
feet over all; to-day, the _Lusitania_ is 760 feet thus measured, and
it is this appreciation of the value of length which has a good deal to
do with the evolution of the modern liner from being a moderate-sized
vessel to one of enormous proportions. In her first voyage from
Portsmouth to New York, the _British Queen_ kept up an average speed
for one day of over ten knots, whereas the _Great Western_ had on her
maiden voyage outward-bound averaged about two knots less. Leaving
Portsmouth on April 2nd, 1839, the _British Queen_ arrived in New York
on April 16th, or three days quicker than the first _Royal William_ had
done the journey in the opposite direction under sail and steam. The
_British Queen_ consumed about 613 tons of coal on the way.
Thus we have seen the steamship arrive at a stage very far from being
merely experimental. We have watched her gradually grow from her
infancy, when she was good only as a tug or river craft, until now she
has shown in the enthusiasm of her youth that she can stride across the
Atlantic. It will be our duty in the following chapter to indicate how
she came to be treated with entire confidence, and to take her part in
the regular routine of the world’s work.
CHAPTER IV
THE INAUGURATION OF THE LINER
It was not to be thought that the achievements which we chronicled at
the end of the preceding chapter would remain without their immediate
results. If such small vessels as the _Sirius_, propelled by steam,
could cross the Atlantic and return safe and sound; if still more
easily the _Great Western_ had been able to perform the feat and
to show a substantial return on the capital laid out, surely there
was an assured future for steamship enterprise. “What man has done,
man can do,” is an old proverb, the application of which has led
to the founding of those mighty, excellently equipped fleets which
have transformed the trackless, desolate North Atlantic into a busy
thoroughfare, along whose fixed routes every day of the year are
carried thousands of passengers and tons of merchandise from one
continent to the other. Although nowadays there is scarcely a corner of
the world to which a regular line of steamships does not run, yet it
is the North Atlantic that has always been the scene of the greatest
enterprise in steamship development. We could find plenty of reasons
for this if we cared to inquire into the matter. It was not until the
advent of the transatlantic steamship that all the possibilities of
the Tudor voyages and discoveries began to be appreciated fully. A
continent, like a single country, flourishes not merely by its produce
of wealth, but by its exchange thereof. So long as it is separated
by thousands of miles, every fathom of which is fraught with danger
and has to be traversed by sailing ships whose arrival may be weeks
or months late, which may, in fact, never arrive at all, a tight
restriction is kept on the exchange of wealth; stagnation ensues,
people travel as little as possible, and remain ignorant in their
own narrow provincialism. Whereas, to-day, they take every possible
advantage of travel, of voyaging the world over, not merely to exchange
wealth but to exchange ideas, to add to their knowledge, to wipe out
their provincialism.
For this we must thank the coming of the liner.
It was that memorable year of 1838 that set all this going. Impressed
by the obvious advantages which the steamship now showed for speed and
reliability, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to whose care
was then entrusted the arrangement of postal contracts, saw that those
ancient “coffin brigs” were doomed. Their lordships forthwith issued
circulars inviting tenders for the carrying of the American mails by
steamers. It happened that one of these circulars fell into the hands
of Samuel Cunard, a prominent merchant of Halifax, Nova Scotia. He had
been anything but disconnected with shipping, for he was the owner of
a number of sailing ships trading between Boston, Newfoundland and
Bermuda, and was agent at Halifax for the East India Company, who in
their time owned some of the very finest sailing fleets that ever put
to sea. And this Samuel Cunard had been one of the shareholders of that
first _Royal William_ which crossed in 1833 from Pictou, Nova Scotia,
to the Isle of Wight. A man of energy and enterprise, he had already
realised that a line of steamers connecting the two continents ought to
become something real, and he had sufficient foresight to see that this
was an opportunity which does not occur many times in a generation.
Having made up his mind, after reading this circular, the next thing
was to find the money. In Halifax it was not possible to raise the
required capital, so he crossed forthwith to London. But London is
not always ahead of the provinces, and the wealthy merchants declined
to show their financial interest in the scheme. Therefore, armed
with a letter of introduction from the secretary of the East India
Company, Mr. Cunard travelled north to Glasgow, to Mr. Robert Napier,
whose name we have already mentioned as a great Clyde shipbuilder and
engineer. Napier promised to give him all the assistance possible, and
introduced him to Mr. George Burns, and the latter, in turn, to Mr.
David MacIver. Both had an expert knowledge of the shipping business,
and to a Scotch shrewdness united wide experience and ability to look
ahead. As a result, within a few days the necessary capital of £270,000
had been subscribed, and an offer was made to the Admiralty for the
conveyance of Her Majesty’s mails once a fortnight between Liverpool
and Halifax and Boston. But the owners of the _Great Western_, with a
ship all ready for the work, were not going to let so fine a chance
slip by without an effort. They, too, competed for the privilege,
though eventually the organisation with which Cunard was connected was
considered to have made the more favourable tender. This was accepted
by the Government, and a contract for seven years was signed. The three
enterprisers went to their posts--Cunard to London, Burns to Glasgow,
and MacIver to Liverpool, but before matters had taken a final shape
the Government required that the service was to be carried on by
four ships instead of three, that fixed dates of sailings should be
adhered to, and in consideration of all this a subsidy was eventually
granted to the steamship owners of the sum of £81,000 per year. The
corporation which we now know as the Cunard Company was then called
the British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and
they proceeded to get in hand the building of those first four steamers
of which the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ to-day are the lineal
descendants. These four, then, were respectively the _Britannia_, the
_Acadia_, the _Caledonia_, and the _Columbia_. They were all built
of wood, all propelled by paddle-wheels, specially adapted for the
transport of troops and stores in the event of war, with an indicated
horse-power of 740, accommodation for 115 cabin passengers, a cargo
capacity of 225 tons, while their dimensions and tonnage differed but
slightly the one ship from the other. Their speed averaged 8½ knots per
hour on a coal consumption of thirty-eight tons a day, the engines in
each case being not unnaturally made by that Robert Napier who had by
his introduction done so much to bring the formation of this company to
a practical conclusion. These vessels were built on the Clyde by four
different builders in the year 1840, but the _Britannia_ was the first
that was ready for service, her measurements being 207 feet long, 34
feet 4 inches wide, and 22 feet 6 inches deep, with a tonnage of 1,154.
Before we go on to outline the marvellous growth which has been seen
under the Cunard Company’s flag, whose history is practically a history
of the Atlantic liner, varied here and there by the happenings which
other rival companies have brought about, it is both curious and
amusing to append the following letter, which has only quite recently
been made public, and which will surprise many of those who here read
it. It is evidence of the remarkable speed at which events may happen,
and men’s minds adapt themselves to newer conditions. Although Samuel
Cunard was part owner of the first _Royal William_ in 1833, and
already three years earlier had thought over the idea of starting a
line of Atlantic steamers, yet it will be seen that towards the end
of 1829 he was not favourably inclined to the project. Having in mind
all that the Cunard Company has done towards the inauguration of the
liner, her continuous improvements, her safety and her efficiency, it
is instructive to read the reply which was sent at this time to Messrs.
Ross and Primrose, of Pictou, Nova Scotia, who had written to Cunard
and Company in regard to steamship establishment:--
“DEAR SIRS,--We have received your letter of the 22nd inst. We are
entirely unacquainted with the cost of a steamboat, and would not
like to embark in a business of which we are quite ignorant. Must,
therefore, decline taking any part in the one you propose getting
up.--We remain, yours, etc.
S. CUNARD AND COMPANY.
“_Halifax_, October 28th, 1829.”
The above letter is now in the possession of Mr. John M. Ross, of
Pictou.
But to return to the first sailing of the new company: the _Britannia_
started the mail service in no conventional manner. Not merely was she
to throw time-honoured custom to the winds by carrying the mails by
the help of steam, but she dealt another blow to sailor-conservatism
by setting forth on her maiden voyage on a Friday, which also happened
to be the fourth of July, a day commemorative of another kind of
Independence. Of course, the old-fashioned prophesied that so flagrant
a disregard for superstition would spell disaster; but somehow the
_Britannia_ managed to arrive quite safely at Boston, on July 18th,
1840, after a voyage of just eight hours beyond a fortnight, though
she had touched at Halifax after eleven days, four hours. The citizens
of Boston celebrated the event with banqueting and wild enthusiasm
as the forging--shall we not say?--of the first of those stronger
links which were to bind the two countries more closely and more
securely together. Four years later, one bitter February, when this
same _Britannia_ was hemmed in, icebound in Boston harbour, the same
enthusiasts liberated her by cutting a canal seven miles long and a
hundred feet wide through the ice, and this entirely at their own
expense.
Facing page 102 will be seen an illustration of a model of this
_Britannia_. Old paintings show her rigged as a barque, with a couple
of ship’s boats in davits on either side, and another hung over the
stern in a manner that will be familiar to those readers who have
seen the American sailing schooners, and some of the Norwegian craft.
The space for boilers and engines still causes that long gap between
the fore- and main-mast that we mentioned earlier. The square stern,
the old-fashioned bows, and her lines generally, show that this first
Atlantic liner was hardly a thing of beauty, if even she is to be
remembered for ever as the first of a new series. Her paddle-wheels
were 28 feet in diameter, and had 21 floats, which measured 8 feet
by 2.8 feet. The mean draught of this little ship was 16.8 feet. Her
engines were of the side-lever type, of course, the making of which
Napier understood so well. Steam was generated in four boilers with
twelve furnaces, and there were two cylinders. As we have already dealt
with the working of these engines we need do little more than ask the
reader to turn to the next page, where he will find a sectional model
of an engine very similar to that which was installed in these first
four Cunard liners. The non-technical reader will find this some
considerable help in following our previous references to engines of
this type, and the section of the cylinder at the extreme left-hand of
the picture will be found illustrative of the working of the piston
inside the cylinder. As we are writing the story of the steamship, and
not a history of engineering, we need not digress from our historical
continuity, and we can now pass on to two other steamers built in 1841,
for the Royal Mail Company. In the illustration facing this page will
be seen the _Teviot_ and _Clyde_ respectively, the former being of
1,793 tons, the latter of 1,371 tons.
We have already spoken of the founding of the General Steam Navigation
Company, and shall speak presently of the Peninsular and Oriental
Company. Following the precedent set by the Cunard Company, the Royal
Mail Line, on March 20th, 1840, entered into an agreement with the
British Government by which the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company were
“to provide, maintain, and keep seaworthy, and in complete repair and
readiness, for the purpose of conveying all Her Majesty’s mails, a
sufficient number (not less than fourteen) of good, substantial, and
efficient steam vessels, of such construction and strength as to be
fit and able to carry guns of the largest calibre now used on board of
Her Majesty’s steam vessels of war, each of such vessels to be always
supplied with first-rate appropriate steam engines of not less than 400
collective horse-power, and also a sufficient number--not less than
four--of good, substantial, and efficient sailing vessels, of at least
100 tons burthen each.” Previous to this agreement, the Government had
conveyed the mails to the West India Islands in gun-brigs, and in those
days we must not forget that the seas were not the free highways that
they are now.
[Illustration: THE “TEVIOT” AND “CLYDE” (1841).
_From a Painting in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: SIDE-LEVER ENGINE.
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
The contract was for ten years, and to take effect from December 1st,
1841. The fourteen ships were all named after British rivers, and many
readers will be aware that this custom of the company has continued
ever since, although in some cases the names of foreign rivers have
also been thus employed. Some of these vessels were built at Northfleet
on the Thames, others (including the _Teviot_ and _Clyde_) were built
at Greenock, others at Dumbarton, Leith, and Cowes. The Lords of the
Admiralty stipulated that the vessels should be built under their
supervision, and a naval officer was put in charge of the mails on each
steamer, and carried out a sort of supervision of the ship’s affairs,
a boat’s crew being always at his service when the mails were being
taken aboard or disembarked. The illustration facing page 112 shows the
launch of the _Forth_ at Leith in 1841. This picture, which is taken
from a contemporary painting, is worthy of perusal, as showing the
close resemblance between the mercantile marine and naval architecture
of the period. Strength rather than slim beauty, massiveness rather
than fineness, formed the keynote both in the steam and sailing ships
of that time. In the same year had already been launched the _Thames_
from Northfleet, and in the following year that vessel inaugurated this
new service, setting forth, like the older packets, from Falmouth. The
voyage from there to the West Indies took about eighteen days, but
exceptional runs were done in seventeen days.
This new steamship departure was an undoubted success, and the
Admiralty admitted that even the Government, with all its naval
resources, could not have succeeded so well as this private company in
getting together and ready for sea in so short a time so many large
and well-equipped new steamers. Financially this meant a very large
outlay, and there was not much less than a million of money expended
on this first fleet. It should be stated, however, that the Government
subsidised the concern by a grant of £240,000 per annum. Presently
Falmouth gave way to Southampton as the headquarters of the Royal Mail
fleet. To-day there are so many big liners calling at the Hampshire
port, and there is at all times of the day so continuous a procession
of all kinds of large steamships, that it is difficult to realise that
in those days this was comparatively a small port.
It was only natural that, as soon as ever the West Indian service
should have proved itself successful, a branch should be extended to
the South American Continent. In 1846, therefore, the company organised
a means of transit by mules and canoes across the Isthmus of Panama,
which were in 1855 superseded by the Panama Railroad. Although we
are departing from our historical sequence in the development of the
steamship, it is convenient here to sketch very rapidly the progress
of the Royal Mail Line farther still, for the evolution of a steamship
company is not necessarily that of the steamship. A small company
may be famous for having one or two ships that are always the last
word in modern ship-building and marine engineering; a large company
may possess a considerable aggregate of tonnage, but its ships may
be behind the lead of others in improvements. For the moment we are
considering the enterprise which enabled the early steamships to
penetrate to distant, over-sea territories where the Elizabethan
sailors had gone in their slow-going ships scarcely three centuries
before.
[Illustration: LAUNCH OF THE “FORTH” (1841).
_By Permission of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Co._]
[Illustration: THE “WILLIAM FAWCETT” AND H.M.S. “QUEEN” (1829).
_From the Painting by Frank Murray in the possession of the Peninsular
& Oriental Steam Navigation Co._]
In 1851 the Royal Mail Line service to South America began, and about
1869 those steamers which had stopped short at Brazil, and served the
Argentine by transfer, continued their voyage to Buenos Ayres. In
the course of time it was only to be expected that the heavy subsidy
should be reduced. It dwindled down to £85,000 a year, and was finally
allowed to vanish altogether as recently as June, 1905. Since then the
Royal Mail Company has extended its West Indian service to New York
via Jamaica. During the Crimean War some of the vessels of this line
did good service as transports, and even more recently still during
the South African War. It was on one of the vessels of this line that,
during the American Civil War, an incident occurred which was of
international importance. The ship which was brought so prominently
into notice was the _Trent_, that had been launched at Northfleet.
Some readers will doubtless remember that Messrs. Slidell and Mason
were forcibly taken from this vessel by a Federal man-of-war, and that
Lord Palmerston, by his action in the matter, set forth that valuable
doctrine, still recognised, that an individual on board a British ship
is as safe from foreign interference as if he were on British soil.
It was in 1840, also, that the Pacific Steam Navigation Company was
granted its charter, and its history is, so to speak, a complement of
that of the Royal Mail Company.[B] After the latter had extended its
service to the Isthmus of Panama, and established a means of transit
across to the western coast, it was evident that the Pacific littoral
was ready for the steamship, and this the Pacific Steam Navigation
Company now supplied. In the olden days the sailing ship had been
the only means of doing this, but that meant braving the terrors of
Cape Horn, as many of the surviving sailing ships do to this day. But
the enterprise of the Royal Mail Line on the one side of the narrow
neck separating North from South America, and the co-operation of
the Pacific Steam Navigation Company on the other, together with the
intervening land-journey, brought the inhabitants of the Southern
Pacific much nearer to Europe. The Panama Canal, which is promised for
opening in 1915, was thus foreshadowed. Sending round its two steamers,
the _Chile_ and _Peru_, to the west coast, the Pacific Company opened
up a new sphere of commerce, and these two steamships were the very
first steam-propelled craft that ever passed through the Straits of
Magellan.
[B] The Royal Mail Co. has now absorbed the Pacific Steam
Navigation Co.
The foundation of the Peninsular Company dates back as far as 1837.
Even a year or two before then its ships had commenced running to the
Peninsula, but at the time mentioned a regular service of mail packets
from London to Lisbon and Gibraltar was instituted. Here again we find
the existence of a contract between the Admiralty and a steamship
company for the carrying of the mails, but it was not until 1840 that
the line was extended to Malta and Alexandria, and was incorporated
by Royal Charter under the now well-known title of the Peninsular
and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, with a view to carrying on
operations in the Far East. The lower illustration facing page 112
shows the first steamship owned by the Peninsular Company, a little
paddle vessel of only 209 tons. This was the _William Fawcett_, which
was built in the year 1829. She measured 74 feet long, only 16 feet
wide, developed 60 horse-power, and was engaged in the trade between
England, Lisbon, and Gibraltar. But the first steamer which the newly
incorporated company dispatched to India, via the Cape of Good Hope,
was the _Hindostan_, a vessel of 1,800 tons, and 500 horse-power. She
began her voyage from England in September, 1842, and her departure was
a memorable event when we consider all that was destined to follow
therefrom, and how certainly it meant the ending of the careers of
those fine East India sailing ships which had been brought to such
a high state of perfection ere steam had appeared on the sea. The
_Hindostan_ was a three-masted vessel with a long bowsprit, “steeved”
at a big angle, setting yards on her fore-mast for fore-sail, topsail
and t’gallant, while her main and mizen were fore-and-aft rigged. She
is interesting as having not one but two funnels, the first being
placed very far forward, just abaft the fore-mast, whilst the other was
immediately in front of the main-mast. The distance between the two
funnels was great, for the purpose already indicated. The _Hindostan_
was followed by other steamers, and in 1844 the P. and O. Company
undertook a mail service between England and Alexandria, and so from
Suez to Ceylon, Calcutta, and China.
Of course, as yet, there was no Suez Canal, so that, in a manner
similar to that across the Isthmus of Panama, an overland route had
to be instituted for passengers, cargo, and mails across the Isthmus
of Suez. The P. and O. Company had, then, to land their passengers
at Alexandria, and just as canoes and mules had to be employed in
America, so boats and camels were requisitioned in Africa. But it was a
complicated journey, for this “overland” route was mostly an over-water
route. By means of the Mahmoudieh Canal the passengers and goods were
sent from Alexandria to the Nile, whence they proceeded by steamer to
Cairo. From there they travelled through the desert to Suez. Three
thousand camels had to be employed for transporting a single steamer’s
loading; every package had to be subjected to three separate transfers,
and the inconvenience was indeed considerable. But for nearly twenty
years this system continued.
Steam communication was inaugurated by the company with Australia in
1852, by means of a branch line from Singapore, and two years later the
service between Suez and Bombay was absorbed by the P. and O. Company.
This had been retained hitherto by the East India Company in order to
keep alive their navy. In 1869, came the opening of the Suez Canal,
and it was essentially the steamship and not the sailing ship which
brought this about, although the Suez Railway preceded the canal by ten
years. It is not generally known, perhaps, that a continuous waterway
had already existed long years before. In the times of the early
Egyptians there had been a canal which connected the Nile with the Red
Sea, so that ships could circumnavigate Africa and, returning by the
Mediterranean, could come out through the Nile into the Red Sea again.
But the Suez Canal had not been demanded so long as the steamship
remained undeveloped, and even for some time after the traffic to
Australia and New Zealand was principally carried on in those handsome
clipper-ships which were representative of the finest examples of the
sailing ship. It is only by means of the steamship that it is possible
to bring across so many thousands of miles the great quantities of
frozen meat and other perishable foods which now reach this country,
and the Suez Canal certainly assisted to make this possible. Not merely
did the steamship indirectly bring about the Canal, but the latter
increased the steamship’s sphere of usefulness.
About the time when the Suez Canal was opened the practical adoption
of the compound engine was taking place in the mercantile marine.
This idea had been introduced about 1856 by Messrs. Randolph Elder
and Company, and had been installed in the ships of the Pacific Steam
Navigation Company. In explanation of this system we may say at once
that its great advantage lay in the fact that it reduced the coal
consumption to just about half of what it had been hitherto in the
most economical engines. The principle is based on the fact that steam
possesses elastic properties which can be put to excellent use. Put
simply, the compound engine allows the steam to enter one cylinder
at high pressure, and, after it has moved the piston, escapes into
one (or more) cylinders of larger size, where it does its work by
direct expansion, and so much more work is done at little expense. The
expression “triple expansion,” which frequently confronts the reader
interesting himself in steamships, simply means that the steam is
expanded one stage further. Quadruple expansion is the same idea pushed
still another stage. When about twenty years ago the triple expansion
system was brought in, the steam pressures were increased from 125 lb.
to 160 lb. per square inch, and so the coal consumption was reduced
also. But the triple expansion had been preceded by the compound and
the low pressure engine, just as it was followed by the quadruple.
The opening of the Suez Canal was not devoid of side issues, for it
took away that monopoly which the P. and O. had enjoyed, since the
world’s steamships now poured in and began to go eastward and back
again. There was difficulty with the Post Office, who refused to allow
the Canal route for the conveyance of mails, on the ground that it was
not so suitable as the Egyptian Railway, and it was not until 1888,
when the charge for carrying the mails had been reduced by nearly
£100,000 a year, that the accelerated mails sent via Brindisi were
transferred to the Canal route, although the heavy mails had already
been carried by it. But the P. and O. were unlucky in another way. The
_Mooltan_, their first ship to be installed with the compound engine,
in 1860, had proved such a success that several other steamers of the
line were thus fitted, but the result was disappointing. Although it
was quite clear that this type of engine made for economy, yet it was
found unreliable, and in some cases had to be replaced by less complex
machinery.
We have now been able to see steamship lines established and sending
their fleets regularly with passengers, cargoes, and mails to the
uttermost ends of the earth, and we have been able to look ahead a
little so that we shall be free to concentrate our attention very
shortly on that centre of steamship activity the North Atlantic.
Between 1840 and 1860 the Cunard Company had practically a monopoly of
the Atlantic trade. For a time the American clippers hung on, but as
they had ousted the old brigs, even the fastest sailing vessels were
replaced by the steamship. From 1850 to 1858 there was, indeed, some
opposition from a steamship company called the Collins Line, which had
been subsidised by the American Government. This competition was very
keen, for both lines were compelled to put forth the best steamers they
could, but in the end the Collins Line withdrew from the contest.
[Illustration: DESIGNS FOR SCREW PROPELLERS PRIOR TO 1850.
_From the Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
But there was now another force coming in, which was to entirely alter
the character of the liner. Let us trace the evolution of the screw
propeller, which has completely banished the old-fashioned paddle-wheel
from its place in the ocean-going ship, and is rapidly having the
same effect in cross-Channel steamers. We saw that away back in 1804
John Stevens had crossed the Hudson in a little ship that was driven
along by a screw propeller, but it was not until the year 1836 that
the screw was re-introduced. In this year John Ericsson, a Swedish
engineer, obtained a patent for his invention which consisted of two
drums, on whose exteriors were seven helical blades, the interior of
each drum having the three blades which formed the radii of the circle.
Both these drums worked on one axis, and were placed behind the rudder,
and not in front of it as is the modern propeller. If the reader will
turn to the plate facing page 118, he will see this at the beginning of
the second line to the left. The drums were made to work in opposite
directions, the object being to avoid loss due to the rotary motion
already remaining in the water discharged by a single screw.
Ericsson applied this invention to the _Francis B. Ogden_, which was
built in 1837. She was 45 feet long, and was driven by a two-cylinder
steam engine with a boiler pressure of 50 lb. The result of the
experiment showed that she could tow a vessel of 630 tons burthen at 4½
knots against the tide. The following year a larger vessel, the _Robert
F. Stockton_, was built by Laird Brothers, and attained a speed of
thirteen knots on the Thames, with the tide in her favour. Afterwards
she crossed the Atlantic, but under canvas, and was turned into a tug
as the _New Jersey_, for work in New York waters. The illustration
facing page 120, which has been lent by Messrs. Cammell, Laird and
Company, Limited, of Birkenhead, shows her rigged as a topsail schooner
under sail and steam. Her measurements were 63.4 feet long, 10 feet
beam, 7 feet deep, with a register of 33 tons, and engines of 30
horsepower. Although she was the first screw steamer to cross the
Atlantic, yet her voyage is interesting rather as a fairly daring trip
of a small sailing ship than as proving the reliability of the screw
propeller.
But at the same time that Ericsson was working at his idea, Francis
Smith, an Englishman, who was afterwards knighted, was also engaged
at the same problem, though his method of solution was of a different
nature, as will be seen by a reference to the last illustration on the
first line of the plate facing page 118. His patent was granted in the
same year as Ericsson’s, and was tried with success the year after on
the Paddington Canal. Smith was a farmer at Hendon, and had already
experimented with a model driven by clockwork on a farm pond, just as
Fulton had carried out his early experiments with a clockwork model in
a tank. The next step was to repeat the experiment on a six-ton boat
which was driven by a steam engine, the propeller being, like those of
the modern aeroplanes, of wood. It was while thus experimenting that
an interesting accident happened, for about one-half of the screw thus
shown in the illustration was broken off, and to everyone’s surprise
the boat instantly began to leap forward at a quicker speed. Later the
boat was fitted with a screw having one turn instead of two, and made
of metal instead of wood, and in this small craft Smith cruised as far
as Folkestone. Her speed was 5½ knots.
[Illustration: THE “ROBERT F. STOCKTON” (1838).
_Photograph supplied by Messrs. Cammell, Laird & Co., Limited,
Birkenhead._]
[Illustration: THE “ARCHIMEDES” (1839).
_From a Contemporary Print._]
From these satisfactory results made by the six-tonner _Francis Smith_,
sufficient interest was aroused to form a syndicate to test the
proposition commercially, and to purchase Smith’s patents. The result
was that the _Archimedes_, of 240 tons, was launched from Limehouse in
November, 1838, and fitted with Smith’s screw. It must be recollected
that the same old obstinacy was still very much alive that had hindered
other inventions connected with the ship, and it was not until the
_Archimedes_ had toured round Great Britain, and steamed across the
Bay of Biscay and back without mishap, that people began to believe
in this new method of propulsion. To-day everyone knows how entirely
dominated by the screw the steamship now is, and that the paddle-wheel
belongs almost exclusively to the excursion passenger steamer.
Of course, Smith’s propeller was very different in expression from
the shape in use to-day, but the last word as to the ideal shape and
size of the screw has even yet to be said. It would be interesting to
detail all the attempts which have been made by different inventors to
deal with the screw, but their name is legion, and our space will not
permit. An idea, however, can be obtained of the various forms of screw
propellers patented in England before 1850 from the plate facing page
118, to which we have already called attention.
The lower illustration facing page 120, which is taken from a
contemporary aquatint, shows the _Archimedes_ on her voyage from
London to Portsmouth in the year 1839, when she attained a speed of
eight knots against both wind and tide. Facing page 122 is reproduced
a model of her stern framing before being planked up. As a further
test of this screw idea Wimshurst, who had built the _Archimedes_,
launched the _Novelty_ in 1839, a much larger vessel than her
predecessor. The _Novelty_ will be seen in the next illustration, and
in her we see the “screw” vanishing and becoming more assimilated to
the modern propeller. Originally the corkscrew shape entitled it to
be called a screw; but the evolution of time and experience has now
considerably altered this. It will be noticed that in the _Archimedes_
the screw is a little distance away from the stern-post, but as seen
in the _Novelty_ the propeller is put right close up against it. This
_Novelty_ was the first cargo steamer fitted with a screw, and made
her inaugural trading voyage from London to Constantinople and back
with entire success. She is interesting also as having been the first
ship to be fitted with an iron mast. This material was employed for
the mizen, the other masts were of wood; her rig was that of a barque.
For some years after the introduction of the screw, and so long as
sails were still retained as auxiliaries, there had to be some means of
overcoming the resistance of the screw when not in use and the ship was
proceeding under sail power. This was done either by fixing the blades
so that they caused the minimum drag, or by lifting the screw into
a well. The _Novelty_ lifted hers on deck over the quarter by means
of davits. This arrangement will also be seen in the illustration.
This idea is now obsolete, since sails are but rarely employed as
auxiliaries.
[Illustration: STERN OF THE “ARCHIMEDES.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE “NOVELTY” (1839).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Now the introduction of the propeller was not so simple an event as
the reader might imagine. Ordinarily, one is tempted to argue that it
was merely a case of putting the power aft instead of at either side,
as in the use of the paddle-wheels. But, in fact, the introduction of
the screw opened up a new set of problems connected with ship design.
In the early days the design of a ship’s stern, both in the sailing
ship and the steamer, was badly neglected. Later on the improved lines
of the clipper sailing ships certainly did much to improve matters.
I referred at the beginning of the previous chapter to the manner in
which a vessel going ahead moves the water in which she floats, and how
the eddies round the stern impede her advance. Now when a propeller
revolves, much of its power is, even nowadays, wasted by what is called
“slip”--that is to say, by the yielding of the water so that the screw
does not progress to the full extent of its “pitch.” (The “pitch” of a
propeller is the amount of distance which is represented by one whole
turn of the thread. We could measure, for instance, the “pitch” of
a corkscrew by the distance which it would penetrate in a cork.) Even
after years of experiments and improvements the wake at the end of a
steamship tends to reduce the speed of the water past the propeller,
but when first the screw experiments were conducted the design of
the afterbody of a ship’s hull was so carelessly considered that the
“slip” of the propeller was considerable. There is also to be taken
into account the fact that by the rounding in of the “stream lines”
at the stern the vessel receives a pressure which helps her forward.
When, however, a propeller is added to a ship and set in motion it
disturbs this helping-forward movement, and in a ship fitted with only
a single screw this disturbance is even greater than in a twin-screw
steamer, because the latter has her propellers placed well out, away
from the hull. We need not here pursue the subject further; it is
enough now to show that every improvement in the steamship began a new
chapter of problems, introduced difficulties that could never have been
anticipated, which time and patience alone can solve satisfactorily.
And so we come to the construction of the _Great Britain_, of which the
model is illustrated opposite page 126. Let us recollect that it was
only in 1836 that the little six-ton launch _Francis Smith_ had been
built, and that it was only three years later that the _Archimedes_
showed by her successful voyages that the screw method of propulsion
was no fanciful, impracticable theory. In this same year, 1839, there
began to be built a still more wonderful screw steamer. The Great
Western Steamship Company had already been so satisfied with the _Great
Western_ that they believed that a far larger ship would be even
still more profitable. Therefore, Brunel was again consulted, and he
reported that already the furthest limit of long ships built of wood
was reached. There was no alternative but to construct her of iron,
for the reasons that I explained some time since. Iron had already
been used in ship-building for barges and also for steamboats, but
on no large scale. Aaron Manby, in conjunction with Charles Napier,
had built the first iron steamboat as far back as 1821. This ship had
been conveyed in sections from Horseley, where she was made, to the
Surrey Canal Dock, and there put together. After being tried on the
Thames on May 9th, 1822, she steamed away the next month with Napier in
command, and Manby as engineer, arriving in Paris on the eleventh of
the same month. She was thus not merely the first iron steamship, but
the first iron ship that ever put to sea. For the next twenty years she
continued to ply on the Seine. Napier was the financier of the attempt
to promote iron steamers on the French river, but by 1827 the slump in
the steamboat had taken an acute form, and he was left a comparatively
poor man. But in 1832 the _Lady Lansdowne_ was built by John Laird of
Birkenhead for the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and she was
the first iron steamer constructed with the intention of performing
sea-service. She was a paddle-boat, and measured 133 feet long, 17 feet
wide, with a tonnage of 148 and a nominal horse-power of 90. Later
still the _Robert F. Stockton_, to which we have alluded, was also of
iron.
But the _Great Britain_ was to be 322 feet long, with a beam of 50½
feet, and a displacement of 3,618 tons, with a cargo capacity of 1,200
tons, able to carry also 1,000 tons of coal, and 260 passengers.
To build such a big lump of a boat as this was to be a very grave
undertaking indeed. In fact, no contractor could be found who would
undertake the construction of the ship or her engines. She was
something out of the unknown; there were no data upon which to base
calculations. Brunel, therefore, made out the designs and the Great
Western Company with great daring proceeded to lay down plans for
building her themselves at Bristol. This was in 1839. It was intended
to give her the usual paddle-wheel engines, but the _Archimedes_
arrived at this port, and the success of her screw propulsion caused
Brunel to modify his designs so that the _Great Britain_ should become
not only the largest iron ship ever built, but the largest screw
steamer.
It was originally intended to name her the _Mammoth_, but she had
better been called the _White Elephant_, for all the use she was
afterwards to her owners. Her rig was like nothing afloat, and the
vocabulary of nautical terms contains no adequate description. From
our illustration it will be seen that she had six masts. On all except
the second she carried fore-and-aft canvas, but this second mast
carried two yards and square sails. Forward she had a bowsprit and
triangular headsails. In sail area alone she carried 1,700 yards of
canvas, and in length the hull was 100 feet in excess of the largest
line-of-battleship afloat. She was actually floated on July 19th,
1843, but it was not until December of the following year that she was
able to enter the river, owing to the delay in the alteration of the
dock. In the meantime her engines had been put aboard, and on July
26th, 1845, after trips to London and Liverpool, she left the latter
port with sixty passengers, and 600 tons of cargo for the Atlantic
run. She arrived in New York after a fifteen days’ passage, with an
average speed of 9¼ knots. On the homeward voyage her best day’s
run was 287 miles. The illustration facing page 126 is from a model
of her six-bladed propeller, with which originally she was fitted;
but on one of her voyages she had the misfortune to break this and
proceeded to Liverpool under her canvas. A new propeller was then
fitted which had but four blades, but later on she again resorted to
the original number. She continued her Atlantic voyages until 1846,
when she ran ashore off the Irish coast in Dundrum Bay during the month
of September, and remained for eleven months exposed to the terrible
wintry weather; but Brunel had a wooden breakwater, loaded with stones,
constructed round her, and she was eventually re-floated and taken to
Liverpool, and though her bottom was naturally considerably damaged,
yet the mere fact that she had been able to survive at all showed that
confidence might be placed in iron as a material for ship-building. But
by this time her owners had had enough of her, and she was sold for
less than one quarter of the £100,000 she had cost. After alterations
to her rig and her engines, she was employed in the Australian trade.
She was next relieved of her engines, and turned into a sailing vessel,
and then used as a coal-hulk off the Falkland Islands. Finally she was
broken up at Barrow.
[Illustration: THE “GREAT BRITAIN” (1843).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: PROPELLER OF THE “GREAT BRITAIN.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
But apart from her size, the _Great Britain_ possessed other novel
features which are worthy of notice. We have already remarked that as
the length of ships increased, so did the longitudinal strain, and
new methods had to be devised in order to overcome this. The _Great
Britain_ was specially strengthened longitudinally, and furthermore she
was divided into five water-tight compartments. The original purpose
of transverse bulkheads was that if a vessel were holed by collision
or grounding, or--in the case of naval vessels--pierced by shell,
she might yet remain afloat. Nowadays they do more than this, for,
when carried up to the strong deck, they add to the longitudinal
strength of the ship. The _Great Britain_ also possessed another
novelty, in bilge keels, which extended for about one-third of her
length. The object of these, which are so well-known a feature of
modern steamships, was to lessen rolling. Her bulwarks consisted of
iron rails with netting running round the ship. Here, again, was a new
departure. In the older ships the heavy wooden bulwarks were a relic of
the days when the guns were sheltered behind them; but from the view
of seaworthiness they were really a false safety. If a heavy sea were
shipped, the water was held in and not allowed to get away easily; in
the case of the _Great Britain_ the water could escape just as quickly
as it came aboard.
Facing page 128 will be seen a reproduction of a model of the _Great
Britain’s_ engines, as originally placed in her before she ran ashore.
Steam was generated in a double-ended boiler. The nominal horse-power
was 1,000, but twice that amount could be obtained, and a speed of over
12 knots. There were four direct-acting cylinders--of which two will be
seen in the foreground of the illustration--placed as low down in the
ship as possible. The early engines which were used for the screw did
not drive the latter directly, and on reference to the illustration it
will be seen that in the centre of the crank shaft was a drum, which
was connected with another drum just below it on the propeller shaft by
means of four chains.
When referring to the side-lever engines in a former chapter, I drew
attention to the fact that in spite of their virtues they had the great
drawback of taking up a great deal of space. The second illustration
facing page 128 represents an attempt to overcome this disadvantage. As
will be seen on examining the lower part of the engines, the lever has
now become very small in size. It will be noticed that there are two
inverted cylinders, whose piston-rods are connected by a cross-head,
the latter being guided by lever parallel movement, and from it the
power was conveyed by means of a connecting rod to the crank on the
paddle-wheel shaft. The connecting rod can be seen between the two
cylinders in the illustration. These engines were made in 1843 for the
_Helen McGregor_, a paddle-steamer engaged in the Hull-Hamburg trade.
She was of 573 tons, and was one of the largest ships of her class.
[Illustration: ENGINES OF THE “GREAT BRITAIN.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: ENGINES OF THE “HELEN McGREGOR.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
It was not until 1852 that the Cunard Company were so thoroughly
convinced of the capabilities of either iron ship-building or the
screw propeller as to give both a trial. Four iron screw steamers
were then built, and these were the first owned by this line which
were fitted with accommodation for emigrants. The next year six more
iron screw steamers were added, and connection formed with the chief
ports of the Mediterranean; and when the Crimean War broke out a
number of the Cunard ships were employed as transports. But from one
reason and another the screw propeller had not found general favour
among passengers. The vibration it caused, its unpleasant “racing”
in bad weather, and the new motion as compared to that of the old
paddle-wheel, allied to the usual obstinate temperament, showed that
the earlier type had still to be retained for a while. Following on the
medieval custom, the stern of these early steamships was still regarded
as the place of honour, and the saloon passengers were accordingly
placed abaft the machinery, which was amidships. Thus placed, the
traveller was doubtfully privileged, for the close proximity of the
propeller made life on shipboard exceedingly trying to the nerves,
and there were many who, having voyaged in the old ocean-going
sailing ships, looked back with mixed feelings to the longer but less
nerve-racking journeys. The strain on the early screw engine was
very considerable when the vessel was pitching fore and aft into the
Atlantic seas. Being of comparatively small size, its movements in such
circumstances were far more lively than in a modern, lengthy liner,
which is able to stretch over a longer span. Consequently, as the bow
came down into the sea and the stern rose out, the propeller was much
more prone to race wildly, and the gearing, such as we saw in the
engines of the _Great Britain_, was not infrequently unable to endure
the terrible strain to which it was put. It was for this reason that
the screw engines were afterwards made direct-acting.
The Cunard Company decided to build their next ship of iron, but with
paddle-wheels. This was the _Persia_, launched in 1856, a vessel of
3,300 tons burthen, with accommodation for 250 passengers. But she
was even surpassed by the _Scotia_, which was built in 1862, and is
interesting as being the last and the finest paddle-ship which was ever
made for their Atlantic service. An illustration of this vessel will
be found opposite page 130. She was fitted with the greatest luxury
of the time, to carry 275 cabin passengers, had seven water-tight
compartments, and a double bottom, so that even if she should have
had the bad luck to run ashore she would still most probably be able
to endure. Nowadays most steamships are fitted with this excellent
arrangement, which was first adopted in the _Great Eastern_, through
the ingenuity of Brunel, to which we shall refer presently. But the
_Scotia_ turned out to be also a fast boat, and materially altered
the time spent in crossing the Atlantic; she lowered the record to
just two hours under the nine days. Her engines were of the familiar
side-lever type, and were the finest examples of their kind that were
ever made. The cylinders were 100 feet in diameter, and steam at 20 lb.
pressure was supplied by eight boilers with forty furnaces, the speed
attained being 13½ knots per hour; her daily coal consumption was 159
tons. She could carry 1,800 tons of coal, and was exceedingly strongly
constructed. We can obtain some idea of those paddle-wheels shown in
the illustration when we remark that they were no less than 40 feet in
diameter. She was afterwards turned into a “telegraph” ship for use in
cable-laying, and her paddles changed for twin screws. It was not until
about 1896 that her water-tight bulkheads were put to practical use;
for as the result of an explosion on board of vapour from spirit her
bow was blown out of her, and the water began to rush in. Her collision
bulkhead was also damaged, but happily the second bulkhead saved the
ship from foundering.
[Illustration: THE “SCOTIA” (1862).
_From a Painting. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
[Illustration: THE “PACIFIC” (1853).
_From a Painting in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Turning our attention away from the North Atlantic for a while, we
shall be able to see that steamships on other routes were now fast
passing from the olden types, when designers and builders were working
with only a minimum of data on which to base their achievements. We
have already referred to the highly important knowledge which was
gradually being obtained concerning the relations between the hull
of a ship and the water in which she is floated. One of the greatest
authorities on this subject about the middle of the last century was
John Scott Russell, who worked out a theory regarding the resistance
of the ship passing through the water. He it was who contended that
the hull should only move the water out of the way sufficiently to
allow the widest section of the ship to pass through, and to do this
in such a manner as should cause the least amount of friction and
disturbance of the water, so that, when the ship was gone by, the
particles of water should be restored to their original quietude. It is
important to bear in mind that the design of a ship must be made with
regard to the speed which it is intended to get out of her. Thus, it is
now a well-known principle that to give a ship highly powerful engines
so that she is forced beyond her proper speed only makes the waves
diverge from the sides and waste themselves instead of travelling with
the vessel and giving it a forward impetus.
The model of the hull in the illustration facing page 134 represents
the steamship _Victoria_, which was built in 1852 of iron, and designed
by those two great geniuses Brunel and Scott Russell for the Australian
Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company. Even the least practised eye on
looking at her lines can see that she possessed speed, and it was
this ship that gained the £500 prize offered by the Colonies for the
fastest voyage to Australia, her time from Gravesend to Adelaide
being sixty days, including two days’ delay at St. Vincent. The
_Victoria_ was designed as embodying the wave-line theory and for a
speed of ten knots. It is not necessary to examine this model many
moments before one realises how unmistakably the clumsy, ponderous
hulls so characteristic of earlier years were now being replaced by
sweet, graceful, non-resisting features. The hull of the _Victoria_
was separated into a dozen water-tight compartments and displaced
3,000 tons, her length being 261 feet, with a breadth of 38 feet, or
approximately seven beams to the length. She had a two-bladed screw,
and when this was not in use, and the _Victoria_ proceeded under
sail-power alone, the propeller was fixed vertically. Thus arranged,
the ship could sail 5½ knots, but it is interesting to remark that
when the screw was allowed to revolve freely the speed of the ship was
increased another couple of knots.
[Illustration: MAUDSLAY’S OSCILLATING ENGINE.
_From the Original in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: ENGINES OF THE “CANDIA.”
_From the Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
It was in this ship that a type of engine was fitted to which, so far,
we have not referred. This was the oscillating kind, and was destined
to become pretty well universal in paddle-ships, though not without
serious opposition at one time. This type had been patented as far
back as 1827, by Joseph Maudslay, and in the _Aaron Manby_, already
mentioned, the machinery was of an oscillating nature, for which
Manby had obtained a patent in 1821, but even farther back still--in
1785--William Murdoch had proposed the use of oscillating cylinders.
It is only fair to Maudslay to say that he had independently worked
out this arrangement, and so afforded yet another instance of the
possibility, which I have enunciated before, of different inventors
working at the same set of problems and bringing about a similar method
of solution. In the accompanying illustration is shown Maudslay’s
original oscillating engine. In this type the cylinders, instead of
being fixed, oscillate, and the necessity of the connecting rod is
dispensed with, for the cylinder is placed immediately underneath
the crank shaft, as a reference to the illustration will show. Each
cylinder is mounted on trunnions in the same manner as a cannon, being
placed at a point about the middle of the cylinder’s length, so that
it can swing, or oscillate, in such a way as to correspond with the
arc which the crank makes in its movement. Thus there are both weight
and valuable space saved. In the instance before us the condenser is
placed between the two cylinders; the central trunnions communicate
with the condenser, and the outside trunnions with the steam pipe.
But Maudslay’s engines did not at that time find the appreciation
which had been hoped for, and it was not until 1838, when they were
re-introduced by John Penn, that they received their full favour. We
shall return to the oscillating type when we come to consider the
_Great Eastern_. But we may remark that the interesting steamship
illustrated opposite page 130 was also provided with the oscillating
pattern. This is the packet steamer _Pacific_, which was built in 1853
for the Mediterranean service, and is another example of a vessel
constructed on the wave-line system. She was built of iron, and had
nine water-tight compartments.
The _Pacific_ was interesting in another feature, in that she
generated her steam in four tubular boilers, each of which had five
furnaces. Briefly the evolution of the boiler had been on this wise:
As originally fitted in the _Clermont_ and _Comet_ it was simply a
water-tank set in brickwork, and was nearly full of water, with the
fire outside, or, to use the expression generally employed, “externally
fired.” In those days the pressure of the steam was not greater than
the pressure of the air, which we saw to be 15 lb. to the square inch.
Then came a modification of this in which the furnace was placed inside
the boiler, the advantage being that, with the water all round, the
latter could be the more readily heated. This developed into the marine
“box” boiler, with internal flat-sided flues and furnaces. This type
continued to be fairly universal until about 1845, but the utmost
pressure of steam which these were capable of enduring was not above
35 lb. or thereabouts. But tubes instead of the flat flues began to be
introduced about the year 1850, owing to the suggestion of the Earl of
Dundonald, and these were to be of about double the diameter of those
which had been common to locomotives for the previous twenty years.
The pressure was soon raised considerably, but there was a strong
prejudice against using high pressures at sea, and the idea was not
encouraged.
[Illustration: THE “VICTORIA” (1852).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE “HIMALAYA” (1853).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: COASTING CARGO STEAMER (1855).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
In the same year that the _Pacific_ took the water was launched the
_Himalaya_, of which a beautiful little model is here illustrated. She
was built for the P. and O. Line. This fine ship-rigged steamship was
constructed of iron at Blackwall in 1853, and in the following year
was bought by the British Government and steamed away from Plymouth
with soldiers for the Crimea. She was of 4,690 tons displacement, and
in that year made a record run from Gibraltar at an average speed of
13½ knots. Originally she had been built for carrying both cargo and
passengers, but now she is, or was, ending her sphere of usefulness
as a coal hulk at Devonport. Her coal “endurance”--she could carry
1,200 tons--made her a valuable asset, and her six water-tight
bulkheads rendered her still more efficient. As will be seen from the
illustration, she had a single propeller, and this was driven by yet
another type of engine, which we have now to consider. We refer to the
vertical trunk engine. We shall be able to understand this better if we
examine the illustration facing page 132, which reproduces a drawing of
a similar type of engines installed in the P. and O. _Candia_, built a
year later than the _Himalaya_. In the trunk engine the piston-rod was
done away with, so that the connecting rod is attached directly to the
piston within a trunk or tube. This trunk passes through a steam-tight
stuffing-box in the cylinder cover, and is made wide enough to allow of
the lateral vibrations of the connecting rod inside. As long as steam
pressures did not exceed 35 lb. this proved to be satisfactory; but the
friction of the stuffing-boxes when they became of large dimensions
was a serious drawback. The _Candia_, for which these engines were
made, was a screw ship, and the cylinders were placed in a fore-and-aft
position. By means of this type of engine, employing trunks, the height
required was greatly lessened, and it was not necessary, as will
have been noticed was essential in the case of the _Great Britain’s_
engines, that part of them should come up through the deck. Thus, the
trunk type meant a saving of valuable space. Between the cylinders
were arranged the condensers, which were of the jet type. We may stop
to remind the reader that the condenser had been the invention of
Watt, who had improved on the Newcomen engine not merely by covering
over the top of the cylinder, but by condensing the exhausted steam in
a separate vessel, called a condenser. This condensation he brought
about by means of a jet of cold water, and the same principle was still
employed in the _Candia_. Condensation having taken place, the water
thus formed, together with any air which has got in, is then drawn off
by the air-pumps, which will be seen in the illustration to be worked
from an intermediate crank. It will be remarked on glancing at the left
of the picture that the _Candia’s_ crank shaft was connected with the
propeller shaft by means of spur gearing, which doubled the speed of
the screw, and so of the ship, but yet allowed the actual engines to
run comparatively slowly. This toothed wheel idea was a better method
than that employed in the _Great Britain’s_ engines, though it was
only just one stage better. There was a rooted objection in the early
days of the screw to running the engines at a great speed, and thus it
was only by some such means of gearing that the propeller was made to
revolve quickly. In the course of time, when a wider experience and
knowledge of engineering matters had been obtained, the gearing was
done away with and the engines became direct-acting, and so there
ensued far less friction, an absence of complication, and less expense
caused by gearing. At the same time the power obtained by the newer
method became more direct.
A customary apparatus nowadays adopted for steamships is the surface
condenser, and in the effort to increase the steam pressures this
has been a potent factor. But it had already been tried by Watt, by
David Napier, and re-introduced by Samuel Hall in 1831. The surface
condenser consists of a number of brass tubes about three quarters of
an inch in diameter, through which a stream of cold water circulates.
This necessarily keeps the pipes cool, and thus condenses the exhaust
steam which is thrown on to them from the cylinder; it is practically
a kind of tubular boiler. Instead of the jet, as in the older form of
condenser, it is the outside of the pipes which performs the office,
and the air-pump does its work as before. The condensed steam is now
available for feeding the boiler, and after being filtered the feed
pump draws it into a heater and thence it is led into the boiler once
more. If the reader will now turn to the illustration facing page 132
once more, he will see in the right hand of the picture that in the
_Candia_ the feed and bilge pumps were worked by small beams from an
eccentric.
By being able to use this water for the boilers a great economy was
effected, but in some of the P. and O. liners the boilers suffered
rather badly, since an injurious chemical action was set up owing to
the continuous return of the same water backwards and forwards from the
condenser. Nowadays the problems connected with the condenser have been
fully mastered, and the advantage of being able to use distilled water
is obvious; for one of the surest and quickest methods of bringing
about ruin is to use sea-water for the boiler, over which it will lay a
thick crust of salt.
The third illustration facing page 134 is interesting as representative
of a type of coasting steamer introduced about the year 1855. She shows
very well the simplest form of an iron ship propelled with a screw,
and evinces sufficient resemblance to the dying sailing ship before
the steamer had taken on a distinctive character of her own. In a
word, here is the steamship not in her crudity, as in the case of the
_Clermont_, but certainly in her elementary form without any of those
extra decks and houses which were still to come, and which to-day give
such distinct personality to the steamship. It will be seen that she
is just a flush-decked vessel, with a central protection amidships for
her engines and boilers. There is no forecastle, no poop, and in the
development of type she stands at the beginning. She was built for
the North Sea trade, and in bad weather must have been a singularly
wet boat. She was only of 677 tons gross register, and the absence
of any shelter would, when steaming to windward in a bad sea, cause
her to be swept from end to end. Similarly, her stern being equally
unprotected by either poop or quarter deck, she would be at the mercy
of a bad following sea. It was not surprising that this elementary type
soon gave way to those modifications that we shall see hereafter. In
design of her body this present model illustrates again Scott Russell’s
system of obtaining a capacious ship combined with the qualities of
slipping through the water with the minimum of resistance. This will be
especially noticeable by regarding the long straight middle body. She
was propelled by oscillating engines, and a two-bladed screw, having
also sails on her three masts.
And so we come to that famous monstrosity and wonder of her decade
the _Great Eastern_, some idea of whose appearance will be obtainable
from a model of her, illustrated herewith. Here again will be found a
repetition of a curious rig with the half-dozen masts, of which the
second and third carried yards and square-sails, and the others the
usual fore-and-aft sails set on the gaffs here seen. Although she
carried one triangular headsail, yet this was a staysail, and it is
significant that in this notable ship we find the disappearance of
the bowsprit, a change that is so characteristic of the modern liner.
Much more than either the _Great Western_ or the _Great Britain_ this
epoch-making monster stands for something altogether distinctive in
the evolution of the steamship. Frankly, in spite of her virtues, she
was a creature born out of due time. Historically, she exhibits in no
uncertain manner the extraordinary and almost incredible speed at which
the development of the steamship had progressed in fifty years, during
which period designers, ship-builders, and engineers had to feel their
way in the most cautious manner. No ship was built with such a length
as hers until the White Star _Oceanic_ in 1899; no vessel ever had such
a beam until the coming of the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_, and even
they only exceed the _Great Eastern’s_ extreme width by a mere five
feet. But it is half a century since the latter was built, when all the
experience that we possess now was not yet obtained.
[Illustration: THE “GREAT EASTERN” (1858).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Originally she had been named the _Leviathan_, and her beginning
happened as follows: Already the fact had come to be appreciated
that there was a superior advantage in a large steamer compared with
a ship of smaller size when voyages of considerable distances were
contemplated, and that, as already pointed out on a previous page,
length of hull, other things being equal, makes for speed. In
designing the _Great Eastern_ with an extreme length of 692 feet she
spanned over so large a number of wave-lengths that the possibility of
pitching was very decidedly reduced. But even in smooth water length
still means speed, and to take the case of a rowing “eight” and compare
it with a single “sculler,” we find that this law is well exemplified.
Without pursuing so interesting a point beyond our limitations of
subject, we might remark that quite recently an expert took the
trouble to work out data obtained from the performances respectively
of a Leander “eight” and a “sculler” as observed at a Henley Regatta.
Although the displacement of the eight-oared craft works out at about
240 pounds per rowing man, or including the coxswain at about 217
pounds, whilst the sculler only displaces 208 lb., yet for all that the
speed of the longer boat was found to be greater in the proportion as
9.75 knots are to 8.12 knots, and this, bear in mind, while the eight
is carrying a ninth man who contributes nothing to the speed of the
craft. We mention this as a simple example of that important fact of
the superiority of length in ship-making, an importance that is now
exhibited so clearly in the enormous lengths of the latest liners.
Brunel, who had already broken steamship records by his previous daring
essays, suggested to the Eastern Navigation Company the building
of such a ship as would be able to carry an unheard-of number of
passengers, a very large amount of cargo, and at the same time be
capable of steaming all the way to Australia without having to coal on
the voyage. These virtues, together with her speed of fifteen knots,
would, it was thought, enable her to attract such a large amount of
business that she would handsomely repay her owners. The contract was
eventually given to Scott Russell’s firm, who were entrusted with the
building of the ship, together with the paddle-wheel engines. The screw
engines were made by Messrs. James Watt and Co., so that three of the
names most prominently connected with the history of the steamship
were especially associated with the construction of this leviathan.
Brunel was assisted in the designing by Scott Russell, and the latter’s
wave-line principle was followed. The building of the ship began on
the 1st of May, 1854, and on the last day of January, 1858, she was
sent into the water at Millwall. But this was not done without some
difficulty. The first attempt to launch this enormous mass of 12,000
tons was unsuccessful. Her weight was resting on a couple of gigantic
cradles which were to slide down an incline to the water; but they
only moved a few feet and then stopped. Finally, three months after
the first effort, she was slowly persuaded into the water, side-ways,
by hydraulic machinery. Instead of running her on the route for which
she had been built, where her exceptional abilities might have been
utilised, she was put to compete with the steamships already running on
the Atlantic, for which short voyage she was not specially suitable,
and financially she spelt ruin all round. First, the attempts to launch
her, and the ensuing delay cost £120,000 and the company, unable to
bear the expense, was wound up. Then the new company which bought her
for £160,000 were ill-advised to employ her in the American trade, for
neither as a passenger ship nor as a cargo carrier could she be made to
pay her way. Subsequently she was used in laying the Atlantic cable,
and was handed over to the ship-breakers in 1888, who brought her
career to an end during the next couple of years.
[Illustration: PADDLE ENGINES OF THE “GREAT EASTERN.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: SCREW ENGINES OF THE “GREAT EASTERN.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
The _Great Eastern_ was, in accordance with Brunel’s idea, propelled
by both paddle-wheels and a screw. An illustration is here given of a
model of her paddle-engines, which were of the oscillating type. It
will be borne in mind that the leading advantages of this type lay in
the fact of their comparative lightness in weight, and their economy
as regards space. If the reader will just glance at the illustration
which faces page 138 of the _Great Eastern’s_ longitudinal section, he
will be able to see what little room these engines actually needed.
It will be noticed in her paddle-engines that each of two cylinders
drove a crank, the cylinders being placed vertically but at an inclined
angle. Each paddle-wheel could, if desired, be driven separately. The
condensers were of the jet type, and there were two air-pumps, which
were driven by a single crank in the middle of the paddle shaft. The
paddle-wheels were tremendous, weighing ninety tons each, and measuring
fifty-six feet in diameter. But the _Great Eastern_ amply proved how
unsuitable the paddle-wheel was for ocean work. Every time the big
monster rolled in a bad sea a great strain was put on the machinery;
these vast projections, too, offered not merely increased windage and
accentuated the ship’s general unwieldiness, but afforded a fine target
for the Atlantic waves to smash against. Once the _Great Eastern_,
during a gale in the year 1861, suffered pretty badly in this respect,
when the paddle-wheels were destroyed. She was afterwards fitted with
wheels five feet smaller in diameter, and of greater strength.
In the next illustration will be seen a model of her screw engines,
whose position in the ship will be found on referring again to the
longitudinal section. These were, it will be noticed, no longer of that
early type which needed gearing, but worked directly, the cylinders
being placed horizontally. The number of cylinders was four, each
of which had two piston-rods, and steam was supplied by half a dozen
double-ended tubular boilers of the rectangular or “box” type. For the
benefit of the non-technical reader we may explain that the object seen
in the foreground of the picture, extending from the centre to the
right-hand side, is what is commonly called the “link motion gear,”
which is employed for reversing the engines when it is required to
send the ship astern. This controls the slide valves which allow the
steam to enter the cylinders. The principle of the link motion is
just this: two eccentrics are placed side by side on the shaft, but
opposite to each other. Each of them is connected by a rod to one end
of the “link,” which is curved in shape. In this illustration it will
be easily recognised at the right-hand side in the front. Now, as
the link is moved up or down, so it controls the eccentric. If it is
lowered, for instance, then one eccentric only is working the valve,
but if the link is raised the other eccentric will control the valve,
and so the latter will work in the opposite direction to which it did
before. Thus, by using one eccentric, steam enters the cylinder at one
end first, while if the other eccentric is employed steam will enter
first at the other. Thus it becomes possible to make the engine turn in
whichever direction is desired by regulating the end of the cylinder by
which the steam shall first enter.
The _Great Eastern’s_ propeller had four blades, and an interesting
arrangement was adopted so that when the ship was proceeding by means
of her paddles, sails, or both, the screw propeller was kept revolving
by means of two auxiliary engines in order that the speed of the ship
through the water might not be diminished by the drag of the screw.
Actual results showed that this ship could do her fifteen knots with
screw and paddles, but her average speed was one knot less. Under screw
alone she could do nine; under paddle power alone she did seven and
a quarter. It will thus be noticed that when using both paddles and
screw she ought to have done better, and this failing is explained by
asserting that the paddle-wheels and the screw caused a resistance too
great for their respective engines.
The construction of this ship calls for more space than we can here
devote thereto, but some of the important features may be enumerated.
She was of great strength longitudinally, and from the keel to the
water-line her hull was double. The longitudinal bulkheads extended
to the topmost deck, and materially added to her strength, while the
inner skin just mentioned not merely gave added strength, but was an
extension of the double-bottom idea, and so increased her chances in
case of collision. Furthermore, the space between the two skins was
available for water ballast, so as to preserve the trim of the ship as
she neared the end of her voyage, and her coal bunkers were becoming
lightened. Transversely, also, the ship was divided by iron bulkheads
into water-tight compartments in addition to the longitudinal ones. The
iron plates out of which the ship’s skin was made varied from a half to
three-quarters of an inch thick. The _Great Eastern_ was able to give
the world a very convincing proof of the utility of the double bottom,
for she had the bad luck to run on a rock, and although more than a
hundred feet of her outer hull was afterwards found to be damaged, yet
she was able to complete her voyage without the water getting through
into her hull proper.
For steering so large a vessel as the _Great Eastern_ the usual type
of steering-wheel would clearly have entailed the expenditure of very
considerable physical effort; so, for the first time, was introduced in
this ship a steam steering gear, an example that is nowadays followed
by almost all steamers of any size, including even excursion boats.
This arrangement necessitates the use of a miniature steam engine, the
two cylinders working cranks, and the shaft causing the drum containing
the steering chain to revolve. Any movement of the steering wheel
admits steam, and as soon as the steersman ceases to turn his wheel so
quickly does the little engine cease to work.
We have no desire to try the patience of the reader by presenting
a mass of statistics, but those who delight in comparisons may be
interested to learn how the _Great Eastern_ would appear if put
alongside the _Mauretania_. The latter displaces 40,000 tons, the
_Great Eastern_ displaced 32,000. The big Cunarder is 790 feet long,
between perpendiculars, while the _Great Eastern_ was 680 feet. The
latter possessed a combined horse-power--paddle and screw engines--of
11,600, while the Cunarder has 70,000. And so we could continue. But
now that we have seen to what unheard-of limits the steamship had shown
herself capable of reaching by the end of the sixth decade in the
nineteenth century--how she had, step by step, grown from moderation to
exaggeration--let us now examine her progress during the next twenty
years, in which she passed through her transition period.
CHAPTER V
THE LINER IN HER TRANSITION STATE
The period which follows after about the year 1862 is notable as
witnessing not only the gradual universal adoption of the screw in
steamships, but the more general appreciation of iron as the material
from which to construct a vessel’s hull. After the prejudices which
already we have seen arising at different stages of the steamship’s
history, it was scarcely to be wondered at that iron should come in for
its full share of virulent criticism and opposition. The obvious remark
made on all sides was that to expect iron to float was to suppose
that man could act exactly contrary to the laws of Nature, and this
notwithstanding that already, besides barges, a few ships thus built
had somehow not only managed to keep afloat, but to traverse channels
and oceans in perfect safety, carrying such heavy weights as their
own machinery, to say nothing of their cargoes and human freights.
But slowly the public prejudice began to wane. Already the Cunard
Company had given way to iron in 1856, and in 1860 the Admiralty were
at last convinced that the new method was just and sound. Within the
limited scope at our command we have not space here to enter into the
elaborate discussion of matters which have to be taken for granted
before the building of the steamship begins. But the plain answer to
the natural inquiry, as to how and why a vessel made out of iron does
not immediately sink to the bottom as soon as ever she is launched,
is this: whereas iron in itself is far heavier than water, yet the
iron ship has not the same specific gravity as the iron from which it
is made. Therefore, the ship of this material will be supported by the
water in which it is placed.
In actual displacement, an iron ship is proportionately lighter than a
ship built of wood, and by “displacement” is meant the amount of water
which a vessel displaces through being allowed to float. Of course,
the quantity of water which a ship displaces (or pushes to one side)
depends entirely on the weight of the vessel, and is exactly equal
to the weight of the ship. Thus, suppose we were to fill a dock with
water up to the level of the quay and then lower down into it by means
of gigantic cranes a _Mauretania_ or _Lusitania_, the water would, of
course, flow over on to the quays. Now the amount of water thus driven
out would be the exact equivalent of the liner’s displacement. When
we say, for instance, that the displacement of the _Mauretania_ is
40,000 tons, when loaded, we mean that her total weight when loaded
is this number of tons, and her hull when afloat puts on one side (or
“displaces”) just that amount of water.
Now, as compared with wooden ships, the use of iron meant a saving
in displacement of about one-third, taking the wooden and the iron
ships to be of the same dimensions. From this followed the fact that
the iron ship could carry a greater amount of cargo with consequent
greater profit to her owners. And, as I have already indicated in
another chapter, before it was possible to build ships of great length
iron had to be introduced to enable them to endure such longitudinal
strains. Again, a wooden ship must have her skin and ribs made of a
thickness far greater than an iron ship, for the clear reason that one
inch of iron is much stronger than one inch of wood; in other words,
to obtain a given strength the iron will take up less room in the ship.
Thus in an iron steamer there will be more space available for cargo
than in a wooden ship of the same design. We could go on enumerating
the advantages of iron, and quote instances of iron ships, whose cargo
had got on fire, arriving safely in port and coming into dock where the
assistance of the local fire-brigade had enabled the vessel’s own pumps
to get the conflagration under. It is only as recently as December
of 1909 that the _Celtic_, the well-known White Star liner, during a
voyage between New York and Liverpool, had the misfortune to get on
fire while at sea. By means of tarpaulins and injections of steam it
was possible to control the burning until the Mersey was reached, when
it was intended to flood her holds. Had she been a wooden ship instead
of steel, or even iron, the _Celtic_ would undoubtedly have ended her
days in the Atlantic.
The first Atlantic company to build all its steamers of iron was the
Inman Line, which had been founded in 1850, and until 1892 was one of
the foremost competitors for the coveted “blue ribbon” of the Atlantic.
Their first ships had been the _City of Glasgow_ and the _City of
Manchester_, and these, inasmuch as they were built of iron, and were
propelled by a screw at a time when prejudice had not yet died down,
were entirely different from the prevailing type of steamer; and this,
it should be remembered, at a period six years before the Cunard had
built their iron _Persia_. This _City of Glasgow_ was built by a
Glasgow firm of shipbuilders, and Mr. Inman had sufficient confidence
in her to purchase her and form a company. Barque-rigged, with a single
funnel, she was of only 1,610 tons and 350 horse-power. Under the
command of Captain B. E. Matthews, who had been on the famous _Great
Western_, she had already crossed from Glasgow to New York and back
in 1850, and on December 11th of that year began her regular sailings
between England and America. The _City of Glasgow_--all the ships of
this line were named after cities--was fitted up in a manner which
at that time called forth the greatest admiration. “One room,” wrote
a correspondent in the _Glasgow Courier_, about that date, “is being
fitted up as an apothecary’s shop, from which the surgeon will dispense
his medicines.” She was provided with five water-tight bulkheads, and
had a propeller whose diameter was 13 feet, with an 18 feet pitch. It
was in connection with the Inman ships that the custom was inaugurated
of carrying steerage passengers on the best Atlantic liners, although
hitherto they had been taken across solely on board sailing ships.
[Illustration: THE “CITY OF PARIS” (1866).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE “RUSSIA” (1867).
_From a Painting. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
The _City of Glasgow_ and the _City of Manchester_ began to quicken
the pace, and at once ensued a contest between the paddle-steamers
and those propelled by screws. In 1857 this enterprising company
instituted the custom of calling at Queenstown on the way to America,
and began running their steamers to New York in place of Philadelphia.
Their success was so great that these ships were followed by the _City
of Philadelphia_, and, in 1866, by the _City of Paris_, of which a
beautiful little model is here illustrated. This was the first of their
steamships of that name, and is not to be confused with another ship
built in 1888. It will be seen that the liner before us was ship-rigged
and had a single screw. She measured 346 feet long, 40 feet wide, and
26 feet deep, her tonnage being 2,651. She was driven by horizontal
trunk engines, with steam at 30 lb. pressure, consuming 105 tons of
coal per day, and giving her a speed of 13½ knots. Her name was
afterwards changed to the _Tonquin_, and the superstitious will find
interest in the fact that she subsequently foundered at sea in the year
1885. In the _City of Paris_ the reader will be able to remark some of
the last traces of the old sailing ship, which were destined presently
to be altered considerably. The long, narrow wooden deckhouse going
down almost the length of the ship, and leaving but little room for the
passengers to promenade; the high, stout bulwarks, which rise almost to
the top of the deckhouse, were among the last links which connected the
steamship with the sailing ship. We must not forget that about the time
when the _City of Paris_ was built, the great clipper sailing ships
were enjoying their prime, and no one will deny that their influence is
very clearly marked in the model before us. As an interesting lesson
in comparisons, showing how the tendency since the ’sixties has been
to raise the decks of the steamships higher and higher, the reader
is invited to compare this illustration with that of the _Majestic_,
facing page 162, and also that of the _Kaiser Wilhelm II._, facing page
180. In the sailing ship the deckhouse had to be small, for the reason
that the deck space was required for the crew to work the sails; in
the steamer this space was encroached upon, so that the deckhouse was
elongated, and extended from the break of the anchor deck to the hood
at the stern.
The _City of Paris’s_ great rival came with the launching of the Cunard
Company’s steamship _Russia_, which is here illustrated, and began
running across the Atlantic in 1867. But though the latter’s quickest
passage from New York to Queenstown was eight days twenty-four minutes,
the _City of Paris_, in 1867, crossed in eight days four hours, which
at the time had broken the record, though the _City of Brussels_
reduced it still further to under eight days. The _Russia_ was another
Clyde-built boat, and measured 358 feet long, 43 feet broad, and
nearly 28 feet deep, having a gross tonnage of 2,960, and an indicated
horse-power of 2,800. Her average hourly speed was 13 knots on a coal
consumption of 90 tons per day. She was, of course, built of iron and
had a single screw--two characteristics which practically all the crack
Atlantic liners possessed from about 1862 until the end of 1883, if
we except the Cunard _Servia_, which was launched in 1881, although
the Allan liner _Buenos Ayrean_ had been the first steel ship on the
Atlantic.
During this period the liner was steadily adapting herself, her design,
her engines, and her build, to meet the increase of experience gained
at sea, and the increase of knowledge which shipbuilders and engineers
were accumulating was in readiness for the continuity of advance. In
1881, after a period of much usefulness and great popularity among
passengers, the _Russia_ was sold to the Red Star Line, who lengthened
her, changed her direct-acting engines to compound engines, and named
her the _Waesland_. But the _Russia_ was not the first screw-ship
possessed by the Cunard Company. Already I have mentioned that though
this line had introduced the screw-steamer into their fleet, it had
not met with the reception it had expected, and for a time a return
had been made to the paddle-wheel. It was the _China_, which had begun
running in 1862 to New York, that helped to convince those who were
prejudiced against the newer form of propulsion. She was 326 feet long,
and was driven by a type of surface-condensing engine geared down to
the propeller shaft by means of tooth-gearing after the manner already
described, her engines being of the oscillating kind.
But we approach now another of those important crises in the history
of the steamship when her future, for some years to come, became so
definitely moulded. On other pages I have already alluded to the
boilers in use on the big steamers, and to the important adoption
of the compound engines using the expansive force of steam to do
additional work after it has entered one cylinder. The increase of
steam-pressure necessitated the adoption of a different type of boiler,
with a cylindrical shell and flues. Thus the type which is known as the
“Scotch” boiler was introduced about the year 1870, and is still in use
even on the _Mauretania_. It was not until this type was adopted that
the compound system began to make progress. At the same time it is only
fair to state that the latter method had been introduced by the Pacific
Steam Navigation Company as far back as 1856, and by the National Line
in the early ’sixties. But it is when we come to the pioneer steamship
of the White Star Line that we see the real influence which was at
work to make the final cleavage between the old-fashioned steamship
and the new type of liner. That flag which is now so familiar to all
who travel across the Atlantic used to fly at the masthead of a fleet
of sailing clippers. In 1867 the managing owner of the White Star Line
retired; Mr. T. H. Ismay took over the control and began by introducing
iron for the clippers instead of wood. Two years later and a fleet
of steamships, especially constructed for the American passenger
trade, was ordered to be built. The order was given to that famous
Belfast firm, Messrs. Harland and Wolff, who have built the White
Star steamships ever since. In August of 1870 was launched the first
_Oceanic_, which made the old-fashioned rub their eyes in surprise
and shake their heads in distrust. For the _Oceanic_ simply threw
convention to the winds and set going an entirely new order of things
in the steamship world. From her have followed most of the modern
steamship improvements up to the coming of the turbine. Some idea of
her appearance may be gathered from the illustration facing this page,
but in the fewest words we will now endeavour to indicate some of her
especial characteristics.
[Illustration: THE “OCEANIC” (1870).
_From a Painting by W. L. Wyllie, R. A. By Permission of Messrs. Ismay,
Imrie & Co._]
When she came into the Mersey that memorable day in February of
1871 her immense length in comparison with her beam was instantly
noticeable. I have already explained the value of length in ocean
travel, but here was a ship with a beam exactly one-tenth of her 420
feet length. Sir Edward Harland knew what he was about when designing
so novel a craft, and in spite of the general comments that the
_Oceanic_ would prove a bad sea-boat, and unfit to face the terrors of
an Atlantic winter’s gale, she showed that science in ship-building
is of more avail than the blind following of an existing convention.
Nor did she encumber herself with the usual heavy, high bulwarks that
we noticed in the _City of Paris_, but, instead, she substituted iron
railings, and for a perfectly sound reason. The old method gave to
a ship a false security, for it could not altogether prevent a sea
from coming on board, and when the latter had come over the ship the
bulwarks tended to keep it there, whereas the _Oceanic’s_ railings
allowed the sea to flow off immediately and freely, as she shook
herself and rose to the next wave. The long, narrow wooden deck-house
that we also noticed on the _City of Paris_ was also discarded, but
another deck of iron was added. With her, too, disappeared most of
the objections to the propeller--at any rate, in the higher-priced
accommodation, since the saloon passengers for the first time were
placed not at the stern of the ship (where the vibration and jarring
of the propeller were most felt), but amidships and forward of the
machinery. The saloon extended the entire width of the ship,
whilst the numerous state-rooms were forward and abaft of the saloon.
Furthermore, to an extent that had never been known on an Atlantic
liner, the use of glass side-lights was employed, and these were made
much larger than was customary, so that the interior of the ship was
rendered much lighter, as it was also made more airy.
The _Oceanic_ also introduced an improved type of water-tight doors.
The old-fashioned candle-lamps which lit the rooms were replaced by
oil-lamps, and instead of the old-fashioned form for seating, the
passengers had the comfort of revolving arm-chairs, which have since
become such features of ocean travel. On deck, her forward and stern
ends were fitted with turtle decks, so that a wave sweeping over this
dome-like shape could swish across it without doing the damage it
could have effected on the first _City of Paris_, for instance. The
importance of this in a following sea of any size is obvious, and we
must remember that whereas to-day the stern of a modern liner towers
high above the waves, and can usually defy them, yet in those days the
_Oceanic_ and her contemporaries were still of modest altitude. From
the illustration before us some conception of the bow turtle deck,
painted white, may be gathered, but a much better idea may be seen of
a similar arrangement at the stern of the _Britannic_ (facing page
154). The addition of that extra deck of iron in the _Oceanic_ shows
the commencement of the many-decked modern liner, to which attention
was drawn in the German liner and her successors, so that in the
_Mauretania_, as we look down on her decks, she seems to be built up
over every possible inch of space that is permissible.
But the _Oceanic_ was something more than a comfortable boat and an
ingenious example of the naval architect’s originality; she was also a
“flyer.” With her four-cylinder compound engines she was able to reel
off her 14¼ knots on an average. There were two high-pressure cylinders
and two of low-pressure, the high-pressure cylinder being above the
low-pressure and driving the same crank. Her indicated horse-power was
3,000, and her tonnage came out at 3,808 gross. She even attained to
14¾ knots, and showed herself to be the fastest liner afloat, faster
even than the Inman liner _City of Brussels_. It is a proof of the
excellence of her design and the perfection of her build that on her
sixty-second voyage in October, 1889, after she had been transferred
to the Pacific service running between San Francisco and Yokohama, she
made the quickest passage on record across the Pacific.
[Illustration: THE “BRITANNIC” (1874).
As she appeared as a transport during the South African War.
_From a Photograph by F. G. O. Stuart, Southampton._]
[Illustration: THE “SERVIA” (1881).
_From a Painting. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
The owners of the _Oceanic_ followed up their success by the
_Britannic_ and the _Germanic_ in 1874. A photograph of the former is
here reproduced as she appeared when leaving Southampton during the
Boer War for South Africa, acting as a transport, with British troops
aboard. From this picture it will be noticed that she is purely a
steamship, but when launched she was rigged as a four-masted barque
with yards and sails, but, following the fashion of the _Oceanic_, the
bowsprit had been discarded. At one time the _Britannic_ was given a
curious arrangement by which she could lower her propeller so that it
was almost level with the keel, and being placed thus low it was hoped
that all tendency to race when the vessel pitched would be eradicated.
To this end a hollow recess was made in the hull at the stern so that
the shaft could be made to work up or down as desired. But the results
were disappointing, so that after giving the method several months’
trial it was discarded. Both the _Britannic_ and the _Germanic_
were larger craft than the _Oceanic_, and had a tonnage of just over
5,000 tons, and a length of 468 feet, with 45 feet beam. They also were
fitted with compound engines, which gave 5,000 indicated horse-power,
and a pressure of 75 lbs. to the square inch. The _Britannic_ broke the
record again by her speed of 16 knots, but the year after her launch
the Inman Line, with the _City of Berlin_, also developed 16 knots, and
wrested the record from the White Star boats by crossing the Atlantic
in seven days fourteen hours. She was a much larger ship than those
other two, had a gross tonnage of 5,491, and was 520 feet over all.
This ship is interesting as having been the first Atlantic liner to be
fitted with electric light, which was installed in 1879. The White Star
Line, however, had endeavoured in 1872 to instal in their _Adriatic_
a system of lighting the ship by gas generated from oil. But the
rolling of the ship and other causes led to so much leakage that it was
discarded.
In the year 1879 the Atlantic competition was further accelerated by
the advent of the _Arizona_, which belonged to the Guion Line. This
company had been formed in 1866, and was originally known as Williams
and Guion. In 1879 the _Arizona_ further reduced the Atlantic passage
by eight hours, but in the same year, whilst bound eastwards, she had
the misfortune to run at full speed into a great iceberg, and her
bows were altogether crumpled up; she would have foundered, but her
water-tight bulkhead happily kept her afloat so that the ship was
able to reach St. John’s, Newfoundland, her nearest port. It was such
incidents as this which caused the adoption of efficient water-tight
compartments on most steamships of any size, and the influence of the
British Admiralty on our national shipping was in the late ’seventies
and the early ’eighties decidedly powerful. By their instructions
every steamship on their list available for transport duties was to be
divided up in such a manner that if any one of her compartments should
be opened to the sea in calm water this loss of buoyancy would not
imperil the ship’s safety. As a result the shipbuilders took the hint,
and greater attention was paid to so important a point.
The _Oregon_, another of the Guion Line’s famous steamships, was
purchased by the Cunard Company, and showed her marvellous turn of
speed by making the run from Queenstown to New York in six days, nine
hours, fifty-one minutes. She distinguished herself by keeping up what
was then the unheard-of average passage of six days fourteen hours.
But, like the _Arizona_, this _Oregon_ was born unlucky. Off the North
American coast she was run into and sunk by a sailing ship, though the
passengers and mails were happily saved. The _Oregon_ had a tonnage of
7,375, and was driven by direct-acting inverted engines which developed
the remarkable sum of 13,500 horse-power, and produced the equally
wonderful speed of 18 knots per hour, thus earning for her the name of
the “Greyhound of the Atlantic.”
We wish to call the reader’s attention now to the _Servia_, of which
an interesting picture is reproduced opposite page 154. In her
was embodied the result of another scientific discovery which has
revolutionised the construction of the deep-sea ship, whether propelled
by steam or sails. As iron had superseded wood, so now steel was to
take the place of iron as the material of which to build the hull.
So thoroughly, indeed, has this practice spread that during the year
1909, with the exception of a few small wooden vessels whose aggregate
tonnage does not much exceed a thousand, the entire amount of new
British shipping in that year was constructed of steel, and iron was
not used at all for the hull. Such a fact is highly significant of the
value of the newer material. Although as far back as 1873 the French
had used this in constructing parts of their warships, it was not
until four years later that the British mercantile marine began to be
interested in it. But at length the Cunard Company were convinced of
its superior virtues over iron, and ordered the _Servia_ to be built
of this material. When she made her appearance in 1881, she was the
largest and most powerful ship, excepting the _Great Eastern_, that
had ever been launched; her measurements were 515 feet, breadth 52
feet, depth 37 feet, with 7,392 gross tonnage. She lowered the Atlantic
voyage once more to seven days, one hour, thirty-eight minutes, her
speed being 17 knots, though it was not until 1884 that she really
showed her full abilities. We may sum up the advantages which were
now recognised in mild steel as consisting of, firstly, a saving of
25 per cent. in weight, just as we saw that iron exercised a similar
superiority over wood. “Mild” steel is very ductile and can easily be
fashioned into the required shape suitable for a steamship without
risk of cracking. Iron is comparatively brittle, and steel is more
uniform in quality. The latter will also endure a greater strain on its
elasticity, and this had already been appreciated by the Royal Navy
years before commercial shipbuilders realised its full value. Although
the first cost of a steel-built ship was greater than one constructed
of iron, yet that extra cost was found to be over-balanced by other
considerations. Just as iron was stronger than wood, so steel was
proved to be stronger than iron: consequently, the weight of the ship
was diminished, which meant that the ship could carry a greater amount
of fuel or cargo, or allowed of her being fitted with more powerful,
though more weighty, engines. Steel is now very much cheaper than
wrought iron, and is used not merely for the plates of the hull, but in
almost every portion of the ship’s construction. Even in sailing ships
the yards, masts, and rigging are to a large extent now made of this
material.
[Illustration: THE “UMBRIA” (1884).
_From a Painting. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
[Illustration: THE “ORIENT” (1879).
_From a Painting. By permission of Messrs. Anderson, Anderson & Co._]
The same builders who had been responsible for the _Oregon_ were
commissioned to build two of the most historic Cunarders, whose names
are almost as familiar as the Atlantic over which they voyaged for
so many years with a regularity and reliability that would be hard
to beat. In 1884 the first of this famous couple, the _Umbria_,
was delivered, followed early the next year by the _Etruria_. An
illustration of the former, as she appeared when originally rigged as
a barque, will be found facing this page. Both ships were identical in
their main features, and are interesting in many ways. Their masts were
of steel, as well as their hulls. At the stern we can see the idea of
the turtle deck, as inherited from the _Oceanic_, slightly modified so
that the upper part has become available for a short promenade deck for
second-class passengers, and the graceful overhang at the stern also
is indicative of the rapid advance since the clumsy after-end of the
steamship gave her a far less yacht-like appearance. There is also a
promenade deck extending for nearly 300 feet amidships for the use of
the first-class passengers, on which a large teak deckhouse encloses
the entrances to the saloon, ladies’ saloon, captain’s room, and chart
room. Above this house comes the officers’ lookout bridge and house
for the steersman, and over this, again, is the flying bridge. Forward
there will be seen the large top-gallant forecastle, which extended
for over 100 feet aft from the stern. The engines were, of course,
compound, with one high-pressure cylinder and two of low-pressure.
These vessels were built to the highest class and to be available for
Government service as armed cruisers in the event of war. Their average
speed was found to be 18½ knots, although the _Umbria_ reached over 20
knots during her six-hours’ trial on the Clyde. These two ships between
them broke up all standing Atlantic records, for in August, 1885, the
_Etruria_ crossed from Queenstown to New York in six days, six hours,
thirty-six minutes, although in 1892 the _Umbria_ did better still
by crossing the Atlantic at an average rate of over 19½ knots. Until
the coming of the _Campania_ and the _Lucania_, the Cunard possessed
in these the two fastest ships of their fleet. But it is certain the
company never owned two more satisfactory steamships, for they have
confessed that “no ships ever gave their owners less uneasiness than
these two, and none have done such an extraordinary quantity of good
work. They are monuments, that cannot lie, to the skill of the design
and the faithfulness of the labour that went to their accomplishment.”
As they got older, they actually became faster instead of slower, and
the _Etruria_ made her fastest westward passage in five days, twenty
hours, fifty-five minutes, with a highest day’s run of 509 knots. She
even maintained an average of 20 knots bound eastward. At the end of
1909 she was sold by the Cunard Company, and a like fate befell her
sister, the _Umbria_, which was sold to the Forth Shipbreaking Company
in April, 1910, for the sum, it is said, of £20,000. But the _Umbria_,
right to the end, continued to break records, even when she had been
long since outrun in matters of speed. For instance, in the year 1893,
two days before Christmas, whilst bound west across the Atlantic, it
was discovered that a serious fracture had occurred in the propeller
shaft. The engines were accordingly stopped, and after a time the
German steamship _Bohemia_ came in sight and took her in tow, but a
heavy gale sprang up and the tow-rope parted. The _Umbria_ lost sight
of her friend and drifted about the Atlantic for three days and nights,
but during this time Chief-Engineer Tomlinson pluckily succeeded
in repairing the shaft, and the _Umbria_, with her engines going
half-speed, made New York on the last day of the old year, to the great
relief of those ashore who had given her up for lost. Another record
of a totally different nature was made by her only a few weeks before
she was sold out of the Cunard Line. She reached Liverpool just before
midnight on Thursday, February 10th, 1910, and in spite of having
only just completed her round trip of the double Atlantic journey,
she was got ready at once to sail eastward again on the Saturday,
February 12th. We can gain some idea of the magnitude of the task when
we realise that in that remarkably brief time she had not only to be
overhauled, but to have her stores taken on board, to be supplied with
3,000 tons of coal and 450,000 gallons of water, to say nothing of the
many tons of cargo of all kinds. Some of the officers had barely time
to make a hurried call to see their wives before rushing back on board
to superintend this exceptionally fast “turn-round.” The measurements
of these two ships were 501 feet long, 57 feet broad, 38 feet deep,
with a gross tonnage of 7,718 tons; their builders were Messrs. John
Elder and Company, of Glasgow.
Before we pass on in the next chapter to witness the coming of the
twin-screw ship, and the disappearance of sails as the auxiliaries of
the steamship, we must glance at the progress which was going on during
the ’seventies and ’eighties in the steamships employed running, not
across the Atlantic, but to the East. Already we have seen something of
the origin of the Peninsular and Oriental Line, and the difficulties
which it had to contend with in its early career. Now, in 1877,
another steamship service to the East was started by the Orient Line,
which began by chartering from the Pacific Steam Navigation Company a
suitable vessel which should run from London to Sydney via the Cape of
Good Hope. This was the _Lusitania_--a very different ship, of course,
from the modern Cunarder of the same name--but in her own time this
_Lusitania_ was also famous. For many years, until, indeed, as recently
as 1905, the Orient and Pacific Lines worked together to maintain a
service between England and Australia. At first the sailings were only
monthly, but from 1880 they were fortnightly. Since 1905 the Pacific
Company has withdrawn from this trade.
The pioneer of the Orient Line’s own ships--apart from chartered
vessels--was the steamer _Orient_, of which an illustration is given
opposite to page 158. She was built of iron, in 1879, by the same
firm who turned out the _Etruria_ and _Umbria_. Her measurements
are 460 feet long, 46½ feet wide, 36 feet 8 inches deep, with a
tonnage of 5,386, and 5,400 horse-power. She was given four decks,
of which two were entirely of iron, and sufficient bunker space was
provided to carry enough coals to enable her to steam all the way
to Australia round the Cape without having to coal _en route_. She
was also provided with a double bottom, which could be filled with
water as ballast, if desired. She was driven by inverted vertical
engines having the compound principle--one high-pressure cylinder and
two of low-pressure--and had a four-bladed propeller. Amidships, it
will be noted, is a white erection, which rises up from the ship’s
side and becomes the bridge-deck, extending right across the ship
and some distance both fore and aft. The origin of this development
in the steamship is as follows: Originally, in some of the early
ocean-going steamships, the openings on deck from the engine and boiler
compartments were merely protected by means of glazed skylights and
coamings, forming a hatch. Perhaps it was not a very seaworthy kind of
arrangement, but it is essential for plenty of air to get down below,
unhindered, for the proper burning of the furnaces, to say nothing of
a supply for the engineering section of the crew. However, during the
month of January, 1866, the steamship _London_, after encountering a
heavy gale in the Bay of Biscay, endeavoured to make for Plymouth, but
during the night a bad sea broke over her, destroyed her engine-room
skylight, extinguished the furnaces, and eventually the ship foundered.
From this incident was learnt the advisability of protecting this
opening with something more substantial. Its first form was, therefore,
to raise the sides of the hatchways from the ship by means of an iron
casing so as to be about eight feet above the deck and about level with
the captain’s bridge. From this it was a perfectly easy transition from
the bridge to the bridge-deck, extending it sufficiently to protect the
opening adequately. The same idea in a more elementary form will be
seen in the tug _Blackcock_ illustrated in Chapter IX.
[Illustration: THE “AUSTRAL” (1881).
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Anderson, Anderson & Co._]
[Illustration: THE “VICTORIA” (1887).
_From the Painting by Frank Murray in the possession of the Peninsular
& Oriental Steam Navigation Co._]
[Illustration: THE “MAJESTIC” (1889).
_From a Photograph. By Permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co._]
The _Austral_ shows another early steamship of the Orient Line.
Constructed by the same builders as the _Orient_ and _Umbria_, she
was launched in 1881, and it is a sign of those later times that
the yards have now disappeared, though she was schooner-rigged and
could set 28,000 square feet of canvas on her four masts. Her gross
registered tonnage worked out at 5,524. Built of mild steel with a
double bottom, the latter being subdivided into nineteen water-tight
compartments with thirteen water-tight bulkheads in her hull, the
_Austral_ was specially constructed to act as a cruiser, and to carry
guns in case of war. The year after she was launched the _Austral_ was
lying in Sydney Harbour with her port-holes left open, when, owing to
a heavy list, caused through unequal coaling, the water poured in, and
she sank in fifty feet of water, but was refloated again several months
after.
The four-masted steamship shown opposite page 162 is the _Victoria_,
one of the P. and O. boats of this period. Launched in 1887, the
_Victoria_ belongs to the company’s “Jubilee” class, and is now one
of the oldest boats in this line’s employ. Both at the bow and stern
there will be seen a modification of the turtle deck. A sister ship was
launched under the name of the _Britannia_. Their tonnage is, in the
case of the _Victoria_, 6,522, but the _Britannia_ comes out at three
tons more, the length being slightly over 465 feet, with a beam of 52
feet, and a depth of over 26 feet.
We have thus seen the liner in a condition of change, and it is only
from the close of the eighth decade of the nineteenth century that she
begins to take on a form more in accordance with a steamship able to
pursue her way totally independent of auxiliary sails. The experience
which we recorded as having happened to the _Umbria_ clearly marked the
way for the coming of the twin-screw ship. It was patent to anyone that
by this means an efficient safeguard would be obtained in the event of
a fractured shaft befalling the ship. If it was likely that one should
come to grief, it was highly improbable that the other would not be
available for getting the ship into port, and so enabling the owning
steamship line not merely to preserve their reputation for carrying
passengers, mails and cargo with safety, but to avoid the very costly
possibilities of having to pay salvage claims to the rescuing ship
that should happen to fall in with the injured liner and to tow her
home. As soon as the twin-screw became established there was virtually
little use for the sails, and so it was not much longer before they
disappeared altogether from the crack liner.
CHAPTER VI
THE COMING OF THE TWIN-SCREW STEAMSHIP
During the ’eighties the competition for the Atlantic “blue ribbon”
had become very keen indeed, until the _Umbria_ and _Etruria_ began to
shatter existing records and to show their undoubted superiority. But
their turn to be eclipsed was not long in coming, and the Inman Line
were determined to make a bold bid for supremacy once again. A year or
two before the launch of the _Umbria_ they had made a spirited effort
with the _City of Rome_, a large vessel with a displacement of over
11,000 tons. But she did not prove successful.
The line became the Inman and International Company, and set forth to
build a couple of large, powerful steamships which would be in advance
of the _City of Rome_ in speed, though not quite so large. Already
there had been small twin-screw ships, but the _City of New York_ and
the _City of Paris_ were to be driven by twin-screws of a size and
power which had not yet been produced. It was fitting that the Inman
Line which had introduced the successful screw liner to the Atlantic
should also be the pioneers of the very big steamships fitted with
twin-screws. These two vessels were taken over in 1893, when the Inman
Line became reorganised, and passed from the British flag to sail under
the eagle of the American Line. Nowadays they sail from Southampton
under the names of the _New York_ and the _Philadelphia_ respectively.
The illustration facing page 166 shows the _City of Paris_ (afterwards
called the _Paris_, and only later still the _Philadelphia_) getting
under way from New York. Her graceful bow, with its bowsprit and
figure-head, is reminiscent of the old clipper sailing ships. The high
dome of the first cabin dining-saloon will be seen rising in the space
between the fore-mast and the bridge, and the promenade deck runs
practically the whole length of the ship from the bows to the stern.
The hulls of these steamships are built of mild steel, and in addition
to possessing a double bottom throughout their entire length in which a
considerable amount of water ballast can be carried, they are divided
into fifteen water-tight compartments. The bulkheads of the latter
come right up to a height of 18 feet above the water-line, so that
in case of collision the ship could still keep afloat even if three
compartments were open to the sea.
Their two engine rooms are separated from each other by means of a
longitudinal bulkhead, and they are driven by two separate sets of
triple-expansion engines. We have already seen that triple-expansion is
just the principle of the compound engine carried one stage farther,
and if the desire for attaining the high speed contemplated were to be
gratified it was inevitable that this method should have been adopted.
With the exception of a very few quadruple-expansion engined ships,
such as the Cunard _Ivernia_, the White Star _Baltic_, and the German
_Kaiser Wilhelm II._, most modern liners which have not been fitted
with turbines are of the triple-expansion type. It may not be out of
place, therefore, very briefly to explain the working of this.
[Illustration: THE “CITY OF PARIS” (NOW THE “PHILADELPHIA”) (1893).
_From a Photograph. By permission of the American Line._]
[Illustration: THE “OPHIR” (1891).
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Anderson, Anderson & Co._]
The steam, then, enters the cylinder above the piston-rod by means
of a valve, but when it has half-filled the cylinder and the stroke
is also half completed, the supply of steam is cut off. But the
piston-rod does not for that reason come to a standstill: owing to the
expansive force of the steam the rest of the stroke is completed when
the steam has occupied twice the space it did at the time it was cut
off--that is, when the half-stroke had been made. Having, therefore,
now completed its work in this cylinder, instead of being allowed to
escape, the steam is conducted to a much larger cylinder than the
first, for the steam still retains much of its expansive force. In this
second cylinder, the same thing occurs again, but when it is admitted
to a third, it has already lost much of its pressure. It does its work,
and having come through the third cylinder has thus undergone “triple
expansion.” Now that it has completed the stroke it passes into the
surface condenser already referred to, where it is suddenly chilled and
converted into water again, and the vacuum thus formed tends to pull
the piston back. In the olden days, as we have seen, the vacuum was
made by means of the jet condenser, but now it is done by what is known
as the “surface” condenser. It is by means of the latter that the fresh
water is able to be used again and again. Otherwise, a steamship could
only carry enough fresh water for a few days’ voyage, salt water being
not used for the boilers, but merely for circulating through the pipes
of the condenser to keep them cool. As the steam comes out from the
lower pressure it impinges on the sea-water cooled tubes and so falls
to the bottom of the condenser as water. It is then pumped into a tank
by means of the air-pump, and from the tank it is pumped back again
to the boilers by a feed pump, passing on its way through a filter in
order that any oil which may have been gathered in the cylinder may be
extracted. It now passes through feed-heaters, where it is heated by
exhaust steam from the auxiliary machinery, and so when the condensed
water again enters the boiler it is almost at boiling point.
The advantage of this triple-expansion was found to give greater speed
with less expenditure of horse-power. At first the _City of Paris_ was
not as fast as she ought to have been, but after the A-shaped brackets,
which supported the two shafts, were removed and, instead, the hull at
the stern was, so to speak, bulged out to contain the shafts, her speed
was found to be 19 knots with an employment of 2,000 horse-power less
than she had needed before this alteration.
The _City of Paris_ had made her appearance in 1888, but in the
following year it was the White Star Line’s turn to come to the front
again. From 1873 till 1884 their fleet had been the fastest on the
Atlantic; and now again they were ready to enter the lists. Sir Edward
Harland was once more entrusted with the task of designing the new
ships, and those two beautiful creatures the _Teutonic_ and _Majestic_
were launched, the former in January and the latter in June of 1889.
The _Majestic_ is illustrated opposite page 162, but this view shows
her as she was afterwards altered and appears now. When these ships
first commenced to run they were both fitted with three pole-masts
with a gaff on each; but following the custom now adopted on many
modern liners, one of the masts and all the gaffs have since been
removed. It will be seen that a modified turtle-deck is still retained
at the stern, and in one other respect this ship also continued the
influence of the first _Oceanic_. It will be recollected that the
latter possessed the enormous proportion of ten beams to her length.
The _Teutonic_ measured 582 feet long and 57·8 feet broad, so that she
is only a few feet lacking in this respect. Her gross tonnage is 9,984,
and her indicated horse-power 18,000. The _Majestic_ broke the record
by crossing from Queenstown to New York in five days eighteen hours
eight minutes; the _Teutonic_ by doing the same journey in five days
sixteen hours thirty-one minutes. If called upon, these ships could
steam from Portsmouth to Bombay via the Cape of Good Hope, a distance
of over 10,000 miles, in twenty-two days without having to coal on
the way, a fact that might have some importance in the event of war
breaking out.
In these two ships was also introduced the practice of overlapping
the twin-screws, and in order that they might be able to clear the
deadwood at the extreme end of the stern, a hole--technically called
a “screw port”--was made after the manner in which a “port” is left
for the screw to revolve when a vessel is provided only with a single
propeller. The advantage in the case of the twin-screws was that they
were allowed plenty of water for their propellers to revolve in. The
advantage of the screws overlapping tended also to enable them to work
in a manner as near as possible to the centre line of the hull.
The introduction of the twin-screw system was made in the Orient liner
_Ophir_ (see opposite page 166), which was built in 1891. Each of her
four decks is of steel, and she was given the triple-expansion engines
in two sets--one set for each propeller. She was the first vessel on
the Australian route to be fitted with twin-screws, but many others
have since followed and proved the wisdom of this innovation. Her
propellers are made of manganese bronze, with three blades each, and
give her a speed of between 18 and 19 knots. It will be recollected
that it was this ship which was selected to carry the present King and
Queen on their tour of the British Colonies in 1901.
The ceaseless competition in the Atlantic steamship progress continued
without abatement, and by now the Cunard Line was ready again to fight
for the lead. In September of 1892 the _Campania_ was launched, and
was followed in the next February by the _Lucania_. Since their length
was greater than the width of the Clyde, where they were built, they
had to be launched into the river diagonally. They were, of course,
fitted with twin-screws and with triple-expansion engines, there being
five cylinders, of which two are high-pressure, one intermediate, and
two low-pressure. We do not intend to weary the reader with a list of
statistics which can easily be obtained by those to whom bare figures
make their appeal; our purpose is served if we show in what important
detail each successive vessel advanced the history of the steamship so
as to approach more nearly to what is considered the ideal by modern
experts. But we shall be shirking our duty if we do not indicate
some of the main characteristics which gave to such a craft as the
_Campania_ a distinctiveness that distinguished her and her sister the
_Lucania_ from her contemporaries. One greatly improved liner nowadays
so quickly surpasses her predecessor; the age of obsolescence now moves
at so greatly quickened a speed; that the general public, whose memory
is also so short-lived, scarcely has time to appreciate all that the
latest steamship means ere it has passed quietly from service and been
handed over to the ship-breakers, or, under a new flag and a changed
name, continues its work at some remote corner of the world.
[Illustration: THE “LUCANIA” (1893).
_From a Photograph. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
Those who remember seeing the _Campania_ lying in the Mersey soon
after she was commissioned, and with their minds full of the hitherto
unparalleled features which had been foretold concerning her, will
recollect that the first impression conveyed was identical with that
made on seeing the _Mauretania_ immediately after she had left
the builders’ hands. Not so much size but gracefulness; not the
characteristics of a floating monster, but of a singularly beautiful
creature whose every line suggested dignity with speed were the points
that attracted one.
Handsome is as handsome does; these two sisters, one of which is no
more, were not long in showing that their achievements were not belied
by their good looks. In appearance less like “the biggest things
afloat” than the most symmetrical colossal yacht, the _Campania_ was
built for business, and not primarily to be a thing of beauty. She has
made the run between Queenstown and New York in 5½ days, and ocean
travellers soon appreciated the important fact that in getting from one
country to the other she had a reputation for regularity that would be
hard to beat, irrespective of winter and summer weather. The _Campania_
is slightly larger than her late sister, and has averaged just under
22 knots for a whole year’s east-bound voyages. The engines of these
elegant ships were arranged in the manner already indicated so as to
avoid having unnecessarily large cylinders, the two high-pressure
cylinders driving one crank, being arranged tandem fashion, the
intermediate cylinder driving one crank, whilst the two low-pressure
were also put the one above the other like the high-pressure, and by an
ingenious contrivance it is possible to prevent the screws racing; for
when the number of revolutions begins to exceed its proper limit the
supply of steam is automatically cut off.
In order to render these boats less likely to roll in a sea-way, they
were fitted with bilge-keels. They have, too, since been provided with
wireless telegraph gear, whose aerials stretch from one mast to the
other, and connect with the Marconi cabin, and the up-to-date system
of submarine signalling is also installed, so that in case of thick
weather the sound waves transmitted from submerged bells on lightships
outside Liverpool or New York may be conveyed to the ship herself below
the waterline, and so by means of a telephone up to the officer on duty
in the navigating room.
These two ships also marked another advance in method of building, for
the steel plates from which their sides were made were of unprecedented
size, and thus it is obvious that the number of rivets was considerably
smaller. Opposite page 170 we give an illustration of the _Lucania_
under way, and by comparing her with the earlier Atlantic liners, a
fair idea will be obtained of the trend of steamship evolution. It will
be noticed that the _Oceanic_ turtle deck has gone, for the reason
that since the stern had now become at such a height from the water it
was hardly necessary. The topmost deck of the _Lucania_ is the shade
deck, and the one immediately below it the promenade deck; it should
be noted that these two are not really part of the structure of the
ship herself, but platforms superadded in much the same way as in a
vastly different type of craft, the Viking ship, which, when it began
to enter its transition state, had fighting platforms erected both at
bow and stern so as to accommodate her men. The _Campania_ measures
600 feet (between perpendiculars), with a beam of 65 feet 3 inches,
and displaces nearly 20,000 tons. It was only in the early months of
1910 that the _Lucania_, her sister, after being on fire and compelled
for that reason to be flooded with water, was sold out of the Cunard
Company’s service.
We come now to consider the entering of fierce competition from a
quarter that hitherto had not affected the development of the modern
liner. We have seen that in spite of the efforts which America had
put forth from time to time, the pride of the Atlantic Ocean had been
British ultimately. The American-subsidised Collins Line had in the
end to bow its head and yield, nor has the reorganised Inman Line (now
the American Line) been a dangerous competitor in the matter of record
passages. At different times first one British line of steamships
pushed itself to the front, to be in turn ousted by its rival; and
so the evolution of the steamship profited. But now it was to be not
Britain, nor America, but Germany, which was to make a bold bid for
the commercial sovereignty of Atlantic speed. Few phenomena are more
notable within recent years than the sudden rise of Germany as a
world power. In the realm of steamships there has been scarcely any
parallel to the rapid development which that nation exhibited, so that
within a remarkably short space of time she became able not merely
to build her own ships, but of a size that had been exceeded only by
the _Great Eastern_, and with a speed that no liner of any sort or of
any nationality had ever yet attained. It is fitting, therefore, to
give here a brief sketch of the manner in which this new competition
originated, for to this undoubtedly is due the coming of the mammoth
ships represented by the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_. In the future
this is the direction from which the quickening factor will come, as
formerly it used to come from internal steamship organisations.
Modern German ship-building, like her other industries, dates only
from the close of the Franco-Prussian War, and the birth of a united
Empire. At the same time wood had already given way to iron, and a
new era had begun in the making of ships. Great Britain possessed the
exclusive confidence of shipping owners, and, speaking generally, if
Germany wanted a large ocean carrier built, she had to send her order
across the North Sea, although steadily and gradually her national
shipbuilding yards were growing up. But her designers and shipwrights
lacked the knowledge which the British, through long years of
experience, possessed. Since, however, the Germans were determined to
engage in overseas trade, they had to obtain steamships, and these were
made frequently on the Clyde, where so many other fine ships had first
been seen.
[Illustration: THE “KAISER WILHELM DER GROSSE” (1897).
_From a Photograph. By Permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co._]
But from the early ’eighties a new order of things began, and the
Norddeutscher Lloyd commissioned a German firm to build the first
Imperial mail steamers, which were also the first passenger steamers of
large dimensions that the new Empire had yet constructed. Up till then
Germany had built only two large passenger steamers, the displacement
of each not exceeding 3,500 tons. The first German express steamer for
the Norddeutscher Lloyd Company had been the _Elbe_, which was built
at Glasgow, and began service in 1881, her tonnage being 4,510. During
the ’eighties, spurred on by the competition which British steamships
were arousing, the Germans endeavoured to build for themselves vessels
of considerable proportions and send them on their long voyages. It
is when we come to the ’nineties that we find the North German Lloyd
Company entirely reorganising its fleet, scrapping the older-fashioned
members, and, incited by the success which the _Campania_ and
_Lucania_ had obtained, determined to produce from German yards such
an express steamer as should surpass both of the Cunard vessels. In
1897, therefore, was built by the Stettin Vulcan Company the famous
_Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_--of which a striking illustration will be
seen facing this page. She was longer, wider, deeper and of greater
displacement than the _Campania_, but her horse-power was inferior
to the Cunarder’s by 2,000. Nevertheless, the German outstripped the
performances of the _Campania_ and _Lucania_ by attaining a mean speed
of 22·81 knots, although her designed speed had only been 22·5 knots,
and thus for the first time in the history of the steamship, the
“blue ribbon” of the Atlantic passed over to Germany. Like the Cunard
ships, the _Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_ was installed with two sets of
triple-expansion engines, and it had been expressly agreed between
the Norddeutscher Company on the one hand, and the Vulcan Company on
the other, that the ship was first to run a trial trip across the
Atlantic to New York, and, if during this she did not come up to the
requirements of the contract, then the Norddeutscher Lloyd were to be
free to reject the ship. Such a condition as this was as severe as
could ever be invented by any steamship line. However, she not merely
came up to specifications, but even surpassed them, and remains one of
the most efficient liners traversing the North Atlantic.
This steamship was built with flaring bows so as to increase her
buoyancy forward, and is propelled by twin-screws. Another instance
of the advantages which the latter possess as a means of ensuring the
safety of the ship was exhibited as recently as October, 1907. Whilst
coming across the Atlantic in that month the _Kaiser Wilhelm der
Grosse_ chanced to fracture her rudder. The weather was bad, and it
was blowing a gale, but her skipper instead of running for the nearest
port, which was Halifax, distant about 700 miles, brought her home safe
and sound to Bremerhaven, another 2,300 miles, calling at Plymouth on
the way. By means of the twin-screws the ship could be manœuvred quite
independently of the steering gear. The measurements of this ship are
as follows: length over all, 648 feet 7 inches; beam, 66 feet; moulded
depth, 43 feet; gross tonnage, 14,349; indicated horse-power, 28,000.
[Illustration: THE “OCEANIC” (1899).
_From a Photograph. By Permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co._]
[Illustration: THE “CEDRIC.”
_From a Photograph. By Permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co._]
The British reply to the _Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_ came not in speed
but in size, for it is not always realised how costly it is to get an
extra knot or two out of a big steamship, and that such an attainment
is out of all proportion to the expense which this has involved. At
high speeds the resistance of the ship, of which we have already said
something, increases far more rapidly than it does when the speed
through the water is slow or even moderately fast. When a ship reaches
the speed of 20 knots the influential factor of wave-making comes in
prominently. Furthermore, in order to coax an extra knot or two out of
the ship, you must needs increase her weight and usurp a very serious
amount of space by larger engines and boilers. Therefore, the answer
to the German attack was seen in the comparatively slow White Star
_Oceanic_, the second steamship of that name sailing under the same
flag. This modern ship was the first vessel which exceeded the length
of the _Great Eastern_, and is about 13 feet longer, though about
14½ feet narrower than Brunel’s craft. True to the White Star type,
the latest _Oceanic_ is ten beams, and even more, to her length, her
measurements being 705 feet long over all, 68·4 feet wide, a draught
of 32½ feet, and the terrific displacement of 28,500 tons, that of
the _Great Eastern_ having been 32,000. Like the other great Atlantic
liners since the _City of Paris_, this _Oceanic_ was fitted with two
sets of triple-expansion engines driving twin-screws; she began her
voyaging at the end of 1899. As will be seen from the accompanying
photograph, in spite of her magnitude, she is so beautifully designed
that there is nothing in the least out of perfect proportion. Some
idea of the number of tiers possessed by the _Oceanic_, rising
high above the water, may be gathered if we enumerate them singly.
Looking at the illustration, and beginning from the top, there is the
captain’s bridge towering 43 feet above the sea. Eight feet below comes
the boat deck, and below that the promenade deck, and lower still the
upper deck. Then the first line of port-holes shows the extent of the
middle deck, and the next line the lower deck. In addition to these
five decks which stretch from one end of the ship to the other there
are two partial decks, the orlop and lower orlop respectively. Like
other modern steamships, the _Oceanic_ has a double bottom, sub-divided
into so many cells. She has been built with the intention of being
used, if necessary, as an auxiliary cruiser, and was designed with the
necessary additional strength. Keeping up an average speed at sea of
about 20 knots, this great ship is not compelled to drive headlong into
whatever weather may be waiting for her. The absence of extra powerful
engines also means the absence of that unpleasant vibration which is
not unknown to some of the “flyers” that tear across the ocean in a
hurry to get their passengers and mails to port. It will be noticed on
examining this illustration that, unlike the case of her namesake, the
turtle decks have disappeared altogether, the reason being, as already
pointed out, that the hull is so high above the water as not to need
these. In spite of her great length, the _Oceanic_ is not so unhandy as
she might seem. Her forefoot is well cut-away, and this, in addition to
the proper employment of her twin-screws, enables her to be manœuvred
with a facility that is a little surprising.
The Cunard Company resting content with the performances of their
express steamers _Campania_ and _Lucania_, still left the _Kaiser
Wilhelm der Grosse_ to maintain the reputation for pace, and,
following the example of the White Star Line, built in the _Ivernia_
and _Saxonia_ a couple of steamships of great size but comparatively
moderate speed. The _Ivernia_ is two feet shorter than the _Majestic_,
but her gross tonnage comes out at 14,027, making her in this respect
but little inferior to the _Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_, though
superior to the latter in displacement tonnage. The _Ivernia’s_ speed
averages about 15¼ knots; she came into being in 1899. These vessels
belong to a class of steamship which has grown up under the title
of “intermediate,” its origin being based on the assumption that a
comfortable, economical, moderately fast type of ship would be able
to find appreciation no less than the high-powered ships. Both the
_Ivernia_ and _Saxonia_ have considerable capacities for cargo as
well as passengers, and are characterised by their exceptionally low
coal consumption. They are single-funnelled boats, and engaged on
the Liverpool-Boston route. But the _Ivernia_ was the first of the
Atlantic liners to break away from the triple-expansion system and to
be installed with the more modern quadruple-expansion type of engine.
This being the same principle as the triple-expansion pushed one stage
further, using four instead of three cylinders, we need not stop to
explain what is already clear in the mind of the reader.
[Illustration: THE “CELTIC.”
_From a Photograph. By Permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co._]
Two other of these “Intermediates” were added to the White Star Line
in 1901 and 1903 respectively. These are the _Celtic_ and _Cedric_,
and a photograph of the latter will be seen opposite page 176. Only
in regard to speed have these handsome vessels the slightest right
to be designated “intermediate.” They both possess a tonnage about
twice that of the _City of Paris_, for the _Celtic_ is 20,880, and the
_Cedric_ 21,034 tons, and the speed of each is 16 knots. Speed is not
the main consideration to those who have the slightest affection for
ships and the sea. The beautiful motion of the _Cedric_, for instance,
in a winter’s Atlantic gale, rolling and pitching in a manner just
enough to show she is a living ship and not a dull, lifeless steel box,
pursuing her way with boldness and dignity, caring little for the great
waves mounting up astern, is a delight that lives long in one’s memory.
She has no need to break her neck hurrying and scurrying, trying to
become a large-sized submarine; she prefers to go _over_ the sea rather
than through it, and this with a movement that is comparable to that of
a well-bred lady gliding along smoothly and with dignity.
From the owners’ point of view these are economical ships to run, for
with 16 knots the coal consumption is very moderate, whilst at the
same time their size enables them to carry large numbers of passengers
and considerable quantities of cargo. As evidence of the remarkable
evolution in type, I would ask the reader to compare the accompanying
illustration of the _Cedric_ with that of the _Great Eastern_. Both are
of about the same length, although the latter was about 8 feet wider,
and at the time of her launch the _Cedric_ was the largest ship of
any kind that had hitherto been constructed. Another “intermediate,”
the _Arabic_, followed in the same year, possessing the same speed of
16 knots, but a tonnage only of 15,801. This is one of the vessels
employed on the Liverpool-New York route, the Southampton-New York
White Star service being supplied by the _Adriatic_ (to which I shall
refer presently), together with the _Oceanic_, the _Majestic_ and the
_Teutonic_.
The German success in the _Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_ was now to be
followed up by a still more wonderful achievement in the _Kaiser
Wilhelm II._, a photograph of which is here reproduced. Her coming in
1903 caused a sensation in the shipping world, for she represented not
merely the extraordinary capabilities which the German shipbuilders had
already attained, but was superior in speed not only to all the British
steamships, but to her own sister, the _Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_.
Two and a half feet longer than the _Oceanic_, about 4 feet wider,
but with 5 feet less depth, she was, like the _Ivernia_, fitted with
two sets of quadruple-expansion engines to drive her twin-screws. Her
gross tonnage exceeded that of the _Oceanic_ and the _Great Eastern_
as well, and with a speed of 23½ knots was a knot faster than the
_Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_. This vessel and the Hamburg-American liner
_Deutschland_ were able to give to Germany the proud possession of the
fastest liners in the world until the _Lusitania_ arrived on the scene.
The _Kaiser Wilhelm II.’s_ best day’s run is 583 knots, and she has
maintained an average speed from New York to Plymouth of 23·58 knots.
To obtain this the phenomenal amount of 45,000 horse-power has to be
developed by means of a double set of quadruple-expansion engines--two
for each propeller shaft--necessitating sixteen cylinders, steam being
generated from nineteen boilers fired by no fewer than 124 furnaces.
But no one could assert that such a ship as this is economical to run,
for although her speed is only one knot faster than the _Kaiser Wilhelm
der Grosse_, yet each day she burns about another 200 tons of coal in
doing it, and supposing we were to take the cost of fuel at 20s. a ton,
we can easily see that each Atlantic voyage means an _extra_ expense of
much more than £1,000.
[Illustration: THE “KAISER WILHELM II.”
_From a Photograph by West & Son, Southsea._]
Now, since the steamship is run for the purpose of making money, it is
essential that over-seas trade should not show any signs of lagging;
otherwise it becomes commercially impossible to run these fast
ships from one continent to the other. The craze for speed is one
that may go on and on for just such a time as the financial support
continues; but as soon as a diminution in trade sets in, and with it a
falling-off in revenue, this wild, reckless race for speed-supremacy
must automatically cease. At present it is but a reflection of the
restless activity on shore. May the time not come when rest and
simplicity will again replace excessive strenuousness and restore to
the Atlantic something of its plain expansiveness, and take back the
character which it has now developed as being merely a race-track for
ocean greyhounds? However much designers, shipbuilders and engineers
may conspire together; whatever inventions man in his brilliant efforts
may succeed in bringing about, the solid fact remains that Nature is
superior in force to all these. The winds will blow and the great seas
will roll up against all the mighty ships man may build. Among the
gifts to humanity there is not included that of taming the sea. She is
tyrannical in her strength, untamable, dominant; and when you launch
into her bosom heavy masses of iron or steel, and deceive yourself
with high-sounding names--call them _Great Easterns_, _Majestics_,
_Indomitables_, _Titanics_, and the rest--the Sea only laughs at
you, for she knows perfectly well that a blow or two from her mighty
arm will end their days and settle their fate for all time. To fight
against Nature is to contend against heavy odds, to engage in a contest
whose result is known long beforehand; and the most that man can ever
do is make a truce with his superior foe, so that he may be able to
rush across her expanse much as he would hurry past the open cage of a
tigress. For that reason speed is appreciated by some as the greatest
weapon which was ever given to the ship, but even then it cannot
terrify a much mightier power. In spite of wireless gear, submarine
bells, navigational science, expert seamanship, perfect ship-building
and design, well-found ships still put to sea and disappear presently
never to be seen again. The case of the _Waratah_ is not an isolated
incident, but an example of the universal law that human achievement
in comparison with the eternal sovereignty of the Sea must take only a
second place, and learn to obey, when bidden, a power of far older, far
superior strength.
CHAPTER VII
THE MODERN MAMMOTH STEAMSHIP
In the history of the steamship during the short space of time that she
has been employed, the changes in connection with her have followed
with singular celerity. We have, during the previous pages, witnessed
in the material of which she is built the gradual transition from wood
to iron and steel; we have seen how steam pressures became greater, and
the ensuing introduction of the compound system, the triple-expansion
and the quadruple. We have also watched the change from paddle-wheels
to a single screw, and thence to twin-screws. Each change has seemed to
be so excellent in its nature, so beneficial in results, that almost
on each occasion we might have thought that finality had been reached.
At times our minds have been wearied with the constant reiteration of
the latest wonders, and our imaginations have found some difficulty in
responding to the demands which one invention after another has put
forward. It has all happened within so short a time, and on a scale
of such unheard-of magnitude, that scarcely have we been able to find
expressions adequate to our subject.
But now we enter upon what is the most wonderful of any period since
the steamship came into the world, and for this we have to thank the
introduction of the turbine, merely the beginnings of which we are
now watching; whose influence, not merely in the engineering world
generally, but in the domain of the steamship particularly, is already
marking, in the most certain manner, a distinct cleavage between the
things of yesterday and those of to-morrow. The turbine is only in
its infancy, yet since its infantile influence has caused already so
great a revolution, one hesitates to reckon what it will do before it
is as old as the old-fashioned reciprocating engine, whose history we
have outlined. Its modern practical invention is due to two men, one
an Englishman, the other a Swede, who during the early ’eighties made
their systems public. The latter is Dr. Gustav de Laval; the former
the Hon. Charles Algernon Parsons, son of the Earl of Rosse, who after
a distinguished career at Cambridge, where he graduated as eleventh
Wrangler, brought out this new method in 1884. Five years later Dr.
de Laval, working at the same problem, developed a somewhat similar
engine. We have spoken of the _modern_ invention advisedly, for there
is nothing new under the sun, and we shall see that the bare principle
is hundreds of years old. In its simplest form, the turbine is similar
to a water-wheel, a jet of steam taking the place of water. As far
back as 1629, Giovanni Branca, an Italian engineer, had suggested much
the same thing, and if the reader will now refer to the illustration
opposite he will be able to gain some idea of the form in which his
idea took shape.
[Illustration: GIOVANNI BRANCA’S STEAM ENGINE (1629).
The simplest form of Turbine.
_From the Exhibit in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Steam was to be raised as usual, by applying heat to a vessel
containing water. (In the picture this vessel is seen to be in the
shape of a man’s head and neck, the steam, so soon as it is formed,
issuing out of his mouth. The original illustration was published
in _Le Machine_ by Giovanni Branca, printed in 1629, and containing
all sorts of most interesting labour-saving devices, such as the
employment of winches, chain-pumps, water-wheels, water-buckets and
pumps of many kinds.) As the steam escaped it was directed against the
vanes on the circumference of a wheel fitted with little fans like
a water-wheel, and so causing it to revolve. In the picture the wheel
is being utilised by means of gearing for lifting pestles. Speaking
generally, this resembles roughly the idea of the de Laval turbine, but
in actual application de Laval allows the steam to issue through one or
more nozzles placed as close as one-sixteenth of an inch to the blades
or fans, so that every particle of steam shall strike a blade.
[Illustration: THE BLADES OF A PARSONS TURBINE.
_By permission of Messrs. C. A. Parsons & Co., Newcastle-on-Tyne._]
But the Parsons system differs in detail from this, and employs a
number of wheels mounted on the same shaft, the steam entering at one
end, working its way along and expending its energy to each wheel as it
passes. If the reader will examine the illustration facing page 186, he
will see a section of one of these turbines, which is here reproduced
through the courtesy of Messrs. C. A. Parsons and Co. But before we
deal with the actual working of this, we would also call attention
to the drawings on page 185, which depict alternate rows of fixed and
moving blades. Steam enters the turbine in a direction parallel with
the axis of the shaft, and flows through the length of the turbine in
a zig-zag fashion. Looking at the top line in this diagram, we see a
row of fixed discs or blades sloping in one direction, on to which
the steam pours. These, so to speak, reflect the steam so that it
passes at right angles from the slope of the fixed blade to the first
row of moving blades which are on the shaft, thus giving them and it
a rotational force in the direction indicated by the arrow. But the
curved shape of the moving blades causes the steam to issue from them
in a direction exactly opposite to that in which it had entered, and
thus the reaction gives additional rotational force to these moving
blades. The steam now reaches the next row of fixed blades and repeats
the same action again on the next row of moving blades.
[Illustration: THE PARSONS TURBINE.
_By permission of Messrs. C. A. Parsons & Co._]
Turning now to the illustration of the turbine facing this page, let us
see how this applies in actuality. This sketch represents a section of
a cylindrical case with rows of inwardly projecting blades, and within
this cylinder revolves a shaft with outwardly projecting blades. Steam
enters at the point marked _A_ on the lower half of the cylinder, and
then passes through the different rows of fixed and moving blades,
as previously explained, finally leaving the cylinder at the exhaust
pipe, marked _B_. But it will be noticed that the diameter of the shaft
varies in three different stages, the reason for this being that a
method analogous to the compound method in the triple-expansion engines
is here employed. Thus the whole expansive force of the steam is not
converted into speed all at one stage, but working its way along,
expands as it goes. It should be added that the fixed blades are on the
case of the cylinder, but the moving blades are on the rotor (or
rotating part, consisting of a hollow steel drum), the steam rebounding
from the fixed blades to the moving ones much as one billiard ball
cannons off another.
The cylindrical case is divided horizontally, and can be taken off,
so that the blades may be got at. The illustration facing page 188
shows the lower half of the fixed portion or cylinder of one of the
_Carmania’s_ turbines. The blades themselves are made either of brass
or copper, and are caulked one by one into grooves in the cylinder and
shaft, but a newer method enables them to be assembled in complete
sectors ready for insertion. The Allan Line turbine-steamer _Virginian_
contains no fewer than 750,000 of these blades on the rotating part,
but together with those which are fixed, they total a million and a
half, the diameter of the largest blade being 8 feet 6 inches.
Such, briefly, is the principle of the new form of engine which is
causing so thorough an alteration in the means of propelling the
steamship. Practically all the turbine craft are of the Parsons type.
For some years this system was employed for driving electric dynamos on
land, for pumping stations, colliery fans and the like, but in 1894 it
was first installed in the now celebrated little ship, the _Turbinia_,
which was built for the purpose of exhibiting the capabilities of the
turbine. She was of only 44 tons, developing 2,000 horse-power, but
those who happened to see her racing along the water at Spithead, doing
her 34 knots without distress, were in no further need of conviction as
to her speed abilities. But therein lay the drawback; the difficulty at
first was to obtain such a speed as should be suitable for slow-going
vessels, though we shall see that this difficulty is now disappearing.
[Illustration: THE “CARMANIA” (1905).
_From a Photograph. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
[Illustration: LOWER HALF OF THE FIXED PORTION OF ONE OF THE
“CARMANIA’S” TURBINES.
_From a Photograph. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
Another great fault of the turbine is that it can only go one way,
so that in order to enable a ship to go astern, she has to be fitted
with an additional propeller and turbine, the blades in the latter
being placed in the opposite way; when the ship is going ahead, these
just revolve idly. In practice it is usual to employ two propellers
and turbines for going astern instead of one. For driving other than
fast ships the turbine was found not to be economical, but the reader
may ask the question: “Why not let the ship go fast? Why detain her,
if she is anxious to get to port?” The answer is that she wouldn’t
get there as fast, for the reason that unless the ship is designed to
travel at very high speeds, the propeller, revolving at a great rate,
loses its efficiency; for, instead of being able to use the water,
much as an oarsman uses the water for his oar to get a good grip, the
water is simply carried round with the screw. In order to counteract
this failing, therefore, it has been suggested that the turbine should
not drive the propeller direct but drive a dynamo, the current from
which should actuate electric motors for such a speed as will suit the
propellers. With this would also vanish the reversing difficulty, for
a motor is easily reversible. But a paper was read by the Hon. C. A.
Parsons, the Vice-President, at the annual meeting of the Institution
of Naval Architects, in March, 1910, in which he gave particulars of a
scheme to enable a high-speed turbine to be suitable for a low-speed
tramp steamer. As Mr. Parsons’ theory has actually been put into
practice, and will no doubt be found to be the solution of the problem,
we may here outline so interesting an experiment. In a word, the method
employed is just that which we saw was used in those early days, when
the screw engines were first brought in. As the reader will recollect,
the difficulty was then overcome by means of gearing, instead of the
engines working directly on to the shaft; so, in principle, at least,
is it in the present instance.
With a view of putting to a test turbines mechanically geared to the
propeller shaft, an old screw steamer, named the _Vespasian_, was
purchased in 1909. She was built in 1887, and has a displacement of
4,350 tons. Originally, she was fitted with ordinary triple-expansion
engines, and before making any alterations it was decided to run
trials with those engines in use. But in order that these should
show their best performances, they were overhauled, and rendered
thoroughly efficient. It was further decided, in order that the proper
data under service conditions might be obtained, that she was to be
run properly loaded. Arrangements were therefore made with a firm
of shipbrokers to take a cargo of coal from the Tyne to Malta, and
during this voyage a special recording staff on board made careful
measurements of the coal and water consumed. She then returned to the
Turbinia Works, and her triple-expansion engines were taken out, and
in their place were installed two turbines, one high-pressure and
one low-pressure, the former being placed on the starboard side, the
latter to port, a reversing turbine being incorporated in the exhaust
casing of the low-pressure turbine. By means of mechanical gearing
the power was conveyed from the turbine to the shaft, and without
having made any alterations to the propeller, the vessel was loaded
again to her proper trim and sent out to sea in February, 1910. The
results are significant, and may be summed up thus: the _Vespasian_
was found to possess under normal full-speed conditions an increase
of about one knot per hour owing to the higher efficiency of the
turbine, but with reduced water-consumption, and consequently coal
consumption, amounting to nearly 20 per cent. Further, the weight of
the reciprocating engines was 100 tons; that of the turbines is only
75. Thus the ship is enabled to carry a larger amount of cargo, whilst
simultaneously she effects a saving in coal, in oil, in engine-room
staff and in up-keep. Mr. Parsons asserts that the turbines and gearing
have given no trouble, have caused very little noise or vibration, and
there is no appreciable wear on the teeth of the gearing.
To the Allan Line belongs the honour of having been the first to
introduce the turbine upon the Atlantic, and at the beginning of the
year 1905, the _Victorian_ and _Virginian_, which had been contracted
for two years earlier, began running. These two ships are employed on
the Liverpool-Montreal service, and were built to be of as great a
size as safe navigation of the river St. Lawrence would permit. They
displace 12,000 tons each, and are fitted with Parsons triplicate
turbines, driving three independent shafts and maintaining a speed of
17 knots average; but on her trials the _Virginian_ attained a speed
of 19·8 knots, and the _Victorian_ 19·2 knots. Three propellers are
used for steaming ahead, and two low-pressure turbines are employed
for manœuvring either ahead or astern; these are provided with a
supplementary turbine for going astern. When going ahead, the steam
is first used in the high-pressure turbine engine and then allowed
to flow therefrom to the two low-pressure turbines, after which it
passes to the condensers. Owing to the turbine system the vibration is
reduced to a minimum, and since it is possible, from their nature, to
place the turbine engines very low in the hull, it follows that the
screws also can be placed very low. The practical effect of this is
that the propellers are rarely out of the water in a heavy sea, and so
the objectionable “racing” disappears. The _Virginian_ soon showed
that she was not merely a comfortable, but a comparatively fast ship,
for she made an eastward trip in the shortest time hitherto occupied
between Canada and England.
In the same year the Cunard Line followed with the _Carmania_, their
first turbine liner, fitted with three turbines and three screws. She
was preceded a little by the _Caronia_, a sister ship in every way
except that the latter is propelled by two sets of quadruple-expansion
reciprocating engines, driving twin-screws. These ships have a
displacement of 30,000 tons, and a length over all of 675 feet. They
were built of a strength that was in excess of Board of Trade and other
requirements, and when we state that no fewer than 1,800,000 rivets
were used in the construction of each, one begins to realise something
of the amount of work that was put into them. Their steel plating
varies in thickness from three-quarters of an inch to an inch and an
eighth in thickness, the length of each plate being 32 feet. Fitted
with a cellular bottom which is carried well up the sides of the ship
above the bilges, they can thus carry three and a half thousand tons of
water-ballast. The principles underlying the design and construction
of these ships were steadiness and strength, and in the attainment of
this they have been eminently successful. There are eight decks, which
may be detailed by reference to the photograph of the _Carmania_ facing
page 188. Immediately below the bridge is the boat deck. Then follow
successively the upper promenade deck, the promenade, the saloon,
upper, and main decks. Below the water-line come two other decks for
stores and cargo, the depth from the boat deck being eighty feet. Both
of these ships are fitted with the now well-known Stone-Lloyd system
of safety water-tight doors, which renders the vessel practically
unsinkable. This enables the doors to be closed by the captain from
his bridge, after sufficient notice has been given by the sounding of
gongs, so that everyone may move away from the neighbourhood of these
doors. But should it chance that, after they have been shut, any of the
crew or passengers have had their retreat cut off, it is only necessary
to turn a handle, when the door will at once open and afterwards
automatically shut again. The system is worked by hydraulics, and is
a vast improvement on the early methods employed to retain a ship’s
buoyancy after collision with an iceberg, vessel or other object.
A glance at the illustration will show that a very great amount of
consideration was paid to the subject of giving the _Carmania_ a
comprehensive system of ventilation, a principle which has been carried
still further in the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_.
In the event of war the _Carmania_ and _Caronia_ would be fitted with
twelve large quick-firing guns, for the hulls were built in accordance
with the Admiralty’s requirements for armed cruisers. For this reason,
also, the rudder is placed entirely under water, and besides the
ordinary set of steering gear, there is another placed below the
water-line.
[Illustration: A STUDY IN COMPARISONS: THE “MAGNETIC” AND “BALTIC.”
_From a Photograph. By Permission of the London & North Western
Railway._]
On her trials the _Carmania_ attained a speed of over 20 knots, and
the saving in weight by adopting turbine engines as compared with the
_Caronia’s_ reciprocating engines was found to amount to 5 per cent.
In actual size these fine ships are inferior to the _Great Eastern_,
but they were built with meticulous regard for strength, and needed
2,000 tons more material than was used in the old Brunel ship. The
arrangements of the _Carmania’s_ turbines are worthy of note. There are
three propellers and shafts. That in the centre is the high-pressure
turbine, whilst the “wing” (or two side) turbines placed
respectively to starboard and port are the low-pressure and astern
turbines. Steam is supplied by eight double-ended and five single-ended
boilers, which are fitted with Howden’s system of forced draught. This
latter enables the air to be heated before it enters the furnace, and
was patented in 1883. It is also in use on the _Mauretania_.
The beautiful picture facing page 192 was taken in Holyhead Harbour
in June, 1909, and is a study in comparisons. At the left, first come
the two small steam craft, then the White Star passenger tender, the
_Magnetic_, a twin-screw steamer of 619 tons, and, finally, the other
White Star twin-screw mammoth _Baltic_, of 23,876 tons. The _Magnetic_
happens to be less than 100 tons smaller than the little _Sirius_,
which was the first steamer to cross the Atlantic entirely under steam
power in 1838. Therefore, if we but imagine in place of the twin-screw
tender the paddle _Sirius_, we can form some fairly accurate idea of
the extent to which the Atlantic steamship has developed in less than
seventy years, a development that neither Fulton nor anyone else could
have foretold in their wildest flights of imagination. This _Baltic_,
with her 24,000 tons, is one of the largest vessels in the world--about
9,000 tons larger than Noah’s Ark, if we take the Biblical cubit as
equal to a foot and a half, which makes that historic craft about
15,000 tons register. The _Baltic_ has a length of 725¾ feet; the Ark
measured 450 feet in length. The _Baltic_ can carry with the utmost
ease and luxury 3,000 passengers, as well as 350 crew. Just how many
animals she could put away in her holds as well, if called upon, I do
not know; but in any case it would be able to put up a keen competition
with the capacities of Noah’s craft.
Here, again, we find a White Star ship excelling not in speed, but in
size, for she was designed to do only 16½ knots at the outside. She
is propelled by quadruple-expansion engines. She made her appearance
in 1905, and is additionally interesting, as she exhibits a slight
divergence from the ten beams to the length principle, which governed
for so long a time the White Star ships; to come up to this rule this
vessel would have to be another 30 feet in length.
We have already explained the reason which underlies the comparatively
moderate speed of these ships, and mentioned that the question of
economical steaming was at the root of the matter. As an example we
might quote the case of the _Majestic_, belonging to the same line, as
an instance. This vessel consumes 316 tons of coal per day to get a
speed of 19 knots; the _Baltic_, a vessel nearly twice and a half the
size, requires only 260 tons of fuel a day for her 16½ knots.
And so we come to those two leviathans which form, without exception,
the most extraordinary, the most massive, the fastest, and the most
luxurious ships that ever crossed an ocean. Caligula’s galleys, which
were wondrously furnished with trees, marbles and other luxuries
which ought never to desecrate the sweet, dignified character of the
ship, were less sea-craft than floating villas exuding decadence at
every feature. There are some characteristics of the _Mauretania_ and
_Lusitania_, with their lifts, their marbles, curtains, ceilings,
trees, and other expressions of twentieth century luxury, which,
while appreciated by the landsman and his wife, are nauseating to
the man who loves the sea and its ships for their own sakes, and not
for the chance of enjoying self-indulgence in some new form. But all
the same these two Cunarders are ships first, and floating mansions
only in a secondary sense. They are even more than that: they are
ocean-greyhounds of a new breed with a pace that surpasses any other of
the mercantile sea dogs.
These two historic craft are regarded in different ways by different
people. You may think of them as hotels, you may look at them as
representing the outcome of the greatest minds in naval architecture,
ship-construction and marine engineering. Or, again, you may reckon
up how much capital is tied up within their walls, how much material
they have eaten up, how many hundreds of men they have given, and are
giving, employment to. But whichever way you regard them, from whatever
standpoint you choose, there is nothing comparable to them, there are
no standards whatsoever by which to judge them. We can only doff our
hats to the organising and originating geniuses who in one way or
another brought these marvels from out of the realm of impossibility to
the actuality of the broad Atlantic. Cover them with tier upon tier of
decks, scatter over them a forest of ventilators, roofs and chimneys,
till they look like the tops of a small town; fill them inside with
handsome furniture, line their walls with costly decorations; throw in
a few electric cranes, a coal mine, several restaurants, the population
of a large-sized village and a good many other things besides; give
them each a length equal to that of the Houses of Parliament, a height
greater than the buildings in Northumberland Avenue, disguise them in
any way you please, and for all that these are _ships_, which have to
obey the laws of Nature, of the Great Sea, just as the first sailing
ship and the first Atlantic steamship had to show their submission. I
submit that to look upon these two ships as mere speed-manufacturers
engaged in the record industry, as palatial abodes, or even as
dividend-earners is an insult to the brains that conceived them, to
the honourable name of “ship” which they bear.
The _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ are the outcome of an agreement made
between the British Government and the Cunard Steamship Company,
in which it was contracted to produce two steamships “capable of
maintaining a minimum average ocean speed of from 24 to 25 knots an
hour in moderate weather.” In every way these ships have exceeded the
dimensions of the _Great Eastern_. There was no precedent for them
in dimensions, engine power, displacement or aught else. It was not
to be expected that such gigantic productions as these could be the
outcome of one mind; such a thing would be impossible. It was only as
a result of an exhaustive inquiry made on behalf of the Cunard Company
by some of the most experienced ship-builders and marine engineers of
this country, aided by the constructive and engineering staff of the
Admiralty, as well as by the preliminary knowledge derived from models,
that the best form for obtaining this unprecedented speed was evolved.
Whatever was best in existing knowledge or materials was investigated.
A special committee, representing the Cunard Company, the Admiralty
and private industries went deeply into the question of engines; and
with right judgment, and, it must be said, with no little courage and
enterprising foresight, decided, after conferring with Mr. Parsons, to
choose turbines, applied to four shafts, each carrying a single screw.
[Illustration: THE “MAURETANIA,” WHEN COMPLETING AT WALLSEND-ON-TYNE.
_From a Photograph. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
These two absolutely unique steamships differ entirely from the
previous fast liners that we have enumerated, as well as from
those large “intermediates” with moderate speed. The size of these
mammoths was decided upon, not with reference to their cargo-carrying
capacity--for they have practically no space for this--but in order to
be able to steam at an average speed of 25 knots in moderate weather
for 3,000 miles, to carry enough coal to last them the voyage when
consuming about a 1,000 tons per day, and to carry an adequate number
of passengers to allow the ships to pay their way. It was impossible,
therefore, to have given them any smaller dimensions. I make this
statement on the authority of no less an expert than Sir William H.
White, K.C.B., the illustrious naval architect who was connected so
closely with the birth of the _Mauretania_. It was a happy coincidence
that the turbine had already shown itself capable of so much that
to employ it in these ships seemed a justifiable experiment. For
otherwise, in order to obtain the requisite speed the vessel could not
have contained the large amount of propelling apparatus. The working
speeds of these two ships exceeds by 1½ knots the highest speeds ever
attained in the Atlantic service. Had the reciprocating engine been
employed instead of the turbine there would have been serious risk of
troublesome vibration, the shafts would have had to have been of very
large dimensions; large-sized propellers would have been necessary,
and these latter, of course, would have been unfavourable to high
efficiency of propulsion, whilst with the more rapidly revolving
turbine the screws are still of moderate diameter. But apart altogether
from the questions of economy of space, liability to accident and so
on, there was a national consideration to be reckoned. This country
has now for many hundreds of years prided itself on being the mistress
of the seas, a title that was only won after serious, hard struggles.
Although that title has reference rather to matters immediately
connected with the Royal Navy, yet national industry and a series of
private enterprises had, as we have seen, given us also an analogous
position in regard to our mercantile marine. This was until the German
_Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_, followed by the _Kaiser Wilhelm II_.
and the _Deutschland_, took away--in speed, at least--this title. It
was, therefore, a matter affecting our honour and our pride that we
should put on to the water some ship or ships that should be capable
of winning back the “blue ribbon” of the Atlantic, and restoring to
us the supremacy of speed at sea. There is, however, a more practical
consideration. Without the assistance of the Government it would have
been financially impracticable even for so wealthy a corporation as the
Cunard Company to cause such a couple of ships as these to be built.
And yet it was worth while that the nation should help the Company, for
in the event of war breaking out between us and another first-class
nation, it would not be long before we should be starved into
submission if by any chance our over-seas food supply were cut off. It
has been suggested with every appearance of probability, that in such
a condition the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ might render the highest
service by making rapid passages across the Atlantic and, being there
loaded up with grain, might hurry back home again. Their speed alone
would save them from the enemy, except perhaps from the latest and
fastest types of fighting-ships. But if convoyed by the _Indomitable_
and _Invincible_ battleship-cruisers, with their enormous speed and
equally enormous “smashing power,” the chances would be in favour
of the grain-ships reaching port. Thus when the British Government
advanced the sum of £2,000,000 sterling (which amount represents about
one-half of the total cost of the two vessels) it was acting with a
wisdom and a power for looking well ahead that is not always possessed
by political bodies. With their very considerable capacities for
passenger accommodation, these two ships would also be invaluable if
called upon to act as transports.
The singularly impressive picture facing page 198 shows the
_Mauretania_ whilst she was still lying on the Tyne at Wallsend before
being quite ready for service. It is by a happy coincidence that the
same picture shows a delightful contrast between this last word of
modern invention and the old-fashioned type of steam tug-boat in the
river, to the right. There is, in fact, so mighty a divergence in
character that it is not easy to catalogue both under the very elastic
and comprehensive title of steamship. Only by comparison with existing
ships can one gain any idea of the _Mauretania’s_ colossal qualities.
The present writer was one of those who watched the _Mauretania_ docked
for the first time at Liverpool immediately after she had come round
to the Mersey from the Tyne. By her was lying another steamship, by
no means out of date, whose appearance at one time called forth some
of the expressions of amazement and wonder that these two Cunarders
have brought about. For size and speed this older “greyhound” was
properly and legitimately famous, but yet within the comparatively
small dimensions of the dock-space one was able to obtain a more
accurate idea as to the exact proportions of the _Mauretania_ than
when lying outside in the river, where space brings with it deception;
and it was amazing to remark how utterly and unconditionally the new
steamship overshadowed the old. Even in such close proximity as one
stood, everything else looked small by comparison. The captain on the
_Mauretania’s_ bridge resembled a small, black dot, the funnels looked
like four great, red caverns. A brand new thick rope warp was brought
to the shore to stop the _Mauretania’s_ way. It was so heavy that a
score of men were needed to move it about. And yet although she seemed
scarcely to be moving the liner broke it in two just as a toy model
breaks a piece of cotton. Or, again, one may look at this same ship
lying at her mooring buoy on the Cheshire side of the Mersey and be
lost in wonder at her graceful curves. With such sweet lines you could
not doubt that she was also speedy. But it is not until one sees a
good-sized steam-tug go shooting by the buoy that one obtains any idea
as to measurements. The buoy is as big and bigger than the tug, and,
therefore, how many more times must the liner herself be bigger than
the tug? You see another steamer alongside this mountain of steel and
the steamer is nothing remarkable. But presently as she comes down by
the landing-stage, past a smaller liner brought up to her anchor in the
middle of the river, you find that that little steamer is several sizes
bigger than a moderate coaster. It would have been so easy to make this
finest ship in the world look also the largest; it is a much finer
achievement to have made her look, what she is, the handsomest.
[Illustration: STERN OF THE “MAURETANIA.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
Passing then to some of the details of these leviathans, we find that
they measure 790 feet long, 88 feet broad, whilst the depth from the
topmost deck to the bottom is 80 feet. Choose out some high building
or cliff 150 feet high, and it will still be 5 feet less than the
height of these ships from the bottom to the top of their funnels.
Their displacement at load draught is 40,000 tons; they each develop
68,000 horse-power, and draw, when fully loaded, 37½ feet of water.
When crew and passengers are on board each ship represents a community
of 3,200 persons. They are fitted with bilge keels, double bottoms,
water-tight doors, and there are eight decks in all. To hold such
massive weights as these ships exceptionally powerful ground tackle is
necessitated. The main cable alone weighs about 100 tons, and there
are about 2,000 feet of this, or 333 fathoms. The double bottom of the
_Mauretania_ averages in depth 5 to 6 feet, and she has five stokeholds
containing twenty-three double-ended and two single-ended boilers;
the coal bunkers are arranged along the ship’s sides in such a manner
as to be handy and as a protection to the hull in case of collision.
Three hundred and twenty-four firemen and trimmers are engaged in three
watches of four hours in the stokehold.
The striking illustration facing page 200 shows the stern of the
_Mauretania_ out of water, the photograph having been taken whilst
the vessel was being built at Wallsend-on-Tyne by Messrs. Swan,
Hunter and Wigham Richardson. It will be noticed that there are two
propellers on either side of the rudder. The two outermost are driven
by the high-pressure and the inside two by the low-pressure turbines.
The two inner propellers are also used for going astern, and since
the turbine can only turn in one direction these two are each fitted
with a high-pressure turbine, and when the ship is steaming ahead
these astern-turbines are simply revolving idly. When we examined the
interior of a turbine on page 186, we noted that the steam is allowed
to expand in stages therein. The turbines of the _Mauretania_ are
arranged with eight stages of steam expansion, while the blades vary in
length from 2½ to 12 inches.
[Illustration: THE “LUSITANIA.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
We would call attention once more to the modern custom introduced by
Harland and Wolff of cutting a hole, or “port,” in the deadwood of
the ship. On referring to the illustration facing page 200, it will
be seen that the _Mauretania_ possesses this feature in a remarkable
degree, so that the flow of water to the screws is very free indeed.
It will be noticed also that the rudder is of the balanced type, so
that part of it projects forward of its axis, whilst the whole of
it is some distance below the water-line. It will also be remarked
that the two “wing,” or outermost, propellers are placed a good
deal forward of the two inner screws, the object aimed at being to
give these forward screws plenty of clear water to work in without
either pair of propellers having to revolve in water disturbed by
the other pair. In examining this picture the reader will readily be
able to obtain the scale by remembering that the draught up to the
water-line shown is 37½ feet. The illustration facing this page shows
the appearance these sister ships possess at the bows. The present
photograph shows the _Lusitania_ under way. The navigating bridge,
which will be discerned at a great height, has been necessarily
placed comparatively much nearer to the bows of the ship than is
customary in many liners. Here the binnacle, the engine-room telegraph
instruments, and other apparatus employed in the controlling of the
ship, are stationed, whilst immediately abaft of this bridge, but
in a connecting room, is the wheel-house. Into this small space is
concentrated the exceptionally serious responsibility of ruling the
ship, a responsibility which, though it now lasts but a short time,
thanks to the shorter passages of the steamship, is far heavier than
it was when steamships were less complicated and less huge. It is a
responsibility which covers not merely the ship herself, the crew, the
mails, and the passengers’ lives, but sometimes a very precious cargo.
Only whilst these pages are being written the _Mauretania_ steamed
into Liverpool a veritable treasure ship, far surpassing in this
respect a whole fleet of some of those old Spanish treasure-frigates.
Stored in the strong-rooms of the Cunarder were precious metals of
the aggregate value of over a million pounds sterling, consisting of
6½ tons of gold coin and 36 tons of bullion in the shape of 1,100
bars of silver. Add all this to the value of the ship, her furniture
and her passengers’ belongings, and we get something between three and
four millions of money. The mere thought of it is enough to make Sir
Henry Morgan and other buccaneers and pirates turn restlessly in their
prison-graves.
Ever since they first came out the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_
have been improving on their speeds. Their most recent remarkable
performances have been caused by important alterations to
their propellers. These were preceded by experiments made by
the _Mauretania’s_ builders with their specially constructed
electrically-driven model launch. Since these two liners commenced
running, over twenty-four different sets of three-bladed, and seventeen
sets of four-bladed propellers have been tested, in addition to further
frequent experiments with models of the three-bladed propellers
originally supplied to the _Mauretania_. By modifying the bosses and
the blades, and adopting four blades instead of three, a very extensive
saving in horse-power was effected in experiments. Finally, the
_Mauretania_ was fitted with four-bladed propellers on the wing shafts,
while three-bladed propellers were retained on the inside shafts. The
result has been a substantial raising of her average speed, while the
coal consumption has been about the same or rather less, but this
latter is thought to be due probably to the improvements in stokehold
organisation. Sir William H. White has expressed himself as of the
opinion that the recently much increased speed of these two monsters
is due much more to the greater knowledge of the turbines, as well as
the better stokehold management, than to the propeller alterations. Up
to May of the year 1908 the best average speed of the _Mauretania_ on
her westward trip was 24·86 knots, but during the year 1909 it was
raised to 26·6 knots. It was officially stated, on March 24th, 1910,
that the _Lusitania_ made a new record on her westward trip by steaming
at 26·69 knots for a whole day, that is at the rate of 30·7 land miles.
Leaving Queenstown on the Sunday, she had up till noon of the following
Wednesday covered 2,022 knots, at an average of 25·97 sea miles. A
fortnight previous to this the _Mauretania_, for the last part of her
eastward voyage to Fishguard, steamed at an average speed of 27·47
knots per hour, or 31·59 land miles. The _Lusitania_ is now fitted with
the _Mauretania’s_ first propellers, and the chairman of the Cunard
Company has remarked that he has been informed that the _Mauretania_
would be glad to have them back again. The following tables will give
some idea of the comparative passages which these ships have made.
They are interesting as being reckoned not from Queenstown, but from
Liverpool landing-stage and the Cunard pier, New York:--
OUTWARD VOYAGES Days. H. M.
_Lusitania_ Quickest passage 5 7 0
_Mauretania_ Quickest passage 5 1 30
_Lusitania_ Longest passage 6 18 0
_Mauretania_ Longest passage 5 21 0
_Lusitania_ Average passage 5 21 35
_Mauretania_ Average passage 5 16 48
HOMEWARD VOYAGES.
_Lusitania_ Quickest passage 5 15 30
_Mauretania_ Quickest passage 5 5 0
_Lusitania_ Longest passage 5 22 0
_Mauretania_ Longest passage 5 17 0
_Lusitania_ Average passage 5 19 22
_Mauretania_ Average passage 5 12 14
But in spite of their bold dimensions and their efforts to prove
their superior prowess in contending with the mighty ocean, both the
_Mauretania_ and the _Lusitania_ have shown that after all they are
still yet ships, and are subject to those same laws which govern the
rusty old tramp, the square-yarded sailing ship, and the massive modern
liner. We may take but two recent instances, one as happening to each
of these two great vessels during the winter of 1910. In the month
of January, the _Lusitania_ made the slowest passage in her history,
having encountered adverse winds and mountainous waves ever since
leaving Daunt’s Rock. On Monday, the 10th of January, she ran into what
was thought to be a tidal wave. Immediately an avalanche of water broke
on the promenade deck. The officers on duty at the time calculated the
liquid weight that came aboard at 2,000 tons, and 100 feet high. At the
time of the occurrence the captain and the passengers were below at
dinner, and it was fortunate that no one was on deck. The wave wrecked
the pilot house, which is 84 feet above the water-line; four lifeboats
were smashed, as well as eleven windows in the wheel-house. Companion
ladders were carried away, while the captain’s, officers’ and their
stewards’ quarters below the bridge were so badly damaged that they
could not be used. The chief officer was on the bridge at the time,
and he found himself in water up to his armpits. The quartermaster was
swept off his feet, and struck against the chart-room bulkhead, with
the fragments of the steering wheel in his hands, and the chart-room
was flooded everywhere with water. As if that were not bad enough, the
masthead lights and sidelights were extinguished by the wave. Happily,
the chief officer kept his head above all this excitement, and finding
that the engine-room telegraph gear was undamaged, signalled down to
the engineer to reverse the turbines. The captain, who had only left
the bridge a few minutes earlier, rushed back, and in less than half an
hour the big ship was on her course again, heading for New York, where
she arrived twenty-six hours late.
It was during the following month that the _Mauretania_ also suffered
her worst passage on record. The weather was so bad from the first that
she was unable to land her pilot at Queenstown, who had to go all the
way to New York. During the first day or two the sea became worse and
worse. On the night of Sunday, February 20th, the _Mauretania_ was in
the thick of a heavy gale and meeting seas of rare magnitude. Some idea
may be gathered of the conditions, when it is mentioned that the speed
of this colossal liner had to be reduced to seven knots, and kept at
that for the next five hours. It may be remembered that the Astronomer
Royal reported that the wind-pressure at Greenwich that night showed
a velocity of 100 miles an hour. When full steam was again resumed,
the _Mauretania_ received some punishing blows, and the upper works
were subjected to a series of continuous batterings from heavy head
seas. The glass of the bridge-house was shattered, several of the
lifeboats were shifted, the water got below and flooded the forecastle,
and finally an anchor, weighing 10,000 lbs., and 50 fathoms of cable
were swept into the sea. Reading all this whilst having in mind the
magnitude of these two steamships, truly we can say that the sea is no
respecter of persons, nor even of the most marvellous products of naval
architecture.
[Illustration: THE “ADRIATIC.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co._]
The four-masted steamship here illustrated is the White Star
_Adriatic_, which was built in 1906. This mighty vessel is of 25,000
tons, and though smaller than the two Cunarders with which we have
just dealt, is superior in size and speed to the White Star _Baltic_,
and until the advent of the _Olympic_ and _Titanic_, was the biggest
production which the White Star Line has conceived. Like the _Baltic_,
the second _Oceanic_, and the _Cedric_, this _Adriatic_ follows out
the modern White Star practice of giving mammoth size, moderate speed,
and considerable luxury. She steams at 17½ knots with an indicated
horse-power of 16,000. Unlike the more modern ships, the _Adriatic_ is
propelled not by triple or even quadruple screws, but by twin-screws,
and is employed on the Southampton-Cherbourg-Queenstown-New York route.
Although not provided with turbines, the _Adriatic_ exhibits a minimum
of vibration owing to the careful regard which is now paid to ensure
the balancing of the moving parts of the reciprocating engine. She has
two three-bladed screws, which are made of manganese bronze, driven by
twin engines, and her dimensions are: length, 725·9 feet; beam, 77·6;
depth, 54 feet. It will be seen, therefore, that the old ten-beams to
length rule is yet again broken in the modern White Star leviathans.
In 1905, the German Hamburg-American Line became possessed of the
_Amerika_, which with the length of 670½ feet, beam 74·6, and a tonnage
of 22,225, and a moderate speed, makes her rather a rival of the
White Star _Baltic_ and _Adriatic_, than of the Cunard ships or the
Norddeutscher Lloyd _Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_ and _Kaiser Wilhelm
II._, and the Hamburg Company’s own fast steamship, the _Deutschland_.
Although sailing under a foreign flag, she is to all intents and
purposes a British ship, for she was built at Harland and Wolff’s
famous Belfast yard, where the White Star ships have come into being.
Her speed is 18 knots, so that she is rather faster than the latest
White Star ships, although inferior to the fastest contemporary liners.
Carrying a total of 4,000 passengers and crew, the _Amerika_ is one of
the finest vessels, not merely in the German fleet, but in the whole
world.
[Illustration: THE “GEORGE WASHINGTON.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co.,
Bremen._]
[Illustration: THE “BERLIN.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co.,
Bremen._]
The _George Washington_, which is seen steaming ahead in the
illustration herewith, was the first of the Norddeutscher Lloyd
steamers to make a considerable advance on the 20,000 tons (registered)
limit. In length, breadth and tonnage she was launched as the biggest
of all German ships, and some of her details are not without interest.
Her speed of 18½ knots is obtained by two engines with an indicated
horse-power of 20,000, and her gross register is 26,000 tons. She
is propelled by twin-screws, and was built of steel according to
the highest German standards, with five steel decks extending from
end to end, a double bottom, which is divided up into twenty-six
water-tight compartments, while the ship herself is divided by
thirteen transverse bulkheads which reach up to the upper deck, and
sometimes to the upper saloon deck, and separate the vessel into
fourteen water-tight compartments. A special feature was made in the
bulkheads to render them of such a strength as to be able to resist
the pressure of the water in the event of collision. The three upper
decks seen in the photograph show the awning, the upper promenade,
and the promenade-decks; while, as in the _Mauretania_ and her
sister, and in the _Adriatic_, electric lifts are installed for the
convenience of the passengers wishing to pass from one deck to the
other. The four pole-masts are of steel, and have between them no fewer
than twenty-nine derricks. The _George Washington’s_ engines are of
the quadruple-expansion type, with two sets of four cylinders, the
propellers being two three-bladed, made of bronze. The difficulty
with large reciprocating engines has always been to cause them to
work without giving forth considerable vibration. But the careful
arrangement of the cranks of the engine so as to balance each other
tends to neutralise the vibration. It is easier to balance four cranks
than three, and in this German ship the four-crank principle is
followed. Steam is supplied by four single-ended and eight double-ended
boilers, the Howden draught system being employed.
The _Berlin_, the other latest modern liner of the Norddeutscher Lloyd
Line, will be seen in the next illustration. Unlike her sister, she
has been given only two masts, and in another illustration, in a later
chapter, we show this ship under construction. She was recently built
at Bremen for the Mediterranean to New York service, and carries 3,630
persons, inclusive of crew. Like other modern German liners, this
vessel is handsomely furnished, and the public rooms are all united
in a deckhouse lighted by a large number of cupola-shaped sky-lights.
She has a registered tonnage of 19,200 gross, and in the Norddeutscher
fleet ranks next after the _Kaiser Wilhelm II._ She passed into the
hands of her owners at the end of 1909.
[Illustration: THE “LAURENTIC” ON THE STOCKS.
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Harland & Wolff._]
Two interesting new ships were commissioned in 1909 by the White
Star Line, for the Liverpool-Quebec service, named respectively the
_Laurentic_ and _Megantic_. An illustration, showing the former on
the stocks at Harland and Wolff’s yard, Belfast, is given opposite
page 210. The _Laurentic_ and _Megantic_ are, as to hulls, sister
ships, and each has a tonnage of 14,900, thus being among the largest
steamers in the Canadian trade. But whilst the latter is a twin-screw
ship propelled by reciprocating engines, the former has three screws
and a combination of reciprocating engines and a low-pressure
turbine, being the first large passenger steamship to be designed
with this ultra-modern method. Each of the “wing” propellers is
driven by four-crank triple balanced engines, the central propeller,
however, being driven by the turbine. The object aimed at by this
novel hybrid method was to retain the advantages of the carefully
balanced reciprocating engines, but at the same time to obtain the
benefit of the further expansion of steam in a low-pressure turbine,
without having to employ a turbine specially for going astern. The
reciprocating engines of the _Laurentic_ are adequate for manœuvring
in and out of port, and for going astern, since they develop more than
three-quarters of the total combined horse-power. This steamship,
single-funnelled and two-masted, measures 565 feet in length, and 67
feet 4 inches in width, and besides having accommodation for 1,690
passengers, carries a large quantity of cargo. Like many other big
steamships that we have noted in the course of our story, she has a
double cellular-bottom which extends the whole length of the ship,
being specially strengthened under the engines. Her nine bulkheads
divide her up into ten water-tight compartments. It will be noticed
that the rudder has gone back to the ordinary type common before the
introduction of the balance method. Notice, too, that the blades of the
propeller are each bolted to the shaft, and that the latter terminates
in a conical shape now so common on screw-ships. This is called the
“boss,” and was invented by Robert Griffiths in 1849. It was introduced
in order to reduce the pressure of the water towards the centre. This
method was first tried on a steamer in the following year at Bristol
and afterwards on H.M.S. _Fairy_. By reason of its shape, it naturally
causes less resistance through the water.
Whilst these lines are being written, there are building at Harland and
Wolff’s yard still another couple of ships for the White Star flag,
which, if not in speed, will be the most wonderful, and certainly the
largest ships in the world. After the _Baltics_ and _Mauretanias_ one
feels inclined to ask in amazement: “What next, indeed?” They will
measure 850 feet long, 90 feet broad, and be fitted with such luxuries
as roller-skating rinks and other novelties. They will each possess a
gross register of 45,000 tons. (By way of comparison we might remind
the reader that the _Mauretania_ has a gross register of 33,000 tons.)
Named respectively the _Olympic_ and _Titanic_, they will be propelled
by three screws, and have a speed of 21 knots, so that besides being
leviathans, they will also be greyhounds, and are destined for the
Southampton-New York route. The first of these, the _Olympic_, will
take the water in October, 1910, and some idea of her appearance may
be gathered from the illustration which forms our frontispiece. Like
the _Laurentic_, these ships will be fitted with a combination of the
turbine and reciprocating engines, and will thus be the first ships
running on the New York route to have this system. Their builders
estimate that the displacement of each of these mighty creatures will
be about 60,000 tons, which is about half as much again as that of
the _Baltic_. Each ship will cost at least a million and a half of
money, and it will be necessary for each of those harbours which they
are to visit to be dredged to a depth of 35 feet. It is a complaint
put forward by both ship-builders and owners of modern leviathans
that the governing bodies of ports have not shown the same spirit of
enterprise which the former have exhibited. To handicap the progress
of shipping by hesitating to give the harbours a required depth, they
say, is neither fair nor conducive to the advance of the prosperity
of the ports in question, and on the face of it, it would seem to be
but reasonable that if the honour of receiving a mammoth liner means
anything at all, it should be appreciated by responding in a practical
manner. In New York Harbour this fact is already recognised, for
dredging is being undertaken so as to provide a depth of 40 feet.
At the present moment the Cunard Company are also engaged in
replenishing their fleet, consequent on the removal from service of the
_Lucania_, the _Umbria_, the _Etruria_, and the _Slavonia_. An 18,000
ton steamship, to be called the _Franconia_, is being built by Messrs.
Swan, Hunter and Wigham Richardson, Ltd., the firm which turned out
the _Mauretania_, and will be ready some time in 1911. This latest
addition will not, it is understood, be a “flyer,” for her speed is
believed to be less than 20 knots, and it is therefore probable that
she is intended to replace the _Slavonia_. But it is supposed that
another vessel is to be built presently to relieve the _Mauretania_ and
_Lusitania_, or to co-operate with them, and that her speed will be
23 knots, though it must not be forgotten that this ship will not be
built with the help of Government money, but will be purely and solely
a commercial transaction.
In the meantime German enterprise shows but little signs of lagging.
The Hamburg-American Line are understood to have ordered from the
Vulcan Yards at Hamburg a new passenger liner of more than 800 feet in
length and a displacement of between 45,000 and 50,000 tons. Her speed
is to be 21 knots. Herr Ballin a couple of years ago had a similar
project in view, and entered into a contract with Harland and Wolff
for building the largest ship in the world, to be called the _Europa_.
But the condition of the Atlantic passenger trade became unfavourable
for the enterprise, and the contract was annulled. The contract now
goes, not to Belfast, but to Hamburg, for the Belfast yard has no slip
vacant for several months to come. It will mean, therefore, that this
_Europa_, which is destined to excel the big Cunarders in size though
not in speed, will be the largest undertaking that German ship-building
yards have yet had to face, for the biggest merchant ship which up till
now they have turned out is the _George Washington_, of 26,000 tons.
Since the _Deutschland_ lost the honour of holding the “blue ribbon,”
the Hamburg-American Line have not worried much about recapturing the
first position in speed. Economy plus a first-class service would
seem to be the modern combination of influence that is dominating the
great steamship lines. Speed is a great deal, but it is not everything
in a passenger steamship, and whether the limits have not already
been surpassed, and the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ with their high
speeds and enormous cost of running will presently be regarded rather
as belonging to the category of white elephants than of practical
commercial steamships, time alone can show.
After all, the Atlantic and the other oceans were made by the Great
Designer as barriers between separate continents, and although we speak
of them casually as rather of the nature of a herring-pond, and build
our big ships to act as ferries, yet are we not flying in the face of
Nature, and asking for trouble? In the fight between Man and Nature, it
is fairly plain on which side victory will eventually come, in spite of
a series of clever dodges which throughout history man has conceived
and put into practice for outwitting her. You can fool her very well
in many ways for part of the time; but you cannot do this for ever
in every sphere. When we read of fine, handsome, well-found modern
liners going astray in the broad ocean, or of excellent, capable little
cross-channel steamships foundering between port and port, without
any living witnesses to tell how it all happened, we have a reminder
that the ways of man are clever beyond all words, but that Nature is
cleverer still. What the future of the steamship will be no one can
tell. Already ship-builders profess themselves capable of turning out
a monster up to 1,000 feet in length. But whether this will come about
depends on the courage of the great steamship lines, the state of the
financial barometer, and any improvements and inventions which the
marine engineer may introduce in the meantime. Perhaps the future rests
not with the steam, but the gas engine: we cannot say. It is sufficient
that we have endeavoured to show what a century and but little longer
has done in that short time for the steamship. Sufficient for the
century is the progress thereof.
CHAPTER VIII
SMALLER OCEAN CARRIERS AND CROSS-CHANNEL STEAMERS
Although it is true, as I have already pointed out, that the North
Atlantic has been the cockpit wherein the great steamship competition
has been fought out, yet it is not to that ocean alone that all the
activity has been confined. Because of the limitations which the Suez
Canal imposes it is not possible to build steamships for the Eastern
routes of such enormous tonnage as are customary for the North American
passages.
In the course of our story we have seen the beginnings of the principal
steamship companies trading not merely to the west, but in many other
spheres. In tracing the history of steamship companies as distinct
from that of the steamship herself, we are immediately confronted with
difficulties, for the company may be older than steamships of any
sort; or, again, the company may be of comparatively modern origin,
yet from the first possessed of the finest steamships, of a character
surpassing their contemporaries. For instance, one of the very oldest
lines is the Bibby Line to Rangoon. This was founded as far back as
1807, yet it was not until 1851 that it adopted steam. The White Star
Line, as we have seen, was previously composed of sailing vessels, and
its first steamship, the _Oceanic_, did not appear until 1870, but
when she did make her appearance, she surpassed anything else afloat
by her superior virtues. To take, therefore, a chronological survey
of the establishment of the steamship organisations would be to
convey nothing satisfactory to us in our study of the evolution of the
steamship, but nevertheless, we may pertinently set forth some of the
more venerable but no less active steamship lines of the present day.
[Illustration: THE “MOOLTAN.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam
Navigation Co._]
In addition to those already mentioned whose coming certainly was
intimately connected with the evolution of the steamship, we might
mention Messrs. George Thompson and Company’s Aberdeen Line, which at
one time was famous for its fine fleet of sailing ships. This line was
established in 1824, the year of incorporation of the General Steam
Navigation Co. Six years later the Harrison Line arose, though the
Allan Line, which dates back to 1820, did not run its first steamer
until 1854. The well-known Hull firm of Messrs. Thomas Wilson and
Sons appeared in 1835, and the African Steamship Company three years
earlier. In 1849 the City Line, now amalgamated with the Ellerman
Line, was founded, as also were Messrs. Houlder Brothers. The Anchor
Line came in 1852, and the Castle Mail Packets Company, which is now
amalgamated with the Union Line to form the Union-Castle Line. The
British East India Company dates from 1855, and the Donaldson Line
a year earlier. The year 1856 saw the inauguration of Messrs. J. T.
Rennie and Sons’ Aberdeen Line to South Africa, and in 1866 the Booth
Line was first started, whilst the Collins Line had been formed in
1850, the Inman Line the same year, the North German Lloyd in 1858,
the Compagnie Transatlantique in 1861, the National Line in 1863, and
the Guion Line (originally Williams and Guion) in 1866. Some of the
last-mentioned are now extinct, and have been dealt with in another
chapter. Within the last few months the P. and O. Company have absorbed
the Lund Line, and the shipping interests of the late Sir Alfred
Jones have been consolidated by Lord Pirrie, whose name is so well
known by his close connection with the firm of Harland and Wolff.
During 1910 another Atlantic service was inaugurated by the appearance
of the Royal Line, which the Canadian Northern Railway Company is
running between Bristol and the Dominion. Their two ships the _Royal
Edward_ and the _Royal George_ were originally built under different
names for an express service between Marseilles and Alexandria, but
that venture was not found profitable. They have recently been modified
to suit the North Atlantic route and are representative of the finest
examples of the modern steamship, though not so large as the biggest
liners. Propelled by turbines driving triple screws, they have all the
luxury of the most up-to-date ships, with lifts, wireless telegraphy,
special dining-room for children, cafés and many other up-to-date
features. The Royal Line is thus another instance of a new steamship
organisation stepping right into the front rank at the first effort.
If it is alleged that some of the older lines engaged on the South
Atlantic and Eastern routes have not shown that same progressive
spirit which the North Atlantic companies have exhibited, at least
recent ships have shown that everything is being done which can be
expected, short of reaching the mammoth dimensions of the Atlantic
liners. Passengers voyaging to Australia, India, South Africa, and
South America, for example, realise that they are destined to remain
at sea for a long period, and the question of the utmost speed is not
of primary importance. Owing partly to the American spirit of speed
and the much shorter distance which separates the two continents, the
voyage between England and New York has become rather an elongated
channel passage than a journey in which one settles oneself down for
weeks, and the incentives to make it shorter still are never for a
moment wanting.
The recent additions to the P. and O. fleet are indicative that
progress is not confined to any one route. A new epoch in the history
of this company began when the first of their “M” class was added.
Reckoning them historically from 1903 these are the _Moldavia_,
_Marmora_, _Mongolia_, _Macedonia_, _Mooltan_, _Malwa_, _Mantua_, and
the _Morea_. The smallest of these, the _Moldavia_, is of 9,500 tons;
the largest are the last three mentioned, which are of 11,000 tons, and
though wireless telegraphy has not played the same conspicuous part as
on the Atlantic, yet this is now being installed in all the P. and O.
mail steamers on the Bombay and Australian routes. Two new steamers,
also of the “M” class, are being built, to be called respectively the
_Medina_ and the _Maloja_, which will be thus fitted. It is no doubt
owing to the slowness with which Australia, India, and Ceylon have
adopted land installations that a corresponding reluctance has been
found in the case of the steamships to adopt what is so significant
a feature of the modern steamship. The illustration facing page 216
shows one of this “M” class, the _Mooltan_, coming to her berth in the
Tilbury Dock, whilst the opposite illustration will afford some idea of
the starting platform in her engine room. Her measurements are: length
520·4 feet, beam 58·3 feet, and depth 33·2 feet; her tonnage is 9,621,
with an indicated horse-power of 15,000. She was built in 1905 by
Messrs. Caird and Company, of Greenock. It was owing to the increase in
size of the new P. and O. ships that the comparatively recent transfer
was made of the company’s mail and passenger steamers from the Royal
Albert Dock to Tilbury.
[Illustration: THE STARTING PLATFORM IN THE ENGINE ROOM OF THE
“MOOLTAN.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam
Navigation Co._]
The Union-Castle fleet is composed partly of those ships which
belonged at the time of amalgamation to the old Castle Line, and
partly of those which were of the Union Line. In addition to these,
new steamships have been since brought out to swell the list. The
depression in South Africa consequent on the Boer War necessitated
a careful consideration before the addition of other mail steamers,
but the _Balmoral Castle_ (_see_ opposite page 220), which was
completed in 1910, and her sister the _Edinburgh Castle_, are the
largest and most powerful vessels employed in the South African trade.
This _Balmoral Castle_ has a gross tonnage of about 13,000, with an
indicated horse-power of 12,500, and is fitted with twin-screws.
Fitted, of course, with water-tight bulkheads and cellular bottom,
every modern improvement has been taken advantage of in her internal
arrangement with regard to the service for which she was built. The
_Balmoral Castle_ has a deck space larger than that usually given in
this line, the first and second class having practically the whole of
the boat deck; whilst by joining the poop and promenade deck the third
class have their deck space doubled. She is installed with the modern
loud-speaking telephones between the bridge and engine-room and the
extremities of the ship. Wireless telegraphy has not been installed,
but a room has been specially built and equipped if it is decided
hereafter to adopt this apparatus. On the fore-mast head a Morse
signalling lamp has been placed for long distance signalling, and a
semaphore after the Admiralty pattern on the bridge for short distance
signalling. She is propelled by two sets of quadruple-expansion
engines, and has ten boilers.
The White Star Line, in addition to their regular mail and passenger
service across the North Atlantic, have three special freight and
live-stock steamers--viz. the _Georgic_, of 10,077 tons, the _Cevic_
of 8,301 tons, and the _Bovic_ of 6,583 tons--all of these having
twin-screws. Besides these they possess four ships engaged on the New
Zealand route, five on the Australian trade, besides two smaller ships
for freight.
We have already mentioned the _Ivernia_ and _Saxonia_ as belonging to
the intermediate, economical types which the Cunard Company own in
addition to their bigger liners. They also carry on a Mediterranean
service from New York to Gibraltar, the Italian and Adriatic ports,
to Algiers and Alexandria. The North German Lloyd Company also own a
number of smaller steamships employed in intermediate service to ports
other than those served by their fast liners, the largest being of
about 6,000 tons.
The American Line, which was formerly the old Inman organisation, own
besides the _Philadelphia_, already discussed, the _New York_, the
_St. Louis_, and _St. Paul_, but the last two, each being only 11,629
tons, are the largest of their small fleet. Besides the Anchor and the
Allan Lines and the new Royal Line the Canadian Pacific Railway now
maintains a long connection by steamship and railway from Liverpool
right away to Hong Kong through Canada. The _Empress of Britain_, with
her quadruple-expansion engines and twin-screws, is one of the finest
steamships on the Canadian route.
[Illustration: THE “BALMORAL CASTLE.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Union-Castle Mail Steamship
Co._]
We could continue to deal singly with all the steamship lines which
have now sprung into existence, with the fine ships of the Atlantic
Transport Line, whose _Minnehaha_, in the spring of 1910, had the
misfortune to run on to the Scillies during her voyage from America
to this country. We might instance the Holt Line, the Nelson Line,
and other enterprising organisations, but such matter would hardly
come within the scope of our subject, which shows the manner in which
the steamship has developed into so useful an institution. Since we
have now been able to witness the manner in which the steamship has
been adapted for service across the deep, wide ocean, let us, before
we close this chapter, take a glance at the way in which she has
also become so indispensable for those shorter but no less important
cross-channel passages.
[Illustration: THE “CAMBRIA” (1848).
_From a Painting. By Permission of the London & North Western Railway._]
[Illustration: ENGINES OF THE “LEINSTER” (1860).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
At an earlier stage we saw that the cross-channel steamship service
owed its inauguration almost exclusively to that shrewd Scotsman,
Napier, who, after devoting a great amount of patient study to the
subject, evolved the _Rob Roy_. But we must not omit to give credit
also to others whose work in this connection has been of such historic
importance. From about the second decade of the eighteenth century
there had been a service between Holyhead and Dublin, carried on by
means of sailing packets, as there was, indeed, between Scotland and
Ireland, as well as England and the Continent. Then had come the first
steam service when the _Talbot_, of 156 tons, built in 1818 at Port
Glasgow, for David Napier, began running in the following year between
Holyhead and Dublin. In 1819, also, was inaugurated the Liverpool and
Dublin service, and in 1823 one of the oldest steamship companies
still in existence, the Dublin Steam Packet Company, was formed. It
must be recollected that the journey between London and Dublin was a
long and tedious one, for there was no railway, and considerable sums
of money were expended in order to improve the road between Holyhead
and the English capital. The sailing packets took on the average about
twenty hours to cross the Irish Channel. The _Royal William_, already
alluded to when we discussed the first Atlantic steamers, was one of
the early steamships of this City of Dublin fleet. In 1836, when George
Stephenson proposed the construction of the Chester and Holyhead
Railway, he intended that the company should also provide ships between
the latter port and Ireland, but the various steamship companies
opposed this until 1848. The London to Liverpool railway was opened in
1838, and so, since the Liverpool to Dublin route was the quickest way
to get from London to Ireland, Holyhead was given the cold shoulder for
the next ten years. But when the continuous railway was opened between
London and Holyhead, the popularity of the Welsh port returned, and
the directors and principal shareholders of the Chester and Holyhead
Company, who had formed themselves into a small independent company,
ordered four new vessels, the _Cambria_, the _Anglia_, the _Hibernia_,
and the _Scotia_. Of these the first is illustrated herewith. These
ships were 207 feet long, 26 feet wide, and 14 feet deep, with a
draught of 8 feet 10 inches. They had a gross tonnage of 589, carried
535 passengers, and possessed the remarkable speed of 14 knots.
Instead of the slow passages of the old sailing packets these four
ships lowered the average voyage to 3 hours 34 minutes. In 1859 this
Chester-Holyhead railway was amalgamated with the London and North
Western Railway, and in 1863 the latter introduced a new type of craft,
with the same speed as before, but of 700 tons. Both a day and a night
service were presently instituted, and this service has continued to
be one of the most efficient and the fastest of all the cross-channel
ferries from this country. Of four new vessels which were built for
the Holyhead-Kingstown service in 1860 we may mention the _Leinster_.
She was a large vessel for those times, with a displacement of 2,000
tons, and constructed of iron. The illustration facing this page shows
a capital model of her engines, which were of the oscillating type, and
since we have previously described this kind it is hardly necessary
to deal with them now, further than to remark that they gave the ship a
speed of nearly 18 knots.
Coming now further south, it will be remembered that Napier’s _Rob
Roy_, which had first plied between Greenock and Belfast in 1818, was
in the following year transferred to the Dover and Calais route, and
was thus the first regular steamship to open the mail and passenger
service between these ports. This was followed for a long time by
other steam “ferries,” some of which were Government mail packets, and
others were privately owned. The General Steam Navigation Company,
which had been formed in 1820, and commenced its steam coastal trade,
was not long before it had inaugurated a service between London and
Hamburg, and by 1847 it had steamships running between London and the
following ports:--Hamburg, Rotterdam, Ostend, Leith, Calais, Havre,
as well as from Brighton to Dieppe, and Dover to Boulogne. These were
all paddle-steamers until the screw was introduced in 1854. In April
of 1844 their paddle-steamer _Menai_ was advertised to leave Shoreham
Harbour, calling at Brighton Chain Pier--or rather Brighthelmstone, as
it was then still known--and thence proceeding to Dieppe. She was thus
the first channel steamer to run between these places.
It was not until the old stage-coach had given way to the railroad that
the numbers of travellers between England and the Continent increased.
By June of 1843 the South Eastern Railway had reached Folkestone, and
in February of the following year it had also joined Dover. The London,
Chatham, and Dover Line was of later date, and did not reach Dover
until 1860, where they were able to put to the best use their capable
fleet of passenger boats which steamed to Calais. But in 1845 the
South Eastern Railway had, like the Chester and Holyhead Line, formed
themselves into a separate company, to run a line of steam packets,
owing to the fact that the successors to the _Rob Roy_ were deemed
unsatisfactory, and endless objections were made by the complaining
passengers who reluctantly crossed the choppy waters of the English
Channel. Previous to this date the South Eastern Railway were wont
to hire steamships to carry their passengers between England and the
Continent to Boulogne, Calais, and Ostend. When their line had joined
up Dover they started running from there to Calais with their own
boats in two hours, twenty-eight minutes, calling at Folkestone on the
way for twenty-eight minutes. The first of these steamboats were the
_Princess Maud_ and the _Princess Mary_. The run from Dover to Ostend
took four and a half hours.
In 1848 the Admiralty, which had been responsible for the steam mail
packets service (as also we have seen earlier in this book they had
charge of the transatlantic mails), handed over their charge to the
Post Office. But neither of these Governmental branches was able to
make a success of this, and after a time the Post Office withdrew
their mail packets and in 1854 put the carrying out to contract. A
Mr. Churchyard was accepted as the contractor, and his agreement
continued until 1862. It will be recollected that two years previous
to the latter date the London, Chatham and Dover Company had connected
their line to Dover, and they obtained the contract in succession to
Churchyard for carrying the mails from Dover to Calais. At the same
time the South Eastern Railway Company withdrew their steamboat service
to Folkestone. It should be mentioned that the General Steam Navigation
Company had also withdrawn from this route owing to the competition on
the part of the railway companies, who were in a superior position by
being able to run their passengers on both their own railways and their
own steamboats.
The general character of these early cross-channel steam-craft was
very similar to that of the _Cambria_. Some of the steamboats employed
on this Dover-Calais route have been marked by the possession of
exceptional features. It was in 1875 that the _Bessemer_ was designed
with the object of making the dreaded passage across the Straits of
Dover less disagreeable and free from the infliction of sea-sickness.
To this end she was given a unique apparatus which was to swing with
the motion of the vessel, and in such a manner that the passengers
would always be kept on a level, however much the ship might roll.
She was built double-ended, so that she would not have to be turned
round when she reached the French port. But emphatically she resulted
in a complete failure, for not only was this ingenious deck found to
be unworkable, and had to be fixed, but the _Bessemer_ collided with
Calais Pier, and succeeded in knocking away about fifty yards thereof.
[Illustration: THE “ATALANTA” (1841).
_From a Painting. By permission of the London and South Western Railway
Co._]
[Illustration: THE “LYONS” (1856).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE “EMPRESS” LEAVING DOVER HARBOUR.
_From a Photograph. By permission of the South Eastern and Chatham
Railway Co._]
Another ingenious vessel on this service was the _Castalia_. She was a
twin-ship composed of a couple of hulls. Those who crossed in her about
the year 1876 found her very comfortable, and she was so steady that
comparatively few of her passengers were sea-sick, but her drawback
was that she was not fast. The genesis of this double-hulled ship was
in order to obtain greater steadiness, and the experiment was first
tried by fastening two Woolwich steamers together, having first removed
the inside paddle-wheels. Following up this, the same principle was
exemplified in a ship called the _Express_, which had been constructed
for a firm that became financially embarrassed, and she was accordingly
taken over instead by the owners of the _Castalia_, and became
the famous _Calais-Douvres_, which most of my readers will well
remember. She was certainly a fast ship, but her life was not devoid
of adventures. In May, 1878, she collided with Dover Pier through her
steering-gear going wrong, her main engines having previously broken
down. She was subsequently repaired and did well until 1887, when, worn
out by active service, she was withdrawn, having proved an expensive
boat to run, and obtained an unenviable reputation for a large coal
consumption. The _Castalia_ was withdrawn in 1878, and became a
floating small-pox hospital on the Thames, where she remained for about
twenty years, and was finally towed therefrom to Dordrecht by one of
that fleet of Dutch tugs which we shall mention in a later chapter as
being famous for the towage of big docks. In the course of time new
and improved Channel steamers continued to be put on this Dover-Calais
route, and in 1899 an amalgamation of interests owned by the South
Eastern and the London, Chatham and Dover Railways took place, so that
now the two fleets are under one management. Within recent years they
have shown a very enterprising spirit by leading the way in placing
turbine steamers on their route, and the illustration on the opposite
page shows their turbine steamer _Empress_ clearing out of Dover
Harbour. In general character we may take the appearance of this vessel
as typical of the more modern cross-channel steamers which now ply
also on other routes owned by the various railway companies. The fine
service of steamboats, for instance, possessed by the Great Western,
Great Eastern, the Midland, the London and North Western, the Great
Central, and the London and South Western consists rather of miniature
liners of a very up-to-date type. Not merely wireless telegraphy and
turbines have been introduced into the cross-channel steamers, but
every conceivable regard for the comfort of the passengers has been
taken commensurate with the size of the ships, and the special work
which they are called upon to perform.
We have addressed ourselves especially to the services between Dover
and Calais and between Holyhead and Dublin, for, owing to their
geographical character, these two are naturally the most important and
the most historic. The custom of railways being owners of steamships
has continued, the chief exception being the Great Northern Railway.
The Newhaven to Dieppe route is of comparatively modern origin, and
it was not until 1847 that the London to Newhaven line was completed.
During the following year there were three steamers running to Dieppe
from this port, but at first the London, Brighton and South Coast
Railway was thwarted owing to legal difficulties, and properly their
service dates from 1856, for at one time they were compelled to run
a service under different ownership from their own. The model shown
opposite page 226 shows the packet steamer _Lyons_, which was built in
1856 for the Newhaven-Dieppe service. She was a paddle-boat of 315 tons
displacement.
Between England and the Channel Isles connection in the pre-steamship
days was kept up by sailing cutters. After that the Admiralty conveyed
the mails from Weymouth to Jersey and Guernsey by ships of the Royal
Navy, and one of these--the _Dasher_--was until recent years employed
in watching the oyster fisheries off Jersey. But in 1835 a steam packet
service was started from Southampton to Havre, twice a week, and
between the Hampshire port and the Channel Islands, which was owned
by the South of England Steam Navigation Company, while a rival came
forward in the British and Foreign Steam Navigation Company, which ran
to the Channel Isles. One of the earliest steamers belonging to the
former company was the _Atalanta_, of which we give an illustration
opposite page 226. She was afterwards lengthened, and as thus altered
she appears in our illustration. Her days were ended as a coal hulk in
Jersey.
From 1838 to 1845 the mail service between England and the Channel
Isles was carried on from Weymouth, but in the latter year this service
was transferred to the South Western Steam Packet Company, and remained
exclusively with the Southampton steamers until 1899, when the joint
running of the Channel Islands service by the steamers of the London
and South Western from Southampton, and of the Great Western Railway
from Weymouth, once more caused mails also to be carried from Weymouth.
It was in the year 1860 that the South Western Railway, following
the prevailing custom, took over their fleet from the South Western
Steam Packet Company, and under the railway ownership this service has
continued ever since. The origin of the Weymouth service was on this
wise. An opposition company had been floated by the Channel Islands
merchants under the title of the Weymouth and Channel Islands Steam
Packet Company, and this continued until 1888, when the service was
taken up by the Great Western Railway Company. For a time the keenest
competition between the two railway companies as steamship owners
continued, but after eleven years an amicable arrangement was come to
whereby they agreed to work a joint service, which agreement is still
in force. To-day, notwithstanding the losses which have been sustained
by sad disasters involving loss of life, notably the memorable instance
of the _Stella_, which foundered on the Casquets in March, 1899, this
fleet is able to keep up an uninterrupted service carrying passengers,
mails, and freight, whilst during the summer season extra cargo
steamers have to be put on for the conveyance of the big potato trade,
fruit and flowers. These vessels, by reason of their route, cannot be
expected always to avoid accidents. Those who know the treacherous
character of the Channel Islands coast-line, and the continuous stream
of traffic which is going up and down the English Channel, will readily
appreciate what it means to take a small steamship from port to port
in thick weather. It was only in April of 1910 that one of the London
and South Western Railway boats, the _Laura_, while on her way from
Southampton to Cherbourg, collided when about twenty miles south of
the Needles, with a Norwegian sailing vessel named the _Sophie_, bound
up channel from South America to Hamburg. Here again the wireless
telegraph gear came in useful, for it chanced that the Royal Mail
Liner _Asturias_ was in the vicinity, and she at once telegraphed for
assistance. These Channel Islands steamers all carry sufficient coal
for the voyage there and back, with an additional amount adequate for
all ordinary contingencies. From Southampton also the same owners carry
on a steamboat service to Havre, Cherbourg, Honfleur, Roscoff, and St.
Malo; while from Jersey to St. Malo and from Jersey to Granville two
twin-screw steamers are employed.
Between Harwich and the Hook of Holland, the Great Eastern Railway
keep up an important steamship connection, and employ in their ships
not merely wireless telegraphy, but the submarine signalling which
is mentioned as being a characteristic of the modern Atlantic liner.
Their turbine steamer, the _St. Petersburg_--a sister ship to the same
company’s _Munich_ and _Copenhagen_--which was only put into active
service in 1910, began a steamship connection that is carried on
entirely by turbine craft. It is, indeed, owing to the advent of the
turbine that the notable improvements in our cross-channel steamers
have been made within the last few years. Not only has this system
obtained for the ships a greater popularity because of the absence of
vibration, but it has also enabled the owners to avail themselves of
the greater accommodation for cargo and passengers, as well as giving
greater speed to the ships under economical conditions of working.
One of the most notable cross-channel steamers is the Isle of Man Steam
Packet Company’s _Ben-my-Chree_, which can do 25 knots per hour and
carry 2,500 passengers. On this route the turbine has very decidedly
justified itself also. A breakdown causing the disablement of the
turbine steamer is as yet unknown, and it is worth noting that from
the now celebrated Channel steamer _Queen_, a turbine steamer of only
8,000 horse-power, which was ordered only as recently as the year
1900, to the _Mauretania_, with her 70,000 horse-power, is a step that
shows how thoroughly satisfactory the turbine has proved itself in so
short a space of time. In the case of a liner a breakdown is a serious
enough item, but in the case of a channel steamer it is an occurrence
of sufficiently grave a nature as to be guarded against with every
precaution. The chances of a shaft breaking in the case of a turbine
steamer are very remote, and will probably continue to be so, with the
steady nature of the working of the turbine, the worst likely accident
being the breaking of one of the many blades.
Moreover, the turbine has proved that it gives increased reliability
to the steamship, which, in the case of the short cross-channel
voyages, is a matter that cannot lightly be regarded. In the case of
the _Ben-my-Chree_ just mentioned, the mean time in performing the
distance from Liverpool Bar lightship to Douglas Head differed only by
a minute in one season from that of the previous year, a fact that is
highly significant. It is the time that is wasted in manœuvring to get
alongside the quay and clearing away that detracts from the smartness
of the voyage, although in this connection it may be stated that bow
rudders are in use in certain cross-channel craft in order to enable
this manœuvre to be accomplished with greater celerity.
It is curious how the channel service of a steamship line presents
difficulties and problems of its own no less than those demanded by the
ownership of ocean-going steamships. Obviously the short-voyage ship is
limited as to size. What she has to accomplish must be done quickly.
Not only must she get out of one harbour and into the other with the
greatest economy of time, but she must get up her full speed at once.
Then, again, owing to the demands of the passengers for special comfort
a great strain is put on the patience of those responsible, as well
as on the designer of the ship. Cross-channel steamers which have a
fairly long night passage require a good deal of their limited space
to be usurped by extra state-room accommodation, and the modern demand
for single-berthed cabins means rather more than the average passenger
realises. The figures work out something as follows in the case of a
four-berthed room the measurement of the space occupied comes to about
seven-eighths of a ton per passenger. In the single-berthed cabin it
becomes nearly two and a quarter tons per passenger. All this means
that the ship has less available space for earning her living, since
fewer passengers and less cargo can thus be carried.
Again, the passenger is spoiled nowadays. If a line has turbines and
wireless telegraphy, submarine bells, the latest conceivable luxury,
speed and other virtues, he is sufficiently well informed to appreciate
these things to the disadvantage of another service, scarcely less
efficient, but perhaps a little less advanced in accordance with
the very latest inventions and improvements. An old ship that has
done years of good service and earned a reputation for punctuality
and reliability has to be scrapped before her time just because a
rival service has held out the tempting bait of the latest steamship
features. On the other hand, there was room for an approach to be made
towards more satisfactory conditions. The short crossings on some of
the cross-channel steamers were in the past no unmixed joy. The bad
sea-boats which some of these proved themselves to be, driven at a
speed that made them vibrate from stem to stern, wet and generally
uncomfortable, badly ventilated and equally inefficiently lighted, they
certainly belonged to the days that are past. What the future has in
store this deponent knoweth not; but if the internal combustion engine
should ever become sufficiently popular for big ships, certainly in
no service is it likely to be more suitable than in the cross-channel
voyages, where speed is a vital consideration. But economy is equally
to be taken into account, if steamers are still to be regarded as
commercial, dividend-earning concerns, and not exclusively as objects
for the exercise of sentiment. We have, owing to the influences at work
everywhere, come to regard the virtue of speed as excelling everything
else. Whether this is deserving of all-powerful merit, or whether in
the future there may be a reaction and a desire to “go slow,” time
alone can tell. Perhaps such a condition might lead to an increased
tranquillity of life as a whole, but it would also put a brake on
progress generally, and on the steamship in particular.
CHAPTER IX
STEAMSHIPS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES
We have been enabled to gain some idea by now both of the nature and
the historical evolution of the steamship liner. But not all steamships
are liners, any more than all cattle are race-horses. Steamship is a
word which covers a multitude of varying craft and embraces a large
family of different natured children. Some of them go out into the
world far beyond the horizon and vanish until a few weeks or months
later they come returning homewards proud of their achievements as the
safe carriers of mails and passengers. But there are other members of
the same family whose duty keeps them close to the home where they
first saw the light; who rarely venture out of sight of land. There
are others who, though they never carry any passengers but their
crew, nor an ounce of cargo, are yet as useful to the human race
as those great speed-makers which go rushing through night and day
across the ocean. Some of these steamships used for special purposes
have a character of their own no less distinctive than their more
elegant sisters, and the mere fact that they are not so violently
advertised, or so prominently pushed before the eyes of the average
citizen, detracts nothing from their interesting virtues. Nor, again,
do we wish to give the impression that this large class of special
steamships is in any way entirely confined to coasting or inland
voyages. The steamship nowadays, both large and small, goes everywhere,
and is ready to do almost anything, and one of the most interesting of
all mechanically-propelled craft is the tug-boat, which it is quite
possible the landsman, promenading his floating hotel, may have barely
deigned to cast his eyes upon as his big steel home is being drawn out
from the quay, or landing-stage, and swung round on her way to the
other side of the world. How frequently indispensable is the tug to
the big steamship, both when entering and leaving the comparatively
narrow harbours! You see her at Southampton, for instance, pulling
the great steel hull away from the quay; you see her at Liverpool
hauling ahead to get the mighty, towering bows of the liner clear of
the landing-stage out into the river. You see them in New York when
the mammoth comes to enter the narrow opening alongside the pier,
pressing their noses on to the mammoth’s stern and compelling her
giant dimensions to move round. Or, again, you see the tug towing her
overgrown sister through the dock at the end of her voyage, coming
slowly in as if she had captured one mightier than herself, and was
proudly conscious of her performance. Yet it is not only the big
steamships, but those beautiful modern steel sailing ships which have
to employ her help. You meet them down Channel somewhere with perhaps
only staysails and jigger set and a powerful tug ahead at the end of a
strong tow-rope. In a day or so they will have parted company. The tug
will return whence she set out; the bigger ship will spread her canvas
and begin her many-monthed voyage.
[Illustration: THE OCEAN TUG “BLACKCOCK.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Liverpool Screw Towing &
Lighterage Co._]
[Illustration: THE PASSENGER TENDER “SIR FRANCIS DRAKE.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Great Western Railway Co._]
It is possible that if you were not a sailorman, and your eyes chanced
to fall upon such a ship as that illustrated opposite this page,
whether in harbour or at sea, you might feel no more interest in her
than in any other craft. And yet this is a little vessel which can
go anywhere and tow almost anything from a great floating dock to a
disabled liner. Her name is the _Blackcock_, and she is one of
the famous, powerful tugs owned by the Liverpool Screw Towing and
Lighterage Company. Captain G. B. Girard, who commands the _Blackcock_,
has been aptly termed the “Grand Old Man” of deep-sea towing, and
during the last quarter of a century has covered 200,000 miles over
the seas at this work. Quite recently he took the _Blackcock_ to Fayal
in mid-Atlantic to fetch over to Oporto a dismasted Portuguese barque.
In spite of stiff breezes and heavy cross seas, the _Blackcock_ and
her tow made an average of 160 miles per day. It was this same tug
which set up an interesting record some years ago by steaming 2,600
miles from Barbados to Fayal without having to stop for coal anywhere.
She was towing a 2,000-ton German ship, named the _Ostara_, from
Barbados to Hamburg, a distance of 5,000 miles altogether. In 1894, the
_Gamecock_, a sister of this tug, towed a disabled steamer from Port
Said to Liverpool, a distance of 3,300 miles, in twenty-seven days. The
_Blackcock_ took an important part in towing from Fayal to Liverpool
the Cunard liner _Etruria_, which had been disabled, and caused the
greatest anxiety in consequence of her being lost sight of for so
long a period with hundreds of passengers aboard at the time. This
towing voyage represented a distance of a couple of thousand miles,
and there are many other equally wonderful incidents connected with
these well-known “Cock” tugs. If the reader will bear in mind what we
said some time back with reference to the origin of the bridge deck,
he will be able to see the point well-illustrated in the illustration
before us. The bridge deck and its sides are joined to the ship’s hull
in such a way that in the case of the tug being attacked by a cross-sea
she is not likely to founder through the water getting down below to
the engines, as in the sad incident that we chronicled at an earlier
stage. These tug-boats are necessarily exceptionally powerful, the
_Blackcock_ having over 1,000 horse-power.
But it is the Dutch, for some reason or other, who have specialised
more than any other country in the towing industry, and they own the
largest and finest tugs in the world. The reason for this national
development I attribute partly to the nature of the coastline
between Germany and France, with its series of nasty sandbanks and
shoals always ready to pick a ship up; partly, also, to the numerous
straightways with frequently a foul wind. In either case there is
plenty of opportunity for the tug to go out and earn a living.
[Illustration: THE 7,000 TON FLOATING DRY-DOCK UNDER TOW BY THE “ROODE
ZEE” AND “ZWARTE ZEE.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. L. Smit & Co., Rotterdam._]
The finest fleet of ocean-going tugs is owned by Messrs. L. Smit and
Company, of Rotterdam. Besides about a score of river and harbour
craft, they have no fewer than ten bold ocean-tugs, which by reason of
their high power and large bunker capacity are enabled to undertake
towages to almost any part of the world. When the _Mauretania_ left
the Tyne for her trial trip this company’s tugs, the _Ocean_ and the
_Poolzee_, had her in tow at the bows. Tugs of this line have also
accomplished such interesting long voyages as towing floating dry-docks
from the Tyne to Trinidad; an obsolete Spanish warship from Ferrol
to Swinemünde; the s.s. _Kronprinzessin Victoria_ from Las Palmas to
Antwerp, after the liner had lost her propeller. When the old Inman
liner _City of Rome_ was put aside, she was towed by the tug _Zwarte
Zee_ from Greenock round to the Weser. The illustration facing this
page shows the tugs _Roode Zee_ and the _Zwarte Zee_ taking in tow an
enormous floating dock, capable of holding vessels up to 7,000 tons,
from Wallsend on Tyne to Callao (Peru). To tow so unwieldy a thing as
this for any distance at all is a pretty severe tax on a tug; but to
take it all the way to Peru on the west coast of South America is about
the utmost test which the most severe critic could ever impose. The
distance is 10,260 nautical miles. One of the largest and most modern
of this line’s tugs is the _Zwarte Zee_, which was launched in 1906.
She resembles very closely the _Roode Zee_, seen in the foreground of
the accompanying picture, and measures 164 feet long, 30 feet wide,
18 feet deep, and has the extraordinary high horse-power (indicated)
of 1,500. It will be noticed that, like the _Blackcock_, she is well
protected by her bridge deck amidships.
The sturdy little vessel illustrated opposite page 238 shows the
salvage tug _Admiral de Ruyter_. She is owned by the Ymuiden Tug
Company, Amsterdam, and is stationed at Ymuiden in readiness to render
assistance to vessels in distress off the treacherous Dutch coast. She
is capable of facing any weather, and her high bows and bold sheer
enable her to keep fairly dry in even a pretty bad sea. An interesting
comparison will be seen between this and the _Edmund Moran_. This
represents a typical New York harbour and river tug. No one who has
ever come into the American sea-port can have failed to have been
struck instantly by the numbers of fussy little tug-boats of a peculiar
type that come running up and down the Hudson and across from the New
Jersey shore to the great city. Their prominent features include a good
deal of sheer, an exaggerated bridge deck with wheel-house in front, at
the top of which is usually a golden spread-eagle. In the winter-time,
when thick ice-floes obstruct the Hudson and the bitter cold penetrates
into the little wheel-house, there are more comfortable though less
exciting avocations than those enjoyed by the commanders of these busy
steam craft, which now carry on their work in such numbers where
little more than a century ago Fulton’s _Clermont_ was scorned and
ridiculed by those who never thought that the river and harbour would
ever see such steam-shipping.
But the tug-boat has in some cases been enlarged, and super-imposed by
a promenade deck, and even given a saloon so as to become a passenger
tender. The illustration opposite page 234, for instance, shows this
evolution. This is the _Sir Francis Drake_, one of the passenger
tenders owned by the Great Western Railway Company, and, since the
opening of Fishguard Harbour for the calling of Atlantic liners, this
vessel has been employed for landing the _Mauretania’s_ and other great
ships’ passengers without wasting time. The liner comes into harbour
from America, lets go her anchor, and immediately after there come
alongside her three of these tenders. One takes the mails as they are
shot on to her deck, another receives the baggage, while the third is
used for passengers; this third tender is also the last to leave the
liner, so that when the passengers get ashore they find their baggage
already awaiting them at the Customs platform. In the olden days the
tug was a wheezy old lady lacking the smallest attempt at smartness,
and exceedingly slow. Her hull was of wood and clinker built, her
paddle-wheels gave to her a very moderate speed, and her accommodation
was chiefly non-existent. But to-day, as the _Sir Francis Drake_ shows,
she has developed in some cases into practically an Atlantic liner in
miniature.
[Illustration: THE SALVAGE TUG “ADMIRAL DE RUYTER.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Ymuiden Tug Co., Amsterdam._]
[Illustration: THE NEW YORK HARBOUR AND RIVER TUG BOAT “EDMUND MORAN.”]
But although the screw-propeller has ousted the paddle-wheel in very
many instances, yet this has been by no means universal. The advantage
which the older method possesses is that it can work in less water
than the screw needs for its revolutions. In certain harbours, for
instance, and shallow rivers--especially in those extreme cases where
it is weedy--the paddle-wheel steamer is still pursuing its useful
work. It is therefore not unnatural that the tug should in many cases
be paddle-driven. The illustration facing page 240 shows one of these
paddle-tugs of a fairly modern date. She is owned by the British
Admiralty. The _Dromedary_, as she is called, is well known among the
Portsmouth craft, and just as the tug is employed for helping liners
out of port, so the Admiralty use the _Dromedary_ for assisting such
leviathans as the modern _Dreadnoughts_ out of Portsmouth harbour, and
rendering assistance in berthing in a harbour where the tides are very
strong and the water is considerably crowded.
We referred in a preceding chapter to the serious difficulty which,
owing to the gradual increase of the modern steamships, is felt in
certain ports. New York harbour had to be dredged before it could
accommodate the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ with safety. Liverpool’s
depth of water is such that the two Cunarders can only enter during
twelve hours out of the twenty-four. Fishguard has had to be dredged,
whilst Southampton has been, and will need it again. In a smaller
degree most ports need constant dredging, otherwise local conditions
combine to silt up the navigation channel. Now all this is carried
out by specially designed steamships, which, like other vessels, have
gradually been increasing to enormous sizes. We might divide dredgers
into two classes--the “bucket” dredger, and the “suction” dredger. The
illustration facing page 240 gives an excellent idea of the former.
This is the _Peluse_, the largest sea-going bucket-dredger in the
world. She was built by Messrs. Lobnitz and Company, Limited, of
Renfrew, for employment on the Suez Canal.
There is nothing in the least beautiful about this type of steamship.
Ugly to look upon, splashed all over with mud and sand, covered with
machinery and unsightly erections, they are sisters of toil to the
ships of beauty. They “bring up” in a harbour or channel, and set
their series of buckets dredging away to increase the depth. These
buckets are readily seen coming down from a height in the centre of the
ship. They are revolved by an endless chain, and the ship is cut open
longitudinally to allow them to work.
It will be noticed that since the rudder, if placed in its accustomed
place in the centre line of the hull, would be in the way, it has been
duplicated and placed on either side of the stern. After the dredger
has taken aboard her full cargo of mud from the sea-bottom she proceeds
to the deep sea, and there discharges her contents through doors placed
in the bottom of the hull, though sometimes she may discharge the
mud into barges brought alongside. It will be seen that the _Peluse_
has been very efficiently protected against any damage which might
be inflicted by another vessel coming alongside her. These vessels
are given very powerful machinery, which drives both the propellers
and the dredging apparatus, an arrangement allowing the latter to be
connected with the main engines. The most modern example of this type
has triple-expansion engines and twin-screws, so that she is entitled
to more respect than her unwelcome appearance might suggest.
[Illustration: THE PADDLE-TUG “DROMEDARY.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE BUCKET-DREDGER “PELUSE.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Lobnitz & Co., Ltd._]
The suction-dredger, on the other hand, as its name signifies, does not
scoop up the sand, but sucks it up into her holds through pipes which
reach down to the bed of the river or estuary. The largest of these
is well-named, and is illustrated opposite page 242. This represents
the _Leviathan_, which is owned by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board,
Liverpool, and it is through her work that the river is able to
be maintained in a navigable condition. This voracious animal sucks
up sand at the rate of 10,000 tons in less than an hour, by means of
centrifugal pumps, and when loaded with this heavy cargo steams out to
sea at a speed of ten knots, and then by means of doors discharges the
sand through her bottom. The doors are worked by means of hydraulic
machinery. She herself is propelled by four sets of triple-expansion
engines, which also work the centrifugal pumps. We can get some idea of
the size of this dredger when we remark that her enormous length of 500
feet makes her as long as the _Etruria_.
The owners of the _Leviathan_ are also the proprietors of the ship
shown in our next illustration. This, the _Vigilant_, is seen alongside
the crane in the Herculaneum Dock, Liverpool. The Dock and Harbour
Boards are practically local Trinity House brethren, though totally
independent bodies. Just as the Trinity House authorities have the
upkeep of the light-houses and lightships round the English coast, so
the Dock and Harbour Boards are charged with the duties of keeping the
local buoyage in efficient order for ensuring safe navigation into
and out of their ports and estuaries. Gas buoys have to be refilled
periodically, moorings have to be laid down afresh, and, in the case
of damage, replaced. Periodically these have, in any case, to be
brought ashore to be overhauled, repainted and then returned to their
duties, bobbing about to the ceaseless heave of the waves. For such
work as this the _Vigilant_ is employed. The illustration shows a gas
buoy being lowered on to her deck from the quay. Not very long ago an
out-going steamship from Liverpool fouled one of the Mersey buoys in
a curious manner. She was proceeding in such close proximity to the
latter that she actually caught her propeller in one of the mooring
chains, with, as may be expected, consequent damage.
[Illustration: THE SUCTION DREDGER “LEVIATHAN.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board._]
[Illustration: THE “VIGILANT.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board._]
The introduction of electricity and the invention of the telegraph
caused a new sphere of work for the steamship. For connecting land to
land across the sea, cables had to be laid, and for this purpose it was
thought at one time that any very large steamship would suffice. It
will be recollected that the unhappy _Great Eastern_ was thus employed
after she had given up running as an Atlantic passenger ship. Then
presently it was shown to be advisable to use specially designed ships
for this purpose. The illustration facing page 244 shows an interesting
little model of one of the older craft thus employed, the telegraph
steamer _Monarch_, a schooner-rigged, iron, screw vessel built at Port
Glasgow in 1883, for the Telegraph Department of the Post Office.
Enormous sheaves are fitted at the bows as fair-leads for the cable to
run out or for hauling it in. This particular ship was employed both in
laying and repairing submarine cables, and could carry enough fuel and
stores for six weeks’ work. She had a displacement of 2,135 tons, and
a single propeller driven by compound engines. The bow-sheave will be
easily discerned. An earlier telegraph ship was the _Medway_, launched
in 1865, and built originally for the Mediterranean trade, but she was
used in the following year to help the _Great Eastern_ in laying the
Atlantic cable. She carried the Newfoundland end of the cable after the
_Great Eastern_ had gone as near in to shore as she dared. The _Medway_
also carried 500 miles of cable in case the 2,730 miles which the
_Great Eastern_ had aboard should prove inadequate. Another converted
vessel, the _John Bowes_, was used in laying the cable from Dover to
Ostend, but modern telegraph ships have the dimensions and general
appearance of liners. The _Silvertown_, which was well-known on this
work, is still afloat and to be seen in the West India Dock, London.
Such modern cable-laying ships as the _Faraday_ are further supplied
with platforms which project from the side of the ship at the stern for
greater convenience in the work for which these vessels are intended.
As much as from three to four thousand sea-miles of telegraph cable
can be carried by some of these ships, which, in addition to the bow
fair-lead have a similar arrangement at the stern, and are supplied
with all necessary grappling apparatus in case a broken cable has to be
picked up.
[Illustration: THE TELEGRAPH STEAMER “MONARCH.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: DECK VIEW OF THE TELEGRAPH SHIP “FARADAY.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Siemens & Co._]
Another special type of steamship is the oil-tanker. Owing to the
nature of her cargo a steamship that carries oil is far more liable to
disaster through combustion than even a cotton-ship. Oil is carried not
in barrels, but in bulk. At one time it used to be carried by sailing
ships in barrels, but this meant that a great deal of trouble and
space were unnecessarily expended. The first tank steamer was built in
1886 by Sir W. G. Armstrong, Mitchell and Company. Carrying a cargo
of petroleum in bulk is obviously a fairly risky proceeding. Firstly,
there is the terrible risk of fire, more especially as the ship must
have engines and furnaces; but there is also the risk of the oil
obtaining a good deal of impetus, unless guarded against, as the ship
rolls. It can easily be understood that so considerable a weight moving
about in liquid form--a shifting cargo, in fact, of a peculiar type--is
likely to cause the gravest anxiety. The illustration facing page 246
will show to what trouble the designers and builders have been put in
order to devise a safe oil-carrier. This represents the interior of a
modern tank steamer built by Messrs. Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth
and Company, Limited, by whose courtesy this photograph of a model is
here reproduced. First of all, it will be seen that the whole of the
engines are placed aft, so as to be away from the dangerous oil. This
characteristic, however, has recently been departed from, and in some
ships the engines have been placed amidships, as in most steamships.
Of this we might instance the s.s. _Phœbus_, built by Messrs. David
J. Dunlop and Company, for the carrying of 9,000 tons of bulk oil. In
such cases as these it is essential to insert a long, oil-tight tunnel
which encloses the propeller shaft, but the drawback is that it takes
up a good deal of valuable space from the ship’s hold. The accompanying
illustration shows the holds divided up into a number of separate
compartments by means of oil-tight bulkheads, which are further
subdivided by a longitudinal bulkhead. But oil possesses the properties
of expansion and varies according to the prevailing temperature. It
is obvious, therefore, that room must be left for expansion. To meet
this, then, a long trunk or slit is left to allow the oil to expand,
so that after the ship has filled her holds to the proper height the
cargo may yet be allowed to become larger in bulk. The model before us
shows slits at the sides at the ’tween deck, so that this expansion
may take place. It will be recognised where the ladders lead down to
the holds beneath. These vessels carry powerful pumps, the oil being
taken on board and discharged by this means. Oil is also employed as
the ship’s fuel, and the boiler is kept as far away from the cargo as
possible, but in order to counteract the possibility of the oil getting
adrift and leaking into the after part of the ship, a separate small
compartment is also added, so as more completely to divide the hold
from the boiler and engines. This will be easily recognised in the
illustration. The other illustration facing page 246 shows a model
of the _Silverlip_, also with her engines placed well aft; but this,
with her derricks and her deck-houses, represents a larger and more
complex ship.
We come now to a type of steamship, which, by reason of its peculiar
construction, is deserving of more than ordinary consideration.
Opposite page 248 we give the latest example of this type--the s.s.
_Inland_. The “turret-ship,” as the class is called, is of quite
modern origin, and no one can come face to face with her without being
instantly struck with her unusual appearance. She owes her birth to
Messrs. William Doxford and Sons, Limited, of Sunderland, who are the
patentees and builders of this kind of ship. It is needless to say
that when this novel class of steamship first appeared in the early
’nineties there was aroused the usual prejudice; indeed, having in mind
what has been the experience of other inventors in connection with
our subject, the reader could hardly expect otherwise. Firstly, let
us consider her with regard to her appearance. It will be seen that
she differs from the usual cargo and passenger ship in that her sides
tumble right in above the water-line. This forms a kind of half turtle
deck, and is known as the harbour deck. But the upper deck of the
“turret-ship” is extremely narrow. (This will be seen more easily by
reference to the next illustration, which gives a model of the midship
section of such a ship.) The harbour deck need not be used except when
in port, but it can be employed for stowing long timbers or even iron
girders if required. Like the oil-tanker, many of the turret-ships have
their engines placed right aft, so that there is a long clear space
for stowing the cargo in the hold, an advantage which is especially
appreciated in the carrying of certain kinds of cargoes. Just as we saw
there was great danger to a ship in the possibility of oil washing
about the hull and shifting in a perilous manner, so also there is a
danger in such cargoes as rice and grain. With regard to the latter,
I remember the case of a big cargo ship which had the misfortune to
spring a leak and the water swelled the rice to such an extent that the
ship, strong as she was, burst her sides. But in the case of grain the
danger is not merely that, but also of shifting. As guarding against
this possibility the turret-ship, by reason of her special design, is
specially suitable, for any shifting that may take place in the turret
matters but little, and whatever shifting may take place in the hold
is compensated for by the turret; the cargo can be shot into the hold
without needing any trimming. The deck of the “turret” portion will
be seen from the illustration facing page 248 to form a navigating
platform.
[Illustration: SECTION OF MODERN OIL-TANK STEAMER.
_Photograph from a Model. By permission of Messrs. Sir W. G. Armstrong,
Whitworth & Co., Ltd._]
[Illustration: THE “SILVERLIP.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Some of the modern turret-ships are fitted with twelve or fourteen
masts arranged in pairs, each pair being across the ship instead of
fore-and-aft-wise. These vessels have proved themselves to be excellent
sea-boats, and owing to their high freeboard and the harbour deck,
which acts as a kind of breakwater, it has to be a very bad sea indeed
that will break over the ship. Furthermore, the harbour deck tends to
reduce the rolling of the ship, for when one side of the ship heels
over so that one harbour deck is under water, the windward side, when
it holds a certain amount of water, actually tends to bring the ship
back to her level. Moreover, since these decks are unencumbered with
obstructions, they can suffer no damage through the wash of the sea.
They are also extremely strong ships, for the sides of the turrets
increase the strength of the vessel longitudinally, while the curved
formation of the harbour deck augments their strength transversely;
their simplicity of construction and their adaptability for almost
any cargo still further add to their virtues. But from the view-point
of the owners the turret-ship is even still more a welcome type of
craft, in that since dues are paid on a ship’s registered tonnage the
turret-ship is able to carry far more cargo in proportion to her size
than most vessels. On a small registered tonnage the turret-ship has an
exceptionally large dead-weight capacity, and those parts of her which
are liable to be taxed are diminished as far as is possible, whilst at
the same time greater space is allowed to the carrying and handling of
the cargo. Economically, then, the turret-ship, with her odd shape, her
many masts and derricks, is a very advantageous carrier.
A good deal of interest has recently been aroused by the peculiarities
of a steamship named the _Monitoria_, which, though not a turret-ship,
is sufficiently out of the ordinary design to warrant special mention.
She is just an ordinary single-deck cargo steamer, but instead of the
usual wall-sided shell-plating has two longitudinal corrugations along
the outside of her hull. These swellings, so to speak, extend below the
water-line and gradually merge into the ship’s lines at bow and stern.
The claim made for this novelty is that it is effective in reducing
the wave-like irregularities, and allows of more power being available
for propulsion, whilst it also lessens the rolling and pitching of the
ship. The captain of this ship is reported to have said that these
corrugations had a beneficial effect on the steering, whilst the wake
of the ship was found to be smooth and about half the width instead of
the full breadth of the ship. Very interesting as practical comment
on a subject that we have treated elsewhere in this volume, is her
commander’s remark that whilst in a diagonal sea, which was running at
a height of 9 feet or 10 feet, a ship of ordinary form and the same
dimensions as the _Monitoria_ would have been safe proceeding at no
higher speed than 6 or 6½ knots, yet the _Monitoria_ was safe going
ahead at 7¼ to 7½ knots. The corrugations are said also to increase the
ship’s buoyancy, and thus admit of three per cent. more cargo being
carried, while the hull is more readily able to resist the strains than
vessels of ordinary shape. It is probable that this novel principle
will be presently exemplified in a first-class liner, and in a foreign
cruiser.
Similar to the turret-type is the “trunk-deck” steamer, which possesses
like advantages. She resembles in appearance the former type, but
instead of the curves (seen in the _Inland_) at the gunwale and bases
of the turret or “trunk,” the sides of the trunk rise from the main
deck nearly at right angles, the harbour deck being really a true
deck. This kind of ship owes her birth to Messrs. Ropner and Sons, of
Stockton-on-Tees. Such vessels afford even more than the turret-ships
the appearance of a kind of up-to-date man-of-war, without the guns
which one would almost expect to see protruding from behind some of her
steel plates. It should be borne in mind that both the turret and the
trunk type possess an absence of sheer, for the height of the lofty
turret, or trunk, enables this to be dispensed with, while to make up
for this lack of sheer from the bows to the stern, the vessel is given
a top-gallant forecastle.
[Illustration: THE TURRET-SHIP “INLAND.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. W. Doxford & Sons, Ltd._]
[Illustration: MIDSHIP SECTION OF A TURRET-SHIP.
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
When a vessel is carrying her full cargo her stern is sufficiently
immersed to prevent her propeller from racing badly in a heavy sea.
But when she is making a voyage “light” there is great danger of
damage to the ship through the fracturing of the propeller shaft as
the ship dips her bows and raises her tail in the air. Everyone who
has had experience of handling small craft of any kind is aware
that the lower the ballast is placed the more the ship will roll. In
an extreme case, when all the ballast is placed outside the ship on to
her keel, the motion in a sea-way is more like that of the pendulum
than anything else. The method which we are now about to discuss
allows of water-ballast tanks being placed sufficiently high at the
“wings” to counteract this rolling. Opposite page 250 will be seen two
illustrations of the patent cantilever-framed steamers which are built
by Messrs. Sir Raylton Dixon and Company, Limited, of Middlesbrough,
through whose courtesy the photographs are reproduced. By examining
them it will be seen that water-ballast can be carried not only in the
usual tank at the bottom of the ship, but in the wing tanks at the
sides of the ship, and at such a height that when the ship is crossing
the ocean without cargo, she will have an easy motion.
The lower illustration shows a section of one of these cantilever
ships, and the water-ballast tanks, above which is a shelter deck
that in the case of a passenger ship can be used as a promenade, or
can accommodate live cargo in cattle-ships. It will be noticed that
the ship’s frames are bent inwards, and that these, together with
the vertical sides of the hull, form the triangular spaces for the
tanks. Now these tanks run fore and aft on both sides and increase the
strength of the ship, not merely longitudinally, but transversely.
Owing to this the necessity of adding such obstructions to the hold as
pillars and beams vanishes, and as will be seen in the illustrations,
the hold is thus free and unencumbered for all manner of cargo. It
is further claimed for this cantilever craft that she can carry a
dead-weight more than three times the net register, and since these
tanks are not reckoned into the tonnage they increase the safety and
comfort of the ship without detracting from her utility. The reader
will also notice in the upper picture to what an enormous extent the
modern steamship is now being fitted with extra derricks, with a
cross-piece up the mast to take the strain involved in working the
latter.
As the reverse of being specially adapted for a particular service,
the steam tramp is built so that she can readily engage in almost any
carrying trade. Unlike the liner with her fixed routes and set times
of departure and arrival, the tramp is a nomad, and wanders over the
world picking up a cargo here and there, and taking it across the ocean
at her economical but jog-trot speed. If there is nothing for her to
pick up at the last port of call she betakes herself elsewhere with
the hope of better luck. Her main income is derived as a coal-carrier,
and for this she is quite suited. But the modern collier--the kind
of ship which is expressly built for the coal trade--is fitted with
numbers of steam winches in keeping with the modern feverish haste and
hurry, so that no sooner has she come alongside than she may instantly
begin to unload. In old-fashioned times the discharging was done from
the shore, but nowadays the up-to-date turret-ship makes short work
of handling her black diamonds. Special appliances are also provided
for those steamships which bring over the seas vast quantities of New
Zealand mutton, fruit, and other perishable articles of food. Elaborate
refrigerating machinery has to be installed in the ship, and special
means employed to facilitate the disembarking of the cargo, especially
in the case of the former.
[Illustration: CANTILEVER-FRAMED SHIP.
_By permission of Sir Raylton Dixon & Co., Ltd._]
To a still more exceptional purpose has the steamship been adapted in
order to act as an ice-breaker and give liberty to those ships which,
in certain parts of the world, have, with the approach of winter, been
compelled to enter a lengthy imprisonment. Such localities are
found in both Canada and Russia. Thanks to the ice-breaker steamship
it has been made possible to keep open the Baltic ports with a passage
of sufficient width. Constructed of a strength which is possessed
by no other vessel than a man-of-war, the ice-breaker attacks the
frozen masses as a battleship used to ram her foe. She goes for the
ship’s enemy with her curved bow, and wages war with all the ability
which the ship-builder and naval architect have given her. Her bow is
specially strengthened to suffer the force of the contact with the
heavy ice masses, and the lines of the hull are such that the ice in
its endeavour to crush the ship finds difficulty in getting a good grip
upon it. Nevertheless, these ships are fitted with numerous water-tight
compartments. Their means of propulsion are, of course, screws.
Similarly, across the North Atlantic, the steamship on the Great
Lakes, where for one third of the year the water is frozen, has to
battle with the ice-fiend. Ordinary steamers have to be laid aside,
but the train-ferry steamship still goes on with her work, being
specially designed to break through the impeding ice. As in the Russian
ice-breakers, so here the principle employed is that the ship shall
forge her way unto the ice, and by means of her overhanging bow, and
its weight, shall break through the obstruction.
Across the wide harbour of New York the steamship train ferries,
carrying rolling stock run aboard by lines, are employed to an extent
that is strange in comparison with English customs, although the idea
is not new to the Mersey, and the evergreen scheme of instituting a
ferry of this nature across the English Channel to France, so that
international travellers can go from Charing Cross to the other end
of the world without having to change their compartments, is still
advocated with enthusiasm.
We pass now to another type of steamship, which is endowed with as
much distinctive character as the steam tug. The steam trawler may not
be as smart as a steam yacht nor as fast as a torpedo destroyer; yet,
for all that, she is able to encounter as bad weather and--size for
size--is perhaps a good deal better sea-boat. In the North Sea, which
has been the favourite cruising ground of the steam trawler, there is
to be encountered as nasty and dangerous a short sea as can be found,
perhaps, in any other part of the world. In all weathers, and at all
times of the year, the trawler has to go about her business, and the
comparatively few disasters that overtake her is a credit at once to
the seamanship of her skipper and the seaworthiness of the little ship
herself. Opposite this page we show a photograph of a typical North
Sea steam trawler. This is the _Orontes_ of Hull, built in 1895, of
iron, by Messrs. Cochrane and Sons, of Selby. She measures 110 feet
long, 21 feet wide, and 12 feet deep, her net tonnage being 76, and her
horse-power 60. The evolution of the steam trawler was on this wise:
When the value of steam had been shown to be worth the consideration of
the fisherman he responded. At first the old-fashioned paddle-steamer
was used tentatively on the north-east coast of England, and the writer
remembers in the early ’eighties the singular unattractiveness--the
total absence of beauty, indeed--which these vessels possessed. By
birth and adoption these were properly tugs, but they did a bit of
trawling on their own account when not otherwise required, and met with
sufficient success to repeat the experiment many times. Some of these
ugly old craft are still to be seen in the neighbourhood of Scarborough
and Whitby.
[Illustration: THE NORTH SEA TRAWLER “ORONTES.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Cochrane & Son, Selby._]
[Illustration: THE STEAM TRAWLER “NOTRE DAME DES DUNES.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Cochrane & Son, Selby._]
But since the fishing fleets were at sea for weeks together, and
something faster than a sailing ship was required to hurry the cargoes
to market, a special steam fish-carrier came in which plied her voyages
from the Dogger to London and the east coast ports. From that it was
an easy step to building a steamship for use not as a carrier but as a
trawler. Already steam had been in use on board the sailing trawler,
but that had been for hauling the nets and warping into dock. The
increase of competition, the loss of a market through calms and the
prevalence of head winds, clearly marked the way for the coming of the
steam trawler. Recently it has been shown that the employment of the
motor-propelled trawler means a saving of cost and a greater share of
profits to all concerned, and perhaps in the next decade the steam
trawler may find the more modern form of propulsion to be a serious
rival. But even now sail has anything but vanished, and there are many
purely sail-driven trawlers, as also there are many steam trawlers
with auxiliary sails. Within the last few years the steam fishing ship
has grown to be of considerable size, with topgallant forecastle,
high freeboard and lofty wheel-house, so that it penetrates to oceans
thousands of miles away from the North Sea, being enabled by reason of
its size to carry sufficient quantities of coal for many miles. The
lower illustration facing page 252 shows one of the modern type of
steam trawler. This is the _Notre Dame des Dunes_, built by the same
makers as the _Orontes_. Her substantial forecastle, her bold sheer and
high bows, together with her length (rather more than six beams to the
longitudinal expanse), eminently fit her for her work in most trying
circumstances. A curious survival of the old-fashioned sailing ship
is seen in the retention in a twentieth century ship of the imitation
square ports painted along her topsides. The _Notre Dame_ measures 160
feet long, 25 feet wide, and 14½ feet deep.
[Illustration: HYDRAULIC LIFEBOAT.
_By permission from “The Yachting Monthly.”_]
But to-day, even with all the modern improvements which have been
put into the ship, both sailing and steam-propelled; notwithstanding
all the navigational appliances, the water-tight compartments, the
size of ships and the excellence with which they are sent on their
voyages, there is still need for the lifeboat, which has to go out
many times during a bad winter at the summons of necessity. Although
it is possible that the motor, as in the trawler, will eventually oust
steam from this special type of craft, that stage has not yet been
reached. Steam is a comparatively recent innovation to the lifeboat,
and this is partially explainable by the deep-rooted prejudice of the
local seamen. It is also owing to the fact that when the lifeboat has
to go out at all the seas are very bad, and the craft is subjected to
the water breaking over, and unless special precautions were taken to
guard against this the fires would be put out, and the boat would be
rather worse off than if she had no engines. There are only a few steam
lifeboats along our shores, and they are placed at such stations where
they can lie afloat instead of having to be launched down the beach or
from a specially constructed slipway. The first form of steam lifeboat
was to some extent on the lines of the ship which John Allen had
suggested as far back as 1730, of which we spoke in an earlier chapter.
It will be remembered that he advocated a system which was actually
employed by James Rumsey in 1787. The principle was that of sucking
water in at the bows and ejecting it at the stern. A more recent
instance of the use of this idea will be found in the boat illustrated
on the opposite page which shows a hydraulic lifeboat. The disadvantage
of having a screw propeller is that it stands a very good chance
of being fouled, if not damaged, by wreckage and ropes. Therefore
engines were installed which sucked in the water by means of a “scoop,”
placed at the bottom of the boat amidships. The water thus indrawn is
discharged aft on either side of the hull, and if the craft is desired
to go astern, then this is easily done by discharging water forward.
This type has been in actual use, and has been highly efficacious in
saving human life from shipwreck. By referring to the lower figure
of the illustration on page 255, which shows the midship section of
one of the hydraulic type, some idea will be gained of the placing
of the “scoop.” By using alternately one of the after pipes the ship
can be manœuvred to port or starboard just like a vessel fitted with
twin-screws. But there are corresponding disadvantages which require to
be weighed. It is distinctly not an economical method of propulsion,
and if the sea happens to contain much sand considerable damage may
happen to the engines, and other undesirable matter also may work still
greater havoc.
[Illustration: A SCREW LIFEBOAT.
_By permission from “The Yachting Monthly.”_]
On the other hand, we have mentioned that the screw has its drawbacks
owing to the possibility of its suffering injury. It was therefore
decided that this could be avoided by placing it in a tunnel some
distance forward of the stern, and thus protected against all likely
damage. (A similar method is also employed in the steam fire-boats
which are used by the London Fire Brigade on the Thames, and are
summoned whenever a river-side warehouse or factory gets ablaze.) If
reference is made to the illustration on page 257, this tunnel will be
discernible. In order to leave nothing to chance a water-tight hatch
is placed in the cock-pit floor just over the propeller, through which
any pieces of sea-weed, rope, or other undesirable matter can easily be
removed without having to beach the craft first. These little ships
measure about 50 feet long, and about 15 feet wide; they are driven by
direct-acting, compound, surface-condensing engines, which give to them
a speed of about nine knots.
In certain parts of the world where the rivers are shallow, either at
their banks or in mid-stream, steam navigation is only possible by
means of “stern-wheelers.” Such instances occur on the West Coast of
Africa, and also in America. In general idea, though not in detail,
this method is a reversion to the antiquated ship already discussed
in Hulls’ idea for a tow-boat. The stern of these steamships to which
we are referring is not ended in the same continuous straight line,
but is raised slightly upwards at an angle so that the paddle-wheel
is able to revolve freely without requiring such a draught of water
as otherwise it would have needed if placed on the ship’s side in the
usual manner. This will be seen on examining the stern of the _Inez
Clarke_, illustrated opposite this page. This stern-wheeler was built
as far back as 1879, but the points on which we are insisting are
here well demonstrated. The draught of the ship, notwithstanding the
weight of her engines, was only 15 inches, so that she was enabled to
go into the very shallowest water, where even a bottle could float.
Nevertheless her stern-wheel was sufficiently powerful to send her
along at 15 miles per hour. Her measurements are 130 feet long, and 28
feet wide. Steamboats possessing a similar principle to that exhibited
in the _Inez Clarke_, but much different in the arrangement, are to-day
in use on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, being used as tugs to tow
along a large fleet of flat-boats containing coal. As much as fifty to
sixty thousand tons are taken in tow at one time.
[Illustration: THE “INEZ CLARKE.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE “NATCHEZ” AND THE “ECLIPSE” (1855).]
[Illustration: THE “EMPIRE.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
To North America, with its fine long rivers, the steamboat has been,
as Fulton in his foresight prophesied it would be, a highly useful
institution. To the European mind the vast possibilities of the
mighty Mississippi come as a shock when fully realised. To quote the
very first sentence in one of the most popular books which that most
popular writer, Mark Twain, ever wrote, “The Mississippi is well worth
reading about”; so, also, we might add, are its steamboats, but in
our limited space we can only barely indicate some of their essential
features. The illustration facing page 258 shows a couple of these,
the _Natchez_ and the _Eclipse_, racing against each other along this
great river by the light of the moon at midnight. The first thing that
strikes the attention is the enormous height to which the decks of
these steamboats are raised. The pilot-house is higher still, and will
be recognised as about midway between the water-line and the top of
the long, lanky funnels. Even to Mark Twain the height seemed to be
terrific. “When I stood in her pilot-house,” says the author of “Life
on the Mississippi,” “I was so far above the water that I seemed to be
perched on a mountain; and her decks stretched so far away, fore and
aft, below me, that I wondered how I could ever have considered the
little _Paul Jones_ a large craft. When I looked down her long, gilded
saloon, it was like gazing through a splendid tunnel.... The boiler
deck--i.e. the second storey of the boat, so to speak--was as spacious
as a church, it seemed to me; so with the forecastle; and there was no
pitiful handful of deck-hands, firemen, and roustabouts down there, but
a whole battalion of men. The fires were fiercely glaring from a long
row of furnaces, and over them were eight huge boilers.”
The accompanying picture, which is taken from a lithograph printed in
1855, shows two of the finest contemporary Mississippi steamboats.
The _Eclipse_ was propelled by a high-pressure engine with a single
cylinder, the paddle-wheels being 40 feet wide. Her two boilers were
placed forward about 3½ feet above the deck, having internal return
tubes, such as we discussed at an earlier stage. The waste gases
returned through the tubes and escaped through the funnels, which rose
50 feet above the hurricane deck. This ship only drew 5 feet, and
measured 360 feet long and 42 feet wide, whilst the hull was 8 feet
deep. For fuel, rosin and pitch pine as well as coal were used. Mark
Twain has left us some details of the keenness with which these and
similar Mississippi steamboats used to race.
“In the olden times,” he wrote, “whenever two fast boats started out on
a race, with a big crowd of people looking on, it was inspiriting to
hear the crews sing, especially if the time were night-fall, and the
forecastle lit up with the red glare of the torch-baskets. Racing was
royal fun. The public always had the idea that racing was dangerous;
whereas the opposite was the case.... No engineer was ever sleepy or
careless when his heart was in a race. He was constantly on the alert,
trying gauge-cocks and watching things. The dangerous place was on
slow, plodding boats, where the engineers drowsed around and allowed
chips to get into the ‘doctor,’ and shut off the water supply from the
boilers. In the ‘flush times’ of steam-boating, a race between two
notorious fleet steamers was an event of vast importance.... Every
encumbrance that added weight, or exposed a resisting surface to wind
or water, was removed.... When the _Eclipse_ and the _A. L. Shotwell_
ran their great race many years ago, it was said that pains were taken
to scrape the gilding off the fanciful device which hung between the
_Eclipse’s_ chimneys and that for one trip the captain left off his
kid gloves and had his head shaved. But I always doubted these things.”
In 1870 the _Natchez_ ran from New Orleans to Natchez, a distance of
268 miles, in seventeen days seventeen hours. The most famous race of
all, and one that created national interest, was that in the year 1870,
between the _Robert E. Lee_ and the _Natchez_, from New Orleans to St.
Louis, a distance of 1,218 miles. The former covered the journey in
three days eighteen hours fourteen minutes, the latter in three days
twenty-one hours fifty-eight minutes, but the officers of the _Natchez_
claimed seven hours for having had to stop through fog, and repairs to
the machinery.
But let us pass further North. The Hudson has, since the time of
Fulton, been famous for its steam-craft, and the impetus which
necessarily followed after the success of the _Clermont_, and her
successors, has not yet ceased to exist. As representative of the
Hudson River type of boats in vogue during the ’sixties, the model of
the steamer _Empire_ facing page 258 is not without interest, since
it shows, the half-way transition between the _Clermont_ and the
ultra-modern built-up ship as in the illustration facing page 262.
Like her other sisters, the _Empire_, it will be seen, has a very
light draught, and a characteristic feature of the development of
the North American passenger side-wheel steamer is here to be noted
in embryo, and as pushed to its furthest limits, in the case of the
_Commonwealth_. I am calling attention to the manner in which the
American custom extends the steamship’s sponsons or “guards” (as they
are called). In a British paddle-wheel steamer, such as one finds
employed on passenger or tug service, the sponsons are quite short.
(This can easily be seen by reference to the _Dromedary_ opposite page
240.) But the American fashion is to allow these not to end suddenly,
but gradually fine off at bow and stern so that the deck is carried
well out-board. Forward is the pilot house, the passenger accommodation
being provided in the centre of the “guard” deck and upper deck. The
length of this vessel was 336 feet, whilst the breadth of the hull
proper was 28 feet, though including “guards” 61 feet. In many of the
Hudson steamers the strange sight is still seen of the use of the old
walking-beam which penetrates through the top of the deck. As we have
already discussed this elsewhere, it is scarcely necessary here to
refer to it further, but the sectional model illustrated opposite this
page will show quite clearly this principle.
[Illustration: THE “COMMONWEALTH.”]
[Illustration: BEAM ENGINE OF AN AMERICAN RIVER STEAMER.
_From the Sectional Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
One of the best known steamship companies in the United States is the
Fall River Line, belonging to the New England Navigation Company.
The Fall River Line runs from New York to Boston, and their vessels
are of exceptional interest as being propelled by paddle-wheels
notwithstanding that their size is in some cases of from four to six
thousand tons. Characteristic, too, is the extent to which the decks
tier aloft and spread out beyond the hull of the ship. Among their
fleet may be reckoned the _Priscilla_, _Puritan_, and _Providence_,
vessels which vary in length from over, to just under, 400 feet, with
a beam of about 50 feet, but including “guards” about another 30 feet.
Opposite this page will be seen the _Commonwealth_, the flagship of
this celebrated fleet, and the most modern. Instead of the paddle-boxes
rising to a great height, they are absorbed by the excessive amount of
top-hamper. To such an extent, also, has the widest beam of the ship
been pushed that the paddle-wheels are scarcely discernible, being
quite underneath the “guards,” instead of projecting from the hull.
The _Commonwealth_ plies between New York and Boston via Newport
and the Fall River, and is the largest and most magnificent steamship
built for service on inland waters. Some idea of her value may be
gathered when we remark that she cost £400,000 to build. It will be
seen that she has been given a high bow, for the reason that she must
be a good sea-boat, since part of her route is exposed to the Atlantic.
She is 456 feet long, 96 feet wide (reckoning in the “guards”), and
has sleeping accommodation for two thousand people. This voyage is
performed in about twelve hours, mostly by night, from New York to the
Fall River, and the retention of the paddle-wheel gives an absence of
vibration, and enables the nerve-wrecked citizen to sleep as peacefully
as on shore. The _Commonwealth_ is steady in a sea-way, and has pushed
the cult of luxury just about as far as it can go, whilst yet retaining
any of the accustomed characteristics of the ship. Practically
these craft are remarkably up-to-date hotels moved by a pair of
paddle-wheels. Replete with their barber’s shops, cafés, libraries,
saloons, orchestra, galleries, stairways, dining-rooms, spacious
bedrooms, kitchens, and other features too numerous to mention, they
are representative afloat of the prevailing passion ashore for luxury
and personal comfort. The _Commonwealth_, like her sisters of the
same fleet, is built of steel, and for greater safety she has seven
bulkheads, which extend to the main deck, and are so installed that no
carelessness can leave the doors open. Her hull is double and the space
between the bottoms is divided into numerous water-tight compartments,
whilst collision bulkheads are also placed at each side of the steamer
at the “guards.” Her speed is twenty-two knots per hour, which is
obtained by compound engines, with two high-pressure cylinders. The
paddle-wheels are of the feathering type, with curved steel buckets,
and in addition to the usual steam pumps, there is a large pump for use
on the fire-sprinkler system which covers the whole interior of the
ship. The ship has a powerful search-light, and an electric lift to the
kitchen. In case both her steam-steering and hand-gear should get out
of order the ship can be steered by independent auxiliary gear attached
direct to the rudder stock.
Having regard to the fact that it was North America which played so
prominent a part in the history and introduction of the steamship, it
is by no means unfitting that that country should also have developed
the paddle-wheel steamboat to an extent that is entirely unknown
in Great Britain. The difference in types is partly owing to the
difference in tastes and habits between the two peoples, but also owing
to the contrast in geographical arrangement. We in England have nothing
comparable with the Hudson, for instance, and its fine, long sweep of
navigable water; nor with the vast American Great Lakes, which, in a
unique manner, have held out a special kind of encouragement to the
steamship. As carriers not merely of cargoes, but also of passengers,
especially during the tourist seasons, the steamships on the Great
Lakes have attained the character rather analogous to the ocean liner
than to the inland steamboat. The spirit of luxury is not concealed in
these Lake liners, and some idea of one of the two-funnelled passenger
steamboats now plying on the Great Lakes of America may be seen in
the illustration facing this page of the _City of Cleveland_. The two
characteristics already noted in the case of the Hudson and the Fall
River steamships will here be noticed still further. We refer to the
extent of the added decks, and to the increased beam which is given to
the ship by means of the “guards.”
[Illustration: THE “CITY OF CLEVELAND.”]
[Illustration: AN AMERICAN “WHALE-BACK” STEAMER.]
But perhaps the most extraordinary looking American steamship is
the well-known “whale-back” which is in use on the Great Lakes as a
cargo-carrier. Practically speaking she is just a whale-like steel
tank with an engine and propeller at the stern. Anything but comely
in appearance, she is something of the American counterpart of the
British turret-ship, but with one difference. The American type has
no turret, but is just a long curved box with two comparatively small
erections at bow and stern respectively, as will be seen by examining
the photograph of one of these vessels reproduced opposite page 264.
But the design of these Lake steamers is to carry the largest amount of
cargo with the lowest registered tonnage, and this object is attained
with satisfactory results, for there is scarcely any space at all in
the ships but is thus employed.
And with this we may bring our chapter to an end. We have now seen
the rise, the gradual growth, and the specialisation of the steamship
in many ways, and in many different localities whenever employed as a
commercial money-earning concern. But the steamship, like the sailing
ship, is not exclusively employed either for commerce or for war. With
the latter kind of ships we have in the present volume no concern; but
with regard to the development of the steam yacht we shall now have
something to say.
CHAPTER X
THE STEAM YACHT
That the steamship should become for the sportsman what for some time
the sailing vessel had been was a natural prophecy. Even if steam
were not to oust the simpler craft, at least both might sail the seas
together without let or hindrance. But, of course, the old prejudice
asserted itself again in yachting just as we have so frequently through
the pages of this book seen that it did in the evolution of the purely
commercial and experimental ships.
The pioneer of the steam yacht was undoubtedly the late Mr. Assheton
Smith, of Tedworth, near Andover. A man of substantial means, a keen
sportsman, who was well-known among both hunting and yachting men, he
was rather more far-sighted than his contemporaries, and considerably
less prejudiced. He had owned a number of sailing yachts, was a
member of the Royal Yacht Squadron, and had it in mind to extend the
encouragement of the sport also to vessels using steam. But to the
select and conservative minds of the Royal Yacht Squadron this was by
no means a happy suggestion, and they promptly showed their resentment
by passing a resolution on May 5th, 1827, to the effect that since a
material object of the club was to promote seamanship and improvements
of sailing vessels to which the application of steam-engines was
inimical, no vessel propelled by steam should be admitted into the
club, and that any member applying a steam engine to his yacht
should cease to be a member. As the late Mr. Montague Guest, in his
history of the Royal Yacht Squadron, remarked, this prejudice was no
doubt caused by the objectionable vomits of smoke which contemporary
steamers in that locality were wont to emit, so that the fair shores
of Southampton Water were polluted, and distant objects completely
obscured. Smith was taunted with the remark that in wishing to
introduce the steam yacht he was intending to make a connection between
business and pleasure, and this insult stung him so severely that he
eventually resigned his membership.
In August of 1827, the Northern Yacht Club offered at their regatta
a twenty guinea cup, to be awarded to the swiftest steamboat, and so
far as I am able to ascertain this was the first occasion when steam
craft ever raced against each other under such conditions. Several
steam vessel owners sent in their entries for the race, and after an
exciting contest for three hours round a marked course, a paddle-ship,
named the _Clarence_, won. This is especially interesting, inasmuch
as that boat had been engined by the famous Robert Napier to whom we
referred earlier in this book, and in more ways than one this success
led to considerable success. The incident attracted the attention of
Assheton Smith, who, although he was then fifty years old, was fired
with enthusiasm over the possibilities of the new sport. He had already
had five sailing yachts built for him, and after resigning from the
Royal Yacht Squadron, wrote to Napier asking him to come south to
his place near Andover. Neither had met before, and the upshot of
the northerner’s visit was that he was commissioned to build a steam
yacht, the cost of which came to £20,000, Napier being given a free
hand in regard to her entire construction. A recent writer has seen fit
to remark that “no account exists of the first steam yacht built by
Mr. Smith,” so that it may be worth while to add that this vessel was
named the _Menai_, that she was built in the year 1830 and delivered
at Bristol. She measured 120 feet long and 20 feet wide, her tonnage
being 230, and her nominal horse-power 110. She was, of course, a
paddle-wheel craft and driven by Napier’s double side-lever engines, of
which we have already explained the detailed working. Those who wish to
see what this first historic steam yacht was like can examine a model
of her in the Glasgow Art Galleries.
The _Menai_ turned out a great success, and so pleased was her owner,
that he commissioned Napier to build him another boat, which was named
the _Glowworm_, a vessel of 300 tons and 100 horse-power. She was
made ready by 1838. Until Smith was eighty years old the connection
thus formed between the two men was continued, and during the period
of twenty or thirty years Napier built quite a fleet of steam yachts
for his patron. The _Glowworm_ was followed by the _Fire King_ in
1839--this being a 700-ton ship and the biggest of them all. Afterwards
came at different dates three _Fire Queens_ (in honour of Queen
Victoria, who had come to the throne since the first steam yacht had
been launched), the _Jenny Lind_, and the _Sea Serpent_; the latter
about 1851. The _Fire King_ was designed with hollow water-lines, and
was a vessel possessing considerable speed. Before her trials were
run, Smith issued a public challenge in _Bell’s Life_ that she would
run against any steamer then afloat, from Dover Pier to the Eddystone
Lighthouse and back, for 5,000 guineas, or even higher stakes if
desired. One of the three _Fire Queens_ was the fastest vessel of any
kind at that time, and possessed the exceptional speed of 16 knots.
This was the third vessel of that name, and was built in 1846, her
tonnage being 300 and her horse-power 120. She was driven by steeple
engines which actuated a screw, and the Admiralty thought so much of
her that they purchased her as a packet. Smith, however, did not like
the screw, and his next ship reverted to the use of paddle-wheels.
In 1844 the Royal Yacht Squadron began to climb down gradually from
their haughty position of serene isolation, for in that year they
showed some slight recognition of the steam yacht by resolving that “no
steamer of less than 100 horse-power should be qualified for admission
into, or entitled to the privileges of the Squadron,” and in 1853 the
last objection to the steam yacht was withdrawn by the rescinding of
all rules which prohibited her use. Thereupon a number of the Royal
Squadron members had auxiliary engines fitted to their sailing craft,
but by 1856 there were not more than a score of steam-engined yachts
as against seven or eight hundred sailing ones. In 1868 a unique race,
which excited some derision at the time, was run between Lord Vane’s
steam yacht _Cornelia_ and Mr. Talbot’s _Eothen_. During the early
’eighties many of the non-racing yachts flying the Squadron’s colours,
and used solely for cruising, were either purely steam or auxiliary
steam yachts. By 1883, out of 2,000 yachts no fewer than 700 were
steam, which had cost originally two and a half millions sterling. To
such an extent had this new development of the sport gone ahead that
it was even seriously suggested by the _Field_ that ordinary cruising
would be extinguished by the steam yacht. During the ’eighties the
number of English steam yachts multiplied in all parts of the Kingdom
owing to several causes. The improvements which had been going on,
as well in the making of marine engines as in yacht building and
designing, were assisted by the more economical consumption of coal
which was now possible. But the sport of steam-yachting is entirely,
by reason of its nature and its costliness, confined to the rich
man. Apart altogether from the advantages which steam gives in that
it renders the yacht independent of calms and tides, yet it carries
with it especially a social feature. The influence of Cowes week, the
dispensing of hospitality, and the privilege of enjoying a floating
home anything but bereft of the highest comfort, must be reckoned as
among the potent factors of an extent equal to, if not greater than,
the sheer delight of voyaging from one port to another. Many steam
yachts spend their time within the comparatively sheltered waters of
the south coast of England, or the west coast of Scotland, perhaps
running out to the Riviera in December or January. But a few, such as
Lord Brassey’s celebrated _Sunbeam_, go round the world, penetrate to
the Arctic circle, cross the Atlantic, and go east through the Suez
Canal.
[Illustration: TYPICAL STEAM YACHT OF ABOUT 1890.
_By permission of “The Yachting Monthly.”_]
For a long time the steam yacht naturally enough retained most of the
features of the sailing yacht. I say naturally, not merely because
steam was still distrusted, and, therefore, canvas was retained,
but because beauty of form and symmetry are demanded more in the
steam yacht than in the steamship designed for commercial purposes.
For the creators of steam yachts were rather yacht-architects than
steamship-designers. We have only to quote the admirable work of such
men as St. Clare Byrne and G. L. Watson to emphasise this point.
Indeed, with the exception of the _Triad_, so recently added to the
fleet of steam yachts, and to which we shall refer fully in due course,
the lines and general appearance of the steam pleasure vessel is
far more “yachty” than perhaps one might have imagined would be the
case, having regard to the differences which have sprung up in the
appearance of the commercial steamship. The illustration on page 271,
which is typical of the steam yacht about the year 1890, shows how
markedly the influence of the clipper sailing ships of the ’sixties was
at work. The gilding at the bow, the figure-head, the fine entrance,
and the bowsprit have existed long after the latter was required
for setting a jib at the end of it. As a rule, the schooner rig has
prevailed, though some ocean-going steam yachts are rigged as barques,
ships, and barquentines. For long voyages between distant ports the
retention of the sail as a saving of the limited coal supply is but
natural, and also for the purpose of steadying the ship in a sea-way.
In the early days the steam yacht was usually of the type which has one
flush deck. But to-day she varies to the same extent as the sailing
yacht. Topgallant forecastles, quarter decks, bridge-houses, awning
decks, shade decks, spar decks, and many other features have been
added. Three masts have given way to two, and now only one is being
retained, and that merely for signalling purposes or for wireless
telegraphy. Formerly, the steam yacht was a long, narrow creation
carrying a considerable quantity of ballast, but to-day she is given
greater beam, and in many points is coming far more under the sway of
the ocean steamship than ever she has in the whole of her history.
The accommodation is being modified and improved, and the elemental
features are undergoing a change. Whereas the older types carried
their dining and drawing-rooms below, nowadays these, as well as the
state-rooms, are, whenever possible, placed on the main deck. Much more
room is afforded for promenade by the adding of deck upon deck, and
a noticeable characteristic of the modern steam yacht is the extent
to which the deck-house and pilot-house have been carried. Like their
bigger sisters, the steam yachts of to-day are fitted with every
thought for comfort. Electric light, refrigerating plant, exquisite
decorations, heating apparatus, search-lights, and a thousand other
details go to swell the long bill which has to be paid for the private
steamship.
The old square stern inherited from the Dutch, through the British
Navy of yesterday, and, finally, through the royal yachts, is modified
nowadays from a clumsiness to resemble more nearly the counter of
the smart sailing yacht. Ample overhang at bow and stern gives both
increased deck space and makes a drier ship, and at the bows this
additional room is advantageous for working the anchors. As compared
with the liner, the yacht has far more opportunities of showing what
a graceful creature the ship really is: for she has not to rush
across seas at break-neck speed, nor has she to waste her internal
space with accommodation for cargo and mails. She need not clutter up
her decks with clusters of derricks, but go about her easy work in
a quiet and dignified manner, not forgetting to look pretty all the
time. And yet she is able nowadays, by reason of her size, to carry
large enough quantities of water, coals and stores to last her for
lengthy voyages, independent of the shore. The question of speed is
subservient to fuel-endurance, and to get her owner and his guests to
their destination with the least degree of discomfort is of far greater
import than to set up new steaming records. She is a good sea-boat,
for she is not harassed by the limitations as to the distribution
of weights which have to be studied so closely in the case of the
liner. The single-screw is giving way to the twin-screw, and the
triple-expansion engine is usually adopted, with its absence of any
great vibration.
The steam yacht, has, however, found out the advantages of the turbine,
and the first to be fitted thus was the _Emerald_, built on the Clyde
in 1902 for Sir Christopher Furness. She has a Thames measurement
of 797, and is propelled by three separate propellers, with their
individual shafts actuated by three sets of turbine machinery. Her
speed is about 16 knots on an exceptionally low coal consumption,
and she showed her ability by crossing the Atlantic in the year
following her birth. The recent adaptation of the Parsons turbine for
moderate speeds, already discussed, will doubtless pave the way for a
much more general adoption of this form of propulsion in the yacht.
Otherwise speed in the steam yacht is a doubtful advantage, for with
reciprocating engines there is demanded a greater amount of space
which could be better used for extra cabin room. Water-ballast and
bilge-keels are used to a large extent, and steel has long since proved
its worth for the making of the hull as well as many other features of
the ship. Now that the engines of a steam yacht have proved themselves
to possess that reliability which was for a long time not conceded,
the need for sails, except for steadying the ship, or, as already
mentioned, for long ocean voyages, has disappeared. It is much more
common to see a steam yacht given the rig as seen in the illustration
on page 275, with stay-sails and try-sails, than the yards and
gaff-sails of yesterday. Indeed, one might go so far as to assert that
the retention of the two masts is based on appearance more than with a
view to utility.
[Illustration: A STEAM YACHT TO-DAY.
_By permission of “The Yachting Monthly.”_]
[Illustration: THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL YACHT “LIVADIA.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
One of the most extraordinary steam yachts ever built was the
_Livadia_, of which a capital model is illustrated opposite page
276. She was built in 1880 by Messrs. John Elder & Co. for the
Russian Admiralty. Her unusual design was based on the idea of a
circular floating battery invented by John Elder in the ’sixties, and
reintroduced by Admiral Popoff ten years later. From a technical paper
read some years ago by her builder, we gather that she was constructed
in accordance with Admiral Popoff’s designs to give 14 knots per
hour. In case of her failing to come up to the required standard,
the Russian Admiralty were to be allowed to reject her. Previous to
her actual building, elaborate experiments took place with a model,
and both before and after the appearance of the ship she was subject
to considerable criticism, some of which, no doubt, was owing to the
radical departure from accepted custom. Her builder described her as
being turbot-shaped with a super-structure which contained the Imperial
apartments and the accommodation for suite and crew. After her trials,
she sailed from the Clyde to Brest in fine weather. Thence she crossed
the Bay of Biscay, and the bad weather which had sprung up increased to
a gale of exceptional violence, which also afforded the most conclusive
test for her steadiness. It was found that she was wonderfully endowed
with the latter virtue, and that although she had been designed for
service on the Black Sea, she was able to take the seas of the Bay in
a most satisfactory manner. The height of the waves was adjudged by
the experts on board as being from twenty to twenty-five feet, but
the receding formation of the turbot had the effect of dividing the
wave against itself. In no case did the waves succeed in reaching the
keels of the ship’s boats hung in davits 22 feet above the load-line,
and although the table was loaded with candelabra and other easily
capsizable articles, the ship never lurched so as to send them moving.
It is true that when she put into Ferrol, owing to the exhaustion of
the crew, two of the thirty-seven cells on the external rim of the
turbot were damaged, yet this did not vitiate the general principle
of her construction. She was driven by three propellers and three
independent engines, and was easily handled. During the gale she
only required one man at the wheel. She displaced nearly 4,000 tons,
measured 235 feet in length, 153 feet in extreme width, and drew only
6½ feet.
Perhaps the one conspicuous example where the steam yacht has been
designed not by a yacht architect is in the case of the steam yachts
possessed by the Royalty of this land, and it is a matter of regret
that some of the worst and most old-fashioned traditions should be
perpetuated in what one would have expected to have been the most
up-to-date and efficient steam craft afloat. There has ever been
displayed in the royal steam yachts far more of the Admiralty influence
of yesterday than of the modern factors at work in yacht-design. Grace
and delicacy have been avoided for a kind of clumsy impressiveness, and
the worst features of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
naval architecture are retained with a surprising obstinacy. The
heavy quarters and counter, the tasteless display of external carving
and gold leaf have had to make a pretence of affording what should
have come spontaneously from the beauty of the vessel’s own lines.
The _Victoria and Albert_, launched a few years ago, is especially
expressive of the defects which she ought never to have exhibited. And
the latest English royal yacht which was launched in 1907, has but
little character that is superior to her predecessor. This _Alexandra_
will be seen at her trials in the illustration facing page 278. True,
the heavy quarters have been very much modified, but in any assemblage
of steam yachts or modern ocean-going steamships, she stands out less
owing to her inherent beauty, than for the impression of solidity
which she conveys. The _Alexandra_ has a registered tonnage of 2,157,
and is driven by three turbines.
[Illustration: THE ROYAL YACHT “VICTORIA AND ALBERT.”]
[Illustration: THE ROYAL YACHT “ALEXANDRA.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. A. & J. Inglis, Ltd._]
The illustration of the _Sagitta_, facing page 280, is of particular
interest, for when she appeared in the summer of 1908, she was the
largest steam yacht ever built on the south coast. Constructed by
Messrs. Camper and Nicholson for the Duc de Valençay, she has a Thames
measurement tonnage of 757, and on her trials showed a speed of 15·2
knots, which was 2·2 knots above that contracted for. Steam yacht
building has more usually been the work of the northern yards. Two of
her features are especially noticeable as showing a divergence from the
stereotyped design of the steam yacht. Firstly, the three, and even
two, masts, have gone altogether, and only one is retained, in a most
unusual position, for signalling purposes. Secondly, her stern goes
right away from the accepted clipper-bow-plus-bowsprit end, although
the yacht-like overhanging counter is retained. In matters of this
nature personal taste will enter quite independent of the demands
put forward by naval architecture, but it can scarcely be said that
this hybrid arrangement makes for beauty, for the nice balance which
is so significant a feature of the ends of a yacht is here hardly
possible. Much more acceptable is the design of the _Triad_, which,
amid considerable adverse criticism for her originality, made her
appearance in the summer of 1909. An interesting photograph of this
novel yacht appears opposite page 280, but it conveys little idea
of her size. With her two funnels, her straight stern and modified
turtle-deck stern, she is a “whole-hogger” as compared with the
compromise which the _Sagitta_ represents. In the _Triad_ the steam
yacht breaks right away from accepted conditions and shows the first
real approach to the contemporary ocean-going steamship. To some
extent, no doubt, she exhibits some resemblance to the well-known
German Imperial steam yacht, the _Hohenzollern_, but she is rather a
deep-sea liner in miniature, capable of going anywhere, and performing
practically any service which could be asked of her. She has been built
on steamship lines by a firm which, I believe, had never previously
constructed a steam yacht. Her size of 1,416 tons would alone make her
interesting, but it is her business-like appearance which causes her
to be especially noticeable. Her stem has come in for a good deal of
criticism, some of which is doubtless justifiable, but not a little is
obviously based on the fact that convention was thrown aside. It is
claimed that the clipper-stem is not merely advantageous in regard to
looks, but besides giving increased deck space where it is needed to
work the anchors, permits of a generous amount of flare to protect the
fore decks from water coming aboard. The older form also provides a
useful “false” end in the case of a ship colliding, while, on the other
hand, the straight stem possesses considerable merits for docking and
berthing in a congested harbour.
The _Triad_ measures 250 feet long, between perpendiculars, and 35 feet
wide, and is equipped with twin-screw engines, which give her a speed
of 16 knots. She has two double-ended boilers, and one auxiliary boiler
for driving the electric installation when in port. Some of her minor
features are sufficiently unusual to merit remark. Thus, for instance,
the windlass on her forecastle is fitted with a special indicator which
shows the amount of cable run out, and an arrangement something similar
in principle to that mentioned as existing on liners is installed,
whereby the engineer cannot easily make a mistake in carrying out
the captain’s orders from the bridge. If the engines are going ahead
the captain knows this by an electric lamp which shows red; if they
are going astern the lamp shows green, the movement of the engines
themselves indicating automatically. In matters of personal comfort
this miniature liner is amply fitted. Besides the usual accommodation,
she has dining-room, drawing-room, music-room, maids’ room and ample
bedrooms, all upholstered and furnished with due regard to modern
luxury.
It would be impossible within the limits of our subject to refer in
detail to all those magnificent stately steam yachts which are afloat
in European and American waters. Such vessels as the _Vanadis_, with
her 1,233 tons (Thames measurement), triple-screws and triple turbines
built in 1908; the well-known _Ioland_, built for Mr. Morton F. Plant
of New York, by a Scotch firm; the _Wakiva_, twin-screw steam yacht,
the _Lysistrata_, the _Liberty_, are representative of the magnificent
fleet which has come into being so speedily, in spite of the chilly
reception and opposition which greeted the steam yacht during the
first half of the past century. The _Liberty_, something of whose
internal comfort we shall show in another chapter, is of 1,571 tons,
was launched in December of 1907, and is one of the most notable
productions of recent years. She is spar-decked throughout, with
magnificent lines and a handsome appearance, whilst retaining the more
conventional stem-plus-bowsprit. She has exceptional accommodation,
all connected by corridors and vestibules with no fewer than a dozen
state-rooms for guests. She is driven by two sets of triple-expansion
engines actuating twin-screws, which, to minimise vibration, are at a
different pitch, and run at varying speeds. She can carry sufficient
coal to allow her to cruise for 6,000 miles, and both in internal and
external appearance is as handsome as she is capable.
[Illustration: THE S.Y. “SAGITTA.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Camper & Nicholson, Ltd._]
[Illustration: THE S.Y. “TRIAD.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Caledon Shipbuilding Co.,
Ltd._]
With the capabilities of which the motor has shown itself to be
possessed, the future of the steam yacht is perhaps a little uncertain.
Economy would seem to indicate that the former has numerous merits
in that it enables sail power to be utilised more readily, and thus
may arrest the fashion which is advancing in the direction of steam.
For long passages the extreme comfort which is now obtainable in the
modern liner leaves no choice in the matter. To keep up a steam yacht
for the usual summer season of four months is a very serious item
of expenditure. If we reckon £10 per ton as the average cost--and
this is the accepted estimate--it will be seen that such a yacht as
the _Wakiva_, for instance, leaves but little change out of £10,000
per year, and for this expenditure most men would expect to get a
very large return in the way of sport and travel. Whether or not a
like proportionate return is made, at least in giving employment to
thousands of shipbuilding and yacht-hands, this special branch of sea
sport is deserving of the high interest with which it is regarded.
CHAPTER XI
THE BUILDING OF THE STEAMSHIP
We propose in the present chapter, now that we have seen the evolution
of the steamship through all its various vicissitudes and in its
special ways, to set forth within the limited space that is now left to
us some general idea of the means adopted to create the great steamship
from a mass of material into a sentient, moving being.
Around the building of a ship there is encircling it perhaps far more
sentiment than in the activity of almost any other industry. Poets and
painters have found in this a theme for their imagination not once, but
many times. Making a ship is something less prosaic, a million times
more romantic, than making a house, for the reason that whilst the
ship, as long as she remains on the stocks, is just so many thousand
tons of material, yet from the very moment when she first kisses the
water she becomes a living thing, intelligent, with a character of
her own, distinct and recognisable. In the whole category of man-made
things there is nothing comparable to this.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.--FLUSH-DECKED TYPE.]
[Illustration: Fig. 2.--“THREE ISLAND,” TYPE.]
[Illustration: Fig. 3.--TOP-GALLANT FORECASTLE TYPE.]
[Illustration: Fig. 4.--TOP-GALLANT FORECASTLE TYPE, WITH RAISED
QUARTER-DECK.]
[Illustration: Fig. 5.--EARLY “WELL-DECK” TYPE.]
Her genesis begins when the future owners resolve to have her built.
Before any plans are drawn out there must first be decided the
dimensions, the displacement and the general features which she is
to possess, whether she is to be a slow ship, a fast ship, engaged
in passenger work, cargo-carrying, on the North Atlantic route, for
the East through the Suez Canal, and so on; for all these factors
combine to determine the lines on which she is to be built. Before
we progress any farther, let us get into our minds the nine different
types which separate the generic class of steamships. If the reader
will follow the accompanying illustrations, we shall not run the
risk of being obscure in our argument. Fig. 1, shows the steamship
in its elementary form, just a flush-decked craft, with casings for
the protection of the engines as explained on an earlier page. This
represents the type of which the coasting steamer illustrated opposite
page 134 is an example. This casing in the diagram before us is, so to
speak, an island on the deck, but presently it was so developed that
it extended to the sides of the ship, and, rising up as a continuation
of the hull, became a bridge. At the same time a monkey forecastle and
a short poop were added to make her the better protected against the
seas. This will be seen in Fig. 2. This is known as the “three-island”
type for obvious reasons. It must be understood that on either side a
passage leads beneath the bridge-deck so as to allow the crew to get
about the ship. But from being merely a protection for the bows of
the ship, the monkey forecastle became several feet higher, so that
it could accommodate the quarters of the crew, and this “top-gallant”
forecastle, as it is known, will be seen in Fig. 3. At the same time,
the short poop or hood at the stern has now become lengthened into
something longer. But in Fig. 4 we find the lengthened poop becoming
a raised quarter-deck--that is, not a mere structure raised over
the deck, but literally a deck raised at the quarter. This raised
quarter-deck was the better able to withstand the violent force of the
sea when it broke over the ship. In Fig. 5 we have a still further
development in which the topgallant forecastle is retained as before,
but the long poop and the after end of the bridge are lengthened until
they meet and form one long combination. This is one of the “well-deck”
types, the “well” being between the after end of the forecastle
and the forward end of the bridge-deck. This well was left for the
reason that it was not required for carrying cargo, because it was not
desirable to load the ship forward lest she might be down at the head
(which in itself would be bad), whilst at the same time it would raise
the stern so that the propeller was the more likely to race. But in the
modern evolution of the steamship it is not only a question of trim and
seaworthiness that have been taken into consideration, but also there
are the rules and regulations which have been made with regard to the
steam vessel. Now, this well-space not being reckoned in the tonnage
of the ship (on which she has to pay costly dues) if kept open, it
was good and serviceable in another way. Considered from the view of
seaworthiness, this well, it was claimed, would allow the prevention
of the sweeping of the whole length of the ship by whatever water
that broke aboard the bows (which would be the case if the well were
covered up). If left open, the water could easily be allowed to run out
through the scuppers. But this type in Fig. 5 is rather midway in the
transition between the “three-island” type and the shelter-deck type.
The diagram in Fig. 6 is more truly a well-decker, and differs from the
ship in Fig. 5, in that the one we are now considering has a raised
quarter-deck instead of a poop. She has a top-gallant forecastle, a
raised quarter-deck and bridge combined, and this type was largely used
in the cargo ships employed in crossing the Atlantic Ocean. It is now
especially popular in ships engaged in the coal trade. The advantages
of this raised quarter-deck are that it increases the cubic capacity
of the ship, and makes up for the space wasted by the shaft tunnel. By
enabling more cargo to be placed aft, it takes away the chance of the
ship being trimmed by the head.
[Illustration: Fig. 6.--“WELL-DECK” TYPE.]
[Illustration: Fig. 7.--“SPAR-DECK” TYPE.]
[Illustration: Fig. 8.--“AWNING-DECK” TYPE.]
[Illustration: Fig. 9.--“SHADE-DECK” TYPE.]
Fig. 7 shows a “spar-decker,” which is the first of the three-deckers
that we shall now mention. This was evolved for the purpose of carrying
passengers between decks. It has a continuous upper deck of fairly
heavy construction, the bridge deck, of course, being above the spar
deck. In Fig. 8 we have the “awning-decker,” which has a continuous
deck lighter in character than the last-mentioned type, and like the
latter, the sides are completely enclosed above the main deck. Because
of this lightness of construction, it is not customary to add further
erections above that are of any weight. Its origin was due to the
desire to provide a shelter for the ships employed in carrying Oriental
pilgrims. Later on this type was retained in cargo-carriers. Finally,
we have the “shade-decker” as in Fig. 9, which is provided with
openings at the side for ventilation. This type is so well known to the
reader from posters and photographs, that it is scarcely essential to
say much. But we may remark that the lightly constructed deck fitted
between the poop and forecastle is supported by round stanchions, open
at the sides (as shown herewith), but sometimes closed by light plates.
It is built just of sufficient strength to provide a promenade for
passengers, or shelter for cattle, on the upper deck. This is still a
very popular type for intermediate and large cargo steamers.
[Illustration: THE BUILDING OF THE “MAURETANIA.”
Showing Floor and part of Frames.
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
With these different types before us, we may now go on with our main
subject. Having settled the question as to the type and character of
the steamship to be built, the next thing is to design the midship
section, which shows the general structural arrangements and scantlings
of the various parts. In the drawing-office the plans are prepared,
and the various sections of the ship worked out by expert draughtsmen
attached to the shipbuilding yard. This necessitates the very greatest
accuracy, and the building is usually specially guarded against those
who might like to have an opportunity of obtaining valuable secrets.
The plans having been worked out on paper, there follows the “laying
off” on the floor of an immense loft, called the “mould floor,” where
the plans are transferred according to the exact dimensions that are to
be embodied in the ship. In many cases the future owner insists on a
wooden model being submitted in the first instance, by the builder, so
that a fair idea may be obtained of the hull of the proposed ship.
Each vessel is known at the shipbuilder’s by a number and not by her
name. The keel is the first part of her to be laid, which consists of
heavy bars of iron laid on to blocks of wood called “stocks,” and the
line of these slants gently down to the water’s edge, so that when,
after many months, the time arrives for the launching of the great
ship, she may slide down easily into the sea that is, for the future,
to be her support. After these bars have been fastened together, then
the frames or ribs are erected, the ship being built with her stern
nearest to the water, and her bow inland, except in the few cases (as,
for example, that of the _Great Eastern_), where a vessel, owing to her
length in proportion to the width of the water-space available, has to
be launched sideways. These ribs are bent pieces of steel, which have
been specially curved according to the pattern already worked out. Let
us now turn to the accompanying illustrations which show the steamship
in course of construction. These have been specially selected in order
that the reader might be able to have before him only those which are
of recent date, and show ships whose names, at least, are familiar to
him.
[Illustration: THE “GEORGE WASHINGTON” IN COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Showing Framing from the Stern.
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co._]
The photograph opposite page 286 represents the _Mauretania_ being
built on the Tyne. This striking photograph shows the floor and the
double cellular bottom of the leviathan in the foreground; whilst in
the background the frames of the ship have been already set up. Some
idea of the enormous proportions may be obtained from the smallness
of the men even in the foreground. The next illustration represents
the Norddeutscher Lloyd liner, _George Washington_, and exhibits the
framing of the ship and bulkheads before the steel-plating had been put
on. The photograph was taken from the stern, looking forward, and one
can see already the “bulge” which is left on either side to allow for
the propeller shafts. Opposite page 290 is shown the bow end of the
_Berlin_ (belonging to the same company) in frame, and on examining her
starboard side it will be seen that already some of her lower plates
have been affixed. Finally, opposite page 292 is shown one of the two
mammoth White Star liners in course of construction. This picture
represents the stern frame of the _Titanic_ as it appeared on February
9th, 1910. No one can look at these pictures without being interested
in the numerous overhead cranes, gantries and scaffolding which have to
be employed in the building of the ship. The gantries, for instance,
now being used at Harland and Wolff’s Belfast yard are much larger
than were used even for the _Celtic_ and _Cedric_, and have electric
cranes, for handling weights at any part of the berths where the
ships are being built. Cantilever and other enormous cranes are also
employed. Cranes are also now used in Germany fitted with very strong
electro-magnets which hold the plates by the power of their attraction,
and contribute considerably to the saving of labour.
Whilst the hull of the ship is being built, the engines are being made
and put together in the erecting-shop--which also must needs have its
powerful cranes--and after being duly tested, the various parts of the
engines are taken to pieces again and erected eventually in the ship
after she has been launched. After the frames and beams are “faired”
the deck-plating is got in hand. Besides affording many advantages,
such as promenades and supports for state-rooms, the deck of a ship
is like the top of a box, and gives additional strength to a ship. The
illustration opposite page 292 shows the shelter deck of the Orient
liner _Orsova_. The photograph was taken looking aft, on August 1st,
1908, whilst the ship was being built at Messrs. John Brown & Co.’s
yard, Clydebank. The photograph is especially interesting as showing
the enormous amount of material which has to go to the making of the
steamship. But even still more significant is the next illustration,
which shows one of the decks of the _Lusitania_ whilst in course of
construction. To the average man it seems to be well-nigh impossible
ever to get such masses into the water.
[Illustration: BOWS OF THE “BERLIN” IN COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION.
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co._]
[Illustration: THE “BERLIN” JUST BEFORE HER LAUNCH.
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co._]
After the plates have been all fastened by rivets to the frames,
and the outside of the ship has been given a paint of conventional
salmon pink, the time approaches for her to be launched. During her
building the ship has been resting on the keel blocks where her centre
touches, but her bilges have been supported by blocks and shores. These
latter will be seen in the illustration of the _Mauretania_ already
considered. As the day for launching approaches, so also does the
anxiety of the builders increase, for at no time in her career is the
ship so seriously endangered. On the day of the launch the weight of
the vessel is gradually transferred from the stocks on which she has
been built, to the cradle, being lifted bodily from the keel-blocks
by means of an army of men driving wedges underneath her bottom. This
cradle is constructed on the launching ways, and the ship herself,
being now “cradle-borne,” is held in place only by a number of props
called “dog-shores.” At the right moment the signal is given for these
to be knocked aside, and at the first symptoms of the ship in her
cradle showing an inclination to glide, the bottle of wine is broken
against her bows by the lady entrusted with so pleasant an honour.
With a deep roar the ship goes down the ways, and as soon as the
vessel becomes waterborne the cradle floats. The ship herself is taken
in charge by a tug, whilst numerous small boats collect the various
pieces of timber which are scattered over the surface of the water.
Two or three days before the launch, the cradle which has been fitted
temporarily in place, is taken away and smeared with Russian tallow
and soft soap. The ways themselves are covered with this preparation
after they have been well scraped clean. In case, however, the ship
should fail to start at the critical moment after the dog-shores have
been removed, it is usual now to have a hydraulic starting ram (worked
by a hand-pump) under the forefoot of the ship. This will give a push
sufficiently powerful to start the great creature down her short,
perilous journey into the world of water which is to be her future
abiding-place.
But it can readily be imagined that such a ponderous weight as this
carries a good deal of impetus with it, and since in most cases
the width of the water is confined, precautions have to be taken
to prevent the ship running ashore the other side and doing damage
to herself--perhaps smashing her rudder and propellers, or worse.
Therefore, heavy anchors have been buried deep into the ground, and
cables or hawsers are led from the bows and quarters and attached
thereto, or else to heavy-weights composed of coils of chain, whose
friction over the ground gradually stops the vessel. Not infrequently
the cables break through the sudden jerk which the great ship puts on
them, and the anchors tear up the slip-way. Perhaps as many as eight
cables may be thus employed, each being made fast to two or three
separate masses of about five to fifteen tons, but with slack chain
between so that only one at a time is started. As soon as the ship has
left the ways, all the cables become taut, and they put in motion the
first lot of drags. Further on, the next lot of drags receive their
strain, then the third, so that no serious jerk may have been given,
and the ship gradually brings up owing to the powerful friction. Lest
the force of the ship going into the water should damage the rudder or
the propeller, these, if they have been placed in position, are locked
so as to prevent free play. After this the ship is towed round to
another part of the yard where her engines are slung into her by means
of powerful cranes. The upper structures are completed, masts stepped
and an army of men work away to get her ready for her builders’ trials.
Carpenters are busy erecting her cabins, painters and decorators
enliven her internal appearance, and upholsterers add the final touches
of luxury to her saloons and lounges.
[Illustration: STERN FRAME OF THE “TITANIC,” FEB. 9, 1910.
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co._]
Turning now to the illustration facing page 290, we see the
Norddeutscher Lloyd _Berlin_ just before she was launched. The anchors
and cables which will be dropped as soon as she has floated will be
seen along her port side, and the platform for her christening is
already in place. In the illustration facing page 294, which shows the
launch of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company’s _Araguaya_, we have
a good view afforded of the ship as she is just leaving the ways and
becoming water-borne. The other illustration on the same page shows the
launch of one of those turret-ships to which reference was made in an
earlier chapter. In the picture of the _Berlin_ will be seen the system
of arranging the steel plates in the construction of the ship, and the
rivets which hold them in place.
[Illustration: THE SHELTER DECK OF THE “ORSOVA” IN COURSE OF
CONSTRUCTION.
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Anderson, Anderson & Co._]
[Illustration: ONE OF THE DECKS OF THE “LUSITANIA” IN COURSE OF
CONSTRUCTION.
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
One of the most important events of the ship’s life is her trial
trip. Before this occurs the ship’s bottom must be cleaned, for a foul
underwater skin will deaden the speed, and give altogether erroneous
data. The weather should be favourable also, the sea calm, and the
water not too shallow to cause resistance to ships of high speed,
while a good steersman must be at the helm so as to keep the ship on a
perfectly straight course. Around our coasts at various localities are
noticeable posts erected in the ground to indicate the measured mile.
To obtain the correct data as to the speed of the ship, she may be
given successive runs in opposite directions over this measured mile; a
continuous run at sea, the number of revolutions being counted during
that period, and a continuous run past a series of stations of known
distances apart, the times at which these are passed being recorded as
the ship is abreast with them. For obtaining a “mean” speed over the
measured mile, one run with the tide and one against the tide supply
what is required. During these trials, the displacement and trim of
the ship should be as nearly as possible those for which she has been
designed. But besides affording the data which can only show whether
or not the ship comes up to her contract, these trials are highly
valuable as affording information to the builder for subsequent use,
in regard both to the design of the ship herself and the amount of
horsepower essential for sending her along at a required speed. The
amount of coal consumption required is also an important item that is
discovered. This is found as follows: Let there be used two bunkers.
The first one is not to be sealed, but the latter is. The former is to
be drawn upon for getting up steam, taking the ship out of the harbour,
and generally until such time as she enters upon her trial proper.
This first bunker is then sealed up, and the other one unsealed, and
its contents alone used during the trial. After the trial is ended,
the fires being left in ordinary condition, the second bunker is
again sealed up, and the first bunker drawn upon. By reckoning up the
separate amounts it is quite easy afterwards to determine the exact
quantity which the ship has consumed during a given number of knots in
a given time. Finally, after every detail has been completed, the ship
is handed over to her owners and steams away from the neighbourhood of
her birth. Presently she arrives at her port, whence she will run for
the next ten or twenty years, and before long she sets forth with her
first load of passengers, mails and cargo on her maiden trip across the
ocean. To begin with, she may not establish any new records for speed;
for a ship takes time to find herself, and her officers to understand
her individualities. “Know your ship” is one of the mottoes which an
ambitious officer keeps ever before him, and if this is true on the
navigation bridge, it is even still more true down below, where the
engines will not show their full capabilities for several passages at
least.
[Illustration: LAUNCH OF THE “ARAGUAYA.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Co._]
[Illustration: LAUNCH OF A TURRET-SHIP.
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Doxford & Sons,
Sunderland._]
But it is not merely in ship-building, but in ship-repairing that the
genius of those responsible is fully shown. Some of the achievements
which have been wrought in this way are scarcely less remarkable
than the work of building the ship from the beginning. It would be
impossible here to go through all the historic occasions when the
ship-builder’s art has been so exceptionally manifested, but it is
pertinent to our inquiry to mention some of the most interesting. One
of the most recent was the repairing of the P. & O. _China_, after
she had been on the rocks at Perim for several months. The damage
was so serious that Harland and Wolff had to reconstruct her entire
bottom, and the docking of her for repairs was supposed to have been
a notable engineering feat. The American liner now called the
_Philadelphia_, of which we gave an illustration on another page, some
years ago caused consternation by getting so far out of her course
whilst proceeding down channel that she ran on to the dreaded Manacles,
south of Falmouth. Eventually she was got off, but her damage was
very great, and she had to be taken round to Belfast, where she was
practically rebuilt with an improved stern, and entirely new engines
and boilers. Since then she has continued to ply her voyages across
the Atlantic without let or hindrance. Most readers will also remember
the _Scot_, the famous South African liner, which had a marvellous
career for record breaking. She was owned by the old Union Line before
they amalgamated with the Donald Currie Company. This same vessel
was taken to Belfast, placed in dock, cut in two, and lengthened by
building over 50 feet into her midship body, and a like operation was
performed on the Hamburg-American liner, _Auguste Victoria_, at the
same yard. The Germans themselves in a similar way lengthened the
steamship _Wittekind_, which was taken into dock at Geestemünde. But
without doubt the most notable case of all was that of the White Star
liner _Suevic_. This was a comparatively new ship, and was on her way
home from Australia via the Cape of Good Hope, and with her tonnage of
12,531, is the largest vessel steaming from the United Kingdom in the
Australian trade. She had entered the English Channel, but being out
of her reckoning, had the bad luck to run on to some of the dangerous
rocks off the Lizard, as many of my readers will doubtless recollect.
The illustration facing page 296, which is taken from a photograph made
at the time, shows this fine ship in her sad predicament. Happily,
it was found that only her fore part was ashore, and after strenuous
and brilliant work, quite two-thirds of her were cut off by means of
blasting, and, not without grave peril, towed all the way up Channel
to Southampton, where this greater portion was docked, and the present
writer remembers the sad and sorrowful sight she presented lying
alongside the quay. But the firm of Harland and Wolff, who had made
her, at once set to work to build a replica of the bow portion which
had been left on the Lizard rocks, and this, also after a perilous
passage from Belfast to Southampton, was towed round to the dock, where
the other two-thirds were awaiting. The illustrations here given show
the stern portion of the _Suevic_ lying in dock at Southampton, with
all the breakage cleared ready for the new bow, and the replica of the
forward portion just arrived from Belfast and being warped into the
dock to be joined on. The two parts were effectively joined together--a
wonderfully clever shipbuilding achievement--and the _Suevic_ partly
modern and partly old, has long since been restored to her original
route as a perfectly sound and satisfactory ship.
[Illustration: THE “SUEVIC” ASHORE OFF THE LIZARD.
_From a Photograph by Gibson & Son, Penzance._]
[Illustration: THE STERN PART OF THE “SUEVIC” AWAITING THE NEW BOW AT
SOUTHAMPTON.
_From a Photograph by Reginald Silk, Portsmouth._]
[Illustration: THE NEW BOW OF THE “SUEVIC” AT ENTRANCE TO DOCK.
_From a Photograph by Reginald Silk, Portsmouth._]
CHAPTER XII
THE SAFETY AND LUXURY OF THE PASSENGER
In the course of our story we have treated with less consideration the
aspect of luxury which, to some minds, is at once the most obvious
and most striking feature of a steamship, whether yacht, liner, or
excursion steamer. But since we set forth not to write a treatise on
marine furniture and upholstery, but to show, step by step, how the
modern steamship has come to be what she is, it was essential that we
should have kept strictly to the main points of our task. Nevertheless,
we should have fallen short of our duty had we omitted to give some
idea of the care which is paid to make the ship take on the dual
personality of hotel and ferry. It is inevitable that the ship in
any age, whether of sail, steam or petrol, should be influenced by
the forces at work ashore. Caligula’s galleys (of which a detailed
description was given in the author’s “Sailing Ships: The Story of
Their Development from the Earliest Times to the Present Day”) were
not in discord with the debasing influences at work on shore, and
after due allowance has been made, it cannot be regarded as a healthy
sign that modern tastes have to be catered for with such luxuriance,
and that steamship companies even go so far as to advertise their
graceful, stalwart ships as hotels. Not that one would wish to revert
to the hardships and utter discomforts which had to be endured by
the transatlantic passengers less than a hundred years ago, when the
ship, after contending against waves and wind, at last came staggering
into port to the intense relief of everyone concerned. Pitching and
rolling, washed fore and aft, swept from one gunwale to the other, a
hell afloat for the timid and sea-sick, and a source of the gravest
anxiety to her officers, she was too small to be equal to her task, too
barely furnished to make life other than just tolerable.
Cooped up in bad weather below, where ventilation was sadly lacking;
crowded with men, women and children going out to the New World to
try their fortunes; with hard, scanty sleeping accommodation that was
not even human in its comfort; gangways crowded with mean luggage,
and no proper commissariat department; no refrigerating machinery,
no preserved foods, but a medley of animals on deck to be killed and
consumed as required--if they were not washed overboard by the unkindly
Atlantic seas--it was no wonder that when at last the dragged-out agony
was ended the passengers stepped ashore with firm resolutions never
more to entrust themselves to the uncertain vagaries of the sea and its
ships.
[Illustration: CHARLES DICKENS’S STATE-ROOM ON THE “BRITANNIA.”
_By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
When Charles Dickens crossed in January of 1842, not then was the
experience one of delight or anything approaching thereto. The ship
on which he travelled to America was the Cunard _Britannia_, bound
for Halifax and Boston with the mails. Of the other features of this
early steamship we have already spoken, but some of the impressions
which Dickens has left us regarding the comfort, or the want of it,
on board this ship are worthy of attention by those who find cause
for complaint even in the perfectly appointed travelling Atlantic
“hotels” of to-day. Something of the appearance of his state-room may
be seen by looking at the illustration facing this page, which is here
inserted by the courtesy of the Cunard Company. “That this state-room
had been specially engaged for ‘Charles Dickens Esquire and Lady,’”
he remarks in his “American Notes,” “was rendered sufficiently clear
even to my scared intellect by a very small manuscript announcing
the fact, which was pinned on a very flat quilt, covering a very
thin mattress, spread like a surgical plaster on a most inaccessible
shelf.” He speaks of his cabin as an “utterly impracticable, thoroughly
hopeless, and profoundly preposterous box.” What he thought of the
_Britannia’s_ saloon is depicted for us in no sparing terms. “Before
descending into the bowels of the ship,” he adds, “we had passed from
the deck into a long, narrow apartment, not unlike a gigantic hearse
with windows in the sides; having at the upper end a melancholy stove,
at which three or four chilly stewards were warming their hands; while
on either side, extending down its whole dreary length, was a long,
long table, over each of which a rack, fixed to the low roof, and
stuck full of drinking-glasses and cruet-stands, hinted dismally at
rolling seas and heavy weather.” What he would have thought of the
saloon and the state-rooms on the _Mauretania_, with their glaring
contrast to the accommodation on the lively little _Britannia_, we need
not stop to imagine. The fare in those days from Liverpool to Boston
was thirty-eight guineas. Nowadays, for one-half that sum life on an
Atlantic liner can be pleasant and luxurious.
As steamships became bigger, the conditions of travel became gradually
more tolerable, but it was not until the influence of the first White
Star _Oceanic_ that a revolution was made in these matters. Quite
apart from the superior qualities of her hull and engines she was
more thoughtfully arranged with a view to making the passenger’s life
at least as comfortable as was then thought possible. Some of these
improvements we have already noted in the course of our story, but it
is worth remembering that in the amelioration of the passenger’s lot
the White Star Line have not been in the rear. Among other items, they
have to their credit the honour of having originated on board ship the
placing of the saloon and passenger accommodation amidships, instead of
right aft; installing electric bells, providing separate chairs in the
saloon, instead of using the old-fashioned, uncomfortable high-backed
forms, which were thought good enough for the ocean voyager; installing
self-acting water-tight doors, supplying third-class passengers with
bedding, eating and drinking utensils--for in olden days the emigrant
had to provide not merely his own supply of food for the voyage, but
everything he required of all sorts excepting water. It was the White
Star Line which was the first to supply an elaborate system of Turkish
baths for first-class passengers. But it was the _Oceanic_ which
was the turning-point in steamship comfort. All else that has since
followed has been not a little influenced by this ship. For us to go
through a detailed list of the wonderful comforts which are obtainable
on board the modern passenger steamship would convey the impression
of reading through an advertisement catalogue. Already the reader is
in possession of some knowledge of the really wonderful equipment
which is to be found on the modern ocean-going steamship. Nothing has
been omitted that could well have been added. Nowadays, in spite of
the extravagant waste of space which such a proceeding involves, many
of the best steamships are fitted with single-berthed state-rooms,
so that to be thrust into acquaintanceship with a perfect stranger
is no longer essential for the whole voyage. Dickens’s “preposterous
box” has grown into an exceedingly comfortable apartment, and the
millionaire may hire for the voyage the regal suite with bedrooms
and dining-rooms, its fire-places, mirrors, sconces, bedsteads and
the rest, as perfect as in the most extravagant metropolitan hotels
in New York or London. With the ship’s smoke rooms, veranda cafés,
libraries, lounges, writing rooms, orchestras, telephones from the
state-rooms, lifts from one deck to the others, a newspaper printed
ready for him each morning as he comes down to breakfast with the
latest American and European news transmitted to the ship over-night by
wireless telegraphy; with gymnasia to keep him fit and well during the
voyage, with Turkish baths, a high-class cuisine, the opportunity of
dining either à la carte or table d’hôte without extra charge, whilst
all the time the good ship is breaking records each voyage to get him
back to mother earth as quickly as ever can be--what else is there left
to the ingenuity of man to devise for the increased comfort of the
much-pampered and still-grumbling passenger?
[Illustration: THE VERANDA CAFÉ OF THE “LUSITANIA.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
[Illustration: FIRST-CLASS DINING SALOON OF THE “ADRIATIC.”
_From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co._]
The illustration facing page 300 shows the veranda café just alluded
to, which is placed high up in the sky on the _Lusitania_. Since it
faces aft, no inconvenience can be felt through the speed at which the
vessel is rushing through the air. But who that stood on the deck of
the _Clermont_ or the _Charlotte Dundas_ could ever have imagined that
this spacious café should form just one small section of a steamship?
It is the Germans who have to some extent set the pace within recent
years in steamship luxury. Anxious for the patronage of the wealthy
American who was accustomed to the luxurious comforts of the best
hotels, the German-American lines began to lead the way in showing that
the steamship could be made as glorious within as any shore building,
notwithstanding the restrictions necessarily laid upon an object that
is subjected to the buffetings of wind and wave. Low ceilings gave way
to high; simplicity was conquered by ornate decoration, and this in no
vulgar but an exceedingly artistic manner. Stereotyped arrangements
of saloons and cabins gave way to something more in accordance with
the requirements of good taste and elaborate comfort. A free use
of applied art by the highest craftsmen in paintings, carvings and
so on; magnificence in place of more or less ample comfort--these
have been the principles which have actuated the Teutonic internal
steamship arrangements ever since the ’nineties. The _Kaiser Wilhelm
der Grosse_ came as a sensation in this respect, and in regard to her
decorations alone was the handsomest vessel in the world. The rise of
German prosperity, and, therefore, the appearance of what economists
demonstrate to be the immediate sequel--an instant desire to expend
money in all sorts of self-indulgence--has been followed by a readiness
on the part of the steamship companies to put forth the greatest
material comfort that is practicable on board ship. German decorative
art was in a peculiarly happy position to be able to supply all that
was necessary to make a steel tank resemble a palace. Conventional
dolphins and anchors were ousted by mosaics and exquisite woodwork,
and a new sphere for what was original, but yet suitable, in art was
opened. On such ships as the _George Washington_ and the _Berlin_ it
is possible to regard a standard of applied art which cannot be easily
equalled, still less surpassed by anything of the kind ashore. It was
the German ships which were the first to break away from the convention
of the long tables which divided up the saloon, and to introduce a
number of round tables more in accordance with the interior of a modern
restaurant. And what has been found to be best in this respect in the
German ships has not been long in being copied in the rival national
lines.
[Illustration: DINING SALOON OF THE S.Y. “LIBERTY.”
_From a Photograph by W. A. Kirk & Sons, Cowes._]
[Illustration: GYMNASIUM OF THE S.Y. “LIBERTY.”
_From a Photograph by W. A. Kirk & Sons, Cowes._]
The White Star _Adriatic_, whose saloon is shown opposite page 300,
in addition to her many elements of floating luxury, has a number of
other features which are notable for any steamship. Besides her lifts,
she has a large Turkish bath establishment and a salt-water bath big
enough to swim in. Like some of the German ships, she has also a
gymnasium under the direction of a competent instructor, where one can
enjoy saddle exercise, or practise rowing mechanically. There are also
electric light baths and an orchestra of skilled musicians. But even
these un-shippy features are not confined to the big steamers, and the
illustrations opposite page 302 show respectively the gymnasium and
the dining-saloon of the steam yacht _Liberty_, one of the most modern
and luxurious yachts, which is owned by Mr. Pulitzer, the well-known
American millionaire newspaper proprietor.
But if the luxury of human desires is catered for on shipboard, so
also is personal life. Infectious disease has to be provided against,
especially in the case of ships carrying emigrants. Dispensaries and
hospitals are carried, with their proper equipment, and it is not so
long since the world was thrilled by the announcement that on one of
the swiftest mail liners a case of appendicitis manifested itself,
and had to be attended to without delay. When the moment arrived the
engines of the great ship were stopped in mid-Atlantic while, with
great courage and admirable nerve, the surgeon performed successfully
the delicate operation on the unfortunate man.
So also, in a manner entirely different, is the safety of the
passengers provided for, and to an extent that is not excelled even
by the fine railway systems on land. With two or three thousand souls
on board, all of whom could be sent into eternity in a few minutes,
besides large quantities of cargo and precious mails, it is no wonder
that not a thing is omitted that could conduce to the most efficient
preservation of life and matter. From the safety valves of the
engines to the elaborate apparatus on the navigating bridge, the word
“safeguard” is spelled out in every single detail. Some of the more
important essentials we have already spoken about, but there are others
that we must not omit to mention, which find a place in the up-to-date
steamship. Besides the duplicate steering gear, the elaborate system
of water-tight doors, water-tight double-bottoms, powerful pumping
engines, the life-boats, life-buoys, and life-belts--the first of
these being placed as high as possible, so that, in case of emergency,
they are as far above the water as can be--there is a fire alarm
installation which leads to the bridge-house, and a highly efficient
fire-extinguishing apparatus. With the introduction of electric light
in place of oil lamps no doubt the dangers of fire have been minimised;
but the hold and the bunkers must needs be kept well ventilated. On
the German liners and on the Fall River Line steamboats electric
thermostats are distributed over the principal parts of the ship and
connected with an electric fire-alarm system extending to every part of
the crew’s quarters, which enable the extinguishing apparatus to be set
working at once. Gas generated from chemicals which together possess
great extinguishing virtues, is introduced into burning hold or bunker
by means of an engine, so that one of the deadliest enemies of a ship
at sea is not merely capable of control, but even of extinction.
Having regard to the speed at which steamships are now compelled to
traverse the oceans, it is essential that all the recognised facilities
for accurate navigation are taken advantage of in the modern liner.
To prevent any possibility of mistake the engine-room telegraph is
provided with a means of replying, so that the commander is able to
tell whether the order has been understood. Further still, an apparatus
informs him whether the order has been correctly carried out, and in
the event of any of these complicated mechanisms breaking down, the
speaking tube is still available. Speed indicators to register the
number of revolutions made by the screws, mechanical logs, and deep-sea
sounding machines, Morse signalling lamps, powerful sirens (especially
useful in fog when in the vicinity of other shipping and the coast),
are all now employed to give to the ship a safe and speedy passage, and
to relieve the anxieties of the over-burdened modern captain.
But in two respects especially has electricity within the last few
years shown itself to be of the greatest service to the ship at sea.
Taking them in the reverse order of their chronology, there is first
of all the system of submarine signalling so recently installed. This
takes advantage of the fact that water is a conductor of sound, and
with a speed more than four times quicker than air. In the case of fog
overtaking a steamer approaching land, or the vicinity of a channel
marked by buoys or lightships, it is possible to obtain warning by
sound when sight is denied, and this at a distance of four or five
miles. The submarine bell is attached to buoy or lightship, whilst the
receiving apparatus is attached to the interior of the ship’s hull at
the bows. From there the signals are conveyed to the chart-house by
means of telephones. One receiver is placed on each bow inside the
plating of the ship between the keel and the water-line, so that the
bell may be located on either side. A very interesting instance of the
utility of submarine signalling was afforded recently in the case of
the _Kaiser Wilhelm II._, which, owing to a dense fog, was anchored off
Cherbourg. Her tender was awaiting her just outside the harbour, and
sounded her submarine bell to indicate the direction to be steered in
order that the big liner might make port. At a distance of no less than
fifteen miles away the _Kaiser Wilhelm II._ picked up the signals by
her receivers, and was enabled to find her way into the French harbour
by this means alone.
Still more wonderful is the invention of wireless telegraphy, which
has come to the ship as the greatest blessing and boon within recent
years. With the general principles of its working the reader is, no
doubt, already familiar, and the present volume need not enlarge upon
them, but the accompanying illustration will be found interesting as
showing the Marconi room with a telegraphist at work on a Cunarder.
For a distance of 2,000 miles from Liverpool wireless connection can
be maintained between the ship and the shore, whilst passing liners
many miles apart are enabled to communicate with each other to their
mutual benefit and safety. Whilst these pages are being printed a
transatlantic wireless service has been instituted between Europe
and America, and it is indisputable that the next naval war will be
considerably influenced by the employment of wireless gear on board
battleships, cruisers, scouts, and the bigger mosquito craft. Of the
invaluable aid which already the wireless system has been to the
steamship in peace we could give countless instances had we the space;
but the following will suffice to show its utility within the last two
or three years. On May 28th, 1907, the German liner _Kaiser Wilhelm
der Grosse_, whilst on her voyage was enveloped in a dense fog and
passed, without sighting, close to another steamer sailing in the same
direction. The German ship, however, heard the other’s sirens, and
knowing that the Cunard _Caronia_ was on the same track, and might run
some chance of collision with the unseen vessel, the German captain
sent a wireless message to the _Caronia_, and two hours and a half
later received a reply from the latter which showed that the third
steamer was on the Cunarder’s course, and might have been a danger to
her.
[Illustration: THE MARCONI ROOM ON A CUNARD LINER.
_From a Photograph. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
A clear case of the avoidance of costly salvage was afforded in April,
1910, when the Allan liner _Carthaginian_, which had left Liverpool a
week earlier for St. John’s, Newfoundland, was disabled at sea owing to
the breaking of a piston-rod. She was able by means of her “wireless”
to inform the same owners’ _Hesperian_ of her mishap, and the latter
received the news when a hundred miles west of Malin Head, County
Donegal. The _Hesperian_ thereupon went to her sister’s assistance, and
took the ship, with her 800 emigrants on board, in tow for the Clyde.
Still more interesting is the thrilling rescue which was obtained
from the sinking liner _Kentucky_ by the _Alamo_, which took place in
February, 1909. The following statement, taken from a daily newspaper
of the time, needs no embellishing, and the simple facts speak once
more for the triumphant victory which the new telegraphy has obtained
over some of the terrors with which the sea is inevitably associated:--
“A full statement obtained to-day from Mr. W. F. Maginnis, the
operator in the _Kentucky_, who sent the wireless message received by
the _Alamo_, is a most dramatic narrative. The wireless telegraphic
apparatus was installed in the _Kentucky_ just before her departure
on a 14,000-mile cruise round Cape Horn, and to it forty-five men owe
their lives.
“Early on Friday morning, during a heavy storm, the engineer informed
Mr. Maginnis that the ship was doomed. An hour later Mr. Maginnis got
into wireless communication with the _Alamo_, then about ninety miles
away, but not until noon was it possible for the captain to get an
exact observation of his position.
“‘Half an hour before that,’ says Mr. Maginnis, ‘the electrician came
to me and said that the water was creeping up and that the dynamo power
would soon be lost. All hands were then directed to abandon all other
work and devote themselves to keeping the water away from the dynamo.
The turbine engine and dynamo were wrapped in canvas and power was thus
preserved until the vital message was despatched.’
“When the _Alamo_ at 3.30 p.m. reached the _Kentucky_, the deck of the
sinking vessel was almost awash. The crew, despite the high seas, were
rescued by the boats without mishap, and when they had clambered on
board the _Alamo_ they immediately gave three cheers for Mr. Maginnis.
“The _Kentucky_ was insured for £14,000. Her seams opened wide during
the storm.”
CHAPTER XIII
SOME STEAMSHIP PROBLEMS
I have left till the end of the story the consideration of some of
those points which, though of the highest interest to many who are
anxious to know something of the intimate character of the steamship,
may seem to some readers to possess a special rather than a general
concern. However, now that I have shown the manifold manner in
which the steamship has advanced from a thing of scorn to a vessel
of admiration, and have indicated as far as possible within the
limitations at my disposal the ways and means that have brought this
about, we may pertinently stop to consider for a few moments some of
the problems which still have to be encountered even to-day, when naval
architecture and marine engineering have attained to such heights of
perfection. I shall endeavour, as, indeed, has been my aim throughout
the course of this volume, to make myself perfectly clear without
the employment of more technicalities than may be necessary. To the
reader who may happen to form one of that large class who regard the
ship, whether propelled by sails or by steam, with an admiration that
verges on affection, I need offer no apology; for no one can possibly
reverence the ship and, at the same time, be content to remain in
ignorance about her complex nature.
Perhaps there is no feature of the steamship which is less suspected
of being misunderstood than the propeller. To the average mind,
its character is apparently so self-evident as barely to require
any unusual consideration. But its introduction as a means of
ship-propulsion has been the cause of a good deal of miscomprehension,
and has set to work the keen brains of some of the most able
mathematicians in order to determine the exact relation which it bears
towards the ship and the manner in which it is capable of being used
for the greatest good, and with the utmost economy. Here and there in
the course of the narrative I have hinted at some of these problems,
but in order not to break up the continuity of the story, I deemed
it best to defer until now the fuller presentation of the subject.
It is not necessary to remark that the propeller’s function is, by
means of its revolutions, to drive the ship ahead, and to overcome the
resistance which encounters the hull. Besides the skin friction, the
eddy-making, and the wave-making, there is also the resistance of the
air. Now let us suppose for a moment that instead of propelling itself
ahead by its own engines and screws, a liner were to be taken in tow
by a powerful tug-boat. It would follow then that the pull required to
cause the liner to go through the water would be equal to those total
entities of resistance which we have just enumerated. But let the tug
be cast off, and allow the liner to start her engines and proceed by
means of her propellers. The above resistance now becomes augmented
by the resistance of the propellers. The reason is that the propeller
causes a suction which tends to pull the ship back.
It is a striking fact that about one quarter of the propeller’s work
is wasted in friction, and slip. (By “slip” is meant the loss caused
through the yielding of the water at the propeller, and the screw not
progressing to the full extent of its pitch.) In designing the screw
for a steamship, due regard must be paid to the amount of horse-power
which the engines are to generate and the speed at which the vessel is
to travel, but whether the inward- or outward-turning propeller is the
more efficient has not yet been satisfactorily determined by experts,
though the probability would seem to be with the outward-turning
screws. An instance of this was recently afforded by one of the leading
firms of ship-builders in this kingdom who had been commissioned to
construct a vessel 300 feet long, with a speed of between 18 and 19
knots. The owner, who was a scientist, particularly stipulated that
the ship’s propellers should be inward-turning, and was very positive
of the advantages which would thus accrue. The builders, however,
arranged the engines in such a manner that they could be driven either
way with equal ease. After they had tried turning inwards, they
tried outward-turning, and reversed the propellers with a decidedly
satisfactory result. The same conclusion has also been arrived at by
Professor W. S. Abell, who asserts that all his experience goes to
prove that greater hull efficiency is obtained by outward-turning
propellers. In this connection I might quote the case of the steam
yacht _Niagara II._, which was built some years ago in the United
States. She was about 250 feet long, with a displacement of 2,000 tons,
and her deadwood aft was not cut off. Information was obtained through
two six-hour trials under similar conditions, except that her screws
were interchanged from side to side, so that they were inward-turning
on the first trial, and outward-turning on her second. Notwithstanding
that greater horse-power was used when the inward-turning propellers
were employed, yet the latter did not give the ship the same amount of
speed as when they were made to turn outwards. Indeed, the speed of the
inward was found to average 12·8 knots, whereas the outward-turning
screws gave an average of 14·12 knots. It is in the department of the
propeller that fuller information is awaited with an enthusiasm that
belongs to no other branch of naval architecture.
When we speak of a steamship as being of such a tonnage, we do not
always thereby convey a correct idea as to her size, for there is a
decided difference between one kind of tonnage and another. When we say
a vessel displaces so much water, we know that her weight is exactly
that amount of tons; but the tonnages which are given in a vessel’s
certificate after being surveyed are of a totally different character.
The Board of Trade recognises three measurements of tonnage. First of
all, comes the under-deck tonnage. The “tonnage-deck” is the second
deck from below when the ship has more decks than one, and the length
for the purposes of tonnage-measurement is taken along this deck. This
length is divided into a number of equal parts, and the transverse
sectional areas are found, deductions being allowed for the thickness
of the ceilings. The gross tonnage of a ship consists of the under-deck
tonnage plus the tonnage of all the closed-in spaces above the
tonnage-deck, excepting the spaces fitted with machinery, wheel-house,
shelter for deck passengers, galleys and w.c’s. If the poops, bridges
and forecastles are fitted with doors or some other means of closing
them permanently, they have to be measured into the gross tonnage; but
if they are not of a permanent character, they are exempt. Thus, the
gross tonnage of a steamship might include the under-deck tonnage,
the space between decks, the poop, the bridge, the forecastle, the
captain’s and the officers’ quarters, the chart-room, the light and air
space, and so on.
But the net register tonnage will be ascertained by making certain
allowed deductions, which include the space taken up for propelling
power, the quarters of the crew, and of the captain, as well as
the chart-room, the boatswain’s store-room, and the water-ballast
spaces. As instancing the curious results which are obtainable from
the different measurements for reckoning tonnage, Mr. A. L. Ayre, in
his “British Shipbuilding,” gives the interesting comparison of a
particular steamship according to her varying tonnage. Thus the ship
in question has an under-deck tonnage of 550, whilst her gross tonnage
worked out at 980, and her net register tonnage at 360. It is not
generally known perhaps that the complicated system of arriving at the
net register tonnage gives opportunity for strange and amusing effects.
Owing to the difference between the actual engine-room in a steamer
and the theoretical engine-room, it is not only possible to build a
ship with a negative tonnage, but this has actually occurred in the
case of a certain tug, and was referred to in the report of the Royal
Commission on Tonnage, 1881. The present writer was recently aboard
a new 20-ton yacht, in which the owner had been fortunate enough to
persuade the authorities to get the measurements down so low that the
net register tonnage came out at a ludicrously low figure. Internally,
nothing was more conspicuous than her roominess, which was of a quite
exceptional character. The vessel was a two-masted sailing craft, but
supplied also with an auxiliary motor, which did not detract from the
roominess of the ship, since it was placed out of the way underneath
the companion ladder. However, by the time the deductions had been
made for “engine-room” space, “chart-room” (which was really the
comfortable and spacious main cabin), and sundry other items, the size
of the yacht had theoretically shrunk from 20 tons to something almost
insignificant, and the consequence was that this bold vessel was able
to escape with harbour dues as low as yachts of one quarter of her own
tonnage. Not long since a humorist saw fit to write an amusing yarn,
in which he depicted a certain individual who, smarting under what he
believed were excessive harbour dues, determined at length to get even
with the authorities, and finally had built a steam vessel rather on
the lines of the screw tug than the usual steam yacht. Roominess was
not the owner’s objective; all he wanted was just as much space for
himself as was comfortable. But he sub-divided the rest of the ship
into a large space for her engines and boilers, as well as auxiliary
engines to drive capstans, together with a roomy forecastle for the
crew. His own cabin was clearly marked on the plan as “Captain’s
Cabin.” Finally, after the vessel was launched, and the internal
capacity of the hull, as well as the spaces occupied by the machinery
and the crew, had been deducted so as to obtain the net register
tonnage, it was found that instead of coming out at so much net
register, the figures showed that she was _minus_ 7 tons! Consequently,
the owner used to protest every time he was charged with harbour dues,
that instead of being called upon to pay, it was really the harbour
authorities who owed him. After this, it is not surprising to learn
that the name of the vessel was the _Euome_. I do not suggest for a
moment that this story is anything but mythical, but it is sufficiently
illustrative of what may occur when the tonnage measurement rules are
in a state of such confusion.
It will be readily understood that it is of the utmost importance
that regard be paid to the stability of the steamship, and herein
is presented another of those problems which have to be taken into
account and solved as easily as may be. Now, a vessel loses a great
deal of her stability when she carries loose in her hold oil in bulk,
grain, rice, and such movable cargoes. A similar effect is produced,
of course, by the amount of free water in her tanks. For unless these
features of danger are guarded against, it follows that when the ship
is inclined to one side or the other by wind or wave, the cargo will
cause the ship to have a worse list, and there may be some chance of
her not regaining her proper trim, and turning turtle altogether. It
is not so very long since a well-known cross-channel steamer which had
set out for this country disappeared during the course of her voyage,
and never a man lived to say how the foundering occurred. But it was
known that when she set forth a portion of her deck cargo consisted
of a heavy furniture van, and this, indeed, was seen floating about
at the time the disaster was thought to have occurred. The conclusion
generally arrived at in the minds of the best critics was that this
heavy deck cargo had caused the stability of the ship to decrease to
such an extent that when the ship rolled excessively she was unable to
avoid rolling right over.
We have already shown during the progress of our story how the use of
tanks has gradually been employed in the ballasting of the steamship.
Not merely is the double bottom used for this purpose, but, as we
mentioned, tanks are placed between decks in the wings in certain
ships. Although a steamship, when her double bottom tanks have been
filled, becomes much stiffer and possesses a greater displacement,
yet she will certainly roll more heavily, and so tend to cause heavy
strains in bad weather. Many vessels possess also tanks both in the
fore-peak and the after-peak, which are extremely useful for the
purposes of modifying the trim of the ship. This is especially valuable
when the ship is proceeding “light,” and has not the advantage of a
weighty cargo on board to keep the propeller well immersed. At the same
time, supposing that the after-peak tank were utilised for the purpose
of immersing the stern to a greater extent, it would also follow that
the bows would be raised fairly high above the water, and in the case
of a beam wind, the ship would not be easy to handle, for her head
would have a strong tendency to fall off in just the same way as the
man in the Canadian canoe seated at the stern finds that considerable
difficulty is met with in steering his little craft with her bows out
of the water, and at the mercy of every puff of wind which may blow
from either side. As in other respects the ship is a compromise, so in
regard to stability. She has to be stiff, or else she will roll right
over in a sea-way; yet she must not be too stiff, or she will roll
badly, and perhaps do herself serious harm, quite apart from being
extremely unpleasant to those who happen to be aboard. Therefore, the
aim nowadays is to give the ship a reasonable amount of stability, and
to cause her rolling in a sea-way to be of an easy character. This is
brought about by additional ballast tanks, which not only give the ship
greater immersion and displacement (so causing greater stability), but
by raising the centre of gravity through placing additional ballast in
those ’tween-deck wing tanks that we discussed when we were considering
the cantilever ships, the tendency of the vessel to roll is minimised.
In fact, the combination of the double-bottom tanks and the wing tanks
takes away excessive stiffness and heavy rolling, and makes the ship to
behave in an easy manner in bad weather, even without cargo on board.
Then, again, since salt water is more buoyant than fresh, it will
follow that when a ship passes from the sea into fresh water,
her draught will be increased, and, therefore, there will also be
a decrease in the amount of freeboard above the water-line, and,
consequently, the range of stability becomes less also.
Perhaps, like the propeller, the rudder also has been granted too
scanty a consideration by most general readers, although its action
is of the greatest interest. First of all, we must remember that the
rudder is useless in the case of still water; that is to say, the ship
must be going ahead or astern and not be stationary, and the speed of
the vessel must be greater or less than that of the water. Thus, when
a ship is riding to her anchor in a tide-way, the rudder is operative,
and the vessel can be steered across the stream; but supposing she
were to be steaming at the rate of 4 knots, and had with her a 4-knot
tide, she would not answer her helm. We mentioned at an earlier stage
that the ship when going ahead caused a column of water to follow after
her. The screw itself drives a column of water astern, and it must be
obvious that these masses of water must act on the rudder of the ship,
and so on her steering. Thus, the column of following water causes a
decrease in the pressure on the rudder, and so makes the rudder less
operative. The column of water, however, which is driven astern by the
propeller will cause a greater pressure on the rudder, and thus it is
possible for steamships propelled by a screw to use a small rudder, and
by cutting away the deadwood of the ship just forward of the rudder,
the latter is less interfered with by the hull, and the steering
qualities are improved. We quoted just now the expert opinions that
better speed is obtained when the screws are outward turning rather
than inward. The outward-turning screws also give superior steering
results in the case when the screws are placed near the hull, though
when the propellers are well out, this is not so noticeable. If one
desires to have a ship which shall turn quickly this characteristic
is obtained by cutting away the deadwood aft, and also the ship’s
forefoot. An extreme instance of this is found in the case of a
centre-board sailing craft, which, as anyone who has handled her knows
full well, will turn round with a remarkable and surprising celerity.
There are two types of rudders fitted to steamships. These consist of
the ordinary kind when the rudder is hung at its forward edge, and
the balanced type which has part of its area forward of its axis. An
example of the former will be found in the case of the White Star
_Laurentic_, while the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ each has a balanced
rudder. Since it is necessary to the rudder that to obtain steerage
effect there must be the motion of the ship through the water, or a
flow of water past the rudder, so that an excess of pressure may be
obtained on one side of the latter, it is possible for the steamship
to possess steerage way actually before she has obtained motion;
for the propeller race brings this about in an effective manner.
The advent of the twin-screw system was responsible for a material
increase in the turning possibilities of the ship, an advantage which
was much appreciated when already the steamship had attained such
enormous dimensions in regard to length. Thus, for example, supposing
a twin-screw steamship wishes to turn quickly to port, she can do this
by starboarding her helm, putting her port engines astern, and her
starboard engines ahead. The advantage of the balanced type of rudder
just mentioned is that it is easier to put over than the ordinary type,
but it demands that the deadwood of the stern should be considerably
cut away.
It is only comparatively recently that the full importance which it
deserves has been granted to the naval architectural experimental
tank, but these interesting objects are now becoming more numerous,
and yielding most valuable data on which to work. Fifty years ago
naval architecture in Great Britain was certainly not on a scientific
basis, and it was to France that we had to look for the leadership in
these matters. But ever since the founding of the Institution of Naval
Architects, and such men as Scott Russell, Sir Edward Reed and others
led the way, scientific shipbuilding began to advance in this country.
The results are evident in the shipbuilding history of our Royal
Navy, as well as in the excellence of our splendid merchant fleets.
In elucidating the many problems connected with ship architecture
the experimental tank is now taking even a more prominent place than
hitherto, and the recent opening of the National Experimental Tank
at Bushey, where research will be carried on continuously without
interference from commercial considerations, is deserving of the
warmest congratulations. One of the most important tanks in the world
is that owned by Messrs. John Brown and Co., Ltd., at their Clydebank
works. Indeed, it may be said that no feature of this important yard
is more deserving of interest. The tank is 400 feet long and 20 feet
wide, with a depth of 8 to 9 feet. At the end of the tank, where the
models are worked, are dry and wet docks for trimming these little
ships, which are sometimes as large as 20 feet long. The latter are
made of wax, carefully moulded, and their weight is automatically
registered. There is an over-head rail for removing the models from
one place to another, while the carriage from which the model is towed
through the water runs on rails fixed on each side of the concrete
walls of the tank, and is driven by electricity. At about the centre
of the main tank building there is an observation room which is used
for photographic purposes. Messrs. John Brown and Co. themselves have
admitted that it is owing to the valuable experiments obtained in
this tank that they have been able to design ships producing the best
results, whilst also exhibiting the maximum economy.
Mathematical theories and formulæ have contributed much to the
development of the steamship, but there is a point reached when these
are of no avail for the reason that when new problems arise that cannot
be solved by former experiences and existing data, a more practical
method of obtaining information must be found. It is here that the tank
comes in to solve the difficulties at hand both as to the hulls of the
ships themselves and the character of the propellers which are to send
them through the water. Had the experimental tank been encouraged at
an earlier date, no doubt certain of the errors which characterised
some of the ships of the sea might have been avoided. It is not enough
to build a steamship of enduring strength, and to give her the best
engines of the time; it is also essential that she be designed in
such a manner that her propellers forge her ahead with the minimum of
resistance.
Germany and America, no less than Great Britain, are now busying
themselves with the employment of the naval experimental tank, and
obtain thereby so many valuable data as to make such institutions
indispensable if advance in the science of naval architecture is to
be something more than ephemeral. The Norddeutscher Lloyd Company
had such a tank built in 1900 on the model of the one belonging to
the Royal Italian Navy at Spezia, and some description may not be
without interest. The tank is contained in a building 170 metres long
and 8 metres wide. On either side of the tank is a strong set of
rails on which the towing carriage runs, and the building contains
workshops wherein the models are constructed. The experiments are not
complicated, for after the displacement of the projected ship has
been decided on, several models of such a displacement are made from
drawings by means of an ingenious machine. These models are made out
of paraffin wax, and about 4 or 5 metres long. (A metre, it should be
remembered, is the equivalent of 1·094 English yards.)
Presently, after they have been finished off, the models are towed
through the tank, and their resistance is measured by a dynamometer,
the automatic drum simultaneously measuring the course and time. It
should be mentioned that it is after the models have been formed in
sifted clay that they are cast in wax as a hollow shell, the core being
made of battens, strong canvas being also employed. After the model
has been subjected to the cutting machine, it is planed and scraped by
hand to remove the excrescences of paraffin. The advantage which the
experiments made in tanks give lies in the fact that one can thereby
ascertain the resistance which the model will encounter through the
water, and consequently the amount of effective horse-power that she
will require. Granted that an owner desires to have built a steamship
of a certain displacement, it follows that that amount of displacement
is capable of being embodied in numerous different shapes; and it
is part of the work of the experimental tank to determine the most
suitable ratios of length, breadth and draught which shall produce the
ideal ship for the purpose desired. Indeed, it may be said that it
is only by means of the experiments made in tanks that any safe and
reliable method can be afforded for attaining the desired end.
The model is made according to scale with a displacement proportionate
to that of the steamship to be built, and the correct amount of
immersion is given to the model by adding ballast in the shape of small
linen bags containing shot. In order to obtain the measurements of the
model’s resistance in the water, it is placed under the carriage which
bears the measuring instruments for indicating both the resistance
of the model, and the thrusting and twisting stresses of the model
screws. It should be explained that the carriage is moved by motors
which derive their current from accumulators, and it is possible, by
regulating the accumulators, to obtain over 400 different speeds. The
advantage of this in studying the wave formation which the models set
up is of the highest importance. To be able to ascertain how much
resistance the model sets up at lesser and higher speeds is a great
gain, and in no respect is this information more valuable than when
experiments are being made with a view to high-speed torpedo boats; but
as this kind of craft does not come within our present scope, we must
pass on.
We may turn now from some of the more technical problems incurred by
the steamship to a consideration of some of those which are of a more
practical nature. It is just because the ship has in modern times taken
on a dual character--become something else besides a sea-craft--that
the possibilities of any accident occurring to her have increased
tremendously. It is obvious that so long as you retain simplicity,
there is not much chance offered for accident; but as soon as you
begin to make the ship a mass of complications, then instantly there
arise on every side facilities for mishap of some sort or another.
Fractured shafts are happily of rare occurrence, but when they happen
at all they are naturally far worse for the single-screw ship than
the vessel having two or more propellers. When a connecting rod or
piston-rod breaks the matter is serious, for it is not advisable to
attempt repairing the same at sea, since unless the thing is done quite
effectively, there is danger of the rod giving way again, and if the
piston were to be disconnected suddenly from the crank, it would smash
the engine. The first time that a tail-shaft was ever repaired at sea
was in October of 1900, when the chief engineer of the s.s. _Athena_
successfully brought about so interesting an achievement, and a similar
feat was performed about five years later on the s.s. _Milton_, so that
the ship was able to steam at the rate of a hundred miles per day.
But a far more difficult and rarer task was that of the chief engineer
of the s.s. _Matoppo_, who for the first time on record actually
renewed the blades of the propeller at sea. This would be no mean
performance in the case of fair weather, but, as it happened, there
was a high sea running at the time, and the work was rendered both
difficult and dangerous. One of the most tiresome accidents occurs when
the steamship loses her rudder, or it becomes so much damaged as to be
unserviceable. In the case of a twin-screw ship, as we have already
intimated, the consequences are not necessarily serious, and ships
have succeeded in making long passages steering by means of their two
propellers. But in the case of a single-screw ship the carrying away of
the rudder is of greater consequence, and it becomes necessary to rig
up a jury rudder as well as possible. This consists in towing astern
a spar which is attached to either quarter of the ship by means of
hawsers.
An interesting experience is related by Commander W. H. Owen, R.N.R.,
who at the time of the following incident was in command of a screw
steamer of about 1,200 tons. When about 600 miles south-west of the
Lizard, his ship had the misfortune to carry away her rudder. A jury
rudder was rigged up in the usual way by fashioning a big steering
oar out of the heaviest derrick which the ship possessed, bolting
together iron plates at the outside end, and weighted below so as
to keep the blade vertical. From the end steel hawsers were led in
through outriggers to the steam winch. This all took time, and it was
a day and a quarter before the arrangement was fixed up. When it was
finally put into place, it only lasted a few minutes, for the first
scend of the ship smashed the whole thing. Other means had, therefore,
to be employed, and the ship was eventually steered into Falmouth,
where temporary repairs were effected, the vessel then proceeding
to Southampton, where a new rudder was made. Commander Owen adds
that he considers the best possible arrangement, if such an accident
should occur, to be as follows:--A heavy spar should be lashed to as
much chain cable as the spar can sustain while yet keeping afloat,
the bights of cable being allowed to hang down in lengths of about
two fathoms, thus forming practically a solid sheet of iron, the
bights of the cable being lashed close together by smaller chain.
The contrivance is then towed astern of the ship from the quarters,
sufficient scope being given to allow the spar to clear the counter as
the vessel pitches or scends, the controlling being effected by means
of steel hawsers attached to the other end of the spar, and led through
outriggers to a steam winch.
Another kind of disaster which may overcome the steamship is that of
fire. Owing to the frequency of this species of calamity, the committee
of Lloyd’s some seven years ago instituted a special inquiry into the
matter, and after examining no fewer than 627 cases of fire on ships,
it was found that as many as 403 had occurred while the ship was
in port; thus only about one-third of the instances happened while
the ship was at sea. In most cases there was no evidence to show the
cause of these fires, but since it was ascertained that many of the
outbreaks occurred while the ship was discharging or loading cargo,
it was thought that a closer supervision over the use of lights and
a more stringent prevention of smoking in the holds would give more
satisfactory results.
The use of water and steam as fire extinguishers is frequently
abortive, and causes unnecessary damage to the cargo; but nowadays
there are scientific appliances which are much more effective for
extinguishing outbreaks that may occur on board ship, and these are
recommended for use at the ports and docks. In 1906, the New Zealand
Government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes of
fires occurring on ships which carry such commodities as wool, flax and
tow. Besides recommending that every ship engaged in the carrying trade
of this nature should be fitted with a chemical fire-extinguishing
system, the Commission reported that the cause of fire in the case
of flax and tow would seem to have been usually other than that of
spontaneous combustion, but the very nature of these articles makes
them especially liable to fire from extraneous causes. With regard
to wool, however, there was evidence for supposing that spontaneous
combustion does take place.
A steamship problem of an entirely different nature is that which
concerns the commissariat department. In the olden days, when
travellers were accustomed to remember that they were voyaging on a
ship, matters were fairly simple and straightforward; but now that the
ship has become a floating hotel, and the passenger expects to live
quite as well as, if not more luxuriously than, on shore, the problem
of being able not merely to feed two or three thousand people for a
week or longer, without being able to touch port, but to supply most of
the dainties which are only found in the best equipped land restaurant
has assumed large dimensions. The days when salted meat was the staple
sustenance of the sea traveller have long since gone, and to-day even
the steerage passengers are catered for in a manner that is at least
humane, even if it is scarcely luxurious. All this has been brought
about by the influence of more comfortable living ashore, as well as by
the keen competition between the rival steamship companies to hold out
alluring incentives to the potential passenger. The work in connection
with the culinary department has grown so enormously as to necessitate
the employment of mechanical contrivances wherever possible. Thus, for
instance, on some of the Atlantic liners the coffee-mills instead of
being turned by hand, are driven by steam-engines and electromotors.
Ingenious boiling apparatuses for eggs; machines for cutting meat,
for mincing, whipping cream, straining, dish-washing and drying
without the need of using towels, making bread, filtering water and
many other purposes are employed, and the perfection of these minor
machines is scarcely less admirable than that of the engines whose sole
service consists in propelling the ship across the ocean. Some of the
Norddeutscher Lloyd steamships have recently availed themselves of a
new invention for carrying live fresh-water fish, so that they may come
fresh to the table. This innovation was first made on board the _Kaiser
Wilhelm II._ The fish-tanks are placed on the awning deck, where ocean
passengers are able to have the singular experience of catching alive
at sea such fresh-water fish as trout, carp, pike and tench.
The ventilation of a steamship also presents a problem that is not
always capable of easy solution. Indeed, ship-ventilation presents
difficulties that do not arise in the case of shore-buildings, and this
is to an extent due to the fact that there is only a limited space
available for the ventilating apparatus. Mechanical fans are much
employed for both the stokehold and the quarters of the passengers,
being driven by electric motors. The efficient ventilation of the
store-rooms, which contain nowadays such quantities of perishable
foods, is also effected by this means. On cattle-ships, especially
in hot climates; in giving air to the holds of grain ships, and, in
fact, on the steamship generally, a thoroughly capable ventilating
arrangement has long since been found to be a necessity rather than
a luxury. But there is a difficulty with regard to the ventilators
themselves on board ship. If they are left open for the air, it is
also possible for some fool or criminal to throw down a lighted match
or cigarette-end, and so ignite dangerous vapour that may be below
deck. After the disastrous fire on the liner _Sardinia_ when off
Malta, in 1909, the Board of Trade inquiry made clear the cause of the
catastrophe, namely that inflammable matter had succeeded in reaching
the cargo space where chemical action had generated dangerous vapours.
There was only one way in which fire could have reached this dormant
danger, and that was by means of the ventilators. The reader will
probably recollect that the ship was carrying Moorish pilgrims at the
time, and that they had been cooking food at one of their braziers,
and some believe that a hot cinder was blown down a ventilator and so
arrived in the hold, with the result that is now common knowledge. The
possibility of such a thing occurring again, however, is now obviated
by a patent weather-proof ventilator, which is so constructed that
access to the holds cannot be reached by anything else than air.
Neither rain nor sea can get down, still less any inflammable matter.
Thus, one by one, problems arise to thwart the hand of man, but only
to be overcome by the latter through patience and the knowledge
which comes after much thought and actual experience. Not merely in
seaworthiness, nor in the matter of speed, has the steamship reached
what even the most blasé must call the limit, but the same enterprising
spirit which has brought this about has also provided that comfort
is also of an importance that demands the most detailed attention.
Whether in return for all this care and trouble the passenger is
proportionately grateful is another question altogether.
INDEX
_Aaron Manby_, the, 132
_A. L. Shotwell_, the, 260
Abell, Prof. W. S., 311
Aberdeen Line, 216
_Acadia_, the, 107
_Admiral de Ruyter_, the, 237
Admiralty, the, mail service and, 105, 110, 114;
use of bulkheads and, 156;
and mail service, 224;
and mails to Channel Islands, 227
_Adriatic_, the, 179, 206–7, 208, 303
African Steamship Co., 216
_Alamo_, the, 307
_Alexandra_, the, 277
Allan Line: introduction of turbine into Atlantic service, 190;
foundation of, 216
Allen, John, method of propelling boats by, 27;
and lifeboats, 254
America, early steamboats of, 44;
steam navigation in, 60, 63;
development of steam engine in, 88;
river steamers of, 258;
lake steamers of, 264
American Line, 165, 173, 220
_Amerika_, the, 207
Anchor Line, 216, 220
_Anglia_, the, 222
_Arabic_, the, 179
_Araguaya_, the, 292
Archimedes, steam power and, 19
_Archimedes_, the, 120–1, 123, 124
_Argyle_, the, 84
_Arizona_, the, 155, 156
Armstrong, Mitchell & Co., 243
_Asturias_, the, 229
_Atalanta_, the, 228
_Athena_, the, 323
Atlantic, steamships on, 91, 96;
the _Sirius_, 96–7;
the _Great Western_, 97;
early fares, 100;
Liverpool-New York route, 101;
the _Royal William_, 101–2;
the _British Queen_, 102;
inauguration of mail service, 105–7;
the _Britannia_, 107–9;
Collins Line, 118;
the _Robert F. Stockton_, 119;
_Scotia’s_ record, 129;
Inman Line competition, 148;
Cunard competition, 149;
records of _City of Paris_, _Russia_, and _City of Brussels_, 149;
White Star competition, 154–5;
_Britannic’s_ record, 155;
_City of Berlin’s_ record, 155;
Guion Line competition, 155;
_Servia’s_ record, 157;
records of _Umbria_ and _Etruria_, 159;
competition of ’eighties, 165;
_Majestic’s_ and _Teutonic’s_ records, 169;
_Lucania’s_ and _Campania’s_ records, 171;
German competition, 173, 179, 180;
_Kaiser Wilhelm II.’s_ record, 180;
Allan Line and turbines, 190;
records of _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_, 204;
Royal Line, 217
Atlantic Transport Line, 220
Atmospheric engine, invention by Papin of, 22
_Auguste Victoria_, the, 295
_Austral_, the, 162
Australia, inauguration of steam service to, 116
Australian Royal Mail Steam Navigation Co., 131
“Awning-deck” type, 286
Ayre, A. L.: “British Shipbuilding,” 313
Baird, Charles, 86
“Balanced” rudders, 318
Ballast, questions of, 315
Ballin, Herr, 212
_Balmoral Castle_, the, 219
_Baltic_, the, 167, 193, 194, 207
Barlow, Joel, association with Fulton, 49
Beam engine, 36;
development and adaptation, 87;
of American river boats, 262
Bell, Henry, and Symington, 55;
experiments with paddles: the _Comet_, 78
_Ben-my-Chree_, the, 230
_Berlin_, the, 209, 289, 292, 302
Bernoulli, Daniel, 33
_Bessemer_, the, 225
Bibby Line, 215
Bilge-keels, of _Campania_ and _Lucania_, 171;
of _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_, 200
_Blackcock_, the, 235–6, 237
Boiler, evolution of, 133;
distilled water and, 136, 167;
“Scotch” type, 151
Booth Line, 216
“Boss” of screw shaft, 210
Boulton and Watt, 35, 43, 59, 60, 75, 84, 88, 89, 94, 95
Boulton, Matthew, association with Watt, 35
Bourne, William, “devises” for propelling boats, 15
_Bovic_, the, 220
“Box” boiler, 133
Branca, Giovanni, discovery of principle of turbine by, 20, 184
Bridge deck, evolution of, 162, 283;
in tugs, 235, 237
_Britannia_, the, 107, 108–9, 298
_Britannia_, the (P. & O.), 163
_Britannic_, the, 153, 154
British and Foreign Steam Navigation Co., 227
British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 107
British East India Co., 216
_British Queen_, the, 97, 102, 103
British Queen Steam Navigation Co., 97
“British shipbuilding,” by A. L. Ayre, 313
Brown, John, & Co., 319
Brunel: the _Great Western_, 97;
the _Great Britain_, 123;
the _Victoria_, 131;
_Great Eastern_, 139
“Bucket” dredger, 239
Building of ships, 282, _et seq._
Bulkheads, of _Scotia_, 129, 130;
of _Great Eastern_, 143;
of _Arizona_, 155;
Admiralty and, 155–6;
of _New York_ and _Philadelphia_, 166;
of _George Washington_, 208;
of _Laurentic_, 210;
of oil-tankers, 244;
of _Commonwealth_, 263
Bulwarks, disappearance of, 152
_Buenos Ayrean_, the, 150
Burns, George, 106
Bushey, national experimental tank at, 319
Byrne, St. Clair, 270
Cables, submarine, laying of, 242–3
Caird & Co., 218
_Calais-Douvres_, the, 225, 226
_Caledonia_, the, 84, 107
Caligula’s galleys, 194, 297
_Cambria_, the, 222, 225
_Campania_, the, 159, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177
Camper and Nicholson, 278
Canadian Northern Railway Co., ships of, 217
Canadian Pacific Railway, ships of, 220
_Candia_, the, 134, 135, 136
Cantilever-framed ships, 249
_Car of Neptune_, the, 76
Cargo, dangerous, 243, 246
_Carmania_, the, 187, 191, 192
_Caronia_, the, 191, 192, 306
_Carthaginian_, the, 307
_Castalia_, the, 225, 226
Castle Mail Packets Co., 216
_Cedric_, the, 178, 179, 289
_Celtic_, the, 147, 178, 289
_Cevic_, the, 220
Channel Islands, boat services to, 227
_Charlotte Dundas_, the, 46–8, 55, 78, 301
Chester and Holyhead Railway Co., ships of, 222
_China_, the, 150, 294
“Chronological History of the Origin and Development of Steam
Navigation,” by Admiral Preble, 30
Churchyard, Mr., and mail contract, 224
City Line, 216
_City of Berlin_, the, 155
_City of Brussels_, the, 149, 154
_City of Cleveland_, the, 264
City of Dublin Steam Packet Co., 101, 124
_City of Edinburgh_, the, 93
_City of Glasgow_, the, 147
_City of Manchester_, the, 147
_City of New York_, the, 165
_City of Paris_ (1), the, 148, 149, 152, 153, 176
_City of Paris_ (2), the (Inman), 165, 168, 178
_City of Philadelphia_, the, 148
_City of Rome_, the, 165, 236
_Clarence_, the, 267
_Clermont_, the, 48, 60, 63;
engines of, 69;
original drawings for, 69;
first trials of, 69;
trip on Hudson, 70;
at Hudson-Fulton celebrations, 70;
alteration of, 73;
disappearance of, 76;
engines of, 88;
steering methods of, 89;
boilers of, 133, 137, 238, 261, 301
Clydebank Works, 319
_Clyde_, the, 110
“Clyde Passenger Steamer: Its Rise and Progress during the Nineteenth
Century,” by Capt. J. Williamson, 78
Coal consumption, tests for, 293
“Coffin-brigs,” 105
Collier, improvements on, 250
Collins Line, 118, 173, 216
_Columbia_, the, 107
_Comet_, the (1), 48;
building, 78;
engines, 79;
commercial failure, 80;
wreck of, 82;
boiler of, 133
_Comet_, the, (2), 82
_Commonwealth_, the, 261, 262
Compagnie Transatlantique, 212
Compound engine, principle of, 117
Condenser, invention of, 135;
surface, 136, 167;
of _Great Eastern_, 141
Continental routes, 223
_Copenhagen_, the, 229
_Cornelia_, the, 269
Cranes used in shipbuilding, 289
Cross-channel service, institution of, 82, 84, 221, _et seq._
Cunard Company: foundation of, 106;
early ships of, 107;
monopoly of Atlantic, 118;
adoption of iron, and screw propellers, 128, 145;
Atlantic competition, 149, 156, 170, 178;
use of steel, 156;
use of turbines, 191;
agreement with Government as to _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_, 196;
new ships, 212;
Mediterranean service, 220
Cunard, Samuel, and _Royal William_, 105;
association with Robert Napier, 106;
tender for steam carriage for mails, 106;
British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 107;
correspondence with Ross and Primrose, 108
De Caus, Solomon, 7, 9, 20
Decks, evolution of, 149, 152;
“turtle,” 153, 158, 168, 172;
“bridge,” 162;
of _Lucania_, 172;
of _Oceanic_, 177;
of _Carmania_, 191;
of _George Washington_, 208;
of _Balmoral Castle_, 219;
of turretships, 246;
of American river boats, 259;
of lake steamers, 264;
of yachts, 272;
types of, 283–287;
construction of in liners, 290
Deck-cargo, dangers of, 315
Deck tonnage, 312
Decoration in modern liner, 302
De Garray, Blasco, early experiments of, 14
De Jouffroy, Marquis, as first inventor of steamship, 8;
experiments with Watt engine, 33, 40;
second steamboat of, 41, 55
De Laval, Dr. Gustav, invention of turbine, 184
Denny, William, 81
Desblanc, Fulton and, 56;
experiments by, 59
_Deutschland_, the, 198, 207, 213
Dickens, Charles, on Atlantic passage, 298–9, 300
“Displacement,” definition of, 146
Donaldson Line, 216
Dover-Calais route, first steamer on, 223
Dredgers, variety of, 239
Dredging of harbours, 211–2
_Dromedary_, the, 239, 261
Dublin Steam Packet Co., 221
Dundonald, Earl of, 133
Eastern Navigation Co., 139
_Eclipse_, the, 259, 260
_Edinburgh Castle_, the, 219
_Edmund Moran_, the, 237
_Elbe_, the, 174
Elder & Co., John, 160, 274
Electric light, first use of on liners, 155
Electricity, modern service of, 305
_Elizabeth_, the, 86
Ellerman Line, 216
_Emperor of Russia_, the, 86
_Empire_, the, 261
_Empress_, the, 226
_Empress of Britain_, the, 220
English Channel, first steamer crossing, 82
_Enterprise_, the, 94
_Eothen_, the, 269
Ericsson, John, screw propeller of, 119
_Etruria_, the, 158–9, 161, 165, 212, 235
_Europa_, the, 212–3
Experimental tank, naval architectural, 318;
national at Bushey, 319;
at Clydebank Works, 319;
Norddeutscher Lloyd, 320;
Italian, 320
_Express_, the, 225
_Fairy_, H.M.S., 210
_Falcon_, the, 94
Fall River Line, the, 262, 304
Falmouth as mail port, 111
_Faraday_, the, 243
Field, Joshua, 101
Fire, methods of extinguishing, 304;
causes of, 325;
extinguishers, 325
_Fire Fly_ (1812), 76
_Fire King_, the, 268
_Fire Queens_, the, 268
Fishguard, dredging at, 239
Fish-tanks on liners, 326
Fitch, John, association with Rumsey, 44;
first steamboat, 44–5;
dispute with Fulton, 46
Flush-decked steamship, 137, 283
Fly-wheel, invention by Watt, 38
_Forth_, the, 111
_Francis B. Ogden_, the, 119
_Francis Smith_, the, 120, 123
_Franconia_, the, 212
Fulton, Robert, centenary, 7;
and Desblanc, 8;
and Rumsey, 44;
_versus_ Fitch, 46;
birth: visit to France: “plunging-boat”: association with
Livingston, 48–9;
experiments in Paris, 49;
loss of first boat, 52;
second boat, 54;
the _Clermont_, 60;
building of _Clermont_, 63;
experiments on paddle-resistance, 65;
construction of _Clermont_, 69;
first voyage of _Clermont_, 70;
betrothal, 71;
death, 76;
Bell’s association with, 78;
schemes for India and Russia, 85;
experiments with model, 120, 259, 261
Galloway, Elijah, 101
_Gamecock_, the, 235
General Steam Navigation Co., founding of, 93, 216, 223, 224
_George Washington_, the, 208, 213, 289, 301
_Georgic_, the, 219
German ship-building, growth of, 173
_Germanic_, the, 154
Girard, Capt. G. B., 235
Glass, use of for sidelights, 153
_Glowworm_, the, 268
“Grasshopper” engine, 79
_Great Britain_, the, 123, 124, 135, 138
_Great Eastern_, the, building of, 138;
launch of, 140;
engines of, 141;
speed of, 142;
construction of, 143;
comparison with modern ships, 144, 157, 173, 176, 179, 180, 192,
196, 242, 288
Great Eastern Railway, boats of, 229
Great Lake steamers, 264
_Great Western_, the, 97, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 123, 138, 148
Great Western Railway, steamers of, 98, 123;
Channel service of, 228;
passenger tender, 238
Griffiths, Robert, 210
“Guards” of American paddle-boats, 261, 264
Guericke, Otto von, discovery of vacuum, 20
Guest, Montague: “History of Royal Yacht Squadron,” 267
Guion Line, 155, 156, 212
Hall, Samuel, 136
Hamburg-American Line, 207, 212
Harbour-deck of turret-ship, 246;
of trunk-deck steamer, 248
Harbours, depth of, 211;
dredging of, 239
Harland, Sir Edward, 152, 168
Harland and Wolff, 151, 207, 209, 211, 212, 217, 289, 294, 295
Harrison Line, 216
Harwich-Hook of Holland route, 229
_Helen McGregor_, the, 128
Helm, developments of, 90
Hero (130 B.C.), application of steam power by, 19
_Hesperian_, the, 307
_Hibernia_, the, 222
_Himalaya_, the, 134
_Hindostan_, the, 114
“History of American Steam Navigation,” by J. H. Morrison, 44
“Hogging,” 98, 102
_Hohenzollern_, the, 279
Holt Line, 220
Holyhead as port, 221
Holyhead-Kingstown service, 222
Horse-power, definition of, 39;
in relation to speed, 67
Houlder Brothers, 216
Howden draught system, 209
Hudson, the, steamers of, 261
Hudson-Fulton celebrations, 69, 70
Hulls, Jonathan, inventions of, 29, _et seq._, 258
Ice-breakers, 250–1
India, first steamship voyage to, 94;
first steamships to, 114
_Inez Clarke_, 258
_Inland_, the, 245, 248
Inman Line, iron steamers of, 147;
Atlantic competition, 148, 165
Institution of Naval Architects, 319
“Intermediate” ships, 178, 220
_Ioland_, the, 280
Irish Channel, steam service across, 221, _et seq._
Iron, first use of in masts, 122;
first steamboat of, 124;
general use of, 145;
advantages of, 146
Isle of Man Steam Packet Co., 230
Ismay, Mr. T. H., 151
_Ivernia_, the, 167, 178, 220
_James Watt_, the, 77, 93
_Jenny Lind_, the, 268
_John Bowes_, the, 242
Jones, Sir Alfred, 216
_Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 198, 207,
302, 306
_Kaiser Wilhelm II._, the, 149, 162, 179, 180, 198, 207, 209, 306, 326
_Kentucky_, the, 107
_Kronprinzessin Victoria_, the, 236
_Lady Lansdowne_, the, 124
Laird, John, 124
Lane, Thomas, association with Fulton, 85
Launch, conduct of a, 290
_Laura_, the, 229
_Laurentic_, the, 209, 211, 318
“Leibnizens und Huygens Briefwechsel mit Papin,” by Dr. Ernst
Gerland, 23
_Leinster_, the, 222
_Leviathan_, the, 240
_Liberty_, the, 280, 303
“Life of Robert Napier,” by James Napier, 78
Lifeboats, 254–6
Lifeboats, steam, application of Allen’s principles to, 28
_Lightning_, the, first mail steamer, 93
Liner, inauguration of, 104, _et seq._;
transition state of, 145;
luxuries of, 300–4;
navigation safeguards of, 305;
ventilation problems, 327;
commissariat difficulties of, 325
“Link-motion gear,” 142
_Livadia_, the, 274, 276
Liverpool, first steamship in, 83;
depth of water at, 239
Liverpool Screw Towing and Lighterage Co., 235
Livingston, Robert R., association with Fulton, 48–9, 60
Lloyd’s, committee of inquiry into fires, 324
Lobnitz & Co., Messrs., 239
_London_, the, 162
London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, boats of, 227
London, Chatham and Dover Railway, boats of, 223, 224, 226
London and North Western Railway Co., ships of, 222
London and South Western Railway, Channel service of, 228, 229
_Lucania_, the, 159, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177, 212
_Lusitania_, the (Cunard), 8, 60, 103, 107, 138, 146, 173, 180, 192,
194–206, 212, 213, 239, 301, 318
_Lusitania_, the (Orient Line), 161
_Lyons_, the, 227
_Lysistrata_, the, 280
_Macedonia_, the, 218
MacIver, David, 106
_Magnetic_, the, 193
Mails, carriage of Continental, 224
Mail service to Channel Islands, 227, 228
Mail steamer, the first, 93
Mail steamers, first tender for, 105;
early Cunard, 107;
Royal Mail Steam Packet Co.’s first contract and ships, 110–11
_Majestic_, the, 149, 168, 178, 179, 194
_Maloja_, the, 218
_Malwa_, the, 218
Manby, Aaron, and first iron steamboat, 124, 132
_Mantua_, the, 218
Marconi system, installation on _Campania_ and _Lucania_, 171
_Marjory_, the, 84
_Marmora_, the, 218
Mathesius, steam power and, 19
_Matoppo_, the, 323
Matthews, Capt. B. E., 148
Maudslay, Joseph, 132;
_Great Western_ engines, 100
_Mauretania_, the, 8, 60, 103, 107, 138, 144, 146, 151, 153, 173,
192, 193, 194, 206, 208, 211, 212, 213, 230, 236, 238, 239,
288, 299, 318
Mechanical propulsion of boats, early forms of, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16,
20, 22;
Earl Stanhope’s scheme, 57;
Elijah Ormsbee’s scheme, 57
_Medina_, the, 218
_Medway_, the, 242
_Megantic_, the, 209
“Memorials of James Watt,” by Williamson, 83
_Menai_, the, 223
_Menai_, the (S. Y.), 268
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, 240, 241
Miller, Patrick, first paddle-boat by, 42;
steamboats by, 43
_Milton_, the, 323
_Minnehaha_, the, 220
Mississippi, Fulton’s scheme for the, 76;
steamboats of, 258, 259, 260
_Moldavia_, the, 218
_Monarch_, the, 242
_Mongolia_, the, 218
_Monitoria_, the, 247
Monkey forecastle, 283–4
_Mooltan_, the, 118, 218
_Morea_, the, 218
Morrison, J. H.: “History of American Steam Navigation,” 44
“Mould floor,” shipbuilders’, 287
_Munich_, the, 229
Murdoch, William, 132
Napier, Charles, application of paddle-wheels by, 14;
and first iron steamboat, 124
Napier, David, experiments in resistance, 81;
the _Rob Roy_, 81;
and cross-channel packets, 220;
and _Comet_, 79;
condenser and, 136
Napier, James: “Life of Robert Napier,” 78
Napier, Robert, engines for _British Queen_, 102;
and Samuel Cunard, 106, 107;
and steam yachts, 267
_Natchez_, the, 259, 261
National Line, 151, 212
Naval Architects, Institution of, 319
Navigation, modern safeguards, 305
Nelson Line, 220
Newcomen, Thomas, steam engine of, 25–7;
improvement of by Watt, 35, 135
New England Navigation Co., 262
Newhaven-Dieppe route, 227
_New York_, the, 165, 220
New York harbour, dredging of, 212;
tugs of, 237
New Zealand Commission on causes of fire, 325
_Niagara II._, the, 311
Noah’s Ark, compared with _Baltic_, 193
Norddeutscher Lloyd, growth of, 174, 208, 209
North German Lloyd, 174, 216, 220
Northern Yacht Club, and steam yachts, 267
_Notre Dame des Dunes_, the, 253
_Novelty_, the, 121
_Ocean_, the (tug), 236
_Oceanic_, the (1), 138, 151–5, 168, 299, 300
_Oceanic_, the (2), 176, 179, 180, 215
Ohio, steamers of the, 258
Oil-lamps, first use of, 153
“Oil-tanker,” the, 243
_Olympic_, the, 207, 211
_Ophir_, the, 169
_Oregon_, the, 156
_Orient_, the, 161, 162
Orient Line, foundation of, 161
Ormsbee, Elijah, 57, 59
_Orontes_, the, 252
Oscillating engine, principle of, 132;
of _Great Eastern_, 141;
of _Leinster_, 222
“Overland” route, 115
Owen, Commander W. H., 323
_Pacific_, the, 133
Pacific Steam Navigation Co., establishment of, 113, 151, 161
Paddle-wheels, Roman use of, 13;
on frigate _Galatea_, 14;
early application of, 16–17;
early forms of, 22;
de Jouffroy’s, 41;
Patrick Miller’s, 42;
Symington’s, 43;
Fitch’s, 45;
of _Charlotte Dundas_, 47;
Fulton’s, 49;
Fulton’s experiments on resistance of, 65;
of _Clermont_, 72–4;
Bell’s experiments, 78;
of _Comet_, 79;
on early steamboats, 86;
of _Prinzessin Charlotte_, 89;
of _Savannah_, 91;
“cycloidal” type of _Great Western_, 100;
of _Britannia_, 109;
of _Scotia_, 129, 130;
in tugs, 239;
of _Great Eastern_, 141;
stern, 258;
American “guard” system, 261;
of _Commonwealth_, 263;
first fitted to yacht, 268
Panama Canal, 114
Pancirolli, Guido: “History of Many Memorable Things Lost, &c.,” 16
Papin, Denis, 7, 9, 10;
invention of steam engine, 21;
first steamboat, 22;
safety valve of, 23;
correspondence with Leibnitz, 23–4
_Paragon_, the, 76
_Paris_, the, 166
Parsons, Hon. C. A., invention of turbine, 184
Parsons turbine for yachts, 274
_Peluse_, the, 239, 240
Peninsular and Oriental Co., establishment and first ships of, 114;
“overland” route to India, 115;
Australian service, 116;
influence of Suez Canal on, 117;
the _Mooltan_, 118, 161, 163;
and Lund Line, 216;
recent ships of, 218
Penn, John, 133
Périer, experiment with a Watt engine, 33, 40;
association with Fulton, 50, 54, 56
_Persia_, the, 129, 147
_Philadelphia_, the, 165, 220, 295
_Phœbus_, the, 244
_Phœnix_, the, 76
Pirrie, Lord, 217
“Plunging-boat,” Fulton’s, 48
_Pool Zee_, the, 236
Popoff, Admiral, 276
Post Office mail packets, 224
Preble, Admiral, on Hulls’ experiments, 30;
on American and English engines, 88
Prince Robert of Hesse, paddle-wheel boat of, 22
_Princess Mary_, the, 224
_Princess Maud_, the, 224
_Prinzessin Charlotte_, the, 89
_Priscilla_, the, 262
Propeller, problems connected with, 309–10;
inward _v._ outward turning, 311;
effect on steering, 317
_Providence_, the, 262
Pulitzer, Mr., 303
_Puritan_, the, 262
Quadruple-expansion engines, 166, 178
_Queen_, the, 230
Queen Victoria, yachts in honour of, 268
Randolph Elder & Co., 116
Reciprocating engine, Watt’s invention of “double action” for, 38;
difficulties of, 209;
of _Laurentic_, 210
Red Star Line, 150
Reed, Sir Edward, 319
Rennie & Sons, Messrs. J. T., 216
Repairs, curious, 294–6, 323
Resistance, Fulton’s experiments, 65;
recent experiments, 66;
varieties of, 67;
D. Napier’s experiments in, 81;
John Scott Russell and, 130–1;
speed and, 176;
experiments in, 321–2
_Richmond_, the, 76
_Robert G. Lee_, the, 261
_Robert F. Stockton_, the, 119, 124
_Rob Roy_, the, 81, 221, 223, 224
Rogers, Moses, 91
_Roode Zee_, the, 236
Ropner & Sons, Messrs., 248
Rotary engine, Watt’s, 37
Royal Commission on Tonnage, 313
_Royal Edward_, the, 217
_Royal George_, the, 217
Royal Line, 217, 220
Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., first contract for mails, 110;
the _Teviot_ and _Clyde_, 110–11;
_Forth_ and _Thames_, launch of, 111;
removal to Southampton;
extension to South America, 112;
the _Trent_, 113
_Royal William_, the (American), 95, 103, 105, 221
_Royal William_, the (2) (1838), 101
Royal yachts, 277–8
Royal Yacht Squadron and steam yachts, 266–9
Rubie, John, 89
_Ruby_, the, engines of, 94
Rudder, balanced type of, 201;
bow-, 231;
of “bucket” dredgers, 240;
action of, 317;
types of, 318;
loss of, 323
Rumsey, James, method of propelling boats of, 28;
experiments by, 44;
association with Fulton and Fitch, 44, 254
Russia, introduction of steamships into, 85
_Russia_, the, 149, 150
Russell, Scott, on Hulls’ experiments, 31;
and “resistance,” 130–1, 137;
and _Great Eastern_, 139, 319
_St. Paul_, the, 220
_St. Petersburg_, the, 229
_St. Louis_, the, 220
Safety-valve, discovery by Papin of, 23
“Sagging,” 99, 102
_Sagitta_, the, 278
Sailing ship, limitations of, 5
Saloon, position of, 152;
fittings of, 153;
of modern liners, 300, 302
_Sardinia_, the, 327
_Savannah_, the, 91
Savery, Thomas, inventions of, 24–5;
“horse-power” calculations of, 39
_Saxonia_, the, 178, 220
_Scot_, the, 295
“Scotch” boiler, 151
_Scotia_, the, 129
_Scotia_, the (Holyhead), 222
Screw, first use of by J. Stevens, 63
“Screw-port,” introduction of, 169;
of _Mauretania_, 201
Screw propeller, development of, 119;
Ericsson’s, 119;
Francis Smith’s, 120;
effect on ship-designing, 122;
“slip” and “pitch” of, 122–3;
“racing,” 129;
of _Victoria_, 131;
spur-gearing for shafts, 135;
of _Great Eastern_, 142;
twin-screws, 165;
“overlapping” of twins, 169;
of _Ophir_, 169;
of _Campania_, 171;
in relation to turbine, 190;
of _Mauretania_, 201, 203;
of _Laurentic_, 210;
adaptation to lifeboats and fire-floats, 256;
for yacht, 269
_Sea Serpent_, the, 268
_Servia_, the, 150, 156
Seventeenth century, scientific discoveries of, 20
“Shade-decker” type, 287
Shaft, fractured, 323
Ship architecture, problems of, 319
Side-lever engine, development of, 88;
of _Britannia_, 109;
improvements of, 127;
of _Helen McGregor_, 128;
of _Scotia_, 130;
first applied to yachts, 268
_Silverlip_, the, 245
_Silvertown_, the, 243
_Sir Francis Drake_, the, 238
_Sirius_, the, 96, 97, 100, 101, 105, 193
_Slavonia_, the, 212
“Slip” of propeller, 122, 310
Smit & Co., Messrs. L., 236
Smith, Assheton, and steam yachts, 266–8
Smith, Francis, screw-propeller of, 120
Somerset, Edward (_see_ Worcester, Marquis of)
South America, establishment of Royal Mail service to, 112
South Eastern Railway, 223;
boats of, 224
Southampton, as headquarters of Royal Mail Co., 112;
-Havre route, 227;
dredging at, 239
South of England Steam Navigation Co., 227
South Western Steam Packet Co., 228
“Spar-deck” type, 285
Speed, appreciation of, 181, 213
Sponsons, arrangement of, 261
Spur-gearing, 135
Stability, problems of, 315–6
Stanhope, Earl of, Fulton and, 56;
experiments of, 57, 59
Steam power, problems concerning, 3;
evolution of, 18;
application of by Hero, Archimedes and Mathesius, 19;
Solomon de Caus’ and Giovanni Branca’s discoveries, 20;
Denis Papin’s invention, 21–4;
Savery’s inventions, 24–5;
Newcomen’s engine, 25–7;
Jonathan Hulls’ tow-boats, 29;
Watt’s engine, 34–8;
Symington’s engine, 43;
Fitch’s development in America, 44–5;
improvements on _Charlotte Dundas_, 47;
Fulton’s experiments, 49, _et seq._;
the Stevens’s boats, 63;
development in America, 76;
“Grasshopper” type of engine, 79;
side-beam engine, 88;
American and English engines, 88;
improvements in engines, 94;
the compound engine, 116;
oscillating engine, 132;
vertical trunk engine, 134;
condenser, 135, 136, 167;
steering gear, 144;
triple-expansion engines, 166–7;
quadruple-expansion engines, 178;
turbine engines, 184;
beam engines of American river boats, 262;
applied to yachts, 268
Steel, first ship of, 150;
development of, 156;
advantage of, 157
Steeple engines, 269
Steering gear, steam, of _Great Eastern_, 143;
principle of, 144
Steering-wheel, development of, 89
_Stella_, the, 228
Stephenson, George, 221
Stern, height of, 153, 172, 201
Stern-wheel boats, invention by Robert Stevens of, 63, 258
Stettin Vulcan Co., 174
Stevens, John, stern-wheel steamer of, 63;
proposal from Fulton to, 64;
the _Phœnix_, 76, 118
Stevens, Robert, invention of tubular boilers by: first screw-steamer
of, 63
Stone-Lloyd water-tight doors, 191
Strain, 98, 99, 126;
minimised by length, 139;
effect of iron and wood in, 146–7
Submarine signalling, 172;
on Great Eastern boats, 229;
methods of, 305
Subsidy, Cunard Co.’s first, 106;
Royal Mail Steam Packet Co.’s first, 112;
reduction of, 113;
for _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_, 198
“Suction” dredger, 239, 240
_Suevic_, the, 295
Suez Canal, 115, 116, 117;
limitations imposed by, 215
“Sun-and-planet” gear, 37, 47
_Sunbeam_, the, 270
Sutcliffe, Mrs., on Fulton, 50, 61
Swan, Hunter and Wigham Richardson, 212
Symington, William, engine for Miller’s boat by, 43;
the _Charlotte Dundas_, 46
_Talbot_, the, 221
Taylor, James, 42
Taylor, Naval Constructor D. W., experiments in resistance by, 67
Telegraph ships, 242–3
Telephone, use of on _Balmoral Castle_, 219;
installation on liners of, 305
_Teutonic_, the, 168, 179
_Teviot_, the, 110
Thames, first steamship on the, 83
_Thames_, the, 84, 111
Thompson, George, & Co., 216
“Three-island” type, 283
_Titanic_, the, 207, 211, 289
Tonnage, of “turret-ships,” 247;
measurements of, 312;
Royal Commission on, 313;
anomalies of, 313–4
“Tonnage-deck,” 312
_Tonquin_, the (ex _City of Paris_), 149
“Topgallant” forecastle, 284
Torricelli, Evangelista, discovery of weight of atmosphere, 20
Towing, feats of, 236–7
Train-ferries, 251
Tramp steamer, the, 250
Trawlers, steam, 252
_Trent_, the, Slidell and Mason incident, 113
_Triad_, the, 270, 278, 279
Trial trip, how carried out, 292, 293
Triple-expansion engines, principle of, 117, 166
“Trunk-deck” steamer, 248
Tubular boiler, 133
Tugs, variety of, 234;
“Cock” type, 235;
Dutch, 236;
salvage, 237;
New York Harbour, 237;
as passenger tenders, 238;
paddle-wheel, 239;
as trawlers, 252
Turbine, Giovanni Branca and, 20;
importance of, 183;
invention of, 184;
Parsons system of, 186;
the _Carmania’s_, 187;
faults of, 188;
the _Vespasian_ experiment, 189;
of _Virginian_ and _Victorian_, 190;
of _Carmania_, 192;
of _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_, 197, 201;
low-pressure of _Laurentic_, 210;
on cross-channel boats, 226;
on Great Eastern Railway Co.’s boats, 230;
on Isle of Man boats, 230;
reliability of, 230;
on yachts, 274
_Turbinia_, the, 187
Turret-ships, 245;
comparison with “whale-back,” 265
Turtle decks of _Oceanic_, 153;
of _Umbria_, 158;
of _Victoria_, 163;
of _Majestic_, 168
Twain, Mark, on Mississippi steamers, 259, 260
Twin-screw, evolution of, 163;
introduction of “overlapping,” 169;
of the _Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_, 175;
of _Adriatic_, 207;
influence of on steering capacity, 318
Twin-ships, 225
Types of steamships, 283–7
_Umbria_, the, 158–9, 161, 162, 163, 165, 212
Union-Castle Line, 216;
ships of, 219
Union Line, 216
_Vanadis_, the, 280
Ventilation, methods of, 327
Veranda café of _Lusitania_, 301
Vertical trunk engine, 134
_Vespasian_, the, 189
_Victoria_, the, 131
_Victoria_, the (P. & O.), 163
_Victoria and Albert_, the, 277
_Victorian_, the, 190
_Vigilant_, the, 241
_Virginian_, the, 190, 191
Vulcan Yards, Hamburg, 212
_Waesland_ (ex _Russia_), 150
_Wakiva_, the, 280–1
_Waratah_, the, 182
Water-ballast, tanks of cantilever-framed ships, 249;
for yachts, 274;
tanks for, 315
Water-tight doors of _Oceanic_, 153;
Stone-Lloyd system, 191
Watson, G. L., 270
Watt, James, 33;
early engine of, 34;
association with Boulton, 35;
beam engine, 36;
“sun-and-planet” gear, 37;
rotary engine, 37;
invention of fly-wheel, 38;
“horse-power” calculations of, 39;
anecdote of, 82;
invention of condenser, 135, 136
Watt, James, & Co., 140
Watt, James, Junr., and steamships, 84
Wave-line theory, 131, 133
Waves, action of, 98
“Well-deck” type, 284–5
West Indies, inauguration of mail service to, 110
Weymouth and Channel Islands Steam Packet Co., 228
“Whale-back” steamer, 265
White, Sir William H., 197, 203
White Star Line, first steamships of, 151;
Atlantic competition, 151–5, 168;
“intermediate” ships of, 178;
recent ships, 193–4, 206–7, 209, 211;
sailing ships of, 215;
freight and live-stock steamers, 219
Wigram and Green, 93
_William Facwett_, the, 114
Williams and Guion, 155, 212
Williamson, Capt. J.: “The Clyde Passenger Steamer: Its Rise and
Progress during the Nineteenth Century,” 78
Williamson’s “Memorials of James Watt,” 83
Wilson, Thomas, & Sons, 216
Wireless telegraphy on _Campania_ and _Lucania_, 171;
on P. & O. ships, 218;
on cross-channel boats, 226;
usefulness of, 229;
on yachts, 271;
on liners, 306;
instances of utility of, 307–8
_Wittekind_, the, 295
Wood, John, & Co., and the _Comet_, 78
Worcester, Marquis of, 9, 10, 18, 20
Yacht, the steam, Royal Yacht Squadron and, 266–8;
Northern Yacht Club and, 267;
Robert Napier and, 267;
development of, 269;
the _Sunbeam_, 270;
lines of, 270;
decks of, 272;
fittings of, 273;
engines and ballast, 274;
Royal, 277–8;
the _Sagitta_, 278;
the _Triad_, 278–9;
noted yachts, 280–1
Ymuiden Tug Company, 237
_Zwarte Zee_, the, 236
PRINTED BY CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED, LA BELLE SAUVAGE, LONDON, E.C.
Transcriber’s Notes
Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they
were not changed.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation
marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left
unbalanced.
Illustrations in this eBook have been positioned between paragraphs
and outside quotations. In versions of this eBook that support
hyperlinks, the page references in the List of Illustrations lead to
the corresponding illustrations.
In the original book, a few credits referred to more than one
illustration on the page. In this ebook, those credits have been
duplicated so that each illustration has its own copy.
The index was not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page
references.
Several incorrect page references to illustrations have been silently
corrected.
Page 160: “to sail eastward” was printed that way; may be a typo for
“westward”.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK STEAMSHIPS AND THEIR STORY ***
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.
